CDZ What is socialism?

[Flopper]

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

 

[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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

Red:
"Does not necessarily lead to communism?" We don't even have conclusive or anecdotal evidence that it ever leads to communism. LOL

 

[sakinago]

I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.

It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.

Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.

I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:

• Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
• Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
• Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
• Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
• Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
• Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
• Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
• Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
• Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.

Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.

For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.

P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this: Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .

Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.

They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.

This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.

To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.​

I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.

You can think that and I will respect that you do. You may even be correct; however, your comments don't illustrate that you are correct.

Red:
That may be so. Even granting that it is so does not establish that American magnanimity at an individual, local, regional or national level is sufficient to meet the standard in #4. The measure of sufficiency is given by the people who need one's munificence, not by its benefactors.

Let's say (1) I have X and my neighbor has twice the quantity of X, and (2) that you, my neighbor, and I each need 25% of X to be sated, and (3) you are unable on your own to obtain 25% of X. I may give you nothing and my neighbor may give you 10% of X. You remain unsated, yet my neighbor has given more than anyone else, and my neighbor and I both have more than enough to be sated. That my neighbor has been more charitable than anyone else doesn't mean s/he's not greedy, nor does it mean s/he's less greedy than I. It just means s/he's more generous than I, but the fact remains that s/he and I are both greedy.

There are also things my neighbor and I could be in addition to greedy:

• We could also be lazy...too lazy to notice that you remain unsated.
• We could be envious of one another and by it focus on one another's states rather than on your state of desperation.
• We could also be gluttonous.

As you can tell, I'm working my way through "the seven deadly sins." There's a reason for that; they don't function in isolation.

It is indeed true that the American people are by far the most charitable, sure there are variables to account for, but overall it is telling. It is true that the charitable nature of the individual may or even often does not provide for the need of those without. My point was that capitalism does [not] eliminate the charitable nature of people (which is how it is commonly characterized) but it encourages it.

My other point was, is that there is not much of an alternative to emerge if government is in control of "charity". There is not much incentive for government to be the best at charity. It becomes "this is just the way we do things." The incentive is actually to grow itself requiring more tax payer dollars, and not necessarily in an effective way. The incentive is that people will want more and more things provided for them, those people are votes, so we will expand and provide it to them. And what usually happens when one of these providing programs fail to provide, they say the problem lies with the fact that they do not have enough money. Look at FEMA, the VA, department of education, etc. When a school fails its students in some way, it usually asks for more money, when they don't receive that money, or have their budgets get cut, instead of cutting down on [waste, excess and questionable redundancies], they cut down on [the wrong things] and the students suffer from that. They then say see, we told you we needed more money.

And my last point was that having the government in charge of "charity" also gives them a very strong bargaining chip with the citizens. It provides them with a powerful carrot and stick. You can have more of this if you vote for me, or if you vote for this guy, he's going to take away what we have been giving you.

Red:
My edit in this statement is a reflection of my belief that you've made an omission typo. I'm calling attention to my edit because what I believe is the omitted word is critical to the sentence's meaning. If I've misunderstood your intent, please disregard my "red" comments.

I agree that capitalism does not eliminate humanity's charitable nature. I do not experientially know of anything that preponderantly demonstrates that capitalism encourages munificence; therefore I disagree (at the moment) with your assertion in that regard. If you can credibly make the case that it does, or point me to someone's scholarly paper that does make the case, I'm amenable to seeing it. I don't promise to concur, but I am willing to be open minded about it. I have no need or desire to be right, nor have I one that you be right or wrong. Right now, I don't know; I know only what I believe, and I know I'm no expert on the matter of capitalism's encouraging charity; however, there's no question in my mind that by it's great ability to produce great wealth, it certainly enables great charity. Enablement and encouragement aren't, however, the same.


Blue:
I don't think it requisite that government be in charge of charity, but it certainly can be, and it can be efficient and effective as such. Ideally, I'd just as soon government have no role is the distribution of charity, but in the non-ideal world in which I live, left to our own devices absent government intervention, we private individuals and entities don't willfully exhibit enough charity to ensure that nobody must endure critical insufficiencies of critical resources. In light of that reality, government is the only entity able and willing to take on the challenge of ensuring people are not starved, homeless, uneducated and naked.


Green:
Okay, for the most part. I think governments motivation to be the best at anything is largely driven by fiduciary duty.

As one who's mentored young folks for the past 20+ years, I give what anyone would consider a lot in terms of money, time and intangible content, both emotional and intellectual. I can do it efficiently enough and with no "red tape," as it were. What I give at any moment depends on what I have most available to give at that time.

For example, when I have time, I give lots of it and tangible resources, but when I have little time, I give mostly tangible resources. At all times, I try to be cognizant that physical resources may not be the thing most needed at that moment, regardless of what I have at that moment to give. When what my mentorees need is my time, I don't give them physical resources, and vice versa.

The difference between my giving of my own various resources -- time, money, material, etc. -- is that the resources given are mine to give. I'm not being entrusted to distribute resources others have given to me expecting that I'll do so on their behalf. There's no fiduciary duty.


Pink:
In my own charitable giving experiences I have not observed that. Indeed, not one of my mentorees has come to me asking me to aid them in doing things except when they simply cannot accomplish them and need help -- help with a homework problem, help understanding something they read or saw, help attending/participating in an event, help paying college application fees, etc. The few who've graduated from college reach out to me for things like references and to wish me a happy birthday or merry Christmas, or just to chat; they aren't looking for me to keep "holding their hand" or provide for X, Y and Z as I did when they were younger.

For example, I invited one of my mentorees and his mother to join me at my daughter's wedding overseas. Neither of them has approached me about providing them with another vacation. Time will tell whether they do or not, I suppose, but I doubt they will.

Are there folks who will abuse a benefactor's bounty? Of course there are. That's still, IMO, no reason to deny all those would and will not. The concept of taking that stance is comparable to suggesting that one bad apple spoils the tree from which it grows and soil that nourishes the tree. That is preposterous and one would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.


Orange:
They do indeed do that. I don't think that every problem needs money to be solved, but it does take money to overcome many of them. Moreover, I think that too often and too many of us think of money as a suitable surrogate of that for which it is not. My remarks above about my mentoring offer a high level illustration of that.


Purple:
As my preceding remarks allude, I realize that poorly implemented means can prevent one from achieving noble ends.


Brown:
Well, until we get to a point that government doesn't have to collect, maintain, and distribute the majority of charitable resources, that's unlikely to change. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Assuming we agree that our fellow citizens' insufficient access to and possession of critical resources is something we find unacceptable, it will not be until private concerns show themselves willing to, capable of, and in fact effecting that end without government intervention, what alternative is there? The role government is forced to play has a direct impact on the extent of it's influence on the beneficiaries of societal largesse.

For example, I have no problem helping a person in, say, Denver, get food, shelter and education, but I'm not in Denver, so that person is SOL if they must rely on me for that. If the government uses my specific tax dollar to feed, house and educate that person, s/he doesn't see me as their "savior," but they do see the government thus. They also do not see a Denver resident as their benefactor. That the recipients of charity have that perspective is an unavoidable consequence of the folks in Denver (and/or myself) not making it unnecessary for the government to be that person's savior, as it were.

Do you think my several now grown mentorees see me or the government as the source of their rising out of the desperation they knew as children? I'm sure they don't, even though the government make possible the roof over their head and the overwhelming majority of meals they consumed. By the same token, if you think I didn't have a great sum of influence over the ways they perceived things, you'd be grossly naive. The question isn't whether I had such influence, but rather what I did with it. The fact is I didn't do anything with it, at least nothing that benefitted me beyond my feeling good from helping someone realize their own potential.

As far as capitalism encouraging charity, there are a few ways it does. If there are scientific research papers directly finding that correlation, I'm not sure to where to find or look for them. There are a few dealing with human psyche in general. Most lead to the root that most Americans are overall good people. Many americans will spend more if say that company donates to a charity that they like. Or they saw such and such company give a big check to such and such charity event they were at. So is that charity doubling as a marketing scheme, as well as a tax break, sure. But I don't see much fault in that. But you do have a point that greater ability doesn't necessarily mean greater encouragement for charity.

As far as the personal charity you've done (which I think is wonderful) in comparison to the government doing charity. There's a difference in perception on the part of the receiver between someone giving charity when they don't have too, and someone whose job is perceived to be giving away charity. So in a sense I would be less likely to want to take or accept, and be grateful for charity from someone whose doing it on their own volition like you. But when I'm receiving charity from government, I have a tendency to be more entitled to it, a sort of faceless organization, with perceived insurmountable resources. I have a tendency to say that I should deserve more than the perceived chicken scratch I'm receiving.

Which leads me to my next point. Yes, government has some efficacy in delivering charity. And yes there are still places I believe where government charity is necessary. But where is the incentive to stretch out as much charity as they can get with tax dollars? I would love to see a study showing how far a dollar goes when you compare an organization like philabundence (big food distributor to the needy), to the government food stamp program. Philabundence is very effective at getting the most bang for their buck, and I highly doubt government is able to say the same comparatively. Not out of maleficence necessarily on the governments part, but just out of the fact that it gets to operate in it's own bubble. It's not working with generous donations from generous donors, but from millions of faceless taxpayers. They have little to no fear of being shut down if they don't run their operation effectively and properly. There is no need to strive to be the best at what they do, they just simply do. So why is it we want more of this?

 

[Flopper]

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

Red:
"Does not necessarily lead to communism?" We don't even have conclusive or anecdotal evidence that it ever leads to communism. LOL

I agree. Marx saw the steps in the evolution to communist as democracy, socialism, communism.

 

[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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

Red:
"Does not necessarily lead to communism?" We don't even have conclusive or anecdotal evidence that it ever leads to communism. LOL

I agree. Marx saw the steps in the evolution to communist as democracy, socialism, communism.

Yes, he did. I think everyone who's tried it got to socialism and, finding themselves the designated leaders of a socialist nation, decided they liked it and elected to, or forgot to, keep moving toward the end of being a communist nation.

"Okay. This if far enough. I like it like this. We don't need to go any further." LOL

 

[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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

 

[Jolteon]

I respect all believes. My opinion however is that Bernie sanders is the best candidate. I even wrote a song about it! Check it out!

 

[320 Years of History]

I respect all believes. My opinion however is that Bernie sanders is the best candidate. I even wrote a song about it! Check it out!

I applaud your verve and encourage you not to lose it. TY for sharing.

 

[sakinago]

I respect all believes. My opinion however is that Bernie sanders is the best candidate. I even wrote a song about it! Check it out!

That was clever, did you really write that?

 

[320 Years of History]

I respect all believes. My opinion however is that Bernie sanders is the best candidate. I even wrote a song about it! Check it out!

That was clever, did you really write that?

Creative it is. Creative and meriting its appearance in as many threads as now contain it? I don't think it's that notable.

As I wrote earlier of it, I don't want to be a "buzz kill," which is why I don't knowingly act to forfend or dissuade authentic displays of effort and expression extant among seemingly abiturient folks, but upon discovering the video's proliferation I feel less abashed in sharing that it is too jejune for me.

 

[Flopper]

We

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

 

[320 Years of History]

We

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

??? Do you mean the equilibrium price? Just asking to be sure I know what you are talking about.

 

[Flopper]

We

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

??? Do you mean the equilibrium price? Just asking to be sure I know what you are talking about.

Yes

 

[anotherlife]

I've always though it strange that people would argue against any form of socialism because it's as inevitable as sunrise and sunset. Civilization began with despotism where only the strongest survived. As civilizations grew, leadership became vested in governments that saw their function more in terms of service. With disappearing frontiers, urbanization, education, growth of population, people became aware that problems in one segment of society created problems in other segments. Disease, poverty, crime in slums effected the rich, the poor, and the growing middle class. By the 19th century in both Europe and America government was providing more services for the people. Life saving medical care for the indigent was becoming common as was public education, and other services available to all. In the 20th century, those services expanded as did the wealth of nations.

With a near exponential growth in technology, strong economic growth among the most wealthy, and a growing global middle class, those that are left behind will be demanding a larger piece of the pie and they will get it. There're several factors that support this conclusion. First, we are placing a much higher value on human life and not just life but the quality of life. Second, the media exposes social problems as never before and argues strongly for social equality. Lastly, only government can provide the services. We have long passed the point where charitable organization can meet the demand.

I don't think the question is binary in nature, socialism or no socialism. I think the question is do we need more of it, or do we need less. Will more solve our problems, or create new ones? Will less solve our problems or create new ones? Again it comes down to my OP, what is socialism, and does it bring our desired solutions

However evil socialism has proven itself to be, in the near future, when every work is replaced by automation, socialism is the only available theory to provide for human life without the opportunity to work.

I disagree, I feel there is a responsibility of government to break up monopolies. Now I think the formation of monopolies is rare without the help of governments. But I see the coming automation and age of robotics as a monopoly of labor. And while I don't agree with over regulation, I do see a need of the government to protect the citizen from the monopoly of labor. One way I see us accomplishing this is by making laws that automation, and robotics needs to be privately owned by individual citizens, to be rented by businesses and corporations.

This is interesting, and makes sense theoretically, but it is usually the banks and the insurers that own legislation, so citizens don't get the ball. I guess aspiring business owners can rent them from the banks, like mortgages today.

Yes banks do have both the citizens and the politicians balls in their hands. This does need to be addressed. While I wouldn't mind seeing Mr sanders break up the big banks, I think there are other ways to do it without government force. In our world of technology, I don't think there is much of a need for banks, especially not the banks we see today. For instance the site called cabbage (I believe that's the one) but what they did was have people provide loans to other people, private citizens, not banks. And loans for whatever, business, auto, home, or just spare cash. As long as those loaners realized that they're taking a risk on giving the loan, it gives them an opportunity to make money, while helping out people who need money. Now that site, or that aspect of the site got shut down by the government. Why, you might ask, because the banks wanted government to shut that noise down. Because banks don't want people making up their own rules on how to loan money.

And my solution of breaking up the monopoly of labor was a very general one. I recognize that there are many variables I did not mention. And there are other things id like to add to that, but for the sake of not spending all day typing on my phone I left it out. But one thing I'd want to add is that a small business could own maybe up to 3 or 5 of it's own robots, so if there's a landscaping robot that's invented, a guy wanting to start a landscaping business can get those and help his business get on it's feet. Until it grows and he has to start renting more robots from private citizens. But even starting out, it might be cheaper for that person just to rent for a while, until he can buy one.

But anyway, the first step is getting the government and business's to stop playing nice with each other, and let the people decide how and what kind of loan they're going to get, or what kind of service they want and how much they'll pay for it, etc.

I also see what I suggested as a ladder upward for people. Let's hypothetically say a poorer family saves up 1000 bucks to buy a self check out computer system that a grocery store uses. And the a grocery store rents it out from them for 1000 bucks a year (keep in mind this is all hypothetical). That family can use that extra income to buy another one in a couple to a few years. And so on and so forth. I think the thought is fascinating, we almost (almost is the key word) turn back into a weird form of an agrarian society, except instead of animals and crops, we deal in robots and computers.

I think that government and corporations want us to think that with the coming dawn of robotics the only answer for us is things like more socialism, and a standard government income for everybody. I think that will create an absolute and even bigger disparity between the haves and the have nots.

I can't help thinking that this still requires a "police"/"moderator" like every statistics of agreements/contracts. And once we fall back to that, we are back to the basic historic equation, that the number of people over any given area is determined by the amount of work available there. If the amount of work goes up, you import slaves. If the amount of work goes down, pions start a war to kill each other like rats in a box. By this basic equation, the role of government and legislation is to select the individuals who are to survive and play the others who aren't. This is why even Israel's little voluntary communes regularly go under.

 

[320 Years of History]

We

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

??? Do you mean the equilibrium price? Just asking to be sure I know what you are talking about.

Yes

TY for the reply.

Well what factors, pray tell, could conceivably determine the equilibrium price other than supply and demand? Has someone invented a new theory and set of laws of supply and demand such that some factors other than supply and demand contrive to determine the equilibrium price?

 

[sakinago]

We

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

Then I guess by that metric, evolution is nothing more than a theory, has zero value nor any application, and should be ignored. After all we cannot replicate those conditions.

A. We could easily get the markets very close to being free. All it involves is restricting governments capabilities to restrict or supplement

B. We've seen plenty examples throughout history of freer markets thriving, and self correcting when markets crash. During Pres. Coolidge's term (president who cut government in half) had a market crash that by every metric should have been worse than the Great Depression, but it self corrected within a year. And ushered in the roaring twenties (until more progressives got into power and started pumping the breaks when they should have been pressing the gas, and vice versa). JFK, made some of the most drastic tax cuts (weren't even anything special), tax cuts pretty much only on the supply side mind you, and that started growing well paying jobs at rates that would boggle our minds today.

C. I haven't heard anyone here talking about completely free markets, where our economic policy is essentially anarchy. At least not that I have seen. I certainly haven't been advocating that. I do think there is a need for some regulation, laws, and etc. To ensure that everyone is pretty much playing by the same rules
D. Social justice is a whole topic in and of itself. Where do those problems arise from? Policy? Culture? If it's culture, whose culture? What about that culture? Can you even answer that question fairly? I feel as though you are using social justice as a tool in this situation so forgive me if I have doubts on your ability to answer that honestly

 

[Flopper]

We

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

??? Do you mean the equilibrium price? Just asking to be sure I know what you are talking about.

Yes

TY for the reply.

Well what factors, pray tell, could conceivably determine the equilibrium price other than supply and demand? Has someone invented a new theory and set of laws of supply and demand such that some factors other than supply and demand contrive to determine the equilibrium price?

Common factors today are government regulations and direct intervention in the markets which alter the supply and demand and yield a different equilibrium price than that found in a free market.

 

[Flopper]

We

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

Then I guess by that metric, evolution is nothing more than a theory, has zero value nor any application, and should be ignored. After all we cannot replicate those conditions.

A. We could easily get the markets very close to being free. All it involves is restricting governments capabilities to restrict or supplement

B. We've seen plenty examples throughout history of freer markets thriving, and self correcting when markets crash. During Pres. Coolidge's term (president who cut government in half) had a market crash that by every metric should have been worse than the Great Depression, but it self corrected within a year. And ushered in the roaring twenties (until more progressives got into power and started pumping the breaks when they should have been pressing the gas, and vice versa). JFK, made some of the most drastic tax cuts (weren't even anything special), tax cuts pretty much only on the supply side mind you, and that started growing well paying jobs at rates that would boggle our minds today.

C. I haven't heard anyone here talking about completely free markets, where our economic policy is essentially anarchy. At least not that I have seen. I certainly haven't been advocating that. I do think there is a need for some regulation, laws, and etc. To ensure that everyone is pretty much playing by the same rules
D. Social justice is a whole topic in and of itself. Where do those problems arise from? Policy? Culture? If it's culture, whose culture? What about that culture? Can you even answer that question fairly? I feel as though you are using social justice as a tool in this situation so forgive me if I have doubts on your ability to answer that honestly

In theory we could make markets much freer but in the political environment we live in, I doubt it. If we're talking about capitalism, we're speaking of completely free markets but if we are talking about regulated capitalism, that's a different story.

 

[jasonnfree]

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

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

 

[sakinago]

We

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

Then I guess by that metric, evolution is nothing more than a theory, has zero value nor any application, and should be ignored. After all we cannot replicate those conditions.

A. We could easily get the markets very close to being free. All it involves is restricting governments capabilities to restrict or supplement

B. We've seen plenty examples throughout history of freer markets thriving, and self correcting when markets crash. During Pres. Coolidge's term (president who cut government in half) had a market crash that by every metric should have been worse than the Great Depression, but it self corrected within a year. And ushered in the roaring twenties (until more progressives got into power and started pumping the breaks when they should have been pressing the gas, and vice versa). JFK, made some of the most drastic tax cuts (weren't even anything special), tax cuts pretty much only on the supply side mind you, and that started growing well paying jobs at rates that would boggle our minds today.

C. I haven't heard anyone here talking about completely free markets, where our economic policy is essentially anarchy. At least not that I have seen. I certainly haven't been advocating that. I do think there is a need for some regulation, laws, and etc. To ensure that everyone is pretty much playing by the same rules
D. Social justice is a whole topic in and of itself. Where do those problems arise from? Policy? Culture? If it's culture, whose culture? What about that culture? Can you even answer that question fairly? I feel as though you are using social justice as a tool in this situation so forgive me if I have doubts on your ability to answer that honestly

In theory we could make markets much freer but in the political environment we live in, I doubt it. If we're talking about capitalism, we're speaking of completely free markets but if we are talking about regulated capitalism, that's a different story.

Whoa when I talk about socialism I don't assume one step down from communism, why is it ok for you to do the same