Socialism: In Your Words
 

There has been talk here lately about Socialism. It appears to mean different things to different people. I'm interested in your vision of socialism, what it means to you, what it could mean for the world, how you envision it in its purest form and furthest implementation. What would a world based on Socialism look like to you?

Socialism is an institutionalized system for the equitable distribution of wealth in a society. In its pure form, it's an excellent idea--the debits and credits against the national wealth balance out, everyone is taken care of, and even those who pay more than they get are satisfied and fulfilled with the national success that their work forwards.

Unfortunately, the real world has some factors that add friction to the wheels of perfect Socialism. First, the institutional nature of it requires significant bureaucracy. That bureaucracy costs the system without feeding it. Second, human greed is a huge drain on this system. Any system that has as its goal the complete even distribution of resources is probably doomed to fail, given human nature.

Third and probably most importantly, Socialism is an idealistic system. When forced to compete with Capitalism--which I'd call "pragmatic" so I don't have to use the phrase "greed-driven"--it simply can't compete.

In terms of actual political life, Socialism is a dinosaur. Nobody actually believes it can work anymore--even the so-called socialized nations have huge capitalist infrastructures. These days it's mainly a scare tactic from conservatives to prevent things like national health care from being considered.

Socialism is a very simple concept, a sense of responsibility not just to self, but to community, taken to it's logical applications. Socialism is about individuals of a community working for the community first, and themselves second.

As an economic system, it's about a society agreeing that their wealth can be shared, while still respecting the level of contribution from the individual. There is a great deal of planning so that no member of the society is left behind. It's not 'state ownership' exactly, as it's often referred to. It's everyone sharing in the communities acquired success. A proper socialist economic system is HIGHLY democratic, allowing not the centralized government, but everyone to develop an economic policy. I know a socialist democracy sounds nuts to most people, but I think it's our best bet so far as bringing about real positive change on all fronts. Imagine a world where there is no risk of monopoly. Imagine no more unemployment. Imagine no more $5 an hour minimum wage. Imagine no more multi-billionaires, hogging all the wealth. Most importantly, imagine no more exploitation of workers.

The British Labour Party calls itself a "democratic socialist party." I would say a "socialist democracy" doesn't sound crazy to me. In many ways, Canada can be called socialist. This I think is mainly attributed to the workings of the parliamentary system, which tends to force politicians to appease the interests of various groups, especially when things are balanced in certain ways.

My view of socialism is that it acts as a balancing force to capitalism. One is for the benefit of the working class, the other benefits those who control wealth. In their purest forms, each are more susceptible to human folly. We must strike a balance.

I don't think socialist democracy sounds crazy at all. Just look to Sweden. They have a fully functioning democracy. So does Canada, and Canada has some very strong elements of socialism running through its political system.

Neither Sweden nor Canada is purely socialist but I would argue that there are no nations that are purely "capitalist" either. All are tempered by some form of government regulation or intervention.

It's just where any given system sits on the continuum between liberty and equality. Some lean towards more equality and others towards more liberty. As always, it's in the balance of the two that you will see the most success.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where it's not possible to become a "multi-billionaire, hogging all the wealth". Socialism sounds naive.

I wouldn't want to live in a world that doesn't work towards ending child poverty. The point here is that the virtues of a pure capitalist system aren't self-evident. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. Capitalism doesn't have a built-in morality.

As Charlatan has pointed out, there are elements of it in practice already; many of them are entrenched.

The problem is the continual human inherency to think that one way is better than another when it comes to things like religion and social politics.

Part of the problem here is that the word "socialism" is an intergral part of the communist lexicon and hierarchy. Most of the major communist philosophers identify socialism as a predecessor to a communist state. Some even used the two terms interchangably (thanks, Uncle Joe). The Soviet Union was never a communist country by this definition but a socialist one, as reflected in its very name and the fact that it had a government.

That said, I think that we can all agree that the type of socialism that we're talking about here exists outside of the communist matrix, at least for the purposes of this discussion. If that's not right, let me know and I'll add my thoughts on that.

Western socialism exists to level the playing field, at least in its pure form. All governments have at least some socialist qualities in that they do provide some services to all citizens on an equal basis (infrastructure, etc.). Taken to the heights of the Swedish example, the extremes of the economic scale are closer together than non-socialist countries. The rich are not as rich but the poor are not as poor.

With the understanding that a "pure" socialist government is impossible and that if that hurdle were overcome a worldwide socialist system could never be imposed, nations would share wealth with one another to raise the global standard of living through taxation of corporations and individuals. I imagine that there would be some sort of right to work laws with less of a variation of income from state to state.

For me, the divide between capitolism and socialism revolves around Thomas Jefferson's "All men are created equally". Its a HUGE simplification of the ideas but I believe its a good illustration.

Socialism: All men are created equally... and stay that way throughout life.

Capitolism: All men are created equally, but your worth can change with the amount of work you put into life.


For me the idea of living in a purely socialist world is a stiffling and oppressive thought. For socialism to work, it has to be controlled by very strict governments. Governments that are willing to force people to work, willing to tell people what their job is, and willing to collect everything and redistribute it. Other wise, in a socialist system with no oppressive government, the slackers of the world would have even less motivation to do anything productive and the people who actually give a shit would be forced to work more so the slackers could get away with doing less. There is no way a system like that can sustain itself.

I prefer the freedom capitolism offers. In a purely capitolistic world, I am free to live life for myself and not a collective community. I am free to choose what I want to be. I can choose to work hard and achieve goals, or I can choose to sit around and do nothing. I am also free to volunteer or make donations and help the community when I feel like it, or NOT volunteer when I don't feel like it. It follows natures law of natural selection, and as far as I know, natural selection does not need a large beuracracy to make sure the predators and prey balance eachother out.

It's a great word to use to get most Americans all riled up!

:)

It's a wonderful concept. It's also idealistic in this day and age.

The only time socialism ever worked was when we were a tribal society. Everyone lived for the good of the tribe. The minute one tribe bagen producing a product and keeping what they produced under lock and key the tribal society went away - and with it the concept of socialism. At that point shared ownership went away.

There's a good book by Daniel Quinn called My Ishmael. It talks about this subject and also deals with our educational system.

Socalism is the chokehold on innovation. If you are living under socalism, why should you try to come up new and better things to advance the civilization and better peoples lives when all the money that will be made will go to someone else? Why should you work harder if you won't get extra benefit from it? The extra money you make will just be taken from you and given to those who did not work as hard, a.k.a. "redistributed".

One thing I noticed on my recent trip to Russia, is that while Moscow is the city where capitalism has gone ballistic, outside of the capital, the Soviet Socalist mentality still exists in people's minds. I was surprised in how often I saw in people a complete lack of desire to make things better. If they had what they needed to get through the day, then that was enough. If someone tried to take a different path, to make things better for himself or herself, this person would be critized and ridiculed. This person was not doing his or her part in their society and so must be convinced to give up his or her hopes to make things better. And this convincing to abandon all hopes of bettering things is done in a "peer pressure" and "family pressure" manner to emphisize that change is not necessary, because they have enough to survive. As long as this socalist mentality exists in the minds of the non-Moscovite Russians, then Russia outside of Moscow will forever be poor.

As with capitalism, people are encouraged to work harder, to come up with new and better innovations. And the reward for such work is a better standard of living for yourself and your family. CNBC has a show in the evenings called, "The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch" which interviews people who have gone from lower or middle class to wealthy, all because of an idea and some hard work. Ideas like maternity clothes or dyson vacuum cleaners. In capitalism, you have the chance to change things and give yourself a better life and in the process create a better standard of living.

This assumes the only motivation for mankind is money. That's a fundamentally flawed assumption. I wonder what my monetary gain would be from volunteering my time at a homeless shelter. Or spending time with my family, what would be my monetary gain from that? Or taking my grandmother's trash out every week?

What kind of a person will only do something for money?


Socialism doesn't work because people are unwilling to be good and selfless. The flaw in socialism is the flaw in man.

Right on, will. :thumbsup:

You've hit the nail on the head. 'Tis the flaw in capitalism, as well. Ideals are ideals because we perpetually cannot live up to them.

Socialism cannot thrive without capitalism and vice versa. I think it's fairly self-evident.

Socialism is the belief that no person should have less than is necessary to live comfortably, regardless of input into the system, and necessarily at the expense of those who earn more, regardless of input into the system.
Sweden also has around a 66% tax rate and I haven't heard anything good about the system from anyone who lives there and doesn't get government benefits.

But socialism works when people are good overall. That's the thing. The tribesmen of the past weren't perfect little moral machines, living up to their ideals every second of every day. They made mistakes. The important thing was that they always remembered their responsibility to their family and their tribe. Is that so much to ask? Is it really so hard to say "if you see someone starving, don't just keep walking by"? If that's the case, if it really is too difficult for people to simply have a shred of empathy, then I'm moving to Mars and no one else is invited.

Money has a different effect on different people. The problem with socialism is that it forces everybody into a one size fits all solution by taking the money away from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. Those who have earned the money are typically the ones who are driven by it and when they see the money taken from them, they lose the desire to work becuase they see no reward in it. Those who did not earn the money see money being handed to them and then see no desire to work because they are given all that they need without having to do anything for it. Then you end up with a society where everybody only does the minimum to get by and innovation dies. Welcome to Russia tovarisch (comrade).


People who go on reality TV.

Again, big assumptions here. First of all, socialism is not taking money from people who earned it and giving it to those who have not. It's the taking of some money from everyone just to make sure that no one is in poverty. If you make $1m a year now, you're not going to be making $60k a year in a socialist system. You're going to be making $800k. Hardly something to sneeze at. You still keep what you ear, you just earn a little less if you make a shitton of money. Not only that, but everyone works. No one sits at home getting money. That's not socialism. 100% employment means everyone earns their way.

Innovation has a better chance in a socialist system because you don't have to compete for money. You can develop innovative technologies without having to worry about living up to a cooperation's expectation. If you're working on a way to get 200 mpg, the oil industry can't bury you. That's real innovation, clear of the influence of selfish corporations.

Well, you might want to buy your ticket to Mars early before the rush.

I don't believe that pure socialism can exist on the scale it would take to nourish whole societies as we have today in a manner consistent with what you envision. No, people don't have that much empathy. And I don't think the variety of political structure we live under really has anything to do with it. Nothing is stopping people, living in a capitalistic society, from being more selfless and altruistic - they just aren't. If we were to impose pure socialism on a Western capitalistic society you would absolutely see the phenomena that mirevolver is talking about in his posts. People crave individuality and self-determination, probably moreso in a global age when the individual can seem so small and insignificant. Therefore I think the only route to healthy, thriving societies is a mix of the two ideologies to measure and balance the the flaws inherent in each.

Granted these are only my own jaded observations. Ideals you might call them. :p

No government can exist with such a large population. That's another conversation, though.

i dont have the time i'd like to have to devote to this post, so i'll just outline a couple things and maybe do more later.

democratic socialism is a variant of capitalism in which the state actively intervenes to shape the parameters of the captialist game--so it might subsidise businesses in particular sectors because the system interest is in full employment rather than in profit maximization for private holders of capital---in labor relations, it formalized and extended the role of trade unions and generated very different types of work environments than you tend to find in privately dominated capitalism (again, think how differently american capitalism would look if full employment were taken seriously as a goal--the barbarism that is american capitalism deals with structural unemployment by not counting it. go figure). the state redistributes wealth generally under teh assumption that flatter distribution curves are preferable if the idea is to maintain solidarity with the existing order over any period in political terms. the state also diverts wealth into providing basic services--which routinely include universal health care--and (on a matter that pisses me off to no end) actual funding for the arts--simply because it is assumed that physical and mental well-being are social concerns--and that art production is important, not simply a luxury (perhaps because artists tend to be quite innovative and capitalism can benefit from buying or stealing ideas--and art raises the quality of life in general--that sort of thing.)...so democratic socialism is a variant on capitalism there's alot more to it even at the level of ldeal-type and even more if you start considering the simple fact that there are in the empirical world a bewildering number of variants of social democracy.

but the bottom line is easy: democratic socialism represents a different set of conclusions about what constitutes the best way to maintain social and political solidarity in the face of the atomizing tendency of capitalism.

so in the main, i dont know what people are talking about above, what they have in mind when they talk about regimentation and so forth in the context of democratic socialism. there is no opposition between capitalism and democratic socialism--they are variants of the same economic system.

much of what you think of ds systems comes down to where your priorities are analytically--particular if you assume--as i do--that most claims regarding "human nature" are circular repetitions of the ideological situation of the speaker and do not refer to anything past that. if you want a capitalism that is sustainable socially, politically and environmentally, you cannot rely on private capital. ds-systems are based around that assumption.

state socialism of the type articulated in the soviet union etc are basically different--i could go on about them, but do not consider them relevant as they were in most ways kind of horrifying extensions of the logic of capitalism which the ideologues of these systems tended to imagine were otherwise. the best way of saying it quick: bureaucratic capitalism/state capitalism repeated all the worst features of capitalism while managing to erase even the small margins for individual autonomy that the latter allows--so for example in capitalism you can quit your job, but for a period in the ussr, you couldnt. that kind of thing.

in principle, socialism seems to me closest to direct democracy.
but here i have to stop.

But it is something that has never existed, really. Has it?

Perhaps I am of too little faith or imagination.

True democracy has never existed either.

Not busting on you for this part will, but isn't this supposedly the same argument that I've posed about why no wars isn't achievable?

I was restating the point of mired back to him for clarity. I refuse to believe that people can't be good. I think that pessimism causes anger, suffering and death on a global scale because people are too damned stubborn to be good and righteous.

Just to throw out a bit of a red herring:

National Socialism
Democratic Socialism
Western Socialism

Are all very very very different things and occupy three distinct places in the political spectrum, namely the two extremes and the center (or close to it in some places).

i dont follow the last two terms in your list, jazz: they seem to refer to the same thing. democratic socialist regimes are in germany, france, uk, sweden, etc....and they are not particularly far "to the left" really--except perhaps from the extreme rightwing position that is somehow the norm in the united states.

as for direct democracy and its implementation: the longest run it has had was in classical athens, about 500 years if memory serves..since then in short runs--e.g. the paris commune, the kronstadt revolt, the hungarian revolution. if you want an idea of just how delighted were the representatives of soviet-style bureaucratic/state capitalism were by this direct democracy business, have a look at what happened to kronstadt after the revolt, and to hungry after about 2 weeks in oct-nov. 1956.

RB, by Democratic Socialism, I'm thinking of People's Republics, not socialist democrats. The DPRNK for instance.

ah--well that's confusing because typically western european socialism is called democratic socialism. it just is that way.

maybe "communist" style instead? i haven't got a good alternative.

but the term switch will confuse me over and over again, i know it.

Yeah, I was surprised not to see Communism on the list.

Applying that model of $1m to the Swedish system already mentioned with 66% taxes. That would leave you with $340k. As someone who is already annoyed by the comparatively small amount taken from my paycheck in the US, I would be furious if I saw the government take 2/3 of my money. Under those circumstances, what would be the point of working for more money, after all, the government would just take more money from you.

100% employment is great in theroy, but in 2005, the socialist welfare system in Germany hit a crisis when unemployment hit 12.5%, more than double the unemployment percentage in the US at the same time. People in Germany who lost their jobs and ended up in the welfare system were receiving funds that were comparable to what they were making when working, and many of them just lost the desire to go back to work. People on the welfare became overly dependant on the government's money and the German government found it was running out of welfare money.

In the socalist states in europe where gas has consistantly been 4 to 5 times higher than in the US, I have not seen a 200mpg vehicle rolling off their assmebly lines. I'll grant you that their vehicles are more fuel efficient than the average american car, but they're also half the size, which really has nothing to do with economic systems.

What innovations came out of China in the last 50 years? What innovations came out of Russia during soviet times? What innovations have come from Cuba since the 50s?

Cuba isn't a fair comparison. We're talking about a few million people. What did the Soviets create? There were some small things like Sputnik, Vostok, Salyut, and Mir but nothing truly great. They also took themselves from being a peasant society to an industrial superpower.

I'm not a fan of pure socialism but capitalism is bogus as well. Is a system where 90% of the wealth is held by 5% of the population truly better? Would the economy be better if that gap was smaller?

We have this crazy idea that all it takes is a little hard work. It's total bullshit. Plenty of people work their asses off and all they have to show for it is some run-down house that is all they can afford. Most of the population is a serious illness away from losing everything.

I think this statement is bogus. You can apply it to any tax system. Why push for making $10/hr if the man is just going to take some of it away from you? The end result is that you have more money than you would have before.

Three words:

Free Rider Problem

You're repeating yourself, but there's been new information. They don't take more money from you so that you make the same as if you made less. Even in a system out of control like Sweeden, many people living in my own neighborhood would take home something like $500k-$1m a year for their work. That's with a 2/3 tax. I wonder how much complaining you'd do with $1m a year. I'd have to give some of it away.
It's the people's money, not the government's. And they screwed up because they didn't commit to the welfare system.
150-170 mpg on a scooter isn't bad. Also, they drive less. And shit, what idiot really needs as much room as you can find in a Ford Explorer? Even with a 5 person family, that stupid 9 mpg piece of American consumerism is totally overkill. My wife's BMW can fit 5 adults. My car (95 eclipse) can fit two adults and two children. With the average family size in the US hovering around 3.14 (that's mom, pop, and baby), the idea that we all need these tanks is so far beyond ludicrous that people should be institutionalized for looking at them.
China isn't socialist, it's fascist/capitalist... and Russia was able to compete with our space program for a fraction of the price while they were at their peak... and that was with the massive corruption. Imagine how it could have been had the people taken responsibility and removed the corrupt from office.

For me socialism is working your ass off after high school to pay for SOMEONE ELSE to go to college.

In the US it can only exist in stark contradiction to the constitution and the original founder's intent. Socialism is opposite of personal liberty in which this country was founded.

The only form of Socialism that I can even entertain would be a voluntary local community level or something. Anything else takes away too much personal freedom.

You're right, our Constitution says nothing about equality. Nor does our Declaration of Independence.

China: Globalized economy
Soviet Russia: Sputnik program
Cuba: Music

[QUOTE=kutulu]Cuba isn't a fair comparison. We're talking about a few million people. What did the Soviets create? There were some small things like Sputnik, Vostok, Salyut, and Mir but nothing truly great. They also took themselves from being a peasant society to an industrial superpower.

Yeah, but why did the Soviets go to space? It wasn't for the common good of the people. It was to compete with the US. Same reason they spent money on nuclear missiles while most of the citizens lived fairly poor lives compared to their western counterparts. But hey, everyone was poor. So no rich people or poor people to ruin your day :thumbsup:

We've already established that the Soviets were corrupt:

And? Thats a + for socialism?

Every time someone tries it, USSR... North Korea... China.... Cuba... the end result is 1) A dominating government 2) A disproportionate investment in the government's military so they can stay in power 3) A populace where almost everyone is poor.

Socialism has the worst track record as far as results go when its implemented. I'm not sure why everyone wants to defend it so badly. Its like watching people try to jump over a canyon and fall to their doom. But instead of calling them stupid for jumping over a cliff, everyone makes excuses on how their jumping technique wasn't correct and thats why they failed.

first off, with respect to the ussr--anton ciliga was right--he was among the first to write about the gulag and did so from a left opposition viewpoint--his claim was that the actual revolution was in the gulag--and this by 1928.
but as for innovative stuff--i assume since we are playing a dilletante game here that you refer to official culture and not oppositional culture--if you look at all at oppositional culture--not the yay capitalist reactionary stuff, but the left oppositional culture(s)--there was a TON of radical innovative work produced in almost every aspect of cultural production under the soviet union and in eastern europe--all this DESPITE the foul, stupid official culture--for example--a relatively prominent one in some circles, but you'd still have to look for it generally--czech new wave films are as fine a cinematic tradition as you find anywhere on earth and the work of people like chytilova had NOTHING to do with any rah rah capitalism nonsense--aesthetically, her work is still not easily assimilated--but it is fabulous and you should not believe me you should track down some of her films and see for yourself.

and as for official cultures not producing much that is of any interest, you could say the same of the united states--nothing terribly interesting is happening in mainstream culture, but there is a TON of interesting work happening at its margins, and DESPITE the reactionary official world that is amurica and its nimrod politics. to stick with film for a minute (because it is easy, because films are expensive to make, because folk know about film) what of any actual interest has come out of hollywood in the past few years? there are a lot of independent films that are good--excellent to fabulous no less--innovative in every way--so this is not to say (again) that nothing interesting is happening in the states--but almost all of it is outside the mainstream systems of cultural reproduction. seems to me that the americans have capitalist barbarism and as shitty a mainstream culture as anywhere has managed--yet lots of folk seem to nonetheless find something to congratulate themselves about, presumably on the basis of that shitty mainstream culture.

go figure.

You just described the USA.

1) I don't think most people in the USA qualify as poor.
2) The poor people in the USA have a chance of becoming not poor.

I drive by resturants, stores, and businesses in general everyday that say "now hiring". There's no excuse for being unemployed.

12% in the US live below the poverty line. That means 1 out of every 8 people in the US lives below the poverty line. Do you know what the poverty line is? $9,800 a year. Think about that.

Also, poor people in China have a chance to be not poor.
You're right! The 13.8 million people in the US currently unemployed obviously aren't looking for a job. :rolleyes:

Pithy attempt:
Summing the utility of the people in a society sub-linearly with regards to wealth is socialistic.

Currently, over a quarter of Canada's House of Commons would describe themselves as social democrats. Canada has been "trying it" for a while now. We aren't doing too bad.

What? :orly: Jumping over canyons can put a man in space?

In my own Words: A terrible idea that hopefully will fade away as soon as possible......

Sure, because all it takes is $10/hr and you aren't poor. :rolleyes:

Hey, I made it part-time on $7/hr while paying back two college loans.

'Course, free food and $200/month rent from my parents may have played a part...

But still... the poor in the United States aren't necessarily financially equivalent to the poor in Russia. And they're probably rich compared to China's poor. The poverty line seems like an incredibly subjective/relative thing, and I'd wager that the United States has one of the higher standards here.

(Also, I'd argue that Canada's fairly capitalistic. Fairly socialistic, but fairly capitalistic as well.)

I understand that some taxation is necessary, I'm not particularly happy about paying 10% of my income to the government, but it's necessary because they're the ones who maintain the roads I use to get to work and who come save my ass if my house is on fire. On the other hand, taking huge chunks of money from the rich to pay for unjust wars and let congress bring pork back to their home districts is irresponsible and unethical. Having grown up in a household where money was always tight and we were unable to afford many luxuries (in other words, I'm not a bitter rich kid,) I find it unconscionable that any government would consider itself entitled to more of a person's income than that person.

IMO, a system where you can take the best elements from capitalism and socialism would be as close to ideal as possible.

I thought that we in the U.S. were already socialists, just to a lesser degree than Europe and Canada. The poor and middle class already pay well over 50% of their income on state, local and federal taxes with our current tax system. All (most) of the taxes levied in the distribution chain get added to the price of goods and services which the poor and middle class spend most of their income on with little left over.

I suspect that increasing the taxes paid by the wealthy and corporations might make these goods and services cost even more when they are added to the final prices.

I would agree and add that it seems everything bad about the US economy and corporations is blamed on capitalism, when actually it seems the more socilistic we become the worse things have gotten. Fifty years ago it was a lot easier to have a home with 2 cars and take a couple vacations a year on one income. Now it's hard to do that with two incomes.

You also have to look at inflation and distribution of wealth for that. Inflation, theoretically, is much easier to control under a socialist system. Not only that, but I doubt anyone would disagree that under socialism there is a much smaller divide between the wealthiest and poorest.

I don't think inflation has much to do with capitalism or socialism really. A house is still a house, and apple is still and apple, no matter what monetary value is attributed to it. My house didn't gain 5% more to it's value, rather the dollar got 5% weaker. I know there are other things that effect prices of goods, but my house is still worth X amount of gold bars despite it's dollar price going up or down.

I think we've been tricked into believing inflation is some natural occuring phenomenon when it really has more to do with the dollar not being fixed to gold and the Fed printing it at an insane rate.

The large gaps in distribution of wealth are achieved by corporations using government to legislate themselves into a larger market share. Think Haliburton, big pharma, big aggra etc. These large contracts and market entry barriers for their competitors can only be achieved when there is a huge tax base to work off that is typical of socialism rather than capitalism.

Socialism in contemporary america is code for, "The libs want to take our money and spend it on things we are ideologically opposed to." That's it.

Yes, but the determining factor for inflation is the market, and under a socialist system, the market can be influenced centrally (instead of having many large corporations, as in most capitalist systems). While a socailist system may not be able to control demand as much (demand pull inflation), cost push can be avoided more easily by a centralized organization. Built in inflation would be the most obvious fix from socialization.
On the FED we agree totally. No oversight. No rules. It's a very broken part of our system, and it needs to either be replaced by a whole new system or dropped completely.
Don't forget that capitalism brings about more bribery and thus governmental corruption. Imagine if public organizations were in charge of oil. No Iraq war. No constantly fluctuating prices. No corporate assassinations of developers of alternatives. We'd probably be a lot less dependent on oil.

I don't think it is just the Democrats or libs anymore. The Republicans are very adept at taking our money and spending it on things many of us oppose as well.

Here's a short list of things that I would want in the public sector, and you let me know if you're ideologically opposed to it:
Health care
Military Defense, weapons, etc.
Internet, Phone and other telecom
Energy
Prisons

Will, flstf, you guys are being too intellectual about it. Socialism, as a concept in american political discourse is a boogeyman. It's something that the thoughtless subset of conservatism(not all conservatives are thoughtless) tells its children about to get them to eat their vegetables. That's why the two tfpers who have called me a socialist as a pejorative are completely absent in this thread; they actually have no clue what socialism really is.

You can't be serious. Take a look at your paycheck. Medicare, SS, Fed, and State add up to 13% for me and I'm probably in the top 25% for household income. Add in my property taxes and I'm at 14%. Local sales tax about 8% for non-food and something like 1-2% for food. After all of that I'm nowhere near 20%.

We have had this discussion on taxes already some time ago in this forum but I cannot find it so I will reply again.

It is the indirect taxes that I am writing about which are added to the direct taxes you listed. It is difficult to find out exactly how much these taxes add to the price of goods and services but I have seen estimates of between 30 to 70 percent depending on which goods and services you buy. One of the more high end estimates is contained in the following article:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...t021001pv.html

I'm a real socialist, and I'm proud of it. It represents my enthusiasm and optimism, and it's a natural part of me. In other words, if there were a town of Willravels, the town would be socialist. And successful.

I lived in communist Romania until the age of 10, and I was happy back then, there was nothing we did not have - as modern comforts besides a color TV and 100 TV channels.
People were going on vacation for 1 month every year, and everybody had a place to work, guaranteed, life was going at a slower pace, not the work, eat, sleep, be stressed, be fast, of today.

I would like to see socialism back - without the dictature, and with the option that anybody can turn into a capitalist - that is if he finds enough stupid people to work for him as he gets rich. Maybe he can tempt them with higher wages, let them be free to be capitalists then

But greedy people who like shiny things will not allow it. They talk about socialism as the most evil thing in the world. A dictatorship is indeed evil, before 1990 you could not say anything against the leaders because there were informants everywhere listening
Dictature is the opposite of democracy, socialism is the opposite of capitalism, it has nothing to do with dictature.

Social democracy is a far cry from democratic socialism. I think what you are referring to and what blade02 was referring to are 2 separate ideologies. It sounded like blade02 was referring to 'orthodox' socialism or democratic socialism and you were referring to socialized democracy. I agree with you both.

I don't know what socialism is really.

I just know that I want to earn what I get. I don't want to give away what I earn to anyone else just because. I'm happy to be courted for special interests and special donations, but to just give away that which I earned on my own I have severe problems with.

I don't want to give away what I've worked hard to get to someone who is a lazy fuck trying to get by without doing anything. I don't care if you are elderly, handicapped, or disabled. You can still contribute in some fashion. It may not earn you on par as everyone else, but in those cases those that are NGOs trying to help out these folks will be trying to find funds and donations from people what can donate and give time/money.

I can pull 'estimates' out of my ass as well. Most of that is BS driven by people with an agenda to eliminate corporate taxes under the false pretense that businesses would pass 100% of the savings back to the people.

A simple excercise: add up the total amount that the govt took in and subtract the sum of all direct taxes. Divide that by the total taxable income and you have the so-called average 'hidden tax' rate.

I don't understand how this will tell us what portion of these direct taxes are added to the price of goods and services and therefore ultimately paid by the consumer.

It would seem to make sense that as taxes are raised on suppliers, manufacturers, shippers, etc.. that they will recoup most of this amount by adding it to the prices they charge.

If it costs you 2 dollars to manufacture a widget today and tomorrow the government raises taxes making your cost 3 dollars then you have to make up the difference somewhere and the price consumers pay for widgets is probably going to go up accordingly.

a good take on socialism, is the book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Written around the turn of the century, it's about the meatpacking industry in Chicago around 1900...Sinclair goes into Socialist rhetoric in the late chapters. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in Socialism.

That's pretty much what I've been thinking the entire time I've been reading this thread.

Democratic socialism and social democracy are 2 different things. "Democratic socialism" is like "compassionate conservatism" in that its an image-driven rhetorical device used to soften the real agenda. It's still socialism, its still anti-free trade, its still government regulation and ownership (aka: domination) of all forms of commerce, its still based on the myth of a classless society, and it is still the leading ideology and means to power of the dictator. Just today, Hugo Chavez declared himself Lord and Master of Venezuela for Everlasting Eternity, and he did so implicitly and cynically on the backs of the poor and working classes.

"Socialized democracy" is more honest, more realistic and more benevolent in its intent. It characterizes a fundamentally democratic form of government: free trade, system of checks and balances, judiciary, open society, free press, etc...and mixes in government subsidized social programs such as universal healthcare, addiction counseling, educational programs and the like.

As their names imply, social democracy is a form of democracy; democratic socialism is a form of socialism.

powerclown, I'm more or less satisfied with the distinction, with some exceptions:

1. I think you were a bit too biased in your summary of democratic socialism.
   
2. Isn't social democracy more concerned with fair trade than free trade?

Wow.

The combined rate for SS and Medicare is 7.65% for you. Your employer is forced to match that amount, or if you are self-employed, your self-employment tax is 15.3%. If you can find a way around those taxes, you will be an instant multimillionaire as a financial advisor.

Using California as an example, you will also pay a state disability tax of .6%.

Throw in state income tax of around 9%, and a rough estimate of 25% for federal (brackets run from 10% to 35%), and you're up to around 50%. Then there are property taxes, which are roughly 1% of the value of the house.

As you said there is the old 7.75% (CA) sales tax. Along with that goes:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone State and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

There are also those pesky "fees" that crop up frequently. Don't forget about bond issues, either.

If you are paying a total of 20% in taxes, by any name, a great many people including myself would be very interested in hearing how you do it.

I forgot to define socialism!

Socialism:

A system of government in which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else.

:oogle: Wow, you just simultaneously defined socialism and capitalism.... impressive.

Well, if by "capitalism," you mean "the exact opposite of capitalism," you are correct.


You could take up the matter with Frederic Bastiat, who said the above, but he died over 150 years ago.

We could certainly benefit from the wisdom of a man such as he today.

Well Cyn, sorry to say this, but I guess you wouldn't be happy living in Iceland, after all! :D

Let's see: 40% income taxes, 25% sales tax, inexpensive and good medical care (from prenatal to elder care), free education through the doctoral level, 24 days MINIMUM vacation each year, 9 months of paid maternity/paternity leave, one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the longest lifespans in the world, etc etc.

But don't be fooled... the weather SUCKS! :D And they don't like foreigners/immigrants. But otherwise, it's not a bad place to live, really.

Well if you understand capitalism for what it is, economic selfishness, it's clear that being a capitalist does mean that you're living at the expense of others.

How so? Capitalism gives everyone the freedom to be selfish, to contribute as little or as much to the common good as they want; it does not force anyone to be selfish. Socialism carries with it the connotation that one should not be selfish. I would rather live in a place where man is allowed the greatest degree of freedom to chose his own moral path in life. The idealism that is a common good is born out of the modicum of happy experiences we enjoy as individuals.

Capitalism is motivated by profit alone. That's selfish.

I don't particularly disagree that in most cases this is true. But, this has more to do with individuals being selfish than it has to do with any flaw in capitalism. Although, the argument can be made(successfully) that capitalism(really the economic theory of a free market) only works because people are selfish. However, this misses the point, because in a capitalistic society no one forces you to be selfish. On the other hand, whether I want to or not a socialist government in theory takes money that I've earned fairly and reorganizes it to benefit society. I think it is not just for the government to tell me how to live my life, even if in the end it’s for the greater benefit of society.

Socialism seeks to fix the inequality of opportunism. It's not the government forcing their opinion of how to live life on you, it's more the populace agreeing that not agreeing on helping others means that people will be victimized by others. Socialism is about admitting that not all people are good, and that not all people believe in equality, and more importantly it's about seeking to prevent these selfish people from causing economic harm.

I don't think there is any fault with your logic, at least in so far as I can see, and it seems perfectly plausible to look at it that way. Unfortunately, I see it much differently. To me socialism is about forgoing individual freedoms to uphold an unrealistic standard of morality with respect to the acquisition of property.

Ah, but it's not necessarily unrealistic. Various European nations and even Canada operate with recognizable levels of socialism in their government and economy. As for individual freedoms.... socialism is not standing in the way of free speech, free religion, free press, freedom to assemble, freedom to arms, freedom from military quarter, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom from giving self incriminating testimony, freedom to have fair trials, etc. The only real restriction is that you only have multimillionaires instead of multibillionaires with the benefit of no starvation or poverty. I'd hardly call that a loss of freedom. The funny thing is that socialism saves you money. Socialized medicine, police, fire protection, streets, etc. all are shown to be much more expensive when private. Compare the costs of medicine in the UK to the US for proof.

Yeah, I'm not getting the whole "loss of freedom" thing (except as an ideology). What does that *really* mean? Can someone give me a concrete example of loss of freedom in Canada? Scandinavia? Last I checked, average citizens weren't feeling terribly oppressed here in Iceland. We've got all the freedoms stated above, and we've even got some millionaire/billionaire types floating around (not that I like them, but they have the right to exist and accrue money in this country). It's not as if one country MUST be 100% anything... nor should it. Iceland does fairly well with a balance between socialism and capitalism, I think, though of course it's not perfect.

As my old high school history teacher used to say reality is definitely not as simple as extremes. For the sake of the discussion, people have presented capitalism and socialism as polar opposites in reality. My responses were fashioned in that light, and I personally just looked at the competing theories and their merit philosophically. In reality no one country is truly capitalistic or socialistic; in fact, there are plenty of socialistic elements in America.

The balance has to do with the evolution of law and new social norms. The real difference between so called socialist countries and capitalist countries is not so great as some would have you believe. Whether it be conservatives trying to scare people or liberals trying to point out the greener grass on our neighbors lawn. What I mean by that is that if we take reality into account the only discussion that can be had is whether you want your country to be more socialistic or more capitalistic. My personal opinion on the matter is that I don’t mind the way America is right now. In this pragmatic perspective there would be no real loss of freedom due to implementing socialistic programs similar to some European countries since the differences between countries is minute anyway.

Ah yes, but are you poor? I don't mean to be nosy, but I do think that one's socio-economic status (taking into consideration gender, ethnicity, education, income, and parents' class) do affect one's satisfication with the way America is right now.

I grew up in a third world country for half of my life, maybe I should use the pc term developing country...oh well. Vaguely I know that my parents made less than 1000 dollars a month, even though my mother was a doctor and my father was a dentist (something tells me it was much less, but I won't hazard a guess). In fact before we left our country almost went into a state of anarchy, at that time we had lost all of our life savings and were living in a one room apartment, all five of us. When we came to America my parents with graduate degrees worked menial jobs such as cleaning houses, landscaping work and even delivering newspapers. For the first four years of my life here in the US I lived in the city surrounded by I guess what could be termed impoverished minorities. I suppose that would indeed mean that I grew up poor, but I myself never once thought this. My parents never complain about conditions in America, all I ever hear is how good we have it here.

I'd never compare poverty in the US to poverty in places like Somalia. It's really apples to oranges. Still, some people in the US go wanting of basic human necessities like shelter, food, water, medicine, and clothing. It's their cause I champion as much as anyone when I talk about less privatization and more socialization in the US.

Albania... okay, good to know your history. Are you actually from Albania, then?... perhaps it was naive of me to not know that, but people have all kinds of random names here, so I try not to make any assumptions as to what they mean. I will say that being a 1.5/2nd-generation immigrant of educated, European parents is a strong predictor of success (however you define that), even if your parents were forced to work menial jobs (which really sucks, btw). Did you/they speak English when you arrived? Did they come legally (you don't have to answer that, but it's an important question)? If so, those are other key variables that help, at least in sociological/anthropological studies of immigrant integration.

See, if you ask me, just about anyone CAN have the American dream... if they have the right combination of helpful variables working for them, and the right context of reception when they arrive (community, especially of other immigrants). For others who are not so lucky... particularly if they have darker skin, are uneducated, came illegally, don't speak English... it *can* take several generations for them to fully integrate and be in a position to reap the rewards of living in the US (not always, but it happens). Some of them have never integrated, especially when deep racism is involved.

Some people will say it's those people's own fault for being stuck at the bottom of the pile; others will say it's entirely the government's fault. Of course, it's a little of everything... that's what makes this kind of discussion so complicated. But having lived in a successful social democracy here in Iceland, I'd have to say that the US could still stand to learn from what other countries are doing to take care of the people within their borders.

Neither would I, but my own perspective has colored my view which is what I was trying to get across.

I was born in Albania, and lived there until I was ten.

The question of helping the less fortunate especially immigrants is one that I too take to heart. However, my own experiences tell me that government should not be the one to take the lead. I am much more a believer in people being given the widest autonomy and proving to themselves that they don't need laws and public officials to make them help their fellow man. I guess therein lies my ideological qualm about socialism.

If you can provide evidence that ALL capitalism is motivated by profit alone, you can get away with this statement.

If not, especially if anyone cares to post an altruistic act by a capitalist, your statement is reduced to naivete at best. And that's being kind.

Here is a starting point for you to refute:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM

This is really basic capitalism. I mean I've only taken a handful of classes on economics and government, but it's been covered. If you can get past the fact that most idiot professors have been brain washed into thinking that capitalism is the solution to every problem (professors are people, too), it's really plain as plain can be.

As for the Gates Foundation... well the organization is plainly and blatantly not capitalist. Explore the business model. Where is the productive labor for profit?

Socialism is a lie.

While it presents itself as an 'advanced' type of society, its appeal is to the most basic nature of man, and that is sloth and jealousy.

It is very appealing to lazy intellectuals who are jealous of wealth they don't poses but feel they deserve. Being very smart in a job that pays poorly is irksome when you feel superior to those who's pursuits earn them wealth. Undoubtedly this is a contributing factor to the number of college professors who seem to rally around the socialist banner. Wealth being relative, they would rather someone else doesn't have it and that it was 'fairly distributed'.

It is likewise appealing to some members of the mega-rich. These people have more wealth than they can spend in several life times. There is some guilt involved, and there is some dark self serving nature too, with socialism making it harder for new people to join their club. The classic example of this is a limousine liberal like Barbara Streisand.

Joining the ranks would be the ‘bleeding hearts’. These are people who think you need to give a man a fish, and when he fails to fish for his own meal, give him another fish. They seriously want to help their fellow man (with other peoples money) and don’t seem to grasp that hand outs are a poor investment in the future.

Then there are the prols. Socialism is just, on paper to them, free money. Its a self serving system. I'm poor so you pay for me. They are fueled in part by politicians who convince them that society owes them something just for breathing.

Finally you have the politicians. Socialism is their tool to power. It can be a powerful coalition with a very large voter base in the prols and more than a good share of the intellectual effete. They create vote plantations among the poor with welfare type systems, while pretending its about compassion or fairness. Its just vote buying.

This is opposed by the middle class (minus bleeding hearts), the working rich, and more libertarian oriented thinkers.

Socialism is a self defeating system in the end, which creates a highly stratified society. It can only maintain itself for so long off the production of the middle and upper class before the incentive to put the kind of effort it takes to be in the middle class is lost. As more and more people take, and there is less to take, the services provided start to shrink. This has already been happening with the European socialist model, and it will continue to do so with time.

There is of course a sustainable level of socialism, much like a parasite that doesn’t kill its host, socialism can exist if it allows enough economic freedom to justify the effort it takes to generate new wealth. The problem is that in a democratic system, where the public knows it can vote itself money from the treasury, human nature takes sway.

Socialism could work in a sort of benign dictatorship situation, but that too only would work in theory, as we all know what the end result of such systems appears to be with millions upon millions killed by their own socialist governments in the name of progress.

In the end though, socialism will always be around, its emotional appeal is too strong, too easy to fool people into thinking that they are helping, to easy to get people to think they are getting something for nothing, to easy to make college students in the coffee shop who think they are superior to most men yet are less productive in society than the waitress serving them, that THIS time, it will work.

And oh yes….

I’m back.

Hey! Welcome back!

And capitalism is an appeal to greed and envy. A dictatorship is an appeal to pride and... I can't fit lust into this.
Maybe we can ask some of the professors around here instead of having to guess why some of them are socialist leaning. Being smart in a job that pays poorly is simply one way in which capitalism can be a broken system.
Well some rich people are idiots, and that's bound to happen. I suspect that even Barbera has some altruistim behind her wish to give some of her wealth to those who need it. It's really about a belief in equality and a willingness to admit that while life isn't fair, it's not a bad thing to try and make it more fair. I'm sure that those people I help out financially appreciate it and don't take it for granted. How do I know this? They're starving.
Ah, but it's not other people's money. In a socialist system, everyone pays a little. Even me. Also, you're looking at this from the perspective of capitalism still. Giving to the poor or needy isn't about an investment that you'll see a necessary return on. It's about doing the right thing.
The poor pay into the system too, just not as much.
I'd say proper socialism happens in the context of a free state, or a state that has representation of the people and has a constitution and body of laws to prevent the state from being controlled from the top.
It's easy to say that socialism is self defeating in theory, but in practice the economies of Europe are thriving and the US dollar is at an all time low and show no signs of gaining worth in the near future. Frankly, we're an excellent example of how capitalism and privatization really isn't the way to go. NHS, while not perfect, is amazing compared to the private systems in the US. They pay less and get more. I'd call that a good deal.
I'd be careful calling things like firefighting and police work parasitic. Had those systems been privatized, we'd be paying hundreds of dollars a month for firefighter and police insurance, just like we do for medicine.
Pure socialism works best in a tribal organization. Not even I would promote pure socialism in our current world, though. There are way too many people. Socialist systems working along side other systems, though, is optimal. BTW, I don't see millions killed by the French government, which is pretty socialist.
I suspect if you ask the people I help through donations of time and money, they'd explain to yo how I was helping. Not only that, but people in Europe are baffled by our medical system. I also suspect they'd admit that they are being helped by their medical systems.

Holy shit... Ustwo is back. That's all I have to say at this moment. :D It's about time!

does this imply that artists who are smart or grocery baggers who are smart show one way in which capitalism can be a broken system?

That depends on the case. A 50 year old bagger who was laid off from a successful company because his job is being filled by an Indian who is willing to work for pennies on the dollar so the CEO can buy that fifth home? Yeah, I'd say so.

If we're talking about a kid fresh out of high school who is working his way through college? Nah. He or she would be doing well in my opinion.

so discrimination by age.... still don't want to live in your world.

We're talking about the reality that You're not born a college graduate with a resume. That's not ageism, it's reality.