Democratic Socialism

[Substitute]

I had a brief look at this idea of ideology a few days ago in my civics class. It seems democratic socialism has all the benefits of democracy(free speech, lack of discrimination, etc. The only catch is that profits from big business go to benefit all people, not just the rich, and the fact that all people are equal is thoroughly emphasized in terms of fiscality. Is this correct?

If you know about DS, post here. I'd like to learn a bit more :thumb:

[Jharaski]

Critics would say that everyone is simply equally miserable and poor, though I don't necessarily agree with that.

[Substitute]

You'd think that a way of life such as basically taking from the rich and spreading it out to the poor would grow to benefit all. I mean, even if the government took the money, that would still mean the money would eventually trickle down to us in the form of health care, education, social services etc, as long as the 'democratic' part of democratic socialism held up.

[Jharaski]

There is less incentive to work. Why be a doctor if you could make the same amount of money as clerk? I will admit that it COULD work (probably unlike Tway), but it's still unlikely to work as well as it does on paper. I would love an ideal system if it would actually work, but I'm too much of a realist to let myself hope for one.

[Substitute]

Well, I think there are ways to entice people to join certain occupations(pensions, social credit, benefits etc), but if there is no real incentive, there should be.

[-1up!-]

There is less incentive to work. Why be a doctor if you could make the same amount of money as clerk? I will admit that it COULD work (probably unlike Tway), but it's still unlikely to work as well as it does on paper. I would love an ideal system if it would actually work, but I'm too much of a realist to let myself hope for one.

Because you chose to be a doctor out of desire to cure people, not thinking primarily of the paycheck? Because you like your job? Social recognition is a form of "salary" people neglect too much. :-/

[Iscariot]

I used to be a supporter of Democratic Socialism until I realized what a pushover philosophy it is. Now I'm more Red-Anarcho than anything else.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Taking rich people's money isn't democratic.

[Jharaski]

True. It's just that in these systems, the economy isn't all that great because it's being controlled and shuffled around. But people don't usually starve in the streets, as long as the leader isn't like Castro or Mugabe.

[Iscariot]

Taking rich people's money isn't democratic.

Neither is taking what little money the poor possess, which the upper class does on a daily basis through over-taxation and financial rewards for big businesses that outsource and mechanize.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Neither is taking what little money the poor possess, which the upper class does on a daily basis through over-taxation and financial rewards for big businesses that outsource and mechanize.
Yes, the government should stop interfering in the market.

[Jharaski]

Neither is taking what little money the poor possess, which the upper class does on a daily basis through over-taxation and financial rewards for big businesses that outsource and mechanize.

The lower class is almost never overtaxed. Overtaxation for businesses causes the trickle down theory to take place, and raise prices(sadly it doesn't work too well in the reverse). Although I absolutely DESPISE outsourcing. :angry:

[Substitute]

Taking rich people's money isn't democratic.


It's not really taking their money, it's dividing their money between those who deserve it. When you think about it, this can actually help these businesses, because if the consumers have mroe money they will consume more. There will be less crime because there is more money, and there will be less of a poor-to-middle-to-rich class gap if there is any at all. Why should the rich become richer while the poor starve?

[Iskandar]

Critics would say that everyone is simply equally miserable and poor, though I don't necessarily agree with that.
That's not true at all. A central tenet of any form of socialism is that all citizens should get what they need. It's not a difficult task for an entire nation to accomplish that.

[Iscariot]

The lower class is almost never overtaxed.

Are you kidding me?

Here in Oregon alone, we get taxed upwards of three times for our property, twice for our income tax, we get our kicker checks taken away involuntarily to be used for the state government's current project whatever it may be, and the whole time we have state government officials sitting around double dipping because no one enforces any employment laws.

[-1up!-]

It's not that the lower class is overtaxed. The upper classes (I'm talking about really upper classes. 6 digit revenues and up) are undertaxed - this is the issue.

[Substitute]

It's not that the lower class is overtaxed. The upper classes (I'm talking about really upper classes. 6 digit revenues and up) are undertaxed.


Good point.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's not really taking their money
You have to take it from them before you:

it's dividing their money between those who deserve it.
What did they do to deserve it?

When you think about it, this can actually help these businesses, because if the consumers have mroe money they will consume more.
How exactly does taking my money and then giving some of it back to me benefit me?

There will be less crime because there is more money
No, there'll be less money.

there will be less of a poor-to-middle-to-rich class gap if there is any at all.
Who'll run the businesses then?

Why should the rich become richer while the poor starve?
The poor don't starve.

[Jharaski]

Are you kidding me?

Here in Oregon alone, we get taxed upwards of three times for our property, twice for our income tax, we get our kicker checks taken away involuntarily to be used for the state government's current project whatever it may be, and the whole time we have state government officials sitting around double dipping because no one enforces any employment laws.

The upper class is taxed more, really, so by comparsion...

My area is middle/upper (it's in the top 4 riches counties in the nation, notsure where it places) and we have the hell taxed out of us too. Everybody is overtaxed. The problem is inefficient spending.

[dislocated214]

Most forms of socialism are democratic. And that is basically the simple definition of socialism.

[Iscariot]

The upper class is taxed more, really, so by comparsion...

No, they aren't. The upper class receive more tax breaks, returns and benefits than any other class in the United States.

[Substitute]

What did they do to deserve it?.

They deserve it more than the millionaires and billionaires. CEOs and owners are grossly overpaid compared to the amount of work they do to their blue and white collar employees.

How exactly does taking my money and then giving some of it back to me benefit me?.

The money is able to circulate in and out of the said business and more products are consumed, creating a healthy balance.

No, there'll be less money..

For who?

Who'll run the businesses then?.

The owners.

The poor don't starve.

Are they as well-fed as the rich?

[Jharaski]

No, they aren't. The upper class receive more tax breaks, returns and benefits than any other class in the United States.


Come live in Somerset New Jersey and tell me that.

[-1up!-]

It is a well-known fact that many big industries and corporations are getting major tax breaks.

[Substitute]

That's one of the best things about Britain. The rich get taxed WAY more than the poor, and they know if they bitch about it they'll just make themselves look like idiots.

[Jharaski]

It's not really the way upper class that's overtaxed (although the top 1% pay 30% of the taxes) but the middle/upper. We have 3 people bringing money into this house and we can still barely afford to keep it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

They deserve it more than the millionaires and billionaires. CEOs and owners are grossly overpaid compared to the amount of work they do to their blue and white collar employees.
Guess who pays them.

The money is able to circulate in and out of the said business and more products are consumed, creating a healthy balance.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

For who?
Less money all round.

The owners.
Yes, the upper class.

Are they as well-fed as the rich?
That depends on how well they choose to eat.

No, they aren't. The upper class receive more tax breaks, returns and benefits than any other class in the United States.
The unemployed receive the biggest tax breaks.

[-1up!-]

The unemployed receive the biggest tax breaks.

We call that social security. There is no justification for the tax breaks of higher revenues, though.

[Dave de Sylvia]

There's no justification for retarded wealth redistribution schemes. The only difference is that cutting taxes for business actually helps spread wealth while guaranteeing its continued production.

[-1up!-]

There's no justification for retarded wealth redistribution schemes. The only difference is that cutting taxes for business actually helps spread wealth while guaranteeing its continued production.
No justification? The economic process is imperfect and there isn't work available for everyone at any time. In order to support those who lose their job or can't find any due to structural reasons (no jobs available) it is necessary to economically support the unemployed so they may keep consuming goods and stimulate the demand. No "retarded wealth redistribution schemes" = a larger gap between the rich in the poor which will inevitably end up in the clogging of economic growth and could very possibly end up in an economic crisis you'd rather not have.

[Substitute]

Screw this quote crap.
Basically, what he's saying is that the rich deserve to become richer because they control the money that we earn.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I didn't say there was no need or justification for wealth redistribution, I said there's no sense in what you propose.

No "retarded wealth redistribution schemes" = a larger gap between the rich in the poor which will inevitably end up in the clogging of economic growth and could very possibly end up in an economic crisis you'd rather not have.
False.

Basically, what he's saying is that the rich deserve to become richer because they control the money that we earn.
You control the money you earn. You don't control the money other people earn.

[-1up!-]

False.
Go learn about 1929. A major factor of the crisis was the inability to re-stimulate consumption because there were no measures of social security/redistribution of wealth.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well as earlier clarified, I never said all redistribution was retarded.

[Ghostfire3]

Oh how I wish something like this would happen in the U.S. But I know it never will because everyone knows America loves its capitalism!

[Reaganista]

Because you chose to be a doctor out of desire to cure people, not thinking primarily of the paycheck?
no you don't

Neither is taking what little money the poor possess, which the upper class does on a daily basis through over-taxation and financial rewards for big businesses that outsource and mechanize.
high earners are taxed more than low earners

and people aren't entitled to jobs

No, they aren't. The upper class receive more tax breaks, returns and benefits than any other class in the United States.
while also paying more.

weird how the people who pay the most get the most back, it's almost like it makes sense or something

[Iscariot]

weird how the people who pay the most get the most back, it's almost like it makes sense or something

Funny how this "fair" taxation system penalizes any business that reaps a gross annual income of less than $200,000 by taxing them into bankruptcy and delivering those unjust taxes to the big corporations who's employee demographic is less than 50% stateside.

[Reaganista]

sorry that's not true

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

That's one of the best things about Britain. The rich get taxed WAY more than the poor, and they know if they bitch about it they'll just make themselves look like idiots.Wow, jackass. You obviously know nothing about economics.

The half-assed socialist attitudes in Britain is something I dislike. By that I mean the kind of people who would like to abolish private schools, and other kinds of idiocy. The Lib Dem's and their 50% tax policy are a perfect example of this. And idiots like you.

[Iscariot]

sorry that's not true

Except it is.

The half-assed socialist attitudes in Britain is something I dislike. By that I mean the kind of people who would like to abolish private schools, and other kinds of idiocy. The Lib Dem's and their 50% tax policy are a perfect example of this. And idiots like you.

Wait, what's wrong with abolishing private schooling? I wish they would do that here in the US. Most private educators aren't board certified, the education is shoddy and biased and the fact that the kids' parents pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for their schooling just breeds social elitism and an unrealistic view on the outside world. Most private school students have no concept of social, ethnic and economic diversity. They only know what their parents have bought for them.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Source, pls?
Wait, what's wrong with abolishing private schooling? I wish they would do that here in the US. Most private educators aren't board certified, the education is shoddy and biased and the fact that the kids' parents pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for their schooling just breeds social elitism and an unrealistic view on the outside world. Most private school students have no concept of social, ethnic and economic diversity. They only know what their parents have bought for them.In Britain public schools are generally far better than the state system. I think it's ridiculously authoritarian to say they can't spend their own money on better schooling. Also, by that logic children can't be home-schooled in case they receive a better or worse education.

[Reaganista]

Except it is.
ok post the relevant part of the tax code

[DBoons Ghost]

Funny how this "fair" taxation system penalizes any business that reaps a gross annual income of less than $200,000 by taxing them into bankruptcy and delivering those unjust taxes to the big corporations who's employee demographic is less than 50% stateside.

You mean those companies who claim to earn more than they really do when they don't and are nothing but a burden on those they have to support?

Gee, I would rather see them a blow the hole in an already sinking boat so banks don't bear the burden of a failing business that employs 20 people so they can give a break to a company who employs 10,000.

Besides the fact that you take that so far out of true context it's not even funny. The government doesn't tax anyone into bankruptcy. It's not possible for them to tax a business for more than they earn. Unless it's not profitting to begin with, and they are, as I stated, sucking their bank dry with loan after loan, also thereby sucking dry whoever supplies them with whatever they sell before they cut their losses and file for bankruptcy to begin with, leaving a hole blown in whatever creditor they used to get said supplies?

I mean.. you do understand how business works right? Why Uncle Sam would favor a company who employs and grants health benefits to a few thousand people rather than waste time with a failing company who barely employs 20?

Please tell me you understand that logic.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Most private school students have no concept of social, ethnic and economic diversity. They only know what their parents have bought for them.
Class war ended is so 1967.

[griftadan]

It seems democratic socialism has all the benefits of democracy(free speech, lack of discrimination, etc.)

wtf?

[Substitute]

Wow, jackass. You obviously know nothing about economics.

The half-assed socialist attitudes in Britain is something I dislike. By that I mean the kind of people who would like to abolish private schools, and other kinds of idiocy. The Lib Dem's and their 50% tax policy are a perfect example of this. And idiots like you.


I'm sorry I wasn't able to live up to your expectations, Caesar.
We can't all be perfect, like you.

[Smokey D]

In the long term free markets are beneficial to society. The only role of the state in economics, therefore, is to intervene where the short term effect of a free market is detrimental, or leads to a non-competitive situation.

[Delay Pedal Boy]

Look, to you guys sayin all folks'd make the same amount of money...

What if we abolished the idea of money and people worked in their trades knowing others would repay them in their own? Is it so bad to work for everyone's well-being and to say a big f.uck you to materialist "needs"? You can be wealthy without a currency system.

[guitrguy]

The upper class is taxed more, really, so by comparsion...

My area is middle/upper (it's in the top 4 riches counties in the nation, notsure where it places) and we have the hell taxed out of us too. Everybody is overtaxed. The problem is inefficient spending.
I live in the 3rd richest town in the United States :)

I hate the idea of spreading wealth out. If you didn't earn it why should you recieve it?

What if we abolished the idea of money and people worked in their trades knowing others would repay them in their own? Is it so bad to work for everyone's well-being and to say a big f.uck you to materialist "needs"? You can be wealthy without a currency system.
But then there is no equality, which is the purpose of socialism and communism. The fact the man is innate need to be better then everyone you idea simply will not work.

[dustindow]

How many forms of these threads are there?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Look, to you guys sayin all folks'd make the same amount of money...

What if we abolished the idea of money and people worked in their trades knowing others would repay them in their own?

How do I know that others are going to repay me in their own? What's stopping them from just not working and reaping the benefits of everyone else's labor?

Is it so bad to work for everyone's well-being and to say a big f.uck you to materialist "needs"?

Yes, because then there's no incentive for me to work hard and get an education. Why should I bust my *** washing dishes if I know I'm not getting anything out of it?

[Smokey D]

Look, to you guys sayin all folks'd make the same amount of money...

What if we abolished the idea of money and people worked in their trades knowing others would repay them in their own? Is it so bad to work for everyone's well-being and to say a big f.uck you to materialist "needs"? You can be wealthy without a currency system.

Because currency is so incredibly more effecient than bartering that any equity gains would be vastly offset by general losses to everyone.

And instituting a barter system does not solve the problems of oppurtunity cost and comparative advantage which underpin all economic activity.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think calling it "democratic socialism" insinuates that most socialism isn't democratic, which is ridiculous. Basically the idea in socialism is that the gap between the richest and the poorest is more limited. Instead of a CEO making 5000 times more money than his secretary, he might (only?) earn 1000 times more. The people who are rich under capitalism would still be rich under socialism, just slightly less so, whereas the difference in quality of life for the lowest tier of income is greatly improved. I'm sick and tired of hearing people say it reduces incentive to work or spreads the poverty instead of the wealth, because you still earn a hell of a lot more with a good job than a bad job. There is indeed a slight economic slowdown when a country becomes more socialist, but overall quality of life improves.

[Iskandar]

I think calling it "democratic socialism" insinuates that most socialism isn't democratic, which is ridiculous. Basically the idea in socialism is that the gap between the richest and the poorest is more limited. Instead of a CEO making 5000 times more money than his secretary, he might (only?) earn 1000 times more. The people who are rich under capitalism would still be rich under socialism, just slightly less so, whereas the difference in quality of life for the lowest tier of income is greatly improved. I'm sick and tired of hearing people say it reduces incentive to work or spreads the poverty instead of the wealth, because you still earn a hell of a lot more with a good job than a bad job. There is indeed a slight economic slowdown when a country becomes more socialist, but overall quality of life improves.
Well, what you're describing is a relatively moderate form of socialism. There are far more extreme forms, some of which (for example) call for abolishment of all private property.

Of course, those aren't really viable. Interesting arguments though...

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Well, what you're describing is a relatively moderate form of socialism. There are far more extreme forms, some of which (for example) call for abolishment of all private property.

How is that socialism? Even under "real" communism, you'd still own property. You would just have the same gross wealth as everyone else. If you decided to trade 6 of your state-allocated goats for a guy's state-allocated backyard, you'd be allowed to. (I think)

I live in a moderately socialist place (Quebec, the most socialist part of Canada), and I assure you things don't fall apart. I think that some unions have gotten a little out of hand with their demands, but for the most part quality of life is great here. There are no slums (there are some poor areas, obviously, but nothing truly slum-like in the East L.A. gangwar style), the ridiculously rich part of my city consists of about 40 houses, and everybody else is somewhere between lower and upper middle class. There are plenty of people who don't have to worry about money, and there are plenty of people who can afford to take their families out for dinner every now and then who wouldn't be able to working the exact same jobs in the US. The lowest tax bracket (under 8000$ CDN a year) pays no tax, and the upper bracket (upwards of 80 000$, I think) is taxed around 50% after deductions. Health care is free, private schools all tend to be under 3000$ a year, and the CSST makes sure working conditions are safe and fair. Ok, so it's no utopia, but things could be a lot worse.

[Iskandar]

How is that socialism? Even under "real" communism, you'd still own property. You would just have the same gross wealth as everyone else. If you decided to trade 6 of your state-allocated goats for a guy's state-allocated backyard, you'd be allowed to. (I think)
Don't mistake me! I'm a socialist myself (syndicalist to be exact) and a Canadian. I would love to live in Quebec.

When I refer to forms of socialism abolishing private property, I mean land and its resources, not goods. The idea is that all land is collectively owned, and portions are allocated to stewards whose job is to use it efficiently.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Don't mistake me! I'm a socialist myself (syndicalist to be exact) and a Canadian. I would love to live in Quebec.

When I refer to forms of socialism abolishing private property, I mean land and its resources, not goods. The idea is that all land is collectively owned, and portions are allocated to stewards whose job is to use it efficiently.

I've never heard of a socialist system where that was applied. Any examples?

At that point it's probably defined as communism, but I don't mean to nitpick about terminology so much as try to get your average joe capitalist to stop going OMG... LIBERALS???? SEND THEM BACK TO THE USSR!!!

edit: I mean examples of where that was applied under a socialist system. And sure, Cuba likes to call itself socialist, but we all know damn well they're a bunch of reds :p.

[superpeer]

It works in Belgium.


Most forms of socialism are democratic. And that is basically the simple definition of socialism.

True, that is the general definition in Europe, but the Americans like to call it communism.

[gregulus]

It's not really taking their money, it's dividing their money between those who deserve it. When you think about it, this can actually help these businesses, because if the consumers have mroe money they will consume more. There will be less crime because there is more money, and there will be less of a poor-to-middle-to-rich class gap if there is any at all. Why should the rich become richer while the poor starve?
You all over exaggerate things. It's not 1900 anymore. The Rockefeller's and Andrew Carnegie no longer live in extreme wealth and extravagance while the rest of society live in tenant housing with 4 families living a cramped one bedroom apartment. Welcome to 2006.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

You all over exaggerate things. It's not 1900 anymore. The Rockefeller's and Andrew Carnegie no longer live in extreme wealth and extravagance while the rest of society live in tenant housing with 4 families living a cramped one bedroom apartment. Welcome to 2006.

The Rockefellers still are rich though, no?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

But they don't really do anything. They just chill out where ever they are, sipping maitais and eating caviar

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

But they don't really do anything. They just chill out where ever they are, sipping maitais and eating caviar

Yeah, I wasn't arguing against his post. I was just asking out of general curiousity. I'm sure the caviar is nice.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

You all over exaggerate things. It's not 1900 anymore. The Rockefeller's and Andrew Carnegie no longer live in extreme wealth and extravagance while the rest of society live in tenant housing with 4 families living a cramped one bedroom apartment. Welcome to 2006.

It's not nearly as bad as it used to be in most parts of the world. And you know why? Because of socialism.


If you want to talk about the year 1900, you might as well talk about the millions of children forced into working in factories so they could help feed their parents, the workers laid off the minute they asked that working conditions not put them at risk of being killed and maimed, and the complete lack of power the labouring class had. Now they have more power - that's socialism right there for you. You just admitted things are better now because the world is a little bit more of a socialist place.

I still think there's too much of a gap between the poor and the rich in too many parts of the world, and the answer to that is a healthy dose of smart socialism.

[Ghostfire3]

You all over exaggerate things. It's not 1900 anymore. The Rockefeller's and Andrew Carnegie no longer live in extreme wealth and extravagance while the rest of society live in tenant housing with 4 families living a cramped one bedroom apartment. Welcome to 2006.

You're right, it's not exactly like that anymore. But that is a prime example of what capitalism can do.

I still think there's too much of a gap between the poor and the rich in too many parts of the world, and the answer to that is a healthy dose of smart socialism.

Yes, 123.

[gregulus]

It's not nearly as bad as it used to be in most parts of the world. And you know why? Because of socialism.


If you want to talk about the year 1900, you might as well talk about the millions of children forced into working in factories so they could help feed their parents, the workers laid off the minute they asked that working conditions not put them at risk of being killed and maimed, and the complete lack of power the labouring class had. Now they have more power - that's socialism right there for you. You just admitted things are better now because the world is a little bit more of a socialist place.

I still think there's too much of a gap between the poor and the rich in too many parts of the world, and the answer to that is a healthy dose of smart socialism.

You're right, it's not exactly like that anymore. But that is a prime example of what capitalism can do.

We've also all seen what happened with the attempted full-fledged Socialist governments. You know, totalitarianism.

It's a good thing that workers now have rights, and I do believe that Socialism has helped influence those in charge to recognize those rights. I don't, however, think you can call that influence Socialism because of the existing self-determination that drives the world's economies.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

We've also all seen what happened with the attempted full-fledged Socialist governments. You know, totalitarianism.

For the last freakin' time, we're not talking about dictators and socialist regimes. We're talking about "real" socialism, applied logically and intelligently. By definition, socialism is not an extreme form of government, but a sort of happy midpoint between capitalism and communism.

It's a good thing that workers now have rights, and I do believe that Socialism has helped influence those in charge to recognize those rights. I don't, however, think you can call that influence Socialism because of the existing self-determination that drives the world's economies.

How does an economy's self-determination mean that a change can't be attributed to socialism? Any time a government raises taxes to fund health care, establishes rules about working conditions, or provides unemployment insurance or welfare to an out-of-work citizen, that's an example of an drift towards socialism.

The changes we're talking about are textbook socialism. You just don't understand that socialism isn't an extreme form of government, and that one of its main characteristics is a certain amount of subtlety.

[Zoroaster]

For the last freakin' time, we're not talking about dictators and socialist regimes. We're talking about "real" socialism, applied logically and intelligently. By definition, socialism is not an extreme form of government, but a sort of happy midpoint between capitalism and communism.

By that I assume you're referring to, ahem, what exactly? They're pretty much mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned. Then again, I'm no poli-sci major (and thank God for that).

How does an economy's self-determination mean that a change can't be attributed to socialism? Any time a government raises taxes to fund health care, establishes rules about working conditions, or provides unemployment insurance or welfare to an out-of-work citizen, that's an example of an drift towards socialism.

No, for it to be socialism you'd have to all-out socialism, i.e. a marginalized private sector and a big, bulky government sector. In a larger framework, unemployment benefits is a minor reallocation mechanism in a major capitalist system at large. Look at Norway, where we practice so-called welfare capitalism. The redistribution that does take place (always at the expense of the industrious) hasn't achieved much in terms of bettering conditions for sustained growth - something evidenced by our lacklustre growth in spite of enormous oil reserves. If not for oil, we'd be Sweden all over again. That is, a country with fat wads of red tape and incredible foreign debt. Having said that, I should hasten to add that the private sector in Norway is presently undergoing incredible structural changes as a result of the liberal tax policy pursued by the previous government.

[gregulus]

For the last freakin' time, we're not talking about dictators and socialist regimes. We're talking about "real" socialism, applied logically and intelligently. By definition, socialism is not an extreme form of government, but a sort of happy midpoint between capitalism and communism.



How does an economy's self-determination mean that a change can't be attributed to socialism? Any time a government raises taxes to fund health care, establishes rules about working conditions, or provides unemployment insurance or welfare to an out-of-work citizen, that's an example of an drift towards socialism.

The changes we're talking about are textbook socialism. You just don't understand that socialism isn't an extreme form of government, and that one of its main characteristics is a certain amount of subtlety.
I understand exactly what you mean. I know that by-the-book socialism vastly contrasts with the realities of the Soviet Union and other countries like it. I'm sorry I was unclear.

I support workers rights, and I am in support of taxes. I do not think the worker should be trampled upon by those with the power and I have absolutely no problem with paying taxes for the things you mentioned above. I'm under the impression that you think I am an extreme right-winger who worships the ground which Ronald Reagan walked on, but if that's the case you couldn't be more wrong. I understand the benefits of having the influence of many socialist ideals within our society, but I am skeptical of taking those ideals to an extreme.

[dislocated214]

I understand exactly what you mean. I know that by-the-book socialism vastly contrasts with the realities of the Soviet Union and other countries like it. I'm sorry I was unclear.

I support workers rights, and I am in support of taxes. I do not think the worker should be trampled upon by those with the power and I have absolutely no problem with paying taxes for the things you mentioned above. I'm under the impression that you think I am an extreme right-winger who worships the ground which Ronald Reagan walked on, but if that's the case you couldn't be more wrong. I understand the benefits of having the influence of many socialist ideals within our society, but I am skeptical of taking those ideals to an extreme.
What is the extreme, in your opinion?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

By that I assume you're referring to, ahem, what exactly? They're pretty much mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned. Then again, I'm no poli-sci major (and thank God for that).

The two are not mutually exclusive at all. They're merely two extremes of a continuous scale. You can have a capitalist society with a few socialist characteristics much in the same way you can have communism with a few capitalist characteristics. Your failure to see the left wing as anything but evil people from some former soviet republic is why you can't assimilate that you don't have to absolutely be one or the other.


No, for it to be socialism you'd have to all-out socialism, i.e. a marginalized private sector and a big, bulky government sector. In a larger framework, unemployment benefits is a minor reallocation mechanism in a major capitalist system at large. Look at Norway, where we practice so-called welfare capitalism. The redistribution that does take place (always at the expense of the industrious) hasn't achieved much in terms of bettering conditions for sustained growth - something evidenced by our lacklustre growth in spite of enormous oil reserves. If not for oil, we'd be Sweden all over again. That is, a country with fat wads of red tape and incredible foreign debt. Having said that, I should hasten to add that the private sector in Norway is presently undergoing incredible structural changes as a result of the liberal tax policy pursued by the previous government.

Socialism is a tricky thing to get right. I won't deny that. You can't take a country that's going through problems, apply a few generic socialist "solutions," and expect things to go away. But the socialist mindset is that the rich got rich in large part thanks to other people's work, and even if those people don't have as much merit, they still deserve more than they would get in a free-market system. That's it, that's all. If you think the economy should be regulated in some ways, you are a socialist. Maybe not an extreme one, but socialism includes pretty much everything except all-out capitalism and all-out communism. That doesn't mean you can describe every country as being socialist, but you can't deny that every country (to my knowledge anyway) has at least some socialist influences.



What is the extreme, in your opinion?

I've finally thought of a decent comparison. If capitalism is direct sunlight and communism is pitch blackness, socialism is the shade under a tree on a bright day. You can't have "extreme" shade, because by definition shade is neither black nor bright. Arguing that you'll get a sunburn in the shade isn't any more valid than saying you'll fall over stuff because you can't see where you're going.

[dislocated214]

I've finally thought of a decent comparison. If capitalism is direct sunlight and communism is pitch blackness, socialism is the shade under a tree on a bright day. You can't have "extreme" shade, because by definition shade is neither black nor bright. Arguing that you'll get a sunburn in the shade isn't any more valid than saying you'll fall over stuff because you can't see where you're going.

Yes, but there are many shades of socialism. IE: the economic sense of the word, the European, the Marxist, the American, etc.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Yes, but there are many shades of socialism. IE: the economic sense of the word, the European, the Marxist, the American, etc.

So? You asked what extreme socialism was. I said it didn't exist, because "extreme" socialism is still a relatively moderate form of government.

[Iskandar]

So? You asked what extreme socialism was. I said it didn't exist, because "extreme" socialism is still a relatively moderate form of government.
:confused: I am confused.

What do you mean by "extreme socialism"? Do you mean ideologically pure Marxism, or bat**** crazy Stalinism?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I mean neither, because it doesn't exist.

My last couple posts have pretty much been trying to clear up what socialism is all about, because a lot of people seem to think that socialism is just another word for communism, and that anything socialist is necessarily going to mean dictators, oppression, and mass slaughter. I keep trying to reinforce that socialism isn't extreme, and then people keep going "yah but stalin" :rolleyes:.

[Smokey D]

You're using the modern popular definition of socialism, not the original meaning used by revolutionary theorists.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Yeah, I try to stick with arguments that are relevant to this century.

[Iskandar]

Well, I don't get your meaning.

Stalinism could be considered an extreme form of socialism.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Stalin was a socialist the same way Osama bin Laden is a Muslim.

You think a guy who killed millions of his own people really believed in helping out the working class?

[Smokey D]

Yeah, I try to stick with arguments that are relevant to this century.

But you're not arguing for socialism. You're arguing for welfare capitalism.

[Reaganista]

'socialism' in the modern sense is about pacifying the working class not helping them

[Iskandar]

Stalin was a socialist the same way Osama bin Laden is a Muslim.

You think a guy who killed millions of his own people really believed in helping out the working class?
He believed in consolidating his own power.

Some of his policies could be considered socialist.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, basically.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

But you're not arguing for socialism. You're arguing for welfare capitalism.

tomato, tomahto.

"Welfare capitalism" is just a form of socialism, in the same way you don't need thousands of workers being paid 10 cents an hour to be capitalist.

He believed in consolidating his own power.

That in itself is not socialist. It's a tool socialists use to accomplish what they think needs to be done, but consolidating power (or in his case, being a tyrannical dictator, but I digress) is not in itself something socialists jizz in their pants over.

Some of his policies could be considered socialist.

I suppose so, just like I'm sure Osama bin Laden really does fast on Ramadan. My point was just that his was such a hypocritically twisted and mutilated form of socialism that it can't be used to argue its flaws, sort of like how you can't say al Qaeda is proof Islam is bad. Islam is at heart a very peaceful religion, and if a bunch of wackos calling themselves Muslims use it as an excuse to blow stuff up, that doesn't take away from Islam's worth.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, basically.

kewl.

[Iskandar]

tomato, tomahto.

"Welfare capitalism" is just a form of socialism, in the same way you don't need thousands of workers being paid 10 cents an hour to be capitalist.
No way, the basic structure is totally different.

Welfare capitalism is a government taking a few billion here and there to assist the poor.

Socialism requires a radically different structure based on an economic system that won't permit people to be so poor they need assistance.

Ah, that'll be the day ...

[Smokey D]

No, socialism is full state control of industry and labour to eliminate the internal contradictions of capilatism and prepare the way for communism. Welfare capitalism is the mitigation of certain excesses in the capitalist system without any future intention of bringing about its end.

[Reaganista]

welfare capitalism is not about helping the working class it's about stimulating demand

[Smokey D]

... by providing the working class with enough money, yes.

[Reaganista]

that's completely incidental

[Smokey D]

You can't have maximised demand unless everyone has enough money to consume.

[Iskandar]

No, socialism is full state control of industry and labour to eliminate the internal contradictions of capilatism and prepare the way for communism.
Whoa, Engels! I didn't know you were still alive. :p

I think that's a narrow statement to make, considering the manifold variants of socialism.
I suppose so, just like I'm sure Osama bin Laden really does fast on Ramadan. My point was just that his was such a hypocritically twisted and mutilated form of socialism that it can't be used to argue its flaws, sort of like how you can't say al Qaeda is proof Islam is bad.
Yeah, I would never attack socialism as a whole. I would however be up for attacked Stalinism ... but Orwell did it superbly in just two novels, decades ago, so there's no need to (and as a socialist, I don't believe in producing without need :P).

[Reaganista]

You can't have maximised demand unless everyone has enough money to consume.
no that's my argument you were the one claiming that welfare capitalism was designed to help the working class

[Smokey D]

I think that's a narrow statement to make, considering the manifold variants of socialism.

That was the definiton of socialism, but the line has since been blurred as socialist parties became more mainstream and required a more palatable platform.

no that's my argument you were the one claiming that welfare capitalism was designed to help the working class

What a fortunate coincidence, then, that you can't have one without the other.

[Iskandar]

That was the definiton of socialism, but the line has since been blurred as socialist parties became more mainstream and required a more palatable platform.
Nah, it's also because socialists realized the inherent failings of Communism and began to formulate socialistic alternatives. Remember that many socialists disagreed with Marx even in his own time.

I define socialism loosely as any economic system which is based on collectivism; and capitalism as a system which is based on individual gain (corporations are created for the purpose of the individual gain of their members).

[Reaganista]

What a fortunate coincidence, then, that you can't have one without the other.

it's pretty faint help seeing as it doesn't address any of their real problems and only serves to make their exploitation more effective.

a pig farmer doesn't feed the pigs because he wants to help them, he feeds them because he wants to turn them into food

[Smokey D]

Nah, it's also because socialists realized the inherent failings of Communism and began to formulate socialistic alternatives. Remember that many socialists disagreed with Marx even in his own time.

Well, socialism certainly isn't just an extension of welfare capitalism, as free-thinkers is suggesting.

I define socialism loosely as any economic system which is based on collectivism; and capitalism as a system which is based on individual gain (corporations are created for the purpose of the individual gain of their members).

I suppose that defintion can be used as a rule of thumb, but stricter defintions need to apply in proper debate.

it's pretty faint help seeing as it doesn't address any of their real problems and only serves to make their exploitation more effective.

It's pretty good help in that it means people don't starve in the streets.

a pig farmer doesn't feed the pigs because he wants to help them, he feeds them because he wants to turn them into food

As we don't plan to eat anyone, I think we're fine in that regard.

[Iskandar]

I suppose that defintion can be used as a rule of thumb, but stricter defintions need to apply in proper debate.
Okay then, use that as a litmus test for leftist vs. rightist economic policies.

[Reaganista]

It's pretty good help in that it means people don't starve in the streets.

completely incidental


As we don't plan to eat anyone, I think we're fine in that regard.
nope sorry when you do something to someone only so you can exploit them more effeciently you haven't helped them you've helped yourself

[Zoroaster]

The two are not mutually exclusive at all. They're merely two extremes of a continuous scale. You can have a capitalist society with a few socialist characteristics much in the same way you can have communism with a few capitalist characteristics. Your failure to see the left wing as anything but evil people from some former soviet republic is why you can't assimilate that you don't have to absolutely be one or the other.


Hogwash. Show me a capitalist country without property rights. It won't happen.

Socialism is a tricky thing to get right. I won't deny that. You can't take a country that's going through problems, apply a few generic socialist "solutions," and expect things to go away. But the socialist mindset is that the rich got rich in large part thanks to other people's work, and even if those people don't have as much merit, they still deserve more than they would get in a free-market system. That's it, that's all. If you think the economy should be regulated in some ways, you are a socialist. Maybe not an extreme one, but socialism includes pretty much everything except all-out capitalism and all-out communism. That doesn't mean you can describe every country as being socialist, but you can't deny that every country (to my knowledge anyway) has at least some socialist influences.


That's patently absurd, especially the highlighted part. You're selectively applying the definition of socialism here, buddy. Capitalism is just a bundle of empowerments that enable the individual to engage the market, whether it be as owners of capital or users of capital. Socialism excludes for both the former and the latter, and as such, calling unemployment benefits socialist or even nationalized health-care evidence of a socialist state while, say, property rights are protected by state of law, you're effectively missing out on the nuances. I'm willing to concede reallocation mechanisms might be inherent in socialism but they're also key features of the system of welfare capitalism we see employed all across Europe. We need look no further than the United States and the amount of regulation it endorses (in fact, surpassing European levels) and realize that if it's in the interest of the market to sustain transparency and prevent asymmetries, the government will pursue those ends.

The same logic can be applied to taxation and even healthcare, where if not for a reallocation of resources (however severe the degree) economic markets wouldn't retain the sustainability it needs in order to ensure growth in the long-term. It's all a matter of the concept of the going concern and what prescriptions should be applied to best preserve it. Realize that, and you'll discard socialism for something far more realistic and powerful. It's called capitalism, and it's here to stay.