ok, so explain to me why Socialism is evil again???

[LSK]

Why is government control of certain industries and strong regulation designed to protect we the people a bad idea???

Beyond the "red scare", what am I missing?

:shrug:

[bunkerbuster1]

1. It's not.

Penile-challenged right-wing radio listeners respond well to threats of "Socialism" issued by their masters. Intelligent people recognize that our current version of government has elements of socialism built into it already, and it's not a big deal.

[redqueen]

13. You might be surprised by how many DUers respond the same way. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Most right-wing radio listeners couldn't define socialism even if they

realized, which they don't, that we have a socialized army and socialized highways.

[ComerPerro]

2. taken to the extreme, it puts all power in the hands of government, which can be run by very few

however, that's taken way to the extreme, and is no longer "socialism" but a dictatorship calling itself socialism. It can turn into fascism in the blink of an eye.

But then again, so can conservative Republican practices, apparently.

But its not fear of the extreme end of socialism that keeps freepers up in arms against "damned socialists". Its the whole idea of helping people and equality that bothers them the most.

[LSK]

9. thats what they had in the Soviet Union

The Central Committee controlled all aspects of the economy and the system of supply and demand was not used. This created the shortages they had and the eventual collapse.

Socialism is nowhere near that.

Regulation establishes limits to how capitalism can live, but does not eliminate market forces of supply and demand.

[ComerPerro]

25. I thought I made that clear from my post

[Tyler Durden]

53. You do not really understand the concept.

There is no "extreme end" of Socialist Democracy. As any political system does, it still relies on a mandate from the people for legitimacy.

You describe FASCISM, which whether it describes itself as arising from socialism to Communism, National Socialism, etcetera, IS NOT SOCIALISM.

Reading lists can be suggested in the Progressive Socialists forum in the POLITICAL section.

[Deja Q]

3. Because everybody would owe their fellow countryman something.

We'd have concern about our fellow countryman.

We'd be more inclined to defend our fellow countryman.

We'd be more inclined to do the responsible things for the sake of our fellow countryman.

And all of that must be wrong. For they keep telling us we 'are not a society but individual men, women, and families'. Amongst other things that go back to said maxim.


Now ask why so many "R"s are confused as to why enlistment numbers are always so small.

:shrug:

[shadowknows69]

4. It used to be in that bad country's name

the one that is Russia now. I think since they aren't using it anymore maybe we should take another look at it.

[Deja Q]

5. Don't you mean China, who financed the Viet Cong during that war?

Don't mention Hanoi Jane to anybody, however... that's different.

I know, times change, but still - why so many still dislike one yet not the other is rather confusing.

[shadowknows69]

6. My grandmother was german

she only had time to really frighten me about Russia. China was just where all the starving kids were that I would be threatend with deportation to if I didn't eat all my food at dinner.

[David__77]

10. After what the Germans did to the Soviet people...

...I think the treatment was rather lenient after the war.

[shadowknows69]

24. Well gram wasn't in the army

she was already over here I think. So I should have called her german american.

[David__77]

28. I see...

I assumed she experienced the Soviet occupation of the eastern sector. A lot of Germans had hard times during the late 40's. There were a lot of abuses.

[Forkboy]

38. Soviets committed many war crimes also.

Katyn Massacre

In April 1940, nearly twenty-two thousand Polish prisoners were rounded up, transported to Katyn and various other sites, and executed. They included army officers, civil servants, landowners, policemen, ordinary soldiers, and prison officers. They were lined up, made to dig their own mass graves, and shot in the back of the neck. The victims were never tried or presented with any charges. The executions were ordered personally by Stalin in a memorandum dated March 5, 1940, to Lavrenti Beria, the head of the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB). Per Stalin's instructions, the prisoners were to receive the "supreme measure of punishment—shooting."

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3486292.html
---------------

The largest camps where the Soviet Army held Polish troops after the 1939 invasion, and the number of prisoners in each as of March 1940, were:

Ostaszkowo-6,800
Kozielsk-5,000
Starobielsk-3,900


In 1940, from the beginning of April to the middle of May, prisoners were taken from the camps in small groups, heading for unknown destinations.

In the 1990s, around 7,000 bodies from Ostaszkowo were uncovered in Myednoye near Tver.

http://www.warsawvoice.pl/archiwum.phtml/828/
----------------

The remnants of the German forces in Stalingrad surrendered on February 2; 91,000 tired, ill, and starving Germans were taken captive. To the delight of the Soviet forces and the dismay of the Third Reich, the prisoners included 22 generals. Hitler was furious at the Field Marshal’s surrender and confided that "Paulus stood at the doorstep of eternal glory but made an about-face".

Only 6,000 of the 91,000 German prisoners of war survived their captivity and returned home. Already weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent to labour camps all over the Soviet Union, where most of them died of overwork and malnutrition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Soviet_victory

Also,in the book Stalingrad by Antony Beever he writes of how some German POWs had so little food that they resorted to cannabalism.

http://www.antonybeevor.com/Stalingrad/stalingradmenu.htm (Highly recommended reading!)
----------------
Kolyma

It is estimated that approximately 20.000.000 people perished in the Soviet GULAG, mainly Soviet nationals; while over 1.000.000 inmates perished in the Kolyma camps alone in the years 1932 - 1954.

http://www.3pytania.pl/english/calendar.html
-----------------

This is hardly a comprehensive listing of the Soviet actions during and immediately following the war.How many civilians were killed and raped during the drive to Berlin is unknown.

I'm in no way trying to downplay the German's actions.My point is to show that the Soviets should have been in the docks at Nuremburg along with the Germans,instead of sharing in the spoils,and their treatment of them was hardly "lenient".

[David__77]

47. The Soviet "war crimes" were no more serious than those of the US and UK.

What about the Dresden bombings? All parties conducted "war crimes," as they are currently understood. Yes, German POW's were mistreated, absolutely. While the Germans were captured at Stalingrad, Soviet citizens were living on a starvation ration due to the hardship of the war. Should the POW's have had it any better?

The Soviets were allies of the US and UK, and this alliance defeated fascism. FDR was right to uphold this alliance against the fascist elements at home who saw socialism as the main enemy of humanity.

That said, the Soviets most certainly should have followed the relevant conventions regarding POW's and civilians in wartime. However, if they had done so, they would have been the only party doing it.

[Thothmes]

50. Soviet war crimes

While I agree with you as to the brutality of the Soviet Regime, without the Soviet participation in WWII, there would have been no Nuremburg, period.
If it had not been for the Red Army killing 9 out of every 10 German soldiers, we would have probably never set one foot on Normandy. Twenty million Soviet citizens parished in the war against the Germans, I thank that gave them the right to have a say in post war Europe (as odious as that was). So did President Roosevelt.

[devilgrrl]

36. Glad, I clicked on that. I thought you were talking about Sweden.

They're a bad country...... aren't they?

[The2ndWheel]

7. Power doesn't stop

Eventually the government will want to control more than certain industries. The government will probably want to protect us from ourselves.

On the other hand, corporations do the exact same thing, although the details might be a bit different(like not caring if we posion ourselves, as long as it isn't enough to stop from buying the product tomorrow. But even then...).

However, I doubt anyone ever said the price we pay for giving more and more of our lives over to the two dominant institutions of our day, corporations and governments, would be cheap.

[LSK]

21. well, in a Democracy such as we are supposed to be, we are the Government

This concept seems to be lost on so many.

[The2ndWheel]

29. Yeah, that's a good one

We're represented by a single person(most of the time a career politician), who represents, on average, 3 million people, or 600,000 to 700,000 people respectively. I can't say we are the government. We are governed by people, even more so by large institutions who's goal it is is to increase their own power, because we live in a very complex society. We all have our own jobs. It is someone else's job to govern, that's why we elect them.

Each person's individual power has been decreased. Our collective power might be increased, but more and more people are needed all the time. More and more people are focused on just paying the bills and feeding their kids. It's someone else's job to organize a protest. They went to school for that. They know how to apply for a permit, etc, etc, etc. "We The People" are removed further and further from the actual workings of the machine all the time. Actually, we're all specialized cogs in the machine. If we were to ever stop working for any length of time, the whole thing might break down. Since we're all increasingly dependent on those two dominant institutions, that could mean your kid might go hungry. Who's willing to be the cog that unscrews itself? If that cog went, would another follow? Or would the supervisor make sure that that first cog was thrown away or quickly replaced?

[LSK]

32. sorry for believing in the system of Govt that the founders setup

They set it up to have representatives represent large groups of people. Perhaps the populations were not up to todays scale back then, but they did not have even close the communications and travel technology that we enjoy today. So I would argue a Rep governing 1 million people today with todays technology should be no harder than a rep 200 years ago representing 50,000 people using only horses and mail to get around.

People today seem to buy into the fact that they have no power or say in their government and thats their immediate excuse to not pay attention and not get involved.

If more people would actually pay attention, we might actually have more turnover of elected officials who are more accountable for their actions.

A big thing that has to be done is to establish a uniform voting system for the country the elections should be fully publically financed.


PS: I have been listening to Thom Hartmann a lot lately. :hi:

[The2ndWheel]

33. I accept your apology

Just kidding.

"So I would argue a Rep governing 1 million people today with todays technology should be no harder than a rep 200 years ago representing 50,000 people using only horses and mail to get around."

I'd agree with that. At the same time, I don't think 1 person representing 50,000 people works either.

"A big thing that has to be done is to establish a uniform voting system for the country the elections should be fully publically financed."

I think that's where we disagree. I think we need a more diverse voting system. I think we need not just one, or two, or three, but a thousand different countries.

The problem with that of course, is that "They set it up to have representatives represent large groups of people". A thousand different governments would create conflict as those governments attempt to expand their circle of control, since power doesn't stop. That's how wars start.

Which then leads to the only way to achieve any type of peace, is for everything to be...uniform. Since we now live in an increasingly integrated global socio-politico-economic system, everything must increase in uniformity, not just a voting system. Whether it's capitalist, socialist, democratic, totalitarian, religious, secular, etc, etc, etc, it all must be the same everywhere, all the time. There cannot be two different ways to go about doing something. Don't even get me started on three or more ways of doing something, that's just crazy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. Fantastic post.

"People today seem to buy into the fact that they have no power or say in their government and thats their immediate excuse to not pay attention and not get involved."

I couldn't agree more. People focus on the money part of the equation, completely forgetting that money is only important so far as it helps to buy advertising by which one wins votes. The votes, not the money, is the REAL end game. If we started paying more attention to what actually goes on and less to what the 30 second TV advertisement tells them, that would neutralize much of the advantage of money. Hell, even if people got more involved with associations, nearly all of which have lobbyists themselves, they can magnify their own voice.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. "The government will probably want to protect us from ourselves."

You mean it may want to maintain a police force! Oh the horror! Thank God there's no police in democratic countries, innit?

[The2ndWheel]

30. A police force is fine

Although I don't know that the police force is there to protect us from ourselves, as much as it's there to protect the institution/entity/system/whatever from us.

I was talking more along the lines of what Britain does with cameras. Then again, that is an extension of the police force.

So the power of the state, and the power of the corporation, always need to keep up with each other. If one becomes stronger than the other, we can have potential problems. Then if they both become as close to ubiquitous as possible, and then start working together, game over.

[LeftishBrit]

44. 'What Britain does with cameras' has nothing to do with socialism

The more anti-civil-liberties stuff by our government is due to a combination of the terra-threat, as with your Patriot Act etc.; and the micro-managerial style of a particular government that was nominally socialist but really centre-right (I say 'was', because it's still not clear how our new government will turn out).

Anyway, we're still a long way off being a totalitarian state. You may be interested to know that Brits have already become fairly effective at using technology for 'surveillance of the surveillance'. Many of the machines that people nowadays keep in their cars for giving directions also contain devices for informing the drivers of where the speed cameras are!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. The UK is turning into a perfect example of what Barbara Ehrenreich noted

about the Republican agenda several years ago: Stepping up the coercive aspects of government and cutting back on the beneficial ones.

Viewed from a distance, New Labour looks like our DLC, i.e. slow-motion Republicans.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. As I understand it...

In a lot of ways, it's antithetical to a capitalist form of government. If the government itself is in the business of providing key services at an obviously fixed-rate, it will almost always be able to do so at a rate lower than anyone in private practice could hope to. Therefore, this inhibits the free-market from being able to capitalize on net demand and won't be able to make money. Beyond that, you, the consumer, have fewer options which in theory means that you won't have access to the best possible services, because there is no competition. Furthermore, this is thought to inhibit creative enterprise - after all, without being able to cash in, what's the benefit to going out and being innovative? The constant demand to be a market leader, ultimately, is what is thought to drive new technologies, which is a burden that ultimately the government would have to exclusively bear through its own R&D programs.

Further, I don't believe socialism was always thought to be evil. I think the USSR and China's form of communism relied in part upon stifling the flow of information and civil liberties in order to maintain itself. That alone wouldn't be a huge problem if not for the fact that the USSR was our competing world hegemon, and thus whatever they did had to be neutralized by something we did, or else their sphere of influence would grow (and ours would hence diminish). This gave birth to the propaganda that communism's goal is to stamp out capitalism and dominate the world, something nearly all Americans would find unacceptable. Ergo, socialism = evil.

I don't necessarily believe all of that, but that's how the thinking goes, as I understand it. Personally, I look at our current government and see a lot of socialism - public schools, police, military, etc. Certainly, socialism and capitalism can exist hand-in-hand, and I believe that a perfect system would have to incorporate elements of both quite heavily.

That's my $.02 on the issue.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Great Post!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. Why thank you!

Nice avatar. :thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Not having "choice" for essential services is a good thing

Note that during the "rolling blackout" period of 2001 in California, the publicly-owned utilities in that state seemed to have no trouble maintaining a stable supply of power. It was only the profiteers in the private power companies who manipulated the power supply in order to justify rate increases.

For seven years I lived in a town in Oregon that had a municipal power company. I rarely had a monthly electric bill of more than $15.00, except when temperatures stayed below freezing for long periods of time. (I didn't have air conditioning there.) My highest monthly electric bill EVER was $35.00, and this was for a 1,000-sq.ft. apartment. My friends who lived in Portland were astonished and envious.

Ironically, that town was full of right-wing libertarians who had drunk the "government can't do anything right" Kool-Aid. They never noticed the contradiction.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. Like I said, that's just how I understand it.

I agree with your comments, and as I said, in a perfect world, capitalism and socialism have to exist hand-in-hand.

[redqueen]

11. It isn't. It works great.

The only reason it has the reputation of being a bad idea is because we're ruled by corporatists and this country is populated by many who have dreams of joining the upper classes, so they're more than happy to turn their backs on the poor, in the hope that they'll be fatcats too, one day. The idiots.

[liberal N proud]

12. It has, like anything the right wing wants to profit from, been demonized

We have had Social Security for more than 60 years, is there any real evidence of harm done by people having money to buy food when they retire?

The right wing can't profit from Socialized programs and therefore have spent their lifetime convincing the sheep that socialism is bad. It always about the money.

In the most recent efforts, they are going to do everything to prevent national health care in this nation because the insurance industry can't profit from it.

[redqueen]

16. It's not just the right-wing fighting to keep profit in the healthcare *industry*. n/t

[The Straight Story]

14. The word is like the swastika

It has a meaning that is negative in peoples' mind even though the original meaning of it is something different.

It has been tainted. We just need a new term :)

[marmar]

15. Because the corporatists have spent the last 70 years convincing us of that....

Capitalism=Freedom and the American way, not slavery to debt, created wants and destructive consumption.

[FormerDittoHead]

17. Are you really asking why they fear socialism? Because I can tell you.

OK people, this is what THEY think, but the question was asked...

Socialism = Slavery

The argument is that our society was borne from the ground up and simply works better because of it. The proof is our success as an economic force.

As they are, here, institutions are there because they provide something needed (or at least they used to). There is a system of distributed management - it's called bureaucracy. You have city governments, county governments, state governments, and federal. In the federal government you have a system of checks and balances. Across the board, you have churches, professional organizations and associations (AMA, Bar), and then you have private enterprise, which is fully distributed and competitive (please play along for now, OK?).

The big fear of socialism is that it takes all of the above and flattens it ALL out. Everything run from a central place, no checks and balances.

The unspoken understanding (not so unspoken if you read the right stuff, see below) is that it is all in turn run by the super-wealthy - the ones who own the international banks and largest corporations. THEY want to take all of our distributed, competitive, well working systemS and place it ALL under their control...

If you're unfamiliar with this, here's a good starting point:
http://www.amazon.com/One-World-Order-Socialist-Dictatorship/dp/0964010496
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VDXSPSWQL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

[David__77]

18. It's not evil.

But you can't just say there's one thing called "socialism." Lenin upheld "socialism." The right-wing chancellor of Germany is a "Christian Socialist." Hitler was a "national socialist." Outside the US, almost every political movement outside of what is intertionally known as "liberalism" (which is in the US is called "conservatism"), movements have used the slogan of "socialism" to some degree or another.

At a basic level, socialism is just the concept of human solidarity and social consciousness and mission. It doesn't even need to imply collective ownership of industry, though it can mean this.

[Mr. Ected]

19. Gee, the Socialism in Western Europe Isn't Half Bad

Guaranteed health care for everyone. Guaranteed housing. Guaranteed education. Guaranteed retirement care and pension. Honest unemployment benefits. Work contracts between employer and employee.

Hmmm. Lower crime rates. Social and community awareness.

What a concept.

Damn those "every man for himself Republicans". United we stand, divided we FALL.

[Hydra]

20. People are conditioned to think

that they can't have their cake and eat it too.

They like the idea of capitalism giving them the chance to make it big if they work hard. We rarely talk about how slim that chance is, and what morals you usually have to give up in the process.

Socialism is seen as not having that opportunity- everyone gets the same, so there's no reason to strive for anything.

Would you like your cake, or would like like to eat it?

I think socialism can be as mediocre as advertised, but it could also be built with incentives to succeed.

The system is ultimately less important than what we do with it, IMO.

[Mr. Ected]

27. I Noticed Quite A Few Very, Very Rich People in Holland and Germany

I don't buy for one minute the argument that socialism ensures that everyone ends up in some kind of economic purgatory.

And to be perfectly honest, the tax rates over there are not THAT much greater than here in the States, when you factor in state and federal, and our contributions to private health insurance.

Another misnomer courtesy of the right wing liars.

[Katherine Brengle]

23. Socialism itself is fine.

Mismanaged socialism can be a problem, but that is true of all forms of government and is thus a moot point imo.

[porphyrian]

26. Because our military had to kill people who called themselves that somewhere.

It's easier to kill someone you demonize and/or dehumanize.

[Cleita]

31. I think we need a new word for the same concept.

So many people equate socialism and communism with Soviet totalitarianism and the present day Chinese empire.

I think commonalism is a better description. People who join together to contribute to a commons that we all use, like roads, schools, health care, etc.

[devilgrrl]

34. Paris Hilton will have to pay taxes!

We can't have that!!!! :sarcasm:

[TahitiNut]

35. Uhhhm ... because it's the opposite of Sociopathic?

That seems to be the motivation for many to foam at the mouth and run screaming.

:shrug:

[zippy890]

37. the Soviet Union was not socialism

it was state capitalism. the government extracted huge monies from the populace to fund their massive military. Which they saw as necessary during the cold war. The red scare was actually a myth - there was no real threat to the US.

socialism is not evil at all, as some have pointed out above we have certain government services that are basically socialism, and have worked well for our people.

Medicare & Social Security benefits are one example. the Social Security Administration is one agency that I have a great deal of respect for - on a daily basis it helps people live a decent life that otherwise could not.

[warren pease]

39. You must have slept through the cold war...

... :evilgrin: Just kidding. Thing is, in america, we've got socialistic institutions aplenty, but they're not called socialist. They're called the cops and the firefighters and the military and libraries and community parks and Medicare and grange collectives -- all technically socialist in nature and therefore unworthy of survival in a capitalist society.

Now nobody but an idiot would take this to heart, which is why republicans are so adamant about privatizing everything except risk. In america, we privatize profit and socialize risk.

Which is to say, if the logging operation upriver destabilizes tons of topsoil, which eventually makes its way downhill to streams and rivers and ends up killing fish and plants while cutting off a major food source for wildlife, and then the now-bare slopes result in abnormal winter runoff and mudslides, which either flood or bury the homes down by the river, and the insurance company won't pay off because it calls these manufactured conditions acts of god...

Socializing risk means that the public pays for the consequences of the logging operation's negligent destabilization of the hillsides, not the logging company itself. It continues on its merry way to profitability, while taxpayers get soaked for the bill. Maybe FEMA shows up; maybe not. Maybe some diligent congressperson goes to bat for his/her constituents; maybe not. Maybe the bad PR forces the logging company to cover some of the costs of slope restoration; probably not.

This is republican heaven, apparently, where everything is for sale, where the market determines the cost of services and where the poor can just sit back and watch their houses burn to the ground because they can't afford to pay the exorbitant fees the privatized fire department now charges.

Or they can die because they lack the money to purchase proper health care on the open market, so they either don't see doctors until it's too late, or they use the ER as their primary care physician -- which is apparently OK because, again, the hospital just bills uncle sucker and we pay the bill. Although republicans prefer the death of poor people whenever possible, and govern accordingly, they'll take a live one every now and then as long as they don't impact the bottom line.

Examples abound, but suffice to say that, as on so many issues, we're the planet's leading hypocrites when it comes to practicing socialism while pretending to operate exclusively within a free-market construct.


wp

[kedrys]

40. Well, er...

Hmm.

I got nothing.

[USA_1]

41. Nothing Wrong With A Mixed Economy ...

... in which the government promotes infrastructural improvement. Governor DeWitt Clinton of New York who was among the Founding Fathers advocated that years before Marx was born and put it into practice. President John Quincy Adams wrote a strong defense for it that was used by President Roosevelt in order to end the Great Depression and to make the USA prosperous.

But ''socialism'' in itself is a problem as it is a racist ideology whose intent was for the advancement of white supremacy. See Letters of Jack London Volume One, letters to Cloudesley Johns, Summer 1899:

http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=1227%20%20

[LeftishBrit]

42. Well, obviously I don't think it's evil...

The reasons why people do think so:

(1) Many people do not see gradations within socialism, and assume that socialism means totalitarian communism. I associate 'socialism' with Scandinavia or pre-Thatcher Britain, but evidently many people, especially outside Europe, associate it with Stalinism or Maoism.

(2) Some people consider that people will not work or try to achieve without big economic carrots and sticks, and that economic equality destroys motivation. In fact, no socialist or even communist country has ever had anything like complete economic equality. What socialism does provide is government-run public services and a safety-net that prevents anyone from needing to fear destitution. In some people's opinion, even that 'discourages motivation', and people will not feel motivated to work without the fear of destitution. There is IMO little evidence of this (even if this would make it right), and lots of evidence that destitution and the threat of it can demoralize people and destroy their motivation.

(3) People who are rich, or who hope that they may become rich, often resent having to pay taxes to support poorer people or to support wider community benefits. "I'm all right Jack!" As Maggie Thatcher (in)famously said, "There is no such thing as society."

(4) Related to (2) and (3), but more 'moralized': A strong ideological opposition to 'entitlement' and to people being enabled to think that they have a *right* to any services or to any accommodation to their needs. The Thatcherite/ contemporary British Right/ mainstream Republican form of this view, which is actually the milder one, is that help and services are not rights, but need to be earned. The British Victorian Right/ American Christian Right form of this view is that help and services are not rights, but are gifts bestowed by charity, and that in essence the poor *have* no rights, whatever they do.

[Vidar]

43. Might have some problems but nowhere near as bad as capitalism.

Mixed economies, leaning socialist, are usually best.

[KansDem]

45. "Socialism" make stockholders out of *all* citizens, unlike *capitalism"...

...which makes stockholders out of a few. Therefore, more share in some rather than a few having all.

I believe that's why it is so vilified by the filthy wealthy.

But then, I'm no economist...

[DangerDave921]

46. certain industries?

What do you mean by government control of certain industries? Which industries? And regulation is not the same as socialism, so you can't link the two.

Socialism puts too much power in the hands of a few government officials to dictate one's labor and earning capacity, i.e., one's freedom. If you want government officials running businesses, then go down to the motor vehicle administration, or the workers compensation office, or any other government agency. Tell me how that compares to how a private company is run. If you want shortages, malaise, and less enterpreneurship, go for government ownership. Or just move to Venezuela or Cuba.

I find there are three kinds of people who like socialism: young and naive, really rich, or unable to get ahead in a capitalist society and want the government to provide for them.

Government safety nets are great; government ownership of companies is not.

[David__77]

48. "unable to get ahead in a capitalist society "

Did it occur to you that there may be something wrong with a society that does not have solidarity with its weakest members? Perhaps we should value unity and assistance rather than dog eat dog and the winner takes it all.

[DangerDave921]

49. Misunderstand

You're not hearing me. I said safety nets are great. They are a vital function of government so that the "weakest" (your term) members are cared for in time of need. But that is a far cry from socialism, whereby the government owns the means of production. I am a huge fan of capitalism and the market. A fair, honest, open market whereby people can compete and excel and get ahead. Government ownership retards those things. Read up on the Soviet Union. Or pick up an Ayn Rand book.

[Tyler Durden]

54. Ayn Rand was a delusional absolutist.

Democratic Socialist governments do not "OWN" everything. "...socialism, whereby the government owns the means of production..." ???

Give me a break. And I suggest you re-read a few treatises on Socialism. I suggest a visit to the Socialist Progressives forum.

You really don't appear to understand the concept very well.

[DangerDave921]

57. No thanks

I love Ayn Rand. She was in no way delusional. She recognized the primary effect of overly burdensome government, which is the crushing of the human spirit. You may envision a paternalistic, good-hearted, government managing and regulating your life, but I see it as inherently dangerous and destructive.

Socialism is great if you're part of the group in charge of everything, or if you're completely lazy and want a guaranteed income. Personally, I'd rather have freedom.

Peace out!

[Tyler Durden]

58. I read Rand years ago, and her "theories" are discredited.

You substitute the "Communist" view of Progressive Socialism for her complete Laizze Faire Anarchy which leads to the Robber Baron Capitalism that reigned in the 19th century, and that the Pig Bush and his minions want to return to. Nothing that Rand has envisioned has worked.

I envision nothing of the sort as you perceive that I do: I envision a system run as it should have been: by the PEOPLE, and NOT by the moneyed power elite.

I think you need a little more life experience: most people under the age of 30 go through a "Randist" phase. They usually grow out of it, or become Republicans or Libertarians.

[DangerDave921]

59. 40

First off, I'm 40 years old.

How is an economic system run "by the people?" It takes individuals, making daily decisions, to run a business. In your view of socialism, who are the people making those decisions? Are they the owners of the company? Or is private ownership of comanies not allowed in socialism? Would the government own every company? Or if not own, dictate the management of the company?

I'm a Dem, but one who champions the free market. I don't want to live in a socialist country, nor do I romanticize communes and co-ops, etc. I think those things are great when all participants volunteer to be in them. But installing a huge government to run our economy and businesses is just plain stupid. Aren't half the posts on here about how intrusive the government is in our lives already, and how dangerous that is??? But then everyone turns around and seems to ask for the very same thing, just as long as there's a D next to the leader's name. Personally, I distrust big government when it starts overreaching its necessary function.

[Odin2005]

61. There is no such thing as a "free" market.

There are only markets regulated by the customs of pre-modern societies, markets managed by the government in the interest of the entire society, or markets controlled by the whims of corporate thugs.

[Tyler Durden]

62. Communes, co-ops etc, have little or NOTHING to do with modern Socialism.

As you continue to hint at Modern Socialism = USSR Communism and refuse to educate yourself to even the slightest degree, this discussion has no meaning.

And I am 55.

[Odin2005]

60. I think you're on the wrong message board, buddy.

DU an't the place for you Randoid wackos.

[Odin2005]

52. You are showing a common misunderstanding of what socialism is.

Socialism is perfectly compatible with a market economy as long as the businesses are co-ops. What you are talking about (and rightly criticizing) are the the "Democratic Centralist" planned economies loved by orthodox Marxists.

Another misconception I'm seeing in this thread is the nation that countries like Sweden are socialist, they are not; they are highly regulated capitalist economies.

A socialist economy doesn't have to be centrally planned and a capitalist economy doesn't require free enterprise. Capitalism vs. Socialism is about who controls the means of production. Markets vs. Planning is about how goods and services are distributed.

[bryant69]

64. Socialism is a blanket term

If socialism, for the purposes of this discussion, means government control of certain industries and strong regulation I'd be bang up along side it. On the other hand socialism can also mean government control over all industry and the elimination of capitalism, which I do not support.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Ex Lion Tamer]

67. Because (n/t)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

68. "Socialism" is such a loosely defined concept...

By some people's definition, things like public schools and fire departments would constitute "socialism."

But you get some folks like Rush and Hannity thrown into the mix, they start whipping up their audiences into thinking national health care equals saluting missile parades on May Day. Meanwhile, both of their sorry arses are so loaded with money and would never have to worry about having to put a second mortgage on their house just to get life saving surgery. It's sick.

[deutsey]

70. Soviet and Chinese Communism is evil; democratic socialism isn't

Unfortunately, many here in America can't tell the difference.

[ismnotwasm]

71. It isn't

Never was. There were certain horrid misapplications as well as misinterpretations of it of course, but socialism remains a damn good idea

[IndianaJones]

72. the sweat off your brow...the man in Moscow says it belongs to everyone. nt.

[Tyler Durden]

73. You know what happens when you make Stalinist Communism equal to Democratic Socialism?

It makes you look either uninformed, or really stupid.