Anyone else out there in a similar boat? I was going to just have an unproductive rant, but decided to open this up instead to other lefties out there (you don't have to be american to comment) and what your experiences have been; or why you believe in what you do: if there's a specific cause you support more than others. For me, as a gay person, and as an atheist, I need socialism because civil rights are not a guarantee for people like myself; it's not something I could expect the free market to deliver on it's own. I'm also a pretty avid environmentalist... and even though social issues are closer to me, I think protecting this world of ours is probably what I feel the strongest about. Certainly there are companies and individuals charitably being green or being green for financial reasons, but ultimately I view these changes as not nearly enough and way too little much too late. Proactively protecting the environment and with it peoples health, is something that only a democratic government can really effectively do, and with a stable tax base to fund it.
I made a few posts about this is a thread whose title was something like "Is America getting worse?" I think Socialism can be pretty nifty. EDIT: Here's a link. I can't believe I guessed that title right. http://www.everypony.com/forums/showthread.php?7708-Is-America-getting-worse A lot of people who disagree with a Socialist take on how the government should be run tend to be either advocates for state's rights and a completely unregulated economy, or disillusioned by McCarthyist Red Scare propaganda.
I'm apprehensive to Socialism because it does not side with human behavior. Societal ownership of equity, means of production, etc destroys incentive (which is really what drives people to invent, innovate, or do anything in general) and creates a very lazy society. I don't see how a society like that could last very long. And if we can rule out the whole inevitable tyrannical and censoring government aspect, I'm still not too convinced.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government... except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill. Socialism would be great in an ideal world where everyone would agree with it and work towards a common goal. Human nature always gets in the way, it is an unfortunate reality. No body of people is ever going to be able to agree enough to make a true socialism successful. As Mike said, too many people would end up lazy and taking advantage of the system and on the opposite end, those with the real power will continue that direction as well. If you want to read some criticisms, this article lays it out fairly well. Take from it what you want.
Do any of you have any facts to backup these claims about socialism being bad, or are you just relying on the fact that the soviet union failed as your primary argument? Because I'm not sure a military dictatorship is really on par with what the types of democratic system I'm talking about, which is more like say Sweden... or 1950s America... Pretend all you want that socialist ideas like fair pay, free education, and progressive taxation are terrible things that make humans lazy or whatever, but you should do some reasearch and see which periods of our own history and which other countries right now are the most productive and what government policy was in place at the time. - - Auto Merge - - I guess maybe instead of just assuming everyone know what socialism even is, I should explain... All socialists aren't exactly the same, and rarely are serious people advocates of what the USSR had, or even china which isn't much better, even if they are more profitable at it. I'm a market socialist for example; that means that I'm not against private ownership, and I'm not an anarchist. I don't support militaristic government; that is probably the opposite of what I want actually. Socialism to me, is yes more government regulation and social programs, that yes, require higher taxes... but this isn't a radical concept. We used to have higher taxes in america, and it was great. We created social security so when you got sick or couldn't work anymore, you had a safety net to help you; we gave every kid in america a great school system. People were guaranteed a living wage so they could afford to feed their family and build up a home and savings on that income. We encoded environmental protection into law and made sure companies couldn't just dump endless poison into the air. We built the interstate highway system and even went to the moon. Rich people didn't do any of this, It was government that did these things and we were better for it. I dream of the day when we could ever come close to that level of prosperity and social equality that were had in that time, before reaganomics... before the slashing of those programs, before it was all dismantled in the name of "freedom" and capitalism.... but freedom from what? clean water? a good education? hope?
Collectivism almost always leads to stagnation...don't know how else to put it. I also like how you picked the most random Socialistic institutions in comparison to what I said, as if that would make your argument any better. I never claimed that all of Socialism is bad, there are various aspects and institutions that work [relatively] fine, but as a whole, a Socialistic society just cannot sustain itself. The benefit I see of a Socialistic society is more security, that is great. But what it takes away is the encouragement of entrepreneurship, and gives less reward to innovation. You cannot be a "risk taker" in a society based on a equal and collective effort to reach a so called market equality, which leads to an economic halt. I didn't think I needed facts to prove this, just looking under the layers of history and even today's socialistic countries shows me these results. The only people really benefiting is the supporting parties and the governments that run these countries. As Adam Smith said "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." It all comes down to human nature -- people do not want to work for the common good, they work for their personal interests. It is through their personal interests and fortunes that their successes will push society. Also, it would be nice if you didn't take such a defensive approach. It's hard to have a debate when it's blatantly clear you're just ranting based off that you're getting lost in your typing and forgetting to use proper grammar and punctuation. I don't mean that as an insult, just an open observation.
Okay fine; You're right, about the ranting, and I will try not to resort to that again. I unfairly lumped you in with what, in my personal experience, are usually people who immediately discount the concepts of socialism with cheap shots about irrelevant things or by tying socialism to random movements as if those specific things are all it could ever be. And I will type slower (to improve my grammar) if that is what you are going to focus on. So let's talk specifics then. When has socialism lead to stagnation? And what, in your view, is stagnation? It seems to be a common theme in your critique of government involvement in the economy. When you say "Socialistic society just cannot last.", what do you mean by this? It is my understanding that the more free-market approach to economics is substantially less stable; It results in wealth gaps where some get ahead (either they worked hard or got lucky) and then once those few people get rich, they use their buying power to make themselves even richer by investing in things and driving up the cost of those goods (market bubble). Mass accumulation of wealth into the hands of a very few has been proven time after time to be the logical result of unregulated markets and while there is some innovation happening at the beginning, it quickly is replaced with hoarding and exploitation and is usually followed up by a market crash that destroys larger and larger chunks of the economy and people's lives in the process.
I'd just like to point something out. Mike, you said only the governments really benefit from socialism. I would argue that only entrepreneurs benefit from free market capitalism, while they cut throats (metaphorically) left and right to get what they want. When it comes to capitalism, greed is good. Personally, I can't really follow anything that lauds greed so highly.
It can be difficult to properly give when stagnation occurs but instead where it can occur. An example I could think of for that would be in the technological and/or science(s) research areas. Without an incentive to personal gain or reward, it would be not worth it to use time and resources for research, testing, implementation, etc. This could apply to any sort of sciences - medical research, military research, you name it. If you meant "when" as in when in history this can be difficult as I hold the opinion that no nation has ever truly been "Socialist". Now there were bunches of nations such as Eastern Germany and other Eastern Bloc states that I would say certainly stagnated, but these would fall under Marxist-Leninist Communism, which probably held a much greater bearing on why those countries were as they were, so I will not really include that as a true example. In my view, stagnation refers to a lack of "forward movement" whether it be slow economic growth, and/or a lack of innovation (technological or otherwise). As for what I meant by Socialism cannot last, I speak purely from a stability point of view. Morale would certainly be high in a Socialistic society. The promises and claims of the system certainly look attractive to the average individual. And it would work, and work well. Socialistic and Communist states alike both show boosts in prosperity early in. But as time passes things get stale. Activity slows and people begin to have a "I'll let the other guy do it" sort of mentality. With a lack of incentive to work to your own means, tasks fail to get done. It is at that point will the government need to start cracking the proverbial whip and then life starts to suck. We have witnessed this in a number of countries that held deeply onto Socialistic ideals (and yes...Russia, though I as well hate that as an example). Capitalism at its fundamental theory does not usually allow for such poor practices. Any system comes with its share of flaws. It is through the utter failure of our "wonderful" government to protect the people's goals, investments, wishes, etc. that we have such a problem with greedy and poor practices in business. A median can definitely be met between Socialism and Capitalism to protect people from exploitation, but still encourage personal gains and preserving a "ladder to climb". Yes, exactly.
In an Ideal world, I'd love to live under market socialism, which is in short a system where most things operate the same way; people have jobs at companies and buy and sell things in an open market. The difference is, that the companies would be owned by the public; meaning that any profits they generate would be paid out as dividends to all citizens, as the general public would be the shareholders of that company. Alternatively, and probably more usefully, instead of direct dividends those funds could also be used instead of taxes to pay for government programs like security, healthcare, etc. Because I assume most americans are opposed to the idea of public ownership of companies, I guess we are stuck with taxation on a mostly private sector as the next best alternative. - - Auto Merge - - It is my understanding that the bulk of technological progress has come as a result of either 1: direct government funding for government purposes, or 2: arising out of a serious need or personal passion that had nothing to do with financial motive (i.e. would have been invented for free). That's not to say all inventions fall into these categories, but I don't think it is mutually exclusive the idea that the economy can be regulated and that people are still rewarded, even financially, for their contributions or extra labor. I think this is another misconception that comes up very often when talking about socialism. No one is proposing that everyone get equal pay for unequal work. Engineers and inventors and scientists would probably be paid even more than they are under the current system. If we paid people for their labor and not for the labor they own (executives and bankers), the people who invent things have much more incentive. Government directly funds the science and there is no pesky capitalist to swoop in and steal all of the fruits of that inventor's labor. That inventor gets to profit directly, and while they might pay higher taxes as they grow rich off their invention, they are still a net winner compared to if they worked for a private firm that payed them a constant wage and took all the credit for the patents.
That makes it a lot easier for government manipulation. They're paid whatever the government thinks they should be (and paid higher when you make something the government likes or wants), and then takes away with high tax + income distribution. This is also known as "Why bother inventing what I want to?" At least in a private firm your wage is consistent. And I wasn't trying to state that people are getting the same wage for unequal work. That's hardly ideal.
I'm not sure I understand your response, and I think you didn't understand what I was proposing either; I was saying that the government provides the capital investment for the research and development... and I guess in some cases a scientist could work full time for the government... but in that case they would probably get a salary based on whatever the going rate for a scientist of that type is worth, not some arbitrary wage. Why would the government pay someone a random sum of money that isn't tied to the value of their labor? The laws of economics are still fully in play here; the only difference is that instead of having an elite group of investors at the top of the income ladder, you have a democratically controlled institution (government) giving out funds for new projects and putting profits back into the funding of social programs, instead of funding a rich person's new mansion; or worse funding that investors exponentially growing stock portfolio which destabilizes the economy.
They should pay the value of their labor. I put up the possibility that it would be quite simple for them not to. Which easily can lead to something more tyrannical. The point I attempted to make is that all systems have their evils (and they will eventually be exploited) and there is no utopian system. As it was said before I do feel that the goods from both sides can be melded together into something that works well and is protective enough of private endeavors. I also think at this point this thread will start to go back and forth, so I'll be leaving this alone for now.
fair enough, and for practical purposes I agree with the sentiment there; We don't necessarily need extremes like no government or no private sector, I just advocate for a little more government than we have currently to keep the out of control private sector more in check.
sorry bro, but i think you are horribly wrong on that, too many people mix up being accepted into society and having rights and socialism wont do you any favors
I see what he's getting at, not sure how it applies to you, but I'm sure he can answer that. It is right though, just cause something or someone is given the right to do something doesn't me it will be accepted by a society. I can think if a few examples but I'm sure that the mods will not be fond of it. So Imma do one anyway. Have you ever heard of Zoophiles? If not, take a guess at what they are, they push for their equal right. Now I don't care what anyone has to say on that topic but if they did get equal rights, do you think that would fit into a society? Considering people have trouble with things like skin color and even same sex couples.
Firstly, I'm not too fond of the comparisons being drawn between 2 consenting adults that happen to be the same gender being together and animal rape (animals can't consent) ... No one ever has a right to rape another being, that has nothing to do with acceptance of different people. And why are we talking about acceptance anyway; I'm not asking that everyone or even anyone like me - you can't change someone being a jerk- all I want is to be protected from physical harm from those people (hate crime legislation), have a job like anyone else (employment non discrimination), and raise a family like every straight person has a right to (marriage, adoption, tax codes)... these are all things guaranteed to straight people and explicitly denied to members of the LGBT community for no reason at all. Without government intervention in these matters the free market, a majority of which is made of the people who would chose to discriminate, would just tolerate or even promote that discrimination unchecked. That's why I need civil rights, and why for centuries these kinds of protections have ensured that previously oppressed groups get a fair chance just to survive and then live a life free of, or at least with dramatically less fear and persecution.
No, damn it. I said don't do that. I knew you someone was gonna do that. I'd love to debate, but the mods would kill that quick. I think you missed my point on that point but whateva yeah. I don't see why anyone would argue that, but he tried so I said some stuff. You know you can't change a person from being a jerk so even with laws or whatever in place a person could still discriminate on anything they wish. It doesn't stop anyone nowadays. You shouldn't wish for civil rights, you should wish for people to stop being asses.
