What is so wrong with socialism?

[LionL]

From the Oxford Dictionary Oaf Man linked to:

"The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy"

 

[buzuxi02]

If that is what the term "socialism" means, then there isn't a single "socialist" country in Europe. Or even the world. Except perhaps North Korea - eventhough I'm not really sure about that either. Can't people own a house in North Korea?


In any case, what you describe isn't exactly what I would call "socialism". It's not even what I would call "communism". It sounds more like "extremely radical communism".

And somehow, I doubt that the poster of the original post that I was responding to, would agree that there are no "socialist" countries in Europe.

But I could be wrong about that. Perhaps that poster can clear that up for us.

What strikes me in any case, is how a lot of people here are using this term in a variaty of ways.... It would seem that for many here as well, socialism is somehow synonymous to communism.

I live in Belgium. I'ld say that it is a socialist secular democracy.
Why? Because we have very strong socialistic programs concerning social security, health coverage, education and other such government sponsored services.

And they are paid for with tax dollars from every Belgian citizen.

Nonetheless, I own a house as well as a business. Privately.
The idea that ownership is somehow restricted or similar is completely foreign to me.

Well thats no different than in America. Now when you say "all Belgians" does that mean services paid by belgians for foreigners residing in your country? Subsidies for single mothers, social programs that pay for the higher education of everyone etc.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is a question for my American cousins: what is so wrong with socialism? Is it true that Americans hate socialism or is this just what gets shown in the media?

As a Brit living in (what America would call a socialist country) the UK I'm very happy with this style of government.

Where's the beef, here?

I can't speak for all Americans. I do not hate anything. I just do not think that one size fits all. I do not have a desire to live in a society that is so dependent upon a few making so many of the decisions for the rest. I would prefer a government that does as little as possible to keep order and stays well out of economic affairs and private lives. I do not insist that everyone else must be governed by the same ideology I espouse and I suggest that diversity is a good thing. At the moment my country is not the ideal country i would have but it is a tiny bit closer to that then i understand any other country to be. If there are socialist countries and non socialist countries both those that desire socialism and those that do not can be satisfied. I tend to find too many socialists on this site insisting that my country ought to be just like theirs which would mean that someone like myself that wants much less government involvement in people's lives than we already have ought to either cease to exist or have no place that he/she feels even remotely comfortable about living in. I also do not see many Americans complaining about what other countries are doing internally. Just because I and many others in the US do not want to be like you does not mean we hate or want to change what you are doing. We just have different needs and different wants. You have my permission to govern yourself any way you see fit. I would like the same consideration.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well thats no different than in America.

It's very different from in America.
We have full blown universal health care for example. There is no "opting out". It comes right out of your paycheck. Rich or poor, doesn't matter.

We have pension funds. There is no "opting out". It comes right out of your paycheck.

We have nationalised education (from pre-school all the way upto universities). There is no "opting out". It comes right out of your paycheck.

And so it continues.

Now when you say "all Belgians" does that mean services paid by belgians for foreigners residing in your country?

All belgians means all belgians. In fact, foreigners to. If you work in belgium and get your paycheck in belgium, you'll pay taxes in belgium. And those taxes will be used for funding all those social services.

Subsidies for single mothers, social programs that pay for the higher education of everyone etc.

Yes, yes and yes. And beyond.
Including social housing etc.

The idea is that nobody should be left behind.
That doesn't always work though. It's hard to reach everyone. Especially those who don't have any papers and officially don't exist in the country.

But we do our best.

And personally, I'm proud to be part of that system.

 

[FredVB]

There isn't something wrong with socialism if it is among an assembly of willing Christian believers, this is in fact an ideal displayed under Christ's apostles in the church in Acts 2 and 4. It is not a stable arrangement generally otherwise, for a really long-term arrangement, with people generally having a selfish nature and resistant to it, and there will be tendency to overcome it, with what is contrary to wills being seen as repressive.

 

[KWCrazy]

What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?
The head of the Democratic National Committee can't come up with an answer. Can you?
There used to be a clear distinction between Democrats and socialists. Now the Democratic Party has moved so far left there is no longer any distinction.

 

[Larniavc]

You have my permission to govern yourself any way you see fit. I would like the same consideration.

You misunderstand me. I was not dictating how your own country should be governed and I'm sorry if I gave that impression to you when I asked the Americans on this site why some Americans think socialism is a dirty word.

 

[Oafman]

I feel like this is a rather tunnel-vision view of it.

You're welcome to an opinion on the definition of the word, but that remains its definition. Political scientists have used that definition for many decades, or even centuries. I'm not sure any of us are qualified to overrule them.

It does not require 'everything' to be socially owned. Some more extreme forms of socialism do (they abandon any concept of ownership - property is theft etc), but certainly that needs to be the foundation for an economy to rightly be considered as socialist.

The main reason I don't want to cede this redefinition is because the word socialism comes with the baggae of a failed ideology. So if we allow the right to redefine centrist capitalism as 'socialism', then whenever we argue that social healthcare or education or a welfare state are good things, they get to say "BUT THEY'RE SOCIALISM AND SOCIALISM HAS FAILED!!1!".

Such things are not socialism, and have not failed as socialism did (the opposite is true, many such programs continue to be very successful around the world), but in this media age, we can't ignore branding!

 

[Oafman]

What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?
The head of the Democratic National Committee can't come up with an answer. Can you?

Yup. A democrat is someone who supports democracy. A socialist is someone who advocates for social ownership of the means of production.

Unless the capitalised 'D' means a supporter or member of the Democratic party in the US?

There used to be a clear distinction between Democrats and socialists. Now the Democratic Party has moved so far left there is no longer any distinction.

Why would there be a distinction? These things are not mutually exclusive? Someone might believe in socialism but want the people to decide. They would be a socialist and a democrat.

Again, if the capitalised D means the party, then are they advocating for the abolition of privately owned industry? If they are, then there may be little distinction between Democrats and socialists. If they're not (which is obviously the case) then there remains a wide gulf.

 

[amanuensis63]

The US economy is a hybrid mixture of socialism and capitalism. It is becoming more socialist year by year and as it does so, it is becoming less effective economically. It's the socialism that is killing America, not the capitalism.

You don't watch the business news programs much do you? Capitalism is winning quite handily. The Down Jones is at record highs (given the daily fluctuation around 18,0000). Which means CAPITAL is flowing quite handily.

Meanwhile the SOCIAL programs are getting gutted to pay for endless wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

[amanuensis63]

I'm glad you're happy with your system! I have no desire to change it or convince you that it's wrong. Why can't you Euro-Socialists let us American's be happy with ours?

Because a LOT of Americans aren't happy. And I'm not just speaking for the less well off whom the GOP tells us are just "jealous". I probably make more than most on this forum in my job but I'm not happy that millions of Americans were priced out of the healthcare market, I'm not happy that I ended up paying for them to use the emergency room instead of having access to affordable healthcare. I'm not happy that we systemically denigrate the poor in this country. I'm not happy that we have crumbling infrastructure because we are nation of people who can't care less about commonweal.

 

[KWCrazy]

Meanwhile the SOCIAL programs are getting gutted to pay for endless wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Your statement has no relationship whatever to the truth.
No social program has been gutted.
No social program has been cut.
Nobody has advocated cutting anything (though they should).
The top 10% of wage earners in America pay 70% of federal income taxes.
The top 40% pay 106% of federal income taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 9% of income taxes.
Tax incentives to businesses are usually tied to job creation, which gives people a method of raising themselves from the bottom 40% to the top 40%.

In America, the opportunities are there. No, the field isn't perfectly level but what field is in the real world. The fact is, if you are poor it's likely because you chose to be poor. You made poor decisions. You didn't take advantage of the education opportunities, you chose to make babies while a dependent child, you wasted your time on drugs and partying, you got into trouble with the law, you'd rather play video games than work or whatever your case may be. Bill Gates couldn't afford to make payroll when he started Microsoft in his garage. Jan Koum was a Ukranian immigrant and dirt poor 20 years ago. He just sold WhatsApp to Facebook and now he's worth $6.8 BILLION.

You can sit around and cry about the evil wealthy or you can go out and make something of yourself. It's your choice. Just think of how many people you could help with $6.8 billion. Isn't that better than living off the taxes of others, which you surely do if you're in the bottom 40% of wage earners?

 

[Willtor]

Your statement has no relationship whatever to the truth.
No social program has been gutted.
No social program has been cut.
Nobody has advocated cutting anything (though they should).
The top 10% of wage earners in America pay 70% of federal income taxes.
The top 40% pay 106% of federal income taxes.
The bottom 40% pay 9% of income taxes.
Tax incentives to businesses are usually tied to job creation, which gives people a method of raising themselves from the bottom 40% to the top 40%.

In America, the opportunities are there. No, the field isn't perfectly level but what field is in the real world. The fact is, if you are poor it's likely because you chose to be poor. You made poor decisions. You didn't take advantage of the education opportunities, you chose to make babies while a dependent child, you wasted your time on drugs and partying, you got into trouble with the law, you'd rather play video games than work or whatever your case may be. Bill Gates couldn't afford to make payroll when he started Microsoft in his garage. Jan Koum was a Ukranian immigrant and dirt poor 20 years ago. He just sold WhatsApp to Facebook and now he's worth $6.8 BILLION.

You can sit around and cry about the evil wealthy or you can go out and make something of yourself. It's your choice. Just think of how many people you could help with $6.8 billion. Isn't that better than living off the taxes of others, which you surely do if you're in the bottom 40% of wage earners?

Those statistics are incomplete. It may be that the top 10% of wage earners in America pay 70% of federal income taxes, but what percentage of income do they get? Is it also 70%? Without those figures, the numbers you've brought are an interesting curiosity. If you want to be complete, you need to provide a background that shows how 70% corresponds to what they make.

But even supposing it's a lot (I'm skeptical, but I'll concede it for the purposes of this discussion), how else could we expect it to be? If we want functioning infrastructures, and if the tax code is even, then we are digging a hole for the poor that they can't hope to pull themselves out of. Sure, you can identify individuals who make it out. But it was the same during the age of European Feudalism. We don't generally think of _that_ age as an equitable era where anybody could have made it with a little cleverness and elbow grease. This age in America is better than that. But it isn't good. You have, in this thread, people who attribute to their financial success to these socialist programs in their countries, where they would have been in poverty, here. That's highly suggestive that we have people in poverty, here, who could (and would) be wealth creators in the presence of safety nets.

But putting even that aside: the safety nets protect the poor who would not be great wealth creators; Just the average people who want to do right by their families. That seems like a good, charitable thing.

 

[Oafman]

The top 10% of wage earners in America pay 70% of federal income taxes

Is that all? Given they control 75.3% of all wealth, they're underpaying!

And anyway, as we all know, it's not the top 10% that's the problem. It's the top 0.1%

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What do you mean with "an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level"?

Perhaps it's just my english, but I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production

Capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

...that's if we're talking true socialism...and not 'Nordic Capitalism'...which many of my fellow Americans falsely classify as "socialism"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you want to punish people for a lack of intelligence?

This is an insult. There are many poor who are much more intelligent than their 'superiors' but are denied opportunity and education because of their 'class' and lack of money.

I didn't say anything about punishing anyone. Not giving a person someone else's money doesn't equate to "punishment".

 

[Loudmouth]

I gave an example of a landlord who grows rich by buying houses, thus upping their price so that the poor can't afford to buy, and renting them to the poor. This is a fact I see every day. That's how I can believe it.

I find it hard to believe that America can't do what nearly every other 1st World nation can do. France can have affordable and accessible healthcare, but the US can't? Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?
The head of the Democratic National Committee can't come up with an answer. Can you?
There used to be a clear distinction between Democrats and socialists. Now the Democratic Party has moved so far left there is no longer any distinction.

You make a basic assumption that taints the rest of your argument. You pretend as if being a socialist is a bad thing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Soooo... who are all these countries in Europe where one isn't able to own them privately?

As I mentioned in another post...the Euro nations that get labeled as "socialist" by many Republicans aren't actually socialist...they're "Nordic Capitalist".

Defined as:
The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[6] In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects

 

[amanuensis63]

Your statement has no relationship whatever to the truth.
No social program has been gutted.
No social program has been cut.
Nobody has advocated cutting anything (though they should).

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...graphic-social-programs-cut-by-the-sequester/

The GOP has basically mapped a plan to cut social programs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/17/us-usa-budget-republicans-idUSKBN0MD1KU20150317

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-plan-boosts-pentagon-cuts-social-programs/

In America, the opportunities are there

Really? Because it seems to me, for example, tech companies are shedding a lot of older workers while simultaneously claiming they need more H1B visas because there's noone skilled to do the tech sector jobs.

(Hint: H1B visas work for less money, don't demand raises and are effectively stuck with the company that brought them over).

If the opportunities are there then why are so many Americans technically "undermployed"?

The fact is, if you are poor it's likely because you chose to be poor. You made poor decisions.

LOL. Sorry, I'm just incapable of stopping my laughter to type a coherent response. Are you certain all your decisions were the best? And that you deserve every single advantage you may have gotten? Because, I'll tell you straight up, I probably out-earn you (just speaking statistically) and I know I didn't get here solely because of my personal awesomeness. I got a lot of help and a lot of people overlooked my youthful stupidity.

You can sit around and cry about the evil wealthy or you can go out and make something of yourself. It's your choice.

I'm curious how two people could come to such a different view of the poor. I, like you, took full advantage of education opportunities available to me and I worked my way up to a 6 figure job. I did my time in the trenches and I live quite comfortably. But at all points along the way I was fully aware of how much others had done for me.

I am fascinated to see conservatives who seem to have a big blind spot there.

Just think of how many people you could help with $6.8 billion. Isn't that better than living off the taxes of others, which you surely do if you're in the bottom 40% of wage earners?

I must point out the obvious but the bottom 40% of the population DO pay taxes and they pay many of the same taxes YOU PAY only it's more of a burden than it is for you and I. They don't get a break at the gas pump or the grocery store because they're poor. They just have less life to live after the same experience which really doesn't impact us all that much.

I honestly rarely if ever care (or even notice) the price of gas I put in my car. I just know I need to put gas in the car so I don't run out on the highway. And I live in California where gas is about $1/gallon more than anywhere else in the US.

What I DO try to keep my eye on is the BLESSING I have of being pretty OK economically. But I also realize that I could (and will ultimately) likely be laid off, probably because I'm over 50 and will become "too expensive" to my company...as I've seen happen to a few of my friends. And by "too expensive" I mean that over the past 9 years I've gotten very little in the way of raises...companies don't give out much in the way of raises these days.

I find that people who think of themselves as somehow special and bullet-proof from life's travails usually re-evaluate after the first or second crisis lays them low. I just wish it didn't take personal pain to bring people to a more charitable view of others.