Socialism: Good or Bad?

[Skeleon]

All I shall say on the subject is that using the one I've seen as most common, where it acts as a slider of government control with more power to the left and less to the right, both Fascism, Communism (in practice), and many forms of Socialism (again, in practice) fall on the extreme left side of the spectrum, while things like theoretical Communism (post re-distribution of wealth), "true" socialism and Anarchy exist on the far right.

No, you're mixing up authoritarian versus liberal and left-wing versus right-wing.
You can be authoritarian right (Nazis) as well as liberal right (a bit like Republicans in the USA) as well as authoritarian left (Communism as it was employed, not its theory) and liberal left (Social Democracy). And anything in between (Centrist for example, a bit like the Democrats in the USA). Right and left don't define the style of government but the ideology behind it.

 

[Kris015]

Awww dammit i thought it said "Skeletons: Good or Bad?"

 

[thel1st]

definately not, i like my xbox, i like choosing where i go to school i like majoring in what i want. I like my xbox360
notice the use of the word my
all material good will be stripped away and we'll get bare minimum
no thanks

 

[masakoz]

I WORK UP THE ASS!why should i pay for other peoples health care when there drinking carona .they will never make a decision to have a better life just becoue the government will take care of them

 

[Spitfire175]

There is no requirement in socialist doctrine for state-owned factories, restriction of civil rights and a compulsory army. What Communism and fascism had in common was totalitarianism. It's totalitarianism that will tend to lead to what you're referring to here, not socialism.

Furthermore, the fascists did not take ownership of factories - they left them in the hands of the existing owners. What they did do was direct industry so it served what the fascist leadership thought were the needs of the state, which is a very different thing from taking ownership of the industry.

Conscription has been used by pretty much every political system under the sun at some point, from pure democracy to dictatorships. It's prevalent in nations that need, want or fear they will have to fight wars, not an expression of left, centre or right wing politics.

The thing is, in the real world socialism will lead to a soviet style economy: the state owns the industry, there is no cpmpetition and the economy will slowly degrade. Civil right redutions are not the baseline in socialism, true, but real world examples have shown that socialism leads to a totalitarian goverment. And we're talking classic socialism here, as a base for economy. Nothing has ever been "pure socialism" (just like pure democracy has never existed), but close enough to say socialism alone will eventually fail.

A quote from Wikipedia (unless you present some other reliablr sources, don't argue here.)

"Communism is a a political ideology that seeks to establish a future, without social class, or formalized state structure, with social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal."

According to this, the soviet union had a socialism diven economy. We all know how well that turned out.

On the matter of Hitler and factories, it is true that the major industrial plants in Germany remained under private ownership, however, Belgian, Romanian, Czechoslovakian and Austrian industrial facilities were state owned when the nazis took over. (which had more to do with the lack of trust between the pervious, now dead, owners and NSDAP)

Conscription was the way of the world at one point. However every country that calls itself socialist, uses conscription. Other systems have mostly moved on.

 

[Mcupobob]

My god why is it always socilsim, is captlism really so bad?
captlism is captlism for all socilsim and commmunism is captilism for the goverment.

 

[Spitfire175]

again, learn to not be brainwashed. Soviet union was only even remotely communist during the first five years when Lenin was in charge. once Stalin took over it became fascism because that guy was nuts, and paranoid as fuck, and couldn't let anyone disagree with him. Seriously learn basic history please.

Yawn. Have you considered the possibility of you forgetting half of the truth? More than anything, socialism was an economical system for the Soviets. USSR wasn't fascist. Totalitarian communism, which it was, or Stalinism up to 1953, had very much the same characteristics as fascism. However the economy was communist, i.e. socialist as far as it goes. So USSR wasn't fascist. The "same shit, different moustache" thing was in effect, so it would seem logical to agrue it was, but killing people who disagreed was only half the story: how and where the people died of too much work too littel food is what defines what the system actually was.

During the Lenin era, communist ideology and socialist economy were the two defining elements of the Soviet Russia between 1917 and 1922. It showed that socialism on its own will fall over and that communism won't be an instant utopia. When Stalin took over, he made the economy even more socialist than it had been before. This led to the great famines on the 1920s and 30s.

BTW, you don't seem to be very polite, or a good debater for that matter. Callin people morons and resorting to "hurr, ya'll been brainwashed by soviet mind contol lazors, durr" really does not inspire confidense. And I see you got probation for saying "fu*k you" to someone. Right. I'm gonig to quit responding to your quotations, since a reasonable debate without personal insults isn't going to be an option. Have a good day.

 

[Mcupobob]

I haven't waded throught all the text yet but i'm going to corect wether hitler was a socialest or facist.
the italiens were the facist party hitler was in the socliest party, but was a croupet syestem.
OT the nazi party were the first to promote socialised health care in germany, to make it easier to sterilize people who were no racial perfect...
Not saying anything about its just that most right wing groups are compared to nazis.


sry about spelling I just took a muscle rexler

EDIT: not saying hitlar was a socilaest just he employed those belifes.

 

[Agema]

The thing is, in the real world socialism will lead to a soviet style economy: the state owns the industry, there is no cpmpetition and the economy will slowly degrade. Civil right redutions are not the baseline in socialism, true, but real world examples have shown that socialism leads to a totalitarian goverment. And we're talking classic socialism here, as a base for economy. Nothing has ever been "pure socialism" (just like pure democracy has never existed), but close enough to say socialism alone will eventually fail.

You are talking about socialism purely in terms of Marxism. You mean that Marxist economics don't work, and that Marxism leads to totalitarian government. In which case, I agree with you.

However, Marxism is merely a type of socialism. There is also non-Marxist socialism. We'd probably have seen a lot more non-Marxist socialism had not capitalist states (mainly the USA) and Marxist nations (mainly the USSR) diligently used their enormous power to crush every one they could when it appeared in weaker nations.

 

[Downfall89]

So is Australia, don't forget us. Our health care is pretty awesome, compared to the US of A's.

 

[Downfall89]

A mix is perfect. Out right Capitalism and out right Socialism doesn't work.

 

[Spitfire175]

You are talking about socialism purely in terms of Marxism. You mean that Marxist economics don't work, and that Marxism leads to totalitarian government. In which case, I agree with you.

However, Marxism is merely a type of socialism. There is also non-Marxist socialism. We'd probably have seen a lot more non-Marxist socialism had not capitalist states (mainly the USA) and Marxist nations (mainly the USSR) diligently used their enormous power to crush every one they could when it appeared in weaker nations.

Then we need to use not just the word socialism, but describe more carefully which type of socialism we mean. Just saying "socialism" refers to pure, simple, straightforward by the book socialism that is the failed attempt to create a communist utopia. Social democracy is a very different thing, so is marker socialisn or liberal socialism.

You are right about the cold war "mini me" creation, the superpowers chained parts of the world to themselves and used their economied to their advantage, the USA by pouring money to Europe and then trading (or invading the country), thus placing the countries firmly in its grasp, the USSR by organising a revolution that raised the communist party to hold all the power, then ordered the country's state owned factories to produce what Stalin wanted. The soviets also demanded any country that had fought alongside Germany to pay great amounts of money to the USSR, often in form of industrial products. The Marxist socialists were not afraid to use violence, which is why they gained power and held it.

Only a handful of nations stayed out of the big games of the superpowers, and these countries weren't socialist. However some aspects of socialism were applied: a good example is Finland. It wasn't occupied by any participant of the war, despite Soviet attempts, Finland didn't accept Marshall aid and stayed out of NATO and the Varsaw Pact, remaining virtually neutral. The country was, and is, very much a democratic free market economy, with the nordic welfare state ideas mixed in. Taxes are relatively high, social security covers everyone, all school are public and free. A different kind of socialism could have emerged in such a country, but it didn't. The people didn't want it and Finnish socialists were all for a violent revolution. That's really the whole problem with other forms of socialism, there's always someone louder and more visible or more effective.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Like I said in my previous post in here, there's about a nigh unlimited number of definitions for the political spectrum, so I'm not gonna argue about it. All I shall say on the subject is that using the one I've seen as most common, where it acts as a slider of government control with more power to the left and less to the right, both Fascism, Communism (in practice), and many forms of Socialism (again, in practice) fall on the extreme left side of the spectrum, while things like theoretical Communism (post re-distribution of wealth), "true" socialism and Anarchy exist on the far right.

I'm not sure where the differences came into being, but I don't care enough to look any further into it.

Well, I'm talking about left and right wing parties.

I think that solves our miscommunication...

No, you're mixing up authoritarian versus liberal and left-wing versus right-wing.
You can be authoritarian right (Nazis) as well as liberal right (a bit like Republicans in the USA) as well as authoritarian left (Communism as it was employed, not its theory) and liberal left (Social Democracy). And anything in between (Centrist for example, a bit like the Democrats in the USA). Right and left don't define the style of government but the ideology behind it.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Skeleon. You put it much better than I did, I have to say.

 

[Captain Pancake]

You make a good argument, Spitfire 175. I'll admit that pure socialism wouldn't work, and as far as I can remember, has never existed. But certain socialist aspects, such as a National healthcare service and unemployment benefits can aid a society. Well, my society, anyway.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The idea that markets are more efficient the less that governments have to do with them is something else and verges on political ideology...His political messages are more suspect.

Which is one of the ideas I differ with him on, which is why I make an effort to focus on the message (a practice you and I seem to be in agreement over). I think Keynes was on the right path with government involvement, I feel there should be a decent amount of regulation on the banking industry, seeing as the privately owned "Federal" Reserve System can run the country's economy however they see fit at the moment.

There is no doubt that things like trade and currency have been a boon to mankind although I see them as a means to an end and not the goal in themselves.

Nor do I, glad to see we're in agreement. Capitalism may not be the perfect system (and there never will be one), but if we can better regulate how the super rich special interest(and banking industry) can influence politics, it can be restrengthened in its position as the best system "so far".

Its not that simple our founding fathers did not foresee a indavendaul or company being more powerful than a nation,

But they really were aware of it, which is why the Federal Reserve System didn't exist, up until 1913. Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote that is often paraphrased:
..."And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Because the system dose not block the flow of money to our officials they can ignore what the people need

True, and it's because of the vague rules surrounding special interest groups that are the problem. It's one of the bigger promises that the current administration broke.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Tho I would give the people as much as 50% of the blame, there is no doubt the people have some power but they are sheep wooly and witless unable to see past their current meal.

I would give them exactly that much blame, with the other 50% on the 545 people in congress.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp

They were aware basic forms of greed and influence(kinda like current government and its wake up call about the financial industry's own lust for greed that made it collapse and will make it do so again because greed is not well regulated) thus why the church a hugely powerful organization was mitigated to influence government from the outside but I think they gave faith itself to much credit for influence and not money itself.


If we can ever force political campaign to only take 1-5k from individuals and not groups and you can not get anything more from them during that campaigns season and you if you are caught handing out money to others to funnel it into the a campaigns thats a automatic felony that blacklists them not only from voting but raseing money or working on any thing related to public office. Or have it so all campaigns are allotted a a certain amount of tax payers money that via public opinion the last 6 get to run for the office in question you can;t raise money you can;t spend your own money but for a generalized fund rasieing project where all money goes into the pot for all campaigns for anything above a city mayor and higher(district seats,public official,ect) remove or servilely handicap the need to be a millionaire to run for office. And after the winner is chosen all money left over goes back into the pot.

Frankly I think it would be better if they used tax payer money I mean hell its already being spent now at least it will be watched and regulated and any form of profit other than your salary or interest off your money in a bank,ect or the business you own/owned is a fcking capital offense were you can never legally join back into the ranks of politics.... we need to move away from the fou aristocratic society we are heading to.... we have to bring down and remove the wings of the fat cats in order for those in office to worry more about the people than their profit buddies and themselfs....

/rant rant rant

============
I see the US as a populist capitalistic based government that leans heavily words socialism, IE direct government involvement with the lower classes and business.

But due to the imbalanced nature of our capitalistic governance greed basically goes unchecked, sure we say we watch it but time after time it shows we never really do. Becuse of that our helpful good natured tendencies as a people fall flat on its face and programs meant to help the lower end wind up being unhelpful scraps used for distraction after all humans can survive on scraps and be content with it.

 

[Joeshie]

It's good in moderation. Every economy, even America's have certain aspects of socialism and capitalism. What matters is the "gray area" in between them. Certain economies trend more towards one end than the other. America has one of the more capitalistic-leaning economies in the world.

Personally, I favor regulated capitalism than shifting over to socialistic ideas. I think our health-care needs reform, but we shouldn't hand over the reigns completely to the government. The private sector still needs to play a big part in any area so that competition, innovation, and efficiency are preserved. I'm also against higher taxes that take money that people have earned and giving it directly to people who haven't earned it.

 

[Pax1]

One question ! What is the difference between a Liberal and a Democrat ?

How radical you are about your parties beliefs. Typically figuring out if someone is a liberal or a democrat is very easy. Just ask yourself the question, "Is this person reasonable about his beliefs?"

if the answer is no, the person is likely a liberal. The same thing works for determining the difference between a republican and a conservative.

No, completely wrong. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, and authoritarian are all political beliefs. Democrat, Republican, Green, and all the others are political parties. Political parties hold political beliefs. For example, the American Democratic Party is generally liberal. The American Republican Party is generally conservative.

While you are correct you seem to have missed the point of the question. Some people will identify themselves as liberal, not as "just a democrat" as I have heard it put. Liberal beliefs are held largely inside of the democratic party, this is true. So figuring out if someone is either "just a democrat" or a full blown liberal can be achieved through what I previously stated. Remember, some times we have to see things through the eyes of the people, even if we are political science majors.

His question was directed largely at how people identify themselves. I'm sorry if I answered the question in the same terms that it was asked instead of belittling Agrael.

No. "Liberalism" is a political view. "Democratic" is a political party which represents mainly liberalism and its conservative minority to widely varying degrees. A "full-blown liberal" probably either identifies with the Democratic Party, a third party, or no party. it doesn't take a political science major to understand that.

 

[King of the N00bs]

a relative of mine once went to Denmark as an exchanged student and loved it. mainly because

1: healthcare and housing is provided by the government.
2: everybody makes a fair wage, nobody gets more than someone else for an easy job.
3: this system makes them moderate


Of course to us Americans it all seemed liked communism and a land of sadness unlike our land of oppourtunity. And of course we never quite got over communism being a major world party. Frankly I dont see why we dont have some kind of commemoration holiday for the russians that stalin and those who came after him put to death. Of course then we always like to show Hitler as the most evil human to crawl out of a womb. But then for all the people that the russian leaders killed quickly, Hitler was probaly the most brutal human ever to walk the earth. That brings up once again socialism which apparentely its national party still goes by the "Nazis". And of course once someone hears the wordS "he is a nazi" they berserk as if somone bluntly shouted out "VOLDEMORT IS COMING!!!!!!" to me it is all one big mis-interpretation

 

[jboking]

No. "Liberalism" is a political view. "Democratic" is a political party which represents mainly liberalism and its conservative minority to widely varying degrees. A "full-blown liberal" probably either identifies with the Democratic Party, a third party, or no party. it doesn't take a political science major to understand that.

You didn't get the point of what I said at all did you? It's flowing with the context of what society recognizes them as and within the context of the question. We can spend our time explaining to people the finer points of political views and parties but in the end society will always see liberals as extremist democrats and conservatives as extremist republicans. That is all I'm getting at, I understand the difference between view and party, but I also understand how society views them.

Also, while I'm no one to talk, starting off a response with simply "No." is a bit pretentious.