Socialism: Good or Bad?

[ohellynot]

Socialism is abbrillian perfect way of runnin a country so long as everyone plays by the ules, It's is a terrible thing when it all goes inevitbly tits up

 

[bjj hero]

Society would not function without these people. Who would bag your groceries, cook your food, pump your gas, run your registers, work your front desks, clean your rooms, do your laundry, chuck your luggage, mow your lawns, do your hair, wait your tables, mix your drinks, wash your car, change your oil, stock your shelves, pick your crops, activate your credit cards, run IT services, fix your computers and so on and so on. All of these people are in the lower to lower-middle income bracket, and many of them have to work hard just to tread water to pay their bills.

I thought students did it? on a more serious note:

What needs to be done is both of these systems need to be overhauled, turned into publicly funded organizations (nothing is free) government spending needs to be curbed and a tax rate needs to be set so the US can finally start paying its bills. Every person in America should pay the same percentage of their income to taxes.

I've agreed with a lot of what you have said so far but I'm not a fan of a flat rate on tax. If you keep it high eg: 40% you'll have problems.

40% is a kick in the teeth if you take home $1 million a year. if youre on $20,000 a year 40% means you have to choose between heating your home or eating food.

If it's set universally low then you will not get the revenue needed. Universal systems hurt families who are already struggling to get by.

 

[Good morning blues]

Socialism is not inherently bad. See: Scandinavia.

 

[kawligia]

The fact of the matter is socialism requires big government.

Big government will NEVER preserve freedom in the long run. It might take the socialist nations of today 50 or 100 years to go bad, but they eventually will.

Big government and freedom are mutually exclusive in the end. That is as inevitable as the fucking tides.

 

[Pillypill]

You can't have "a bit of socialism" Because it is one of 3 economic... i forget the word, things. other two are comm' and cap' you're one of the three. It's the middle ground, the best of both... Churchills choice.

Socialism IS a good thing. If you actualy inforce it, and follow it's protocals.

Communism would work in a perfect world without corruption or greed, socialism works in OUR world.

Capitalism can work in a country, that has a high GDPPC. Like Luxembourg. America does not have even half Luxembourgs GDPPC. Though Luxembourg is a socialist country.

"Communism, socialism and fascism are the same thing!" If you have no idea, what so ever, what they are!. =]

And finally no, socialism doesn't mean that whatever job you have, you earn the same as a bin man. That's a myth. Made by right wing liars, not that all conserv's are liars.

If you think capitalism is great, then i think thats great, i don't want to change your opinion i just wanted to get that great big 100ton elephant off my chest. =D

 

[Spitfire175]

But that's just it, we're not talking about real world examples, we're trying to discuss the concept of socialism without the connotations of it's previous embodiments. Besides, the soviet union was communist.

Yes, proving my points. Socialism hasn't worked.
And then are you, too, ignoring the solid fact that communism is achieved with socialism? The two are forever linked.

Socialism doesn't work on its own. It ruins trust in societies, creates corruption and cripples the competitional abilities of the economy.

 

[LockHeart]

You were saying that everyone has a responsability to support themselves, I was pointing out that it's not an option for everyone. You say the disabled are usually cared for by their parents but children usually outlive their parents and not everyones parents are up to scratch. The disabled can also have expensive health needs that can push an otherwise fine family into poverty.

Hence why I brought up the point of charities and non-profit organisations who specialise in caring for people with disabilities, funded by public donation - they help support families who are caring for disabled people. On your point about outliving, the chances of a person so severely disabled that they are unable to care for themselves outliving their parents is slim, and if they were left without a primary carer then they would be made a ward of the state or of a charity. People are naturally generous and want to help others, I know I give to charity when I can afford to.

When I first returned home from America 9 1/2 years ago I was unemployed, could not get into the profession I'd qualified to do and was unemployed for about 9 months. I spent the time volunteering at a charity that gives debt and legal advice to those who cannot afford it. I eventually got a job in a different field and I've worked ever since, I have a good job, pay my taxes, own my own house, am raising a family etc. and thanks to our benefit system, paid for by tax payers I was able to get back on my feet and contribute. Ive definately put more in than I've taken out but it was there when I needed it.

Some things are just better state run and that needs taxation. Some people can't provider for themselves (although I'm aware some choose not too) and paying in means they don't starve on the streets. I feel that makes my country a better place, even when I grumble at my deductions. There is a place for socialism along side capitalism.

I know a man who spent more than he earned, lost his job and his home and ended up on the street. He managed to claw his way to where he is today (he owns a house and is a self-employed contractor who performs studies on the effects of drugs on various bacteria for pharmaceutical companies) without the help of the State - private charities helped him recover. I could tolerate paying for a safety net, and in fact I would willingly pay for one, to aid those actively seeking employment or who are otherwise unable to work, but I would much rather find my own unemployment insurance. Here in Britain, the system that was meant to be a safety net has become a hammock and needs an urgent overhaul.

But I take issue with the idea that the State is better at running certain things as opposed to private individuals - there is no huge bureaucracy to be funded in order to effect the redistribution of seized wealth. Instead, the people who are closest to the problem can quickly and efficiently get a system set up.

However, despite our disagreement on this it's good to know that you're doing well for yourself after such a difficult time

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

It works well on paper, but I'm unconvinced that the application of it would work...

 

[Skeleon]

Did I post on this thread yet? No? Okay.

Could we possibly find a middle ground?

Yes. Look at Europe, we have Capitalist systems with Socialist aspects.
I haven't read through all the pages, so maybe what I say now has already been said a few dozen times, but...

In my opinion, pure Capitalism doesn't work, because it leads to a large gap between rich and poor, exploitation (think of the industrialization) and monopolies (unless the state intervenes, which, in some people's opinion, is already Socialist).
Pure Socialism doesn't work either, because we need a (somewhat) free market for our economy to be strong enough to survive on a global level. However, if you leave the economy completely unregulated, you'll end up with how things are now: Recession, bankruptcy, shifting around of blame, exploitation of both workers and state!

So, what we need (and what appears to work best from my experience) is a Democratic state with a Capitalist basis but strong enough regulatory Socialist influences. I'm no fan of Communism or Anarchy, but what America has been doing these past few decades (i.e. slowly drifting to the right to the point where their view is so distorted that anything Centrist is deemed Socialist) is equally as wrong. That's why Obama being elected was so critical. I'm not sure whether he'll actually bring the necessary change, though. Is the public option even still on the table?! To be honest, Obama seems to have the right ideas but at the same time be too weak to actually force them through.

 

[Nicragomi]

To quote Tommy Lee Jones from a famous movie... "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

People are afraid of change... Plain and Simple.

 

[Agayek]

I keep seeing topics come up about Obama, socialism, and other such related current debates, so I thought I'd start a new one: is socialism necessarily bad?

As an American, I find that most of America is full of fiercely independent people, people so independent, in fact, that they are unwilling to even listen to other arguments. Socialism is, in a very abbreviated definition, the institution of an egalitarian economic/social structure that ensures that all peoples within a society come out equal. For a better definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. Somehow or another, we interpreted this as bad. My question is: why is it bad? Could we possibly find a middle ground?

The typical American negative response to Socialism stems from two things:

1) The Cold War. There was endless amounts of propaganda propagated during those 50 years, instilling a healthy fear of the Communist Agenda (tm). This fear hasn't yet faded.

2) The American Revolution. As a country, Americans tend to distrust government. This stems directly from those silly colonials dumping tea into Boston Harbor. Essentially, most Americans believe the government to be both incompetent and stupid. Thus, they will not trust it with even more responsibilities by initializing socialist programs.

 

[bjj hero]

Hence why I brought up the point of charities and non-profit organisations who specialise in caring for people with disabilities, funded by public donation - they help support families who are caring for disabled people. On your point about outliving, the chances of a person so severely disabled that they are unable to care for themselves outliving their parents is slim, and if they were left without a primary carer then they would be made a ward of the state or of a charity. People are naturally generous and want to help others, I know I give to charity when I can afford to.

That really depends on the disability. You are right that people do give to charities but when the econoy is down donations drop. some charities will not get the funding due to societys prejudice. Imagine having a charity to help homosexuals living with HIV in the 80's. It would not be the most popular.

I could tolerate paying for a safety net, and in fact I would willingly pay for one, to aid those actively seeking employment or who are otherwise unable to work, but I would much rather find my own unemployment insurance. Here in Britain, the system that was meant to be a safety net has become a hammock and needs an urgent overhaul.

Being British myself there are plenty of things I'd change about the benefits system. That's different than saying it needs scrapping. It is an insurance system. As it was in my case I could "cash" my insurance then make my payments up over the next 9 years or so.

But I take issue with the idea that the State is better at running certain things as opposed to private individuals - there is no huge bureaucracy to be funded in order to effect the redistribution of seized wealth. Instead, the people who are closest to the problem can quickly and efficiently get a system set up.

The insurance companies in America are hugely beureaucratic even though they are private companies. They do not work well at all. I would hate to see medcine, fire services, police, courts, the army (I could go on) go to the private sector trying to make a profit and answering to shareholders etc.

Like I said. I'm all for cherry picking the best from socialism and capitalism.

 

[Skeleon]

Weren't they more like communists?

They hunted down Socialists, Communists and Social Democrats.
The Nazis were Fascists.
But you're partly right, they did adopt a few Socialist aspects to appease the populace while at the same time spreading Fascist ideals. Quite schizophrenic, actually.
Orwell said it best, I think, when he concluded (paraphrasing here) that both Communism and Fascism, though on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, meet again when in their most extreme and authoritarian forms.

 

[Agayek]

Actually, they were national socialists, and only in name. they were an extremely right wing party, and they despised communism and to an extent, socialism. If you looked at the nazi's policies, they clearly went against the very doctrine of socialism.

No. They were extreme fascists. That is basically as far to the left as you can get. Total government control of all facets of life is most certainly not a right-wing policy, even if the previous US administration may have led you to believe otherwise.

 

[Skeleon]

They were extreme fascists.

Yes.

That is basically as far to the left as you can get.

No.

 

[Slimshad]

Oh well, some more ignorants who think they know what words are. Communism is not fascism. They are almost polar opposites in the way the government is run. USSR was Communistic. The Nazis were Fascist. It is common fact. As for if Socialism is good or not, well lets see what we already do in America. All Public services are socialist. Would it be better if companies ran the school system? It would be product placement on a national level. It would be horrible, and the companies would control the entire education of the country. Does that sound like a good idea? If it doesn't, then why should Healthcare and other social regimes be any different. I think Healthcare is the biggest issue to ignorant people, who do not understand what they think they understand. Upton Sinclair wrote this, that "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Well, I could go into that, btu that is off topic. Capitalism is great, but having nothing but one form of government never works.

 

[LockHeart]

That really depends on the disability. You are right that people do give to charities but when the econoy is down donations drop. some charities will not get the funding due to societys prejudice. Imagine having a charity to help homosexuals living with HIV in the 80's. It would not be the most popular.

But if the economy is falling then why should people have to pay the same level of tax? If inflations is rising and wages are dropping then all that would serve is to drive people closer to poverty because they can't opt out and save more of what they earn. People are responsible to themselves first.

Being British myself there are plenty of things I'd change about the benefits system. That's different than saying it needs scrapping. It is an insurance system. As it was in my case I could "cash" my insurance then make my payments up over the next 9 years or so.

Hence why I said it needs an overhaul. But I have big issues with the system of National Insurance as it is, notwithstanding the fact that it is centrally administrated and thus, performs much worse than it should.

The insurance companies in America are hugely beureaucratic even though they are private companies. They do not work well at all. I would hate to see medcine, fire services, police, courts, the army (I could go on) go to the private sector trying to make a profit and answering to shareholders etc.

Like I said. I'm all for cherry picking the best from socialism and capitalism.

Note that I was referring to private individuals, not companies, to charitable acts and organisations performed and run by local people, Friendly Societies, for example. I won't deny that American insurance companies are hugely bureaucratic and wasteful, but what I'm trying to say is that centralised systems perform awfully - devolving the responsibility for distributing benefits to county councils, paid for via a Local Sales Tax, would soon make the system far more efficient and less wasteful. Nor did I say that I wanted to see the fire service, police, courts and military privatised, though I would like to see the growth of alternative healthcare organisations that would compete with the NHS (which would not be funded through taxation and would instead become a voluntary system).

 

[Skeleon]

I think Healthcare is the biggest issue to ignorant people, who do not understand what they think they understand.

The saddest thing is that the rich lobbyist folks manage to indoctrinate your average joes into protesting for them and against themselves. Those people protesting on the streets, all riled up and angry? They aren't faking. They honestly believe this stuff, it's scary.

 

[bluepilot]

Socialism seems like one of those things that looks great when written on paper, bu goes terribly terribly wrong when placed into practice.

I think that a society can benefit from some socialist traits but humanity is ultimatly too selfish for a society to truely benefit from socialism. People have a sense of `entitlement` which does not allow a socialist system to work without someone getting upset.

I am all for socialism, but I cannot see it working.

Plus, I do not see free healthcare as an act of socialism, but rather a public service, such as policemen and a fire brigade. I think free healthcare should be covered under the duties of the hippocratic oath. As a society, there should be some things worth paying for.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Socialism is where government helps take care of your basic needs(food,healthcare,insurance,education), capitalism is where you take care of all your needs by seeking as much profit as you can get.

If you're not personally responsible for your basic needs, then you're not responsible for whether you live or die, PERIOD. I'd rather not put my life in the hands of a government that has proven, over and over again, it has the reverse midas touch, turning everything it touches (Social Security, Public Schools, Medicaid, the list goes on...) into utter shit. But that's just me

Both become corrupt and stagnate if not done in moderation....as our public officials are not watched, regulated and protected from "profit" enough to do the public's bidding.

Yes, because WE have failed in our duty to keep an eye on them. No one can expect any government to regulate it own corruption if the PEOPLE aren't willing to stand up to them when/before it happens. That's like expecting a corrupt police station to truly police itself. Just try to get a police shooting conviction, the best result likely gotten is an "investigation" that will "go cold" before the week is out. Everyone keeps mentioning that "politicians are corrupt", but never ask themselves, "who voted Obama in?". Those same corrupt politicians! Corrupt people NEVER vote in someone who will give the less power, only more power. Anyone that takes a look at how much Obama is trying to increase governmental oversight in all aspects of life can see WHY those wholly corrupt politicians voted him in. He's even Pro-"Federal" Reserve, the group of banks that got is into this economic mess (Google 'obama federal reserve')! But there are politicians trying to undo the messes WE'VE allowed to go untended.

Proof in actions:
http://www.examiner.com/x-22208-Salt-Lake-City-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d1-Ron-Paul-takes-on-the-Federal-Reserve-with-HR-1207

History repeats itself (More Friedman, on the Fed and the 1930 Deppression):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5OP-VmXgE

Like you mentioned, no matter WHAT system we use, corruption will exist. The rich will always influence and corrupt when it suits them, UNLESS we change the ways that they can influence politics. If the country changes its system to redistribute the riches wealth, the rich will simply move to a country that doesn't do that. And if you are super rich (multi-billionaire+), you don't have to live in a country to influence its political operation.

Its not that simple our founding fathers did not foresee a indavendaul or company being more powerful than a nation, thus they never implemented a few rules around power and corruption and alot of rules around money to keep the system running smooth so it can take care of the populace.

Because the system dose not block the flow of money to our officials they can ignore what the people need because they are to busy getting rich, or famous.


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.