CDZ What is socialism?

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[Agit8r]

If you go too far in either political direction, you end up in a situation in which most or all of the political power lies only in a few hands. The just state must strike a balance between power held by each individual, and power held by society collectively. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't like Socialism for most things because it's not the best way.

Things like healthcare is something where socialism is necessary.

 

[sakinago]

If you go too far in either political direction, you end up in a situation in which most or all of the political power lies only in a few hands. The just state must strike a balance between power held by each individual, and power held by society collectively. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

In the European political spectrum where you have fascism at one end, and communism at the other, yes that is the case. Not in the American spectrum though where one end is dang near anarchy and the other absolute tyranny.

But where do you stand as far as is socialism good of many vs good of few? And whether or not you like that set up?

 

[sakinago]

I don't like Socialism for most things because it's not the best way.

Things like healthcare is something where socialism is necessary.

I'd have to disagree that the socialized medicine is the way to go. It is the needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few. Yes it is very convenient for the many, but what happens to the few? And whose to say that in an ever changing field, the people we put in charge of the medical system know what's truly best for all?

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

 

[Agit8r]

If you go too far in either political direction, you end up in a situation in which most or all of the political power lies only in a few hands. The just state must strike a balance between power held by each individual, and power held by society collectively. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

In the European political spectrum where you have fascism at one end, and communism at the other, yes that is the case. Not in the American spectrum though where one end is dang near anarchy and the other absolute tyranny.

But where do you stand as far as is socialism good of many vs good of few? And whether or not you like that set up?

This idea that socialism is precisely that question, is not so clear to me. We are fed a lot of propaganda in capitalist America, that says we ought not to regulate this or that because it will harm the common good, or more generally "job creation." When that lack of regulation results in oil field workers getting blown up, or a pollutants killing those with respiratory disorders, it cannot be claimed that they were not outright sacrificed, under the guise of the "common good."

I'm for protecting the vulnerable, even if it costs the many a few extra cents. And yet, some would call that socialism. I honestly don't care what they call it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't like Socialism for most things because it's not the best way.

Things like healthcare is something where socialism is necessary.

I'd have to disagree that the socialized medicine is the way to go. It is the needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few. Yes it is very convenient for the many, but what happens to the few? And whose to say that in an ever changing field, the people we put in charge of the medical system know what's truly best for all?

In a private system it's all about the money.
In a socialized system it's not.

There's a difference there and it's a big one.

CHART OF THE DAY: Americans Will Continue To Spend More On Drugs Than The Rest Of The World In 2016

Americans will "be spending three times as much as the average European" on pharmaceuticals.

"Not accounting for inflation*, the average American will spend $892 on drugs, versus the $375 the average European** is expected to spend, according to a report from IMS."

Why? Because drugs are better for you? Not necessarily. Often it's because the pharma companies see a system which is easier to manipulate.

Why Drugs cost More in U.S.

U.S. versus European healthcare costs: the data

In the US drugs cost more. Why? Because they have the system that works for them, whereas in other countries it doesn't work for them. Remember also, they don't do main research for drugs either, the US govt does. All majorly risky research (ie, chances of success are low) is done with govt money, once it's been proven then pharma companies step in and make something out of it, they make PROFIT.

Nothing about this is good. It's profit for the sake of profit, it's not profit that is made by people working harder to make this profit, it's just plain opportunism because people NEED healthcare and don't have much choices because it can often be so expensive, and while food is necessary, people have an abundance of choice, but with healthcare they don't and healthcare providers make sure they're all screwing you for all you have and more.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

 

[Agit8r]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

Progressive taxation wasn't invented by socialists. It is not inherently socialist.

 

[sakinago]

I don't like Socialism for most things because it's not the best way.

Things like healthcare is something where socialism is necessary.

I'd have to disagree that the socialized medicine is the way to go. It is the needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few. Yes it is very convenient for the many, but what happens to the few? And whose to say that in an ever changing field, the people we put in charge of the medical system know what's truly best for all?

In a private system it's all about the money.
In a socialized system it's not.

There's a difference there and it's a big one.

CHART OF THE DAY: Americans Will Continue To Spend More On Drugs Than The Rest Of The World In 2016

Americans will "be spending three times as much as the average European" on pharmaceuticals.

"Not accounting for inflation*, the average American will spend $892 on drugs, versus the $375 the average European** is expected to spend, according to a report from IMS."

Why? Because drugs are better for you? Not necessarily. Often it's because the pharma companies see a system which is easier to manipulate.

Why Drugs cost More in U.S.

U.S. versus European healthcare costs: the data

In the US drugs cost more. Why? Because they have the system that works for them, whereas in other countries it doesn't work for them. Remember also, they don't do main research for drugs either, the US govt does. All majorly risky research (ie, chances of success are low) is done with govt money, once it's been proven then pharma companies step in and make something out of it, they make PROFIT.

Nothing about this is good. It's profit for the sake of profit, it's not profit that is made by people working harder to make this profit, it's just plain opportunism because people NEED healthcare and don't have much choices because it can often be so expensive, and while food is necessary, people have an abundance of choice, but with healthcare they don't and healthcare providers make sure they're all screwing you for all you have and more.

Never said our current system was perfect in any sense. I don't think so at all. It's a crony system, where the big wigs in pharma, insurance, and healthcare delivery are reeling it in, and it is about money, with the help of govt. Whether that help comes from the FDA, regulations, SOPs, laws, etc. Point is, it's moved away from quality and competitive pricing in a competitive system, and more into squeezing out dollars through a system of middle men.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

Progressive taxation wasn't invented by socialists. It is not inherently socialist.

But don't socialist support progressive taxation? What's the difference between the progressives on the left and socialists?

 

[Agit8r]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

Progressive taxation wasn't invented by socialists. It is not inherently socialist.

But don't socialist support progressive taxation? What's the difference between the progressives on the left and socialists?

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

Was Jefferson a Red?

 

[cnm]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

No, socialism is where the means of production, distribution and exchange are held in common cause, usually through the agency of the state.

 

[Searcher44]

View attachment 65862

Chicago Soup kitchen financed by Al Capone 1931.
Bountiful and Merciful Capitalism

Company Defends Children's Freedom to work In U.S.A.!

146 Garment Workers Die in Sweatshop Fire, NYC.

Explosion in unregulated, unsafe mine results in the death of 360 men and boys.


These pics are just reminders that Capitalism in it's purist, unregulated form, as described by Milton Friedman, godfather of trickle down, is a fairly ruthless undertaking...
“So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no they do not.” - Milton Friedman

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't like Socialism for most things because it's not the best way.

Things like healthcare is something where socialism is necessary.

I'd have to disagree that the socialized medicine is the way to go. It is the needs of the many out weighing the needs of the few. Yes it is very convenient for the many, but what happens to the few? And whose to say that in an ever changing field, the people we put in charge of the medical system know what's truly best for all?

In a private system it's all about the money.
In a socialized system it's not.

There's a difference there and it's a big one.

CHART OF THE DAY: Americans Will Continue To Spend More On Drugs Than The Rest Of The World In 2016

Americans will "be spending three times as much as the average European" on pharmaceuticals.

"Not accounting for inflation*, the average American will spend $892 on drugs, versus the $375 the average European** is expected to spend, according to a report from IMS."

Why? Because drugs are better for you? Not necessarily. Often it's because the pharma companies see a system which is easier to manipulate.

Why Drugs cost More in U.S.

U.S. versus European healthcare costs: the data

In the US drugs cost more. Why? Because they have the system that works for them, whereas in other countries it doesn't work for them. Remember also, they don't do main research for drugs either, the US govt does. All majorly risky research (ie, chances of success are low) is done with govt money, once it's been proven then pharma companies step in and make something out of it, they make PROFIT.

Nothing about this is good. It's profit for the sake of profit, it's not profit that is made by people working harder to make this profit, it's just plain opportunism because people NEED healthcare and don't have much choices because it can often be so expensive, and while food is necessary, people have an abundance of choice, but with healthcare they don't and healthcare providers make sure they're all screwing you for all you have and more.

Never said our current system was perfect in any sense. I don't think so at all. It's a crony system, where the big wigs in pharma, insurance, and healthcare delivery are reeling it in, and it is about money, with the help of govt. Whether that help comes from the FDA, regulations, SOPs, laws, etc. Point is, it's moved away from quality and competitive pricing in a competitive system, and more into squeezing out dollars through a system of middle men.

And a socialized system can be better (can also be worse), just depends.

Sure, the US govt seems incapable of doing anything properly.

 

[320 Years of History]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

Red:
No, it doesn't, but following utilitarian principles is not the same as being utilitarianism. Socialism is not utilitarianism and what your quote most aptly identifies is utilitarianism.

Blue:
No, it is not. What graduated tax rates are is a form of taxation that is not regressive. That is neither "good of the many" nor "bad of the many" nor good or bad of the few.

How tax revenue is used can, on a program-by-program basis, be qualified as being for the good of the many or not. The details of a given tax rule can be qualified as being for the good of the many or for the good of the few. The rates themselves, and who pays how much, however, cannot be given either qualification.


Other:
I suspect you're reading my responses and thinking I'm deliberately being obtuse, pedantic or perhaps semantic. I am not.

My remarks are a reflection of the fact that your posts to which I've replied attempt to package up what are big, complex topics that are well understood and long have been, but that as fodder for discussion don't "wrap up" well into nice "twitter-esque" packages and summarizations, except in brief chats between folks who have a firm understanding of each other's views and acumen on those topics. Such folks can do that because all that unsaid stuff has been articulated and established between them elsewhere, there's agreement and understanding between them in the background (re: the fundamentals), as it were. With a total stranger here on USMB, that's not happened.

It seems to me you may seek to have a conversation about socialism that is on the "good enough for government work" level of precision, context and depth of consideration. I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think I want to participate at that level of superficiality on the matter of socialism, its merits and demerits. I don't because I think such chats just go "round and round" more so than they introduce substantive and new perspectives, and more so than they offer new insights, even if not new ideas overall, to the participants.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

Progressive taxation wasn't invented by socialists. It is not inherently socialist.

But don't socialist support progressive taxation? What's the difference between the progressives on the left and socialists?

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

Was Jefferson a Red?

That point was very very high. I believe the highest 2% of the population if my memory serves me correctly, quite the stark difference between current taxation in socialist countries. If you want to call that progressive then be my guest

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

I disagree, and I do because what you quoted is "Vulcanism" as articulated by Mr. Spock.

Thematically, what you described is more utilitarianism than anything else. Whereas utilitarianism is a philosophy, socialism, like communism and capitalism, is an an economic system. Advocates of all three of those economic systems are likely to point to what they see as the utilitarian merit of their preferred economic system. Obviously, it's that there are some folks who favor one economic model over the others that results in those systems taking on a political character, but none of them was designed to be anything other than an approach to managing economic scarcity and choice.

Yes my statement of good of the many is utilitarianism, but just bc socialism deals in economics, does that mean it's not essentially following utilitarian policies? Take a progressive tax for instance, where where the richer you are the more percentage you pay in a sense. Is that not good of the many?

Red:
No, it doesn't, but following utilitarian principles is not the same as being utilitarianism. Socialism is not utilitarianism and what your quote most aptly identifies is utilitarianism.

Blue:
No, it is not. What graduated tax rates are is a form of taxation that is not regressive. That is neither "good of the many" nor "bad of the many" nor good or bad of the few.

How tax revenue is used can, on a program-by-program basis, be qualified as being for the good of the many or not. The details of a given tax rule can be qualified as being for the good of the many or for the good of the few. The rates themselves, and who pays how much, however, cannot be given either qualification.


Other:
I suspect you're reading my responses and thinking I'm deliberately being obtuse, pedantic or perhaps semantic. I am not.

My remarks are a reflection of the fact that your posts to which I've replied attempt to package up what are big, complex topics that are well understood and long have been, but that as fodder for discussion don't "wrap up" well into nice "twitter-esque" packages and summarizations, except in brief chats between folks who have a firm understanding of each other's views and acumen on those topics. Such folks can do that because all that unsaid stuff has been articulated and established between them elsewhere, there's agreement and understanding between them in the background (re: the fundamentals), as it were. With a total stranger here on USMB, that's not happened.

It seems to me you may seek to have a conversation about socialism that is on the "good enough for government work" level of precision, context and depth of consideration. I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think I want to participate at that level of superficiality on the matter of socialism, its merits and demerits. I don't because I think such chats just go "round and round" more so than they introduce substantive and new perspectives, and more so than they offer new insights, even if not new ideas overall, to the participants.

I actually think you have good responses, and don't think your being obtuse at all by purpose or not. And yes I am simplifying a complex issue...and that might have to do with the differences in our philosophy, which I believe mine deal more with principles, yours deal with interest (you can take that as a loaded statement). A set of principles dictates my decisions in most situations, interests approaches and judges each situation separately making it quite complex. My principles say that history has shown us the more power you give to the few, the more likely they are to make bad and even morally reprehensible decisions. The more ability you give those in power to serve themselves, the more they take those opportunities, and try to expand them.

Why I think socialism turns into utilitarianism, is because that is what the people will vote for (or whosever in charge will have to do to stay in charge). Again that is a simplified answer, but that doesn't make it completely false, or even completely right in all situations. I don't feel like arguing the minutiae of that statement in every situation, but is that statement not worrisome aspect of socialism, and why does it not make it worthy of discussion