Socialism is No Longer a Dirty Word

[BlackAsCoal]

The countries of western europe are generally nice places to live, but remember that:

1) they do not have a gigantic military empire to support

2) their taxes on capital improvements and so forth are lower than ours, so their companies can remain competitive

3) their towns and cities were built before socialism (unlike most of the US), so they are very dense and therefore suitable for walking and mass transit. It's okay if they earn less money because the average family of four doesn't have to have four cars!

4) they don't have the same sort of lawsuit mania we have

5) their size is on par with american states. What works for seven million people won't necessarily work for 300 million! This is not a minor point, and when I bring this up, socialists are either ambivalent or hostile to the idea and wish for more knee-jerk centralization.

Good arguments Von BigMeat (luv your moniker)

However, having 300 million people, thus a greater strain on dwindling resources, males socialist concepts even more critical to the nation.

Of course there will have to be the American model that fits our unique idiosyncracies .. but I believe without a doubt that intelligence can make it work.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The idea of having no freedom to speak, write, think or express individualism seems to me to be nullified in socialist and communist societies. If you want to be a commie/socialist move to china.

Communism
Socialism
Collectivism
Communalism

All different concepts .. but since most Americans know nothing outside of capitialism, they have no clue of the difference.

By the way, there is such a thing as democratic socialism .. which is the concept I believe in.

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

 

[Diuretic]

Really???

I bet an argument could be made that one leads to the other.....

Tyranny is based on appropriation of material benefit to a few. Socialism is based on spreading material benefit to all.

 

[Diuretic]

Sorry mate, it was a form of socialism regardless of the religious ideologies that brought them to it.

I don't see how. It's really interesting though, I mean the Plymouth Plantation. But it seems to me to be a form of utopianism rather than socialism. It was a bold experiment indeed, but I don't think it was socialism. I know I'm insistent but as I said before, it's more a sort of attempt at primitive collectivism than socialism. Socialism acknowledges industrial rather than agrarian society, it seeks to build on industrialism and then to progress from it. The Plantation seems to me to be an attempt at going back past feudalism to agrarian socialism as opposed to the socialism of St Simon and Comte and Marx and Engels.

 

[CSM]

Tyranny is based on appropriation of material benefit to a few. Socialism is based on spreading material benefit to all.

True enough. My problem is not with the utopian vision of any ideology but rather my skepticism is fostered by a lack of faith in my fellow man.

Tyrants by their very nature become more and more severe in their oppression of the common man in order to hold onto their power. When the oppression becomes intolerable, the common man revolts. I believe that those overseeing the mechanisms of socialism end up doing exactly the same and when individual freedoms are reduced severely enough (for the common good, of course) the common man (i.e. those who suffer the ill effects of the ideology) will revolt.

Make no mistake, I believe the same thing happens in a democratic republic. One only has to look at the ever declining faith in the US government to do the right thing to see that it is not the idea of a democratic republic that is bad but rather those who are elected to implement the ideals execute the process that are the problem.

There is a lot of truth in the old saw that absolute power corrupts absolutely. A socialist regime will eventually fall into the same trap not because socialism is necessarily bad but because of the nature of humans.

Hugo Chavez claims to his programs are "socialist". It will be very interesting to watch as he bcomes more adamant in reducing individual freedoms to stay in power .... for the common good of course.

 

[Munin]

This might help

hahaha,

I don't think that s socialism but it sure as hell is funny

 

[Diuretic]

True enough. My problem is not with the utopian vision of any ideology but rather my skepticism is fostered by a lack of faith in my fellow man.

Tyrants by their very nature become more and more severe in their oppression of the common man in order to hold onto their power. When the oppression becomes intolerable, the common man revolts. I believe that those overseeing the mechanisms of socialism end up doing exactly the same and when individual freedoms are reduced severely enough (for the common good, of course) the common man (i.e. those who suffer the ill effects of the ideology) will revolt.

Make no mistake, I believe the same thing happens in a democratic republic. One only has to look at the ever declining faith in the US government to do the right thing to see that it is not the idea of a democratic republic that is bad but rather those who are elected to implement the ideals execute the process that are the problem.

There is a lot of truth in the old saw that absolute power corrupts absolutely. A socialist regime will eventually fall into the same trap not because socialism is necessarily bad but because of the nature of humans.

Hugo Chavez claims to his programs are "socialist". It will be very interesting to watch as he bcomes more adamant in reducing individual freedoms to stay in power .... for the common good of course.

All quite possible. I'm always mindful of Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy. But perhaps instead of us accepting it as fate we should be thinking how it could be repealed.

 

[mightypeon]

In my eyes, socialism per se has nothing directly to do with Tyranny.
However, it can lead to tyranny via the following way:

In a democratic socialist society, the "political class" would control both the gouverment and the (to a large part) economy. This could lead to an enourmous concentration of power, and power corrupts.
In a free market society, the economy is controlled by a class of merchants. This merchants also partly control the gouverment, however their control does not seem to be complete (although the Bailout does prove otherwise), since the control would not be total, a conversion into a Tyranny is a bit less likely.

If one wants to establish democratic socialism, additional checks and balances will have to be implemented, apart from that, I would argue that enlarging the "political class" by adding more direct participation from everyone would also help to minimize dangerous power concentrations.

Historically, Whenever a autocrat socialist country tried democracy, the USSR intervened.
Whenever a democratic free market country tried socialism, the USA intervened.

If both the USSR and the USA saw this as a thread, it may be worthwhile to try out.

 

[chloe]

You know there's no linkage between tyranny and socialism don't you?

well I wouldn't want to live in china, cuba or north korea, what socialist commie country are you talking about?

 

[editec]

I think classical socialism is a system that doesn't work well.

I think that classical capitalism is a system that doesn't work well, either.

I feel the same way about regulations on business, as I feel about laws governing the people.

We need laws and regulations to make capitalism, and this society, functional.

But we really should ONLY be interferring with people's lives and businesses when the outcome of NOT having laws and regulations can be proven to be worse than having them.

Now that isn't how government tend to work.

They tend to use the law as a power and control system to reward those in power at the expense of those without power.

But that is not the fault of government, that is the fault of BAD government.

I wish more of my libertarian friends understood that.

I believe that capitalism works well, when it is regulated honestly and sensibly.

I believe without regualtions?

We end up pretty much like we're ending up RIGHT NOW. What happened to sink our economy recently?

Another tragedy of the commons is what happened.

FYI: Here's a thumbnail sketch of what that means in economics from the ECONOMIST


Tragedy of the commons

A 19th-century amateur mathematician, William Forster Lloyd, modelled the fate of a common pasture shared among rational, UTILITY-maximising herdsmen. He showed that as the POPULATION increased the pasture would inevitably be destroyed. This tragedy may be the fate of all sorts of common resources, because no individual, firm or group has meaningful PROPERTY RIGHTS that would make them think twice about using so much of it that it is destroyed. Once a resource is being used at a rate near its sustainable capacity, any additional use will reduce its value to its current users. Thus they will increase their usage to maintain the value of the resource to them, resulting in a further deterioration in its value, and so on, until no value remains. Contemporary examples include overfishing and the polluting of the atmosphere. (See PUBLIC GOODS and EXTERNALITY.)

 

[editec]

I think a mixed economy serves us best.

Capitalism regualted to provide a level playing field and to prevent tragedies of the commons seems to provide the most goods and services to the most people.

Classical socialist economics fails, as does classical capitalistic economics.

For different reasons, of course, but the outcomes in both cases are not good.

There are things of course, which a social system (let's call that quasi-soocialism, shall we?) serves best.

Roads, schools, public defence, police, courts, national defence and HEALTH CARE are examples of those.

There is no PERFECT system, though.

the bottom line is no matter what economic system we use, if our government is allowed to become arrogant and corrupt, then neither socialism or capitalism will serve the people well.

 

[editec]

I don't see how. It's really interesting though, I mean the Plymouth Plantation. But it seems to me to be a form of utopianism rather than socialism. It was a bold experiment indeed, but I don't think it was socialism. I know I'm insistent but as I said before, it's more a sort of attempt at primitive collectivism than socialism. Socialism acknowledges industrial rather than agrarian society, it seeks to build on industrialism and then to progress from it. The Plantation seems to me to be an attempt at going back past feudalism to agrarian socialism as opposed to the socialism of St Simon and Comte and Marx and Engels.

It was socialism.

But it was CLASS DRIVEN SOCIALISM, too.

More than half the original Pilgrims there were essantially White slaves, ya know.

 

[NOBama]

If it's your opion then nothing I can say about it. But getting away from your opinion the fact is that they're different.

I believe the earliest form of society at Plymouth Plantation, regardless of whether we call it collectivism, socialism, or communism arose out of the necessity for the group to survive. While searching for some writings of William Bradford, I came across the following article which I thought you might find interesting.

The Plymouth Experiment

I never did find the Bradford writings I was looking for so I'll settle for agreeing to disagree with you on our difference.

 

[Bern80]

I read a few sources. Interesting. But socialism didn't do it. I'll give you an alternative - it was a mix of ignorance, religious fatalism and negligence. Since neither socialism nor capitalism were invented when the Plymouth Plantation was in existence then neither can be the cause. Is that reasonable?

What was tried was a form of socialism, whether the name was given to it or not. Personal property did not exist and they originally did not get to keep the fruits of their labor. Everything they made went into a pool to be evenly distrubted later. Again whether someone came up with the word later is irrelevant, what they were practicing was a quintessential example of socialism, for which many paid the ultimate price.

 

[Agnapostate]

The contention that socialism does not work or has not ever worked is not entirely accurate. Socialism undoubtedly failed in the Soviet Union, which existed as a state capitalist entity rather than a socialist one, but various forms of libertarian socialism have existed, most notably in the Spanish Revolution, in the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, the Zapatista uprising, etc.

 

[XVZ]

The contention that socialism does not work or has not ever worked is not entirely accurate. Socialism undoubtedly failed in the Soviet Union, which existed as a state capitalist entity rather than a socialist one, but various forms of libertarian socialism have existed, most notably in the Spanish Revolution, in the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, the Zapatista uprising, etc.

Socialism doesn't work because the majority of people are too stupid to run or have any say in how a company is to be run. Look at the UAW and the auto industry... they have no interest in competing, just the interest of 'how much can I get'. You can only sell an inferior product (cuts must be made somewhere when you have overpaid workers) to so many sheep. It is ironic that the supporters of the UAW are the least likely to buy an American car because of the inferior quality... Also, American car makers were forced into over producing SUV's as that is where they could actually get some kind of profit margin. I'm not sure many competent people would want to operate within the constraints of the UAW either, so in this case you have idiots from top to bottom.

 

[Agnapostate]

Socialism doesn't work because the majority of people are too stupid to run or have any say in how a company is to be run. Look at the UAW and the auto industry... they have no interest in competing, just the interest of 'how much can I get'. You can only sell an inferior product (cuts must be made somewhere when you have overpaid workers) to so many sheep. It is ironic that the supporters of the UAW are the least likely to buy an American car because of the inferior quality... Also, American car makers were forced into over producing SUV's as that is where they could actually get some kind of profit margin. I'm not sure many competent people would want to operate within the constraints of the UAW either, so in this case you have idiots from top to bottom.

You don't even know what you're talking about because you make the inaccurate assumption that every variety of people will be involved in every variety of work. I've tried to explain this to you in the past, but you have proved unwilling to acknowledge your error.

 

[XVZ]

You don't even know what you're talking about because you make the inaccurate assumption that every variety of people will be involved in every variety of work. I've tried to explain this to you in the past, but you have proved unwilling to acknowledge your error.

No, that was not any error that I have made. My position is that most people have absolutely no business in the decisions of any variety of work.

 

[DiamondDave]

Socialism is STILL indeed a dirty word

It is a system, bound for failure, for it forces mediocrity... It can only work with severe government controls... It removes the incentive for achievement and success... It rewards sloth by ensuring the basics to underperformers and those who fail.... It fails to accept that people wish to gain from their efforts and better their own families and own self before being forced to support others thru their efforts and earnings

It is a myth that socialism has ever worked in any large scale.. socialistic concepts can and will work in the small scale in areas such as hippie communes.. but it will never work in a large scale society that is based on freedoms... a socialist system will only "work" in a large scale with totalitarian controls. Free people will never embrace it as a society.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I think a mixed economy serves us best.

Capitalism regualted to provide a level playing field and to prevent tragedies of the commons seems to provide the most goods and services to the most people.

Classical socialist economics fails, as does classical capitalistic economics.

For different reasons, of course, but the outcomes in both cases are not good.

There are things of course, which a social system (let's call that quasi-soocialism, shall we?) serves best.

Roads, schools, public defence, police, courts, national defence and HEALTH CARE are examples of those.

There is no PERFECT system, though.

the bottom line is no matter what economic system we use, if our government is allowed to become arrogant and corrupt, then neither socialism or capitalism will serve the people well.

If you look at the things you said should be quasi-socialist, there is one thing that is different than the others -- Health care.

Why is it different? Because the government does not control the cost. I as the individual can demand services that you as the government must provide, thereby increasing cost.

This is one of the primary reasons our current health care system is broken. Replacing an insurance company payer with a Government payer is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, you might get universal coverage, but the system is ultimately doomed to failure. Government can choose how it will fail though. Most government have chosen the shitty care for people option. Keep costs down by regulating the provision care, especially tests and related equipment. They could choose to bankrupt the system instead though. Then, they would provide quality care in a timely manner, but couldn't charge enough in taxes to pay for it.

The solution is to ensure the health care user has some skin in the game. For instance in France, they almost have it right. The government pays for 60 - 70% of insurance and provides a safety net. Universal coverage. Then you contract for insurance to provide the balance. This is either through and employer or otherwise.

As you can see, this suffers from the same issue as we have. And, as you would expect, France has an "overuse" problem in their health care system. So, instead of using straight insurance, you use high deductible insurance. Plus medical savings accounts that can rollover for your whole life tax deferred. Basic wellness is covered first dollar no deductible. If you do anything else you have to cover it out of your Health Savings account up to $5,000-$10,000 or so....you pick a number.

The point is that people will begin to act rationally in health care decisions like they do in every other aspect of their financial life. Price and quality competition then have meaning. Demand will be somewhat lower because people will choose to have their money rather than have frivolous trip to the doctor.

There is still a safety net as in the French system for the indigent. But, with consumers having to "pay" (and I don't even care how you fund the HSA....make it a gift from Uncle Sam) something more than a trivial amount, they will reduce the demand. That won't fix everything, but it would be a good start.