Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Hey kids: Don't be a sucker for socialism

Page 8 of 49 [ 777 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 49  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 May 2016, 7:07 pm

Galymcd wrote:

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Socialism and Communism are synonyms of each other. The "Socialism" you are thinking of is not true socialism. European states today are SocialISTIC, or Democratic Socialist. Not true Socialist.

The issue with socializing everything is that it diminishes the quality of it. I will not argue that America really needs to change how it allows access to medical care and education, but those things should remain privatized. (And really, College is so expensive because the government gave out too many loans for it. It is the EXACT SAME REASON the housing market collapsed in 2008)

Why? Look at any list of the world's top schools and colleges, and see where a huge chunk of them are. If you said anything other than America, you're incorrect. In Houston, we have the Texas Medical Center, the largest medical district of its kind on planet earth, and Texas and America has more cancer treatment centers than anywhere else. As for the rest of America, the country is still a leader in the quality of care received, especially seeing as how quick it is getting a doctor's visit here versus England, and America are top innovators in research, and in many other medical fields. Don't get me wrong, I argue there is room for a very limited welfare state in a capitalist society, and I am all for cracking down on corporate corruption, but socializing everything is far from the answer.

Socialism of any form takes away individuality and economic freedom in the interest of "equality for all," and you say Capitalism isn't made for me? Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best one we have.

We don't even have that. Capitalism is not enshrined in the Constitution of the USA. We have a combination of socialist and capitalistic institutions. The government doesn't own all the industries, but it runs some, and we have private property, but we also have public property. I'm a Democratic Socialist, which is a form of Socialism. I know it's not the same as pure Socialism. I never advocated socializing everything.

That was the problem in this thread, where Democratic Socialism was conflated with totalitarian forms of government.

How does capitalism improve quality? US cars are pretty sh***y compared to most others. US health care is sh***y compared to socialized ones, because if you don't have money, you don't get treated (unless it's an emergency). US education is sh***y, because if you can't afford college, you probably won't get to go.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 May 2016, 7:07 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Galymcd wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I would disagree that what they do in Scandinavia is working any better than it is here and I don't think you can't really compare almost completely homogeneous states that are the size or midsize US states. There are specific factors at play when it comes to Scandinavia, one cannot forget that Norway is a rich oil producing state and not a member of the European Union. Once you start introducing the other into these countries it seems like their societies pretty rapidly break down, Sweden who has embraced the multikulti probably more than any country in the world and they simply won't have a country 100 years from now if they keep down this current path. The UN projects their HDI to fall in between like Malaysia and Libya in the next 30 years, this refugee crisis and unfettered immigration will destroy their country and cultural identity. Let us also not forget that Europe benefits from the US security umbrella allowing them to more heavily invest in the welfare state, Scandinavia would probably be speaking Russian or German right now if it wasn't for the United States providing security.


^This. Many economists are saying that the extensive welfare state of many Scandinavian states will be their downfall, seeing as they aren't expanding their economy enough, or not making spending cuts to avoid deficit. I mean, really, the Scandinavians implemented socialist policy earlier than the rest of the EU, and had a debt crisis in the early 90's. It wasn't until they relaxed business regulations and lowered taxes did they start recovering. (From what I understand, and Scandinavian users correct me if I am wrong)


Private ownership exists in Sweden, so it is not really socialist. It is a welfare state. Socialist is a scare word. In a truly socialist state there is not private ownership except for personal items. The means of production are collective and land is held by a collective trust. No nation on earth, at this time, is truly socialist.

I was talking about idealized Scandinavian model of democratic socialism not being all it is cracked up to be. It's just as much of an social conundrum as is economic one, they had unique factors that made it work for a time there but that time is rapidly nearing its end.

Welfare states are not sustainable with large scale immigration.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 May 2016, 8:20 pm

Still better than the USA. No one there goes bankrupt from health care costs. And it's very difficult to buy a politician. Here, it's legal.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,444
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2016, 8:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:
People rage against Ayn Rand when her influence doesn't extend much beyond reading Atlas Shrugged in high school, I don't think most people even read The Fountainhead let alone know anything about Objectionism, it's just a straw man. People know her as an author not some ideological cornerstone. Actual Objectionists can never gain influence because it is so intolerant of an ideology that they can't ally themselves with people that they agree with 99% of the time, Ayn Rand was notorious for this and hated the beginnings of the modern libertarian movement most of all because she felt they were plagiarists who were really anarchists(which she likened to communism) that had no understanding of philosophy or whatever. She basically believed that people should believe what she believed for the exact reasons she believed them and to hell with everyone else. Just another left wing boogeyman and she's been dead for more than 30 years.


Sure, Rand is dead, but her influence lives on. This is probably paraphrasing, but Bertolt Brecht had written something to the extent of: "Do not rejoice you men. The bastard is dead, but the b***h who gave birth to him is still in heat."


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 May 2016, 8:37 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
People rage against Ayn Rand when her influence doesn't extend much beyond reading Atlas Shrugged in high school, I don't think most people even read The Fountainhead let alone know anything about Objectionism, it's just a straw man. People know her as an author not some ideological cornerstone. Actual Objectionists can never gain influence because it is so intolerant of an ideology that they can't ally themselves with people that they agree with 99% of the time, Ayn Rand was notorious for this and hated the beginnings of the modern libertarian movement most of all because she felt they were plagiarists who were really anarchists(which she likened to communism) that had no understanding of philosophy or whatever. She basically believed that people should believe what she believed for the exact reasons she believed them and to hell with everyone else. Just another left wing boogeyman and she's been dead for more than 30 years.


Sure, Rand is dead, but her influence lives on. This is probably paraphrasing, but Bertolt Brecht had written something to the extent of: "Do not rejoice you men. The bastard is dead, but the b***h who gave birth to him is still in heat."


Her "influence" is extremely overstated, leftists probably talk more about her than anybody else. Can't stop beating a literally dead horse, just another straw man boogeyman to smear their opponents with. At least the Koch brothers are actually alive.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,444
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2016, 9:10 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
People rage against Ayn Rand when her influence doesn't extend much beyond reading Atlas Shrugged in high school, I don't think most people even read The Fountainhead let alone know anything about Objectionism, it's just a straw man. People know her as an author not some ideological cornerstone. Actual Objectionists can never gain influence because it is so intolerant of an ideology that they can't ally themselves with people that they agree with 99% of the time, Ayn Rand was notorious for this and hated the beginnings of the modern libertarian movement most of all because she felt they were plagiarists who were really anarchists(which she likened to communism) that had no understanding of philosophy or whatever. She basically believed that people should believe what she believed for the exact reasons she believed them and to hell with everyone else. Just another left wing boogeyman and she's been dead for more than 30 years.


Sure, Rand is dead, but her influence lives on. This is probably paraphrasing, but Bertolt Brecht had written something to the extent of: "Do not rejoice you men. The bastard is dead, but the b***h who gave birth to him is still in heat."


Her "influence" is extremely overstated, leftists probably talk more about her than anybody else. Can't stop beating a literally dead horse, just another straw man boogeyman to smear their opponents with. At least the Koch brothers are actually alive.


Did you know that their old man, a founder of the far right wing John Birch Society, had also built a nuclear reactor for Joseph Stalin? I consider them to be of the same moral fiber.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


L_Holmes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,468
Location: Twin Falls, ID

23 May 2016, 9:45 pm

I'm in debt from trying to live off of low-wage jobs for the past few years. I can't find a good job because I don't have any training or education, and I don't have those things because I can't afford them. Yet socialism, not capitalism, creates poor people and keeps them poor? Ok. :roll:

Why are people incapable of understanding nuance? Almost every argument I hear against socialism is against a completely socialist economy, which is not what I hear most supporters of socialism arguing for. Nobody is saying get rid of privately-owned things completely (ok, some are, but those people are silly).

I like capitalism, and I do think in most cases privately-owned businesses are going to be better than government-run ones. But we have public and private schools for k-12, and nobody complains about that. Why is it such a crazy, insane idea that maybe we could also have free public college for those who can't afford tuition? And doesn't the government pay for a lot of it already, with federal loans, grants, military tuition assistance, GI Bill etc.? Why not just cut out all that crap and pay for it directly?


_________________
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important."

- Sherlock Holmes


Last edited by L_Holmes on 23 May 2016, 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Galymcd
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Apr 2016
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 44
Location: Texas

23 May 2016, 10:04 pm

AspE wrote:
Galymcd wrote:

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Socialism and Communism are synonyms of each other. The "Socialism" you are thinking of is not true socialism. European states today are SocialISTIC, or Democratic Socialist. Not true Socialist.

The issue with socializing everything is that it diminishes the quality of it. I will not argue that America really needs to change how it allows access to medical care and education, but those things should remain privatized. (And really, College is so expensive because the government gave out too many loans for it. It is the EXACT SAME REASON the housing market collapsed in 2008)

Why? Look at any list of the world's top schools and colleges, and see where a huge chunk of them are. If you said anything other than America, you're incorrect. In Houston, we have the Texas Medical Center, the largest medical district of its kind on planet earth, and Texas and America has more cancer treatment centers than anywhere else. As for the rest of America, the country is still a leader in the quality of care received, especially seeing as how quick it is getting a doctor's visit here versus England, and America are top innovators in research, and in many other medical fields. Don't get me wrong, I argue there is room for a very limited welfare state in a capitalist society, and I am all for cracking down on corporate corruption, but socializing everything is far from the answer.

Socialism of any form takes away individuality and economic freedom in the interest of "equality for all," and you say Capitalism isn't made for me? Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best one we have.

We don't even have that. Capitalism is not enshrined in the Constitution of the USA. We have a combination of socialist and capitalistic institutions. The government doesn't own all the industries, but it runs some, and we have private property, but we also have public property. I'm a Democratic Socialist, which is a form of Socialism. I know it's not the same as pure Socialism. I never advocated socializing everything.

That was the problem in this thread, where Democratic Socialism was conflated with totalitarian forms of government.

How does capitalism improve quality? US cars are pretty sh***y compared to most others. US health care is sh***y compared to socialized ones, because if you don't have money, you don't get treated (unless it's an emergency). US education is sh***y, because if you can't afford college, you probably won't get to go.


I know that in America, Capitalism isn't inherent as our economic system, but the Constitution allows very little regulation from the government, and the only way to truly change federal policy on something is by amending the Constitution (which is hard to do for a good reason).

The issue that I have with Democratic Socialism is that I feel like at times people go overboard with it, as if it is a be-all-end-all answer. The fact is, Socialist elements can be dangerous to a good economy, and while there is some room to allow regulation, it isn't a lot. I didn't accuse you of wanting to socialize anything, but doing it at all is a risky move. Like I said, price of tuition and medical care is ridiculous, and I agree those things do need to be fixed, but we can't do Universal Care for the reasons I mentioned. College is more expensive because government gave out too many loans, and what is causing medical care to be so expensive is gonna take a very long discussion, but just know its not as simple as medical care companies and hospitals being greedy.

And as for your last point, there are a lot of foreign companies that have factories in America: http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/cars-made-in-america/
In a society like America, where business regulations are considerably lax, bad cars are made by bad companies, not a bad system. And compared to Socialism in the USSR, where TVs literally melted on the stands they sat on, American made goods were definitely better. Meanwhile, its hard buying imported products from Europe here seeing as business regulations are so tight, and we don't have favorable trade policies with them on the level of China, making their goods considerably more expensive unless its from China.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 May 2016, 11:04 pm

The Constitution doesn't prevent a universal health care system.

And you can't underestimate the Soviet Union, their space program was superior to our (socialized) NASA.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 May 2016, 11:48 pm

AspE wrote:
The Constitution doesn't prevent a universal health care system.

And you can't underestimate the Soviet Union, their space program was superior to our (socialized) NASA.


It depends on how it was implemented but single payer would probably less problematic from a constitutional stand perspective than Obamacare's individual mandate that basically says the government can force you buy a service/good from a private entity. Their redefinition of the mandate as a tax was totally ridiculous when it was explicitly said it wasn't that when it was being passed. The 'medicare for all' idea would probably wouldn't be struck down by SCOTUS.



MrLucky
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 141
Location: Tiltonsville, OH

24 May 2016, 12:25 am

Myself, I tend to be libertarian although generally not way to the extreme, I see myself as center/right on the spectrum. I'm very pro-NRA, that's probably one of the things I'm far right on. I guess I'm a pragmatist. I am for "borders, language and culture" and we need to protect our (well I live in the U.S.) country and way of life and I support such efforts of other nations. Getting back to the debate, I always believed that in their pure forms, both capitalism and socialism (or communism if you will) have the seeds of their own destruction planted in them. Socialism will fail on its own, everyone is an individual and not equal in ability and so forth. We are all different, we can't made to be the same. Where is somewhat does work is like in nations that are generally homogeneous where everyone is on the same page to an extent. Capitalism in its pure form would destroy itself, it appeals to the lowest common denominator in labor costs. If people are not paid enough, they cannot be consumers. Also, I do value the individual, for a functioning society. there are some things needed like a safety net as well as looking out for the common good where the individual cannot. We do need a safety net for those who do truly need it. We cannot cater to everyone's needs but we do need a way to take care of those who need it. Also, we need to provide a free system for the individual to innovate as well although there are some success stories where both private enterprise and government did work together, think of NASA in the 1950's and 1960's. As to the mix ratio of both systems, it is up to each society to find the happy medium.



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

24 May 2016, 3:22 am

AspE wrote:
Still better than the USA . . . And it's very difficult to buy a politician. Here, it's legal.


It's difficult to buy politicians in America, but they can easily be rented, staying bought would imply a certain level of integrity.


And let's not forget that both country's space programs benefited greatly from captured German scientists.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

24 May 2016, 4:17 am

I've lived in a socialist country my whole life, and I wouldn't change a thing about that.


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

24 May 2016, 9:35 am

Jacoby wrote:
AspE wrote:
The Constitution doesn't prevent a universal health care system.

And you can't underestimate the Soviet Union, their space program was superior to our (socialized) NASA.


It depends on how it was implemented but single payer would probably less problematic from a constitutional stand perspective than Obamacare's individual mandate that basically says the government can force you buy a service/good from a private entity. Their redefinition of the mandate as a tax was totally ridiculous when it was explicitly said it wasn't that when it was being passed. The 'medicare for all' idea would probably wouldn't be struck down by SCOTUS.

The ACA wasn't struck down by SCOTUS either. Doesn't matter what was said to get it passed. Not legally binding.



Dr_Manhattan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 11 Feb 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 145

24 May 2016, 11:31 am

Galymcd wrote:
AspE wrote:
Socialism is not Communism. It's compatible with Democracy as well as capitalism. European style socialism means that government in principle exists to serve society, not business. We can socialize (centralize) certain functions that we deem too important for profit, like warfare, health care, childcare, education, infrastructure, and more. We can leave relatively unimportant things to the blind evil of capitalism.

Don't be a sucker to capitalism, it wasn't designed with you in mind.


From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Socialism and Communism are synonyms of each other. The "Socialism" you are thinking of is not true socialism. European states today are SocialISTIC, or Democratic Socialist. Not true Socialist.


No, they aren't. Under socialism, you still have private property and companies that would otherwise grow out of control, like mildew, would be owned by the state(Walmart, Comcast, etc.).



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

24 May 2016, 1:18 pm

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
I've lived in a socialist country my whole life, and I wouldn't change a thing about that.


Canada is not socialist. Business firms and land can be privately owned and businesses run for profit. Canada is a welfare state, but it is not socialist.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????