About Government provided stuff. you know..."socialism"

[Stuart G]

1. Don't drink the government provided water..
2...If you are against the government rules..don't put your seat belt on..protest that one too...
3. If there is a fire, don't call the government provided fire department
4...Someone you love, needs an emergency...don't call the government provided 911
5. Be sure to buy a very old car, without government mandated air bags to protect you
6. Stay away from all government provided education
7 . When you go to the washroom, be sure not to flush the toilet ..You know it is a government provided sewage system that takes the stuff away..(go to your own outhouse instead.)
8. Never ride the local bus or subway system
9. Do not visit Washington DC..government provided museums
10... Stay out of all government funded stadiums. you know the government builds and takes care of many baseball stadiums.
11. Go only to private parks and stay away from "national parks"
12. Stay away from government approved vaccines and shots to prevent disease.
13. Never go to a government approved hospital..go only to private ones..even in emergency
14.. Stay away from government inspected foods
15. .. In the summer, stay away from all government beaches and pools..and also all government sponsored fairs and events..like a county fair, or state fair..
16. Stay away from that government controlled dangerous and sharing place.. ..
.....you know that place where they lend you books and stuff...I think they call it a library..
17. Always ask for the least pay you can get...stay away from the government standard..."minimum wage"

add on what you think fits here

[1939]

1. Government has functions which it performs which is why we have organized governments

Government does those things which must be done on a collective basis like roads, water (though it may be a public utility and not government owned), sewage, police and fire, garbage collection (though it may be contracted out), and national defense.

This is not "socialism" and these services are provided either through taxes or as a direct charge for service (water bills).

Socialism is where the government takes over the economic functions and the means of production..

[JHB]

4. Conservatives have had their own, very expansive, definition...

...of socialism for a few decades now, and I think the OP is more intended to confront those who blithely label anything they don't like as "socialism" with the actual implications of their view.

Personally, I just advocate "English only ... for conservatives." They have to speak actual English and use the broadly-recognized meanings of words and not their own private dialect.

Alas, I haven't had much success.

[EdwardBernays]

7. Hahahaha

That reminds me of that clip of Chomsky discussing libertarianism.

[EdwardBernays]

6. Close

Typically socialism is where the community or workers take over the means of production ie social ownership.

Government can be involved in central planning for the amount a company produces, in some kinds of socialism, but that's not purely part of socialism per se.

In fact we all see socialism all the time and just don't know it... If two (or more) people are business partners, and split profits equally, that's socialism in its most basic form. That sort of arrangement happens in capitalist societies all the time.

Making ALL business operate that way is the goal of some forms of socialism. All the workers collectively own a factory and all collectively share the profits equally.

[FrodosPet]

18. All the workers collectively own a factory and all collectively share the profits equally

1. If a business is unprofitable, do the workers also share the debts equally?

2. Do people who have invested more labor, and/or have a higher set of skills, earn a higher wage and/or profit?

3. How do these enterprises get capitalized?

4. If their products become obsolete, or they are inferior quality, or just do not find market acceptance, are they allowed to fail and be shuttered?

[EdwardBernays]

19. it depends who you're asking

there's about 100 kinds of capitalism and socialism and so the answers vary....

In THEORY though sharing profits means that a MORE profitable business would get better workers and that could lead to a monopoly. Whether or not a monopoly is good or bad depends again on the version of capitalism/socialism/hybrid that you're in...

As far as capitalisation... well, workers CAN pool resources and launch a new cooperative enterprise... the same way that two people can leave a job and start their own business. The difference in that case isn't how the business starts, but in what it does when it hires it's first employee.. are they a full partner, or a paid worker, etc., etc.

The Nordic Model mostly leaves capitalism alone (which is why it produces so many multinational corporations) EXCEPT that the government is part of protecting workers rights in contract negotiations etc. But even then it varies... Denmark has a VERY free economy... anyone can be hired and fired, but it also has high taxes and a VERY generous social safety net... it also doesn't have a minimum wage!

No system is perfect, but I'd rather a system err on the side of helping the majority than the minority.

[EdwardBernays]

2. Pedant here

And I think it's probably a better tact to school people on what Democratic Socialism is, rather than try and redefine socialism in a way that is honestly not really mainstream. Because we on the left have been saying for years that Obama isn't a communist, and Healthcare Reform isn't a communist plot. If we decide that providing water - which has we PAY for - is "socialiat" then where do we stop? Forcing someone to pay taxes isn't socialist and we shouldn't say it is.

Socialism, in nearly all instances, means worker/community owned/controlled means of production ie social ownership.

And that's NOT the same thing as paying taxes for roads. In fact the weird - and incorrect - American understanding of this issue even has its own Facebook entry.

"Particularly in the United States, the term "socialization" has been mistakenly used to refer to any state or government-operated industry or service (the proper term for such being either nationalization or municipalization). It has also been incorrectly used to mean any tax-funded programs, whether privately run or government run."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership#Social_ownership_of_equity

I do understand WHY people want to reclaim or redefine the term socialism, but if you use it casually and people then Google it, they will get a completely unflattering idea of what you - and Sanders - stands for. Which is bad.

Instead point people to the wonderful idea of the Nordic Model.

"The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]

Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.[9]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

That's what Sanders believes in and what is firing up people across the country.

[JHB]

5. +1

[forjusticethunders]

13. If socialism had its own left-right axis

Bernie Sanders (and the European social democracies) would be on the extreme Looney Tunes right, put it this way. Essentially maintaining the basic structure of capitalism but subjecting it to governmental/public control and regulation. Still socialist in concept. in that the means of production are still loosely managed by a government presumably representing the workers, but in practice largely capitalist.

An alternate America where socialism/communism won in the 1930s would look at social democracy the same way most people in America look at libertarians.

[EdwardBernays]

14. I don't disagree, except

I think it's definitely a "hybrid" system, but I'm not sure you could call government moderated labour negotiations "social ownership". In nordic model countries the bosses still make oodles more than the lowest tier workers, and retain power, but the gap is much smaller than in more laissez faire capitalist countries, and workers can't be forced into odious working situations without a say.

Personally I like democratic socialism, a lot more than laissez faire capitalism at least, and for Americans IMO it would represent a big leap forward in workers protections and pay equality, and a incredible strengthening of the social safety net, and a reprioritisation of the nations resources - in a best case scenario.

All things I'd be happy to see happen.

[Duppers]

15. Another helpful link...

http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

[EdwardBernays]

17. I find this a bit odd

let me explain.

The DSA are much closer to "socialism" than many of the nordic model countries that Sanders references...

If you look at Denmark, a country Sanders refrences, there is basically no social ownership:

"As a result of its acclaimed "flexicurity" model, Denmark has the most free labour market in Europe, according to the World Bank. Employers can hire and fire whenever they want (flexibility), and between jobs, unemployment compensation is very high (security).[103] Establishing a business can be done in a matter of hours and at very low costs.[104] No restrictions apply regarding overtime work, which allows companies to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.[103] Denmark has a competitive corporate tax rate of 24.5% and a special time-limited tax regime for expatriates.[105] The Danish taxation system is broad based, with a 25% VAT, in addition to excise taxes, income taxes and other fees. The overall level of taxation (sum of all taxes, as a percentage of GDP) is estimated to be 46% in 2011."

In fact you don't have to be in a union to work in Denmark and there's not even a legal minimum wage!

However the social safety net is VERY generous and strong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark#Economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

I'd suggest that a mix of what Sanders thinks works best in Nordic Model countries, mixed with what he thinks works best in America, is closer to his vision than what the DSA is offering. IMO.

[Duppers]

23. You're right!

Thanks for explaining.

[hollysmom]

3. well, you can flush a toilet if you have your own

well, septic system and power generator.


unless you have a privatized police and fire dept - don't call them
Privatized firemen have been known to let houses burn down if the owners get behind in the payments,heh. They want to help, but that is the rules.

pay for FedEX if you want to mail a letter, how much is that now? more than 49 cents?

(Libraries are disappearing in many places, but in our town, it is the one place you can get free computer time.)

Be careful when you fly, air controllers are not privatized yet (I think)

Don't cash the SS or disability check.

[Depaysement]

8. Forego those Social Security "handouts"

Don't bother with traffic laws either.

[ileus]

9. Always remember who makes up the government.

[secondwind]

10. Don't travel by plane... airports are "socialist"

[secondwind]

11. Or trains or buses, either... stay away from roads and bridges and tunnels provided by socialism,

[BeanMusical]

16. +1 Very well said.

[sarge43]

12. A natural disaster? You're on your own, bunky. n/t

[Adrahil]

20. Avoid using that nasty government developed internet! NT

[Stuart G]

21. Very good point...I would never use that thing ...the internet...ooppss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pangaia]

22. Football stadiums also. LOL!!!

Why just pick on baseball?



Of course, then the owners make off with the profits and the people end up losing their shirts, and many lose their homes.
But, but.. I just have a thing about tax-supported sports..

Otherwise....
I'm with ya..

[merrily]

24. Please, for the love of everything worthwhile, DU, stop posting nonsense!

Government doesn't provide Americans with a damned thing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Americans provide government with everything.

Taxpayers provide things for a good society so taxpayers can live better. Well, taxpayers or lenders that taxpayers will have to repay someday provide things.

Some people are taxpayers all their adult lives. Some are taxpayers intermittently.

Some poor souls never get a chance to be taxpayers. Most of us don't think a good society lets those poor souls starve to death.

Talk about "free stuff" is bs. Someone is paying for that stuff. Someone who gets an education is going to have a better chance of earning more and paying more taxes for the rest of his or her life--and a much better chance of staying out of prison, committing crime, etc. In all likelihood, that student is not getting a free education, but an advance to use for schooling until the student starts working to repay society, monetarily and otherwise.

Just to crystal clear: This is a general rant, based on scores of dumbass posts I've seen and not directed at the OP in any way, shape or form.

[peace13]

27. I think the point is that this 'socialism' is a way of organizing services...

....for safety, and cost effectiveness. Of course it isn't free we do it together, like the bombs we buy.. You never hear a complaint about that!

[merrily]

28. My post specified that it was a general rant and not about the OP.

There are way too many posts about "free stuff" from "government." I wanted to point that out.

[tclambert]

25. Group insurance plans are also "socialist."

Even if administered by a private company, the social group pools resources to pay the claims of whoever happens to draw the short straw and faces financial ruin if they weren't part of the insured group.

[peace13]

26. If it snows, sit it out or buy a plow!

And oops the kiddies will need a tutor. If granny gets sick don't look to the family leave act for help. Just kick her to the curb and call Monty Python.

[HughBeaumont]

29. Here's a nice little dossier . . . .

. . . . on why the neckbeards are incredibly wrong.

* For similar reasons, libertarianism is a circular argument. Libertarians speak of "property" and "contract," as if these legal ideas somehow had meaning in the absence of law. Law is what matures mere possession or occupancy into "property". It's what allows your right to your dwelling to persist even when you leave it. These rights must be recognized by the consensus of local society to exist. The process that creates that consensus is a government, whether it's arrived at formally with pomp and circumstance by legislators and kings, or the result of an ad hoc discussion around the campfire. That consensus may be expressed more or less formally, but it necessarily includes definitions and limits.

* In fact, property has always been the creation of a lawmaker, and therefore some sort of a government. Much valuable wealth in civilized countries takes the form of such things as publicly traded stock and "intellectual property." The more important property rights are, the likelier they are to be embodied in legal documents like deeds, title documents, and statements of account. The market for real estate would be much less efficient without deeds registered at a government office that showed who owned what. Law called all of these things into being. The same holds true of contracts.

* The aforementioned "Non-Aggression Principle" isn't quite as clear as many libertarians make it sound. Libertarians support force to hold up a system of property, a system which required force to be created (ask any indigenous person in a European-colonized country) and requires force to be maintained. Take fraud, for example. If a man is found to have lied to his health insurance company about a pre-existing condition, the police (in libertarian parlance, "Men with Guns&quot will use force against him. Libertarians call this "retaliatory force" and frame the acts by the sick man as initiating force which makes for a nice game of mental gymnastics.[18] Note that you may not use the same rationalizations to frame racism, or sexism, or union-smashing as force, (and their solutions as retaliatory force) since those are things libertarians are okay with.

snip

* In a strict libertarian world with no welfare programs, people with disabilities that rendered them unable to work or unemployable who did not have families or a benefactor willing to support them financially would essentially be doomed to starve to death, become a prostitute, or turn to theft and drug dealing for survival. As automation, globalization and artificial intelligence continue to make more people unemployable and labor less valuable, entire swaths of the population will essentially have to choose between death and debt slavery. Unemployed parents would not be able to keep their children and would have to allow wealthy people to e̶n̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶ adopt them if they couldn't make a livable wage.

* No matter how many whine about it, governmental regulation often corrects problems that an unregulated free market could not. One example is health care regulations, such as enforcing credentialing for physicians to ensure they're not some nut in a lab coat; making sure pharmaceuticals have the ingredients they say they do and are relatively safe, AND that they work as intended; and ERs being required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Another is related to public health: how would consumers be able to determine which food vendors would be safe (and therefore, want to exchange capital with) in a festival experiencing bacterial contamination?[19] And why should businesses take on the risk of preventing epidemics?[20] Many libertarians don't have a coherent answer for what to do to correct these problems in a free market; they simply insist that "competition" will solve the problems, or at least make them inconsequential.

[Nye Bevan]

30. I wish "the Government" really would "provide 911".

Then maybe I wouldn't have gotten that big bill last time I had to call an ambulance.