So, what's so bad about socialism?

[LuckyTheDog]

Seriously. Are the Swedes and Norwegians unhappy about it?

Discuss.

[devilgrrl]

1. Nothing is wrong with it. In fact, I wish we were more like Scandinavians. You know, happier.

eom

[AndyfromNC]

11. The three classic

problems of large scale socialism, (which I assume you are referring to) is the problem of bottom up motivation, and top down management errors, and entrenched social classes.

1. If there is a very marginal difference in the life styles of those to work hard or innovate well, with thoses that don't , the CW is that less people will strive to do those things. I believe this falls into the area of "some truth, but not an absolute truth."

2. Top down management can work well at the family, extended family, or tribe level. It seems to falter the larger the scale it is attmepted. CW says, it can work well for a few hundred people, and may work well for a few million, if the community is fairly homogenous, but tends to fail or need to become rather harsh when applied to hundreds of millions or billions. See China, Russia as compared to India. All three have severe poverty, but Indians have retained a great deal of freedoms.

3. High tax rates and high barriers of entry tend to create rigid classes. The sons of the wealth and business class tend to stay there, teh sons of tradesmen stay tradesmen, the poor stay poor (altough the poor tend to have a better standard of living than other places). This is less true in european style socialist states (which are only partially socialist, than true/full socialism).

Thoughts?

[county worker]

24. I think you have a better idea of what socialism is than most here.

My guess is that many feel that socialism is some form of utopia. There isn't a place were everyone is happy. It is the striving for something better that leads to the desire for socialism in some and the desire of making it in a capitalist society for others. The perceived end is the same I think. Only one idea is that society takes care of everyone and the other is the idea that the individual takes care of himself.

[patrice]

169. Wrong guess. + Oversimplification of the "idea".

It's rather condescending of you to think that "many feel that socialism is some form of utopia." What is your basis for this guess? How many people have you actually asked and had an in-depth enough discussion with to find out how utopian their perceptions of socialism are?

The perceived ends are NOT the same; they depend upon many many variations on the defintion of that "something better" to which you refer. Capitalism assumes that all of us want to be alike and all of us have the same dreams. We are not alike nd we do not have the same dreams and the dog-eat-dog rat race known as Capitalism does NOT bring out the best in individuals

There are also many variations in how socialism manifests itself in different situations throughout history. You very clearly reveal your bigotry by characterizing all of those variations in what has been and all of those variations in what could be as "society takes care of everyone". It isn't the "everyone" I dispute here, but rather the "takes care of". Socialism isn't necessarily about being a nanny-state. Your definition of it is apparently based upon that assumption and you are wrong.

Would you care to state your definition here? Don't google it; put it in your OWN words. Tell me in your own words what you think socialism is.

My definition of socialism is that it is an organizational principle that recognizes that the group/collective/society/nation *****OWES***** its individual members something of ****REAL**** value in exchange for the ****REAL**** value of their participation in and cooperation with the group's rules, values, and processes. Don't tell me that the group/collective/society/nation gives it's individual members money in exchange for their participation and cooperation, so the social contract is satisfied by $$$, because, in case you haven't noticed, money isn't a REAL value. And don't tell me that a job fulfills the social contract either, because no matter how good your work, no matter what a good employee you are, your job can disappear into a swamp of trans-national derivatives that have no allegiance to any nation, let alone to America.

Even the Conservative patron-saint Adam Smith said that LABOR is a fundamental form of Capital; it has, therefore, REAL value, not the arbitrary abstract value represented by jobs and money.

REAL values are things like a complete and appropriate education, comprehensive basic health services, egalitarian economic opportunities (and we are waaaaaaaaaaay off on that one), and rational national defense (something else we've serious missed the mark on and which IS enslaving all of us and all of the future as we speak).

REAL value in exchange for REAL value is what makes a group a group and without that America is ***NOT*** a group/society/nation.

[scarletwoman]

177. +1 brazillion! Well put! Thanks! (nt)

[patrice]

209. blushing . . . Thanks!! scarletwoman, Solidarity!

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

215. What else is there to say? Workers of the World, UNITE!

I cannot adequately express how weary I am of the apologists for capitalism. It is a philosophy that would gleefully destroy the entire planet for the temporary illusion of material gain.

sw

[patrice]

218. Very THIN arguments supporting Capitalism in this thread. Shallow talking points. VERY shallow.

We must take good care of ourselves and keep propagating the discussion. I think Change IS possible, perhaps because I work in Elder Care where it's pretty obvious to everyone involved that we can't continue to function medically, socially and financially as we have in the past; it's leading us into euthanasia as a standard operating procedure.

[TBF]

234. Patrice & Scarlet Woman I am with you both,

and thanks for bringing some much-needed sanity and intelligence into this thread. :)

[patrice]

250. Solidarity! TBF : - )

:hi:

[Chulanowa]

43. There's a fundamental problem to your analysis

Much as how Christians get Islam wrong because they believe only Christianity can be right, just as researches from large cities regard Amazonian tribesmen "uncivilized and primitive", you decry socialism because all you know is Capitalism.

1) Our society may be motivated by greed, because that is what we are taught to revere. it doesn't work the same in other nations who do not have this compulsion. Also, you fail to give any examples of how innovators in socialist societies receive no reward for their contributions. This, like so much "common wisdom" is propaganda. Even in the pseudo-socialist dictatorships of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, innovations that enhanced the society were well-rewarded. Neither of these examples is nearly as liberal in its system as socialism is. You are repeating Ayn Rand's opinions, not any sort of fact.

2) In India, it is illegal to kiss in public. Many local authorities will happily enforce the Varna caste system, and even if they do not, a great many private citizens will. Children are maimed to become professional beggars, and a man can throw a woman out of his house to live on the street, making her "unsalvageable" - I wouldn't hold India up as any sort of beacon of liberty or progress. You may want to also note that both China and Russia are far-end unregulated capitalist societies, far-removed from socialism.

3) "This is less true in European societies" - you know, the societies that are truer to socialism than the tired, limping, ahistorical examples you're leaning so heavily on in Soviet Russia and Maoist China. What we have seen in the United States is that it's low tax rates that create the stratification of classes and wealth pooling in the hands of the upper elite. And "The poor have a higher standard of living than other places" That's a downside?

Thoughts?

[devilgrrl]

46. You'll get crickets.... guaranteed

Great post by the way.

[knixphan]

54. excellent post!!

:toast:

[gorfle]

82. On greed.

1) Our society may be motivated by greed, because that is what we are taught to revere. it doesn't work the same in other nations who do not have this compulsion. Also, you fail to give any examples of how innovators in socialist societies receive no reward for their contributions. This, like so much "common wisdom" is propaganda. Even in the pseudo-socialist dictatorships of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, innovations that enhanced the society were well-rewarded. Neither of these examples is nearly as liberal in its system as socialism is. You are repeating Ayn Rand's opinions, not any sort of fact.

I believe that greed is a basic human condition. No matter what you teach, men will desire. They will desire food, money, power, and sex. There will always be those who will give in to their desires and work to makes sure that they get theirs before others get some. Even if there were an unlimited supply of these basic items, there would still be those who desire to acquire more than everyone else.

I believe that any socialistic system requires people in control to enforce social equality. Those people are invariably going to be corrupted by that power, and they will become the people who give in to their natural desires and so become "more equal" than those whose social equality they enforce.

Ultimately, socialism is the concept that regardless of ability, everyone is constrained to the same social outcome. This is great for anyone of below-average ability, and sucks for anyone above-average ability.

[blindpig]

120. Pure libertarianism.

Is that you, John Galt?

You have a pretty poor opinion of humanity, one belied by hundreds of thousands of evolutionary success as egalitarian hunter-gatherers. Your basic assumption is wrong, and thus all that follows.

[gorfle]

182. I doubt it.

Is that you, John Galt?

You have a pretty poor opinion of humanity, one belied by hundreds of thousands of evolutionary success as egalitarian hunter-gatherers. Your basic assumption is wrong, and thus all that follows.

I think I have a pretty realistic understanding of humanity, backed up by a thorough education in history. Desire is what has driven man for all of recorded history, and it's almost always desire of food, money, power, or sex that is driving him. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

I don't see how this equates to libertarianism though. I thought that was basically the concept of no government? Don't libertarians generally want as little government as possible, leaving everything to "market forces" or some other such hogwash?

I'm not espousing or subscribing a political outlook to the basic human condition, I'm just stating the basic human condition. Men are driven by greed, and there is never a shortage of people willing to fuck other people over to satisfy their greed. Such people will always sabotage any attempt at a socialist system. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Since no socialist system can exist without some enforcer to hold humanity's individual desires in check, those people themselves will be corrupted and satisfy their own desires, usually at the expense of those who they are forcing to restrain their desires.

[Mythsaje]

201. Or, more to the point, I think

"It's not so much that power corrupts, or that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that power attracts the corruptible."

[patrice]

216. And that's different from what we have how?

[vincent_vega_lives]

228. desire of food, money, power, or sex

"Desire" what you are talking about is the survival instinct of him/herself and his/her kin/tribe.

Capitalism exploits the strengths of that instinct.

Humans are territorial animals. The concept of property drives from this.

Pure communism impedes both human instincts...the drive to better one's own condition for his or her children and the drive to tend to their "territory".

In situations where humans are relatively scarce, such as in pre colonial North America, neither instinct plays a major role in the social structure as the environment does not warrant it, as was the opposite case in Europe.

Communism is an ideal system for small groups, but has been shown to fail in Nation States as it is in direct conflict with human instinct and can only exist with an Authoritarian system of governance.

Capitalism thrives best under a free system, as it takes advantage of basic human instinct (to better one's lot) but unregulated capitalism will always result in those with all and those with none, as it only takes a small percentage of bad apples to spoil the bushel.

Capitalism rewards those who take risks. Socialism tends to restrict risk and mitigate achievement. ANY system that involves human beings can result in abuse. Socialism is no special case.

The best system will take aspects from both systems...an economic model that encourages risk and achievement that allows the market to decide what's best for all while regulating abuse.

[patrice]

175. Operative terminology: "I" and "believe". You ever hear of something called Rational Empiricism?

.... nuff said.

[gorfle]

183. You ever hear...

You ever hear of something called "an opinion"?

[patrice]

187. Well, there are opinions and then there are opinions. Yours is about the WHOLE Human Race.That makes

it a

WHOPPER

of an opinion.

[gorfle]

200. But not a hard one to forumlate.

Anyone who has studied, even at a basic college level, the history of mankind can easily see what motivates him.

What do you think motivates mankind, in general? Altruism? Hah!

[patrice]

206. "in general" is an average that encompasses a great deal of variation. I'm more

interested in particular people, the ones I live and work with.

There is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy, you know; your expectations do shape human behavior to a significant extent. Believe people are stupid grazers and, guess what, they become stupid grazers.

Not that there aren't such persons as stupid grazers; just that they are a minority, as are smart entrepreneurs, and by far **MOST** people demonstrate a range of combinations of those traits, stupid/smart:grazing/entrepreneurship that vary over time and situations.

Pretty nice opinion of humanity you have there; are you a Libertarian?

[gorfle]

233. My expectations don't shape past history.

interested in particular people, the ones I live and work with.

This is a very, very, narrow sample of humanity to base an opinion about humanity on. You'd be much better served to study the history of humanity on a larger scale.

There is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy, you know; your expectations do shape human behavior to a significant extent. Believe people are stupid grazers and, guess what, they become stupid grazers.

But present belief does not have any impact on drawing conclusions of a few thousand years of recorded history. There is no prophecy to be fulfilled by drawing conclusions from the past.

Not that there aren't such persons as stupid grazers; just that they are a minority, as are smart entrepreneurs, and by far **MOST** people demonstrate a range of combinations of those traits, stupid/smart:grazing/entrepreneurship that vary over time and situations.

Well entrepreneurs, smart, stupid, and grazing people aside, my point still stands that historically, man has been driven by desire for food, money, power, and sex.

Pretty nice opinion of humanity you have there; are you a Libertarian?

No, I'm a Democrat, since 2006. Again, what does political philosophy have to do with assessing the basic human condition?

[patrice]

181. Capitalism constrains everyone to the same social outcome by making the Rat Race NECESSARY. Run or

DIE, to heck with your real abilities and talents if you can't compete with Wal Mart, you'll just have to starve. And we don't want your better widget because its different and you don't belong to our club and TPB don't want us to want it anyway. And if you make a widget that's a whole lot better than ours, we'll either buy or steal the rights to it and destroy it, a la Saturn's EV electric car.

The right forms and levels of socialism could provide enough of the basics that people would be free enough to complete their educations, or pursue the development of their talents, or become entrepreneurs, or engage in low-paid, though vital services, such as CNAs. Those who want them will have many more options with more than one economic game in town.

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. Google the following: Maslow's pyramid of needs

before you try to spread this Ayn Ryand rubbish.

Oh and I will give you a clue. The first and most basic of needs are food, shelter and clothing. After those are fulfilled across a society, you can reach farther in that society.

I will even say that the society in the US of the 1950s, which was a mixed economy, with the heaviest taxation rates, was in some ways a happier society... just a few... as those needs were taken care off in a wider proportion of the society.

There were problems... poverty was bad in some areas, wait, it is still bad in the same areas... and racism was amazing

But while we had a society that was moving towards a more equitable of distribution we had the greatest effort since the Red Scare, the original one, to vilify what most Americans don't even know what it means.

I suggest you do some readying. Your concept of socialism is highly tinged by propaganda... and you should know this... the USSR, or Red China didn't even fit the technical definition of it.

Oh and there is more. the US, when looked at from the point of view of the Wealth of Nations, is not a capitalist society either.

[Greyhound]

84. Pretty well nailed it.

In virtually every discussion of socialism, the examples of "Communist" Russia and China are the standard fodder used by the pro capitalist participants.

As you correctly point out, neither of these totalitarian police states were Communist or Socialist, but they both did come about as a reaction to intolerable conditions created by the ruling parasite class. We fought against this type of system for our entire history and failed in the late 19th century and again about 40 years ago.

[AndyfromNC]

135. I think assumptions are being made

I think you guys are making assumptions about my views.

I believe that government should control and allocate some resources in some areas, for instance, I believe that single payer or some similar system, may be (devil is in the details) a good way to manage healthcare.

On the other hand, I would hate to see the government in control of consumer electronics or computing standards. Likewise, I think one of the few missteps of the administration was his handling of GM, allowing that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

As far as India, what you are saying may have a small bit of truth, but India is improving in many areas very quickly, and at least in the cities, many people are moving towards life in a modern democracy. Not saying it is a perfect place, but I believe that it has handled its growth better than China or Russia.

As far as semantics of whether Russia or China were socialist in their "heyday" is always up for discussion depending upon how you define the words.

Going back to the orginal question: If you are going to socialize an industy, it pays to be aware of the tendancies in order to be able to design around or counter them, rather than to claim socialism is perfect and cannot be improved upon.

[Greyhound]

161. All we have to go on is what you write. To wit;

"The three classic problems of large scale socialism, (which I assume you are referring to) is the problem of bottom up motivation, and top down management errors, and entrenched social classes."

What is your basis for defining these element as inherent in "large scale socialism"?

"single payer or some similar system" is practiced, well-known, and without exception proven superior to the idiocy of profit-driven health care denial that we have had foisted on us.

I think that the OP's use of Sweden and Norway makes the intent quite clear. Neither country is what might be called purely socialist, so it seems your critique starts from a flawed premise. The Preamble to our own Constitution lays out it's intent as being to "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...", and to that end what is within the nation, i.e. natural resources, belongs to, and should be controlled by, the nation and that is We The People (See Thom Hartmann regarding http://www.truthout.org/article/thom-hartmann-whatever-happened-we-people">"the commons").

As an old geek, I would argue that government control of computing standards would be of great benefit to the industry as a whole for it would prevent M$, for example, from ignoring standards to use it's virtual monopoly to shut out competition, surely something we can agree would benefit the industry as a whole.

As for controlling consumer electronics I think you are right in that that is definitely an area best allowed to the determination of the marketplace and innovated through free competition, however it seems to me that it would be the government's place to use it's power to prevent that innovation and creativity from being subverted through existing trade practices that, again, allows monopolistic control over technologies that were invented by people and companies here.

Regarding your next point; I just have to ask, have you ever been in India? Neither have I, but I've worked with people that live there for years and what they tell me is completely contradictory to what posit. According to them (some Indian, some just working there) things are getting worse for those at the bottom of their very rigid social structure. Our trade policies have greatly damaged the IT industry here but completely destroyed the agricultural industry there and far more people are hurt there because of that.

Definitions of Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are, I believe, really beside the point that we are discussing. We have seen authoritarian governments misuse the basis for those systems repeatedly throughout the world to justify their literal crimes against humanity far more often than not. Just look within our own nation and the crimes we continue to perpetrate in the name of Democracy.

[Thothmes]

166. Though in fact they have or had programs

that are the Ideal of socialism. The Soviet health care system was completely socialized. The Soviet State owned all medical facilities, all medical staff were employees of the state. There was no direct charge to the soviet citizens to utilize the system. The educational system was completely socialized. The Soviet State owned all of the educational facilities, all of the educational statff were employees of the state. There was no direct charge to the soviet citizens to utilitze the system from elementary school through university. These are about as socialist as you can get.

[patrice]

172. Very stimulating! Thanks!

:hi:

[lumpy]

45. My thought is, it's better than the rampant Capitalism that we

been exposed to in the last several years. But then I have always considered myself to be a Social Democrat.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

50. This argument I don't quite get...

Your point as follows:

"1. If there is a very marginal difference in the life styles of those to work hard or innovate well, with thoses that don't , the CW is that less people will strive to do those things. I believe this falls into the area of "some truth, but not an absolute truth."


What that is suggesting is that only through suffering, do we want to better ourselves. I just find it hard to believe that a child with a full belly, heathcare, and a reliable place to live with parent or parents who are not stressed about just making it, would be better equipped in school and in life in general. It seems to me that it would be the only real way of saying, "we are all created equal".

[AndyfromNC]

139. Well, I wasn't thinking of hungry children, but productive adults

In a purely socialist regime, promotion is often political rather than merit based (which also occurs in capitalism, but to a different extent)

But, If, you have a true socialist regime that says that each person gets what they need (as decided by the government) and the government is going to decide that person A and person B have the same needs, then their is absolutely no reason for either person A or B to do any more work than is required by law, i.e. the minimum. In a capital system, if A and B both work for a private company if B want more, he may work more hours of overtime, or get a second job. The added money allows B to have access to more resources than A.

However, I don't believe this holds true across all needs, meaning a person doesn't use more medical care just because they have more money, therefore, medical care is not a good service to decide by capitalism.

[Selatius]

157. The problem is there has been no true socialist state.

The Soviet Union doesn't fit the definition, since the state often worked against the interests of the workers despite government propaganda asserting that the Soviet Communist Party operated with respect to the welfare of the workers instead of despite it. It isn't socialism when workers have no input. It's just another tyranny wrapped in a different ideology flying a different flag.

Your argument is speculative as far as how socialism would operate. Who says there cannot be a mechanism that rewards innovation? What if you started a labor co-op where the workers are also co-owners, and they vote you in as a manager given your expertise. Do the workers have some reason not to pay you a higher wage than an entry level employee in order to keep you from leaving the firm? Who says the central government is the only authority to set wages in socialism?

[patrice]

186. You have extremely limited notions about human nature.

Some people work more, because they LIKE to.

Your "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs/Motivators" has one and only one level, the biological ones. If the Human Race were as you seem to think it is, there would be no Art, no beauty, no Basic Science, no Knowledge for Knowledge's sake.

[BolivarianHero]

72. Very funny

"Russia as compared to India."

There are Far higher literacy rate and far lower rates of absolute poverty in the former Soviet Union then there are anywhere in India. The former Soviet republics have the highest rate of female litracy in the world (unsurprising...They were sending women into space while the rest of the world was still too busy figuring out whether it was okay to let them out of the kitchen). The areas of India with the best standard of living have been governed by social democratic (claiming to be Marxist) govermments or by left-leaning Tamil activists.

[BolivarianHero]

73. Very funny

"Russia as compared to India."

There are Far higher literacy rate and far lower rates of absolute poverty in the former Soviet Union then there are anywhere in India. The former Soviet republics have the highest rate of female litracy in the world (unsurprising...They were sending women into space while the rest of the world was still too busy figuring out whether it was okay to let them out of the kitchen). The areas of India with the best standard of living have been governed by social democratic (claiming to be Marxist) govermments or by left-leaning Tamil activists.

[baldguy]

164. How does large scale socialism, as you understand it, differ from large scale corporate capitalism?

Especially when you consider the failures of those most capitalist of institutions: Wall Street brokerage houses, banks & investment firms.

(You should be informed that I've worked at three different Fortune 100 companies, and am quite familiar with their inner workings.)

[patrice]

185. 1. You assume there is no potential for intrinsic motivation in the work itself.

Only motivators exterior to the work. It's not everyone, but MANY people do have organic drives to do certain things, similar to artists and musicians, a particular type of work can be a very idiosyncratic motivator.

True, we are socially programmed not so much to discover what our own work is but rather to "get a better job and earn more money" but rather that those intrinsic drives are either ignored or oppressed or displaced onto less satisfying objects and processes. This does not mean that they do not exist.

[elehhhhna]

25. We're already one of the biggest socialist countries, both in terms

of $ spent and # of people served. The only question left is how far we should extend things.

National medical care isn't exactly a radical idea by any stretch, btw.

[Echo In Light]

27. Only considered "radical" by those who put profits before people

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's worked fine for the US military. No major northern European migration to the US. Wonder why?

[liberal N proud]

3. Like liberalism the right has made a career of making it a bad thing

[Juche]

4. Corporations don't like it

Basically that is what is wrong with it. The corporations that fund politicians and the media find it cuts into their profit margins, so if they don't like it then other people shouldn't like it either.

However once a country becomes wealthy it always becomes socialist. There are no wealthy liberal democracies that don't have socialized economies, social safety nets or infrastructure. So corporations end up losing. good.

[el_bryanto]

5. I tend to think that Socialism is good in areas where it's not profitable for

business to be involved or there is a societal need that trumps the need to make money. In most other areas capitalism is better.

Economic decisions are going to be made somehow.

Bryant

[maryf]

18. "a societal need that trumps the need to make money"

Where is there not a societal need that trumps the need to make money?? 60 people a day die in this country for lack of adequate health care coverage; there are over 3 million homeless in this country, many of them children and the vast majority due to no place afforded to them to live...I could go on with the societal ills in this country alone, the biggest capitalist empire going! I reiterate where does making money ever trump societal needs??

[el_bryanto]

65. Consumer Goods for example, Labor for another.

Food is another example that should stay mostly in the private sector. That doesn't mean that the government can't purchase food to give to the hungry and them what needs it; but the market should determine what is available in our supermarkets.

Bryant

[jody]

100. But, one variety of beans would be much cheaper and why do we need "Black Angus" burgers when plain

ground beef is cheaper.

Socialism will encourage equality in taste so we only one need brand of beer and uni-sex clothes will promote equality among the sexes.

I don't know whether that's sarcastic or main stream socialism. :shrug:

[el_bryanto]

106. and that's exactly my question

I mean I've been to Europe - I know they've reached place where they have strong government regulation and social services alongside a certain amount of personal freedom. But I also know what the end game of socialism is, at least in theory.

Bryant

[patrice]

188. With basic needs met by socialism, many will become beer, clothing, or other-type of entrepreneurs.

[Greyhound]

122. So a minimum wage, let alone a living wage, is a bad thing in your opinion? n/t

[el_bryanto]

131. No - a minimum wage isnt' a bad thing

But beyond that i'm for workers having the freedom to work where they want, and management, within reason, to employ who they want.

Bryant

[Greyhound]

134. "within reason" What is reasonable, in your estimation? n/t

[el_bryanto]

202. well they shouldn't be able to eliminate unions and they shouldn't be able to discriminate

against minorities.

Edited to add - yes i blew it and put should be allowed to discriminate against minorities - but i meant shouldn't.

Bryant

[Greyhound]

240. Well, then we have the government involved and that's how it starts.

preventing discrimination against age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation; unionization, working conditions, safety, etc., all come from a socialistic base, that being, that society takes precedence over personal gain and that people are more important than money.

[el_bryanto]

241. Yes but who decides who works where within that framework?

How far are you willing to go towards a society where society takes precedence over personal gain. What if I want to study as a chef but society really needs more data entry drones?

Bryant

[Greyhound]

244. My answer would be that it is your choice. If society needs more data entry

operators than are doing it, then the position needs to be more attractive.

Forcing a chef to do data entry is counter productive, and is one of the biggest problems we have in this nation today.

[maryf]

236. FOOD!!! Private????

The third thing all people need to live? Air, water, then food??? Oh and I guess shelter has to stay private...can't have public housing :sarcasm:

[frebrd]

21. Not a damn thing wrong with it!

I tend to think that Socialism is especially good in areas where it is most profitable for business to be involved (like health care, energy production/distribution). Those are the areas where The People get ripped off most egregiously.


Edited for clarity.

[immoderate]

6. Good question.

I think the problem is it would inhibit the capability of the rulers to exploit the populace.

--imm

[Brewman_Jax]

7. After fighting private insurance

to get them to cover my father for long-term recovery at the nursing home (he fell and broke his leg, and he's 77) and they cut the coverage at 40 days. After wrestling with appeals and paperwork with my mother, it's been an absolute nightmare. I say socialize it. :thumbsup:

[billyoc]

8. Nothing.

[ismnotwasm]

10. Ditto n/t

[subcomhd]

9. I'll take the health care - but they can keep the

IKEA furniture.

[LuckyTheDog]

16. Seems reasonable (nt)

[sutz12]

12. It eliminates revenue streams.

Corporatists are all about leverage. They make the most money when they control vital services and charge top dollar for them. Any service deemed vital to the populace (like medical care) should be socialized and the profit motive removed from it.

[Wizard777]

13. The guys at the top of the socialist ladder get the Ice Cream.

The guys at the bottom of the ladder get the stick. So we need to ensure that our http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb40FtK316s">Ice Cream Man is stationed on the ground instead of the roof. It's really that simple. To all the critics, FUCK YOU! From Baltimore the City That Heals with Love.

[Birthmark]

14. Nothing

Socialism is merely another economic tool. However, a religion has grown up around Capitalism. Anyone who says that Capitalism isn't the niftiest, neato, bestest idea in history that will solve all of our ills is labeled a heretic by the wonderfully uninformed screeching adherents of this bizarre religion.

[patrice]

15. Yes, what's bad about a Social Contract that says: The group has responsibilities to its individual

members?

Are we, as individual persons, supposed to be part of some group called the U.S.A. and receive nothing in return for our participation in that group's various systems? Just give away our birth-rights as free autonomous individuals for nothing?

That's NOT good economics. In fact, it's not good Capitalism to invest one's self, real values like one's time, energy, labor, resources, one's future and NOT specify what return one expects on that investment doesn't make sense. Even Adam Smith said that Labor is a real value. Money isn't real value, so it isn't a valid return on the investment of real values like Labor.

What is it that makes a group (nation) a group (nation)? but the agreements amongst it's members as to what it is that the collective entity will provide to individuals for their membership and participation in the group (nation)?

What regressive types resist in the concept of socialism, in its many many variations, is that collective "Us" that is the result of an agreement between individuals and a collective about what their relationship consists of, without that agreement, we are NOT a nation.

So what's so bad about Socialism, according to some it must be bad because it creates something called "We the People".

[backtoblue]

17. It's Soooo not capitalism

You know, fair and all... :hi:

nt

[county worker]

19. I don't want socialism. I guess a lot depends on where you are on the economic ladder.

I think this a lot like the idea that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. To many socialism seems to be the answer to their troubled lives.

For some socialism improves their lot in life but for others it has the opposite effect. I like the idea, the harder you work the better off you are. I know that isn't as black and white as it sounds but still there is some truth there.


There needs to be social safety nets be we don't all have to be reduced to or brought up to the same standards.

I do like the idea of Democratic Socialism. It contains the idea of social justice. I don't believe there is an idyllic social system and socialism is not a solution to what our country is going through now. We need to improve upon what we have now and not through the baby out with the bath water.

You know, conservatives, even though we loath them, have as much right to their beliefs as liberals do and they will try equally hard to put their dogmas into place just as we we do ours. It is a tug of war that is not perfect by any means but I think it is better than socialism where one theory reigns supreme.

No I don't want socialism in this country ever.

[elehhhhna]

23. Are you really a county worker? The irony here is killing me.

[county worker]

31. Please explain

What I do helps to provide the social safety net that I said I believe should exist. I see no irony there.

[elehhhhna]

36. I get it, now -- these comments sseemed weird to me :

To many socialism seems to be the answer to their troubled lives.

For some socialism improves their lot in life but for others it has the opposite effect. I like the idea, the harder you work the better off you are. I know that isn't as black and white as it sounds but still there is some truth there.



...but you are evidently speaking from hands-on real world job experience. How does socialism not improve someone's lot in life, though?

[county worker]

69. Someone who is well off or owns a means of production is not better off with socialism

[elehhhhna]

80. Ya think? My familly in Holland owns a few very successful companies...

and they are better off WITH nationalized medical, etc., than without.

Be assured they still have plenty of money.

[county worker]

94. I'm thinking of a totally socialized society. Not just one aspect of it.

I agree that some things should not be part of the profit motive meme. Health insurance companies are the enemy of good health care for example.

Yet for those who can pay for the best health care, a single payer system where everyone gets the same level of care would not be better off with socialized medicine.

[elehhhhna]

96. are you sure you aren't thinking of communism?

[county worker]

116. I'm thinking of the following from Wikipedia

Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.

[Selatius]

162. The definition is so vague as to be useless. Allow me to demonstrate.

"public or collective" could mean anything between a labor co-op, which is a firm owned and operated by its employees to a state-run enterprise, such as the US Postal Service. There, the workers aren't explicitly the owners of such an enterprise, but they voted in people who established it and oversaw it.

"more egalitarian" according to whom? How does one define "more" here? Certainly, a CEO who is only getting paid 100 times the wage of the lowest entry level worker is a situation that is more egalitarian than one where the CEO gets 500 times that, which is pretty much the typical situation on Wall Street today. What if he only gets 20 or 30 times the wage? Definitely more egalitarian, but some people would say it should be no more than 5 or 10 times the wage. Who decides?

Are you beginning to see the vagueries in the definition?

[jody]

178. Agree see #145. n/t

[patrice]

195. "Collective ownership" can still be in partnership with other entities, private and otherwise. nt

[patrice]

192. Explain HOW persons will not be able to develope themselves.

What is it about socialism that INTRINSICALLY prevents self advancement?

I see it as the opposite; it will free many people who otherwise would never have had the opportunity to develope their talents, skills, ideas etc., because they were too busy paying for health care or couldn't afford a complete education.

[patrice]

194. Specifically how are they not better off? Details please.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. I know, right?

:shrug:

[readmoreoften]

151. Yes. Precisely. Your views depend on where you stand on the 4 rungs of the economic ladder.

And where you stand on the economic ladder depends on if you are extracting labor value from workers and peasants or whether you are having value being extracted from you. And that depends on whether or not you were born into a banking/industrial family line or serve one. The three classes are:

1) Banking/Industrial burgher class from the 16th century who melded with the monarchies to create multinational capitalism and banking.
2) The professional classes and petit bourgeois (small business owners with big bank loans) who serve them as lawyers and professionals
3) The working class who makes everything and serves everyone--from baristas to teachers to community doctors to miners to factory workers to soldiers to web designers to call center operators.
4) The now-destitute working class who have been discarded by the capitalist system: the unemployed, the drug addicts, the adult transsexuals who are denied jobs and transgendered youth who are thrown out of their homes, the mentally ill.

In a socialist society, rungs #1 and #4 are abolished and rungs #2 and #3 meld through educational reform to make an educational society.

People in #1 and those in #2 who've kissed ass for power and stepped on people don't want to give up their ill gotten gains. Unfortunately the ideologically brain-washed in group #3 support #1 and #2. But the socially aware of the #2 class and the #3 class want a better world.

When you say "conservatives have a right to their beliefs" if you mean that conservatives right to put their beliefs in action then you are saying that conservative practices are more important than the survival of LGBT people, workers, and (considering the environmental havoc they wreak) the human race itself.

[patrice]

197. Well! and suscinctly put!

:applause:

[patrice]

189. So, county worker, are your wages/salary paid by Taxes? nt

[patrice]

190. Apparently, your definition of socialism is "Everything is done in one way and one way only for

Everyone." This is a very naive definition of socialism.

[jody]

20. Perhaps you should ask the Russians and Chinese. n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

22. That's communism.

I was asking about socialism.

[jody]

26. No, that's socialism. n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

39. Wrong

See: Scandinavia

[jody]

55. OP "what's so bad about socialism?" You might visit links at wiki's "Socialism" & "Communism" to

learn the background of your question.

[LeftishBrit]

42. Only as much as Islam = the Taliban, or Christianity = the Inquisition

Russia under Stalinism and China under Maoism were quasi-theocracies, with socialism chosen as the official ideology. Socialism became grotesquely distorted by its use in the cause of maintaining the leaders' power, just as Islam has been grotesquely distorted in the cause of maintaining the power of the rulers in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Socialist democratic, non-theocratic governments such as those of Scandinavia have done pretty well.

[jody]

62. There are significant differences between competing economic systems that deal with the natural

world and competing religious systems that deal with the supernatural if such a thing exists.

Perhaps however you see no difference between the natural and supernatural. :shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

107. I see lots of differences between the natural and supernatural

(and I don't even believe in the latter!)

However I DON'T see much fundamental difference between the ways that dictators use ideologies of different sorts to maintain power. Some use supernatural ideologies; some use economic ideologies; almost all use patriotism and fear of foreigners.

The ideologies differ in all kinds of ways. Dictators' mechanisms for exploiting ideologies differ much less.

My point is that you cannot equate almost *any* ideology, political system, or belief with the distorted form that it takes when exploited by a dictatorship. (Fascism is an exception, as it was developed for the purpose of fulfilling dictatorial ambitions in the first place.)

[jody]

118. Reply to one theme in your post, when a central committee determines what goods and services

will be produced and the price of those items, that is pure dictatorship.

Would you support a central committee dictating whether people like you and I can use either Democratic Underground or Free Republic or some unholy blend of the two?

It's not sufficient to say such things will never happen because they do.

[LeftishBrit]

147. 'Socialism' in democratic countries does not mean that...

Do you honestly think that in Sweden and Finland a central committee decides what goods and services can be produced? Do you think it happened in the UK under Clem Attlee or Harold Wilson?

[jody]

149. What definition of socialism are you using? See #145. n/t

[Thothmes]

168. Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics.

They saw themselves as socialists.

[Greyhound]

221. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

So did the Nazi Party, it still didn't make them socialist.

[Thothmes]

246. They also had socialized health care, old age insurance

and socialized educational systems in place.

[endarkenment]

58. The OP explicitly referenced the Scandinavian Democratic Socialist version

but perhaps you believe there is no difference between totalitarian marxist leninist communism and democratic socialism?

[One_Life_To_Give]

81. But Norway and Scandinavia also have Captialism

They are hardly Pure Socialist states with all of the means of production owned exclusively by the people.

[endarkenment]

97. Where does the OP demand this so called 'pure' socialism?

We don't have 'pure' capitalism, nor does anyone else. Your argument is bogus. Socialism, as in democratic socialism, as in the many examples of democratic socialism in a mixed economy in current advanced nations, works just fine and produces superior, quantitatively superior, quality of life measurements for the people of those nations.

[One_Life_To_Give]

109. Title?

So, what's so bad about socialism?

Granted in the body it makes reference to as couple places that have a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. Guess thats about the same as saying whats so bad about Christianity it works for France.

Sweden and Norway implement some Socialist policies. But their economy (Which is what Socialism and Capitalism are about) is basically Capitalist.

[endarkenment]

113. There is no such reference to this pure socialism you demand.

Instead the OP explicitly refers to the modern mixed system social democracies of Scandinavia. You have invented this straw dog of pure socialism in order to attack the OP. How about trying an honest argument instead?

[One_Life_To_Give]

123. Title References Socialism period.

And as a supporting argument, not a modifier, references how happy Norwegians and Scandinavians are.

If the intent was to ask
"What is so bad about the policies of the Social Democrats in Norway and Sweden" then it was not clear in the OP. (For the record shutting down Nukes prematurly only to replace the energy with fossile fuel burning is a mistake IMHO)

[endarkenment]

140. Correct.

OP does not demand this 'pure socialism' being attacked.
OP does give examples of mixed economy democratic socialist nations.

Attacks on the OP based on the horrors of stalinist systems are bullshit.

[jody]

91. OP subject re socialism in general and used two special cases. It's laughable to think that Sweden

and Norway and their experience with economic systems in any way can be generalized to answer "what's so bad about socialism?"

[endarkenment]

99. it is only laughable if you need to dismiss all of the many good

examples of modern social democracies with mixed economic systems in order to make your argument. Otherwise you are forced to deal with the simple fact that the european advanced industrialized nations with mixed economies and a strong social democratic political movement have superior systems to ours.

[jody]

103. OP asked "what's so bad about socialism?" You have retreated to trying to find special cases where

one or more countries have had good experiences with one or more programs but that in no way answers the question you posed in the OP subject.

If one finds one or more countries that have had good experiences with one or more programs under capitalism does that prove the efficacy of capitalism?

[endarkenment]

105. OP explicitly pointed to the European social democracies.

And you are off pointing at Joe Stalin.

Go figure.

[jody]

112. Sorry, OP subject an unlimited question "what's so bad about socialism?"

Why don't you start a new thread asking what's wrong with "you specify certain programs" that have been managed as socialist by Sweden and Norway?

Perhaps you would like a central planning committee to dictate what your labor is worth without regard to your unique capabilities or performance?

I wonder how many professional athletes would go for professional sports under socialism?

[endarkenment]

114. No that is not what the OP did.

That is the strawman you have raised.

[jody]

119. ROFL, "strawman" when the OP author posed the question, not me and chose to place "?" not I. n/t

[endarkenment]

138. OP explicitly pointed to the European social democracies.

OP never used the term "pure socialism".

Have a nice day.

[jody]

141. OP asked "what's so bad about socialism?" What Russia/China tried and failed at is the answer. n/t

[Greyhound]

88. Neither of those nations were Communist (or Socialist) except in name.

And both totalitarian police states came about as a reaction to the horrible conditions imposed by their respective parasite classes.

You want to try again?

[jody]

92. Why? OP asked "what's so bad about socialism?" and clearly Russia/China have the most extensive

experience with "socialism".

Do "You want to try again?"

[Greyhound]

101. Again, they were/are both totalitarian police states that merely called themselves Communist

in order to impose their respective military regimes on their citizens. Your position is akin to hailing Haiti as a model democracy because Baby Doc Duvalier was "elected" Dictator for Life.

[jody]

104. Again, OP asked "what's so bad about socialism?" Whether socialism is imposed by a benevolent or

tyrannical dictator ignores the simple fact that a central agency decides what goods and services will be produced and thereby available to its citizens.

That destroys a cherished inalienable/unalienable right to decide what goods and services a person wants to consume.

[endarkenment]

110. China is a totalitarian capitalist state.

So it seems the inevitable end result of true capitalism is totalitarian capitalism where we are all free to decide what to produce and consume but not free at all to speak about it or otherwise conduct our own affairs.

[jody]

121. Please cite specific examples where China dictates what products will be produced for sale in the US

under your supposed "totalitarian capitalist state".

Last time I checked consumer demand determines what products Wal-Mart sells and therefore buys from Chinese factories.

[endarkenment]

137. please misread everything I write and create arguments based on your misreading

China is a totalitarian capitalist state. Agree or disagree?

[jody]

143. China under Mao was a socialist state copying Russia. Both experiments with socialism failed and

capitalism replaced socialism.

[Greyhound]

115. Socialism, or Communism for that matter, has nothing to do with dictatorships, that's the point.

The fact that two militaristic dictatorships called themselves Communist doesn't make them Communist.

Are you just being purposely obtuse, or do you really not comprehend the difference?

[jody]

125. Are you contending that in the 20th century Russia/China did not own the means of production

and its central committees determined what goods and products would be produced and the price of those items?

[Greyhound]

127. So the answer is purposely obtuse.

You are going to have to get much better at framing your strawmen, unless of course you're working to become a talk jock on reich-wing radio, but the competition is pretty fierce.

Have fun.
:hi:

[jody]

129. Have a blissful day.

:hi:

[readmoreoften]

156. No, he's contending that that isn't socialism OR communism.

Socialism is when WORKERS decide who makes stuff and why, not bureaucracies or "central committees." Elected officials in a communist system--by definition are supposed to be instantly recallable by the people. If it ain't run by the people doing the work, it ain't socialism. A new class society of nomenklatura making decisions and workers toiling to benefit a national power structure has nothing to do with communism or socialism or Leninism for that matter.

China has been a PURELY capitalist society since 1976 when Deng Xao Peng took over. China is a totalitarian capitalist society with, in fact, almost no welfare reforms. I mean, I could call my town Communist but that doesn't make it reality. Is OPEC communist because they fix the price of oil?

Socialism is about the people who work and make the material wealth of a society owning and running the society. Capitalism is about people of wealthy lineages, bankers, math manipulators, and con artists owning and running a society for themselves--usually using the hey day of peasant farming and small market business as an ideological cover for their vast empire of global wealth.

Russia was in a period of reaction after 1924. And China has been an open market for quite some time. Nothing have a damn thing to do with the Bolshevik revolution.

[jody]

163. Perhaps you should readmoreoften and try to understand what you read. A place to start is

Fordham University's Internet Modern History Sourcebook on Socialism.

Have a blissful day. :hi:

[Greyhound]

170. Could this be what passes for intellectualism in Alabama?

Beating your head against a brick brain.:banghead:

[jody]

173. LOL, obviously you have already incurred irreversible damage. n/t

[newspeak]

235. I agree with you

and that's how my professor defined it. An agrarian oligarchy that "used" communistic idealogies for maintaining control of the populace. No country has ever been purely socialistic. Most countries with a socialistic bent have some form of balance between socialism and capitalism. I'd say that within the last ten years of this country, parts of our government have done everything to attempt to privatize services that should be socialized or stay socialized. Why? Because a corporation only thinks of its profit margin-it usually doesn't give damn about the services it renders (especially under a government contract). So, if they can increase their bottom line for Wall street, they'll service a few less meals to prisoners, create more prisoners, serve tainted water and food to soldiers and build buildings that should be condemned. Let me know if those who allegedly raped and then detained the KBR worker has received any punishment or have they been charged for the electrocution of our soldiers? It is our money that provides services to the country--when a contract is given to a private corporation, it seems that there is less accountability to "we the people."

I was employed at Social Security and I remember if a file was "red flagged" that meant that someone in Congress was involved on that case--because the claimant had made a plea to their congresscritter. It became a number one priority to expedite or look at the claim. Can you imagine if SSA was privatized? I bet they wouldn't give a damn about any of the claimants.

I met a woman from Luxembourg who told me she was amazed that America didn't seem to care for their children. She told me that as soon as a child was born, the government gave funds to help raise the child because their children were their treasure, their future. What a different mindset they have compared to ours. I've heard people complain about paying taxes for education--"I don't have any kids or my kids are grown, so why should I have to pay for someone else's kids." These kids are the ones who may one day grow up to care for you or save you--or if they live in poverty and are desperate, they may be the one's who rob you. That is why a social network is important--it is in our own best selfish interest because "when everyone does well, everyone does well." Crime decreases, addictions decrease, mortality rates decrease, poverty decreases.

[Greyhound]

243. Most of the people I've ever met from elsewhere have been far more sane than nearly all

of the Americans I've known. We are a sick people that have created a sick, anti-social, society. We are selfish to the point of self destruction and resist acknowledging it with a religious zeal.

[KingFlorez]

108. Try reading a book

There is a big difference between socialism and communism. Oh, I forgot, certain types of people choose to not see the difference.

[jody]

126. Please list the difference between socialism & communism regarding ownership of means of production

and central committees determining what goods and services will be produced and the price of those items.

[KingFlorez]

142. Socialism doesn't go anywhere as far as Communism does

Communism is most of the time zero private ownership, while Socialism allows for private ownership and only has stake in part of industry and provides some services to the people. They are related partially, but are still two entirely different things.

[jody]

145. What definition of the end state of a nation's economy under socialism are you using?

You might wish to refer to Fordham University's bibliography Internet Modern History Sourcebook on Socialism.

[KingFlorez]

196. That's how most countries with Socialist systems in Europe operate

I'm not going to argue about this anyway, it's obvious you have your own version of the truth.

[jody]

198. There can be no "truth" as long as socialism is not defined. The posts in this thread suggest few

agree on the definition of the economic system called "socialism".

[jody]

199. Dupe deleted. n/t

[readmoreoften]

155. Stalinism was reactionary state capitalism and had zero to do with the Bolshevik revolution

which pretty much invented our public schooling system, community colleges, literacy programs, and day care. Under Lenin, homosexuality was legal and so was gay marriage and abortion and sex reassignment surgery. Russian workers lived under better conditions than under the czar or the brief reign of Menshevik betrayers--even though they were immediately fighting the imperialist armies of 7 nations (including the US) after the 1917 revolution. Talk about total decimation of resources. If anything, it was a failure of the working classes of the world to stand down and refuse to fight the new USSR.

Stalin took over after Lenin's death against Lenin's explicit suggestions. He did this by killing every person involved in the Revolution. He outlawed abortion, recriminalized homosexuality, introduced the nationalist fever of "socialism in one country", and purged anyone who disagreed. That's not the "natural outcome" of a workers state. That's a totalitarian takeover of a war-decimated population by a dictator who took the resources for himself and his nomenklatura.

And as far as China is concerned--what worked better? THE NATIONALIST-FASCIST WARLORD CHANG KEI-SHEK? The guy whose totalitarian army blew the heads of unionists and workers in the streets? Sure Maoism was another failed nationalist perversion of the original workers' movement. But are the people of China doing better under the corrupt totalitarian capitalists of China now (It hasn't even been a Communist Party since 1975!) It's the damn Communists leading the democracy movement there! Hello! :crazy: Is Russia even better off under global capitalism as opposed to the state capitalist nationalism after Stalin? No. It's a material fact that the Russian people are worse off, that there is major repression, and that the nation is run by brutal thugs and mafioso.

Please. :eyes:

[Ian David]

28. The Republicans say that American Democrats are Socialists.

If that's true, then I guess Socialism isn't so bad after all.

Thank you, Republicans, for convincing 68% of Americans to embrace Socialism!

[timeforpeace]

29. Always wondered if the much smaller populations of those countries had something to do the success.

Edit to add: plus the lack of gargantuan military forces that use up so much of our available federal dollars?

[jody]

37. Don't discard their homogeneous population and common heritage. n/t

[proteus_lives]

30. Shouldn't build on another model.

What works for a small, homogeneous country like Sweden or Norway won't work for the US. I think we need to mix capitalism and socialism for something uniquely American.

[Hannah Bell]

56. sweden & norway are capitalist.

[IDFbunny]

85. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism aren't absolute

Socialism allows for a mixed public/private economy so Sweden and Norway are socialist because their government controls the economy much more than the US Govt controls its economy.

[philly_bob]

32. Socialism not = Command Economy, Socialism = safety net

Talked to a member of a socialist political party once, and asked him how he refuted the arguments for the superiority of capitalism based on the "invisible hand" of markets, the way free markets get the hippest t-shirts on the street, the most interesting books (with potential buyers) published, how free markets often come up with innovative new products, etc.

He said that free markets were not uniquely capitalist. A socialist economy can have free markets. He didn't want to have the government "commanding" which books are printed, which bands get record contracts, and which products are made.

I had the impression that to him, socialism just meant having a much, much larger social & economic safety net for those who need help.

[patrice]

219. not = = =/=

[paulsby]

33. it works poorly

it crushes entrepreneurial spirit and disempowers people. i'm for socialized medicine, btw. i am not for outright socialism. and neither sweden nor norway HAS true socialism by any measure. lots of private ownership in both countries. both countries have a higher tax burden but significantly more services provided, and guaranteed. it's a tradeoff. but it's not socialism.

[Posteritatis]

35. Perhaps it's not a one-or-the-other thing like most of its opponents suggest, then (nt)

[paulsby]

41. no. it's a continuum

most of the opponents admit that. some certainly don't. sweden is definitely closer to socialism, just like hong kong or singapore are closer to true capitalism than the US

[Posteritatis]

53. Most of its opponents I've seen tend to be one-percenters like that

Look at most of the GOP in the States, who would seriously argue that raising the taxes on the highest income brackets by one dollar a year is ethically identical to Stalin's destruction of the kulaks. People can get pretty hysterical in their attempts to ignore the existence of that continuum at all.

[paulsby]

59. people on both sides of the aisle do that

i see people on the left, for example, whinge about "unregulated capitalism" when that's just as stupid an argument. we don't have anything CLOSE to unregulated capitalism. try starting a business and tell me witha straight face that we have "unregulated capitalism" or start trading securities.

people on both sides of the aisles can be ninnies in that regards. most partisans only see it from the other side, which is a typical result of political bias.

[devilgrrl]

49. "crushes entrepreneurial spirit and disempowers people"

Bullshit.

:nuke:

[paulsby]

51. well there's a cogent argument

lol.

[devilgrrl]

52. And your assertions are a joke. Give us a few examples of Socialism CRUSHING the entreprenurial...

spirit.


:popcorn:

[paulsby]

57. well let's see

lets see all those wonderful innovations that came from the USSR, bulgaria, east germany etc.

the joke of the USSR and the eastern bloc in general, was how miserably behind the times they were in terms of technology. here's a hint. technology improves with innovation. are you seriously contending that the level of scientific and industrial advancement in socialist countries came anywhere near ours and western europes?

do you study history or ignore it?

for pete's sake, at the peak of their power, USSR didn't even have adequate PHONE systems.

[devilgrrl]

63. We're talking SOCIALISM (Sweden/Western Europe) not COMMUNISM - Jesus! What an idiot!

Do you study history?

:crazy:

[paulsby]

64. do you study terminology

you can call failed socialism communism all you want. doesn't change the reality.

sweden, for example is social democracy. they also have pretty high PRIVATE ownership #'s and are thus NOT socialist countries.

so, if you had referred to social democracies, that's entirely different.

socialism cannot exist with high levels of private ownership, which sweden has. sweden is certainly MORE socialist than we are. but heck, we are more socialist than singapore. doesn't make the US system socialist. geeeeeeez

[devilgrrl]

66. The OP is referring to SOCIALISM that is known in Skandinavia and Canada - and you twisted it around

eom

[paulsby]

67. because it's not socialism

canada? canada is many things, but it aint a socialist country. "sovient canuckistan" references aside. who are you? pat buchanan?

[devilgrrl]

71. So what you're saying is that communism and socialism are the same thing?

You're an idiot - now shut up.

Oh, and please tell us how SOCIALISM crushes the entrepreneurial spirit. You haven't answered that one yet.

:popcorn:

[paulsby]

76. no,i'm saying terminology matters

socialism does NOT involve the private ownership of capital and means of production. canada has that in spades. it is NOT a socialist country. first you have to actually understand the terms you are using. clearly, you do not. hth

[devilgrrl]

79. How does SOCIALISM crush the "entrepreneurial spirit"???

I'm going to keep asking you that question until you answer it. And don't feed us this bullshit about the former Soviet Union.

:popcorn:

[One_Life_To_Give]

89. Socialism - People collectively own the means of production

By definition the Economic model Socialism is defined by

system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

And an Entrepreneur is someone who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise.

Under socialism the entire population is "The" Entrepreneur. That is Congress or it's designates would organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise.

[patrice]

213. But that isn't necessarily 100% of the ownership and control. Collectives are not the sole

owners and controllers, that's Communism.

[One_Life_To_Give]

227. Websters disagrees

so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
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

Norway, Sweden etc. would be more properly classified as a Hybrid economic system incorporating both Socialistic and Capitalistic principals and policies, IMO.

[readmoreoften]

153. You're confusing socialism with social democratic reform parties and states.

High taxation of workers to provide better benefits for all is social democratic reformism championed by states like Sweden, the Menshevik party in Russia. Socialism is a worker's state run by workers in collectives: soviets, shura councils (in Iran), collectives in English. The USSR was a "Republic of Worker's Collectives." Communism is the end stage of socialist revolution when the state withers away because it doesn't need to manage antagonism between rich and poor. Stalin and Mao were reactionary nationalist movements that reinstated class society and crushed worker self-determination.

Why can't "entrepreneurs" just work at tinkering on their own? Most inventors really like inventing, they're not out to 'get rich.' If they were all out to "get rich" there'd be no science professors inventing in labs, no novelists or poets.

[devilgrrl]

203. Thanks for the info.

:-)

[paulsby]

217. good response

in re entrepreneurs. money is a great motivator. so is fame, fortune, wimmins, etc. all inspirations for people to build the better mousetrap. in a true socialist system, those incentives don't exist.

and your reference to novelists and poets is also kind of funny. you are aware that when the socialists took over in most instances, among the first group of people they either jailed, killed, or ran out were intellectuals, to include novelists and poets. do you really want to compare censorship in socialist societies vs. capitalist societies? cmon.

[Flaneur]

124. Hey, the USSR gave us the world's largest transistor...

...and other marvels of technology.

They did beat us into space, however.

[readmoreoften]

158. And they decriminalized homosexuality and abortion in 1920. 83 and 53 years before the US,

respectively. They also legalized same-sex marriage until Stalin destroyed everything in 1924. It's kind of hard to fault them for not being "innovative enough" in the period from 1917 to 1924. After all, they'd just lost 50% of their male population in WWI and went on to lose more fighting the imperialist armies that invaded after the October Revolution: Great Britian, the US, Japan, Germany, etc.

They accomplished a lot considering their conditions.

[TBF]

60. Remind me again why we love "entrepreneurial spirit" -

getting ahead by stepping on others, valuing slave labor, living at an obscene level while others starve to death, etc the list goes on and on. For the life of me I cannot understand why this is a good thing.

[devilgrrl]

68. He's not going to answer. He'll just related it with Joseph Stalin or some shit.

eom

[endarkenment]

61. Ah - no true socialism - of course.

'It' works poorly, but then again all the real world examples that work quite well, thank you, aren't 'it'. This is the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. Try again with a more compelling argument please.

[Greyhound]

90. Have you ever read "The Wealth of Nations"?

You really should. The system Smith created is based and depends upon a base of what we would call socialism. A foundational base where the entire people's basic needs are met and capitalism works from that base to expand the potential production and generation of wealth.

[patrice]

208. Wealth of Nations: And in which Labor is a REAL value and money isn't nt

[Greyhound]

239. That's another very large and important factor of the theory.

I didn't expect an answer from this one, but thank you for noticing.

It's so like most of the self-professed Christians that don't even know what's in their own book.

[patrice]

204. Un-regulated Capitalism also crushes entrepreneurial spirit and disempowers people by means of

mass marketed brainwashing that generates forms of political oppression against which many of the already somewhat disadvantaged don't stand a chance. Yeah all of us can stand around and exhort them to "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and satisfy ourselves that it is their fault if they don't, but it still does little good, and indeed only contributes to vicious in-equities that enslave ALL of us, to expect self-booting from the boot-less.

[Rex]

34. Nothing if used wisely.

I've not found a problem with types of governments, just the assholes who are in charge of said governments mostly.

[NAO]

40. You don't have to be Einstein to know that Socialism is the best way...

...but Einstein in fact was openly and fully dedicated to the ideal of Socialism. He wrote a detailed piece for the Socialist magazine "Monthly Review". Here's an excerpt that (I think) fits into quote guidelines, with a link to the full article.


Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

"Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is."

"Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist."

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

[jody]

93. Einstein supported development and use of the atomic bomb. Could he have right or wrong

on both the atomic bomb and socialism or perhaps right on one and wrong on the other but which way?

[Greyhound]

144. He did in 1939 in reaction to his fear that the Nazis were working on their own, however

he declined to participate in the "Manhattan Project" and, after the bombing of Japan, spoke out against them, arguing that they were unjustified and motivated by U.S.-Soviet politicking. With the benefit of hindsight, he regretted having urged an atomic weapons' program. IOW, he made a mistake and did what he could to correct it.

He never had any such revelation with regard to socialism and, while he was surely a beneficiary of American capitalism, he saw that it was inherently wrong even during it's heyday and he worked to change it. His advocacy of Socialism even brought him into the sights of Senator Joe McCarthy and the HUAC, yet he persisted to voice his support for what he recognized as a superior way.

[jody]

146. Einstein supported use of the bomb before he opposed it. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

44. Nothing.

[LWolf]

47. Nothing. nt

[harun]

48. It goes against the prime directive: "inequality for all"

[Ardent15]

70. It goes against the corporate fascism that conservatives want

If we had socialism, the greedy assholes who are the power behind the capitalist subjugation of society would be defeated.

[DailyGrind51]

74. We pay nearly as much in taxes as they do, when you combine state, local, and federal taxes,

yet we don't enjoy guaranteed health coverage or secure pensions, like they do!

[One_Life_To_Give]

75. In it's pure form?

Not that Sweden nor Norway fit as Pure Socialist states.

Trying to get 300million plus people to agree on anything makes for a cumbersome and unwieldy situation. Reaction to change can be slow and pioneering efforts can be delayed/discouraged. And I have yet to see a large scale example that hasn't run into major problems from over-centralization of control.

[KansDem]

77. I say socialism for health care, education, and energy...

Capitalism is fine for hamburgers, CDs, and surfboards...

[Greyhound]

95. Exactly. How about we just use it as directed in the Preamble of The Constitution?

"...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,..."

Sounds like law, education, health care, and the military should all be equally accessible regardless of the size of one's bank account. Education and health care would fall under both domestic tranquility and general welfare.

BTW, banks are another area that has been perverted to work against the common good, but that's another thread.

[blindpig]

78. Neither Sweden nor Norway are socialist.

To be sure, they have incorporated many socialist welfare state features in their countries but that just makes them Welfare States. The capitalists are still in the house exploiting labor, though in a kinder, gentler fashion. And even that is in flux, 'socialism' is on the retreat in Scandinavia.The bastards will always come back for more, they don't give up, and thus there can be no 'mixed economy', not for long.

It might be said that Socialism or Communism is the absence of Capitalism.

[Yavin4]

83. In Democracies, Isn't Socialism Inevitable?

Capitalism, through its monetary power, can always escape regulations. Sure, in the 20th century, capitalism agreed to be tamed by labor union and govt regulations largely because of the economic collapse of the 1930s, but it was able to free itself from dealing with unions and regulations with the birth of Reganism in the 1980s.

Since Reagan, we've been living in a predatory capitalist system. Labor unions have been effectively dismantled, and govt regulations have been rolled back to what they were before the collapse in the 30s. In this environment, predatory capitalists have stolen everything, wages, benefits, home valuations, etc. Even the job creation engine has come to a screeching halt because of globalization.

In a predatory capitalist environment, doesn't a democracy resort to socialism?

[leftstreet]

87. First they came for the capitalism...and I gladly handed it over!

We've been confusing 'democracy' with 'capitalism' for so long, it's hard for people to see your point.

:thumbsup:

[Yavin4]

102. What Is There Left To Steal?

What more can the predatory capitalists steal?

[One_Life_To_Give]

111. Probably an Oscillator

Human nature seems to allow us to continually overshoot. So we oscillate between extremes, never able to truly settle out somewhere comfortably between the two extremes.

[datasuspect]

232. democracies devolve into fascism

[chaska]

86. There are better ways than Socialism....

Look up Distributism for a start.

In any situation rather than looking at B in preference to A, always find at least a third alternative to either. Or as John Michael Greer put it:

"Oversimplifying reality into two rigid categories is probably the most pervasive source of failed thinking in the modern world. One of these days I should post something about the Druid notion of ternary thinking; the basic practice is that when you encounter any classification of the world into two and only two sides (we call this a binary), think of a third option that isn't simply a compromise between them. With practice you get very good at noticing the blind spots that make binary thinking seem to make sense. Yes, you can then go on to look for a fourth, fifth, etc.!"

I WOULD URGE EVERYONE here to read 'What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?' by Philip Agre http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html. There is tremendous insight there.

[patrice]

214. I believe we are at an evolutionary crossroads re this matter of false dichotomies and

re mistaking words for the thing itself, i.e. mistakenly behaving as though words are the thing that the words actually only refer to. There's a great deal of difference between even the most valid words and reality.

[RedCloud]

98. It's the only way to survive in the future?

:shrug:

Like on Star Trek...

[Zavulon]

117. No incentive to work.

Seriously, if the state is going to take care of my room and board, why would I want to work?

[jody]

128. Come on it can't be that simple, can it? IMO yes. n/t

[Yavin4]

130. Because You'd Do Work That You Enjoy?

Maybe you'd paint? Maybe you'd write a play. Maybe you'd do academic research. Whatever. If your basic survival needs are met, wouldn't that free you to engage in activities that you'd enjoy.

A huge bulk of my career was spent doing mindless, meaningless work because I had to make the rent or pay back student loans. A monkey could have done my job, and I'm sure that there are millions of such jobs out there that people do merely to pay the bills.

Why not create a system wherein people could do work that they'd enjoy?

[Zavulon]

132. That's be a dream society. I could have any job I wanted?

I could be a professional skeet shooter or coin collector? A professional watcher of Frasier reruns and sporting events?

Seriously, if my basic survival needs are met from birth to death, I'm only going to spend my time doing stuff I like, as you suggested. Most of it doesn't pay. I, and everyone who has the same attitude towards not doing anything they don't want to do if they don't have to, would be drains on society.

I'm not against creating a system where everyone enjoys his or her work, I simply don't think it's even close to being possible. Someone has to handle sewage and garbage, a society needs its proctologists, and there are thousands and thousands of other jobs which are unpleasant (ever set foot in a sausage or dog food factory?).

Exactly how far do you think a society would go if everyone just did what they enjoyed?

[Yavin4]

133. There Are Garbage Collectors and Proctologists In Scandinavia?

See, you're making the classical assumption that in a socialist system there would be no incentives at all. The garbage collectors in a socialist system would get paid to do mundane work like being a janitor or garbage collector, and the proctologist would get compensated for their work as well.

Just because your basic survival needs are met that doesn't mean that there won't be incentives for work.

I can give you a personal example. Right now, I'm collecting UE, and my basic survival needs are being met. However, I'm still looking for work, and I am re-training for different work.

[readmoreoften]

160. Impossible! No incentive if room and board and health are covered! None I can think of!

:sarcasm:

We'd all sit around and play the video games we wouldn't have because they're not room and board and health. We'd be too busy watching the fancy-ass TV we've yet to work for.

:sarcasm:

Really? Really?!

How about we just worry about removing the incentives on exploiting other people to avoid work. Sheesh!

By the way most of the scientists I know do it because they want to own an island in Spain with naked women fanning them. They have little interest in finding cures for disease, being remembered when they die, or living a life of intellectual curiosity. (More sarcasm, by the way.)


:hi:

[jody]

148. Where "people could do work that they'd enjoy?" I meet many every day who enjoy doing nothing. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

165. J.K. Rowling is the product of a "socialist" system and England's willingness

to invest in her by providing her with an income and health-care, gave her the opportunity to write, nursing a cup of coffee in a cafe and looking after her own child. In America, she would have to accept a minimum wage job with no benefits and have someone look after her baby.

America's sick Puritan desire to punish the poor for their poverty denies us the possibility of a J.K. Rowling.

[jody]

176. Karl Marx lived more than half his life in England and is also a product of England's system. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

231. And, that is related to J.K. Rowling, how? (other than the country of residence)

[jody]

237. See "130. Because You'd Do Work That You Enjoy?" n/t

[Raineyb]

136. Really? And yet people in Scandinavia have jobs.

Seriously, your "reason" makes no sense.

[AndyfromNC]

154. And

as it has been said, Scandinavia is not "purely" socialist, and in fact, has a lot of capitalistic areas of it's economy.

Let's us assume for the moment, that every citizen of the US was to receive $80,000 per year from the government, regardless of anything else.

Any voluntary job you took could pay you on top of wha thte government gave you. How many people would clean bathrooms for $10.00 an hour? How many people would work hard on a farm to make 20,000 a year after expenses? I going to guess very few people.

[LAGC]

193. $80,000 is a bit unrealistic.

But try $12,000 ($1000/mo.) to cover just basic needs, and you provide a viable safety net while still providing incentive to work.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

174. Apparently you wouldn't, but then again, you thankfully are not representative

of the entire species or even Americans.

How many shitty doctors do we have practicing here because they can "get rich"? How many potentially great artists are fighting it out on the exchange floor to make money?

[LAGC]

191. Because it still costs money for things you enjoy doing.

Even if the base needs (housing and food) were covered, you still need money to go to the movies, drive around, and pretty much do anything of interest in this society of ours.

I don't see anything wrong with something like the BIG (Basic Income Guarantee, http://www.usbig.net/ ) of say $1000/mo. per individual or something, where the basic needs were met and you could still work and get paid ON TOP OF THAT to pay for the things you really want to do.

Would it mean some people would work less? Undoubtedly. But at the very least, it could allow some people to not have to work MULTIPLE JOBS and open up the labor market to more people who want FIRST jobs in the first place.

[patrice]

205. I work in a nursing home where there is no incentive for the residents to work and, guess what?

Most of them want to work.

I can't even imagine the bovine mentality of humanity in your universe.

[chrisa]

248. To buy other stuff.

The real problem, as I stated below, is whether there's incentive to get an education? If, in extreme "economic equality," a physician were to make as much as a fast food worker, very few people would become physicians. These are extremes (not the definition of Socialism, which is a broad term), though, and no government would ever become that extreme without collapsing long before.

[tbyg52]

150. Not a thing, especially for the necessities of life. nt

[Chisox08]

152. But but what about the insanely rich

they can't get as rich anymore. Think about the billionaires. :sarcasm:

[armyowalgreens]

167. Socialism beats the hell out of capitalism.

[Greyhound]

171. As predicted in this reply, all of the "soshulism is bad" replies invariably

try to depict the USSR and China as models of why their belief is justified.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6107953&mesg_id=6108703

[gorfle]

184. Which examples...

Which examples would you provide to show why soshulism is good?

[Greyhound]

245. How many would you like? How far back do you want to go?

As far as we know, almost all human cultures prior to the rise of the desert Death Gods 6,000 years ago, could only be described as socialistic.

Current examples were included in the OP.

[anigbrowl]

179. Sweden and Norway are not socialist. They're capitalist social democracies.

There is a big difference, and as long as we on the left keep saying socialism when what we actually mean is a functioning welfare state (taxes are a bit higher, in return for state-provided healthcare, education, decent unemployment insurance etc etc) then we're going to keep hitting a brick wall.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

180. Swedes and Norwegians aren't socialist

[patrice]

207. For the people in this thread who think Socialism will make people lazy, your assumptions are based

on people doing ANY work, a - n - y - t - h - i - n - g to get a paycheck, rather than work that makes best use of a person's inherent talents, skills, values, and aptitudes, in other words their own personal organic motivators, not just money. You have made this mistake because you are assuming that money is the measure of ALL values. It's not. And that's why some people may not work very hard at things that they don't care about.

[killbotfactory]

210. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what socialism is

I wonder if the ideas behind socialism were re-introduced under a different label if people actually debate them, instead of reacting instinctively to a term most of us have been conditioned to dislike?

[patrice]

212. Do check out The Wealth of Nations for one perspective on that question.

You can find it full text on the internet.

[AndyfromNC]

230. I think that there is no

doubt that different people in this thread have different definitions of what counts as "socialism".

So maybe someone needs to define the term.

The classic definition of socialism is where means of production are collectively owned, and the follow on is that the economy is managed collectively as well.

Most societies in Northern Europe are partially socialist and partially capitalist, as is our own. For the most part, a rationale debate is a debate of degrees. Should healthcare be fully socialized or partially? What about energy? Education? Automobiles?

[patrice]

211. All of the arguments against Socialism in this thread are based on the assumption that money has

REAL value and it very clearly does not. It's an arbitrary and abstract value controlled by private powers. Who offer us no choice in exchange for the very REAL value that LABOR brings to the table.

Where is the Freedom in a choice that is not a choice? Work for money or Work for . . . ? There is no choice here. And we're supposed to be motivated by this situation? Is it any wonder that those who oppose Socialism think it wouldn't work when they measure it by the Capitalist yardstick known as the dollar?

[troubledamerican]

222. Interstate Freeway System. Socialist. US economy would collapse without it. Overnight.

[troubledamerican]

223. Socialized health care for Congress, the military. Yawn. Shocking.

[troubledamerican]

224. Military is socialist. Fire department. Police. Municipal water. Got cholera?

[troubledamerican]

225. Socialism is already here. Emphasize the examples above. Stop utopianizing.

[eridani]

226. Some things belong in the public sphere. Other things don't.

Public goods--

HEALTH CARE!
Fire and police protection
Schools
Transportation infrastructure
Courts
Libraries
Parks and public spaces
Garbage collection and recycling

Consumer goods--

Consumer electronics
Household appliances and furnishings
Books and magazines
Movies
Restaurants
Clothing
Toys
Music

[jody]

238. Why use experience and facts against fantasy? n/t

[mogster]

229. The answer is yes

If you think socialism is any less marked by cronyism and secret networking than the Bush empire you just left, think again.

[Nederland]

242. It doesn't exist

That's what's wrong with it. Even in the two countries you mention, Norway and Sweden, more than half the means of production is held in private hands.

Really, this argument is rather tiresome. The whole Capitalism / Socialism argument was settled decades ago and both sides lost. The future is and always will be in mixed economies.

[chrisa]

249. Both in their purest forms.

Don't work. Pure socialism would require complete Government control and coordiation (not to mention hyper-efficiency and the abscence of greed and sell-outs, which will never happen). Pure Capitalism would cause a society to eat itself from the inside as Corporate monopolies take over, or charging people thousands for police and medical service, or controlling water sources to force people into submission. A mix of the two is the only option.

[chrisa]

247. Socialism is fine.

But only if the government doesn't restrict freedom in the name of it (e.g., telling people where they have to live, what jobs they have to get despite what they might be skilled in, economy-choking trade restrictions and protectionism, or less freedom), or destroy the economy (e.g., making a rule that Physicians must be paid the same as fastfood workers, pay caps / taxing people too much to the point that there's no incentive to go to college or continue with education, etc.). Those are extremes that have nothing to do with real Socialism (which is a broad term), but should not be done in the name of it.

Society will never be equal. If it seems like it is, that's only because the people with more power have made everybody dellusional into thinking that it is. There will always be an "upper class," which is completely unavoidable in a world where money is power.