The Ugly Face of Socialism

[BabyChristian22]

However the country is still heavily involved in socialist programs. Universal health care, for example.

Same as what's being happening in the U.S.A. with what the Dems have been pushing aggressively. Does that make it a Socialist country? If we are going to judge Socialism we have to judge it by a country that is 100% Socialist. Otherwise, I would say that the good that we see in the country is despite the Socialist elements.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Same as what's being happening in the U.S.A. with what the Dems have been pushing aggressively. Does that make it a Socialist country? If we are going to judge Socialism we have to judge it by a country that is 100% Socialist. Otherwise, I would say that the good that we see in the country is despite the Socialist elements.

I'm not sure where Baby hails from but these sort of posts tend to be poster child examples of why I don't trust people from some parts of the world when they try to comment on Socialism. Most countries don't have purely socialist economic structures or for that matter purely capitalist strucures. Even the most totalitarian countries are in some ways defined by how they try to curtail the various economic elements of their country rather than being platonic expressions of a certain model of government and economic structure.

When what seems to be conjured by someone when they hear the word "socialism" used being hammer and sickle States and totalitarian regimes instead of things like government food vouchers, social securities,etc I tend to tune out.

A not insignificant contribution to the rise of socialism as an economic model is the shift from a rural agrarian population to an urban consumer economy as well as the improvements in medical technology.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Same as what's being happening in the U.S.A. with what the Dems have been pushing aggressively. Does that make it a Socialist country? If we are going to judge Socialism we have to judge it by a country that is 100% Socialist. Otherwise, I would say that the good that we see in the country is despite the Socialist elements.

Well no country is 100% socialist, and I'm not sure what the problem with universal healthcare is.

 

[dbcsf]

Well no country is 100% socialist, and I'm not sure what the problem with universal healthcare is.

I am not sure either. My philosophy of mankind is that some people are very organized, well educated and very capable of taking care of themselves in terms of providing for their own healthcare and retirement.

Then there are the other types of people. These I sense are in the majority and cannot care for themselves to the same degree. Most of them can keep a job, live week to week, and go to disney once in awhile, or whatever. But, long term they end up not saving enough, and they frequently need better health insurance.

So, I see society as a group of people who are working together basically because it is more advantageous than working alone. I would like to see our country step up and cover our partner citizens who are working with the rest of us together so we can all have a better life. I don't mind paying some taxes to get the job done right.

Capitalism is supposed to reward hard work, luck, good family upbringing and education, etc. To be fair, capitalism produced the strongest country economically in the world. Before the new government order started in the 1960's our country was the undeniable powerhouse in the world. We were largely energy independent, had the best education system in the world, the best army, the space program, the best medical care, the greatest personal freedom, etc. Most people could buy a house and pay for it before the age of 30. We weren't completely capitalistic, even then. But we were a lot closer than today.

What changed is that the majority of the people felt obliged to do something for the poor. We passed all kinds of legislation to redistribute the wealth, provide health care, food, housing, and a living for many.

The problems I have seen with this approach in the past:

This whole Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac thing which Bush tried to fix twice and was blocked twice by the democrats. It ruined our housing market, which in turn ruined our entire economy. To be fair, the democratic party did not cause the problem, both parties caused the problem. But, they were unable to get together to fix it at a critical moment in our history. Their incompetence ruined a lot of lives. People that both parties represented were sold out in order to gain political power.

And now we have all these wall street protestors who mistakenly think the rich and the corporate giants are the problem. They are mistaken. It was the politicians who did them in.

Next, the poor. We have spent at least 20 trillion dollars over 50 years. Poverty is unchanged, possibly worse. If I were a capitalist, like Donald Trump, I would fire the government agencies involved. How does anyone spend 20 trillion dollars and not fix the problem? Again, there have been just as many republicans involved in this process, so we cannot blame the democrats exclusively.

Remember, the majority of Americans vote every year to keep trying to do better.

So, what will happen to health care? The risks are that is goes the way of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or the war on poverty.

Why are we failing so miserably when we try to accomplish any of our socialistic type goals? I think part of the reason is because many politicians are playing power games, as they did with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Their goal is not to help the citizens, but to strengthen their party. There are many other reasons, not doubt. Possibly the mixture of Socialism/Capitalism is causing problems, perhaps we should pick one system and stick with it.

Capitalistic health care provides the best health care in the world, but not to everybody. It provides the strongest incentive for innovation of better tools, drugs, etc.

Socialism wishes to provide the best health care possible for everyone. In the U.S. Blue Cross, United, Aetna are all superior.

I would like to see us take a closer look at some of the socialist countries that are doing well with it. Why re-invent the wheel?

I think personally that we are beyond the Tea Party approach. The majority of Americans, our fellow citizens, vote every year to try harder, do better. We all want some kind of care for our fellow citizens who are not up to speed.

If universal health care becomes a political power game, it will fail. It will become a money pit, like the war on poverty and other government programs.

I would really like to see it succeed. I think it is unconscionable that we live in such a wealthy country and are unable to provide adequate health care to our fellow citizens who are less fortunate than ourselves.

 

[Fantine]

Thank goodness that most people see that programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and health care have nothing to do with "socialism." Instead, they have to do with creating a stable, prosperous society with a growing middle class that creates markets for goods and services and increases prosperity for everyone, including the rich.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Wolseley]

The ugly face of socialism in Sweden:

I hope she doesn't drop that envelope....if she had to lean over to pick it up, she might get away from herself.

 

[BabyChristian22]

I'm not sure where Baby hails from but these sort of posts tend to be poster child examples of why I don't trust people from some parts of the world when they try to comment on Socialism. Most countries don't have purely socialist economic structures or for that matter purely capitalist strucures. Even the most totalitarian countries are in some ways defined by how they try to curtail the various economic elements of their country rather than being platonic expressions of a certain model of government and economic structure.

When what seems to be conjured by someone when they hear the word "socialism" used being hammer and sickle States and totalitarian regimes instead of things like government food vouchers, social securities,etc I tend to tune out.

A not insignificant contribution to the rise of socialism as an economic model is the shift from a rural agrarian population to an urban consumer economy as well as the improvements in medical technology.

Have you ever heard the saying that goes "Opinions are like arm pits. Everyone has them, and they usually stink"?

 

[BabyChristian22]

Thank goodness that most people see that programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and health care have nothing to do with "socialism." Instead, they have to do with creating a stable, prosperous society with a growing middle class that creates markets for goods and services and increases prosperity for everyone, including the rich.

Merry Christmas.

This thread was to warn against socialist governments. But people keep wanting to have it both ways by claiming that governments that call themselves socialist aren't really socialist while at the same time trying to make it seem like governments that don't identify as socialist really are. It doesn't make any sense. Since there is no one who is the final authority to say who is or isn't a true socialist, the only thing left is to judge socialism by the leaders who identify themselves with it. And almost all of them today and in history are ruthless dictators. That's the point.

 

[MikeK]

This thread was to warn against socialist governments. But people keep wanting to have it both ways by claiming that governments that call themselves socialist aren't really socialist while at the same time trying to make it seem like governments that don't identify as socialist really are. It doesn't make any sense. Since there is no one who is the final authority to say who is or isn't a true socialist, the only thing left is to judge socialism by the leaders who identify themselves with it. And almost all of them today and in history are ruthless dictators. That's the point.

Your point is that you choose to take people who demonstrate themselves to be ruthless with little or no value for human life at their word? Ok.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I am not sure either. My philosophy of mankind is that some people are very organized, well educated and very capable of taking care of themselves in terms of providing for their own healthcare and retirement.

Then there are the other types of people. These I sense are in the majority and cannot care for themselves to the same degree. Most of them can keep a job, live week to week, and go to disney once in awhile, or whatever. But, long term they end up not saving enough, and they frequently need better health insurance.

So, I see society as a group of people who are working together basically because it is more advantageous than working alone. I would like to see our country step up and cover our partner citizens who are working with the rest of us together so we can all have a better life. I don't mind paying some taxes to get the job done right.

Capitalism is supposed to reward hard work, luck, good family upbringing and education, etc. To be fair, capitalism produced the strongest country economically in the world. Before the new government order started in the 1960's our country was the undeniable powerhouse in the world. We were largely energy independent, had the best education system in the world, the best army, the space program, the best medical care, the greatest personal freedom, etc. Most people could buy a house and pay for it before the age of 30. We weren't completely capitalistic, even then. But we were a lot closer than today.

What changed is that the majority of the people felt obliged to do something for the poor. We passed all kinds of legislation to redistribute the wealth, provide health care, food, housing, and a living for many.

The problems I have seen with this approach in the past:

This whole Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac thing which Bush tried to fix twice and was blocked twice by the democrats. It ruined our housing market, which in turn ruined our entire economy. To be fair, the democratic party did not cause the problem, both parties caused the problem. But, they were unable to get together to fix it at a critical moment in our history. Their incompetence ruined a lot of lives. People that both parties represented were sold out in order to gain political power.

And now we have all these wall street protestors who mistakenly think the rich and the corporate giants are the problem. They are mistaken. It was the politicians who did them in.

Next, the poor. We have spent at least 20 trillion dollars over 50 years. Poverty is unchanged, possibly worse. If I were a capitalist, like Donald Trump, I would fire the government agencies involved. How does anyone spend 20 trillion dollars and not fix the problem? Again, there have been just as many republicans involved in this process, so we cannot blame the democrats exclusively.

Remember, the majority of Americans vote every year to keep trying to do better.

So, what will happen to health care? The risks are that is goes the way of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or the war on poverty.

Why are we failing so miserably when we try to accomplish any of our socialistic type goals? I think part of the reason is because many politicians are playing power games, as they did with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Their goal is not to help the citizens, but to strengthen their party. There are many other reasons, not doubt. Possibly the mixture of Socialism/Capitalism is causing problems, perhaps we should pick one system and stick with it.

Capitalistic health care provides the best health care in the world, but not to everybody. It provides the strongest incentive for innovation of better tools, drugs, etc.

Socialism wishes to provide the best health care possible for everyone. In the U.S. Blue Cross, United, Aetna are all superior.

I would like to see us take a closer look at some of the socialist countries that are doing well with it. Why re-invent the wheel?

I think personally that we are beyond the Tea Party approach. The majority of Americans, our fellow citizens, vote every year to try harder, do better. We all want some kind of care for our fellow citizens who are not up to speed.

If universal health care becomes a political power game, it will fail. It will become a money pit, like the war on poverty and other government programs.

I would really like to see it succeed. I think it is unconscionable that we live in such a wealthy country and are unable to provide adequate health care to our fellow citizens who are less fortunate than ourselves.

I think all the corporations outsourcing their labour to countries where they can pay peanuts might have had something to do with it too.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

This thread was to warn against socialist governments. But people keep wanting to have it both ways by claiming that governments that call themselves socialist aren't really socialist while at the same time trying to make it seem like governments that don't identify as socialist really are. It doesn't make any sense. Since there is no one who is the final authority to say who is or isn't a true socialist, the only thing left is to judge socialism by the leaders who identify themselves with it. And almost all of them today and in history are ruthless dictators. That's the point.

Nonsense. I can name 5 socialist countries that are democratic with a high standard of living for every one you can mention with a ruthless dictator. Ruthless dictators are the problem, not socialism. Its fine to be against opressive dictatorships, but don't make the mistake of thinking socialism has anything to do with it.

 

[BabyChristian22]

This thread was to warn against socialist governments. But people keep wanting to have it both ways by claiming that governments that call themselves socialist aren't really socialist while at the same time trying to make it seem like governments that don't identify as socialist really are. It doesn't make any sense. Since there is no one who is the final authority to say who is or isn't a true socialist, the only thing left is to judge socialism by the leaders who identify themselves with it. And almost all of them today and in history are ruthless dictators. That's the point.

Nonsense. I can name 5 socialist countries that are democratic with a high standard of living for every one you can mention with a ruthless dictator. Ruthless dictators are the problem, not socialism. Its fine to be against opressive dictatorships, but don't make the mistake of thinking socialism has anything to do with it.

Ok, then why don't you name them so that I can check it out for myself?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Ok, then why don't you name them so that I can check it out for myself?

Because you havn't given any examples of despotic ones yet. But ok, Norway,Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK, for a start.

 

[Imperiuz]

Because you havn't given any examples of despotic ones yet. But ok, Norway,Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK, for a start.

I didn't know I lived in a socialist country.. :o

Actually, I tough I lived in a constitutional monarchy where the center-left opposition tells me that the neo-liberals have destroyed everything because the center-right have privatizied some drug stores and some hospitals and we can now buy medicine in the general dealers. And we have recently got a nationalist party in the parliament.

Yeah, surely there was a lot of socialism-ness when the social democratic party controlled all energy providers, hospitals, schools, daycares, apartments, local courts, the lutheran state church, TV and Radio stations through the state and the labour unions, the residents' association, the sport clubs, the major food and gas chain and the major undertaker enterprise trough DWC:s. There are also quite a few examples of tyranny from back then too, since the leaders in top of the pyramid could use their powers to make life a hell for troublesome people. Though they never ended private property, so it's still not socialism.

Also, Sweden lacks checks and balances and a clear seperation of powers, which is a clear legacy from social democracy. There is no term limit for how long a prime minister can sit, and no such thing as a upper house/senate or need of a supermajority to change the basic law. You just have to make the decision twice, making the basic laws quite useless. This is because socialism and adjacent ideologies are based on legal positivism and recognizes no such thing as a natural law, thurs checks and balances becomes useless obstacles to the will of the people. That's why socialism sooner or later ends up in some kind of tyranny.

 

[AMDG]

the UK

You mean the United Kingdom that had to cut back in its out-of-control spending and put austerity measures in place (which caused the rioting, destruction of property and arson that made things unsafe for the general populace)? Hmm--Greece has that problem. So does Spain. So does Italy. Is that what Socialism does? Wastes money so much that the people become in danger? Seems like an "ugly face" to me.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

You mean the United Kingdom that had to cut back in its out-of-control spending and put austerity measures in place (which caused the rioting, destruction of property and arson that made things unsafe for the general populace)? Hmm--Greece has that problem. So does Spain. So does Italy. Is that what Socialism does? Wastes money so much that the people become in danger? Seems like an "ugly face" to me.

Not that the UK riots had anything to do with austerity measures, or that the UK didn't reduce its socialist programs in the austerity measures.
Also, since we're talking about runaway spending, just HOW much does the (Capitalist) US currently owe?

Germany, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand...

 

[AMDG]

Also, since we're talking about runaway spending, just HOW much does the (Capitalist) US currently owe?

Yes, that spending is not all under capitalism though (it seems Obama is in love with the European way as even the British, Cameron, has noted.) Obama added more to the debt in his first two years (when he had a super majority and the Repubs could do absolutely nothing to stop the mess) than all the U.S. presidents added together. He still refuses to balance the budget, or make one at all (oh wait a minute, the one that he did introduce was voted down by the Dems of his own party. IMO, someone ought to inform him of what a Trillion is before we follow the road of Greece, Spain, Italy, Great Britain ... to our destruction.)

 

[Antigone]

Yes, that spending is not all under capitalism though (it seems Obama is in love with the European way as even the British, Cameron, has noted.)

Wouldn't take Cameron's word for it, if I were you. Cameron's hobbies are bashing the left and bashing Europe. He likes grouping them together when it suits his purposes and tends not to let the truth inconvenience him.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Have you ever heard the saying that goes "Opinions are like arm pits. Everyone has them, and they usually stink"?

That's nice. You still don't seem to any clue one what socialism actually constitutes.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Yes, that spending is not all under capitalism though (it seems Obama is in love with the European way as even the British, Cameron, has noted.) Obama added more to the debt in his first two years (when he had a super majority and the Repubs could do absolutely nothing to stop the mess) than all the U.S. presidents added together. He still refuses to balance the budget, or make one at all (oh wait a minute, the one that he did introduce was voted down by the Dems of his own party. IMO, someone ought to inform him of what a Trillion is before we follow the road of Greece, Spain, Italy, Great Britain ... to our destruction.)

And how much of the US debt was inherited from the Republicans?

Either way, the oppressive dictatorships as touted by the OP certainly don't seem to be part and parcel of socialism. Or are you trying to tell me Australia and Denmark are oppressive Stalinist totalitarian regimes?