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.
We already have socialism in America. The problem is that it's mainly geared towards helping the elites and large corporations.
I agree with your point but I just want to stave off confusion by pointing out that elites aren't enjoying literal socialism. It would be more precise to say they are enjoying the benefits of socialism (the product of the country's labor and a social safety net) that would go to workers.
The whole point of socialist philosophy is that workers should get these benefits, while under capitalism these benefits inevitably agglomerate in the capital class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterGlock
Exactly, and what caused the 2008 economic crash was the housing bubble burst due to government giving out home loans like candy. When government gets involved in the economy and messes up, the ripple is felt throughout the entire nation having a detrimental affect on the economy. When a business messes up, the ripple is absorbed by the free market.
But the government involvement in boosting home loans was at the behest of the free market that wanted to profit off of these dealings. As much as anything else, the crash was the product of repealing regulations to make these loans easier and more profitable to make. You can't separate the motivations of the capital class from the capital-owned government. In that sense, the free market vs government conflict is a false dichotomy used by the capital class to distract you. Corporations, bourgeois government, Republicans and Democrats are all factions of the Capital class playing against each other; choosing from those a team to root for is fundamentally pointless.
Socialism doesn't require the government to own anything. It requires workers to own everything.
So socialism as it is commonly defined is redefined as something that already has been defined as anarco-communism . Socialism is central planning by political forces, . What you are describing is anarco-communism. That suffers from such disunity that it is always mopped up by more coercive and organized forces. A girl scout troupe would rule over a world of true believer in that riotous nonsense.
Quote:
Whether that is through worker co-ops or some strata of government is a question to be answered by the working class, depending on the situation. Banking functions seem like an obvious candidate for community control, for example, but companies don't particularly require government involvement any more than they do under capitalism. A socialist government could easily be smaller than our current capitalist government.
A projection of what could happen, that never has happened, vs what has always happened and will likely happen again.
So socialism as it is commonly defined is redefined as something that already has been defined as anarco-communism . Socialism is central planning be political forces, . What you are describing is anarco-communism. That suffers from such disunity that it is always mopped up by more coercive and organized forces. A girl scout troupe would rule over a world of true believer in that riotous nonsense.
A projection of what could happen, that never has happened, vs what has always happened and will likely happen again.
Historically speaking, socialist nations have tended to have strong central governments out of necessity to fight capitalist incursions. Marx himself opposed nationalism and believed in a stateless worker's economy, but you can't defend yourself against capital without a state military.
In criticizing historical socialist states for maintaining a wartime footing, you're blaming socialism for the evils of capitalism. I don't think "socialism is bad because it struggles to defend itself from the oppressive exploitation of capitalism" is the solid defense of capitalism that people believe it to be.
"Workers own the means of production" is the fundamental principle of socialism. Whether it's ideally direct ownership or through worker-controlled government is an area for debate.
No it isn’t. Refer back to the actual definition I posted.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I even bolded the part most of you miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Historically speaking, socialist nations have tended to have strong central governments out of necessity to fight capitalist incursions. Marx himself opposed nationalism and believed in a stateless worker's economy, but you can't defend yourself against capital without a state military.
In criticizing historical socialist states for maintaining a wartime footing, you're blaming socialism for the evils of capitalism. I don't think "socialism is bad because it struggles to defend itself from the oppressive exploitation of capitalism" is the solid defense of capitalism that people believe it to be.
I agree with your point but I just want to stave off confusion by pointing out that elites aren't enjoying literal socialism. It would be more precise to say they are enjoying the benefits of socialism (the product of the country's labor and a social safety net) that would go to workers.
The whole point of socialist philosophy is that workers should get these benefits, while under capitalism these benefits inevitably agglomerate in the capital class.
I understand what your saying, but that has never actually worked in practice. Anyone who has done a group project at work, or in college, knows that there will always be someone who doesn't pull their weight. Should those people benefit equally with their peers who actually did the work?
Also, isn't it safe to say that the person who invests their own money, to fund their own idea, to start their own business, should get the majority of the benefit if the business succeeds? How else will we encourage people to start businesses? How else will we encourage innovation?
Honestly, I don't think socialism will ever work because humans are self-interested by design. We will always try to accumulate resources for ourselves and those we care about. It's to be expected.
That wasn't caused by capitalism. That was caused by corruption. It's REALLY important that you learn the difference, because corruption exists everywhere it can, and socialism gives bad people a veil to hide their corruption behind which doesn't exist with capitalism.
These kinds of fake arguments against capitalism almost always are actually against corruption, but people don't think about what they're told anymore, and just accept what sounds good.
THINK!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Socialism doesn’t require the government to own everything.
Socialism is a governing model, not economic.
I think your confused. Socialism sure is a economic system and a political system.
Also, isn't it safe to say that the person who invests their own money, to fund their own idea, to start their own business, should get the majority of the benefit if the business succeeds? How else will we encourage people to start businesses? How else will we encourage innovation?
The USSR put the first man in orbit! China is building Thorium reactors!
Rarely do people make money being innovative in the US, that's a misconception. The people who make money are the wealthy people who steal someone else's idea and use their billions to mass-market it. Look at the history of anything from TVs to roller blades; for every self-made millionaire there's 1000 people whose innovations were simply grist for the capital class' mill. But those same billionaires are the ones who own the media and write stories about each other and how great they are, so the popular mythology is misleading.
As for starting your own business under socialism, you can start your own business with a loan from the credit union in the US today. It would be the same under socialism, except any workers you bring in would also share in the business, so if your business idea depends on paying minimum wage to workers while you earn passive income then you're out of luck.
Historically speaking, socialist nations have tended to have strong central governments out of necessity to fight capitalist incursions. Marx himself opposed nationalism and believed in a stateless worker's economy, but you can't defend yourself against capital without a state military.
That's like calling a sprout an a pile of rocks. I was going to say an oak tree, but a sprout might actually grow into one. It is what it its. "Communism" always starts out as a fascist state, and always seems to end in one. They did what you do, they called it "war communism." . The war never ends.
Quote:
In criticizing historical socialist states for maintaining a wartime footing, you're blaming socialism for the evils of capitalism. I don't think "socialism is bad because it struggles to defend itself from the oppressive exploitation of capitalism" is the solid defense of capitalism that people believe it to be.
Again I ask what exactly is exploitative about capitalism? How is hiring someone to make buttons exploitation?
Exactly, and what caused the 2008 economic crash was the housing bubble burst due to government giving out home loans like candy.
Not true, not true at all. There was no government law, regulation or policy that forced or encouraged banks like WaMu and IndyMac to hand out no doc "liar loans" or negative amortization. Same goes for investment banks that fraudulently repackaged bad mortgages into CDO baskets and called them investment grade. The banks did these things all on their own. The only criticism that government deserved then was a lack of oversight and regulation that would have prevented these things.
I started painting things like this in a negative light:
1) when I earned my first paycheck, and I saw all those taxes deducted from it
2) when my overall tax load reached 70%
3) when I learned that 61% of Americans are paying no net Federal income tax
4) when I became certain that giving out moeny to lazy people hurt them more than it helped them...aka the failed welfare state.
5) when I leanred how much government waste, and corruption, there really is.
So, now I've minimized my tax load by >1/2, & give thousands to my favorite charities instead, where I know it will be properly spend on those REALLY in need.
Again, Republicans give more to charity than Democrats by a wide margin.
Well if charity was truly making America the best country in the world for anyone to live I would be sold.
I highly recommend reading “Winners Take All” by Amanda Giradharadas.
Charity is an excuse for maintaining the status quo which is not working for millions of Americans.
Corruption is a byproduct of money in politics and which party made that easier? Look up who made the decision on Citizens United.
Republicans have no interest in government being effective because it goes against a core principle that government is the problem.
I think governments should operate like businesses. Businesses copy the successful practices of other businesses though?
Who spends less on healthcare and gets better results, longer life expectancy? How do they do it? What can we mimic?
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.
