Socialism is evil.

[Smallc]

One of the most ridiculous myths out there is that people on welfare are lazy free-loaders.

I'm afraid that's not what I witness every day. People who turn 18 and go on welfare. That's the norm where I live. Why work when you can sit at home and have kids?

[WIP]

"Our" jobs? Gee, did you feel this way when American jobs were exported to Canada? Nope.

At the time, my job went south to Alabama when the auto upholstery factory I was working it, packed up and moved south in search of cheaper labour. Eventually they moved production to Mexico, and if they're still in business, they're probably in China or Indonesia. So, I can understand how auto workers in Michigan felt when production was shifted to Ontario and Quebec to take advantage of our lower dollar and cheaper benefits courtesy of government health insurance.

[WIP]

I'm afraid that's not what I witness every day. People who turn 18 and go on welfare. That's the norm where I live. Why work when you can sit at home and have kids?

Are you just carping about welfare mothers, or are you going to advocate cutting off support?

[cybercoma]

I'm afraid that's not what I witness every day. People who turn 18 and go on welfare. That's the norm where I live. Why work when you can sit at home and have kids?

Welfare requires a highly invasive needs test, which requires you to declare all assets and liquidate nearly everything (the regulations change from province to province) before being able to go on social assistance. Those that are able to work are also required to take any available job or training to stay on welfare. Moreover, the amount of money one can collect hardly makes it worthwhile. Although you don't come right out and say it, you make it sound like anyone can just go on welfare and make a living. It doesn't quite work that way. Those who are able to claim social assistance have proven that they do not have the means to survive without it, they've exhausted all other options, and they are required to take any job or training that comes their way to get them off of assistance ASAP.

Relating to your point about what you claim you see:

The Mike Harris government setup a number for people to call to rat on others they felt were cheating the system. The number was mostly unsuccesful because many, if not the majority, of complaints were against people NOT on welfare. The complainants assumptions about who was collecting social assistance was false. What this system told us is that it's not easy to tell who is and is not on welfare.

Edited February 15, 2011 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

All systems where the eliminate goodness - or the God factor become lawless and cruel...democracy is totally evil at this point in history - who ever has the most money and can control the people wins...and usually it is someone cut throat - To have that kind of money to wage an election war - You can not be an honest or nice guy....Capitalism - is now totally dependant on communism and socialism...look at China - the cheap labour...Look at our liberal welfare state...where bankers get a cut out over every welfare cheaque..that's pretty evil if you ask me.

[cybercoma]

All systems where the eliminate goodness - or the God factor become lawless and cruel...democracy is totally evil at this point in history - who ever has the most money and can control the people wins...and usually it is someone cut throat - To have that kind of money to wage an election war - You can not be an honest or nice guy....Capitalism - is now totally dependant on communism and socialism...look at China - the cheap labour...Look at our liberal welfare state...where bankers get a cut out over every welfare cheaque..that's pretty evil if you ask me.

I think it's evident that systems with "the God factor" can and have been just as "lawless" and cruel.

[Oleg Bach]

I think it's evident that systems with "the God factor" can and have been just as "lawless" and cruel.

I said the God factor - not the religious factor! People who speak in the name of so-called God justify bad and dominating cruel behaviour by saying they recieved word from the top...The God factor is simple - it is not a human construct - it is a devine force..that does not talk to you ---when you hear Gods voice you had better see a frinking shrink....God does exist...as we do - and we know what is good and what is evil...We know what sustains life and what generates death...YET with this will we make decisions...an all bad and destructive decisions are made by people who want to be a god...we are imperfect machines - If we were perfect we would use our energy to the fullest with out waste - In other words we would not need to shit..we all shit.

[pinko]

Oleg:

You state:

"God does exist"

This god you refer to what form does it take? By this I mean what image do you have of this god.

Edited February 15, 2011 by pinko

[cybercoma]

I said the God factor - not the religious factor! People who speak in the name of so-called God justify bad and dominating cruel behaviour by saying they recieved word from the top...The God factor is simple - it is not a human construct - it is a devine force..that does not talk to you ---when you hear Gods voice you had better see a frinking shrink....God does exist...as we do - and we know what is good and what is evil...We know what sustains life and what generates death...YET with this will we make decisions...an all bad and destructive decisions are made by people who want to be a god...we are imperfect machines - If we were perfect we would use our energy to the fullest with out waste - In other words we would not need to shit..we all shit.

If this "God factor" exists, but you cannot communicate with this divinity, then how do you know its intentions are benevolent? Perhaps all the misery and suffering is the "God factor".

[Pliny]

Socialism failed everywhere it was tried? That's news. Seems to me most industrial nations, including the United States, incorporate elements of either or both the Bismarckian (late 1800s Germany) and Beveridgean (mid 20th century England) social systems.

But what socialist state succeeded?

You'll have to take up that argument with others who believe socialism doesn't exist unless the means of production is not privately owned.

It's is difficult to argue with some leftists who have the idea that socialism can exist in our industrial nations and others who insist it can't and doesn't due to the above reason.

So what you are talking about according to other left-wing posters here is the incorporation of fascism, not socialism in most industrial nations. Apparently, even Sweden is not a socialist state because it lacks that fundamental of socialism, the public ownership of the means of production.

I have argued the point from your perspective that socialism is a "progression" towards the total state and have met with nothing but derision.

What I have found is that most socialists will attempt to convince others that they are not socialists, while advocating socialist concepts and forwarding the progressive growth of the State with a barefaced denial of any creep toward the total state.

Some label it a "mixed economy".

In any respect, the adoption of any "Bismarkian" or "Beveridgean" socialist concepts can, for a generation or so be successful but they are indeed, as one poster alludes to, a Ponzi scheme depending upon the input of future "investors" for it's continued success. The inability to fund itself in the future is inevitable. The level of big government socialism that exists today in industrial nations are showing perceptible cracks, with riots in Europe, related to a loss or reduction of entitlements or for nationalist/cultural reasons, where socialist concepts(although some leftists would call them "social" concepts since those countries have "market economies", and not public ownership of the means of production) have been adopted. The appearance to socialists would be that Europe is turning more fascist. The adoption of socialist concepts only contributes to the growth of the bureaucratic state that will eventually have enough power to refuse to downsize and whatever political faction is able to seize the moment will continue the privilege and entitlements of it's supporters while devastating the gains and favours won by opposing interests.

It is so obvious where "creeping socialism" leads. As Yukon Jack puts it, it is simply as long-lasting as someone else can pay for it. It isn't the poor or the social programs that break the socialist bank it is the size of the bureaucracy, the military, the increased police state, those on the State payroll that deliver the social programs, like health care, education and welfare. I find the argument that

the myths related to "welfare" as being a haven of lazy social parasites is misleading. It certanly is not a myth. Yes, a person has to prove he is destitute. It is true that if he owns more than the shirt on his back he will be convinced it is a burden he must divest himself of before gaining eligibility for social services. They are not the major cost, the bureacracy necessary to determine their status is more of a cost.

I'll leave it there for now. It's another glorious day!

[Pliny]

I think it's evident that systems with "the God factor" can and have been just as "lawless" and cruel.

Religious socialism is still socialism. Enforcement of a tithe or to cleave to an "organization" upon penalty of death or condemnation to hell is no less authoritarian than the State that legalizes picking your pocket.

Let's not get off on a tangent here. Charity is of the heart, not at the behest of the State or the Church.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny - by your definition, most of the west has been socialist since at least WWII. I don't know when you're expecting them to fail, but can we agree that 50-75 years of continued economic growth might mean that it's not going to happen soon ?

[maple_leafs182]

Socialists are trying to turn us all into slaves for another person. That is one of the end goals of socialism. Socialists wish to take money from my pocket in order to give it to someone else who has none and has done nothing to earn it. In turn socialists wish to force me to work for the common good of society, as they see it, for free or face jail time or some other sort of punishment.

Socialism was meant to do the exact opposite. Socialist saw capitalism as a form of slavery where a small elite controlled the masses by controlling the means of production. Socialists wanted to free man from the grips of the elite and let the workers control the means of production as they saw fit.

Socialism does NOT mean bigger government, it is an ideology like liberalism and conservatism.

[Smallc]

Welfare requires a highly invasive needs test, which requires you to declare all assets and liquidate nearly everything (the regulations change from province to province) before being able to go on social assistance. Those that are able to work are also required to take any available job or training to stay on welfare. Moreover, the amount of money one can collect hardly makes it worthwhile. Although you don't come right out and say it, you make it sound like anyone can just go on welfare and make a living. It doesn't quite work that way. Those who are able to claim social assistance have proven that they do not have the means to survive without it, they've exhausted all other options, and they are required to take any job or training that comes their way to get them off of assistance ASAP.

If only it actually worked that way. I live in an area where the majority of people are on social assistance, and they are at least second generation in that. It doesn't the way you describe on a reserve, and it doesn't seem to work that way on metis settlements in the Province of Manitoba either. There is a huge problem here, and I'm not saying this to pick on anyone. Alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addictions, anything bad you can think of, it happens where I live, and in so many other places that I've been to and seen. It is true that to be on welfare you can't have assets. But that doesn't mean you can't find someone with which to have children, and then live off of that for the next 18 years. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I know these people, and I'm in a situation where I know their finances. There is a great deal positive about them, but the negatives in so many places are huge.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Smallc

[WIP]

Welfare requires a highly invasive needs test, which requires you to declare all assets and liquidate nearly everything (the regulations change from province to province) before being able to go on social assistance. Those that are able to work are also required to take any available job or training to stay on welfare. Moreover, the amount of money one can collect hardly makes it worthwhile. Although you don't come right out and say it, you make it sound like anyone can just go on welfare and make a living. It doesn't quite work that way. Those who are able to claim social assistance have proven that they do not have the means to survive without it, they've exhausted all other options, and they are required to take any job or training that comes their way to get them off of assistance ASAP.

Relating to your point about what you claim you see:

The Mike Harris government setup a number for people to call to rat on others they felt were cheating the system. The number was mostly unsuccesful because many, if not the majority, of complaints were against people NOT on welfare. The complainants assumptions about who was collecting social assistance was false. What this system told us is that it's not easy to tell who is and is not on welfare.

yeah, it's sickening how many people look for someone to kick down, rather than go after fatcats that have rigged the system and are robbing us blind.

[WIP]

But that doesn't mean you can't find someone with which to have children, and then live off of that for the next 18 years. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I know these people, and I'm in a situation where I know their finances. There is a great deal positive about them, but the negatives in so many places are huge.

Still waiting to hear if this is more than a bitchfest! What do you propose as a solution to the welfare problem...cut off social assistance...reduce benefits?

[Smallc]

Still waiting to hear if this is more than a bitchfest! What do you propose as a solution to the welfare problem...cut off social assistance...reduce benefits?

For some people, you have to put them to work. If there's no work where they live, then they need to be sent other places (they can still return home, and they can have the transport and expenses paid for when they need help). There also needs to be development money spent to create opportunities in areas that rely too heavily on social assistance. There is no easy solution, but that isn't to say that a problem doesn't exist, and that isn't to say that the status quo is okay.

[Shwa]

For some people, you have to put them to work. If there's no work where they live, then they need to be sent other places (they can still return home, and they can have the transport and expenses paid for when they need help). There also needs to be development money spent to create opportunities in areas that rely too heavily on social assistance. There is no easy solution, but that isn't to say that a problem doesn't exist, and that isn't to say that the status quo is okay.

So are you advocating for workfare or just ship everyone to Calgary to work the malls and McDonaldses?

So you ship all "these people" to work out of town, who looks after their kids? The government in subsidized daycare?

[pinko]

If only it actually worked that way. I live in an area where the majority of people are on social assistance, and they are at least second generation in that. It doesn't the way you describe on a reserve, and it doesn't seem to work that way on metis settlements in the Province of Manitoba either. There is a huge problem here, and I'm not saying this to pick on anyone. Alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addictions, anything bad you can think of, it happens where I live, and in so many other places that I've been to and seen. It is true that to be on welfare you can't have assets. But that doesn't mean you can't find someone with which to have children, and then live off of that for the next 18 years. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I know these people, and I'm in a situation where I know their finances. There is a great deal positive about them, but the negatives in so many places are huge.

I notice you live in Winnipeg. I am also a resident of the City of Winnipeg and in my neighbourhood I see young adults attending school and working in the service industry to support themselves. Contrary to the picture you wish to portray I am sure the vast majority of teens want to make a decent living through gainful employment. You seem to infer, perhaps through your employment, a knowledge of the personal finances of certain individuals 18 years of age without attributing the nature and scope of this knowldege.

Edited February 16, 2011 by pinko

[cybercoma]

If only it actually worked that way. I live in an area where the majority of people are on social assistance, and they are at least second generation in that. It doesn't the way you describe on a reserve, and it doesn't seem to work that way on metis settlements in the Province of Manitoba either. There is a huge problem here, and I'm not saying this to pick on anyone. Alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addictions, anything bad you can think of, it happens where I live, and in so many other places that I've been to and seen. It is true that to be on welfare you can't have assets. But that doesn't mean you can't find someone with which to have children, and then live off of that for the next 18 years. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, I know these people, and I'm in a situation where I know their finances. There is a great deal positive about them, but the negatives in so many places are huge.

First Nations do not receive provincial social assistance. They are covered directly by the federal government. They actually spend less money per capita on natives than everyone else in Canada has spent on them (considering provincial and municipal contributions). The amount extra a person gets per child is barely enough to cover the additional cost of each child, so it's another myth that people just have kids to get more income. True they make more money, but they spend a hell of a lot more on their kids as well.

And it's quite telling that surveys of First Nations people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have shown that there have been times when they have had so little money that they didn't have enough food to eat. Rather than allow their children to starve, they will typically skip meals. It's tough to get off welfare if you're worrying about where you next meal is coming from. It's also tough to get off welfare if you don't have enough money to afford transportation to job interviews. Many also don't have permanent residences or move around frequently, so it makes it pretty hard to have contact information for potential employers. Childcare is another issue for women on social assistance. It's expensive and not having it makes it more difficult to find a job. Lower income is related to poorer health, which also makes it harder to get hired. Add to all these things discrimination by employers, but also the fact that those who spend a long time on social assistance may not understand the particular social norms of working relationships. I haven't even mentioned education and training.

As you can see, there are numerous barriers to getting off social assistance for everyone. First Nations were put behind the 8-ball with residential schools and the history of their relationship with our federal government. Their lives are federally legislated from birth until death. Moreover, although the common sentiment is that they are given handouts and we spend tons of money on them, the reality is much different. Their almost entirely funded by the federal government, which spends less per capita on First Nations than the rest of the population receives when you consider provincial and municipal spending. All the other problems that you have listed are much more common in areas of poverty. Between our history of oppressing First Nations peoples and the numerous barriers to getting off assistance that htey face, it's hardly any wonder they face the problems that they do.

[cybercoma]

For some people, you have to put them to work. If there's no work where they live, then they need to be sent other places (they can still return home, and they can have the transport and expenses paid for when they need help). There also needs to be development money spent to create opportunities in areas that rely too heavily on social assistance. There is no easy solution, but that isn't to say that a problem doesn't exist, and that isn't to say that the status quo is okay.

Workfare doesn't work becuase it's expensive and does nothing to help people develop the skills they need to work. Moreover, many people on social assistance (not the majority) are unable to work or have some other special needs. As far as the expense goes, you need to setup shop where these people can work and if you have a partnership with private firms, you still need to provide transportation for these people that don't have enough money to live. They're not going to be able to get themselves there. You also have to create some sort of expensive publically administered assessment of a persons skills and abilities to determine what kind of work they can and what kind of training they need to find employment somewhere. Moreover, if there are no jobs to be had, then there's nowhere to place people. Your solution of moving them about is insanely expensive and not really fair to people.

People keep saying, "why don't they just take minimum wage jobs?" The most damning thing about our economy is that minimum wage jobs do not allow a person to make ends meet. A single mother with two children working minimum wage would still have her income supplemented to meet the minimum necessary for survival. Social assistance doesn't allow people to live comfortably. Moreover, there are all the other barriers to just taking a minimum wage job that I listed in my last reply.

So what needs to happen? There are many answers, but I think serious money needs to be spent in a few areas:

1) An assessment program to determine what training is needed or what skills a person has. This way appropriate training can be provided to develop skills or a person can be matched up with jobs that fit their particular skillsets.

2) Childcare. For god's sake... how does someone find a job if they can't afford to find someone to take care of their children while they are at work?

3) Create incentives for employers to create jobs in areas where jobs are needed most.

4) If we're going to go down the workfare route, top-up the person's income so they make an appropriate wage for the job they're doing when added to their basic welfare. After a set period of time, if the firm chooses to hire the person on as a regular employee, then they're off welfare and simply being paid the same as their co-workers.

[Pliny]

Pliny - by your definition, most of the west has been socialist since at least WWII. I don't know when you're expecting them to fail, but can we agree that 50-75 years of continued economic growth might mean that it's not going to happen soon ?

After all this time, Michael I am surprised you still haven't grasped "my" definition. I have found Socialism to be a very fuzzy concept in the minds of most people. cybercoma is describing the "success" of socialism in industrial nations which, by the definition of other left wing minded people, such as dre and bloodyminded, is not possible as the industrial nations are "market economies" and cannot be termed socialist in any respect. Socialist concepts such as universal public health care, social security, public education, monopolistic control of a fiat money supply, price controls, the redistribution of wealth, etc., are merely "social" programs not socialist programs in their eyes.

cybercoma demonstrates a naivety of the goodness of socialism proclaiming it's successes in our industrial nations.

We have had continued economic growth over the last 50-75 years but where is the ownership of production? Either, according to some, there is no socialism whatsoever or it is progressively imposing itself upon society. Which is it? It seems some socialists proudly hail the success of these socialist concepts in our industrial nations while others deny they are even socialist since socialism can't exist in a market economy, those socialist programs are actually "social" programs to them and completely dissimilar ideas.

Here is what I have gleaned from the left in their fuzzy concepts of socialism. The majority believe in the idea of fairness and equality and helping their fellow man and hold true that government through our taxes is best equipped to handle and ensure those principles are instilled in our society, that individuals are weak and will not particularly act in fairness or equality so the solution must be the watchful eye of the State. This is not particualrly socialist to them, and if it is then, so what. It is a good thing. The rest of the left has two hardcore factions that promote socialism. Those who deny any link to socialism whatsoever and socialism doesn't exist although they will agree that the State needs to engineer society to prevent imbalances that could lead to instability. The poor need to be given pittances to appease them and such. They are rather elitist and feel the masses need their direction. They are hard to distinguish between socialists and fascists but usually will vehemently deny any similarity to fascism. Anyway, they basically deny that socialism has any variations and has remained as it always was and is and ever will be - and in the same breath make loud distinctions between Marxist, Stalinist, Castro forms of socialism, which they will call different types of communism. The only differentiation they make between socialism and fascism is in the ownership of production. Basically, an economic distinction. They will say because there is private ownership of production there is no socialism but big government intervention is not fascist either. Believing that this form of big government with private ownership of the means of production is a centrist position - a mixed economy, a third way and other claptrap. It is really just support of government social engineering.

The other faction are socialists that hide among social movements such as environmentalism, multi-culturalism, feminism and other social justice causes that seek to impose the state upon society. Every entitlement or recognition by the state that they earn is a step towards the end goal of the total state.

So Michael, the nullification of the individual and the growth of the State is the barometer of socialist progression, the creeping socialism in society. The socialist trend started around the beginning of the first world war. No less than ten Monarchies in Europe were displaced and became constitutional monarchies, relegating their thrones to purely symbolic status and their realms to social democracies and/or republics of various nature. Germany, Russia, Belgium, Greece, and others started on the road to socialism, communism in the case of Russia, and social democracy at that time.

China in the thirties brought them Maoism.

Socialist ideas became very popular until the National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany and totalitarian tyrannies in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic stained the idea of the grand State and limited some state powers. Returning them to the people of western social democracies - In the case of the USSR not until 1990 and only under imminent economic collapse.

All in all the very nature of socialism makes it a fuzzy concept as it is an attempt of some to live off the avails of others. Something that would not be tolerated openly but when cloaked in the goodness and benevolence of being for the common good under the auspices of the State it becomes acceptable.

I get the idea you believe that the democratic process will stem the powers of the state from ever becoming tyrannical in nature and that makes it an impossibility. My question would be, why do we have to continually live through these impossibilites, tolerating them until they are unbearable and once again there are soldiers and tanks in the streets. War is becoming a very devastating condition and if you haven't noticed wars have been quite commonplace over the last century on large and small scales. No decade is without it's war somewhere in the world. The first world war, the communist struggles of Russia and China in the twenties and thirties, the second world war, the Korean war the Vietnam war, the Balkan war, the Angolan war, The Russian/Afghan war. The civil war in Iraq. The invasion of Kuwait.

The guerilla warfare in South and central America and Africa.

But all is well and I suppose these are just democratic exercises in limiting State powers??

It's another glorious day! Have a good one.

[Pliny]

Workfare doesn't work becuase it's expensive and does nothing to help people develop the skills they need to work.

It doesn't work because it isi an enforcement.

Moreover, many people on social assistance (not the majority) are unable to work or have some other special needs.

You mean are branded.

As far as the expense goes, you need to setup shop where these people can work and if you have a partnership with private firms, you still need to provide transportation for these people that don't have enough money to live. They're not going to be able to get themselves there.

Inexpensive Public transit was the supposed solution.

You also have to create some sort of expensive publically administered assessment of a persons skills and abilities to determine what kind of work they can and what kind of training they need to find employment somewhere.

You mean like, "Manpower"? Is that still around or is it Personpower or something? How about the employment centre?

Moreover, if there are no jobs to be had, then there's nowhere to place people. Your solution of moving them about is insanely expensive and not really fair to people.

Which is why they are paid to stay put.

People keep saying, "why don't they just take minimum wage jobs?" The most damning thing about our economy is that minimum wage jobs do not allow a person to make ends meet.

And they would lose any other benefit they recieve for doing nothing. why risk going to work and getting fired and further humiliated in life. The captialist economy is very cruel, you know - it just doesn't care. A social worker will at least provide a tissue for you.

A single mother with two children working minimum wage would still have her income supplemented to meet the minimum necessary for survival. Social assistance doesn't allow people to live comfortably. Moreover, there are all the other barriers to just taking a minimum wage job that I listed in my last reply.

Yep. I just listed another one.

So what needs to happen? There are many answers, but I think serious money needs to be spent in a few areas:

1) An assessment program to determine what training is needed or what skills a person has. This way appropriate training can be provided to develop skills or a person can be matched up with jobs that fit their particular skillsets.

I think they are doing that in schools now. I believe it is called "streaming". Don't tell anyone. It's kind of under the radar.

2) Childcare. For god's sake... how does someone find a job if they can't afford to find someone to take care of their children while they are at work?

How about the choice of not having kids until you can responsibly take care of yourself first? Apparently teen pregnancies are not a problem anymore because we have sex ed in our schools even though it used to be less of a social problem and more of a personal problem before we had sex ed.

3) Create incentives for employers to create jobs in areas where jobs are needed most.

Are you talking subsidies to corporations?

4) If we're going to go down the workfare route, top-up the person's income so they make an appropriate wage for the job they're doing when added to their basic welfare. After a set period of time, if the firm chooses to hire the person on as a regular employee, then they're off welfare and simply being paid the same as their co-workers.

I think their co-workers would become more interested in topping up their income with welfare.

[cybercoma]

Pliny, what's the difference between socialism and communism?

[Michael Hardner]

I get the idea you believe that the democratic process will stem the powers of the state from ever becoming tyrannical in nature and that makes it an impossibility. My question would be, why do we have to continually live through these impossibilites, tolerating them until they are unbearable and once again there are soldiers and tanks in the streets. War is becoming a very devastating condition and if you haven't noticed wars have been quite commonplace over the last century on large and small scales. No decade is without it's war somewhere in the world. The first world war, the communist struggles of Russia and China in the twenties and thirties, the second world war, the Korean war the Vietnam war, the Balkan war, the Angolan war, The Russian/Afghan war. The civil war in Iraq. The invasion of Kuwait.

Tanks in the streets ? When ? At 75 years or so and counting, I don't see that any time soon. Is China less likely to engage in war than it was 75 years ago ? I'd say so.

The invasion of Kuwait is relevant how ?

I have maintained that the systems in the west are a hybrid - best of breed - of pure socialism and capitalism. They don't appear to be threatened any time soon and your post doesn't prove to me otherwise.