Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism

[Valiance]

It doesn't work.

 

[Mcupobob]

Hmmm, I'm going to ask a question that has not been ask and or tried.
Whats wrong with libertinism? Somthing I so far have no knowledge of ever since used and Sounds like a good idea instead of trying the same broken sysetems over and over again till they work why as a species don't we move past those and experment with other sysetems?
/thread

EDIT: whoop sry ment libertarianism

 

[yossarian787]

The short answer is that economic calculation becomes difficult to impossible under a socialist system, where Capitalist style competition performs economic calculation automatically.

By "economic calculation," I assume you mean the distribution of wealth, theoretically to those who deserve it. Do you believe that the current economic system in America accomplishes that? Even if it does, does that make it morally justifiable? There are people who are unable to work because they are sick or disabled. There are children with no parents who are too young to work. Should these people be denied the chance to live their lives? Should we kill them by denying them "welfare?"

Granted, there are also people who abuse the welfare system. There are those who take money but don't need it, or aren't qualified for it but use fraud to get it anyway. However, I believe that it is wrong to eliminate welfare altogether, depriving those who truly need it, just because there are some people who abuse the system.

As to the original post, I think it is poorly worded, but I will attempt an answer anyway. Capitalism and socialism are two economic systems, probably the two most commonly discussed in America. Capitalism is ideally very much a meritocracy, using the market system to distribute wealth to those most worthy. Socialism is a system where wealth is distributed artificially based on need. While I do believe that capitalism is good in many cases, because it encourages and rewards personal effort, there are some instances where it is either unfeasible or unconscionable.

In particular, in regards to the debate at hand, it is unconscionable to allow an organization motivated solely by profit to make potentially life-or-death decisions about anyone's health, or the possibly expensive protection/restoration thereof, which is effectively the so-called "health-care" system we currently "enjoy" in America. Health-care decisions, in my opinion, should be made by patients, with the aid of doctors, and cost should not be a prohibiting factor. The United States of America, as a country, has the means to make that happen, and as such, I'm all for socialized health-care.

 

[yossarian787]

Hmmm, I'm going to ask a question that has not been ask and or tried.
Whats wrong with libertinism? Somthing I so far have no knowledge of ever since used and Sounds like a good idea instead of trying the same broken sysetems over and over again till they work why as a species don't we move past those and experment with other sysetems?
/thread

lib?er?tin?ism


Pronunciation: (lib'ur-tē-niz"um, -ti-), [key]
?n.
libertine practices or habits of life; disregard of authority or convention in sexual or religious matters

Is that really what you meant? Because it doesn't seem to apply...

 

[grimsprice]

This post is so going to be flamebait...

Socialism is good because it can lead to communism. Communism is, at the very core of it, sharing. America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, doesn't like that. Now, when I say America, I mostly refer to the government, because they're greedy f**ks. The American people, however, are varied in wealth but have been fed capitalist propaganda for decades by the government. Because of this propaganda campaign, Americans are afraid of communism under the (false) impression that it is a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of freedom. In reality, communism is exactly the opposite; as a matter of fact, communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, as the government becomes unecessary and thus disappears.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Didn't quite make the first page eh Akai? Honestly i don't ever see you post on any other type of thread? Is this the only thing that interests you on the escapist? Just curious you know...

 

[Mcupobob]

This post is so going to be flamebait...

Socialism is good because it can lead to communism. Communism is, at the very core of it, sharing. America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, doesn't like that. Now, when I say America, I mostly refer to the government, because they're greedy f**ks. The American people, however, are varied in wealth but have been fed capitalist propaganda for decades by the government. Because of this propaganda campaign, Americans are afraid of communism under the (false) impression that it is a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of freedom. In reality, communism is exactly the opposite; as a matter of fact, communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, as the government becomes unecessary and thus disappears.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Since when in history has that ever happen?
intill proven to work i'm unconvinced communism is a good sysetem.
Also a mass group of people can't share and reglate themselves without some goverment, so yes it will turn into a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

[grimsprice]

I think people who are terrified of Obama being a socialist, don't seem to realize that America already has socialized programs.

Anyway, John Green said, perfectly, what I've been thinking about the Health Care debate.

Thank God for verbally skilled individuals.

 

[Zombie Nixon]

By "economic calculation," I assume you mean the distribution of wealth, theoretically to those who deserve it. Do you believe that the current economic system in America accomplishes that? Even if it does, does that make it morally justifiable? There are people who are unable to work because they are sick or disabled. There are children with no parents who are too young to work. Should these people be denied the chance to live their lives? Should we kill them by denying them "welfare?"

Sorry, that's not what it means. By economic calculation, I mean deciding how much to produce and what to charge for it. A socialist economy has no way of gathering this information, while a capitalist economy does it automatically, via the price mechanism. Because a socialist economy cannot perform economic calculation, it cannot achieve an efficient distribution of resources and therefore can't be considered a good system.

As to the original post, I think it is poorly worded, but I will attempt an answer anyway. Capitalism and socialism are two economic systems, probably the two most commonly discussed in America. Capitalism is ideally very much a meritocracy, using the market system to distribute wealth to those most worthy. Socialism is a system where wealth is distributed artificially based on need. While I do believe that capitalism is good in many cases, because it encourages and rewards personal effort, there are some instances where it is either unfeasible or unconscionable.

No, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Anything else is a detail that can be taken or left.

In particular, in regards to the debate at hand, it is unconscionable to allow an organization motivated solely by profit to make potentially life-or-death decisions about anyone's health, or the possibly expensive protection/restoration thereof, which is effectively the so-called "health-care" system we currently "enjoy" in America. Health-care decisions, in my opinion, should be made by patients, with the aid of doctors, and cost should not be a prohibiting factor. The United States of America, as a country, has the means to make that happen, and as such, I'm all for socialized health-care.

It's easy to say stuff like "cost shouldn't matter", but cost always matters. Healthcare is scarce, and even a universal healthcare system is going to ration care.

Also, LOL at people who consider services like roads and the fire department to be socialist.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

This post is so going to be flamebait...

Socialism is good because it can lead to communism. Communism is, at the very core of it, sharing. America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, doesn't like that. Now, when I say America, I mostly refer to the government, because they're greedy f**ks. The American people, however, are varied in wealth but have been fed capitalist propaganda for decades by the government. Because of this propaganda campaign, Americans are afraid of communism under the (false) impression that it is a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of freedom. In reality, communism is exactly the opposite; as a matter of fact, communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, as the government becomes unecessary and thus disappears.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Since when in history has that ever happen?
intill proven to work i'm unconvinced communism is a good sysetem.
Also a mass group of people can't share and reglate themselves without some goverment, so yes it will turn into a totalitarian dictatorship.

It has not happened in recorded history.

Laws are made and enforced via direct democracy and collective law enforcement.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

This post is so going to be flamebait...

Socialism is good because it can lead to communism. Communism is, at the very core of it, sharing. America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, doesn't like that. Now, when I say America, I mostly refer to the government, because they're greedy f**ks. The American people, however, are varied in wealth but have been fed capitalist propaganda for decades by the government. Because of this propaganda campaign, Americans are afraid of communism under the (false) impression that it is a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of freedom. In reality, communism is exactly the opposite; as a matter of fact, communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, as the government becomes unecessary and thus disappears.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Didn't quite make the first page eh Akai? Honestly i don't ever see you post on any other type of thread? Is this the only thing that interests you on the escapist? Just curious you know...

You don't? Maybe you overlook it, as I post on new threads of all kinds almost every day.

 

[arc101]

you cannot say it is either good or bad. Is capitalism good or bad, you cannot say it is either good or bad, you need more options and you also need to understand that politics can out be placed in either good or bad

 

[Jedoro]

I'd quite enjoy a socialist democracy, to be honest. Extreme socialism may lead to communism, but that's why I like to mention "everything in moderation" all the time.

 

[chris89]

I believe Socialism is a good thing. Europe is in very good shape due to it, But then if it's taken to the extreme's it does have it's disadvantages.

As for Health Care. I hope America does get an NHS type off system as it is very helpful, Ok not brillant but is good to have. As the problems i've had in my family due to medical we would have had to be bankcrupted several times over.

 

[Pillypill]

(I know this is a bit blind sighted but still...)

Socialism, anyone with their brain in their head, not in their gun, will think it's a good thing. Example; Steven Hawkins praised the NHS, which is a product of socialism, he said if not for the NHS he wouldn't of been born at all. George Bush; Firmly against Socialism, he doesn't even know what a socialist is.

Another one; some American republican claimed that Stevent Hawkins said "had i been born in Britain i would not have survived childberth" Despite Steven Hawkins Being British and having been born in an NHS hospital.

I don't think capitalism is a bad thing, same goes for comm' and social'. I Just think that people shouldn't be so scared of socialism just because the Nazi's thought it a good idea.

EDIT: IGNOR THIS! just look at the vid in "historybuff"s post, it makes every point i wanted to make, but couldn't becuase my wrists hurt, and it does it in a fast... and kinda sexy way too.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

I think people who are terrified of Obama being a socialist, don't seem to realize that America already has socialized programs.

Anyway, John Green said, perfectly, what I've been thinking about the Health Care debate.

The video is a Major win.

I finally found a good video to explain this. Finally...

 

[Thanatos34]

Both facism and the totalitarian dictatorship that Russia claimed to communism are actually extreme forms of socialism. That't the problem with socialism. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. If you give too much power to the government, it corrupts. Want an example? Russia. The theory of Marxist communism stated that one man would rise up and teach the ways of communism once the revolution took place. Lenin rushed it, but the revolution still took place and one man took the role of teaching the people. His name was Joseph Stalin...

PS. In the Canadian health system, it takes 6 months to get an MRI. Lots of cancers that could be treated in the early stages, ones that could be diagnosed with and MRI and biopsy, will kill someone in 6 months.

I think you are blatantly prejudiced against against government control. That's why so many conservatives in the U.S. are attacking Canada and Europe right now. They are emotionally against public health-care and government programs. You probably want the figures on Canadian health-care to be as bad a s possible to back up your argument. Well sorry buddy, but Canada is going to kick some serious ass this century and eventually you will make a fool out of yourself when you try to make fun of Canadian and UK and E.U. healthcare.

Also, while this is a bit presumtuous, I'm going to assume that you just asked me to try to find negative things about Universal Health Care to make you're emotions happy. Well, I decline. As much as I respect your passion for what you believe in, I respectfully ask you to find somethiing more worthy of your passion. Perhaps global warming, which will put the world's most impoverished into even more poverty. I highly doubt that what your president (do you recognise him as you're president, if you don't mind?) is really going to create some sort of evil world where elderly are killed off to increase the efficiency of the system. I understand that Canada is just another country to you, and you are using it as an example of what you don't want, but I hope you understand when I get offended by you making lies about it. And also, despite what I think you seem to think, Canada is NOT an example of what should not be done. Work needs to be done on the system, but that hardly means it's an example of what shouldn't be done. I don't think there's anything in this world that couldn't do with some improvement, and certainly not something as bit as the health care system when looked at as a whole.

I will not offer my opinions on what you should do in the U.S., but I will tell you what I heard my mom saying. She roughly said "Why don't they look at places where it does work, like in Europe?" the answer, to me, is because they want to victimise the whole idea of free health care. Canada has only had free health care for a few decades, while in Europe they have had it for much longer. For something only a few decades old, it works pretty well (In Canada).

Canada has 1/10th the pop of the US, national health care will not work here. It just won't, and if you can't see that, too bad, and the ratio of population for European countries is just as bad or worse.

Also, if you look at the article from CBS that was brought up earlier, it does back up his statement to a degree- it says the average wait time is 18.3 weeks.
weeks). [/spoiler]

Better than waiting forever because you can't afford insurance. And why the bitching about wait times? You get it eventually don't you? If it's not going to kill you or cause long term damage to you, suck it up. It'll make you stronger. Or perhaps rich people deserve better than that? I'm willing to wait to make sure no one gets left behind. I recognise that teh U.S. is a different country, and that leaving people behind is acceptable with some people, but I'll stick with my wait times.


The U.S. is too big for free health care. You've just written that off with one broad stroke. I don't want to spend to much time arguing with you about your country, but I must ask, what about the people who aren't insured? Is it their fault? Do you or do you not think they should have health care if they ever needed it? Give me a yes or no answer. It seems fitting since you completely wrote off national health care on account of population. I don't know the complexities of the U.S., but I'm SURE it's not that simple. I always considered the U.S. to be a barbaric survival of the fittest country at heart after seeing Dr. Q or whatever, but I was 12, and backed off of that later. I'm sure that movie was an exxageration to try to get people on one side. I'm sure not THAT many people are allowed to just die. Some, but I doubt it's that bad. My understanding is that there is already some level of government health care but not much because of fear of interfering with the market. I don't know too much, but I doubt insuring those people is a simple as a "public option." I think you are trying to make it as simple as possible, to cut out dialogue which goes against your emotions.

18.3 weeks? For a struggling American single mother working two jobs for the children she has because she was from and underpriveledged family and couldn't get an abortion, 18.3 weeks sounds better than not ever getting it. I'm sure there's plenty of cases where people can't afford it at all. Again, what would you tell those people? Should they get treatment or not?

I love the naivety.

For my yes or no answer, if it is not going to kill them, then no, they should not get health- care for that issue. We already have a system for dealing with stuff that is going to kill them, see the paragraph below.

The problem here, is that with such a big country, the wait times will be a hell of a lot longer, and the system will cost the government a hell of a lot more. You're not talking 18 weeks, you're talking closer to a year, if we start out like Canada does. And making everyone wait a year, versus making several million people get only what they absolutely need in order to live, as far as medical aid goes, well. I think you can figure out my viewpoint on that. It is a myth that someone can go into the hospital with something that is going to kill them, (aka a bullet wound), and that they will be turned away because they don't have health-care. They perform the surgery, and THEN ask about health-care. If they can't pay, we ALREADY have a system in place to compensate the hospital.

People like to quote the number that 49 million people are uninsured in America. I wonder how many of those are illegal immigrants, and how many of those are like me, a young college-age person who'd rather take his chances than pay upwards of $300 a month for good health insurance.

It is not fair to cause 250 million people, at the very least, (like I said, the 49 million number is skewed), to wait for 5 to 6 times as long, so that people who cannot afford it, can get the same health insurance as everyone else. If you are going to die without treatment, then you can come to the hospital, and they will treat you, insurance or no. But you can't afford to give handouts to every-one who wants to gets something for arthritis. Show me how we can afford to do it, and I'd be all for it. Perhaps in la-la-land, where Obama seems to now permanently reside, we can give everyone everything they want, and NOT have our economy go down the drain.

And did you really just try to justify the murder of a unborn infant using that old argument that she can't afford to take care of them? Ever heard of an orphanage?

Just to clarify something, I do not give a d**n one way or the other on whether or not it is socialism. The only thing I care about is that it quite simply won't work.

 

[blank0000]

http://imgur.com/5RkJK.png "the 1 good thing 4chan ever did"


Now, I am all for capitalism. I think it's the preferred system because it allows the most growth and change for a society as it doesn't aim for universal stability. However, as represented by said link, socialism mixed in isn't something entirely evil

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This post is so going to be flamebait...

Socialism is good because it can lead to communism. Communism is, at the very core of it, sharing. America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, doesn't like that. Now, when I say America, I mostly refer to the government, because they're greedy f**ks. The American people, however, are varied in wealth but have been fed capitalist propaganda for decades by the government. Because of this propaganda campaign, Americans are afraid of communism under the (false) impression that it is a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of freedom. In reality, communism is exactly the opposite; as a matter of fact, communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, as the government becomes unecessary and thus disappears.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Hey again Akai. We've been down this road before, but I want to point out that you are actually out of line with classical anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin. Bakunin had very similar ideas to Marx, but the two separated into two philosophies of Marxism and Anarchism. You are actually taking the Marxist side of the split. Because of that, I think you should call it Marxism rather than Anarchism. Although they have similar goals, Marxism cannot really be reconciled with Anarchism. As I've pointed out before, Marxists have a habit of shooting Anarchists.

 

[wheelchairman2]

socialism has given the world many things both good and bad

good:
welfare
the NHS (i'm a brit see)

Bad
Stalin

i could develop my arguments further but right now i'm too tired to be drawn into a real debate
(and before anyone says Stalin was communist, he wasn't, he was dictatorially socialist, true communism as envisioned by Karl Marx has never actually been achieved)