Thanks for clarifying. You see, I'm not one for history class, so what I know is limited.Skeleon said:
The last part was interesting, about them being almost opposite, yet meeting in their extreme =).
Socialism: Good or Bad?
- Thread starter Fbuh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The last part was interesting, about them being almost opposite, yet meeting in their extreme =).
As far as I understand it Socialism is where the government takes control of banking and the means for production.
I think a loooot of people get hung up thinking socialism = bad, because we still have millions of people who grew up with the iron curtain around. They got to see the shitty living conditions that a totalitarian government implemented under the guise of 'socialism.
Ultimately the whole point behind Socialism was to give workers more control over profits made from their work. However, because we spent 50 years at 'war' with a Socialistic nation the word itself became a buzz word for evil.
Some Socialism is necessary, and even good for society. As much as people don't think it's present in the U.S. to any large extent all one has to look at the public school system or public infrastructure to see how much we actually embrace (the list goes on).
Dunno - I definitely think that socialism has many benefits that people are too scared to actually think about (universal heath care namely), because all they can think of is the bread-lines stereotypical of the USSR.
I think a loooot of people get hung up thinking socialism = bad, because we still have millions of people who grew up with the iron curtain around. They got to see the shitty living conditions that a totalitarian government implemented under the guise of 'socialism.
Ultimately the whole point behind Socialism was to give workers more control over profits made from their work. However, because we spent 50 years at 'war' with a Socialistic nation the word itself became a buzz word for evil.
Some Socialism is necessary, and even good for society. As much as people don't think it's present in the U.S. to any large extent all one has to look at the public school system or public infrastructure to see how much we actually embrace (the list goes on).
Dunno - I definitely think that socialism has many benefits that people are too scared to actually think about (universal heath care namely), because all they can think of is the bread-lines stereotypical of the USSR.
You could easily replace socialism with capitalism in that sentence, and change your argument about how people are naturally greedy to how people in small communities come together to help one another (or to take a current analogy - take pay cuts to prevent someone else from being fired) when faced with difficult times...bluepilot said:
Socialism is incredibly broad. Pure marxism sounds good in theory but simply doesn't work. Social-democracy however has proved to be a very effective system that causes a wealthy middle class and a low level of poverty. Stalinism on the other hand, which also falls under Socialism, well... kinda sucks.
Yes. The political spectrum is very simple. The further to the left you go, the more government control increases. The further to the right you go, the more government powers decrease. Fascism, as defined by dictionary.com, is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." That is the epitome of total government control. Thus, it is to the extreme left of the political spectrum.Skeleon said:
True Communism as Marx envisioned was actually an extremely right wing system, once parity had been established and the distribution of wealth was accomplished. Unfortunately, every system of government that's tried it so far has gotten stuck at the "distribution of wealth" part and remained lodged firmly to the left.
I will concede however that we may simply be running into a conflict of definitions. I tried to find some articles one way or the other on the issue, and I found about 4 different definitions of the spectrum on as many sites. Not really gonna say anything further on the issue for that reason.
Call me obtuse, but I don't quite understand your agument. How could socialism ruin trust in society when the main focus is the wellbeing of the people as a whole? and forgive me if i'm wrong, But an economic mantra focused on giving everybody ample opportunities could hardly spread corruption. In theory, socialism could work well. It's human greed that stops it working, just like every other idealistic utopian political ideology (Point in case: anarchism)Spitfire175 said:
A basic understanding of post WW1 history would lead to this political layout in germany:Agayek said:
Extreme left wing: communists (KPD)
Left wing: socialist democrats (SPD)
Centre: Zentrum (Z)
right wing: people's party (DVP)
Extreme right wing: Nazi party (NSDAP)
does that help explain it?
Socialism is a very good thing if done properly. The reason America is so against socialism is because way back the gov't said that socialism was bad and those people taught their children that socialism was bad and those people taught there children that socialism was bad.
Why did the gov't say socialism was bad? Easy, because the gov't is on top of everything else in capitalist society. They have the most money and the most power. In a socialist society the gov't officials live just like the rest of the population and the elitest bastards that make up Americas upper-crust don't want to lose all their special privilages.
Why did the gov't say socialism was bad? Easy, because the gov't is on top of everything else in capitalist society. They have the most money and the most power. In a socialist society the gov't officials live just like the rest of the population and the elitest bastards that make up Americas upper-crust don't want to lose all their special privilages.
Agrael said:
No, completely wrong. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, and authoritarian are all political beliefs. Democrat, Republican, Green, and all the others are political parties. Political parties hold political beliefs. For example, the American Democratic Party is generally liberal. The American Republican Party is generally conservative.jboking said:
All that happened in the Soviet Union. Which was communist, so the policy drivng the desicions was socialist. period.Monkeyman8 said:
I think we need to veer away from "isms" and more toward practicality. I admire Germany's Social market economy, which provides both fair business practices and yet still provides for much freedom. Sure, the labor unions are having some disputes right now, but that's just human bickering, not an inherent flaw.
There is no requirement in socialist doctrine for state-owned factories, restriction of civil rights and a compulsory army. What Communism and fascism had in common was totalitarianism. It's totalitarianism that will tend to lead to what you're referring to here, not socialism.Spitfire175 said:
Furthermore, the fascists did not take ownership of factories - they left them in the hands of the existing owners. What they did do was direct industry so it served what the fascist leadership thought were the needs of the state, which is a very different thing from taking ownership of the industry.
Conscription has been used by pretty much every political system under the sun at some point, from pure democracy to dictatorships. It's prevalent in nations that need, want or fear they will have to fight wars, not an expression of left, centre or right wing politics.
1) Now, if we are to take pure socialism, and now we are, since you didn't define any other forms of it. Socialism leads to a dictatorship if it's run by human beings and not machines, that has been proven over and over again. Don't bother to tell me "but there would not be a dictator next time", there would be. It is a part of socialism, the dictatorship of the working class, which could only be represented by a tiny number of people. And these people would be given all the power. All of it. The more power is consentrated to a small group, the more corruption there is, that's just statistics. The more power the goverment has, the less the people trust each other and the state. See the soviet union as a reference, they've got good corruption levels there.Captain Pancake said:
2)Socialism ruins a society with its redivision of wealth. Not letting the most skilled and fortunate to work to their full potential is to hold the society back from developing. This is what socialism does: take from the rich, don't let the good ones be too good, it might upset the ones who didn't work as hard. Competition is the driving force behind human development, has always been. Removing that would crumble a functioning society.
3)"an economic mantra focused on giving everybody ample opportunities" is called capitalism. Socialism (in terms of economy) in general means most of the economy is controlled and the state decides what is produced and where people work. If we read the wikipedia article OP posted. In capitalism everyone has exactly the same base to go on from, the same rights to work/not to work as they please and where they please and then enjoy the fruits of their labour. (if we make it sound very nice) In socialism, the state tells you exactly how and where you'll work and how much you get paid. Starting a business of your own is out of question, that would mean you'd might get paid more than others. Socialism says reducing everyone's chances to the same level and cutting from the high end is equality. In reality this discourages people to work harder. If privately owned compaies/corporations are allowed, it isn't very motivating for people to work hard and increase their standards of livng if the state takes a chunk out of their income and sets them back not to be any richer than they used to be. (I'm not truing to hype capitalism here, just comparing the two)
4)This argument about "socialism could work if there was no human greed involved" is invalid. Socialism is a political/economical theory. Theories can be proved to be incorrect with an empirical research. The Soviet Union was a socialist experiment to achieve communism. It lasted ~70 years and failed. Socialism requires people to be kind, caring and sharing. This is not the reality. People are mean, greedy and selfish. In socialism, humans are the basic agent commiting actions. If a distinguishable part of humanity contradicts with the requirements of socialism, it won't work, even "in theory". Or is there an alternate reality where humans are brainles working machines that have no intrest in themselves? Because that's what is needed.
Which is one of the ideas I differ with him on, which is why I make an effort to focus on the message (a practice you and I seem to be in agreement over). I think Keynes was on the right path with government involvement, I feel there should be a decent amount of regulation on the banking industry, seeing as the privately owned "Federal" Reserve System can run the country's economy however they see fit at the moment.More Fun To Compute said:
Nor do I, glad to see we're in agreement. Capitalism may not be the perfect system (and there never will be one), but if we can better regulate how the super rich special interest(and banking industry) can influence politics, it can be restrengthened in its position as the best system "so far".More Fun To Compute said:
But they really were aware of it, which is why the Federal Reserve System didn't exist, up until 1913. Here's a Thomas Jefferson quote that is often paraphrased:ZippyDSMlee said:
..."And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
True, and it's because of the vague rules surrounding special interest groups that are the problem. It's one of the bigger promises that the current administration broke.ZippyDSMlee said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/
I would give them exactly that much blame, with the other 50% on the 545 people in congress.ZippyDSMlee said:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp
While you are correct you seem to have missed the point of the question. Some people will identify themselves as liberal, not as "just a democrat" as I have heard it put. Liberal beliefs are held largely inside of the democratic party, this is true. So figuring out if someone is either "just a democrat" or a full blown liberal can be achieved through what I previously stated. Remember, some times we have to see things through the eyes of the people, even if we are political science majors.Pax1 said:
His question was directed largely at how people identify themselves. I'm sorry if I answered the question in the same terms that it was asked instead of belittling Agrael.
Like I said in my previous post in here, there's about a nigh unlimited number of definitions for the political spectrum, so I'm not gonna argue about it. All I shall say on the subject is that using the one I've seen as most common, where it acts as a slider of government control with more power to the left and less to the right, both Fascism, Communism (in practice), and many forms of Socialism (again, in practice) fall on the extreme left side of the spectrum, while things like theoretical Communism (post re-distribution of wealth), "true" socialism and Anarchy exist on the far right.Captain Pancake said:
I'm not sure where the differences came into being, but I don't care enough to look any further into it.