Socialism

Some of the misconceptions in this thread are astounding. Hitler was not a socialist/communist; Nazism has been analyzed by political theorists extensively and is thought to be a comepletely different politcal system to any of those that we know. It was not socialist, it was not facist and it was not capitalist; it borrowed certain aspects from each economic/politcal system and it formed a highly effective if ruthless state.

Second of all, as previously pointed out socialists are not for the abolition of private property, many on the far left are, however, that simply does not involve socialists. Socialists primarily believe in a rigourous re distribution of wealth. Surely it is not acceptable for 5% of the population to own over 95% of the wealth. Why have billionaires and people starving, when we can have niether?

Universal your argument is a blatant strawman. Socialists have a great deal of respect for ownership; ownership of a house, ownership of a car, just not ownership of multi national corporations that seemingly stitch up our globe between them, they view this wealth as having been accumulated by theft in the form of wage slavery and the theft of natural resources that belong to the people of the country in which they were found. When a huge oil deposit is found in Dubai, why should a huge corporation benefit whilst the rest of the people watch the oil exported and benefit nothing? Surely if this natural resource was nationalised the wealth created could be and has been in the past, more evenly distributed.
Socialism, as stated previously is a broad politcal stance that encompasses a number of different ideas. view as socialist.
Many would refer to the model in Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries as socialist. The healthcare system in this country has saved my life twice, a system that most would refer to as socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Some of the misconceptions in this thread are astounding. Hitler was not a socialist/communist; Nazism has been analyzed by political theorists extensively and is thought to be a comepletely different politcal system to any of those that we know. It was not socialist, it was not facist and it was not capitalist; it borrowed certain aspects from each economic/politcal system and it formed a highly effective if ruthless state.

---

Fascism is a theory of national socialism. It can be described as socialism of the right. Here is an article by George Reisman which is rather good in explaining this point:
Why Nazism was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian

Also, how can you say Nazism isn't fascism?
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...Socialism.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Second of all, as previously pointed out socialists are not for the abolition of private property, many on the far left are, however, that simply does not involve socialists. Socialists primarily believe in a rigourous re distribution of wealth. Surely it is not acceptable for 5% of the population to own over 95% of the wealth. Why have billionaires and people starving, when we can have niether?

---

Let us theorize that what you are saying is correct, I'm not conceding that it is but I'm trying to show a point under your system. Let us say there is a complete equality revolution that transpires tomorrow. If you are not for the abolition of private property, what is stopping those from gaining more wealth then others and again pushing the system which you deem unacceptable? And also if you have a respect for private property, an actual respect, not just lipservice, then by what right do you take private property? I would also like to hear which Socialists announce that the abolition of private property is not their goal. Perhaps Fascists who want to control the private property of others through the state, but I don't think you are a fascist. Perhaps I am misjudging you though, we really haven't gotten into a drawn out discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imran_p

Universal your argument is a blatant strawman. Socialists have a great deal of respect for ownership; ownership of a house, ownership of a car, just not ownership of multi national corporations that seemingly stitch up our globe between them, they view this wealth as having been accumulated by theft in the form of wage slavery and the theft of natural resources that belong to the people of the country in which they were found. When a huge oil deposit is found in Dubai, why should a huge corporation benefit whilst the rest of the people watch the oil exported and benefit nothing? Surely if this natural resource was nationalised the wealth created could be and has been in the past, more evenly distributed.
Socialism, as stated previously is a broad politcal stance that encompasses a number of different ideas. view as socialist.
Many would refer to the model in Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries as socialist. The healthcare system in this country has saved my life twice, a system that most would refer to as socialist.

---

First off, it is not just billionaires that socialists want to go after. It is everybody with above average wealth. Your question about why billionaires should be allowed to keep their money has two answers. It is THEIR money, and their right to be billionaires is what influenced them to work their asses off to create so many zillions of jobs and such an extreme amount of economic stimulation, which greatly benefits the system as a whole. If you put limits on how rich people can be, they lose interest in the game and the system itself suffers.

We do not have wage slavery in the U.S. or Europe. People are perfectly free to switch jobs and to climb ladders. A lot of people are pissed at others for being successful while not trying to do better for themselves. They don't want to put out effort, so they try to feel better about themselves by trying to bring down those who have gotten somewhere. It is sick and pathetic, and it is the chief root of socialist ideology. In my country and yours, people can get somewhere if they try. If they don't try, they have no business bringing down those who did.

Resources should first go to the people who OWN the land and then to whoever can buy them from those owners. They do not belong to anybody who doesn't earn them. Rewarding lack of effort while punishing effort is extremely unfair and also terrible for the system.

What would be the result of distribution of grades? I'm not saying grades are as important as money. I am just illustrating the ineffectiveness of reward distribution. What would the result be?

Name some people who are starving in the U.S. or Britain. As I have said many times, our "poor" have cell phones an X Boxes, and our homeless people are often fat. I have yet to see an underweight homeless American. I also have yet to successfully encourage a homeless American to go to the unemployment office.

I gotta say...punishing effort is NOT fair. Its one thing if its a rich spoiled brat born in to money. But, at the same time, it is still that child's parent's money and they have a right to choose what they do with it. It may not be moral, whatever they do, but it is still their right to not have to give it away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please explain that. How do people who are committed to taking away the property of others (or "making it everybody else's property") respect the property of others? I have never heard a socialist say anything like, "Well, it is THEIR property, and we need to consider that." The matter means absolutely nothing to them.

---

You're thinking of an extreme form of socialism, one in which everything is shared - houses, cars, computers, spouses, kids, everything. That's certainly not the only form of socialism around.
You can be a socialist, and still believe in owning - not sharing - these things. The basic idea of socialism is that, err, welfare should be shared, but it doesn't mean you have to abolish all differences. It can be so simple as to care for the weak and ill, and make every one have the same chance - regardless of their parents pay-check. It means you put up a safety net in society, so that even if you make a few bad choices you're not suddenly doomed and have an option to recover.
It doesn't have to mean that everyone should have the exact same pay-check, regardless of effort and skill - it means that (ideally) no-one has to live in inhumane conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Let us theorize that what you are saying is correct, I'm not conceding that it is but I'm trying to show a point under your system. Let us say there is a complete equality revolution that transpires tomorrow. If you are not for the abolition of private property, what is stopping those from gaining more wealth then others and again pushing the system which you deem unacceptable? And also if you have a respect for private property, an actual respect, not just lipservice, then by what right do you take private property? I would also like to hear which Socialists announce that the abolition of private property is not their goal. Perhaps Fascists who want to control the private property of others through the state, but I don't think you are a fascist. Perhaps I am misjudging you though, we really haven't gotten into a drawn out discussion.

---

You assume that being a socialist automatically means you're revolutionary. This is wrong. Therefore your argument have no weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

First off, it is not just billionaires that socialists want to go after. It is everybody with above average wealth. Your question about why billionaires should be allowed to keep their money has two answers. It is THEIR money, and their right to be billionaires is what influenced them to work their asses off to create so many zillions of jobs and such an extreme amount of economic stimulation, which greatly benefits the system as a whole. If you put limits on how rich people can be, they lose interest in the game and the system itself suffers.

---

It's not like the idea is to is to take every penny. If you're a brilliant businessman, you'll still have a lot of money under a socialist rule, just not quite as much under a capitalism rule. And if you've got a few billions just lying around, it's not like you can't afford to pay a little more tax than everyone else. So people still strive for riches. Though I've always wondered why being a good businessman is really the only thing that can land you such wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We do not have wage slavery in the U.S. or Europe. People are perfectly free to switch jobs and to climb ladders. A lot of people are pissed at others for being successful while not trying to do better for themselves. They don't want to put out effort, so they try to feel better about themselves by trying to bring down those who have gotten somewhere. It is sick and pathetic, and it is the chief root of socialist ideology. In my country and yours, people can get somewhere if they try. If they don't try, they have no business bringing down those who did.

---

It's not all based on effort either. The richest men isn't necessarily those who put the most effort into it, a good deal of luck is involved too. And of course skill plays a role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Resources should first go to the people who OWN the land and then to whoever can buy them from those owners. They do not belong to anybody who doesn't earn them.

---

There are resources that can't really be owned by anyone. Take a waterfall, for instance. They can be used to produce power. And while you may own the land, do you own the power generated? You don't own the water. And what if someone further up the river changes the river-course, so that it no longer runs through your property, is that fair?
And as for something not belonging to someone who haven't earned it, isn't much of the land owned really a coincidence? When your forefather bought that land, they didn't know the river could be used for power. They just happened to choose that spot, rather than the one next to it. Have they really "earned" it, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Rewarding lack of effort while punishing effort is extremely unfair and also terrible for the system.

---

You constantly bring this up, and yet it is not true.
The system is not meant to reward those who're just lazy, it's meant to help the unfortunate. For instance here, if you've had a job for a certain period, and you're then unlucky enough to get fired and you're unable to find another job, you'll get money while you're looking. But if you stop looking, then the extra cash stops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Name some people who are starving in the U.S. or Britain. As I have said many times, our "poor" have cell phones an X Boxes, and our homeless people are often fat. I have yet to see an underweight homeless American. I also have yet to successfully encourage a homeless American to go to the unemployment office.

---

Of course I can't name anyone. Though I could have said "Oh, well, I know this John Doe who're really trying, and ..." but if I did, what would it mean? Nothing. Now, it is a fact that there are poor people in the US, even if you haven't met any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

You assume that being a socialist automatically means you're revolutionary. This is wrong. Therefore your argument have no weight.

---

Well in some respects you have to be a revolutionary if you are trying to overthrow the status quo. A radical, a revolutionary, there are many titles. Also being a 'radical' does not infer one is violent. I am a radical libertarian yet I am against coercion. I think that my point still stands though. If we were to have equality tomorrow, then logically speaking what is stopping the equals from turning into the haves and have nots? I don't think there is a way you can make amends without some transgression against property rights and if you are going to transgress against private property in order to make sure people get food, shelter, clothing, then there is little difference between that and luxury items when it comes to the principle of it. Perhaps a good analogy may clear this point. Say I go to the opposite sex and ask 'Hey will you sleep with me for a million dollars?' and perhaps I will get the answer 'hmmm...well I guess' I mean its a million dollars. Now after getting this answer what if I asked another question: 'Well will you sleep with me for 5 dollars?" the person would of course be enraged and say "What kind of person do you think I am?" Well we already know what kind of person you are, its just a matter of how high a value you treat yourself. And to compare that to socialism, it has already been established that you are willing to deny private property if there are others 'suffering' so it is not a question of whether or not you respect private property, its really a question of toleration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well in some respects you have to be a revolutionary if you are trying to overthrow the status quo. A radical, a revolutionary, there are many titles. Also being a 'radical' does not infer one is violent. I am a radical libertarian yet I am against coercion.

---

A revolutionary believes a revolution is the way, but socialism could be achieved through democracy as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I think that my point still stands though. If we were to have equality tomorrow, then logically speaking what is stopping the equals from turning into the haves and have nots? I don't think there is a way you can make amends without some transgression against property rights and if you are going to transgress against private property in order to make sure people get food, shelter, clothing, then there is little difference between that and luxury items when it comes to the principle of it.

---

Ah, I'm sorry. I thought your point was that if there was a revolution, it would go badly with the conditions returning to how they were before, and therefore it is wrong to believe in socialism. Guess I misunderstood you there.

Now to answer your point, though (let's hope I get it right this time), the aim of socialism isn't (or isn't necessarily) total equality. If everyone were total equals, I agree that you'd have to either transgress against private property or use other drastic means, but you don't need everyone to be totally equal. If there were no advantages to taking a higher education, then fewer would. If making a discovery or invention meant that everyone would immediately have access to it, then the motivation for progress would be less. And that simply isn't a good system.
However, having mega differences in society isn't in people's interest either. that some should have a lot (and I mean a LOT, not just more than others), while others have nothing. So socialism means that those who would have had a lot have a bit less, but still a lot, while those who had nothing now have something, if not all that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And to compare that to socialism, it has already been established that you are willing to deny private property if there are others 'suffering' so it is not a question of whether or not you respect private property, its really a question of toleration.

---

What do you mean by "it has already been established that you are willing to deny private property if there are others 'suffering'"? If you consider your income to be your "private property", then yes, I believe that a little more of your income should be taxed, and that it should be used for everyones good such as free hospital care and more affordable dental and to take care of disabled people who're unable to make proper a living. That kind of stuff.
But I'd not suggest to pawn your personal belongings, and if you're saved up money then that's your money, no questions about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

Now to answer your point, though (let's hope I get it right this time), the aim of socialism isn't (or isn't necessarily) total equality. If everyone were total equals, I agree that you'd have to either transgress against private property or use other drastic means, but you don't need everyone to be totally equal. If there were no advantages to taking a higher education, then fewer would. If making a discovery or invention meant that everyone would immediately have access to it, then the motivation for progress would be less. And that simply isn't a good system.
However, having mega differences in society isn't in people's interest either. that some should have a lot (and I mean a LOT, not just more than others), while others have nothing. So socialism means that those who would have had a lot have a bit less, but still a lot, while those who had nothing now have something, if not all that much.

---

Well this is confusing, you start off saying you don't think everyone is going to be equal..yet you say differences in society are bad. So you seem to imply that equality can't be achieved..but we should try anyways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

What do you mean by "it has already been established that you are willing to deny private property if there are others 'suffering'"? If you consider your income to be your "private property", then yes, I believe that a little more of your income should be taxed, and that it should be used for everyones good such as free hospital care and more affordable dental and to take care of disabled people who're unable to make proper a living. That kind of stuff.
But I'd not suggest to pawn your personal belongings, and if you're saved up money then that's your money, no questions about it.

---

Again another confusing statement, you say that people should be taxed a little more but then say if you save your money...then its your money. Well if it is my money then by what right is there taxation especially when it is against my will?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well this is confusing, you start off saying you don't think everyone is going to be equal..yet you say differences in society are bad. So you seem to imply that equality can't be achieved..but we should try anyways?

---

No, I didn't say we should try for equality, for total and absolute equality, I said we should avoid too big differences. I'm not saying differences are bad, I'm saying that those who have very little or nothing should be helped, and I'm saying that everyone should have access to basic welfare, such as hospital care. Now, if there was a way of doing that without making anybody pay taxes, then great! Unfortunately, there isn't, so paying taxes on your income is required for this to be possible.
So you see, it isn't really about the differences. If everyone did all right with money, then some people could be as filthy rich as they wanted and I wouldn't care. See the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Again another confusing statement, you say that people should be taxed a little more but then say if you save your money...then its your money. Well if it is my money then by what right is there taxation especially when it is against my will?

---

I'm primarily talking about taxes on income, and perhaps when buying something. Not quite sure how I feel about property taxes. But I do know I consider that a lesser evil than the "every man for himself" system in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

You're thinking of an extreme form of socialism, one in which everything is shared - houses, cars, computers, spouses, kids, everything. That's certainly not the only form of socialism around.
You can be a socialist, and still believe in owning - not sharing - these things. The basic idea of socialism is that, err, welfare should be shared, but it doesn't mean you have to abolish all differences. It can be so simple as to care for the weak and ill, and make every one have the same chance - regardless of their parents pay-check. It means you put up a safety net in society, so that even if you make a few bad choices you're not suddenly doomed and have an option to recover.
It doesn't have to mean that everyone should have the exact same pay-check, regardless of effort and skill - it means that (ideally) no-one has to live in inhumane conditions.

---

Then you are not a true socialist. You just believe in having a little bit of socialism, just like Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

It's not all based on effort either. The richest men isn't necessarily those who put the most effort into it, a good deal of luck is involved too. And of course skill plays a role.

---

I agree. Effort is still a major factor in the big picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

There are resources that can't really be owned by anyone. Take a waterfall, for instance. They can be used to produce power. And while you may own the land, do you own the power generated? You don't own the water. And what if someone further up the river changes the river-course, so that it no longer runs through your property, is that fair?
And as for something not belonging to someone who haven't earned it, isn't much of the land owned really a coincidence? When your forefather bought that land, they didn't know the river could be used for power. They just happened to choose that spot, rather than the one next to it. Have they really "earned" it, then?

---

I think governments own rivers. It wouldn't make sense for a private citizen to own just part of a river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

You constantly bring this up, and yet it is not true.
The system is not meant to reward those who're just lazy, it's meant to help the unfortunate. For instance here, if you've had a job for a certain period, and you're then unlucky enough to get fired and you're unable to find another job, you'll get money while you're looking. But if you stop looking, then the extra cash stops.

---

Like I said, you are not a true socialist. You sound more like a regular Democrat or Republican (in American terms).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

Of course I can't name anyone. Though I could have said "Oh, well, I know this John Doe who're really trying, and ..." but if I did, what would it mean? Nothing. Now, it is a fact that there are poor people in the US, even if you haven't met any.

---

I didn't ask you to name people who are merely poor. I asked you to name people who are starving. You live in Norway, and I don't know much about your country other than its beauty and music, but in the U.S. we do not have a starvation problem. We have rich "poor" people and fat homeless people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you are not a true socialist. You just believe in having a little bit of socialism, just like Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.

---

I'm not too sure about that. As you might know the Scandinavian countries are considered to be pretty socialistic, and my opinions are defiantly on the left side of the spectrum. I guess you almost could put me down as a social democrat, but really I'm a bit left of that.
However it does seem like you and many other have a very strict definition of socialism, seemingly as a synonym of communism, while I have a more liberal view of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't ask you to name people who are merely poor. I asked you to name people who are starving. You live in Norway, and I don't know much about your country other than its beauty and music, but in the U.S. we do not have a starvation problem. We have rich "poor" people and fat homeless people.

---

No, you might not have a starvation problem, I don't really know, but you do have a health care problem. And the US is mightily privatized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khh

No, you might not have a starvation problem, I don't really know, but you do have a health care problem. And the US is mightily privatized.

---

Our healthcare problem is hyped up by the media. You can get health insurance for about $150 a month here. The people who don't have it generally choose not to have it. Healthcare and insurance would cost a lot less if our crazy lawsuit problem were not so out of hand. Caps on punitive damages would clean that right up.

He got one thing wrong. The federal reserve is a private bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

He got one thing wrong. The federal reserve is a private bank.

---

It's as private as mcdonalds :)

lets say they called mcdonalds:

The federal mcdonalds...people would immediately assume its a branch or part of government, ahh how its so easy to fool the sheeple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

He got one thing wrong. The federal reserve is a private bank.

---

That was created through a piece of government legislation. The Fed is a strange hybrid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

The federal mcdonalds...people would immediately assume its a branch or part of government, ahh how its so easy to fool the sheeple.

---

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png

okay i admit mcdonalds was a terrible name choice, how about the Federal Express.

That could fool many into believing its a federal program for delivery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

okay i admit mcdonalds was a terrible name choice, how about the Federal Express.

That could fool many into believing its a federal program for delivery.

---

More like if the Federal Express was created by the government, was given a monopoly on the services it provides and is able to create its own profits out of thin out in which people are legally obligated to accept.