so what is exactly wrong with socialism?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

The republicans use this as though it is a bad word. The majority don't even know what it is, especially those who vote against themselves!

Anything that helps the poor is evil in a republican's eye. The greed is so intense that they have demonize it.

I'm preaching to the converted but tell to your neighbors, relatives etc. that it is not all that bad.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Here's a great piece for a local historian

Here, Socialism meant honest, frugal government
By John Gurda April 4, 2009

"Are We All Socialists Now?" That was the plaintive title of a panel discussion at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. The word "socialist" is being heard all over America these days as the federal government takes over banks, tells automakers what to do and tightens regulations in an effort to pull our economy out of its current tailspin. The label is not generally intended as a compliment. To many Americans, socialism means being governed by the government - suffocating under layers of bureaucracy that sop up tax dollars and smother individual initiative.

And that's the positive view. Some critics carelessly lump socialism together with anarchism or even communism. After invoking the "s" word at the recent conservative conference, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff." He conveniently forgot, or perhaps never knew, that most American socialists were sworn enemies of Soviet Communism.


The view from Milwaukee is radically different. I'm not a socialist and never have been, but I can testify that Socialism - with a capital "S"- was one of the best things that ever happened to this city. Without realizing it, even the most red-blooded capitalists are enjoying the fruits of their efforts, from spacious parks to clean streets and from a working infrastructure to an expectation, however frequently disappointed, of honest government.

....

Underlying their notion of public enterprise was an abiding faith - curiously antique by today's standards - in the goodness of government, especially local government. The Socialists believed that government was the locus of our common wealth - the resources that belong to all of us and each of us - and they worked to build a community of interest around a deeply shared belief in the common good.

The results were plain to see. After years in the political sewer, Milwaukee became, under "sewer Socialists" Seidel, Hoan and Zeidler, a model of civic virtue. Time Magazine called Milwaukee "perhaps the best-governed city in the U.S." in 1936, and the community won trophy after trophy for public health, traffic safety and fire prevention. The health prize came home so often that Milwaukee had to be retired from competition to give other municipalities a chance.

...

The Socialists governed well, and they did so without breaking the bank. Contrary to another popular myth, these were not tax-and-spend radicals intent on emptying the public coffers. They were, in fact, every bit as frugal as the most penny-pinching German hausfrau. The Socialists managed civic affairs on a pay-as-you-go basis, and in 1943, Milwaukee became the only big city in America whose amortization fund exceeded its outstanding bond obligations. It was, in other words, debt-free.

More at link: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/42448437.html

[freshwest]

43. Great add, PeaceNikki.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

68. quaint idea--trust in authority

Only when the authority earns it! And I don't mean as "measured" by propagandistic media!

Saving to read later--looks like a good one.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. sociialism doesn't mean authority

[BlancheSplanchnik]

76. I paraphrased that from the article.

It refered to that quaint trust in goverment and other offices.

[socialist_n_TN]

133. Well see, that's where Marx and Engels come into play........

You can't really trust the government in a bourgeois "Democracy". Since economics, politics, and society are inextricably intertwined, you have to change ALL of it. You can't nibble around the edges and expect it to work for the people.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

138. no argument there!

I think what I'm adding to the points here is that I support a societal emphasis on ethics. However, it begins with the individual. It's individuals that make up the society and so true change has to happen in us. One by one by one. Practicing and speaking out and taking whatever actions we can that are congruent with ethical, trustworthy behavior.

Every individual that pursues the values that we ourselves hold--as liberals and progressives--is influencing the whole. The other individuals we encounter and live and work with.

And I'm thinking of the cultureal messages here too. A culture entwined with a lying media accepts lying as the norm. That's the individuals in the aggregate losing their ability to discern pro social from anti social behavior......

Just thinking out loud now.....

[Scuba]

113. Thanks PeaceNikki. Amazing the number of folks right here in Wisconsin who have no clue ...

... about this story.

[Oakenshield]

2. There's nothing wrong with socialism.

Right Wingers have been allowed to make the word synonymous with the Soviet Union, that's where the problems come from.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. The fear factor, public enemy, 'reds under the beds' etc.

for so long this country has been indoctrinated into scary 'reds under the bed syndrome.' The red flag is the socialist flag hence the term reds - not communists.

[rwsanders]

53. They do equate socialism with communism, but even then I believe they are making a huge error...

not that they care about facts anyway. But socialism, capitalism, and communism are economic systems.
Democracy, totalitarianism would be government systems. I think the problem is a totalitarian system.
BUT, if you look for the Lee Atwater soundtrack that someone posted here, it is clear it has nothing to do with government at all. It is just a way of screaming the n-word.
Just like their fight against "big government" even though shrub had the biggest expansion of government and governmental powers, the part of government that they hate is anything that helps minorities. And therefore their guns aren't to fight the military, but to kill minorities.
I think that is the only interpretation of their rhetoric that makes any sense.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. exactly

but there is a difference between communism and socialism.

[gtar100]

121. We can lay blame on the Soviets for putting "Socialist" in their name

and then proceeding to rule by totalitarian methods that abused the Russian society - anything but socialism.

That doesn't excuse republicans for being such putzes and not understanding the differences.

[Moliere]

4. Not a thing unless

You're wealthy and greedy. That the only group that pays out.

Ask the Scandinavians how their quality of life is.

[idwiyo]

12. +1 Wealthy parasites and wannabes are the only ones who should be hating it.

[Laelth]

115. It depends on how socialism is defined.

The Scandanavian countries are, in my mind, liberal, not socialist. Socialism implies (according to Marx) state ownership of all property. That's not what they have in Scandanavia. What they have is highly-regulated capitalism that insures the wealth created by capitalism is distributed fairly evenly across all segments of society, i.e. liberalism.

If what is meant by the term "socialism" is merely Scandanavian liberalism, then no, there's nothing wrong with "socialism," and it has proven to be highly effective at creating wealthy, fairly happy societies (as Adam Smith argued it would). State ownership of all property, however, i.e. classic socialism, has proven to be a bad idea.

-Laelth

[eomer]

134. Is it necessarily state ownership? Or are there other types of socialism?

oxforddictionaries.com:

[pre]a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.[/pre]

merriam-webster.com:

[pre]1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done[/pre]

It seems that collective ownership or community ownership don't necessarily imply state ownership. How about a system based on employee cooperatives, like Mondragón?

[Laelth]

135. I actually went to wikipedia to bone up on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism has been variously defined, I'm right about classic, Marxist socialism. I insist that it's most appropriate to refer to the governments we admire (Japan, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway) as liberal, not socialist. Socialism has been seen as opposed to capitalism for a century. Classic socialism is, in fact, opposed to capitalism. As a liberal, I prefer capitalism that is highly regulated. Calling those nations we admire "liberal" (as opposed to "socialist&quot allows us to assuage the fears of those who rightly oppose state ownership of all property.

-Laelth

[eomer]

142. Right, I was going off on a different tangent than your main point.

So getting back to your point, is there an argument that highly regulating capitalism is, in some important ways, taking ownership of it? Ownership is about exercising control and reaping the benefits. If the state exercises a high degree of control and reaps a significant portion of the benefits (through taxation) then it does effectively exercise ownership. In other words, I think there is an argument that it is a form of, or perhaps a partial degree of, socialism.

[oldhippie]

136. I think the term "State" in these definitions .....

... means whoever is empowered to make decisions concerning the community property. It could be the "state" government, or the "Council of Village Elders." Someone has to be in charge and make decisions. How that "someone" is determined is another whole issue.

[eomer]

143. Yes, that makes sense.

I think the different types of "state", though, can make a significant difference to the people who live under them. In particular a nation state that has closed boundaries gives its residents no choice, they have to live under the system in place in that nation. A "state" that is a voluntary association of people who choose a communal approach to interacting with each other does give them a choice. Of course, there's also the danger that a voluntary association could become a cult that doesn't give people a choice.

I'm interested in this because I think that people should control the economic products of their work, one way or another. I'm not sure what systems can realize that ideal - maybe employee cooperatives are a possibility. Too often under capitalism it begins to look like the people are owned by their occupations rather than the other way around.

[Decaffeinated]

5. The concern is equally low standards for everyone...

... provided for by the labor of a minority as opposed to the more idealistic concept of raising others and hoping for participation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Well, socialism has high standards

[Decaffeinated]

22. In theory ..

Results vary by implementation...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. yes some organizations are better than others

but I would rather a government-run entity.

[nomorenomore08]

81. Well, we've already tried the lassez-faire thing for a few decades, and the result is ~20%

of American children living in poverty...

[Laelth]

124. Unregulated capitalism stinks, indeed.

Highly-regulated capitalism that insures the wealth created by capitalism is distributed fairly evenly across all segments of society, i.e. liberalism, has proven to be highly effective at creating wealthy, fairly happy societies (as Adam Smith argued it would). It was liberalism that made the United States the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth.

-Laelth

[JEFF9K]

7. Albert Einstein and Jesus Christ were both socialists. Pass it on.

[Thinkingabout]

11. K & R

Pretty smart also.

[FrodosPet]

13. Einstein helped bring us nuclear weapons and energy

And Jesus brought us the Westboro Baptist Church.

Boy did THEY screw up, eh?

[PatrynXX]

25. Jesus Hates fags?

usually it's God hates Fags. westboro usually leaves jesus out in the street.

[Thor_MN]

48. Old man Phelps is a bad speller

Matthew 21:19

[FrodosPet]

49. God is GREAT!

But his "fans" are morons.

Well, some of them anyhow. Most of them, fortunately, are good people who are just uneducated or confused about some points.

[JEFF9K]

179. Well said.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. It wasn't Einstein's fault!

[zeemike]

29. That is not accurate at all.

Einstein only provided the knowledge, and Jesus did the same
The military developed the weapons and Wesboro Church turned the ideas of Jesus into a weapon .
Information is the problem, it is how it is used.

[FrodosPet]

45. You are correct

Einstein and Jesus are definitely the 2 best poster boys for "The Law Of Unintended Consequences".

[alittlelark]

72. ^^^THIS^^^

[uponit7771]

166. +1

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Yes!

[idwiyo]

8. Nothing. Everything is right about it. Every damn thing.

[nomorenomore08]

88. If by "socialism" you mean Social Democracy, or something like it, I'm inclined to agree.

(I'm assuming you don't mean Soviet-style Communism...)

[idwiyo]

110. Soviet-style "communism" was not communism or socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

I am for combination of all of the forms of social ownership as listed above, and state ownership of
- healthcare (like NHS or Canada),
- emergency services (police, rescue, education, mail, etc),
- all main power utilities, but allow and encourage development of small scale private power installations with ability to sell to main power grid
- water utilities
- all natural resources

Excellent example of co-op ownership is described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Electoral system based on Single Transferable Vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Law System based on Universal Human Rights, as in - any law that contravenes Universal Human Rights will be impossible to enact.

[nomorenomore08]

111. I have no argument with any of that, honestly. Sounds like paradise.

[joshcryer]

9. The only thing wrong with state socialism is its propensity toward cronyism.

This is in contrast to all variants of capitalism that are inherently cronyist.

Therefore if you are going to embrace a state-based system social democracy or democratic socialism is the best route.

Socialism for social services (health care, local emergency services, distribution of foods). Capitalism for the rest.

[dreamnightwind]

14. Financial industry among others

So you're just fine with the capitalists running the banks and the run-away power of our financial industry? Capitalist influence on foreign policy and private contractors that lobby for more military adventurism to have more weapons systems to develop and profit from? I goes on and on, industry after industry. Capitalism for the rest? You're entitled to that opinion, I don't share it though.

Edit to add perhaps the most obvious example of the problems with capitalism is the environment. How do we set a price on the externalized consequences of environmental destruction? I've seen some very half-assed attempts to do this, which are better than nothing, but they are basically a joke, they don't even approach slowing down environmental destruction, which is on a seemingly unstoppable path to destroying everything we know and love.

How do live sustainably in a capitalist system? The truth is we have no clue how to do it, it might be impossible. And nobody seems to care or notice. Even today, on the eve of disastrous environmental tipping points, serious effort to reform capitalism to the degree that would be necessary to live sustainably is unthinkable.

[joshcryer]

15. Well regulated, yes.

Nationalized banks aren't immune from cronyism.

If the government controls money supply and corporations control money distribution (while paying interest to the government), you're in the best of both words.

Assuming you even ascribe to the inherently crony money based system, of course.

If the government controls the entire money supply and distribution you get black markets for basic goods like in Cuba or Venezuela.

[dreamnightwind]

17. Black market economies are not what is destroying this planet - eom

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. It can be regulated

Hopefully we are not like Cuba or Venezuela......yet?

[joshcryer]

105. All you need is a government printing money and regulating interest rates.

The problem is that we have a couple of big corporate banks getting the money from the feds, this gives them a lot of power.

If we got rid of private banks altogether and had only credit unions then we'd be doing great. Collusion and corruption at a high level would be impossible (obviously at a lower level it would be easier, but it would have a local effect rather than a national effect; and as we've seen with the arrests of bankers it's always been small time criminals taking 100k here, 200k there; the top banksters taking billions from the top are left alone).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. socialism works well for all services free at the point of use

quite frankly I do not like privatization (Red Rosa).

[bluestate10]

23. Historically, it's been just that tripping up attempts at socialism.

An elite group of people gain control of the government and impoverish the rest of the population. I prefer a Social-Democracy because it has safeguards for the less fortunate, but also contain leaders so that those leaders don't enrich friends and family.

[MyNameGoesHere]

46. Why does it have to be a choice between pure socialism and pure capitalism?

I think that is what trips up the right so much. They cannot comprehend the subtleties and different aspects of socialism or communism. Capitalism is easy, take from the lower classes and get yours. It is a dummy economic principle that is self destroying, because the goal is to own the most toys. Where does it stop? I tend to believe that people that have a aversion to socialism, communism, or anarchism believe that they will eventually get a piece of the capitalist dream if they work hard enough. That is the exception not the rule.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. Capitalists do not have the ethos of prosperity and redistribution

Capitalists hoard and it is not good for society as a whole.

[nomorenomore08]

90. Exactly. Things don't have to be the way they are now, but they don't have to be like the U.S.S.R.

either (which would suck just as much in its own ways). What I can say for sure, though, is that authoritarian capitalism - which we essentially have here already - is just as bad as authoritarian Communism.

[TBF]

116. Think you are jumbling economic and political systems -

Fascism, a political system, is going to be unwelcome whether the economic system is capitalism (as we are pretty close to seeing in our own country) or communism.

We haven't seen a democratic political system with a socialist/communist economic system yet - unless you count the Paris Commune (look it up - it's pretty interesting stuff).

I think it's worth a shot over most of the other combos that have been tried.

[joshcryer]

106. I think it's a choice between cronyism and fairness, myself.

And if you want fairness you would chose neither state socialism or capitalism. And if you must have a state social democracy is the best route to take to minimize that cronyism.

[eridani]

112. IOW, public goods are GOOD, but not everything is a public good n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

10. I make a point to defend socialism every chance I get.

Too many people who love Social Security and Medicare hate socialism. I remind them that these programs are totally socialistic. What they need is education.

[Cleita]

16. Probably because the Nazis had socialism in their name although

their party had nothing close to it for their fascist ideals. It makes a nice straw man.

[DissidentVoice]

40. Adolf Hitler purged the Marxists from the NSDAP

That was one of the first things he did, so that he could cozy up to the ultraconservative German armament manufacturers; i.e., Krupp.

It really ticks RW'ers off when I point out that Naziism is a RIGHT-WING ideology.

[libdem4life]

54. And the Soviets did it with communism.

I like "for the common social good". That covers them both and their earlier meanings. They were social systems before they became political systems. Community...society...both somewhat derivatives of the root meanings.

Jesus was also a considered a communist. The first Christian converts lived together in communes/communities to be with like-minded Christians and strengthen their faith. Also, for financial and physical safety reasons as they were generally poor and hated by the Roman society, and for the ability to share food...communion was a common meal before the religious connotations.

[Rider3]

19. I liked this post

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. Do you still?

it's in the past tense

[kentauros]

32. Poster probably meant "rec'd" as they are listed under it.

"Liked" is a FaceBook term, and seems to be getting used interchangeably here

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. Thanks!

Phew!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

98. I'm still working on that hippie art colony.

Taking my third semester of welding so I can eventually make strange art.

[kentauros]

102. Eventually I'll learn arc-welding.

I know how to use an acetylene torch for brazing and cutting as well as cutting with a plasma torch, but that's all. I'd love to be able to make musical sculptures, especially large-scale wind-chimes

Let me know if you need help!

[Marrah_G]

24. Nothing is wrong with it :)

I am a socialist.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. Yeah!

[Scootaloo]

30. Mostly the fact that we seem to lack it

That strikes me as a severe problem with Socialism.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. People don't really know what it is

so we need to enlighten them

[Scootaloo]

37. My experience?

People are self-trained to not understand politics or economics. Seriously, I run into it all the time, they see these subjects as hopelessly arcane, full of byrules and crazy math and weird notions... so they just tune it out and "leave it to the experts." And when you try to educate them, they either tune it our or just point out you're not one of those "experts" (who they don't tend to listen to, either.)

Getting people to understand these subjects is a lot like teaching a corgi how to do algebra.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. It's like my knowledge of the NFL

My grandson is angry that I don't know the players of our local team.

[ErikJ]

34. You might be a socialist if:

All these folks complaining that health care reform is socialistic got me to thinking. It occurs to me that:
You might be a socialist if you ever had to call the police.
You might be a socialist if you ever summoned the fire department.
You might be a socialist if you ever drove your car on a public street or walked on a public sidewalk.
You might be a socialist if you use a municipal sewer service.
You might be a socialist if you get your water from a public water system.

You might be a socialist if you get your electric power from a public utility district.
You might be a socialist if you ever use a public library.
You might be a socialist if you have ever or plan to ever accept a social security check.
You might be a socialist if you use or plan to use Medicare or Medicaid.
You might be a socialist if you or your children attended public school.
You might be a socialist if you ever ride public transit.
You might be a socialist if your bank account is insured by the FDIC.

You might be a socialist if your or a member of your family went to college on a government subsidized student loan.
You might be a socialist if you ever took a trip on AMTRAK.
You might be a socialist if you ever needed the services of a fire department ambulance and EMT.
You might be a socialist if you have sent or received mail via the US Post Office.
You might be a socialist if you were ever represented in a legal matter by a public defender.
You might be a socialist if you ever referred a child to a child welfare office for protection.
You might be a socialist if you ever used electric power produced by Federally built dams.

You might be a socialist if you ever filed suit in a Federal, County, or City court.
You might be a socialist if you ever used a Federal, state, or city park.
You might be a socialist if you have ever used a public swimming pool.
You might be a socialist if you ever sought the help of a government official in solving a problem.
You might be a socialist if you ever benefited from the government regulation of private business.
You might be a socialist if you have benefited from the services of the CDC, FAA, FTSB, or other government agency.
You might be a socialist if your rights and safety have ever been defended by the armed forces.

You might be a socialist if you or a family member has ever been rescued by the Coast Guard or National Guard.
You might be a socialist if an airplane you flew on was guided to a safe landing by an air traffic controller.
You might be a socialist if felons in your area are placed in prison and the criminally insane in asylums.
You might be a socialist if you use the internet, a system developed originally by the U.S. military and scientific groups.
You might be a socialist if you have benefited in any way from research conducted by public universities.
You might be a socialist if you or any of your family have attended a public university or community college.
You might be a socialist if local public employees have cleared your streets of snow, picked up your litter, repaired potholes, or any of hundreds of other necessary tasks.

You might be a socialist if a local municipal garbage service has carried off your trash and your recyclables
You might be a socialist if state or local forestry workers have fought forest fires and maintained healthy forests in your area.
You might be a socialist if state and federal fishery workers have tried to save endangered salmon so you can continue to eat them.
You might be a socialist if you have been involved in a natural disaster and received help from a federal or state disaster relief programs.
You might be a socialist if you have ever supported the passage of a law that requires or bans activities by your fellow citizens which respectively benefit or harm you.
You might be a socialist if you own or work for any business that receives government subsidies or receives tax breaks for locating in particular areas.

You might be a socialist if you attend your favorite pro team’s games in their partially tax funded parks, stadium, or arena.
You might be a socialist if you attend the games of a state college athletic team.
You might be a socialist if you invest in government securities like savings bonds or T bills.
You might be a socialist if you are a public employee.
You might be a socialist if you accepted the tax write off for buying a new home recently offered by the government.
You might be a socialist if you acquired a new car under the Cash for Clunkers program.

You might be a socialist if you have ever supported the document which begins: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
In short, you might be a socialist if you accept any service, program, or benefit that is supported in whole or in part by tax money.

I’m sure all those good folks protesting government programs like health care because they are socialistic will lead by example and forswear using all of the above socialistic agenda items and any others that may have been omitted.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/09/you_might_be_a_socialist.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. I think that we need to educate people

Perhaps we need to hold town hall meetings to educate them on the info that you posted?

[DissidentVoice]

38. Not a thing

Republicans are still using the weaponry they used in the McCarthy era.

The USSR was the biggest fear then.

The USSR called itself "socialist," though it was nothing like the Social Democracy in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.

Ergo..."socialist" = the USSR = Stalin = Khrushchev = "godless commies" = Brezhnev = House UnAmerican Activities Committee = "socialized medicine" = IT JUST AIN'T AMERICAN!

I really tick RW'ers off on other fora (especially Yahoo!) when they try to insult me by calling me a "socialist"...and I EMBRACE it.

I am a Social Democrat in the mould of the Canadian New Democratic Party, the OLD Labour Party of Britain, the Australian Labour Party...and what the Democratic Party USED to be.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. When we think back to Romney and his USSR!

Sarah Palin and her socialist onslaught.

I guess there are McCarthy genes that are passed on from generation to generation?

[DissidentVoice]

42. If not genes, then propaganda

RW propaganda blared out 24/7/365 from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Fux Noise, et. al.

[seveneyes]

44. It's great for social needs, not so good for private needs

You just need to keep the comfortable balance.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. Depends on what private needs you have?

I would love to have a government-run electric car entity and government-run hospitals where doctors actually work and get paid to treat patients not for profit.

[Maedhros]

52. What are the "private needs" that are impinged upon by Socialism?

I don't see the conflict.

[Enthusiast]

118. I believe seveneyes is speaking of systems like the Soviet Union.

Correct me if I'm wrong, seveneyes.

[seveneyes]

126. You are correct

The USSR might have worked out better if it had more respect for the individual needs.

[Enthusiast]

139. Most of us on DU

don't exactly see the Soviet Union as THE example of socialism. That's kind of a Fox "News" thing. I'm just saying.

[seveneyes]

140. Acknowledged

It was only mentioned as a point to your reference to it. IOW, I didn't bring it up.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

171. yes

[Maedhros]

156. The Soviet Union was more "totalitarian" than it was "socialist."

Better examples to look at would be the social democracies of Scandinavia.

[Enthusiast]

162. We agree on that.....nt

[RosettaStoned77]

50. Here they come!

How's that workin out for YALL?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. When I cam to this country I was shocked that republicans were actually RED!!!

Tories were always blue in the UK!

[RosettaStoned77]

92. Same here.

When I began following our politics after all I learned in history class, I was confused by this as well.

[Warpy]

51. The only thing wrong with socialism is the people who have run it

and have turned themselves into a defacto aristocracy which their children are placed to inherit.

I prefer a messy, mixed economic system with things moving back and forth between public and private as either sphere makes a mess of them. In such a system, health care would already have been moved into the public sphere along with banking, since neither of them could stay honest. An example of something moving back and forth would have been GM, minor government control being exercised over top management until a sizeable loan got paid back.

Capitalism has been fast and very responsive to the changing needs of people. It can be strictly regulated out of its worst problems, the inexorable movement toward monopoly and wealth concentration away from labor. Socialism moves slowly but is the best to guarantee high manpower, low profit human needs like education.

Messy systems have worked well through northwestern Europe. It can also work here. They certainly live longer and better than we do.

We've been educated once again on the evil that deregulated capitalism creates. We have the tools, we just need to dust them off and put them back into practice.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. Socialism only moves slowly because it is prevented from doing so by big bad US corporations/repubs

I don't believe that socialist/democratic socialist systems of northwestern Europe are any messier than the corrupt system that we have in the USA! The public here is told that they are messy when in fact they do work a lot better.

[spin]

57. I always found it odd that SOCIAL Security and Medicare ...

is so popular with many Republicans who state that they are totally opposed to socialism.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

89. Republicans use socialist services

[arcane1]

58. Our collective amygala has been trained to hate and fear it, but not define it.

[OutNow]

59. So what's wrong with socialism? - "Nothing" say the people of Seattle who just elected a Socialist

to the City Council. A real tax the rich, unions for fast food workers, stop the illegal home foreclosures, socialist.

I am proud to say I responded to their call for donations to the campaign. Twice.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Conlin-concedes-Sawant-wins--232133551.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. Great!

[Nye Bevan]

61. If socialism is so great, there must be many thriving, prosperous, socialist countries,

that many DUers would love to move to, given the chance.

Right?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. Well if the corps weren't in control, yes!

but socialism is squashed....

[Oakenshield]

66. Right.

Iceland, Sweden, Denark, Norway, Scandinavia in general. I'd be thrilled to be living in any of those countries.

[Nye Bevan]

74. LOL. If Sweden, Denmark and Norway are socialist countries,

then I guess I'm a socialist after all!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. Scandinavia is not exactly socialist

[Oakenshield]

100. Scandinavia is plenty closer than we are anyway.

And it didn't get to where it is today by "embracing capitalism" as hack89 put it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

172. These countries are a lot nicer to people in need

[hack89]

83. All of which have thriving free market economies that embrace capitalism. Nt

[ZombieHorde]

108. What does that have to do with socialism?

They're not opposites.

[hack89]

129. True - capitalism is required to generate the wealth needed to make socialism work

My only point.

[nomorenomore08]

95. Sweden? Denmark? May not be "pure" socialism but no one said they had to be...

[Nye Bevan]

96. I'm just fine with Sweden and Denmark.

Plenty of entrepreneurship and private industry, loads of free trade, modern liquid stockmarkets to enable corporations to raise equity capital- all good stuff. Personally I see these countries as capitalist countries like the US except that taxes are a bit higher to pay for more generous social benefits, which is just fine with me. If Sweden and Denmark are what DUers mean by "socialist", then sign me up.

[nomorenomore08]

97. It's the kind of "socialism" I would tend to favor, anyhow. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Enthusiast]

119. I'm with you..............nt

[MyNameGoesHere]

114. Absolutely

Once my chains of capitalism are broken free of I will move away from your wonderful capitalist utopia. By the way, yours isn't the dumbest post ever, but you are progressing towards it. So at least you are a progressive.

[Enthusiast]

120. Wrong.

You misunderstand.

[treestar]

141. This country is pretty socialist when you get right down to it

It does have programs for the poor and elderly. Maybe it could use more, and we could do more with health care, but there's no reason to move from the US over it.

[Maedhros]

158. Workers do not control the means of production, so not entirely Socialist. [n/a]

[treestar]

161. True, though tell that to a right winger

They insist that the least regulation or wealth redistribution is "socialism."

[Maedhros]

170. I'm routinely appalled by the widespread lack of knowledge

of what "Socialism" is.

It's exactly like "Terrorism": it can be applied to a wide, poorly-defined range of actions with the common denominator being that they are "bad."

[NuclearDem]

174. Right, because multinational corporations would ever allow that to happen.

I don't know if you've noticed, but MNCs tend to dislike when countries start moving to the left.

[freshwest]

64. I use their buzzwords to make them think:

Ownership, efficiency, choices, accountability, low cost for consumers, less tax dollars, reliability and independence from government.

I live in an area where the electric company is owned by the city. It owns the area where the power is being generated and all of the equipment to make it. It is the purely socialist model of a necessary resource.

Regarding each of their buzzwords:

Ownership, capitalism, profit, shareholders:

When asked by people living in red states who complain about their power bills by private companies, and try to mealy mouth about how the power companies need to make a profit, I explain there is no profit needed.

WE, THE PUBLIC, ARE THE OWNERS, WE ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS WHEN WE PAY OUR BILLS. WE PROFIT FROM HAVING A SYSTEM THAT WORKS FOR US.

That absolutely stuns them as they never thought of socialism that way.

Regarding, efficiency, choices, accountability:

We the rate payers and citizens, are involved in the process. We determine if we want power from water, gas, coal, wind or solar. We invest to keep the cost down for all of us. The system is efficient because we demand that the rates be kept low, and ours are among the lowest in the USA. They are accountable to us at the ballot box.

Regarding the complaint of low cost for consumers, less tax dollars, reliability and independence from government:

All the same thing. We do things that red areas see as frivolous, encouraging conservation by working together. We don't need subsidies or taking tax dollars to make it work. People who have solar reverse the reading on their meter, making them more independent from the grid. And all at union wages, with safety measures for the workers and public.

Anyway, that is just one example of education.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. Socialism is about people and ownership

I guess most are insecure that they don't want to own anything. Cooperatives are fun too. How about workers owning their own company or neighborhood housing or cooperative healthcare. People power!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

173. Our water is supplied by the City and the reservoir and pipes are maintained by the city

for the people

[yurbud]

67. anything that does not directly profit the already rich is anathema to the GOP and...

Far too many Democrats.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

70. Unfortunately we have some Democrats like that

no doubt these are mostly the ones in red states/

[yurbud]

163. I bought that until the health care debate and constituents in those red states...

wanted a public option their senators refused to support.

They are not progressives who are being just conservative enough to get elected--they are conservatives who are just progressive enough to have Democrats elect them.

[Gore1FL]

73. Pure Socialism assumes a better human nature than actually exists--at least in meaningful quantities

Pure socialism isn't necessarily the ideal. It really isn't necessary to have a fairer society, either.

But there are things that the government can do well. There are things well-regulated private corporations in a free market are better suited for.

In the words of KY Senate hopeful Alison Lundergan Grimes, “government should either help or get out of the way.”

[Rosa Luxemburg]

78. No, governemnt should not get out of the way but..

people in communities can run their own show.

[Savannahmann]

75. There are good points, and bad points to every political system.

Capitalism has many flaws, and I agree with the problems, but the advantage is that it does lead to faster development of technology than the other systems. No Government would have funded Apple, or Microsoft, the conventional wisdom of the time was that there was perhaps a need for three or four computers, and nobody would want one in their homes. So getting funding for development would have required a foresight not often seen in Government.

The negatives is that once the development happens, they go hog wild in the greed category.

Socialism on the other hand is more equal for the people, but development of new technology is not exactly a big priority. Infrastructure is usually funded better, but it just keeps things going at the status quo. Perhaps we should properly define socialist. Socialist is defined in my mind as the Government owning the companies, and the salaries and prices are set by the same Government. Everyone is in essence a government worker no matter where they work.

There is the problem of the implementation. Socialist Governments tend to be right on the verge of dictatorships. In Venezuela right now, they are preparing to give the President unilateral power to run the country. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24951590

But one thing caught my eye reading that news story.

The approval of the first reading of the bill comes after a member of parliament, Maria Aranguren, who defected to the opposition was stripped of her parliamentary immunity on Tuesday, being replaced by a government loyalist.

So everything was set to give the President unilateral power, and one member of parliament who had promised to support it, got cold feet, and backed out. She was stripped of her position, tossed out, and replaced with a loyalist who was willing to vote the "right" way.

Socialism ends up being either on the verge of dictatorship, or a thinly disgusted dictatorship, or one without the disguise. Time will tell where Venezuela ends up, but it looks like they're tossing the disguise overboard.

Sure they will be a Socialist Government, with the people owning the means of production through the Government, but like all modern implementations of this form of Government, it appears as though it is being corrupted to a Dictatorship.

What I prefer is a Liberal Democracy. Where people are given as much freedom of expression and absolute civil rights. However, each right is balanced in an understanding of the equality of the populace. We can have a fair taxation plan, without socialist owning of the business, because as we've seen, Washington DC is too corrupted by corporate influence to run things the way it ought to be. Even within our own party.

Perhaps if there was a more socialist government that had not devolved into hunting of the opponents at the drop of a hat or the publishing of an editorial, I would be more willing to toss my hat into that ring. But I speak out for what I believe in, and in most of those countries, I would be labeled as an enemy for not giving 100% full throated support for whomever holds the top office. Enemies in those nations usually end up in jail on some trumped up charges.

Amnesty International information on Venezuela. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/venezuela

Human Rights Watch on Venezuela. http://www.hrw.org/en/americas/venezuela

Again, if there was a nation that had implemented this form of political governance more fairly without the suppression of dissent, I might be more onboard, but the truth is that the reason Socialism has a stigma attached is not because the people are opposed to fairness and equality, but because they are naturally distrustful of a system of government that has been so abused so often in our history. Many voices may be a shouting match, but one voice is not always the best way to go. Well, perhaps if it was my voice, but probably not even then.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. "Socialist Governments tend to be right on the verge of dictatorships"

Re: the history of human rights of the USA. The USA has not had a good track record either.

[Savannahmann]

99. Agreed without reservation.

Today alone there have been half a dozen threads of injustice. People sentenced to life for a minor crime, or receiving a virtual slap on the wrist for a heinous crime. That is just today. We could easily go into the history books and create a thread that would crash the server listing the long litany of human rights abuses and racism, sexism, and intolerance that have long plagued our country.

Until recently things here have not been like other nations, and I have some hope that we will continue to strive to be better. Jailing reporters has been an extreme event that happens once or twice a year here. It's wrong, and I abhor it, and even happening once is too many.

But my thinking is political opponents. We've been on the outside, outraged and furious at the President. We've been on the side that won, cheering and proud. What frightens me is the idea that we could well end up on the outside as the power was consolidated to a more dictatorial government. That by the way, is one of the many reasons I dislike unilateral Presidential actions. Not because of the action, which I may tacitly approve of on a case by case basis, but because it inevitably becomes a precedent for the next to take even greater action.

We don't have a Dictator, not because the President is limited to two terms. But because of the checks and balances. Congress can stop a rogue action from some RW loon. The Courts can stop the Congress from similarly insane actions. They may not always go our way, and we may denounce the decisions like Citizens United. However, we have that system, and it works as often as it fails.

Socialist Governments tend not to have such limitations. The Parliament merely rubberstamps the President, or as just happened in Venezuela they are tossed from their seat and replaced. The Courts back the President, or they are similarly replaced. Imagine if President Obama announced he didn't like the Supreme Court's decision, and he had decided to replace half the members. It wouldn't be a riot, it would be a civil war. Nobody, including many of us on the left, would stand for it. We may not like the Supreme Court Justices, and we may disagree with them, but we would not tolerate the creation of a rubber stamp court that ignored our Constitution.

The same thing with Congress. I may disagree with Paul Ryan on everything short of the date and time of day. However I would be seriously concerned if the President unilaterally decided that Paul Ryan would be replaced with a favorable Liberal from that district. I'm betting you would too.

Because imagine this, the next election comes and Goddess Forbid Chris Christie, or worse Rand Paul wins the bloody thing. We would be out in the streets daily protesting such actions if they took it.

We have a lot of improvement to make, and we need to reverse the current trend of national security as an excuse to abuse the rights of our people. But we have the mechanism in place to reverse that trend, whereas no socialist country I am aware of has such a mechanism available. We can make our nation better, more of the reality we'd like to see, but we can't do that by sacrificing the rights of the people to the whims of any one man. Douglas Adams said that anyone who wanted to be President (of the Galaxy) is the one person who shouldn't have the job. He has a good point. It is an axiom that Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Jamaal510]

79. Socialism can suck for rich people,

since they would have their taxes much higher, but otherwise, there's not much bad about socialism IMO. If more people realized that socialism is about having everyone's basic needs met, think of all the possible things that could get done for the country--jobs, infrastructure, publicly-funded elections, free college tuition (like in various European countries), affordable/free housing, you name it. We would actually be able to elect some real progressives for a change, and ditch the Republicans and Blue Dogs. The main reason why Republicans and people such as the Koch Brothers decry socialism is, like I said, because they don't want to pay taxes. What's funny is that they simultaneously call themselves "patriots", despite their railing against government.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

91. How do you know that theywould have to have higher taxes?

[Jamaal510]

94. Because that's

essentially how socialism works, right? Unless I'm wrong, wouldn't those in the top income bracket have their taxes raised under a socialist system towards more revenue for government programs?

[DeSwiss]

80. Nothing, per se. It's actually the best of the lot.

- It's the parasitic monetary system attached to it (as with democracies and/or republics) that is the cancer. The monetary system is the choke-point (population control). The monetary system is the inflation (insider-theft) point.

The ''money'' system is the LIE.

K&R

[Agnosticsherbet]

84. There is noting wrong with any utopian system, even socialism

The moment humans attempt to implement Socialism, or any other utopian ideal, they spin out of control.

Socialism has many good ideas that can be used as programs in a mixed system.

[TBF]

117. Can you explain to me how capitalism has NOT spun out of control?

because "spun out of control" is what I see when I contemplate that 80% of this country is at or below the poverty level.

[Agnosticsherbet]

167. I didn't post on that economic system called Capitalism as it wasn't in the OP

And we are a Corporatist Oligarchy here in the US for the ruling class, while the masses utilize Consumerism so that wealth is reapportioned from the people to the investor class.

It is popular to call it Capitalism, but we aren't really Capitalists, though aspects of that extinct system are utilized by the Corporatist elite and the name is kept because of its history.

I am a liberal, and liberalism isn't compatible with socialism as socialism denies people economic right to own the means of production.

As I said, there are many ideas within socialism that are easily taken into a liberal state because they help expand individual rights. The parts of socialism that deny a right to individuals makes it incompatible.

In reality, there is no pure system. Socialism will be as good or bad as those who implement it and those who are put in power, which makes it a lot like a liberal Democracy.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

178. I think you are confusing communism with socialism or something else

Socialists don't want to take away economic rights for workers, collectively or individually. It means taking away from the few.

[Agnosticsherbet]

181. In liberalism, economic rights are the right to work and to profit from it, whether with your hands

or building a bussiness worth billions. I don't confuse communism and socialism. They are similar and related but not identical systems, and neither of them are liberalism. They simply share the same side of the political spectrum.

[Rain Mcloud]

85. Capitalism is a sub sect of judaism

Genesis 1:28 King James Bible

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Basically the wealthy are handpicked by God.
As a good slave you are expected to support your masters both as a producer and consumer of goods.
This is apparently pleasing in the sight of their God.
Which is Money.

I do not not know how to put it more simply or plainly.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

87. who said the wealthy are handpicked by God?

[Rain Mcloud]

101. It is a repeated theme in the Bible.

Samuel put it best,i think:

Sam. 2:6-7 The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts.

This page has many passages relevant to divine inheritance:
[link:http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/SovereigntyScriptures.html|

[Joel thakkar]

149. What happened to the separation of state and religion ?

[ReRe]

86. What's wrong with Socialism?

I don't know, because I've never lived in a "socialist" country. Most socialist countries are democracies, aren't they? If we have any DUers who live in a "socialist" country, I hope they will pipe in and tell us what they think the drawbacks/advantages of socialism are.

Are they "exceptional?" No, they're regular. Are they "empirical?" No, definitely not. Do they have small group of very wealthy citizens, and a large overwhelming group of extremely poor citizens? No, I don't think so. Do their societies revolve around their defense systems? Definitely NOT. Are their citizens low-life criminals, or psychologically deranged? Are they religious fanatics? Do they have a group similar to our NRA? Are there more guns than citizens in their country? Do they have a national health care system?

I don't know. I have more questions than answers. I wouldn't mind giving it a spin, though.

[RosettaStoned77]

93. Ahhhhh! Keep your hands off my medicare you socialists!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

103. Good!

[Starry Messenger]

104. Nothing.

But Republicans think that capitalism is from the Bible, and many Democrats think it is the natural order of things, evolved from human nature. So, we actually have two brick walls to climb.

[HijackedLabel]

107. We need socialist policies for basic human needs and protections... inelastic demands.

And laissez-faire capitalism for elastic demands.

[questionseverything]

154. ^^^^^^^^

a mix would be best,a safety net for everyone and free market policies for things people want but do not need

[ronnie624]

109. Nothing.

It is the only viable economic system for modern human society. We will either adopt it soon or perish with the destruction of our biosphere.

[Enthusiast]

123. Well, you're right.

If protecting the biosphere is essential for the survival of life on earth then our present system of allowing corporations to write legislation will simply not get it done.

Unless, of course, we subscribe to the belief that global climate change is a Marxist—Muslin hoax. Which would be an idiotic position.

[sibelian]

122. It's unAmerican.

...

[Joel thakkar]

148. One day when 50%+ population wants socialism

how it is still unAmerican?

[LWolf]

125. It's unAmerican.

Seriously. This nation was built on capitalism, and capitalism forms the very bedrock of the national psyche.

Which is why socialism is such a hard sell.

That said, I agree. Socialism is something that the general population needs to learn more about, and this nation needs to move in that direction.

[GladRagDahl]

127. Well, you know what they say...

“The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S money.”

[socialist_n_TN]

165. Ah yes, Ms Thatcher.......

So she implied that all production would cease IF the rich lost their assets, i.e., the "other people's money". Why pray tell, should that happen? Would not the workers continue to produce goods and create wealth if the bosses weren't around? Oh wait! They do that NOW most of the time. It's just that part of that wealth goes into the parasite's hands.

[GladRagDahl]

189. No, that's not what she implied.

What she implied was that it's a house of cards. Wealth is finite and eventually there's nobody left from which to take it.

[Taitertots]

128. The only "Problem" is that the super rich lose all their power.

The Super Rich control every media source in the country.

Every "Problem" the super rich use to complain about Socialism is a meaningless aphorism that ignores reality. With the reality being that Capitalism is just as bad (or worse), in every category that matters.

[FreeJoe]

130. What do you mean?

When people talk about socialism here, I find that they tend to think of extremes...either an all socialist country or a completely non-socialist country. I don't think there are any successful examples of either of those and there are very good reasons for that. The most successful countries (measured in standards of living for the majority of their citizens) are predominately capitalist with significant elements of socialism. To me, it is not a question of being one or the other but of knowing when to apply each model.

[Joel thakkar]

147. There is not a 100% capitalist country nor a 100% Socialist country

Not a simple economic system is 100% possible in place as it is in theory. As capitalist USA sounds, there are few elements of socialism here and there in the form of medicare/medicaid, food stamps and Social security. However, USA can be easily called a capitalist leaning country.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland etc have more socialist elements in their society. Thus, they can be easily called a socialist leaning countries.

[FreeJoe]

177. This is a great example of why I typically avoid Socialism discussions

I call Norway a capitalist country. You call it "socialist leaning". I've seen plenty of others call it "socialist". It is definitely more socialist than the US, but it still employees less than a third of its populous in government run entities. It is all too common for people to talk about socialism as though everyone else agrees with our definition when the reality is that they very often don't.

[99Forever]

131. Not a damn thing.

Unless of course, you are a capitalist pig.

[Joel thakkar]

146. +1

And there if there are problems, there are solutions too

[FarCenter]

132. Imagine that all fast food restaurants were run by the US Postal Service

No more Pizza Hut, KFC, McDonald's, etc.

[Joel thakkar]

145. That's a far fetched definition

Socialism doesn't mean govt control on all sectors. Yes, energy, healthcare, banking etc are govt owned or highly regulated but there are hundreds of other sectors where govt allows private ownership with reasonable amount of regulations placed.

[FarCenter]

150. Government is likely better able to own and operate restaurants than healthcare or banking

Healthcare and banking are two of the most complex business sectors of developed economies.

Pure socialism does not permit proprietorship, partnership or corporate forms of ownership. Everything is owned by cooperatives, common ownership or the state and its sub-units.

What seems to work best is a mix of ownership types that includes all of the above, with various governmental bodies exercising power for the common good through law, regulation, taxation, subsidies, direct investment and direct intervention. The last is done mainly at the financial systems level through monetary and fiscal policies, rather than direct ownership of sectors.

[Joel thakkar]

155. nothing is 100% pure

Pure capitalist market also doesn't support medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc..but they are still there in capitalist USA.

Govt should own the complex business sectors like healthcare, banking etc and leave easy business sections to the private companies with regulation.

While i agree that govt bodies should use their power fro the common good for some business sectors, few sectors are better off completely state owned or state/non-profits owned (for example : defense, energy, education etc).

[2banon]

152. I'd love to see fast food chains disappear altogether

huge improvement on the health of the citizenry, reducing medical costs etc.. not to mention other adverse effects to the environment and an on and on.. that example would be a positive net gain to the nation as far as I'm concerned..

but hey that's just me...

to your point, I don't think the analogy works, at least not from my perspective.

[Starry Messenger]

187. Yes, have it your way for under .50

How awful.

[fadedrose]

137. So many people own their home or a business...

and socialism means the same thing to them as communism, where private ownership of property is unheard of, which scares them into thinking they could lose their home, etc.

It has to be explained that socialism mostly refers to health care, price controls, wages, utilities, education, water, and pensions.. In Europe there are many millionaires who live in and own large estates, and companies in almost every field that are listed even on the US stock exchanges.

[Joel thakkar]

144. Depends upon how you define socialism

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

According to me,

Socialism differs from communism. Socialism allows private business, private property, freedom of religion, free speech, a health-functional multi-party democracy, a rich class (although not uber rich like capitalist market) and few more liberties.

Socialism also includes free education, free healthcare and a good pension system for old people. Important sectors like Energy, defence, banks are often 100% state controlled or often state-private control exist with good amount of regulation. Socialist countries also have a tendency to spend less on defense and more on healthcare, infrastructure and education. Above to all, people trust in their govt and have an open minded view for any new govt program instead of cynicism (like in capitalist market).

There exist a rich class in socialist country but they have a very limited chance of growth. Thus, uber-rich people normally don't exist in socialist country. Poor class are often provided with lots of govt benefits to make uplift them.


Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, new-zealand etc pretty close according to my definition of socialism.

Problems with socialism :

1) Less future monetary rewards decrease the money/time spend on R & D , Innovation by private companies. This makes country less efficient and less innovative.

Solution : Govt needs to fill in the gap and spend more on R & D, Innovation and make pro R & D, Innovation policies to encourage private companies.

2) Youth can get away from STEM and other intensive College majors and spends more time in Liberal Arts and pursuits others aspirations in life. It is not a bad thing but a decrease in stem and other research is also not good for the overall economic competitiveness of the country.

Solution : Govt can make pro-immigration policies of allowing people having Masters/PHDs in specific areas to settle easily in the country. Some specific STEM subjects can be made compulsory in middle and high school. More grants/scholarships/contests etc can be given to specific STEM areas to increase youth interest.

3) Corrupted Politicians can come into power and ruin the whole system.

Solution : A very transparent govt system and bureaucratic system. An active participation of people in democracy. (For example : people in Switzerland vote directly for any new bill which gets 100k+ signatures). A clear boundary between politicians/political parties and private sector companies. A limit to amount of political donation from private companies and rich/influential people.

4)) People can get dis-satisfied due to not being more rich enough in comparison. Human nature sometimes love power, money and a dominance over other human. Maybe hard working people think that they are richer than other people but not rich enough which they should be in correspondence to their hard work.

Solution : A Societal change in attitude is needed. Hard work doesn't always need to be rewards in terms of monetary gains. Respect, Fame, Popularity, trust etc are also rewards of hard work. People should be given their due in all aspects, not only monetary forms.

[2banon]

151. Rec for Excellent Discussion!

[riverwalker]

153. conversation

patient had Fox News on all day, finally he asks me "Sooooo, what do YOU think of Obamacare?".
OK, he asked me my opinion, I can't help it. "It didn't go far enough, I am for Single Payer, as in Norway and Canada. I have been to Norway, I saw how it could be, you need a doctor, you get one, you never see a bill, never even think about it."
"WELL HOW CAN THEY AFFORD THAT!?
"Norway has all that oil, in the north sea, instead of the profits going to a oil corporation, it goes to the people, all the people. It works".

Never said another word about it to his socialist commie leftie nurse, looked kind of stunned like I said I was from planet Xylon. Sad thing, he was discharged on a very, very expensive medication. I tried to brace him for the sticker shock, I've had people call and yell at me for not warning them how expensive it is.

[Joel thakkar]

188. They can still make it work without oil money

In norway, whatever oil profits govt gets goes directly into a sovereign wealth fund...that fund is now around $800B. Thus, it is a myth that Norway's progress is dependent on oil. They are building a large fund from the oil profits which will be useful when the oil stocks vanishes.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

157. I think it would only work on a small scale.

At a large scale, in large nations, I think it would never work because there would simply be too much selfishness and egos for the system to work.

[Lodestar]

159. Well that's a silly question. It's NOT fascism of course.

Now we're just gonna have to blacklist you....

[gopiscrap]

169. welcome to DU

[Lodestar]

190. Thanks for the welcome! n/t

[gopiscrap]

191. you're welcome, hope we can learn from you and you us

and have fun while we're doing it!

[pansypoo53219]

160. it follows jesus more closely.

AND CHRISTIANS CAN'T HAVE THAT.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

175. I don't think Jesus would have liked capitalism

[colsohlibgal]

164. It Sure Trumps Capitalism On Steroids - For About 99% Of Us

And most people do misunderstand what the term means. They equate it with totalitarian which it isn't, actually right wing fascists are more prone to that. Socialism is an economic term.

I best fit as a democrat socialist - which does not preclude some capitalism but not our now runaway kind.

A rising tide lifts all oceans, even an old Nazi sympathizer like Henry Ford grudgingly understood that at some level.

[brooklynite]

168. I'm not converted...

Maybe its the fact that it's not an economic system that has ever worked on a national level?

[YoungDemCA]

182. Worked for whom?

nt

[brooklynite]

183. Name a country that has successfully implemented a socialist economic structure?

Simple question.

[YoungDemCA]

184. Define "success"

Simple question.

[NuclearDem]

176. I've been more of a fan of anarchism.

Socialist economic model without the authoritarian tendencies.

[brooklynite]

185. Great - send me your computer and TV set, will you?

Or should I just stop by and pick it up?

[NuclearDem]

186. Cute.

You do know there's a difference between the colloquial definition of "anarchy" and "anarchism", right?

[PowerToThePeople]

180. Not a thing.

There is nothing wrong with Socialism.

[Blue_Tires]

192. The big secret no one wants to discuss is

most of the megacorps along with Wall Street employ socialism amongst themselves to a much higher level of success than regular people could ever dream...

It is critical to keep the concept demonized lest the 99% see for themselves how well it works for those at the top, and start to ask for the same...