Aside from communism, of course.

I noticed that no one using the word has a first hint of what it really means :)

But socialism could have been better.

I was kidding. :)

I know :)

You don't think we could do better at keeping the wealth more equitably distributed without going to extremes?
I don't think we (meaning modern man) have yet come up with a social template which works all that well. And I'm including democracy as well as communism and socialism. They all have their strong points and pitfalls. I think democracy is the closest we've come to a good system, but you have to admit, there's still a lot of bugs in it as a working program.

I was kidding. :)

heh.....now you know that kidding and tongue-in-cheek just don't always come through on the internet....

Yes, but I think bunny would know me better than most. ;)

See?You just never know.

Now now, hun. Let's not pile up political and economic systems into same pot. It's not even apples and oranges :)

maybe in the dictionary, but IRL they are as closely tied together as can possibly be. Politics are all about money one way or the other.

No, really. Neither what is nor what's usually called democracy has anything to do with economic model. It's a political/decision making model and can work with many economic systems -- from slavery to whatever crazy thing we have now... That's two iterations past capitalism already...

I really didn't intend to get into a discussion of this sort, to be honest with you. I'm afraid I'm not well enough educated to hold my own with facts. All I can say is what I see and feel about the subject. So maybe it's best we leave it at this...okay?

*nuzzles* Ok. But yeah, I know what you mean. "1% of population holds 99% of wealth" has been a catch phrase for a long time...

Just remember: Robin Hood was a mugger with a good PR agent.

Also:


“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

― John Steinbeck

Both interesting concepts.

And more than a grain of truth to 'em.

Hi there. :)

I've seen this before and I agree with the gist of the arguments he makes. However, I object to the incorrect characterization of socialism. What he describes is communism, sort of.... not even really. It definitely is not socialism. Socialism does not seek to distribute money equally. As far as I understand, it seeks to equalize the opportunity for citizens to achieve financial success. Aside from that, he points out some interesting facts about the way things are versus the way we think things are and the way we think they should be.

I'm not very good at describing or even telling you the main differences between socialism and communism. It's all a little beyond my grasp to be honest. I confess to being lazy when it comes to trying to understand complicated things such as these. But as you said it is really interesting to see the differences between how things are compared to how we think they are and how we think they should be so graphically illustrated.

Unfortunately, I don't need to watch a six-minute video to know how insane the income inequality is in this country; I LIVE it, every day!

It was the rise of the labor movement that leveled the income playing field a century ago. Don't know what it'll be this time, tho it's refreshing to hear the Pope weigh in on the matter...