Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Socialism is for the 99%. Capitalism is for the 1% and misguided people who fool themselves into believing that it will somehow trickle down to them.
No no no no. That is so wrong. I'm not rich. I still believe in capitalism. All socialism does is create of large underclass of people dependent on the government, who then have no desire to do anything for themselves. I am 100% against that. I will never be in the 1%. But I am doing fine for myself. I want to take care of myself; I don't want the government/other people to take care of me.
Quotes like this remind me of another reason I identify as a socialist-- because the other side is so unthinkably dumb.
You know ... I wouldn't say dumb. Not at all.
What does strike me though is a seeming lack of curiosity about or perhaps tolerance for the complexity of most issues by many so-called right wing conservatives. I've also noticed a preference for simplicity, with a resulting tendency to label one facet of a problematic issue as THE cause. And to over-generalize.
A few weeks back I had this exact conversation about capitalism / socialism with a tea party friend. For my friend the construct that there is a capitalist - socialist CONTINUUM with our disagreements perhaps more about where entities or policies or perhaps our personal beliefs fall on that continuum difficult. He seemed uncomfortable with the concept we might be disagreeing as a matter of DEGREE (on that continuum) and not in the absolute ( as a label with one right and the other wrong).
There is also this profound lack of interest in context - either historical or cultural. Too often, any attempt to talk in terms of one results in a retreat to the days of the Founding Fathers (who are again then interpreted thru a simplistic prism).
Very frustrating … by mutual consent we gave up trying to talk about it.
Last edited by EveryLady; 09-25-2014 at 11:51 AM..
Socialism is for the 99%. Capitalism is for the 1% and misguided people who fool themselves into believing that it will somehow trickle down to them.
Not so fast. Capitalism worked great to lift up the lower class back during the post Depression-, and especially the Post-WWII period. Where it really went haywire is with the Bush II tax cuts. But the stage was set by Reagan.
Also, the matter of stagnant wages beginning in the late 80's and 90's, due to corporations taking the profits from increased productivity, and using that money to pay CEO's astronomical benefits instead of using it to raise wages. This was encouraged by a change in tax policy that dramatically cut the tax rate on capital gains, so that it became worthwhile to include stock shares in CEO compensation packages, and also a tax cut on the higher earning brackets, which encouraged the huge paychecks.
Capitalism does not have to mean a polarized society with a tiny percent of the population on top, very few in the middle class, and the bulk of the population at the bottom. The contrast between the Depression era and the boom years between 1950-1970, when the middle class swelled, should tell you that. The problem isn't capitalism per se. The problem is unfettered, unregulated, lightly-taxed capitalism.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 09-25-2014 at 01:30 PM..
I used to be rather leftist when it came to economics, but I basically disproved myself by actually writing paper after paper on socialism in college, and now I'm a diehard capitalist.
It is quite clear to me that people don't really know what is "capitalism" and what is "socialism." For most people, those are just words thrown around by talking heads on Viewpoint Television. (Motto: "Unfair and Unhinged.")
Hands up -- how many people here have read "The Wealth of Nations?"
Ericthebean you bring up many interesting points. My quick thoughts.
Quote:
QUOTE=Ericthebean;36634163]I used to be more a socialist progressive at the central Govt and international level, but now I am not any less a utopian visionary than I ever was before.
I just realize that there's well intended ideals that lead to social good and there's well intended ideals that cause nothing but the 180-degree opposite of the vision being sought. When a country has 5 million people and a common culture and lineage, community, family, and governance can go hand in hand. People talk to each other directly and it's a national family. This worked in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands in the 60s and 70s. All these countries have trended in more and more a capitalistic free market direction in more recent decades because their immigrant populations have increased and they are becoming less and less of systems where Govt and family and culture are linked into one.
I agree with your points here. Some of the same Europeans who are so quick to criticize the United States for certain seemingly "harsh" policies will then point to cultural cohesiveness as a positive binder within their own country. For example, the Dutch traditionally have been a particularly tolerant society - both in terms of religion (e.g., was not Holland the first refuge of the Pilgrims) and social programs (e.g., substantial support provided to refugees in recent periods). From reading and Dutch friends, it's my impression that due to the sheer number of immigrants and lack of assimilation along with economic conditions, public opinion for a *relatively* open door policy has plummeted.
Too, I just had an interesting conservation with someone from the Czech Republic about this. He, like you, noted there is more talking "directly" with each other for consensus building. In this light, he thought it wise that the Czech Republic and Slovakia went their separate ways. In contrast, he found Americans to be highly individualistic with the result that many tend not to focus on an issue until it is perceived as a problem (either personally or, if community minded, for the nation as a whole).
So, yes, while ideological, religious, racial, cultural diversity is (for some at least) an American ideal it can also present challenges. No argument there. More, my personal take is that those who express the need for a certain degree of social cohesiveness should not be labelled as bigots or racists or what have you.
Quote:
When you have a very diverse country with 300 million people, a very automated mass production system of consumption, social progressivism in the center is not only ineffective, it's cruel.....it's unfair to the people who have absolutely no say in what is happening and no mechanism to oversee anything. If this weren't the case I would be for utopia but the outcome of leftist rule in the center is deceptive.
True again, there may be greater buy-in in a pure democracy as opposed to a representative democracy. I believe that some smaller New England towns still have self-government through an open town meeting. Citizens in the United States do "have a say" through their elected representatives. It is just an imperfect process.
Quote:
In the US the best vision I have is let local municipalities be free to run their own experiments and build repoire with dedicated citizens in their respective towns. Have Federal Govt step out of the way and focus on mainly military and transportation and regulating interstate commerce disputes. Also, Federal Govt should stay out of religion as well.
Federal Govt power should contain the absolute minimum level of regulation necessary to keep the United States from being threatened and beyond that, should step out of the way. The rest of what is the essence of America should be reserved for the local Govt's where people can actually do something and speak and rebut and join the conversation.
Let local municipalities set their own values on everything else.
Let San Francisco be a socialist Mecca and let Oklahoma City be a "you pay your own way". Then let people choose where they want to go.
Those who really yearn for social utopian egalitarianism will yearn this way no matter what....so they will migrate to towns in Vermont, Massachusetts, NY State, Minnesota, Bay Area California and not care if they are at a loss on disposable income because they will enjoy their community cultures and customs. If these people are happy, that's the best example of good American social progressivism.
If people feel it is forced upon them, that is not ever going to have a positive outcome ....not for the non-socialists as their voice is being neglected, and not for the socialist visionaries either because it will ruin any chance they had to convince others to experiment with socialist ideals. There's no subjectivity to this either, if people feel forced into something they don't want, that says it all, regardless of intent...people feeling forced by Govt is in my opinion the point of "time to lay off". The test is the public opinion poll.
See I'm a utopian visionary and I have seen Leftwing happy working model systems in communities but all the working examples share in common that the PEOPLE in those localities were the ones cheering it on, not the few. Couple examples: Portland Oregon, UC Berkeley, Northampton Massachusetts, Various New York City districts, Takoma Park Maryland. Places where the community is the driving force...otherwise there's nothing to gain ....forcing doesn't work. It's not even something you can plea with. The first rule of a social experiment is to know this is not going to increase your financial wealth....in fact you will have to be ok with giving more than you will ever expect to receive. Any good working socialist model by science has to function like this because nobody gets free stuff that wasn't value added by someone else's work, property, equipment, or land. There's no free lunch.
This exists to a certain extent in the United States - and is one of the touted benefits of a federalist model of government. Certainly federalism in the United States has evolved over the years - with room for disagreement about states' rights and so on.
As for folks grouping or self-segregating themselves (which can include opting for diversity)? Sure, the desire to surround yourself with like-minded folk certainly exists and - being a natural, normal human response - may impact where many choose to move. Living among those who share your values is probably less stressful than perceiving you are the odd-man out in your community.
Too, many already select a community or state due to its economic policies. For example, families with profoundly autistic children may opt for a school district or even state where there are certain programs. Retirees will often relocate to a specific state due to lower state taxes. Even the homeless tend to migrate south in the winter! There is *some* flexibility.
But to say that individual communities (or even states) should have the ability to decide whether they will be "socialist" or "pay your own way" and still remain within the same country with no internal passports or immigration controls strikes me as a tad non-functional.
It's really the same argument that I've been presented with advocating for a (to me) more sane one-payer health care system to *eliminate* discrepancies in individual situations (depending on type of insurance available thru the employer) or state of residence (differing regulations). The response is: that to advocate for single-payer I should first donate all? more? of my salary to the needy. It should be a CHOICE.
Obviously, that's no more a solution than can selected communities support through taxes placed just on them (even though they may hold a certain ideological position) the health needs of the entire nation assuming that those with greater health care needs would quite logically relocate to those locales. Beyond the tax issue, the health care infrastructure would also need to be moved. And so on …
From a functional point of view, my take is there would need to be separate COUNTRIES - not COMMUNITIES.
But this your vision - and it's good to have one. The unenviable role of a politician or policy maker is to take the visions and desires of the electorate and translate them into workable policies that then can be supported by the majority of the people. Sometimes it works well but unfortunately many times not ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
