Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

Status
Not open for further replies.

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
No, but that’s because I support socialism. You seemingly implied the opposite, yet you don’t care to explain why?
Apologies, it really wasn't my intention to give that impression, the definition provided was quite an absolutist one, (at least that's how I understood it). I would consider myself generally supportive of socialist principles (I can't really fathom why any self-identifying 'Christian' wouldn't be) just not of absolutist implementations(of anything), if that makes any sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Apologies, it really wasn't my intention to give that impression, the definition provided was quite an absolutist one, (at least that's how I understood it). I would consider myself generally supportive of socialist principles (I can't really fathom why any self-identifying 'Christian' wouldn't be) just not of absolutist implementations(of anything), if that makes any sense.
Ah, ok then. I agree it’s typically unwise to support an absolutist version of anything, so I see what you mean now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apogee
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Hands-on Trainee
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,291
5,593
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟887,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
IMO the problem with socialism is that there is literally no end in this world to all the sufferings that people experience, but there is a limit to the amount of resources we have in this world to address those things.
If I could winner that a million times I would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ananda
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Not a scarce word but we should be fighting against it as much possible and in everyway possible.

Most of the people fighting against it seem to have no idea what socialism is. More than anything, it seems to be opposed by people that just fear change.

For those who are concerned about others - it's possible to do now - just give your money to a charity. It's easy

That's not a solution to the things which social government policies are intended to address. More than anything it seems like a way of absolving guilt or pretending to address something without actually addressing real issues.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Quoting from Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Considered as an economic system, socialism is best understood in contrast with capitalism.

Capitalism designates an economic system with all of the following features:

  1. The means of production are, for the most part, privately owned;
  2. People own their labor power, and are legally free to sell it to (or withhold it from) others;
  3. Production is generally oriented towards profit rather than use: firms produce not in the first instance to satisfy human needs, but rather to make money; and
  4. Markets play a major role in allocating inputs to commodity production and determining the amount and direction of investment.
An economic system is socialist only if it rejects feature 1, private ownership of the means of production in favor of public or social ownership. But must an economic system reject any of features 2-4 to count as socialist, or is rejection of private property sufficient as well as necessary? Here, socialists disagree. Some, often called “market socialists”, hold that socialism is compatible, in principle, with wage labor, profit-seeking firms, and extensive use of markets to organize and coordinate production and investment. Others, sometimes called “orthodox” or “classical” socialists, contend that an economic system with these features is scarcely distinguishable from capitalism; true socialism, on this view, requires not merely social ownership of the means of production but also planned production for use, as opposed to “anarchic”, market-driven production for profit.

"Production" has a wide definition beyond producing widgets.

When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations back in 1776....he spent the vast majority of the book describing economic trends he saw occurring and both the pros and cons of their eventual outcomes. He was doing what no other economist, as far as I can tell, has ever done successfully.

He was able to foresee trends others couldn't because he understood the forces driving those trends better than anyone else. He's a staggering level of economic genius that's difficult to overstate. Economics is boring to most people...but the amount of knowledge required to accurate predictions about entirely new economic trends in the short term is vast, let alone to make these kinds of accurate predictions about what we should expect to see across generations or centuries is almost ridiculous. This is why the term "economic genius" doesn't really get thrown around.

The only reason I'm bringing this up is that early pro-capitalism economists like Smith wrote about the problems they saw arising from capitalism. Those problems are basically the same ones your average self - proclaimed "sociologists" on the political left describe today. The solutions that Smith had imagined for these problems that didn't even exist yet in his day....are almost exactly the same as the solutions these self-proclaimed sociologists argue for.

That's why some actual sociologists describe other sociologists as basically no different from capitalists....and they're correct. If you aren't arguing for economic ideas or solutions that include the "abolishing of private property" or public ownership of the "means of production"....what exactly is the part of your beliefs that you imagine are different from capitalism?

I mean, that's exactly why Karl Marx stood out in his day. Capitalism had done such an amazing job of describing how and why people trade money for goods that arguing against it was basically pointless unless you could also propose a solution that capitalists themselves hadn't already proposed.

Marx has a "solution" that capitalists had not proposed....abolishing private property and private ownership of the "means of production".

Turns out the reason no one proposed this is because it's a disastrously stupid idea that, as we know from experience, results in totalitarianism and genocide.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,289
✟272,305.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations back in 1776....he spent the vast majority of the book describing economic trends he saw occurring and both the pros and cons of their eventual outcomes. He was doing what no other economist, as far as I can tell, has ever done successfully.

He was able to foresee trends others couldn't because he understood the forces driving those trends better than anyone else. He's a staggering level of economic genius that's difficult to overstate.

Smith's work is admirable and immense (I spent three years studying bits and pieces of it at university), but I'd suggest J S Mill did a better job in Principles of Political Economy. Certainly his outline of problems and potential problems arising from capitalism in general, and the results of various economic scenarios under capitalist economic modes, is more realistic.

And Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is at least as successful as Smith's Wealth of Nations as a description of economic behaviour. Personally, I'd argue its moreso because it takes a systemic approach.

Not super relevant really, but one of my degrees is economic history - so comparing there works was something I did for nearly four years.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
I can....will any examples do?

I think the original request

Can you point out what exactly it is about a democratically-run workplace that is so much less desirable than the common dictatorial model?

was to provide reasoning, rather than examples, perhaps I misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I can....will any examples do?
You can list examples of problems that demonstrably arise as a consequence of worker control of the means of production if it aids your argument, but it would probably be more helpful to your case if you could provide sound reasoning for your position rather than the usual list of failed/sabotaged implementations or misnomers.
 
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,599.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
....which is why Americans can’t have a universal healthcare system?
In America, we have too many people riding in the cart and not enough people pulling the cart. A universal healthcare system would result in high premiums for the working man and a free ride for the freeloaders.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
824
442
✟41,941.00
Faith
Christian
In America, we have too many people riding in the cart and not enough people pulling the cart. A universal healthcare system would result in high premiums for the working man and a free ride for the freeloaders.
I’d suggest ditching the cart and finding a better means of transportation. Like most other developed nations already have.

Although it’s surprising that there’s any room in the cart at all, with all the insurers resting their feet on the seats.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In America, we have too many people riding in the cart and not enough people pulling the cart. A universal healthcare system would result in high premiums for the working man and a free ride for the freeloaders.
What freeloaders? Isn’t unemployment at a historic low, at least before the pandemic?
 
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,599.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What freeloaders? Isn’t unemployment at a historic low, at least before the pandemic?
It temporarily was until coronavirus came on the scene. An estimated 59 million Americans receive welfare during an average month which is 19% of the population. Also, not everyone who works has healthcare through their employer. Universal healthcare in the US would most likely cover illegal immigrants as well. Anyone who feels healthy but needs health care must still pay for the expense of those who are not healthy or do not pay into the healthcare system.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It temporarily was until coronavirus came on the scene. An estimated 59 million Americans receive welfare during an average month which is 19% of the population. Also, not everyone who works has healthcare through their employer. Universal healthcare in the US would most likely cover illegal immigrants as well. Anyone who feels healthy but needs health care must still pay for the expense of those who are not healthy or do not pay into the healthcare system.
Anyone who pays for healthcare, whether privately or through a public service, is paying for the expense of those who are not healthy or do not pay into the system. Those who pay for it through a private insurance are also paying for the insurance and insurance broker companies’ overhead expenses (non-payers are baked in to this figure) plus the heavy administrative work required to sort all of it out for each patient’s individual case. If you want to talk about freeloaders, look no further than the insurance company that charges you a high premium every month only to deny you coverage once you try to use it at the doctor’s office. It’s ludicrous to suggest that this is the best the nation with the biggest economy in the world can offer its citizens.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,599.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anyone who pays for healthcare, whether privately or through a public service, is paying for the expense of those who are not healthy or do not pay into the system. Those who pay for it through a private insurance are also paying for the insurance and insurance broker companies’ overhead expenses (non-payers are baked in to this figure) plus the heavy administrative work required to sort all of it out for each patient’s individual case. If you want to talk about freeloaders, look no further than the insurance company that charges you a high premium every month only to deny you coverage once you try to use it at the doctor’s office. It’s ludicrous to suggest that this is the best the nation with the biggest economy in the world can offer its citizens.
You made some good points. It's also ludicrous and criminal what US citizens get charged for prescriptions.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.