My point is that you shouldn't put forth the idea that a socialist society would cost half as much as fact. It's speculation, not fact. A socialist society might even choose to have two groups compete, making two or more streams of research anyway. So stop spouting bullshit.

I didn't claim. I speculated, and I made it quite clear that I was speculating, not claiming.
As for the actual efficiency of Stalin's regime, I don't deny that when you put it that way it seems pretty good. The U.S. was very socialist during WWII as well, and the FDR recovery plan created thousands of jobs which really helped the U.S. recovery after the great depression. There is a time and place for socialism, but I think as a long term solution capitalism is the way to go, and from a moral standpoint I much prefer it as well. Maybe I just have problems with authority, who knows.

Absolutely. Complete capitalism would lead to a society just as bad as complete socialism, instead of the state imposing terrible things on people, other people would be imposing terrible things on people, with one difference: the state is justified in doing it because it is the highest directive of the society, whereas the capitalist evil people have no bearing for justification besides "might is right."

US is not hybrid. We are not socialist; the government owns very little.

Centreri, let me reiterate this: Socialism is efficient for the state. It is, however, terrible for the people.

Canada is as well. Welfare, Medical care, any form of taxation, your military, any sort of regulation limiting business practices, ect, are all forms of socialism within a capitalist society. If there are any countries without some form of socialism within their government structure, I don't know of them. At least not since like, the 1800's.

Edit:
The U.S. is definitely a hybrid society. If our structure was purely capitalistic, we would not have any of what I just mentioned in response to payne. Also, our government owns a shitload of stuff. The bailout alone a few years ago means the government owns something like 60% of our automobile industry. And Aristocrat, just saying "socialism is good for the state not for the people" without any sort of justification or explanation is hardly helpful to the discussion.

Vrael, I never put forth the idea that socialism is twice as efficient. We both know that I generally acknowledge that socialism is significantly less efficient than capitalism because capitalism provides more incentive. I was simply noting that though socialism suffers from these inefficiencies, capitalism isn't without its own; overlapping research, priorities being sales rather than happiness (addictive products, etc), and so on.

I don't think I have any more bones to pick; what I don't agree with now is mostly a matter of opinion.

The one thing I like about the possibilities of socialism, apart from its ability to focus on certain problems, stems from the simple fact that I don't consider all the perks that capitalism brings - ipods, home computers, $5 shirts, etc - as essential for happiness. People don't need new cars every five years, new music players, new phones, etc. Those things have (in my experience) a very marginal effect on human happiness. Thus, the way I see it, a well-run, focused socialist government can be better. It can deal more effectively with problems like, again, global warming, it can focus research, and it can provide a good level of happiness. Even as it neared the end, the USSR had personal computers and cars available to citizens - and this in a country where I believe 30% of the entire country's annual budget was spent on arms, and which barely traded with the rest of the world. Bring that number down, bring in a system of checks and balances, and it could've been a very nice place.

Vrael's right about what he said in the above post; I believe all government is collectivistic, actually. Aristocrat, when I spend so much arguing about this with Vrael, what could lead you think that I'd accept your word for it?

Makes total sense. I hadn't seen it that way. Thanks!
All I can say is that our current form of socialism really sucks: in French, we call it "regressive". This means that the rates are equal for everybody, instead of depending on the actual income of the individuals.
Well, most of the rates are in fact "semi-regressive", in the sense that the really poor class don't need to pay them.
The only "semi-progressive" thing we have around here are the "tax brackets", which are becoming more and more regressive since the amount of brackets is keeps getting reduced.

I'm not sure "tax brackets" is the right word in English, though. Here, it simply means that people having a salary between 15,000 and 25,000$ pays 15% to the government while someone between 25,000 and 75,00 pays 25% (arbitrary numbers!).
20 years ago, we had 16 brackets. Now we're at 3... the biggest starting at 76,000$, which is fucking ridiculous! And what does our government do instead of adding a new bracket for the richest people? They introduce more regressive taxes on things such as education and health care... GOOD JOB!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 12 2010, 4:53 am by payne.

This is a good thing. Tax brackets are bad. They're basically punishing richness, and trying to make everyone equal regardless or amount of work, risk-taking, skill level, and education or entrepreneurship.

I still don't understand why tax-brackets aren't based on a linear equation or a simple pourcentage...
It has been calculated that with 10 more tax brackets, Quebec would increase its income by 2G$... so imagine with an infinite amount of tax brackets (being a linear equation)!

Well, it looks like I've discovered what I was searching for!
"Eco-communities", those are communes that have a huge accent on ecology. There are quite a lot a bit everywhere on Earth, though you must know where to search!
I've found maybe 3 or 4 here in Quebec, and I have found a person who's actually creating a new one... so I'm joining this person!

Collectivism and autarky, I'm coming!

I'll finish my studies, and directly set 100% of my time on this project.
However, I don't think I'll stay there my whole life... it wouldn't be very pertinent. I think I'll stay for something like 2 years in there.
We're going to build our houses, raise our own animals, and manage our own agriculture site.
Of course, we'll have to stay minimally in contact with the society. For example, if a string of one of our guitars brakes, we're kinda fucked because we aren't self-sufficient for this kind of things. ;o