What is so bad about socialism? It seems the better option to me (unemployment rate, salary)

[Trimac20]

I'm no political expert, but sometimes I think the main reason why America in particular was so violently anti-Communist was:

a. the selfish interests of the big corporations who influenced the government through people like Macarthy in the 50s.

b. the cult of individual freedom in America which is just another form of the law of the Jungle where the strong rise to the top where the weak are left behind.

c. They had to distance themselves as much as possible from the 'enemy' that was the Soviet Union.

Communism aside, which was a corruption of the original socialist ideals/principles, I think a more socialistic form of government that is run fairly would be more beneficial in the long term. Resources would be shared more evenly and there would be fewer avenues for unscrupulous capitalists to exploit others. There's be a lot less crime related to economic disparity. We could also help to conserve the environment instead of obsessively trying to increase GDP.

People who are really anti-socialist tend to be selfish people who don't care about the underprivileged. Those who oppose universal health care and the like are no better than thieves and robbers, living off the misery of the third world and the unfortunate in their own countries. The religious segment even hypocritically claim to follow Jesus who was probably way more to the 'Left' than the Right. He told the rich to give all their possessions to the poor, for goodness sake, and it's no surprise the Christian sects like the Amish who seem to live the most truly Christian lives are also sort of 'socialist' societies where everyone shares etc.

I'm not saying we can't have our own possessions, but our efforts should be focused towards the betterment of society as a whole not just ourselves. I think a more socialistic system would help achieve this. What do you think?

[hoffdano]

Assuming you really are talking about government ownership of the means of production, socialism has never worked ANYWHERE. The destruction of individual freedom requires brute force or totalitarian governments to maintain order. The inequality that democracy+capitalism produces leads to superior productivity, societal accomplishments, and an overall better standard of living for most (but not all).

[Itz]

[quote=Trimac20;18973177]socialist ideals/principles, I think a more socialistic form of government that is run fairly would be more beneficial in the long term. Resources would be shared more evenly and there would be fewer avenues for unscrupulous capitalists to exploit others. There's be a lot less crime related to economic disparity. We could also help to conserve the environment instead of obsessively trying to increase GDP.

quote]

here is your first error in logic and thinking when it comes to socialist... "I think a more socialistic form of government that is run fairly would be more beneficial in the long term"

So... in your world.. who determines what is and isn't fair?

Humans are animals.... They will cheat/lie/steal to get ahead and to have more then the next person. How many times in any work enviornment do you see the "busy body" complaining about their co-workers... "they spend to much time on the phone".."they seem to be late everyday".. etc... you've all worked with them.. maybe are them. You think that "busy body" isn't being unscrupolous or fair... human nature

the business man trying to make the next deal... you think he won't try to undercut the competition and sacrifice quality work? human nature.

Who will determine what is and isn't fair... you? How much of YOUR lifestyle and income do YOU distribute to those around you to ensure "fairness"?

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I'm no political expert, but sometimes I think the main reason why America in particular was so violently anti-Communist was:

a. the selfish interests of the big corporations who influenced the government through people like Macarthy in the 50s.

b. the cult of individual freedom in America which is just another form of the law of the Jungle where the strong rise to the top where the weak are left behind.

c. They had to distance themselves as much as possible from the 'enemy' that was the Soviet Union.

Communism aside, which was a corruption of the original socialist ideals/principles, I think a more socialistic form of government that is run fairly would be more beneficial in the long term. Resources would be shared more evenly and there would be fewer avenues for unscrupulous capitalists to exploit others. There's be a lot less crime related to economic disparity. We could also help to conserve the environment instead of obsessively trying to increase GDP.

People who are really anti-socialist tend to be selfish people who don't care about the underprivileged. Those who oppose universal health care and the like are no better than thieves and robbers, living off the misery of the third world and the unfortunate in their own countries. The religious segment even hypocritically claim to follow Jesus who was probably way more to the 'Left' than the Right. He told the rich to give all their possessions to the poor, for goodness sake, and it's no surprise the Christian sects like the Amish who seem to live the most truly Christian lives are also sort of 'socialist' societies where everyone shares etc.

I'm not saying we can't have our own possessions, but our efforts should be focused towards the betterment of society as a whole not just ourselves. I think a more socialistic system would help achieve this. What do you think?

In France: One pays very, very high taxes for his/her entire working life, however, upon achieving 55 years of age one's "Federal Pension" matures and he/she receives a salary from the government that is (I think) equal to the weighted average of that person's income over his/her working life. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, but I don't think it would work here for a number of reasons.

[hoffdano]

France is not a socialist country. France has had a strong welfare state, which is a different thing entirely.

France is also struggling to pay for the decades of rich worker protection programs (as are many other European strong welfare state countries).

[texdav]

You can look at socailist countries and see that it doesn't work well. Lookig at western europe we see that they are agfian facing the growing welfare state problems of too few producing too litttle to support the masses.Basically its a motivation problem in that people are not going to do for others what they do for themselves.That is why we now have such a defciit problem ourselfs but its not compoared to most european countries.As the foreign miniter of france recently said our system discouarges people working.Most european countries have almost zero military spending ;having relied on US thru out the colod war ;yet are very close to spending GDP on government.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Communism aside, which was a corruption of the original socialist ideals/principles, I think a more socialistic form of government that is run fairly would be more beneficial in the long term. Resources would be shared more evenly and there would be fewer avenues for unscrupulous capitalists to exploit others. There's be a lot less crime related to economic disparity. We could also help to conserve the environment instead of obsessively trying to increase GDP.

Socialism doesn't stop exploitation by the unscrupulous. In fact, it makes it worse. With the exception of a monopoly scenario, capitalism allows you to choose your provider of goods and services. Therefore, you have the option of moving to a different provider should you feel you're getting screwed.

Socialsim just sets up an artifical monopoly. All you can do is hope that whoever is in charge isn't the type to take advantage (and I think it's fair to say that the types who want the position are pften the type take advatange).

I doubt crime would drop either. Property crime may, though not necessarily. But in a purely socialist state, organized crime would skyrocket. There are many people who wouldn't be satisfied with receieving what someone else felt they deserved. So, they buy more illegally.

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

In France: One pays very, very high taxes for his/her entire working life, however, upon achieving 55 years of age one's "Federal Pension" matures and he/she receives a salary from the government that is (I think) equal to the weighted average of that person's income over his/her working life. Seems like a pretty good deal to me, but I don't think it would work here for a number of reasons.

Undoubtedly a good deal. I'm not sure, however, why I'd rather achieve it through high taxes instead of prudent saving and investing.

[Eastern Roamer]

The first rule of economics is "people respond to incentives" and the rest, as they say, is commentary.

With socialism, you take away people's incentive to bring new, innovative things to the market. Do you think Bill Gates would have dropped out of Harvard to create Microsoft if he didn't think he'd get rich doing so? Sure, he got rich, but aren't our lives also better off thanks to his innovation? If big, evil pharmaceutical companies couldn't reap big profits through patent protection, do you think they'd invest the butt-loads of money it takes to develop the amazing drugs that we take for granted?

Socialism says everyone gets an equal slice of the pie, but capitalism makes the pie bigger.

[TheViking85]

I think the OP confuse Socialism and Social Democracies. The countries referred to as "socialist" in Europe are predominantly Social Democracies (such as Scandinavian Countries, France, Germany etc).

There's also no denying that albeit challenges, the system does work. It is of course not without fault and it's not a universal "fits all" application, which is why the benefits and workings of Social Democracies vary from country to country.

I think the opposition to anything with a "socialist" connotation is multi faceted.

First of all, I think the opposition in part might appear greater than it actually is, as those who shout the loudest are the once heard best, even if they're not the majority.

Secondly, there seems to be a severe misinterpretation of what exactly Socialism and Social Democracies actually is. It seems opposers believe the only form that exist is a totalitarian/authoritarian one. This is not true.

They seem to be under the impression that a social democracy will face massive problems with people unwilling to work, because they can receive benefits when they don't. This is not true. Norway for instance, has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world.

They claim that socialism (again, they usually refer to social democracies) hinder innovation. This is not true. Germany promote much of the breakthroughs in engineering, Norway is undeniably at the spear-tip of expertise regarding offshore oil drilling and deep sea drilling, and they're also the biggest weapons manufacturer and developer per capita.

For a debate regarding things that relate to social progress in society to have any effect, the stigma regarding the terms need to be abandoned, and for that to happen, the general public as well as politicians have to stop paying attention to the hyperbole of those who simply shout loudest.

I think reasoned debate about social reform would benefit the US, it's citizens and it's financial stability, however the current mood seems to hinder such debate.

[Eastern Roamer]

Germany's engineering proficiency speaks to their craftsmanship, efficiency, and attention to detail, but there's nothing particularly innovative about doing something better than someone else. And Norway's drilling prowess is a product of necessity - what else do they export?

I'm talking about the high tolerance for risk that is required to gamble the time and resources to make something truely innovative. Capitalism fosters that tolerance for risk whereas socialism and social democracies do not. "Americans make four times as many patent applications as Europeans."

Patent reform: The spluttering invention machine | The Economist

That's not to say we couldn't benefit by being a bit more like our freinds across the Atlantic, but for the sake of this debate I'm on capitalism's side. It would be nice if we could have more reasoned debate without falling into partisan bickering, empty slogans, and broad generalizations.