Hey kids: Don't be a sucker for socialism

Post Reply New Topic

It's about both. Personal responsibility is a great and necessary value, but to focus on that and not the present political circumstances is myopic. We don't need a military revolution, but a new focus on what really matters, the people. This doesn't mean a 1984 totalitarian government, it means getting rid of legalized corruption in the form of special interests and campaign donations that help keep the rich entrenched in power. There will always be those who take advantage of help to be lazy, but so what? Get over it. Most people don't want that. We shouldn't use the proverbial welfare queen to sabotage a system that really eliminates the worst forms of poverty.

Yes, Scandinavians are a pragmatic people, but that doesn't mean what works there can't work here.

I would disagree that what they do in Scandinavia is working any better than it is here and I don't think you can't really compare almost completely homogeneous states that are the size or midsize US states. There are specific factors at play when it comes to Scandinavia, one cannot forget that Norway is a rich oil producing state and not a member of the European Union. Once you start introducing the other into these countries it seems like their societies pretty rapidly break down, Sweden who has embraced the multikulti probably more than any country in the world and they simply won't have a country 100 years from now if they keep down this current path. The UN projects their HDI to fall in between like Malaysia and Libya in the next 30 years, this refugee crisis and unfettered immigration will destroy their country and cultural identity. Let us also not forget that Europe benefits from the US security umbrella allowing them to more heavily invest in the welfare state, Scandinavia would probably be speaking Russian or German right now if it wasn't for the United States providing security.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

Socialism and Communism are synonyms of each other. The "Socialism" you are thinking of is not true socialism. European states today are SocialISTIC, or Democratic Socialist. Not true Socialist.

The issue with socializing everything is that it diminishes the quality of it. I will not argue that America really needs to change how it allows access to medical care and education, but those things should remain privatized. (And really, College is so expensive because the government gave out too many loans for it. It is the EXACT SAME REASON the housing market collapsed in 2008)

Why? Look at any list of the world's top schools and colleges, and see where a huge chunk of them are. If you said anything other than America, you're incorrect. In Houston, we have the Texas Medical Center, the largest medical district of its kind on planet earth, and Texas and America has more cancer treatment centers than anywhere else. As for the rest of America, the country is still a leader in the quality of care received, especially seeing as how quick it is getting a doctor's visit here versus England, and America are top innovators in research, and in many other medical fields. Don't get me wrong, I argue there is room for a very limited welfare state in a capitalist society, and I am all for cracking down on corporate corruption, but socializing everything is far from the answer.

Socialism of any form takes away individuality and economic freedom in the interest of "equality for all," and you say Capitalism isn't made for me? Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best one we have.

Yeah, the second paragraph wasn't aimed at you, just in general. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyways, referring back to my previous post, I have no qualms with stopping corporate and oligarchical corruption, but killing the system by socialization bites the hands that made modernized nations so successful.

Also, care to explain the mental gymnastics you refer to in Austrian economics?

Lol thanks, I do my research and I'm no fool.

^This. Many economists are saying that the extensive welfare state of many Scandinavian states will be their downfall, seeing as they aren't expanding their economy enough, or not making spending cuts to avoid deficit. I mean, really, the Scandinavians implemented socialist policy earlier than the rest of the EU, and had a debt crisis in the early 90's. It wasn't until they relaxed business regulations and lowered taxes did they start recovering. (From what I understand, and Scandinavian users correct me if I am wrong)

Private ownership exists in Sweden, so it is not really socialist. It is a welfare state. Socialist is a scare word. In a truly socialist state there is not private ownership except for personal items. The means of production are collective and land is held by a collective trust. No nation on earth, at this time, is truly socialist.

We don't even have that. Capitalism is not enshrined in the Constitution of the USA. We have a combination of socialist and capitalistic institutions. The government doesn't own all the industries, but it runs some, and we have private property, but we also have public property. I'm a Democratic Socialist, which is a form of Socialism. I know it's not the same as pure Socialism. I never advocated socializing everything.

That was the problem in this thread, where Democratic Socialism was conflated with totalitarian forms of government.

How does capitalism improve quality? US cars are pretty sh***y compared to most others. US health care is sh***y compared to socialized ones, because if you don't have money, you don't get treated (unless it's an emergency). US education is sh***y, because if you can't afford college, you probably won't get to go.

I was talking about idealized Scandinavian model of democratic socialism not being all it is cracked up to be. It's just as much of an social conundrum as is economic one, they had unique factors that made it work for a time there but that time is rapidly nearing its end.

Welfare states are not sustainable with large scale immigration.

Still better than the USA. No one there goes bankrupt from health care costs. And it's very difficult to buy a politician. Here, it's legal.

Sure, Rand is dead, but her influence lives on. This is probably paraphrasing, but Bertolt Brecht had written something to the extent of: "Do not rejoice you men. The bastard is dead, but the b***h who gave birth to him is still in heat."

Her "influence" is extremely overstated, leftists probably talk more about her than anybody else. Can't stop beating a literally dead horse, just another straw man boogeyman to smear their opponents with. At least the Koch brothers are actually alive.

Did you know that their old man, a founder of the far right wing John Birch Society, had also built a nuclear reactor for Joseph Stalin? I consider them to be of the same moral fiber.

I'm in debt from trying to live off of low-wage jobs for the past few years. I can't find a good job because I don't have any training or education, and I don't have those things because I can't afford them. Yet socialism, not capitalism, creates poor people and keeps them poor? Ok.

Why are people incapable of understanding nuance? Almost every argument I hear against socialism is against a completely socialist economy, which is not what I hear most supporters of socialism arguing for. Nobody is saying get rid of privately-owned things completely (ok, some are, but those people are silly).

I like capitalism, and I do think in most cases privately-owned businesses are going to be better than government-run ones. But we have public and private schools for k-12, and nobody complains about that. Why is it such a crazy, insane idea that maybe we could also have free public college for those who can't afford tuition? And doesn't the government pay for a lot of it already, with federal loans, grants, military tuition assistance, GI Bill etc.? Why not just cut out all that crap and pay for it directly?

Last edited by L_Holmes on 23 May 2016, 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know that in America, Capitalism isn't inherent as our economic system, but the Constitution allows very little regulation from the government, and the only way to truly change federal policy on something is by amending the Constitution (which is hard to do for a good reason).

The issue that I have with Democratic Socialism is that I feel like at times people go overboard with it, as if it is a be-all-end-all answer. The fact is, Socialist elements can be dangerous to a good economy, and while there is some room to allow regulation, it isn't a lot. I didn't accuse you of wanting to socialize anything, but doing it at all is a risky move. Like I said, price of tuition and medical care is ridiculous, and I agree those things do need to be fixed, but we can't do Universal Care for the reasons I mentioned. College is more expensive because government gave out too many loans, and what is causing medical care to be so expensive is gonna take a very long discussion, but just know its not as simple as medical care companies and hospitals being greedy.

And as for your last point, there are a lot of foreign companies that have factories in America: http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/cars-made-in-america/
In a society like America, where business regulations are considerably lax, bad cars are made by bad companies, not a bad system. And compared to Socialism in the USSR, where TVs literally melted on the stands they sat on, American made goods were definitely better. Meanwhile, its hard buying imported products from Europe here seeing as business regulations are so tight, and we don't have favorable trade policies with them on the level of China, making their goods considerably more expensive unless its from China.

The Constitution doesn't prevent a universal health care system.

And you can't underestimate the Soviet Union, their space program was superior to our (socialized) NASA.