what's wrong with socialism?

[Falsedawn]

That’s the point you goof, it doesn’t exist....well only in your small and easily manipulated mind. I bet you grew up in the first world and have no idea what it’s like to even live under it. Using Denmark et al as a shining beacon is all I ever hear from this argument

Then why ask me to trade my citizenship to go and live in a fantasy land? That seems pretty stupid of you. If you had said Denmark, I probably would have said yeah. Denmark is dope.

If we're talking about living in fantasy lands, i'll take the galaxy of Star Wars lore. Or even better, a country where you're not a mouthbreathing retard.

 

[Ripskater]

Why is some socialism bad in your opinion?

We clearly need some socialism to counter-balance extreme capitalsim. Is it right that if you can't afford thousands of dollars for healthcare you have to live out of a card board box under a bridge?

What's wrong with the ultra rich paying their share in taxes commensurate with their income? What's wrong with wealthy corporations paying their share in taxes back to the community. Open up drug rehabilitation centers, etc. But no! Each man for himself! If the poor end up in ghettos that's their problem. Well, that's what lead to the French Revolution and caused the upper class to get mass executed.

Because of a lack of social services and well being for all I can't walk out at night in some areas without the fear of getting robbed. That is much less of an issue if developed nations such as Canada, Europe, etc. Today the highest taxed countries in the world have the highest standard of living.

With extreme capitalism you have less checks and balances, mortgage crisis of 2008 was a clear lesson. No one was ever held accountable for that disaster and greed. Interest groups run the show and don't give a shit about people. Some parts of the USA, the richest nation on earth, looks like sub Saharan Africa. Extreme poverty for all different types of races and people. Then you have the extreme rich that don't give a fuck.

Extreme socialism is bad too. It's best to be centrist.

Socialism rewards laziness

It tends to retard creativity, drive, ambition,and using all the talents God has given you.

Decreased morality of a society

Also, when you run out of other peoples money, you are left with entitled people that can do nothing for themselves.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

In before Trotsky comes in this thread and tells us why Communism is the key to a utopia

 

[AlexDB9]

Cuba is a communist country and nobody is proposing making the US a communist country. Let' not forget a lot of the most liked policies in the US are socialist policies, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Hehe you know very well TS just doesn’t mean that. He speaks of being centrist yet the post reads very similar to what I would be taught in school in Cuba. Capitalism isn’t the perfect end all, but my point is eventually you turn into Cuba and the like. The new age makeover that some countries in Europe have done to socialism is fine and ok but that can’t be maintained forever. High taxes, hidden fees.....this can’t be sustained

 

[Otto!]

I am ok with some level of wealth redistribution to help the less fortunate.

The down side is that there are many who take advantage of the system and who will choose to contribute little to none. Welfare abuse is a serious beef of mi e. Some families now have their third generation who haven’t worked a day in their lives.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Actual socialism, as in Marxism, as in the State owning all land and businesses is a terrible, terrible idea.

Do you recognize any distinction between "the State" and "the workers" controlling the means of production?

So, for example, do you consider something like the Mondragon Corporation to be a "terrible" idea?

 

[AlexDB9]

Then why ask me to trade my citizenship to go and live in a fantasy land? That seems pretty stupid of you. If you had said Denmark, I probably would have said yeah. Denmark is dope.

If we're talking about living in fantasy lands, i'll take the galaxy of Star Wars lore. Or even better, a country where you're not a mouthbreathing retard.

Make believe? Would you like to live in Venezuela for example? Denmark is a nice facade, but I want you to get the real experience

 

[Islam Imamate]

Hehe you know very well TS just doesn’t mean that. He speaks of being centrist yet the post reads very similar to what I would be taught in school in Cuba. Capitalism isn’t the perfect end all, but my point is eventually you turn into Cuba and the like. The new age makeover that some countries in Europe have done to socialism is fine and ok but that can’t be maintained forever. High taxes, hidden fees.....this can’t be sustained

Why not? And who is to say that the current form of capitalism can be sustained? Massive levels of inequality, catastrophic economic collapses, these things take their toll on a society.

 

[58miles]

I am ok with some level of wealth redistribution to help the less fortunate.

The down side is that there are many who take advantage of the system and who will choose to contribute little to none. Welfare abuse is a serious beef of mi e. Some families now have their third generation who haven’t worked a day in their lives.

Of course there are always going to be people who take advantage of the system but US has always had one of the least generous Welfare systems in the developed world that has gotten even less generous since 90's Welfare reform so it's not as big of a problem as before. If you are talking about Canada, I'm not familiar with Canada's Welfare system, how does it work and how do people take advantage of the system?

 

[Trotsky]

It’s just a poison term.

Actual socialism, as in Marxism, as in the State owning all land and businesses is a terrible, terrible idea.

Universal healthcare and affordable college tuition, which Republicans call socialism, are great ideas.

Uhhhhh, at no point has that been the prevailing definition of socialism or any definition of Marxism. You could make a good argument that, post-USSR, the term "communism" came to roughly fit that definition (although, even then, not all real property was state-owned, and most communist governments delegated economic decision making to worker councils).

Socialism = democratization of the workplace via worker management; generally no significance given to real property ownership; full suffrage; contemporary understanding extends broader democratization of the economy, repurposing of economic productivity for social good.

Marxism = interpretation of the world and formation of its governance through a dialectical materialist lens whereby individual labor and not property ownership drives distribution of capital, toward socialization of production by ownership and operation of individual firms by those firms' workers, cooperative socialization across all economic production, and equalization of economic opportunity - with the goal of minimizing of private property ownership's explanatory power over class division.

Marx said absolutely nothing about state ownership of all land and business. Shame on you, BourgyShot.

 

[AlexDB9]

Why not? And who is to say that the current form of capitalism can be sustained? Massive levels of inequality, catastrophic economic collapses, these things take their toll on a society.

I’ve spoken with people my age from Austria, Denmark etc and they tell me it’s not as rosy as it’s made it to be. Health care is free but the wait times are huge (same to what I was used to), education is free but you pay it with the high taxes anyways (hidden fees in everything) and quality is down (yep I’ve known that first hand)....so basically it’s a wash? Plus their populations are the size of Maryland so I can see how that type of system is sustained for them. The US? That’s another animal all together

 

[Kindacrazy]

Why is some socialism bad in your opinion?

We clearly need some socialism to counter-balance extreme capitalsim. Is it right that if you can't afford thousands of dollars for healthcare you have to live out of a card board box under a bridge?

What's wrong with the ultra rich paying their share in taxes commensurate with their income? What's wrong with wealthy corporations paying their share in taxes back to the community. Open up drug rehabilitation centers, etc. But no! Each man for himself! If the poor end up in ghettos that's their problem. Well, that's what lead to the French Revolution and caused the upper class to get mass executed.

Because of a lack of social services and well being for all I can't walk out at night in some areas without the fear of getting robbed. That is much less of an issue if developed nations such as Canada, Europe, etc. Today the highest taxed countries in the world have the highest standard of living.

With extreme capitalism you have less checks and balances, mortgage crisis of 2008 was a clear lesson. No one was ever held accountable for that disaster and greed. Interest groups run the show and don't give a shit about people. Some parts of the USA, the richest nation on earth, looks like sub Saharan Africa. Extreme poverty for all different types of races and people. Then you have the extreme rich that don't give a fuck.

Extreme socialism is bad too. It's best to be centrist.

This really isn't a simple question to answer. For example take the statement you made here:

What's wrong with the ultra rich paying their share in taxes commensurate with their income?

This of course begs the question what is their share? Is fair

• an equal portion of the tax burden?
• a portion of the tax burden proportional to their wealth?
• a portion of the tax burden proportional to their income?
• a portion of the tax burden proportional to their dispensable income?
• a portion of the tax burden proportional to their usage of commonly held resources?
• a portion of their total consumption?
• a portion of their consumption of dispensable goods?
• a portion of their consumption of non-renewable resources?
• etc...etc...

I think you get the point, we all have different ideas of what constitutes fair. Things become even more complicated when you begin looking at outcomes and trying to reverse engineer fair in order to produce a society where you can walk safely through any neighborhoods. What if some neighborhoods are unsafe for cultural reasons? What if some groups of people choose to live in a way that makes their neighborhood unsafe? Do you have the moral authority to change the culture of those neighborhoods? Do you have the moral authority to transfer wealth from other communities to those communities on a continuing basis if that is what it would take in order to "keep those communities safe places for you to walk at night?"

Then there is the dysgenic effects of not allowing the weak to fail to an extent where they can't breed. This may not seem like much of an issue but if you provide an easy enough life for the mentally handicapped to breed it can become a serious practical problem in only a few generations. This is happening right now in some communities in the west.

Then there is the reality surrounding the long term effects of providing broad based welfare to certain communities. The effect of this is socially devastating. Communities are similar to individuals in that without competition they don't thrive, they exist. I don't think there has been a single community in the world that has actually benefited from long term deep economic dependence. Communities and individuals evolve into their environment, if their condition is living off the state then they become more adapted to living off the state.

I could continue but I think that's enough to make the point that people tend to be extremely reductionist on this issue. When we introduce social structures which shape society in such fundamental ways we need to be very careful to understand what is happening before we can proceed with even light touches. This is where I would invoke the principle of Chesterton's Fence.

If you approach the problem from the angle of, "nobody should go hungry", understand what that means. Understand the host of effects that you are having. If you let your emotions rule you in this you will destroy society because nature runs headlong into conflict with the values generally held a caring and compassionate humanity more times then not.

 

[Falsedawn]

Make believe? Would you like to live in Venezuela for example? Denmark is a nice facade, but I want you to get the real experience

Venezuela isn't a socialist utopia, you know Utopian Socialism is a thing right?

 

[Otto!]

Of course there are always going to be people who take advantage of the system but US has always had one of the least generous Welfare systems in the developed world that has gotten even less generous since 90's Welfare reform so it's not as big of a problem as before. If you are talking about Canada, I'm not familiar with Canada's Welfare system, how does it work and how do people take advantage of the system?

We have a serious workers shortage to the point where restaurants and small businesses are closing due to lack of personnel. In spite of that, significant numbers of young, able bodied people who could easily find work are on welfare. Some will admit openly that they are better off on welfare since it comes with some benefits.

I fully support a welfare system that provides for those unable to work. Unfortunately, some abuse the system as they are on welfare because they don’t want to work.

 

[luckyshot]

Uhhhhh, at no point has that been the prevailing definition of socialism or any definition of Marxism. You could make a good argument that, post-USSR, the term "communism" came to roughly fit that definition (although, even then, not all real property was state-owned, and most communist governments delegated economic decision making to worker councils).

Socialism = democratization of the workplace via worker management; generally no significance given to real property ownership; full suffrage; contemporary understanding extends broader democratization of the economy, repurposing of economic productivity for social good.

Marxism = interpretation of the world and formation of its governance through a dialectical materialist lens, toward socialization of production by ownership and operation of individual firms by those firms' workers, cooperative socialization across all economic production, and equalization of economic opportunity - with the goal of minimizing of private property ownership's explanatory power over class division.

Marx said absolutely nothing about state ownership of all land and business. Shame on you, BourgyShot.

Not gonna brag, but @Jack V Savage liked my post, so I think I’m right.

 

[58miles]

We have a serious workers shortage to the point where restaurants and small businesses are closing due to lack of personnel. In spite of that, significant numbers of young, able bodied people who could easily find work are on welfare. Some will admit openly that they are better off on welfare since it comes with some benefits.

I fully support a welfare system that provides for those unable to work. Unfortunately, some abuse the system as they are on welfare because they don’t want to work.

What requirements must be met to qualify for welfare? How much do people on welfare get paid? Is it national or does it vary by Province? Is there a time limit?

Where do I go to find out more?

 

[AlexDB9]

Venezuela isn't a socialist utopia, you know Utopian Socialism is a thing right?

Bro, when I say that it’s meant to be a clashing comment. I know the socialist utopia doesn’t exist cause it can’t exist in my opinion

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not gonna brag, but @Jack V Savage liked my post, so I think I’m right.

Hmm. I think you edited it post-like. No?

 

[CauseImbetta]

Israel are the holy people of God. We should be honored to send them our hard earned money.

A special what?
What companies don't pay no tax? I'll bet ya it's them god damn Silicone Valley ones over there in Los Angeles Commifornia.

?? So Israelis are going to heaven and you are going to hell? You're the sucker who pays for their colonization of the region? That's what they believe anyway. It must be since they are the self proclaimed keepers of heaven. After suckering you into attacking iraq. Don't be a fool.

Are you sure all companies pay their fair share of tax?

 

[Falsedawn]

Bro, when I say that it’s meant to be a clashing comment. I know the socialist utopia doesn’t exist cause it can’t exist in my opinion

If it doesn't exist, then why did you try and use the circumstances of currently nominal socialist countries to make it sound like a bad thing? If I didn't know any better, i'd say you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. An actual socialist utopia would be great, and i'd gladly move there under the circumstances. The way you lay it out just seems lazy and self serving, especially since it's not based in any theory. It's like me asking if you want to live in a capitalist utopia and laying out Liberia. I mean, it is a bastion of unfettered capitalism after all. You'd throw a bitch fit.