So What's Wrong With Socialism?

[pippin]

". . . childbirth in Sweden, the safest place in the world to be born - fewer children die here under the age of five than in any other country. . . Swedish parents get 480 days off after the birth of a child. Most of it is on 80% of normal pay, but many employers top that up to 90%.

Each parent must take 60 days, but how they divide the remaining 360 is up to them.

And the time off is valid until the child is eight years old." State-subsidised nurseries are available and " fees are capped, to make them affordable to everyone."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7202694.stm

So why are we in the U.S. so adamantly opposed to anything that smacks of "socialism?" :think:

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. It's easier when society is homogenous. Our national history

is entirely different and imposing a lifestyle that's not native is harder than it appears.

[YOY]

8. at least that's what we are told...

I can't really think of any proper example that shows that diversity within a culture affects the system overall.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. I can. Kibbutzim sprung up all over the new Israeli state ... did you

see Palestinians following suit to prosperity? They've retained their national identity, which is natural and normal.

Maybe you have to be raised a socialist, as my father taught me, to appreciate the history and limitations of the system. Socialism handles scarcity well, but not affluence.

[Tyler Durden]

14. Sort of like our lifestyle imposed on the Native Americans....

See, it has little to do with National History or lifestyle. It has to do with an elite class that doesn't want to pay for anything other than their families and their toys. When the wealthy no longer feel an obligation to the society that supports their style of life, they stop feeling they have to "pay their way."

That is what Democratic Socialism is all about. Paying your way, taking care of the helpless (and aren't ALL of us helpless from time to time?), and BENIGN government that does not impose imperialistic aggression such as in Iraq, or such as the Cuban Embargo.

[Fredda Weinberg]

19. I take it you're a utopian? I was, a long time ago, then I studied the

history of utopian colonies in the US. Every single one ended the same way ... even the remaining remnants.

So I probably share your ideals ... perhaps we can communicate?

[Tyler Durden]

26. Not a Utopian.

When the restraints are abandoned as they are under classical Utopian idealism, the Robber Barons, Fascists and their fellow travelers come out of the woodwork like roaches.

But we are likely much more in agreement than not.

[Cassandra]

29. Authoritarian followers and (potential) leaders...

are always with us, since those are psychological states, and they don't take well to sharing.

[Tyler Durden]

41. Again, that's what the Rule of Law is for.

EQUALITY under the LAW is the highest aspiration a society can aspire to.

[Cassandra]

44. Well, we have seen what happens when...

the authoritarians are the ones administering the law. They do not believe in equality under the law. It is not their highest aspiration; they think it is for suckers.

[Tyler Durden]

45. Anarchy is NOT a stable system.

Not to say that Authoritarianism is the answer, but without equality under the law........

[Fredda Weinberg]

55. Anarchy threatens every vunerable system, which is why it

encourages authoritarianism. Happened in German and post revolutionary Russia. Yes, constitutional law, not derived from any mystical source, is our best protection from despotism.

[Tyler Durden]

60. Exactly.

I only wish we had not adopted this bothersome allergy to Democratic Socialism, for think of the GOOD we could do.

[Fredda Weinberg]

66. I don't think. When I lived in Delray Beach, I went downtown every

Saturday morning and put it into practice, opening a free computer learning center w/the cooperation of the cops. Cut crime too.

[bean fidhleir]

106. I would disagree strongly.

As we see with BushCo riding roughshod over our "piece of paper" Constitutional law with the full cooperation of the Democrats, no system is worth a damn without a vigilant populace with the power to keep it in line. Anarchism (=no rulers) is pretty much the definition of such a vigilant populace.

When everyone has the authority to "stop the production line", those trying to divert the production to their own benefit have an impossible task.

Jefferson said it very clearly: if a few people have all the power, they can be easily bribed or intimidated. But if the power is spread out amongst the whole populace, bribery and intimidation become impossible.

[Fredda Weinberg]

113. When everyone has the authority to stop the production line, you'd

better have trained employees ... else you won't last long. In principle, yes, I agree with your sentiments, but cannot join you on the means. Power is disseminated, diffused, but coheres under stress, which is exactly what we should do. Eternal vigilance is exhausting and wasteful ... ever see a cat when he's not hunting? Nothing is more intensely relaxed.

Socialism is a reaction to scarcity ... it's not needed for affluence and falls apart. Unlike insurance, it is self-sufficient to the needy, so if you have time - there's plenty of need.

Of course, there are long term plans. Be happy to discuss mine anytime. For all our agreements, I bid you peace.

[Unvanguard]

90. Since when have anarchists been opposed to equality under the law?

If anything, an anarchist polity would be especially adamant about equality under law... after all, anarchist political theory has always emphasized equality as a political ideal.

[femrap]

98. I think they will share (the followers)

if they are told to do so. They are sheep and are obedient.

[ProudDad]

75. USAmerikan national history

is a litany of violence, greed and genocide.

I think it's time to end that nonsense, don't you?

[Fredda Weinberg]

77. End history? Nope. The best we can hope for is to learn the lessons

and be kind to each other. Violence, greed and even genocide will continue to be part of our natural lives. That's why I grew out of utopianism ... biological imperatives cannot be ignored.

[EV_Ares]

2. Another thing that has been pounded into us for so long. If you look at socialism, it is not any

worse or as bad as the system we are currently living under. Our system was the best years ago when it worked for everyone but when greed and the rich got more control, things have changed a bit.


I realize for the wealthy and filthy rich, this system is the best but for the overall population, you have to think about it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

47. I think any pure ism is bad period...

Pure capitalism or pure socialism is bad. Mix the two together and you have one hell of a system...

e.g. let the capitalist run with the ball but they need to pay their fair share in return. Exxon wants to rack up record profits? woot! take an appropriate percentage for society at large (it is after all society that provides the human resources, security, stability, and infrastructure for their profit) and everybody wins.

Capitalist run better and more profitable businesses and I don't begrudge them the fruits of their labor and investment. But they live in a society which provides the environment for free enterprise and a productive workforce and they need to reimburse society for that. What society does with that money is completely up to the voters..

[moondust]

3. Greedy, selfish people hate it.

[Echo In Light]

48. You got it. There's the ugly truth. Too bad so many supposed "liberals" share in that

[Burma Jones]

4. Americans all think they're going to be rich one day

and, by golly, I don't want anyone taking MY lottery winnings........

[YOY]

5. It's easily confusable to communism to the feeble minded who need their opinions spoonfed to them

That's what's wrong with it.

[dysfunctional press]

28. especially since the evil empire- the soviet union was the union of soviet socialist republics- ussr

nt

[YOY]

31. and we're a democratic republic but many American's think us a "democracy".

So really, what's in a name?

[bean fidhleir]

101. This is not a "democratic republic". This is an oligarchic republic.

And only barely a republic at that. An argument could be made that we now live in an undeclared monarchy. Any democracy we have is at the level of whitewash on a confidence game.

If and when our elections become actual exercizes in choosing actual representatives, THEN we'll maybe have a democracy. But we for sure don't have one now.

[conscious evolution]

34. That was my first thought also

Too many people have been brainwashed into thinking socialism is bad because of its inclusion into communist Russia's name.

[LWolf]

6. Nothing. n/t

[Tyler Durden]

7. Absolutely nothing.

Socialism gets painted with the same brush as Stalinist-Style Communism, which it has nothing in common with.

EDUCATION as to the benign nature of that system is what is necessary, and is what is missing in total from the United States Educational System.

[Trajan]

9. This is Social Legislation ....

not Socialism ....

That is an intentional misdirection foisted upon the populace so that every progressive initiative appears to be a headlong race into 'Socialism' ....

Socialism, as a political system, exists when the 'state' owns the means of production .....

Merely mandating paid time off does NOT constitute 'Socialism' ....

[Tyler Durden]

12. No, COMMUNISM is where the 'State' owns the means of production.

That's where the Problem with Democratic Socialism keeps cropping up.

Sweden, a self-professed Socialist State has many industries that are privately, and even foreign owned, and they have a stock market.

[Trajan]

21. From Wikipedia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

-snip-

The term socialism is used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the Soviet Union, state ownership of productive property was combined with central planning. Down to the workplace level, Soviet economic planners decided what goods and services were to be produced, how they were to be produced, in what quantities, and at what prices they were to be sold (see economy of the Soviet Union). Soviet economic planning was promoted as an alternative to allowing prices and production to be determined by the market through supply and demand.

-snip-

Yeah ... I know: It's Wikipedia ..... and while I cannot profess an all-encompassing knowledge of all the varieties and forms of socialist/communist government, I think it is fair to state that:

"Socialism is an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution"

You may possess a more nuanced explanation, but such complex matters are wide open to wordsmithing and equivocations .....

[Tyler Durden]

24. Right. It's Wikipedia.

That source always needs parsing.

Trust me. I've studied Democratic Socialism since I was 12 in 1964, and comparing Socialist concepts to Communist ones is like comparing apples to hand grenades.

Besides that, we have tons of Socialist programs and processes in place HERE.

Police and Fire departments.
Public Utilities.
Public Schools and Universities.
Trade Unions.
Infrastructure Departments, like Transportation, Trade, etc.

No. It is not fair to state that. And if you are really serious about this, go here:

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/dem_soc.htm

[JVS]

64. You're correct

Sweden may have nicer perks for workers, but it still runs under a system where the economic order is controlled by the bourgeoisie. Socialism can only exist when the capitalist/investor/ business owner is as antiquated and obsolete a notion as a king duke knight or earl is to us today.

[insanity]

67. A few minor points

Sweden is probably the foremost example of a welfare-state, the same thing that Democratic Socialist advocate. Socialism is an economic system in which the state controls industry (or at least most industry) to redistribute 'wealth'. Communism is a political system where the state controls the means of production to ostensibly provide for the general welfare.


Communist leaders and republican leaders share a lot in common in terms of their few of centralized power with little civil rights.

I'm a huge welfare-statist. I think if you give people the incentives provided by capitalism with the protection provided by socialist ideals you are going to have a great country

[JVS]

68. You are speaking of Socialism as though everyone agrees with Kautsky

That's like using Calvinism as the benchmark for Christianity.

According to other frameworks, socialism is when the government owns the economy, communism is when the need for government is gone and the working class is able to hold property in common without a government.

[bemildred]

10. We should be so lucky. nt

[Annces]

11. You can't rule the world

with socialism. We will get there one way or another or perish though.

[stuntcat]

13. it makes it harder to keep some people down

if everyone's got a little power how can a few rich pigs decide everything for us and run our mass media? :crazy:

[RB TexLa]

15. So if you have a child you are not allowed to work for 2 months?

So if you own your own business, and are the only employee probably not a wise move to reproduce.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

49. More to the point

If you own a small business of 3-4 employees and one has a kid you lose 25-33% of your workforce *and* have to pay for it..

[femrap]

99. Since you're the boss, the kid comes

to work! The American culture is one of the most non-humane cultures on the face of the earth. No other nation works more hours than we do except S. Korea (of industrialized nations). No wonder everyone is on anti-depressants. This culture tries to make us into something that we are not...ROBOTS, MURDERERS, SEX OBJECTS, AND HYPER-COMPETITIVE.

Makes me want to move to Italy...slow down and enjoy the finer things of life...good food, nature's beauty, long walks, good conversation, music, art...Ciao.

[RB TexLa]

111. I've never been around them but I can't think taking a newborn to work is very productive

[femrap]

121. And gee...it looks like

you haven't outgrown your unproductiveness. I hope you'll do us the favor of not bringing any unproductive beings into the world since you don't seem to have much a parenthood mentality. Thx.

Oh...and Ignored.

[RB TexLa]

129. I have the furthest thing from that mentality, I do not father or raise children, that is for others

to do. But I can't think that even the happiest and proudest of parents can get much work done bringing a newborn to work with them.

[LeftinOH]

16. Rampant selfishness is harder to express....

[originalpckelly]

17. Planned economies of any type are less efficient than free market economies.

In addition to the productive capacity of an economy, there must be non-productive capacity devoted to planning so that the supply and demand ratio won't get all whacked out. The plan must be frequently adapted, or it will become more inefficient as circumstances do not play out according to plan. In a free market capitalist system, planning is unnecessary as each element (person) involved in the system takes the planning task upon themselves. The unproductive capacity used to plan is therefore redirected to production, increasing the efficiency of the economy, meaning that for the same amount of work more gets done.

The problem is that corporate bureaucracy is a form of planning, and has introduced into the American economy many elements of planning, which reduce the efficiency of the system. We see the coldness of American corporate bureaucracy instead of the coldness of foreign government bureaucracy, but technically they are no better than each other.

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. But they are more stable and capable of dealing w/rapid progress n/t

[originalpckelly]

23. Indeed, but the authority required to effectively implement a plan...

may be/usually is abused easily.

[Tyler Durden]

27. That's what the Rule of Law is for....

But nothing lasts forever. Think the United States will last forever? I don't.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

50. Neither will sweeden or socialism... point?

[ProudDad]

76. Socialism will last

it will replace capitalism (unless capitalism is allowed to complete its job of making the Earth uninhabitable for mammalian life)

And then it will be replaced by Anarchy -- if the human race lives long enough.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

78. No, it really wont..

most likely the two systems will continue to evolve together until at some point they are supplanted by something else (or until the bridge the gap between each other). Neither aquatically address the balance between human nature/desires and societal needs..

[martymar64]

107. "aquatically address the balance"?

You mean like in the water?

Sorry, that just struck me as funny! :toast:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

117. Im quite comfortable with the fact

Im awful on paper.. ;)

Cheers..

[AngryAmish]

54. Just the opposite

No centralized system can take in, process and act on all the information needed in an economy. There is too much information for the system to deal with.

[blindpig]

69. Um, you're using a computer, on the internet, right? Extrapolate. n/t

[AngryAmish]

71. ?

[blindpig]

83. computers and telecommunication can handle the job easily.

However, socialism does not necessarily imply monolithic centralization, particularly with these devices at our disposal. Indeed, a more human, socialist, de-centralized economy than we have now would be eminently possible.

[AngryAmish]

84. I think I was unclear

It is not the technology. There are not enough human decision makers inside an organization (government) to decide what needs to go where. That is where government control of production and consumption breaks down. Having computers won't make a difference.

[blindpig]

86. Not a problem.

Who sez the government has to make the all of the decisions?

I think that you're laboring under the misconception that socialism necessitates top down decision making. The example of the Soviet Union, which has been greatly distorted by the US propaganda machine and which bore the weight of Russian history, is not the only game in town. Rather, decisions are made by the workers, on the community level, direct democracy. Production of necessities, particularly food, should be as local as possible, negating a lot bureaucracy. A truly educated populace, freed of the mad model of unlimited consumption and accumulation, would further facilitate this de-centralized approach.

It might not happen overnight, but it is the only sane, just and humane solution to our dilemma.

[conscious evolution]

36. Central planning definitly exists here in the US

Central planning is why a hamburger at the McDonalds in Atlanta tastes just like the Hamburger at
Central planning is why I can get the same style of Nikes in any mall or walmart in the country.
Central planning is why Coke comes in the same style of bottle antwhere in the world.
Central planning is what brought electricity to millions of rural Americans.
McDonalds in Spokane.
Central planning is why I can take one highway from one coast to the other.
Central planning is why the Ga National Guard wears the same uniforms and uses the same equipment as the US Army.
Central planning is why we have No Child Left Behind.

[The2ndWheel]

42. Absolutely. It all ends up in a monopoly

A relentless quest for efficiency ends in monopoly. Mass production ends in monopoly. Standardization ends in monopoly.

It works the same way with the corporation or the state. It's why we only have one government in the United States, and have had, and again are on the way to having, one corporation in the United States(or at least one in each industry, or just Wal-Mart everywhere, either way). Neither organization likes diversity. If we had two competing governments in the US, the US wouldn't survive. That's the same reason corporations buy the other corporations out and merge together.

That's why, in the end, you can call it capitalism, you can call it socialism, you can call it a mixture of the two, you're going to end up with the same thing. Why? Because of the centralizing and consolidating nature of organization.

[sinkingfeeling]

40. Have you looked at our free market economy recently?

[blindpig]

65. Efficient to what purpose?

Capitalism is the most efficient way to make money for the capitalist. Capitalism inevitably over- produces in the endeavour to maximise profits, thus the boom and bust cycles. Advertising(psy-ops) has been capitalism's response to this, and thus we're the most obese nation on Earth, buried in tawdry trinkets, electronic bling and ostentatious crap while resources are senselessly squandered, pollution is rampant, labor is suppressed. Imperialism is also bound to capitalism as the profit mandate requires more labor, markets and resources from further afield.

[endarkenment]

93. a centralized planned economy might be less efficient

But that is only required only by traditional marxist-leninist systems. A democratic socialist system does not need a centralized planned economy it simply requires social regulation of economic activity through democratic institutions.

But why is efficiency the goal?

[bean fidhleir]

102. And Capitalism is an example of a centrally-planned economy

Which is what I suppose you really meant, since all economies are planned on some level.

The kind of socialist economy represented by the co-op system is planned at the bottom and works very well as co-op owner-members know.

[bryant69]

22. Socialism means a wide range of things

and in America it's been conflated with communism.

Are socialism and capitalism enemies? Some would say yes, Europe (and some Asian nations as well) seem to be successfully merging the two.

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

[Tyler Durden]

25. Captialism and Communism are enemies.

Capitalism can exist very nicely under Democratic Socialism.

Read a little bit here, and you'll see that what you're saying about merging the systems is very true.

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/far-right/dem_soc.htm

We really have to stop agreeing. People will say we're in love.

[originalpckelly]

33. Socialism is the unifying of microstates into a larger state, it is contradictory...

to the laws of physics which indicates that entropy, or the number of microstates in a system, tends to increase with time.

Free market capitalism is an emergent behavior, which probably originates from some deeper physical behavior that causes self-regulation in many systems.

That does not mean that fm capitalism is the end all to be all, nor does it preclude models of bureaucratic control like fascism from employing capitalism, a system that ours is most similar to.

I should note that microstates in economics, in my view, connote the well-being of an element in the system. If a person forms a relationship with another person that is financial, then they combine two microstates into one, their well-being is not now solely defined by either one's own well-being, but their collective well-being.

Socialism unifies the microstates of a given group, so that the well-being of an individual is based upon the well-being of all. This unfortunately is as I've said before, contradicted by the facts of the universe as we can best observe, that the number of microstates in a system tends to increase with time.

It also means that the success of an individual is less due to their own merits or faults, but upon the merits or faults of their society.

Some people seek this unity, but they will find the coldness of *only* being one person in a group of many is not a very humane lifestyle.

Individuality is based upon individualism. Evolutionary history has shown that variation (individuality) is beneficial to the survival of a species. I'd suggest that this is due to the fact that if a variation already exists, it eliminates the time a species may need to develop the variation, thereby allowing it to adapt more quickly.

That's just my theory.

[Tyler Durden]

39. Yes, it is YOUR theory.

And I defend your right to BELIEVE it, but I do not accept most of its tenants.

Sorry. And as it is YOUR theory, I will decline to debate it with you, as its basis are not supported by sourceable.

I will say that as a student of physics from Newton to Membrane Theory, I do not accept any comparisons of physics with economics or politics, both in the modern era have achieved a status similar to religious dogma or witchcraft.

[Hydra]

87. You're misunderstanding entropy

From my POV. Entropy is the tendency of a system to find a neutral point and have everything degrade or energize to reach that point. Ice absorbs heat from the air and melts. Eventually it and the air temperature are the same.

Given that fact, the natural inclination of the system is to consume itself over and over again until it is all one state.

Your "increasing microstates" is only caused when there is a significant body of the system refusing to adjust to the conditions. as long as that isn't the case, everything is homogenizing at a relatively fixed rate.

Given that fact, predatory capitalism or "subverting" socialism will all bring us to the same place. Personally, I'd prefer the happier and less stressful method, myself.

[Xenotime]

30. Socialism is the only thing that can save this country

The way we are doing it hasn't worked so well.

[lovuian]

59. capitalism is a failure

its proven it over and over again

[Virginia Dare]

63. I agree, the 1990's were much like the 1920's..

I think we're drifting slowly toward the 1930's again. We will see a rise in socialism soon. It will be like the hangover after New Years Eve for this country.

[The2ndWheel]

32. US population: over 300,000,000

Population of Sweden: less than 10,000,000

Nobody has a system for 300,000,000 people. 300,000,000 people of more diverse backgrounds. 300,000,000 spread out over a fairly large spot of land.

I'm not saying capitalism is a good system for 300,000,000 people either. Well, at least it isn't good for the environment.

You can make any system work. But the more people that fall under that system, the more force you need to structure it, implement it, run it, maintain it.

[Snarkturian Clone]

74. People easily forget those facts 'round here

Remember that whole time when DUers kept comparing the US to Norway without any mention of how Norway has a lower population than New York City?

They also forget about regionalism. Most of the biggest conflicts in american politics are based on regional cultural differences.

[Jed Dilligan]

35. For Life, Liberty, and N, there are two versions of N.

On the one hand there is "the pursuit of happiness," which we are familiar with from our Declaration of Independence, but on the other there is "property." There is a countercurrent in the United States to the true meaning of the Declaration, which I am sure can be traced to the slave owners among the Founders. It's the idea that once someone owns something, it is "inalienably" theirs, regardless of whether their possessing it is immoral/unethical or detrimental to the public good.

Any form of socialism (and the radical Ron Paulite types will argue that even the income tax is a form of socialism) depends on transferring property from individuals to the state, and we have a tradition of quasi-religious resentment toward such transfers. Perhaps it is because our country started as a tax protest. Whatever the reason, people don't seem to realize that state, public, and private property exist in every system; the only debate between Communism and Socialism and Libertarianism is about how much of each there ought to be.

[Unvanguard]

94. Most people miss that. :)

I have always found that change in wording, and the attitudes behind it, to be one of the more interesting and worthier parts of the US political tradition.

[bean fidhleir]

103. You really need to update your understanding of socialism

What you're talking about is "state socialism", a generally discredited form except among soviet-style commies and rightwingers.

[Jed Dilligan]

110. No, I'm talking about any social program

that mandates that citizens give their wealth to support it. This would include things like eminent domain as well as taxes. Public schools, national health, police and fire etc. are social programs. A system that emphasizes these sorts of programs over the private-sector profit growth is socialistic. It doesn't need an authoritarian government (except insofar as wealthy interests would initially resist its institution).

[bean fidhleir]

119. Your formulation implies that government is a separate entity

Which misses the essential quality of socialism: government is a function, not a group. It's not a ruling class over us, it's us acting to meet our needs. The idea that government is always a ruling class is a throwback to monarchy and other forms of rule by the few.

Is it "transferring property from individuals to the state" when, for the benefit of all, I bring a dish to a potluck?

[Jed Dilligan]

122. I doubt that people will ever feel that way

We just don't like being told what to do. This government certainly IS a ruling class over us--there needs to be violent revolution to get to where you're talking about.

[bean fidhleir]

123. It seems to me that if we want to live, we'd better start altering

our way of thinking. As long as we accept the idea that government is by rights a ruling class, we necessarily accept everything that follows from that. And we continue to sink deeper and deeper into the sh*t. Which is now up to our chins.

[Jed Dilligan]

124. For one thing, we need much smaller countries

before we can really start governing ourselves.

[bean fidhleir]

125. I don't see why.

Right now we're being governed, at both the political and economic levels, by fewer than 30M people (I include government bureaucrats and corporate bosses as well as the politicians). If fewer than 30M can govern 300M, then why wouldn't 300M be able to govern 300M?

[Jed Dilligan]

126. You really think the ruling class is that large?

I think the effective decision makers are several thousand at most.

[bean fidhleir]

127. I was trying to be as generous as possible

If we presume the ruling class includes, through "influence", the wealthiest 10%, that's 30M. If we ignore everyone but the federal politicians and major bureaucrats, it's fewer than 1000. So, some number of people in the range 1000 - 30M are successfully (from their standpoint) ruling over 300M of us.

So if they can govern us, we can govern us.

[Jed Dilligan]

128. I'd say its harder to organize a large number of people

than a small number. Just try making dinner plans sometime! If the US was broken up into countries around 20-30 million, we could have much more direct representation of each individual in the government.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Some Socialism Is Good. There's Also Some Socialism Already Established Here.

Socialism in its entirety here though, is not something I'd ever support as I find it ridiculous. I would never want to squash the entrepreneurial spirit and innovative creativity and motivation that a market economy inspires.

We are at our best when we have freedoms. That includes economic freedoms. The government should never have that much control over our existence, and I flat out reject that economic system when in its entirety.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

79. Spot on post n/t

[stimbox]

38. 90 years of anti-communist, pro capitalist brainwashing. n/t

[readmoreoften]

43. Nothing is wrong with socialism.

Particularly as Upton Sinclair defines it in "The Jungle".

We have socialized garbage collection, socialized public school, socialized mail service. All this and America hasn't collapsed yet...imagine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. Socialism is meaningless.

If by socialism you mean "being like Sweden" then it's a good thing.

If by socialism you mean "being like China" then it's a bad thing.

Neither usage has more authority than the other.

Tony Blair claimed he was a socialist. Ken Livingstone claims he isn't. The word has aquired so many different usages that it's now totally useless.

[Echo In Light]

51. One version certainly has greater moral authority/precedence than the other

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. Which?

If one had to say that one usage had more authority backing it than the other, it would probably be the "being like China" one, in which case Socialism is clearly a bad thing.

[Echo In Light]

112. That's why I specified "moral" authority, which is antithetical to authoritarianism

[leftofthedial]

52. because oligarchs and their corporations

want to preserve their positions of power and dominance here

[area51]

53. As others have mentioned,

socialism can't be bad, as we have a socialized police force and a socialized fire dept. If only we could add healthcare to that list so thousands of lives could be saved.

[Echo In Light]

58. One would think that's something a "Christian" nation would WANT to do

Reality

Propaganda

Reality

Propaganda

[stimbox]

56. What is wrong with the Socialist platform below? Nothing.

U.S. OUT OF IRAQ NOW
End the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. Bring all the troops home now.
Stop U.S. blockades & sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Sudan and everywhere.
End U.S. aid to Israel—Support the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.
Free Puerto Rico.
International friendship and solidarity, not imperialist domination.

FIGHT THE CORPORATE BOSSES
Full employment—decent jobs for all. Job training for youth & the unemployed.
Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour now.
Free, quality healthcare for all.
Expand and guarantee social security for all retired workers, disabled and unemployed people.
Stop union-busting, expand the right to organize, including card-check recognition.
Free, high quality education from pre-school through college.
Housing is a right—End foreclosures and evictions.
Stop environmental destruction—Make the polluters pay.
Rebuild New Orleans—Right of return for all survivors.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL
Fight racism and the racist criminal “justice” system.
Defend women’s reproductive rights, including the right to choose.
Full rights for all immigrants.
Reparations now for the African American community.
Eliminate anti-LGBT laws—Equal marriage rights for all.
Equality for disabled people.
Stop police brutality and mass incarceration.
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, the Cuban 5, Angola 3, S.F. 8 and all political prisoners.

SOCIALISM
End the rule of the billionaires, bankers and militarists—fight for workers’ democracy.
We need a sustainable economy based on meeting people’s needs, not making the rich richer.
We need socialism!

[Orsino]

57. Capitalism NEEDS socialism.

Can't have the former without the latter. Not for long, anyway.

[Tyler Durden]

62. Captialism REGULATED by Democratic Socialism...

Probably stable enough for us to work out the rest of the shit that plagues us and the world, AND stop the inevitable Extinction Level Event from some big mucking rock.

[shance]

73. Actually capitalism NEEDS slavery.

It's pretty easy to yell free enterprise and free markets, and equal opportunity when you already own everything.

[Orsino]

82. That won't last, either.

You want a stable economy based on capitalism, include a social safety net. And don't count on slaves remaining in that status.

[MGKrebs]

61. Wow. It is so great to see this thread.

60 posts, I've learned something, and no name calling.
Feels like home.

[Perry Logan]

72. If you don't like socialism, get off my sidewalk.

[ismnotwasm]

80. Probably human nature

Or if I'm being charitable, corporate fascism.
Many of us are convinced that capitalism is the best economic system to work under, because we're told so, if not overtly, than covertly--in a thousand ways, mostly in my opinion, having to do with rampant commercialism. Have to have more, bigger, better. "Work hard enough, and you'll get there" is the American attitude which goes hand in hand with a certain distaste many have for those who are poverty stricken. "They aren't trying hard enough"

Couldn't be the "system' Oh, no.

And then there is the phrase "My tax dollars" Folks have a lot of opinions about "My tax dollars" and are fed a certain amount of misinformation on just what use those tax dollars are being put to. For instance, I would want "My tax dollars" to go to public education, health care, housing, assistance to those in need, maintaining public roads, parks, maintaining environmental concerns like clean air, water, etc. I would like "My tax dollars" to go to any number of concerns considered "socialist" And NOT bullshit wars.

Also, I've found people think communism and socialism are the same thing.

[Desertrose]

81. Nothing....but we're too brainwashed to believe it.

Socialism was equated with communism..the red plague, dirty pinko, etc etc...need I say more?

The propaganda over the past 50+ years had worked its "magic" quite well.

[montanto]

85. it requires people. w/o people its great! nt

[Unvanguard]

88. Sweden is not socialist. We can do even better than that. n/t

[water]

89. Sweeden is actually more free-market oriented than we are in several ways.

They don't have to waste billions on a military budget, and they have a MUCH friendly corporate tax system, for instance.

[Canuckistanian]

104. Volvo, Saab, Ericsson, IKEA, Electrolux, Husqvarna - all Swedish companies

So who says that socialist countries stifle entrepreneurship?

[Cleita]

91. We've been brainwashed that socialism equals Soviet style

communism. No one stops to think about how different it plays out in the type of government it's implemented in. It's too bad. Much of Europe including Sweden uses socialistic programs within a democracy with regulated capitalism. Our problem is capitalism has gone amok with no room for socialism or even democracy it seems these days.

[readmoreoften]

118. You hit it on the nose.

Basically, there is only one "free-market fundamentalist" economic philosophy, but hundreds of paradigms for socialist economies--the grand portion of which either haven't been explored or have been totally ignored. A left-libertarian configuration has never been tried in the modern era.

When people say "capitalism works" I assume they're members of the ruling class. Slavery never died, we just offshored it. Ask kids in Iraq, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Tanzania, or China how well capitalism is working for them, ya know?

"Capitalism works" means just means capitalism works for me.

[endarkenment]

92. a) nothing as long as it is democratic b) we are idiots. nt.

[Hugabear]

95. Absolutely nothing

But Americans have been brainwashed to believe that socialism will lead to "communism" - although most people have no true concept of what communism really was.

[kineneb]

96. Bismark instituted many socialist programs in Germany

because they insured (or tried to) peace and happier citizens. He was hardly a socialist, but knew that revolutions are started by disgruntled citizens.

FDR recognized he would have the same problems as Bismark, hence the New Deal, which was despised even then by the corporate interests.

We just do not learn from history...

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/bisdom.htm

Social Welfare Reform
However Bismarck realized that socialism could not be defeated by harsh measures alone. He knew that policies were needed to improve the position of workers in Germany so as to erode support for the socialists. Williamson wrote that he wanted “to reconcile the working classes to the authority of the state.”
In 1883 he introduced a measure that gave compensation to workers during illness.
In 1884 an Accident Insurance law was introduced to compensate workers injured at work.
In 1889 an Old Age Pension scheme was introduced for workers over seventy.

Although he failed to curb growing SPD support the measures were very constructive and helped to improve the life of most ordinary Germans. They were twenty years ahead of Britain in the area of Social Welfare. As Massie noted “Bismarck had given the German working class the most advanced social legislation in the World."

[femrap]

97. Because there are greedy, evil people

out there who want the whole pie to themselves. They don't like to share...they're selfish beyond belief. They are the same ones that liked having slaves and treating them poorly.

One of these days, the 'little' people who like to share will enter those gated communities and show them what sharing is all about.

[killbotfactory]

100. It threatens the freedom of a powerful elite to enslave, exploit, and impoverish people

Or, in more common terms, it's "bad for business".

[DaveJ]

105. It's all about our Masters' freedom...

But as long as we have a limitless variety of ridiculous fashion accessories and artificial food, we're in no position to complain.

[Disturbed]

109. "Communism and Socialism and Libertarianism is about

how much of each there ought to be."

If the term Socialism was not used in a Poll but the concepts were used
I feel that most Americans would vote for a more Socialistic System.

[bean fidhleir]

120. "If the term Socialism was not used in a Poll but the concepts were used"

And we have a winnah here, folks.

[bean fidhleir]

108. Has anyone noticed that the ads

which normally follow some word or concept picked from the thread, are TOTALLY UNRELATED to anything in this thread? :evilgrin:

[Deja Q]

114. Who'd practice it?

The media still talks of communist countries such as Cuba and China...

[Echo In Light]

115. Goes beyond something merely "practiced." The collective consciousness here is poisoned

From decades of pro-corporate propaganda and "values." The only way to take small steps toward changing that mindset is planting seeds one person at a time.

[unkachuck]

116. 'So why....

...are we in the U.S. so adamantly opposed to anything that smacks of "socialism?"'

....Socialism doesn't provide for a super-dooper hyper-phallic corporate war machine....

....there are lands that need pillaging and people who need slaughtering and Americans can't get enough of both....I'm getting firm just thinking about it....

[JustinL]

130. it's largely a semantic issue

Some on the left (apparently including some of the posters on this thread) continue to defend socialism in the narrow sense of nationalized industry and a centrally planned economy. So when the Scandinavian model of a market economy wedded to strong social welfare programs is described as "socialist," it's bound to cause confusion. Instead of expecting people to expand their personal definitions of socialism, perhaps those of us who support the Scandinavian model should call it something else. I like the term "social market economy," which is already in use in Europe to distinguish the system from both laissez faire capitalism and state socialism.