Originally Posted by
skanking biker
Typical liberal elitist response. If one can't logically refute an opponent's arguments, resort to ad hominem attacks and insult their intelligence. Yes, thats right, the people are just too dumb to understand how your beautiful system of theft and slavery truly operates. I've read enough marx and chomsky that my mind could vomit.
"But its never really been tried" you protest. There is a good reason---no one would make any money.
At the end of the day, without the "evil" "oppressive" capitalist, you wouldn't have any tight jeans, aviator glasses, white belts, rainbow colored shoes, or bianchi pista's to purchase. You'd be riding a wooden unicycle to work in your tattered grey overalls. Or did you dig the ore, built the smelting plant, create the steel and weld the frame for your bike all by yourself. Try reading "I, Pencil." The number of individual independent resources that had to be assembled, managed, and wrought into something to build your bike would be impossible without private property ownership.
First of all I didn't attack your intelligence, I attacked your lack of knowledge. Whether you truly have a master's in poli sci or not, does not make you an expert in Socialism. In fact, it doesn't even mean you are informed about it. I am working on my PhD in Mathematics, but I know dick about Topology.
Any how, if you recall from my post, I didn't try to refute any of your arguments, because they were all blatantly false. Instead, I attempted to educate you to the real structure of said systems. Why would I try to refute something based on a fallacy when I can directly attack the fallacy itself?
Your main argument is that Socialism is a state ownership of all property, or at least that is what I have gathered. In fact, this is a Soviet based system of Communism. I use the term communism lightly here, because if the state owns all property then the people don't really own it, except in a round about way. Socialism in theory (it has never been instituted in reality) advocates worker ownership of the means of production. There are many ways that this can be organized, and these difference are what defines the different types of Socialism whether it is Communism, Collectivism, or Anarcho-Syndaclism. Since the workers own the means of production, this empowers them to make decisions toward production and sale. Now, since Socialism the main idea that Socialism is based on is that the workers own the means of production, there is no preclusion to various levels of private property. This may vary from type to type; in the case of pure communism there is no private property.
If private property is part of the system then obviously there would be a free-market attached to the sale of those goods. Well, since we are talking about Socialism those goods would have most likely been made by a worker owned factory, and then sold on the free-market. This is a very basic explanation of how Socialism works in a free-market.