Opinion on socialism?

[Meryuma]

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy.

[Concordeia]

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy.

^This. In fact, it's better if the two are combined.

[Powys-Gwent]

Europe tried it, and it doesn't work. It just costs too much, and values forcibly redistributing wealth before growing the economy, which inevitably ends in disaster (points to 70's Britain and 00's Britain).

[Seperates]

Europe tried it, and it doesn't work. It just costs too much, and values forcibly redistributing wealth before growing the economy, which inevitably ends in disaster (points to 70's Britain and 00's Britain).

You do know that there is no truely capitalistic society in the world, don't you?... *laughs* Well, except Somalia, but that's because there isn't any government to regulate anything.

Last time America tried pure capitalism, we failed miserably... If the swings in the market control the economy it leads to dramatic up swings... and dramatic downswings.

The U.S. is socialist... has been for a while now. Maybe not on the scale of some countries, but it's all relative. Socialism is the ONLY viable economic system these days.

[Mike the Progressive]

Not much.

[Meryuma]

Europe tried it, and it doesn't work. It just costs too much, and values forcibly redistributing wealth before growing the economy, which inevitably ends in disaster (points to 70's Britain and 00's Britain).

You do know that there is no truely capitalistic society in the world, don't you?... *laughs* Well, except Somalia, but that's because there isn't any government to regulate anything.

Last time America tried pure capitalism, we failed miserably... If the swings in the market control the economy it leads to dramatic up swings... and dramatic downswings.

The U.S. is socialist... has been for a while now. Maybe not on the scale of some countries, but it's all relative. Socialism is the ONLY viable economic system these days.

1. Somalia has a shitload of governments:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tricts.png

2. If by "pure capitalism" you mean a free market, we never had that. The "laissez-faire" 1800s had subsidies, tariffs, intellectual property, artificial scarcity on land, legal tender laws, and Civil War profiteering.

3. Government regulation is not socialism.

4. Government intervention in the economy perpetuates the boom and bust cycle. Without government interference, the market is relatively stable.

[Frangland]

First, let's define socialism:

To me, it's when one person's dollar goes to someone else, and the "giver" gets nothing in return. This means that things like the police, firefighters, education, infrastructure, defense, etc., are not socialism, since basically all of us pay into them and basically all of us benefit from them.

But when I am forced to give money to someone else (a person I don't know and to whom I did not give permission to receive my money...) for his or her personal use -- that, to me, is actual socialism: money taken from my pocket and put into someone else's pocket.

I believe in the right of property -- to keep what you have earned. This is the cornerstone and inspiration of Free Enterprise, which generates good products at relatively low prices (through competition), jobs for the people, and investment opprtunities.

But I realize that, shucks, some folks need help now and then. So yes, there should be limited (9 months unless injured or mentally incapable) welfare available to those who fall on hard times. Why nine months? That should be plenty of time for a healthy, industrious person to find a job... but hopefully not long enough to become dependent on the forced largesse of others, to become part of the Welfare State.

Social Security? If it's feasible, we should pay it off and scrap it. It is just another tax. It might have made sense in FDR's day, but now it's just another burden for the working taxpayer.

In sum, I hate socialism -- how it forces "equality" on us in lieu of liberty -- but there is a need for it, as long as unfortunate things happen to hard-working people.

[Verdeguay]

1. Somalia has a shitload of governments:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tricts.png

2. If by "pure capitalism" you mean a free market, we never had that. The "laissez-faire" 1800s had subsidies, tariffs, intellectual property, artificial scarcity on land, legal tender laws, and Civil War profiteering.

3. Government regulation is not socialism.

4. Government intervention in the economy perpetuates the boom and bust cycle. Without government interference, the market is relatively stable.

QFT

[Kreanoltha]

4. Government intervention in the economy perpetuates the boom and bust cycle. Without government interference, the market is relatively stable.

This is quite true.

[Meryuma]

First, let's define socialism:

To me, it's when one person's dollar goes to someone else, and the "giver" gets nothing in return. This means that things like the police, firefighters, education, infrastructure, defense, etc., are not socialism, since basically all of us pay into them and basically all of us benefit from them.

But when I am forced to give money to someone else (a person I don't know and to whom I did not give permission to receive my money...) for his or her personal use -- that, to me, is actual socialism: money taken from my pocket and put into someone else's pocket.

I believe in the right of property -- to keep what you have earned. This is the cornerstone and inspiration of Free Enterprise, which generates good products at relatively low prices (through competition), jobs for the people, and investment opprtunities.

But I realize that, shucks, some folks need help now and then. So yes, there should be limited (9 months unless injured or mentally incapable) welfare available to those who fall on hard times. Why nine months? That should be plenty of time for a healthy, industrious person to find a job... but hopefully not long enough to become dependent on the forced largesse of others, to become part of the Welfare State.

Social Security? If it's feasible, we should pay it off and scrap it. It is just another tax. It might have made sense in FDR's day, but now it's just another burden for the working taxpayer.

In sum, I hate socialism -- how it forces "equality" on us in lieu of liberty -- but there is a need for it, as long as unfortunate things happen to hard-working people.

1. That's not socialism.
2. We pay our taxes because we are forced to.
3. We don't need the state to provide a safety net. A social safety net can be voluntary.

1. Somalia has a shitload of governments:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tricts.png

2. If by "pure capitalism" you mean a free market, we never had that. The "laissez-faire" 1800s had subsidies, tariffs, intellectual property, artificial scarcity on land, legal tender laws, and Civil War profiteering.

3. Government regulation is not socialism.

4. Government intervention in the economy perpetuates the boom and bust cycle. Without government interference, the market is relatively stable.

QFT

Thanks.

[Ensenda]

Socialism is just as bad as capitalism both are just opposites that do the same harm to society.

[Mike the Progressive]

Socialism is just as bad as capitalism both are just opposites that do the same harm to society.

That's an interesting (and idiotic theory), how in hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Costa Fiero]

Socialism is just as bad as capitalism both are just opposites that do the same harm to society.

That's an interesting (and idiotic theory), how in hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because one has to look at the shit state the global economy is in at the moment to see that Ensenda's statement does have some validity. Big economies need government poking in order to get working again, like someone using jumpercables to retstart a car. But somehow we have the idea that the market always works itself out.

So, how is the market working for you now? Still the same?

[Sibirsky]

I support the socialization of necessary services and defense (including the production of all weapons) but that's as far as I go.

Because Soviet weapons were better than American weapons?

[Sibirsky]

My opinion is that capitalism is better.

That's fact dude.

[Sibirsky]

That's an interesting (and idiotic theory), how in hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because one has to look at the shit state the global economy is in at the moment to see that Ensenda's statement does have some validity. Big economies need government poking in order to get working again, like someone using jumpercables to retstart a car. But somehow we have the idea that the market always works itself out.

So, how is the market working for you now? Still the same?

Governments have failed to do anything of value. An economy is not a fucking car and does not need starting. Governments have caused the current crisis. Governments prolonged the current crisis. Governments deepened the current crisis.

[Saiwania]

I believe socialism is one of the scourges of mankind and the only thing worse is communism. Hitler's Nazi party was socialist. Socialism is supposed to be the step before the transition towards communism. I'd be better off dead than red.

[Meridiani Planum]

It seems to be working well for Sweden...

I live in Sweden, and I beg to differ. Sweden's economy doesn't do well at creating more jobs. There hasn't been any significant net job growth in the past fifty years, which makes for quite a problem with unemployment.

Sweden does well enough not to collapse outright, and maybe that is an accomplishment, but it's not a resounding success.

Anyway, to answer the OP, I favor capitalism over socialism, but by "capitalism" I don't mean corporatism, which is an unholy blending of business and state.

[Juristonia]

First, let's define socialism:

To me, it's when one person's dollar goes to someone else, and the "giver" gets nothing in return. This means that things like the police, firefighters, education, infrastructure, defense, etc., are not socialism, since basically all of us pay into them and basically all of us benefit from them.

But when I am forced to give money to someone else (a person I don't know and to whom I did not give permission to receive my money...) for his or her personal use -- that, to me, is actual socialism: money taken from my pocket and put into someone else's pocket.

I believe in the right of property -- to keep what you have earned. This is the cornerstone and inspiration of Free Enterprise, which generates good products at relatively low prices (through competition), jobs for the people, and investment opprtunities.

But I realize that, shucks, some folks need help now and then. So yes, there should be limited (9 months unless injured or mentally incapable) welfare available to those who fall on hard times. Why nine months? That should be plenty of time for a healthy, industrious person to find a job... but hopefully not long enough to become dependent on the forced largesse of others, to become part of the Welfare State.

Social Security? If it's feasible, we should pay it off and scrap it. It is just another tax. It might have made sense in FDR's day, but now it's just another burden for the working taxpayer.

In sum, I hate socialism -- how it forces "equality" on us in lieu of liberty -- but there is a need for it, as long as unfortunate things happen to hard-working people.

So basically you just turned Socialism in to "Everything I don't like" and ignored the parts of it you do.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The U.S. is socialist... has been for a while now.

[Jakaragua]

Because one has to look at the shit state the global economy is in at the moment to see that Ensenda's statement does have some validity. Big economies need government poking in order to get working again, like someone using jumpercables to retstart a car. But somehow we have the idea that the market always works itself out.

So, how is the market working for you now? Still the same?

Governments have failed to do anything of value. An economy is not a fucking car and does not need starting. Governments have caused the current crisis. Governments prolonged the current crisis. Governments deepened the current crisis.

"All problems can be found in the government, no matter the source of a problem or any other contributing factors."

It is quite juvenile to merely stamp one’s feet on the ground and claim everything is the government’s fault

[Sibirsky]

Governments have failed to do anything of value. An economy is not a fucking car and does not need starting. Governments have caused the current crisis. Governments prolonged the current crisis. Governments deepened the current crisis.

"All problems can be found in the government, no matter the source of a problem or any other contributing factors."

It is quite juvenile to merely stamp one’s feet on the ground and claim everything is the government’s fault

What is juvenile is to refuse to acknowledge facts. And the facts are, that this problem was caused by multiple factors, led by government incentives.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Governments have failed to do anything of value. An economy is not a fucking car and does not need starting. Governments have caused the current crisis. Governments prolonged the current crisis. Governments deepened the current crisis.

"All problems can be found in the government, no matter the source of a problem or any other contributing factors."

It is quite juvenile to merely stamp one’s feet on the ground and claim everything is the government’s fault

Equally juvenile to lay it on the feet of capitalism.

Most communists won't even consider that there could be capitalist solutions to protecting the environment (cap and trade), or reducing absoloute poverty. (Even though it has). Capitalism does not have to be completely laissez fare, unregulated libertarianism or big business mercantlisim; which is the essentially what most of them criticise.

Oh, and where a country develops they are accused of belonging to the sem-periphery.

[Arborlawn]

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, this does not necessarily mean that everyone's wealth is divided equally. This just means that all the wealth and distribution of it is held by the public, and the public may decide to give some people more than others. It just means that they are going to cooperatively allocate the resources in a way they see fit.

This also does not mean taxing the rich more than the poor, because the public may decide to allocate the resources to the poor more than the rich or vice versa.

Socialism is often mixed up with Communism. Communism is where everyone is equal and everyone gets the same things and everyone gets the same income.

Socialism is where everyone decides where to place resources, where the money goes, and how to run the businesses. It is sort of like a National Worker's Union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally like Capitalism, however I do see the need for people as a Nation to help out those who have become unfortunate, and to do so WITHIN REASON. Everyone can lose their job including you, and I am sure you would want someone to help you out, that is of course you were also helping yourself out as well.

[Jakaragua]

"All problems can be found in the government, no matter the source of a problem or any other contributing factors."

It is quite juvenile to merely stamp one’s feet on the ground and claim everything is the government’s fault

Equally juvenile to lay it on the feet of capitalism.

Most communists won't even consider that there could be capitalist solutions to protecting the environment (cap and trade), or reducing absoloute poverty. (Even though it has). Capitalism does not have to be completely laissez fare, unregulated libertarianism or big business mercantlisim; which is the essentially what most of them criticise.

Oh, and where a country develops they are accused of belonging to the sem-periphery.

If "blaming capitalism" for everything seems odd, turn it on its head. Why are politicians and think tanks and academics so adverse to blaming capitalism. I mean academics blame increased population for starvation and yet in most cases where people in the industrialized world are starving, it has to do with unemployment (which rises and falls independently of simple population rates) and crisis of overproduction where fields are neglected or grain is destroyed to keep the market from imploding. So really it's capitalism, not just population or poor choices of individuals.

The capitalist system has just gone through a bust due to internal mechanisms of the system itself: speculative bubbles which had to be invested in otherwise investors would loose ground to their competitors and be driven out of business, but participating in the bubbles means ultimately a bust at some point. What is the answer that the ruling class has to offer to solve this problem of capitalism? More capitalism, more whipping.

Also about that Liberian ism isn't the only type of Capitalism:

The Liberals/Social Democrats have the intention to make capitalism a little more tolerable for the people who have to suffer it while preserving the essential features of private ownership, wage labor and profit. I think it was FDR who said "Reform if you are to preserve!"

Inevitably, some reforms, like the eight-hour day, have the effect of encouraging workers to demand more concessions and better conditions within capitalism, but hardly ever do they lead workers to challenge capitalist ownership and control of the economy.