I agree 110% with Joe!

Do you agree with Joe's comment in the OP?


  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Or you could do what Australia did and introduce a Goods and Services Tax that broadened the tax base while exempting certain classes of goods deemed essential (fresh food, medicine, some forms of education).

It doesn't remove the need for income or some other taxes, but it is far better than the random collection of sales taxes that used to exist (similar to what goes on in US states) and it captures many services that previously got away tax-free (which considering most first world economies have become more service-oriented is a good thing).
This is how it's always been in New Jersey - no sales taxes on essentials like food, medicine, clothing/shoes, etc. but sales tax on just about everything else.
 
Upvote 0

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,023
2,546
✟228,059.00
Faith
Christian
This is how it's always been in New Jersey - no sales taxes on essentials like food, medicine, clothing/shoes, etc. but sales tax on just about everything else.

Sounds much better.

Just curious - does your state tax services as well?
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sounds much better.

Just curious - does your state tax services as well?
Yes, for sure. For example, if I buy food at any restaurant I pay sales tax because of the service of preparing the food.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Kinda surprised I'm not seeing 100% agreement with his statement on this one (if people are using the terms by their actual definitions, and the not the contemporary redefinition some people use to describe "What Denmark Has")

The history speaks for itself on that one.

The few actual communist & socialist countries left on the planet either have people living in terrible conditions and/or are under the thumb of authoritarians. (N. Korea and Cuba). The ones still closely treading that line (Belarus and Azerbaijan) are in a state of unrest.

And some will dismiss the concerns a bit, and suggest that the only reason it's not working well in Cuba is due to our embargo. However, that defense falls flat for a couple reasons

1) If a socialist or communist state needs to rely on other countries' market economies to be able to survive, then it's not a sustainable system.

2) The 20th century was replete with examples of trying it and failing (without being in the situation of having Cuba's unique set of circumstances)

East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.

All of those countries had each other as comrades and allies, and Mother Russia watching their back and trying to artificially prop up their economies, and they still failed.

But hey, you never know, maybe the 21st time will be the charm.

upload_2021-7-25_23-19-50.png



Although, it should be noted... it really says something about it when the major players (Russia and China) that tried to apply the principles, and were the biggest advocates for it in the first place, decided they don't want to do it anymore and switched to more market based or hybrid economies.


When the chef who made the chicken in the first place says "I'm not so sure about that chicken recipe we used, something doesn't smell right and the last 21 customers who ordered it got sick", you may want to order the hamburger instead.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Failed system? No, I don't agree, even going with a relatively informed American conservative definition of what "socialism" means. Perhaps it's not the dominant system in the world today, but calling it failed is premature and doesn't account for the accomplishments of socialist countries.

Socialism as an ideal lead to the development of a whole host of nations that used to be medieval and feudalistic. That cannot be discounted simply because of ideological disagreements.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MorkandMindy
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Biden is a liberal.

Liberals are capitalists with a conscience.

Liberalism and conservativism in the US context are actually perfectly compatible, since liberalism was the dominant philosophy behind the founders of this country. If they had been the social conservatives of their day, they wouldn't have dreamed of challenging King George III's divine right. Sympathizers in the British parliment and society were not Tories (conservatives).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MorkandMindy
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Failed system? No, I don't agree, even going with a relatively informed American conservative definition of what "socialism" means. Perhaps it's not the dominant system in the world today, but calling it failed is premature and doesn't account for the accomplishments of socialist countries.

Socialism as an ideal lead to the development of a whole host of nations that used to be medieval and feudalistic. That cannot be discounted simply because of ideological disagreements.

How many times does an implementation of said system have to be tried and fail before it can rightfully be called a failed system?

I think the key distinction that has to be considered, with regards to socialism, is that it's a transitional/interim system (one of the few things I'll agree with Marx on)...meaning, it's the one that's used on the pathway to a different system.

It's either
A) the interim system used during the transition period from market economies to communistic economies

B) the interim system used during the transition from an authoritarian system to a market economy

Whether or not it has effects that are positive or negative, relative to the starting point, depends on which way that pendulum is swinging


Or maybe to use an analogy:
If a two pack a day smoker says "from now on, I'm only smoking a half pack a day", that's a positive step and they'll likely see some improvements and start feeling a little better.

However, if someone who doesn't smoke at all says "from now on, I'm going to smoke a half pack a day", that's a bad thing, and they'll likely see their health get worse.

So, even though it's a positive step for the former scenario, that doesn't make smoking a half pack an inherently good thing or optimal.
 
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
The problem of "different definitions of socialist" again.

The problem goes back to the origins of socialism.

Originally, socialists and communists were the exact same thing. The socialists thought communism was "bad branding" as it might unintentionally be associated with religious communes....so they preferred the term socialism.

Further divides appeared as communits saw their ideas as end stage socialism that requires no state. Socialism saw the best way to implement their ideas as slowly through Democratic policies and gradually changing the economy from capitalism.

Communism of course, believed in violent revolutions incited by stirring discontent amongst the sheep.

But anyway....it's hard to say exactly what socialism is. It can be state owned resources that are required for production, or state owned sectors of the economy like public schools, or worker ownership of business and production.

In my opinion....a couple of things shouldn't be considered socialism....

1. Tax redistribution. Ever since taxes were first collected to build walls around cities and pay guards for those walls....tax redistribution is a primary function of the state and isn't socialism. It's a valid concern for every government.

2. Any institution required for the function of the state. Roads, police, firemen, the military....it's hard to imagine a state functioning without these things....and while they may have been private once...like firemen or the Pinkerton Agency prior to the FBI....they tended toward being heavily corrupt and ineffective.

There's a lot of valid arguments against free markets for a lot of markets. Prisons for example....can't simply fail. If a prison were to be badly mismanaged, the public would still have to pay for it, because prisoners need imprisonment.

You can typically identify these markets and sectors because supply and demand won't regulate them.

As for discussion of socialism....I'd rather that the person holding the discussion define it, and anyone who disagrees can just sit it out. Otherwise, it always devolves into a discussion about what socialism is.
 
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
Kinda surprised I'm not seeing 100% agreement with his statement on this one (if people are using the terms by their actual definitions, and the not the contemporary redefinition some people use to describe "What Denmark Has")

The history speaks for itself on that one.

The few actual communist & socialist countries left on the planet either have people living in terrible conditions and/or are under the thumb of authoritarians. (N. Korea and Cuba). The ones still closely treading that line (Belarus and Azerbaijan) are in a state of unrest.

And some will dismiss the concerns a bit, and suggest that the only reason it's not working well in Cuba is due to our embargo. However, that defense falls flat for a couple reasons

1) If a socialist or communist state needs to rely on other countries' market economies to be able to survive, then it's not a sustainable system.

2) The 20th century was replete with examples of trying it and failing (without being in the situation of having Cuba's unique set of circumstances)

East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.

All of those countries had each other as comrades and allies, and Mother Russia watching their back and trying to artificially prop up their economies, and they still failed.

But hey, you never know, maybe the 21st time will be the charm.

View attachment 303034


Although, it should be noted... it really says something about it when the major players (Russia and China) that tried to apply the principles, and were the biggest advocates for it in the first place, decided they don't want to do it anymore and switched to more market based or hybrid economies.


When the chef who made the chicken in the first place says "I'm not so sure about that chicken recipe we used, something doesn't smell right and the last 21 customers who ordered it got sick", you may want to order the hamburger instead.

There's a couple of unpleasant truths at the bottom of capitalism that make the idea inherently unappealing to anyone who likes to imagine themselves good and moral....and so is the rest of mankind.

So let's look at these truths...

1. People tend to work for their own betterment and to improve their situation. This gets called "people are greedy" by those who hate capitalism. Capitalists say "people are self interested".

The bottom line is this....if working at a particular task didn't improve one's situation, why would they do it? It fun to imagine people working for the benefit of others, but it's not realistic. A lot of jobs are tedious, boring, thankless, and difficult. Why do them if you reap no rewards?

2. Capitalism benefits some more than others....aka inequality. This is also true. Creating a product of value or even just figuring out what is valuable is difficult. Those few who do it reap rewards...the many who don't, fail. I had a friend who had tried his hand at a hot dog specialized restaurant, or food truck, or whatever....I don't remember. I remember a lot of friends wishing him luck, telling him he would succeed, and I didn't. He wasn't happy about that. He asked why and I said I hate hot dogs. He said lots of people like hot dogs...and I said that's true, but how many will eat them once a week? Twice a month? How good are these dogs?

He did it....set up the business, worked hard, and went out of business a year later. We all heard the story and only once, while a bit drunk, did he thank me. He said that everyone didn't want to dump on his idea...so he had the false impression it was a good idea. He said it was a year later, tens of thousands in debt, that he was considering getting loans and selling assets to keep his business afloat....and he remembered what I said, and realized the demand was never there, and it never would be.

This guy hadn't spoken with me for 5 months. I had really shot down his idea, in front of friends, and he wasn't happy about it. At the time, he thought I was being jealous and petty....and didn't want him to succeed. He hadn't turned a profit after the first two months. He was the only employee after 5. The whole time friends and family cheered him on.

He realized later I just didn't want him to make a bad mistake....and because I have no tact or subtlety....it sounded mean.

Not everyone wins at capitalism. It does seem to benefit everyone more than any other system conceived though...so as I always say, it's unfair and difficult, but until some better alternative comes along....hooray for capitalism.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

morningstar2651

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
14,555
2,589
39
Arizona
✟66,629.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How many times does an implementation of said system have to be tried and fail before it can rightfully be called a failed system?
Do you know how many failed attempts at capitalism there were within feudalism before Capitalism became the dominant economic system? Hint: Significantly more than 1.

And if we want to talk about the failures of economic systems, I sincerely doubt that anything can compete with the number of people killed by Capitalism, whether we're talking about privatized health insurance preventing the poor from getting the healthcare they need, landlords exploiting their tenants and making them homeless by evicting them when they fall behind on paying the landlord's mortgage for them, or companies stealing the wages of their underpaid employees.

Capitalism kills. We need something better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MorkandMindy
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

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem goes back to the origins of socialism.
The problem goes back to the Early Church as recorded in the Word of God? St. Paul and the Apostles caused "the problem"?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do you know how many failed attempts at capitalism there were within feudalism before Capitalism became the dominant economic system? Hint: Significantly more than 1.

I would argue that attempts at regional localized capitalism within the overarching system of feudalism aren't the best case study.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that feudalism more closely aligns with socialism than it does capitalism.

https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-capitalism-and-feudalism/


And if we want to talk about the failures of economic systems, I sincerely doubt that anything can compete with the number of people killed by Capitalism, whether we're talking about privatized health insurance preventing the poor from getting the healthcare they need, landlords exploiting their tenants and making them homeless by evicting them when they fall behind on paying the landlord's mortgage for them, or companies stealing the wages of their underpaid employees.

1) Are we talking failures or deaths? East Germany ultimately failed, as they couldn't produce a self-sustaining economic environment, but wasn't engaging in mass murdering and killing people (the Stasi would harass and lock people up), but the actual deaths at the hands of the Stasi were quite low (something like only 300 people over the course of the cold war)

2) If we are talking about deaths...

There's a difference between direct cause, and someone simply dying while living in a capitalistic system. (And many of the things you mention aren't incompatible with capitalism.)

While their are examples of actual causal deaths at the hands of capitalist regimes (Like under Pinochet in Chile or Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic), that number is dwarfed by causal deaths at the hands of communist and socialist regimes

20 million in the USSR

Mao is credited with between 45–70million.

Khmer Rouge killed between 1.8 and 2.2 million (roughly 20% of their population)


The government doesn't need to be the purveyor of a centrally planned economy with a massive public sector (and using force to facilitate compulsory participation in those public sector jobs) in order to provide health care.

Capitalism kills. We need something better.

We already have it, a capitalistic market economy with the overlay of specific social safety nets. What nearly every developed nation on the planet has (even the Nordic countries that people falsely label as socialist)

The former Danish PM Lars Rasmussen even had to clear that up for people while giving a speech at Harvard (likely due to him constantly having to hear his country propped up as "Socialism")

 
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
The problem goes back to the Early Church as recorded in the Word of God? St. Paul and the Apostles caused "the problem"?

I don't recall any definition of socialism in the bible but feel free to correct me .
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't recall any definition of socialism in the bible but feel free to correct me .
So you're not familiar with Marx's slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

It is considered the basic principle of communism. But, while it's attributed to Marx, who indeed did popularize it in promotion of his communist ideas, he himself took it from the Bible.

Marx was a Christian and understood the Bible very well. He even had written about Christian principles, showing much knowledge and awareness about Christian theological concepts. So, it's clear where he got this concept from:

Acts 4
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
 
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

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Am I familiar with it?? Absolutely. It's possibly the dumbest idea ever had by one man.

It sounds pretty....sure...but there's a rather obvious problem hidden between the lines...

Who decides "ability" and who decides "needs"?

We can't very well let people decide these for themselves...if we did needs would quickly outweigh abilities.

It's a method of distribution that basically guarantees a dictatorship. Someone has to decide these things for people....forever.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,135
20,163
US
✟1,440,641.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you're not familiar with Marx's slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

It is considered the basic principle of communism. But, while it's attributed to Marx, who indeed did popularize it in promotion of his communist ideas, he himself took it from the Bible.

Marx was a Christian and understood the Bible very well. He even had written about Christian principles, showing much knowledge and awareness about Christian theological concepts. So, it's clear where he got this concept from:

Acts 4
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Not only there, but also here:

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality. As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack.” - 2 Corinthians 8
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Am I familiar with it?? Absolutely. It's possibly the dumbest idea ever had by one man.
One man? The Early Church, who had this idea long before Marx even was born, was more than "one man".

And are you calling the Early Church and Christianity "dumb"?

It sounds pretty....sure...but there's a rather obvious problem hidden between the lines...

Who decides "ability" and who decides "needs"?
God does. And He provides it in His Word. And that's why the Early Church was able to do this but the ideal doesn't work when you bring in certain non-Christians.

We can't very well let people decide these for themselves...if we did needs would quickly outweigh abilities.
Well, we could if all people were following God's Word.

It's a method of distribution that basically guarantees a dictatorship. Someone has to decide these things for people....forever.
So Christianity was (is?) a "dictatorship"? Who is the dictator - the Apostles? Christ?
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The problem goes back to the origins of socialism.

Originally, socialists and communists were the exact same thing.

LOL. No.

Communism is an outgrowth of socialism. Various forms of socialism were practiced for decades before communism came along.

Socialism was already a prominent European political/social school of thought by the mid 1810s - see, for instance, the writing of David Ricardo, Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier.

Communism (at the least in its Marx-Engles form, which seems to be what you're talking about here) didn't appear until the 1840s, and wasn't a prominent feature of European political/economic thought until the 1850s.

The socialists thought communism was "bad branding" as it might unintentionally be associated with religious communes....so they preferred the term socialism.

Again, no.

Read JS Mill's 'Socialism', where he outlines the significant differences - both in though and practice - between 19th century Socialism and Communism.
 
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

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One man? The Early Church, who had this idea long before Marx even was born, was more than "one man".

You can interpret the passages of a 2000 year old Jewish sect however you want.

At no point does that phrase appear in the bible.
 
Upvote 0