what's wrong with socialism?

[AndroidRage]

I dont know. I look at the history of the last century and kinda think the word earned its reputation. I want a lot of programs but I dont want to use the S word and allow some bad characters to sneak in the back door and get up to some old tricks

Fine, but I think a candidate's platform would reveal what their true intent is. Guy wants medicare for all and affordable college. Cool. If some extremist got in and all if a sudden they want the state to take control of everything we have checks and balances to stop that.

 

[TheGreatA]

He doesnt use the term correctly -- democratic socialism is how he classify himself, but then says "like the nordic countries" of which, only iceland is really governed by a party that represents that. I have never actually heard him say anything that suggests he knows how they work, and for certain have heard enough evidence that he has no idea how federalism in canada works.

Whatever he knows or does not know, I sure hope that he is well-aware of Mikhail Gorbachev's failures to adapt the "Nordic model" of socialism to the Soviet construct, leading to its collapse (in part due to failures by previous regimes, but still).

There is still not an effective blue-print in existence for a model of social welfare that would be effective in 300 million person country, like America. Perhaps there is no true "federal solution".

Nordic countries can, at best, be used as hollow examples due to their small sample size. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, America itself has several small states which offer quite generous welfare services, and boast a comparatively egalitarian co-existence between the people, economically speaking.

Nearly all Nordic countries have taken a turn to the economic right, after the "migrant crisis", with increases to economic inequality, and a reduction of social welfare/labour rights, which just shows the difficulties in upholding an egalitarian welfare state, faced with the challenges of absorbing a diverse people that operate based on different social norms, leading to vastly different outcomes.

 

[Andy Capp]

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.

Good post but I think you answered your own question. Some people, instead of having empathy and wanting to contribute for the betterment of all society, are whiny bitches who feel like they have to jealously guard "theirs" for fear someone else might get some.

 

[Andy Capp]

Thank you and well said

My take on social programs is that they are just part of regulating capitalism and making sure it doesnt run amuck. Socialism on the other hand is every bit as evil wicked and nasty as people say it is , has failed /was a nightmare and I wish the liberals in my country would stop calling themselves socialists . They arent, They still believe in private property and personal liberty they just think a national healthcare plan is a good idea and are tired of being ripped off by colleges


I seriously wish these bozos would stop using the word socialism

In my experience, it's not liberals who are torturing the fuck out of that word. What I hear constantly is right-wingers throwing a hissy calling anyone who supports social programs a socialist (or commie).

I also don't hear any calls to move toward a fully socialist system anywhere in "the West" by anyone so who cares what they call themselves?

 

[weezul]

Centrist is the correct response. Observe. See what works. Choose the best method for the situation. Socialized healthcare is good. Same with a lot of things. But capitalism has something to offer too of course. Being a nutbar on either extreme obviously doesn't work. History has shown us this.

 

[AndroidRage]

Where would Ted Cruz ever get that idea??

In a speech he gave at the National Committee for Independent Political Action in New York City on June 22, 1989, reprinted in the December 1989 issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review: “In Vermont, everybody knows that I am a socialist and that many people in our movement, not all, are socialistsin interesting point that is the honest-to-God truth — what people will say is, ‘I don’t really know what socialism is, but if you’re not a Democrat or a Republican, you’re OK with me.’

In the book he wrote with Huck Gutman, Outsider in the House, published in 1997: “Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat. I’m a democratic socialist.”

In an interview with The Washington Post in November 2006. “I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist




https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

What Ted did was misleading. Just like what you did by only bolding half of the term "democratic socialist"

 

[Ruprecht]

Whatever he knows or does not know, I sure hope that he is well-aware of Mikhail Gorbachev's failures to adapt the "Nordic model" of socialism to the Soviet construct, leading to its collapse (in part due to failures by previous regimes, but still).

There is still not an effective blue-print in existence for a model of social welfare that would be effective in 300 million person country, like America. Perhaps there is no true "federal solution".

Nordic countries can, at best, be used as hollow examples due to their small sample size. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, America itself has several small states which offer quite generous welfare services, and boast a comparatively egalitarian co-existence between the people, economically speaking.

Nearly all Nordic countries have taken a turn to the economic right, after the "migrant crisis", with increases to economic inequality, and a reduction of social welfare/labour rights, which just shows the difficulties in upholding an egalitarian welfare state, faced with the challenges of absorbing a diverse people that operate based on different social norms, leading to vastly different outcomes.

I think Gorbachev's failures can be attributed to the normal failure mode of attempts at a mixed economy on the socialist end of the spectrum.
Endemic corruption.
New Zealand manages an egalitarian welfare state with much greater ethnic and cultural diversity than the Scandinavian countries. The biggest similarity is their low levels of corruption (equal first in corruption rankings with Denmark). Overstating the difficulties resulting from policy failure es endemic to immigration is just the typical excuse of ethnic nationalists.

 

[Prutfis]

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

I would like to know more. When is northern and western Europe collapsing? Could you expand on the reasons why they will eventually turn into Cuba?
Some of the best and most well run countries in the world are going to turn into Cuba? Somehow they are "not real socialism" because they weren´t governed by idiots and turned into 3rd world shit holes? Sense, you make none.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Thank you and well said

My take on social programs is that they are just part of regulating capitalism and making sure it doesnt run amuck. Socialism on the other hand is every bit as evil wicked and nasty as people say it is , has failed /was a nightmare and I wish the liberals in my country would stop calling themselves socialists . They arent, They still believe in private property and personal liberty they just think a national healthcare plan is a good idea and are tired of being ripped off by colleges


I seriously wish these bozos would stop using the word socialism

Well first you have to get the right-wingers to stop calling everything left of Mussolini socialism.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

/thread

 

[Trotsky]

Thank you and well said

My take on social programs is that they are just part of regulating capitalism and making sure it doesnt run amuck. Socialism on the other hand is every bit as evil wicked and nasty as people say it is , has failed /was a nightmare and I wish the liberals in my country would stop calling themselves socialists . They arent, They still believe in private property and personal liberty they just think a national healthcare plan is a good idea and are tired of being ripped off by colleges


I seriously wish these bozos would stop using the word socialism

They're using it correctly. You are not.

As I've stated already, socialism has absolutely nothing to do with collectivization of private property - nor infringement on personal liberty. The former is communism (in which public property, i.e. the "commune" is the explanatory principle), while socialism's explanatory principle is human capital (labor) - and management and allocation of economic gains derived from labor. Most broadly, socialism can be described as more radical democratization of society and the economy through collective action for public good and against private profit - so regulating educational institutions and instating universal healthcare fit comfortably within the term's definition.

On the second part (personal liberty), it has been American socialists that have been the most fervent advocates for civil liberties throughout the 20th century, from labor rights, to due process, to (most notably) freedom of speech, both from the government and within the workplace.

Anyways, it's very irresponsible of you to get on your soapbox about how others are misusing or misunderstanding the term, when you yourself have clearly not sufficiently informed yourself - and are yourself using it incorrectly.

 

[WTF2008]

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.

There is socialism all over America. And yes, it is bad.
It's also necessary. I would like to see where you think America is close to subsahara Africa.

And why they're our problem.

 

[WTF2008]

Fine, but I think a candidate's platform would reveal what their true intent is. Guy wants medicare for all and affordable college. Cool. If some extremist got in and all if a sudden they want the state to take control of everything we have checks and balances to stop that.

No. This is one step into a shitty direction.
You're abdicating for more government control when government control is what's destroying America.

 

[WTF2008]

I think Gorbachev's failures can be attributed to the normal failure mode of attempts at a mixed economy on the socialist end of the spectrum.
Endemic corruption.
New Zealand manages an egalitarian welfare state with much greater ethnic and cultural diversity than the Scandinavian countries. The biggest similarity is their low levels of corruption (equal first in corruption rankings with Denmark). Overstating the difficulties resulting from policy failure es endemic to immigration is just the typical excuse of ethnic nationalists.

Because it's a tiny country. You can't apply any socialist ideals to a country that's been warring with other countries for years against communist/socialist ideals and has over 3000,000 peoope. Bring it and get stomped.

Nobody is going to jump on board with that.

 

[Ruprecht]

/thread

That's dishonest demagoguery. The extension of adolescence isn't a "leftist plot", it's been going on as long as the emergence of the middle class. In fact there was no adolescence as we think of it today prior to that.
I supposed in a round about way the rise of the middle class was "leftist", in that it happened largely due to the decline of feudalism, the enlightenment, industrialisation, the abolition of child labour and the availability of public education.

 

[Sano]

Whatever he knows or does not know, I sure hope that he is well-aware of Mikhail Gorbachev's failures to adapt the "Nordic model" of socialism to the Soviet construct, leading to its collapse (in part due to failures by previous regimes, but still).

There is still not an effective blue-print in existence for a model of social welfare that would be effective in 300 million person country, like America. Perhaps there is no true "federal solution".

Nordic countries can, at best, be used as hollow examples due to their small sample size. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, America itself has several small states which offer quite generous welfare services, and boast a comparatively egalitarian co-existence between the people, economically speaking.

Nearly all Nordic countries have taken a turn to the economic right, after the "migrant crisis", with increases to economic inequality, and a reduction of social welfare/labour rights, which just shows the difficulties in upholding an egalitarian welfare state, faced with the challenges of absorbing a diverse people that operate based on different social norms, leading to vastly different outcomes.

It's not just the nordic model though, although ours is the best (you are not included Finland). It's the entirety of Europe that have what Americans would term "socialist health care" and so forth. It's a huge copout claiming that America is too "big" to implement commen sense initiatives.

The reason why Scandinavia has taken a right turn (and Europe generally) is partly because of a misguided integration system, but more so the fear mongering and scare tactics used to spread misinformation about "the dangerous brown people". What really did it is very simple.

The financial crash (opened up for cuts because "we have to save the economy") which meant the middle class and lower class had to pay while the rich took advantage and have gotten much richer since. In this regard the powers that be needed someone to put the blame on and say "hey, it's those peoples fault that you are sacrifing! Not us!" and the blame was put on the poor and ethnic who couldn't defend themselves. 9/11 had already fueled the "muslim war" (interestingly Saudies are still best friends with the US) so the people were more willing to view them as enemies. Finally the Libya and the Syrian war resulting in the massive refugee crisis. That just made them easy targets politically.

With that said, we are still doing well, still to the left albeit more center. The government is changing soon though, we are returning to our rightful place as social democrats.

 

[WTF2008]

They're using it correctly. You are not.

As I've stated already, socialism has absolutely nothing to do with collectivization of private property - nor infringement on personal liberty. The former is communism (in which public property, i.e. the "commune" is the explanatory principle), while socialism's explanatory principle is human capital (labor) - and management and allocation of economic gains derived from labor. Most broadly, socialism can be described as more radical democratization of society and the economy through collective action for public good and against private profit - so regulating educational institutions and instating universal healthcare fit comfortably within the term's definition.

On the second part (personal liberty), it has been American socialists that have been the most fervent advocates for civil liberties throughout the 20th century, from labor rights, to due process, to (most notably) freedom of speech, both from the government and within the workplace.

Anyways, it's very irresponsible of you to get on your soapbox about how others are misusing or misunderstanding the term, when you yourself have clearly not sufficiently informed yourself - and are yourself using it incorrectly.

Fucking commie. Let's all read your new and special take on how you think communism is so good.

You're really presenting new ideas that nobody has ever thought of before.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

That's dishonest demagoguery. The extension of adolescence isn't a "leftist plot", it's been going on as long as the emergence of the middle class. In fact there was no adolescence as we think of it today prior to that.
I supposed in a round about way the rise of the middle class was "leftist", in that it happened largely due to the decline of feudalism, the enlightenment, industrialisation, the abolition of child labour and the availability of public education.

Wow... wait you're serious? "leftist" is the reason for all these advancements in civilization... according to you?

Are you mixing up "leftist" and it's definition? Or to be fair to you, the current definition of "leftist"? If you want to define this statement a bit more I maybe a bit less dumbfounded (you made me laugh a bit irl with this) by the complete absurdity of this.

 

[Ruprecht]

Because it's a tiny country. You can't apply any socialist ideals to a country that's been warring with other countries for years against communist/socialist ideals and has over 3000,000 peoope. Bring it and get stomped.

Nobody is going to jump on board with that.

New Zealand has over 3 million people.I think you forgot some zeros.
China is having some success implementing nationalised industry and strong welfare provision with a population of 1.4 Billion, so size alone doesn't seem to be the deciding factor.
Although of course policy and methodology can't always just be scaled up without change. They tried with the "Singapore model" of state micromanaged captialism, and failed.

 

[Trotsky]

Fucking commie. Let's all read your new and special take on how you think communism is so good.

You're really presenting new ideas that nobody has ever thought of before.

I didn't say anything about it (I was talking about socialism) being "so good," or express my opinion on it at all. I simply stated what the terms mean. I'm sorry that thinking is scary to you. I'll put it in spoiler tags next time.