Democratic Socialism

Substitute · 06-02-2006, 01:12 PM

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

Jharaski · 06-02-2006, 01:15 PM

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

Substitute · 06-02-2006, 01:22 PM

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 · 06-02-2006, 01:25 PM

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 · 06-02-2006, 01:30 PM

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!- · 06-02-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdioticJester

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~~ · 06-02-2006, 01:31 PM

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* · 06-02-2006, 01:31 PM

Taking rich people's money isn't democratic.

Jharaski · 06-02-2006, 01:32 PM

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~~ · 06-02-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

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* · 06-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iscariot

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 · 06-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iscariot

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.

Substitute · 06-02-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

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*** · 06-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdioticJester

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~~ · 06-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdioticJester

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!- · 06-02-2006, 01:37 PM

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 · 06-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -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.

Good point.

*Dave de Sylvia* · 06-02-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

It's not really taking their money

You have to take it from them before you:

Quote:

it's dividing their money between those who deserve it.

What did they do to deserve it?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

There will be less crime because there is more money

No, there'll be less money.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Why should the rich become richer while the poor starve?

The poor don't starve.

Jharaski · 06-02-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iscariot

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 · 06-02-2006, 01:44 PM

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

06-02-2006, 01:12 PM	#1
Substitute hail to the thief Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 267	Democratic Socialism 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

06-02-2006, 01:31 PM	#8
Dave de Sylvia morrissey improved Sputnik ModAdmin Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 33,046	Taking rich people's money isn't democratic. __________________ DIVA spelled backwards is AVID "Hey, if you put one guitarist’s head on one side of a coin and the other guitarist’s head on the other side of the coin, you would have a double-sided coin!"
	Digging: Natasha Bedingfield - Pocketful of Sunshine

06-02-2006, 01:37 PM	#16
-1up!- Postmodern unwillingly Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 2,152	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. Last edited by -1up!-; 06-02-2006 at 01:42 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

06-02-2006, 01:15 PM	#2
Jharaski No more lobster Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hillsborough NJ Posts: 3,447	Critics would say that everyone is simply equally miserable and poor, though I don't necessarily agree with that.

06-02-2006, 01:22 PM	#3
Substitute hail to the thief Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 267	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.

06-02-2006, 01:25 PM	#4
Jharaski No more lobster Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hillsborough NJ Posts: 3,447	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.

06-02-2006, 01:30 PM	#5
Substitute hail to the thief Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 267	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.

06-02-2006, 01:31 PM	#7
~~Iscariot~~ Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 40,192	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.

06-02-2006, 01:32 PM	#9
Jharaski No more lobster Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hillsborough NJ Posts: 3,447	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.

06-02-2006, 01:44 PM	#20
dislocated214 The Boogeyman Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Washington DC Posts: 1,666	Most forms of socialism are democratic. And that is basically the simple definition of socialism.