Whats so wrong with socialism

**Parihaka** · 20 May 08,, 00:03

Wasn't the french revolution caused by massive and biased taxation?

**~~felakuti~~** · 20 May 08,, 00:42

Originally Posted by GAU-8

Would you not be willing to work hard to pay your own way through your university education?

I like many before and after me worked a full time job while going to night school to work my way through university.

Would you not be willing to work hard and eventually be proud of the accomplishment of doing something for yourself?

If not, you have already suffered the worst that socialism does to the human spirit.

I dont think it would be possible to maintain good grades and work enough hours to pay tution fees and living costs.

At the end of the day the government is making a wise investment.

**~~felakuti~~** · 20 May 08,, 00:46

Originally Posted by antimony

Both these revolutions happened in an atmosphere that was not free and democratic to say the least. There were very few avenues for people in the lower classes to move up.

Shek

The gap is not only income but also in social status. From what I have seen of feudal societies, the upper classes are not only well off, they also project moral superiority over the lower classes. For a strict caste based closed system like India that might be easy to pull off, but for a society undergoing a renessaince in ideas, like pre-revlution France and Russia, it was probably a difficult job keeping this bottled up.

So you do have to pay it back, right? In India a lot of college education is subsidised to the point where the college cafeteria gets more in revenues compared to what the college does in tuition fees. Please note that this funds could also have been made to pay for basic education India, while requireing full economic tuition in higher education. something like that is politically suicidal, since college going youth have the votes that illeterate children do not.

Apart from that, India used to follow the Soviet styled Centrally Planned economic model, where they identified areas of growth, while trying to contain some of the supply side areas through licensing programmes (the infamous License Raj Licence Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So, for e.g., they would limit the number of scooters that a manufacturer can produce if they deem this to be a non-priority area. That has to be the $crewie$t idea that you can think of in a economy which still has parts under private ownership.

The Indian system sounds more commie than socialism.So india does not have free basic education. Well considering the size of india , it may not be possible to implement it.

**BenRoethig** · 20 May 08,, 00:51

Originally Posted by felakuti

I doubt yours is as heavily subsidised as ours.Most courses cost over £8000 and a few years ago it was only a £1000 pounds put you had to pay the money upfront.

5 years of private education cost me $22,000. That would be £2,253 per year after grants. The BVMs gave be much better education than I would have gotten as a statistic in Iowa, Ames, or Cedar Falls. We invest in the individual here, not an inefficient system.

**JAD_333** · 20 May 08,, 01:27

Originally Posted by omon

we are talking about coverage on cases in progress aren,t we??
if so, i agree with that there should be no coverage on them, period.

No. We were talking about freedom of the press. Any restrictions you think are good are besides the point.

**Shek** · 20 May 08,, 01:39

Originally Posted by antimony

Shek

The gap is not only income but also in social status. From what I have seen of feudal societies, the upper classes are not only well off, they also project moral superiority over the lower classes. For a strict caste based closed system like India that might be easy to pull off, but for a society undergoing a renessaince in ideas, like pre-revlution France and Russia, it was probably a difficult job keeping this bottled up.

I fully agree with this as well, which is another reason why the income "gap" in and of itself is insufficient.

Originally Posted by antimony

Apart from that, India used to follow the Soviet styled Centrally Planned economic model, where they identified areas of growth, while trying to contain some of the supply side areas through licensing programmes (the infamous License Raj Licence Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So, for e.g., they would limit the number of scooters that a manufacturer can produce if they deem this to be a non-priority area. That has to be the $crewie$t idea that you can think of in a economy which still has parts under private ownership.

**gunnut** · 20 May 08,, 01:40

Originally Posted by dalem

Unfortunately, it's a basic cantrip. Even low-level bureaucrats can cast it if they can obtain its one material component: others' money. Since there is no level ceiling, truly-advanced bureaucrats can cast this elementray spell with truly horrifying effects, and its effects are almost irreversible.

-dale

How many others on this board do you think have any idea what the hell we're talking about?

)

Where was Bigby from? Waterdeep? Greyhawk? I forgot...

**Masada** · 20 May 08,, 01:50

Originally Posted by gunnut

How many others on this board do you think have any idea what the hell we're talking about?

)

Where was Bigby from? Waterdeep? Greyhawk? I forgot...

We're not huge enough nerds to have played a level 13+ wizard/mage to achieve access to sixth level spells. I think Bigby is a Greyhawk character, because the 3.0 edition rulebooks I played from had ****-tons of Greyhawk gods/spells/etc in them.

Oh damn. It just slipped out - I don't know anything about these "dungeons" or "dragons" at all.

**Shek** · 20 May 08,, 02:03

Originally Posted by Masada
Also, I've noticed that a lot of American posters here are in or contracted by the military- a conservative organization to say the least.

Originally Posted by Shek

In what way?

Masada,

I ask thrice: In what way?

**antimony** · 20 May 08,, 02:09

Originally Posted by felakuti

The Indian system sounds more commie than socialism.So india does not have free basic education. Well considering the size of india , it may not be possible to implement it.

Again, I am not sure what you define "socialism" as. The size of the country is not an excuse, bigger countries have introduced and maintained basic education successfully.

The issue is that if limited funds are available for education, it is better to promote basic education for those who need it instead of subsiding education for the middle class. the system that you have studied under is essentially a credit based system, instead of being subsidised. A good high education system intakes students based on merit. The students would usually be charged full economic tuition costs, usually funded by loans. There is also the provision for merit based scholarships, for those who need it.

Another problem is that in a "socialist" system whatever money the government has leftover to spend in basic education is used to create positions for teachers (who then fill up the unions and vote for the ruling party), instead of creating educational infrastructure (schools/ classrooms).

I do not find this justified by any philosophy (socialism/ communism/ whatever)

**Masada** · 20 May 08,, 02:20

Originally Posted by Shek

Masada,

I ask thrice: In what way?

What does it matter? I already deleted that post because I don't want to get into it.

**Shek** · 20 May 08,, 02:22

Originally Posted by Masada

What does it matter? I already deleted that post because I don't want to get into it.

Because if you're going to make an assertion, it'd be nice to hear you support it.

**Army5339** · 20 May 08,, 02:25

Originally Posted by felakuti

I dont think it would be possible to maintain good grades and work enough hours to pay tution fees and living costs.

At the end of the day the government is making a wise investment.

You would wrong in that regard. I personally know many people who are working full time, have families, are working towards their degree in a timely fashion, and already have graduate school lined up. Those people are not even taking out loans, which can open up ANY school to an individual if they are willing to take on a certain amount of debt. Even poor people can go to Harvard if they can get accepted. Some do.

I think the government providing the environment in which schools can operate is the best solution. Government ran schools, especially universities for the most part, pale in comparison to private universities. Whether going to Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, or MIT is worth it economically depends on a case by case basis. A few public schools can compete with them, but those schools are exceedingly difficult to get accepted to, and even they are lacking funds that allow schools like MIT to do groundbreaking research.

Also, just going to college is not the economic stimulus that it is made out to be. Useful college graduates help the economy. Art history majors do not, as a whole. You want to study underwater basket weaving, do so on your own dime. You want to study electrical engineering or medical field stuff, I wouldn't mind seeing more scholarships for those areas, especially with some stipulation that you work for the government for a period of time. However, I would rather that funding be merit based, and not solely need based.

The reality is that if you are intelligent, you probably won't have to pay for higher education.

**antimony** · 20 May 08,, 02:28

Originally Posted by Army5339

The reality is that if you are intelligent, you probably won't have to pay for higher education.

I know of many guys from the IITs and other engineering colleges in India who take the GRE. They make the score, but will not join any college unless they get the scholarship(s) they need to get through their college.

**Masada** · 20 May 08,, 02:36

Originally Posted by Shek

Because if you're going to make an assertion, it'd be nice to hear you support it.

Like I said, I didn't want to get into that, so I deleted it. Case closed.

I supported the only assertion I thought relevant on the first page here, and I was de-railed by someone responding to USSR style socialism, which is completely irrelevant in today's world. My assertion is in response to those here who believe any form of government-sponsored welfare is 'bad', which I believe is more relevant than any analysis of a failed state like communist Russia could be.