Socialism, is it really any good?

[tzor]

Tzor - since Liberalism and Socialism are direclty opposed to each other, I find that revealing of political ignorance in the US.
(Tho'its the same here tbh )

Generally speaking (as others have pointed out) the term "liberal" has drastically different meanings on the different sides of the Atlantic. Subsequently the term liberalism has drastically different meanings. ... Consider the following from Mr. Webster.

3a d usually capitalized : of, belonging to, or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism : as

(1) : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom evolving from the Whigs and associated during the period of its status as one of the two major British parties of the 19th and early 20th centuries with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

(3) : of or constituting a minor political party active chiefly in New York and associated with social reform and support of policies favorable to organized labor

Peresonally I prefer the definition of liberal "marked by generosity, bounteousness, openhandedness" as in "I used a liberal amount of ketchup on my fries and a liberal amount of mayo on my burger." But then again I used the value menu so I was really a conservative.

[PLAYER57832]

What you've just said is better.
But note how you have changed your definition of sociaslism. It was this :

"Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services"

which is not the same as what you just posted.
I'm glad i gave you the incentive to introduce some rigour into your thinking.

and btw, many College professors don't know what they are talking about -particularly if thay are Sociologists.

I think the main problem here is that player was talking about it from an american point of view. Liberals in the USA are the ones who want the country to adopt "socialist" policies.

Sort of, but not entirely.

If you want "free choice" on such issues as abortion, prayer in school, etc... then you are also a "liberal"... though that actually entails less government.

The standard US definition is that conservatives want to keep the status quo and liberals want to change it to be more beneficial to the average person.

BUT, some use "conservative" to mean "supporting big business".

Or, in recent years ... anyone who supports Bush's agenda. (though not correctly used there).

"Right wing", in the US used to mean something like Nazism ... xenophobia, etc. but more and more has come to mean the religious right. (i.e.make abortions illegal, put prayer in schools, vouchers for schools, etc.). Sometimes this is combined with anti-immigration (or anti illegal immigration, which is not necessarily the same at all).

[tzor]

It gets even stranger when you throw libertarians into the picture. Libertarian Conservatism isn't an oxymoron in the US, not only does it apply to Ron Paul but it also applied to the late William F. Buckley Jr. Thus the European definition of liberal is ironically the American definition of conservative.

Generally in the US conservatives want less government and liberals want more government.

[MeDeFe]

It gets even stranger when you throw libertarians into the picture. Libertarian Conservatism isn't an oxymoron in the US, not only does it apply to Ron Paul but it also applied to the late William F. Buckley Jr. Thus the European definition of liberal is ironically the American definition of conservative.

Generally in the US conservatives want less government and liberals want more government.

And what about those who want more in some areas and less in others?

[PLAYER57832]

It gets even stranger when you throw libertarians into the picture. Libertarian Conservatism isn't an oxymoron in the US, not only does it apply to Ron Paul but it also applied to the late William F. Buckley Jr. Thus the European definition of liberal is ironically the American definition of conservative.

Generally in the US conservatives want less government and liberals want more government.

Yes, with the big exception of those "religious" issues.

... and often a good deal of NIMBY-ism. When it hits THEM ... suddenly government isn't quite so bad.

And what about those who want more in some areas and less in others?

They are typically called "liberals" now a days by folks who don't wan those particular changes and "conservative" by those who do ...


Napoleon Ier is a classic example.

Bradleybradley, on the other hand, is more of a true conservative. (but I doubt anyone really and truly is 100% per the definition.

[tzor]

And what about those who want more in some areas and less in others?

I think they are called "moderates." Although generally speaking such people redefine the nature of government so that they can concentrate on either one or the other and thus define themselves liberal or conservative accordingly.

[tzor]

Yes, with the big exception of those "religious" issues.

Generally speaking religious conservatives are for less government. It gets complex because often they are in favor of less federal government which often does have a side effect of more local government.

Most of the time the complaints about the government from the religious conservatives is that they don't want the goverment to do or recognize something. Like approve gay marriage, or legalize abortions, or provide sex education, or make ministers pay taxes like anyone else.

[suggs]

Although a true Liberal ( by which i mean one following the principles of Mill) would say it none of the States business, as long as they are not harming the community.
Its in the caveat where the modern day conservatives would jump in, of course.

[Nobunaga]

...Found this for a definition:

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. [1] Since the ownership and distribution of wealth is controlled by the whole community as a collective, and not individually or by groups of individuals that do not comprise a whole community, socialism has been identified with communism. In a practical ideology, members of the community would contribute as much as reasonably possible, yet they would be capable of consuming as much as reasonably necessary.

... Often get it confused with Communism, actually. If you perceive my observations to be relevant only to Communism, feel free to disregard or flame at will.

... In my most humble opinion, socialism has many flaws when compared to capitalism - however most are theory based, so I will speak only to that which I have observed.

... In a society where people are "rewarded" without consequence for quality of performance or craft, quality plunges. The People's Republic of China (I know they are communist) offers a very clear example. New homes are built and sold in China, with nails jutting from the walls at odd angles, toilets that do not flush, windows that don't close, etc... and this is quite normal there, for new homes. These folks grew up in a society where the quality of their work had no bearing on their incomes and so it became very very difficult to find anybody who would do a good job at anything. China is emerging slowly into a more capitalistic frame of social mindset, but the habits of the present working generation will die very hard, if at all. Most say it will take a generation for China to produce anything of quality that can compete with overseas competitors (on those terms).

... Another example from China. I took a van-taxi from Hong Kong Airport to the mainland last year, after missing the bus, and the driver (from HK) had 2 mainland guys working for him, loading suitcases, etc... These guys threw the suitcases around like a couple of gorillas in old baggage commercials (remember Samsonite?). The driver scolded them at least three times, telling them to be careful with customers' bags, and to help seniors when they get in the van, etc... These guys looked at the driver as if he'd come from outer space and spoke in tongues. They had absolutely no concept of service in their minds, and of trying to do a good job.

... Just a couple of points that stuck with me. And I've been there so often and seen the same thing so many times, these are not flukes.

....

[jonesthecurl]

hello, hello?

i think Jenos just lit the blue touch paper and retired.

If you're still reading, Jenos, and actually meant the question to be taken seriously, I'd like you to redefine the question.

Or not, you've wound up the mechanicals, and it is quite fun watching them march up and down their predefined paths. Popcorn?

[Jenos Ridan]

I'd like to know first off what the unemployment rates are in Europe. That, and what is your trade balance. Better still, your National Debt.

Wikipedia is your bitch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

I like to know why you'd attribute this to socialism solely, as some of the ones on top are pretty socialist. (Or what you silly americans call socialist at least.)

The label I chose to use was a discriptive of the policies in most European nations since the 1950's and onward. Universial healthcare is one, welfare given to able-bodied people is another.

I noticed, as I glanced over it, that many European countries have higher unemployment rates than the US.

Care to explain for everyone how bleeding the economy to feed the Nanny-State is going to fix that? Remember, the only way the government can get the funds to feed the system is if people are employed. But if they were employed in the first place, they wouldn't need welfare: they'd work and save their money for the proverbial "rainy day".

On that note, I side track for a moment: a piece of advice a good number of my fellow Americans should heed; save your earnings and DO NOT get a credit card. Unless you are buying a house and/or adjoining property or own a business, do not get a loan. Don't buy into the the scams of "rent-to-own" or "payday loans".

Back on topic, people, if informed, can make better choices for their affairs than the Government. It works, has worked and will work.

[Ntetos]

Since many people don't take big salaries they would still need a welfare state. And unemployed would still exist, as they exist in US. I bet many people in US need a more socialistic state. Of course you are lucky and think all these are useless. Good for you.

[Jenos Ridan]

hello, hello?

i think Jenos just lit the blue touch paper and retired.

If you're still reading, Jenos, and actually meant the question to be taken seriously, I'd like you to redefine the question.

Or not, you've wound up the mechanicals, and it is quite fun watching them march up and down their predefined paths. Popcorn?

As fun as winding people up is, I do intend to respond. Give me time, I'm not on all day long.

Socialism, in what I have seen of it, is when the government takes things out of the hands of the people that normally the people are quite capable of handling on their own and making an ineffiecent agency handle the responcibility. Welfare is one example: rather than stimulate the economy or educate people while they are in school how to manage finnances and other personnal affairs (let alone giving them decent, practical educations), the government taxes hard working people to give money to people would did not earn it, not because they can't, but because they won't.

I believe that hard work and clever use of one's earnings will reap better rewards than some airy-fairy government solution. Especially since the US Government, I will confess, is lousy at handling it's own funds: knowing that, how do you think it would be at handling the affairs of 300 million people?

In short, I have serious doubts that any socialist scheme is a viable alternative to the individual taking care of his/her self.

[Jenos Ridan]

Since many people don't take big salaries they would still need a welfare state. And unemployed would still exist, as they exist in US. I bet many people in US need a more socialistic state. Of course you are lucky and think all these are useless. Good for you.

How many is "many"? As for my "luck", I am currently unemployed and have been for some time. Also, all the jobs I have had in the past three years have lasted a few months at most and paid only minimum wage. What I need is an income, a paycheck not a handout. The money can come from Uncle Sam if it involved my working for it: an example would be for a renewed Civilian Conservation Corps or some Public Works Project like Hoover Dam. A paycheck can even come in the form of a veteran's pension or active duty pay. But absolutely not for going nothing at all. If a person were truely unable to work to due to a severe physical or mental condition (and I do mean severe, as in can barely do every day tasks like feed themselves or put on clothes), then maybe some form of stipend would be acceptable, but no stipend for able-bodied people unless they worked a minimum number of hours a week to earn it.

It is a myth that one needs big saleries to be successful; if people learned how to handle what money they had correctly, they can do quite well, all without government interference. If a teenager started putting the twenty bucks he/she got for moving the neighbor's lawn or babysitting the neighbor's kid or whatever, then started adding to that initial deposit twenty bucks every time they earn it rather than blow it on gum or whatever, well, it adds up pretty quick and soon the teen will be able to buy a car or the parts to fix up a car and get in on the road to look for more work, saving money from that job to buy an even better car and so on. If some of that money is set aside for retirement early in life (and the earlier the better), interest will add up over many years and by retirement age will be enough to retire on.

People used to do this alot before the 50's, when people began to buy into the lie that every big purchance has to be bought on credit. Credit is why certain people feel that some socialist nanny-state is what will solve everything: alot of people have made very poor finnancial choices and now seemingly need help. But all that needs to happen is these people need to learn how to handle their affairs. No government inference required.

Now that I am done explaining how people can handle things fine with out the government, how dare you. You self-righteous piece of garbage, where do you get off getting all high an' mighty? I bet you are raking in a big salery.

[heavycola]

Welfare is one example: rather than stimulate the economy or educate people while they are in school how to manage finnances and other personnal affairs (let alone giving them decent, practical educations), the government taxes hard working people to give money to people would did not earn it, not because they can't, but because they won't.

Baseless assertions are teh funnay.
Why would you assume that everyone on welfare is workshy? Er, full-time family carers, for example? What about the millions of americans about to lose their jobs when the recession bites?
I had an argument with jay about this a while back. He also claimed to know that welfare is only for the lazy and the criminal. Then it turned out HE had been on welfare for a while when he'd had some bad luck. And yet despite that, he couldn't see how anyone else in his welfare queue could have been in the same position. Staggering.
As i said in the other thread, there are a million Willy Lomans out there. Try a little empathy for a change.

[Snorri1234]

The label I chose to use was a discriptive of the policies in most European nations since the 1950's and onward. Universial healthcare is one, welfare given to able-bodied people is another.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the reason why parts of Europe are pretty shit aren't solely attributable to socialism.

I noticed, as I glanced over it, that many European countries have higher unemployment rates than the US.

But there are also a number of European countries that have much lower unemployment rates than the US.
Those countries are way more socialist than the US, so if socialism caused unemployment rates to rise and people to become even poorer then it makes no sense the US has a higher unemployement rate.

Care to explain for everyone how bleeding the economy to feed the Nanny-State is going to fix that? Remember, the only way the government can get the funds to feed the system is if people are employed. But if they were employed in the first place, they wouldn't need welfare: they'd work and save their money for the proverbial "rainy day".

More capitalism isn't the option, you fool. Do you know anything about european politics? Southern Italy where people can't find much work? The massive french unemployment?
Lots of that is due to weak government on it, not because they're socialist.

[Juan_Bottom]

Welfare is one example: rather than stimulate the economy or educate people while they are in school how to manage finnances and other personnal affairs (let alone giving them decent, practical educations), the government taxes hard working people to give money to people would did not earn it, not because they can't, but because they won't.

Baseless assertions are teh funnay.
Why would you assume that everyone on welfare is workshy? Er, full-time family carers, for example? What about the millions of americans about to lose their jobs when the recession bites?
I had an argument with jay about this a while back. He also claimed to know that welfare is only for the lazy and the criminal. Then it turned out HE had been on welfare for a while when he'd had some bad luck. And yet despite that, he couldn't see how anyone else in his welfare queue could have been in the same position. Staggering.
As i said in the other thread, there are a million Willy Lomans out there. Try a little empathy for a change.

Word. The program was changed in '97. It's not a life entitlement. I'm all for helping my neighbors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_ ... y_Families

[Jenos Ridan]

Welfare is one example: rather than stimulate the economy or educate people while they are in school how to manage finnances and other personnal affairs (let alone giving them decent, practical educations), the government taxes hard working people to give money to people would did not earn it, not because they can't, but because they won't.

Baseless assertions are teh funnay.
Why would you assume that everyone on welfare is workshy? Er, full-time family carers, for example? What about the millions of americans about to lose their jobs when the recession bites?
I had an argument with jay about this a while back. He also claimed to know that welfare is only for the lazy and the criminal. Then it turned out HE had been on welfare for a while when he'd had some bad luck. And yet despite that, he couldn't see how anyone else in his welfare queue could have been in the same position. Staggering.
As i said in the other thread, there are a million Willy Lomans out there. Try a little empathy for a change.

So you'd rather have people be uneducated as to the workings of the world and have Big Brother handle it all? A recipe for complete and utter disaster it what you are proposing if I'm reading you right. As far as personnal finnance, nothing beats the old adage "if you want something done right, you ought to do it yourself". I'll trust the government to enforce the law, defend the people and look after the roads, but I will never trust the government to manage my bank account or where my next paycheck comes from.

And no, I am not some hypocrite like Jay who downtalks the very thing his is neck-deep in. I do have a little empathy, though it may not seem that way to you, for people who are down on their luck. The economy is bad and has been for a while, I cannot blame that on the average joe who lost his job due to outsourcing or a slump in the market. But the government is not the answer. A public works program, that I'll support, but not straight dole outs of cash.

[Jenos Ridan]

The label I chose to use was a discriptive of the policies in most European nations since the 1950's and onward. Universial healthcare is one, welfare given to able-bodied people is another.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the reason why parts of Europe are pretty shit aren't solely attributable to socialism.

So explain the slack.

I noticed, as I glanced over it, that many European countries have higher unemployment rates than the US.

But there are also a number of European countries that have much lower unemployment rates than the US.
Those countries are way more socialist than the US, so if socialism caused unemployment rates to rise and people to become even poorer then it makes no sense the US has a higher unemployement rate.

Quit changing the subject, this is not about the US, this is about Europe.

Care to explain for everyone how bleeding the economy to feed the Nanny-State is going to fix that? Remember, the only way the government can get the funds to feed the system is if people are employed. But if they were employed in the first place, they wouldn't need welfare: they'd work and save their money for the proverbial "rainy day".

More capitalism isn't the option, you fool. Do you know anything about european politics? Southern Italy where people can't find much work? The massive french unemployment?
Lots of that is due to weak government on it, not because they're socialist.

Again, another witless, spineless little worm who feels that people are too stupid to care for themselves and askes that the government taxes the struggling market to death and impliment a total conversion to public ownership of every detail involving the economy, including the fundimentals of capital, labor and natural resources: every oil well, every scrape metal dealer, every bank or lender, every worker (yes, people will have to be literally owned by the state in order for this to work), every professor and institution of learning, every parcel of land and so on, will have to be subordinate to the whims of the state in order for you little scheme to work at all.

Sorry to say, you are not the first person to think of such a thing, you are beaten by Karl Marx, Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and many others.

Snorri, just come out and say it: you hate freedom.

[got tonkaed]

about the i hate freedom line...

If modern society is going to place market and labor flexibility above human needs and concerns, then i am not a fan of that version of freedom at all, especially not to excess. There is certainly a danger in your rhetoric Jenos, of taking terms that have a positive connotation and hijacking them.

[Joodoo]

To me socialism would really be a temporary aid to wealth inequality and other social and economic problems. Once those problems are gone you can switch back to capitalism (where problems occur, AGAIN)
But then a cycle would be created and ppl would so busy switching between two economic systems, they wouldn't even have time to adapt to one...
And I just noticed that Chatter Box posts do count

[Dancing Mustard]

Snorri, just come out and say it: you hate freedom.

Lines like that are how you know you can stop taking a poster seriously...

Hey Jenos: You hate free speech! Just admit it already why don't you?

In my next post I'll pick up on the fact that you hate freedom of thought, and 'freedom of pointing out the fact that you don't seem to have anything rational to say here, and are resorting to bizarre, unfounded, sensationalist attacks on people who hold a viewpoint that you don't appear to be able to grasp the finer points of'.

[Snorri1234]

Quit changing the subject, this is not about the US, this is about Europe.

Oh now Jenos, you can't just say something and expect it will be ignored. You talked about the US having much lower unemployment than european countries, and implied indirectly that that was due to it's way better capitalist nature.
When I bring up that that makes no sense since the US also has a higher unemployment rate than various other european countries, you can't just ignore the point and try to bullshit yourself out of it.

Don't try to say I'm changing the subject just because you don't have an answer, it makes you look stupid.

Again, another witless, spineless little worm who feels that people are too stupid to care for themselves and askes that the government taxes the struggling market to death and impliment a total conversion to public ownership of every detail involving the economy, including the fundimentals of capital, labor and natural resources: every oil well, every scrape metal dealer, every bank or lender, every worker (yes, people will have to be literally owned by the state in order for this to work), every professor and institution of learning, every parcel of land and so on, will have to be subordinate to the whims of the state in order for you little scheme to work at all.

Damn, this might have been the stupidest thing you've said all week.

[jonesthecurl]

Again, another witless, spineless little worm who feels that people are too stupid to care for themselves and askes that the government taxes the struggling market to death and impliment a total conversion to public ownership of every detail involving the economy, including the fundimentals of capital, labor and natural resources: every oil well, every scrape metal dealer, every bank or lender, every worker (yes, people will have to be literally owned by the state in order for this to work), every professor and institution of learning, every parcel of land and so on, will have to be subordinate to the whims of the state in order for you little scheme to work at all.

Damn, this might have been the stupidest thing you've said all week.

Please check before making such bold statements...

[CoffeeCream]

better yet, i'd like to know how much of countries debts are caused by the policies of the IMF and World Trade bank - and how many people world wide have died as a result of CIA backed regimes and coups that have put ruthless dictators in power in the desperate attempt to implement lassiez faire on third world countries, so that the 'liberating' sense of capitalism could be spread world wide

Jay?