CDZ Serious question, where has socialism accually worked?

[oldsoul]

Your view of the foundation is interesting and much en vogue among the radio right these days.

No, it is truth, try accually reading the Federalist Papers. It cuts to the truth of the mindset of those who wrote the documents we rely on to govern ourselves to this day.

When you speak of the "founding of our country" are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation or its successor document, our current U.S. constitution?

Umm... Yes, both accually. I was specificly refering to the constitution, but the same holds true for the Articles of Confederation, as well as most, if not all, of the original 13 colonies' founding documents.

The colonies being joined had several different established churches, principally Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Anglicans. Only the first two of these got along with each other tolerably well. It made common as well as political sense to draw the line on religion below the level of the new, federal government.

And nowhere did I say that a specific religion was required, merely that a religion is required. do you understand the difference? Or are you one of those fools that think freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion.

So, while it is true that some colonies and provinces were established for specific reasons of church polity (e.g. Massachusetts) and even more had some form of established church with varying degrees of tolerance for dissenters, no one involved in the formation of the United States believed that a religious mission or establishment at the federal level was appropriate or even doable.

Hence the freedom of religion amendment. Wow, can't beleive you are accually making my arguement for me. Especially after trying to make it sound like I was just following the herd, and using an "en vogue" argument. Unreal, just unreal, what the left has done to undermine and distort what our founding fathers said, and meant.

I wish you wouldn't try condescending sarcasm and would stick to the topic. I have to struggle to stay high minded when people say things like "try actually reading the Federalist Papers." I have, in fact, read them and published three scholarly articles about them in The Journal of American History. The Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution, they are a series of essays in the form of letters published in newspapers as part of the national debate over the new Constitution. I'm sure you know this. The opinions expressed in the FP are not legal or judicial. They are more like the presidential debates on TV. Why do you drag them into the debate about constitutional law with some claim about "mindset"? You surely know better than this. Law is not a mind reading exercise. Why do you want to address me in that condescending tone? Is it because you can't engage with my post so you attempt to dismiss it and establish yourself as some kind of authority? That is not helpful to me nor, I suspect, of much interest to our colleagues.

Have you any Supreme Court decisions to support your interpretation about freedom of religion versus freedom from religion? How about the idea that states must mandate religious practice? Massachusetts, as I'm sure you know, did not disestablish the Congregational Church until 1832, yet it allowed other denominations to flourish and had no requirement to belong to any of them. I would like to see your evidence for your claims. Really, I've studied early American history for many years. I'm curious. I'm eager. Bring it on.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is consitutional law not all about interpretation? Hence, we must understand what the writers meant and how it fits into historical context. Therefore, discussing the FP as it relates to the constitution, while not defining law, is imperative to understanding what was meant by a given clause. There was, and is, no way to write a law or doctrine that would cover all possible scenarios, so we must attempt to assertain the intent of a given law, clause, or doctrine.

As to the Supreme Court rulings question, here are a couple:

• Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
  The 1990 Equal Access Act, which required that public schools give religious groups the same access to facilities that other extracurricular groups have, was upheld. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not violate the Establishment Clause.
• Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995)
  A cross placed by a private group in a traditional public forum adjoining the state house did not violate the Establishment Clause, as the space was open to all on equal terms.
• Mitchell v. Helms (2000)
  The federal government could provide computer equipment to all schools—public, private and parochial—under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The aid was religiously neutral and did not violate the Establishment Clause.

There are more, some of which could be interpreted either way, but I think the US Supreme Court has been pretty clear here. However, I am not aware of any cases where the court has ruled on freedom from religion. Given the above cases, I have little doubt on how those Justices would rule, who knows how the current court would rule.

And, by the way, just what, exactly, do you mean by "high minded"? Many different things could be meant, and interpreted by such statements. Some of which I would find quite condescending, myself.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

One place socialism has been shown to "work" with capitalist economics is China. They have the 13th fastest growing economy on the planet. So, it's not as though one can say that nothing about socialism works. Indeed, it's working today in the most populous and challenging nation to manage.

Conservatives may find this article somewhat enlightening: Explaining Socialism To A Republican .

Below the nation state level, socialist ideas work quite well. For example:

• Military units act toward a common goal rather than for individual "greatness."
• Companies take actions to benefit the company as a whole.
• When you consider your household situation, you think of it overall rather than what's better for this member or that one.

Why should nations be managed any differently? Do we not accord generals the authority to command subordinates because the generals are experts on "whatever" the goal at hand is? Do generals not delegate that authority down as the scope of the act(s) in question call for ever more detailed, first hand knowledge? Do you not make decisions for your household on matters for which you are expert, and defer to your spouse/S.O. where s/he is the expert?

On enterprise transformation projects (100+ personnel), for example, on all things, "the buck stops with the project partner," but when it comes to coding a program that transfers data from one system to another, s/he get involved in how it's written. Conversely, programmers (sometimes even the development team's manager) often have no idea of the big picture factors that make the program they are writing not the most important thing going on in the project. The fact of the matter is that project teams are comprised of people who a wide assortment of skills and we all work to achieve a common goal for/with the client.

The same high-level principles are what is at hand with Bernie Sander's ideas. He's advocating for the subordination of individual aims to those of the nation as a whole. I'm sure that, like me, many folks do "this or that" to help others in need. Successful people have done that for years, but insofar as we still have a huge "underclass" of citizens who for all intents and purposes don't contribute to the nation's fortunes overall, it stands to reason that the approaches to making them be contributors are either (1) insufficient in nature and scope, (2) just don't work at all, or (3) a combination of the two.

Now, do I know which of those three possibilities is the key driver? No, I don't. I do know that trying something different or that is a more comprehensive approach to what has been toyed with thus far is what it'll take to fix things. Indeed, when it comes to making people become achievers, making them contributors, one has to deal with the problem in a "no holds barred" sort of way.

Conservatives, citing the "welfare as a lifestyle" example, often want to bring up the idea that redistribution of resources doesn't provide the impetus for non-contributors to "get off their duff and work." I don't accept that argument. I don't because I know that people will work if the work they can perform is (1) satisfying and (2) sufficiently remunerative that they receive more from contributing than from being a burden.

How do I know this? Look at the other end of society. Look at, say, Beyonce and other entertainers, or new and political personalities. Young people like Beyonce have more than enough accumulated wealth and income to have zero real need to acquire more, yet they keep working. Why? Because they love what they do. The same is true for a great many professionals such as the news personalities whom you see every week on television. Indeed, a great many political pundits work well past what most consider "typical retirement age." A simple need for more money cannot be the reason they do it, but wanting to do it more than adequately explains why.

Capitalism, for as great a thing as it is, is an economic system that provides one overwhelmingly dominant return: money. Now, I'm not suggesting that money is a poor motivator, but I can tell you from two of my personal experiences that money alone isn't enough for many people. Self-actualization and a sense of what one wants versus what one must have are the best motivators.

For example, when I began college, I thought I wanted to become a patent attorney. I knew that career would provide me with a good income and it allowed me to do things I was good at and that I liked doing. I was good at math and science, and I was good at liberal arts studies. Then I took a pre-law course in the law and learned that I couldn't stand studying the law, I knew there was nothing in the world that was going to make me like doing so, and do well at it, for three years of law school. Oh, well; I had to choose a new career.

I ended up choosing business, specifically accounting, and parlayed that into management consulting. About a 15 years ago, I was offered the opportunity to "groom" for a managing partner position in a global firm. I turned down the offer, even though it would have meant a lot more money a lot sooner. I knew what the managing partner job would have imposed constraints on my lifestyle that I just didn't want to have. Plus, I knew the compensation path I was on already provided more than adequate means for the life I want(ed) to live. I didn't need more money, so I had no good reason to take a job that offered more money but compromised my ability to enjoy/do the things I didn't want to give up. It wasn't about the money; it was about self-actualization, doing the things I wanted to do, that I liked doing. There is not one thing I've yet wanted to do that I couldn't do because I lacked the money to do it; fifteen years of hindsight has shown me I made the right choice.

Now look at the folks at the other end of the socioeconomic career spectrum. ("Career" because I don't see being a cashier at a retail store, or other similarly low paying, low benefit jobs, as anything that someone does other than as supplemental income or as a "stop-gap" source of income when none is otherwise available.) If they have skillsets that only allow them to perform jobs that are no better than any number of low-paying, low benefit jobs, they only way to make them contributors is to give them the skills needed so they can get a better job.

But that presents a problem: it means that people who were "ahead" of them in the skills department have to stop being so lazy and instead exert themselves a bit harder. What do I mean? Take a bright but unfortunate low income or welfare earner. Train them to become an accountant or something. Now they compete with folks who are also accountants such that existing accountants (or aspiring accountants) must either accept lower wages (because a newly minted accountant who is coming off of low income or welfare will accept lower wages so long as they are "high enough") or step up their own skillsets so they can command higher wages.

Let's be honest, the pool of existing skilled workers has zero interest in growing the quantity of people who have the same, largely undifferentiable, skills. The burden to be more willing and able flows up the hierarchy. You've surely seen the principle manifest, albeit in a different context. If you have a coworker who will work longer/more hours to get a task done in a shorter calendar period, does that person's willingness to do so result in your having to do so too, at least sometimes, just so you can stay on par? I can't speak for all professions, but in management consulting, it sure does.

Returning from the illustrative digression, the question asked is about where socialism works. Well, I've cited multiple examples of where it works. Nobody is trying to remove the democratic aspect of U.S.' political system. What's sought is a way to create a "rising tide" of economic prosperity, lifestyle, and productivity. There's no question that capitalism has to play a role in doing so. The question is what is that role and how extensive should it be. Or, in other words, what must we do to make "everyone" productive when money alone (capitalism's inspirational tool) is an insufficient motivator?

Note:
Communism, though it's what some people use to describe China, the former USSR, and other countries' governments, is in fact a form of governance and economic system that has never been realized by any nation. Each and every so-called communist nation has only ever gotten as far as the command-economy socialist state that Marx identified as being a likely/necessary step on the road to transitioning to communism.

 

[regent]

Of all the forms of socialism during Marx's life, none were the road to Communism except his own "Scientific Socialism," Marx did not like most socialist groups as he thought they were utopian. Of course, Marx's scientific socialism lasted only a couple of years and the USSR dropped it like a bad habit, it didn't work. The USSR never practiced Marx's communism either because that too didn't work.
Few nations are socialistic, but many have socialistic programs, as does the US, some more some less. As America continues its path to liberalism I would predict we will have more such programs, but only programs. We are a capitalistic nation with socialist programs, called a mixed economy.
The real political value of socialism has been for Republicans to predict that so many things, economic and otherwise, were socialism and would surely lead to communism.
Republicans should erect a stature to Marx.

 

[320 Years of History]

I have, in fact, read [The Federalist Papers] and published three scholarly articles about them in The Journal of American History. ...

Off Topic:
There's something I'd actually be interested in reading. Please provide the titles.