Socialism: Pros and Cons

[Meg 368]

Note:  This thread is an offshoot of the US Constitution thread.

Please continue the discussion of socialism here.

Originally posted by: vistla

....  This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. It's those who support the move towards socialism that should move elsewhere.quote>

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: vistla ...."if people feel so oppressed then they can move elsewhere." I knew someone would eventually say this. It's the stock response, you see. I wonder if crown loyalists' said the same thing to Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and the boys? They really complained back in the 1770's! Why should people be expected to evacuate the nation of thier origin because they're, perhaps, disenfranchised, or simply unhappy with the current political trends? This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. It's those who support the move towards socialism that should move elsewhere.quote>

How does socialism even enter into this?

The bill of rights are under attack on multiple fronts by a rogue government hell bent on folding the US into a North American Union and eventual global governance.quote>

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: vistla

It's those who support the move towards socialism that should move elsewhere.quote>

Originally posted by: vistla

Why should people be expected to evacuate the nation of thier origin because they're, perhaps, disenfranchised, or simply unhappy with the current political trends?quote>

Originally posted by: IDS2

Ok...no need to be worried about this. It's not like we're becoming communist or anything...the article implies that he US is turning into North Korea...besides this is old news, it's been happening for a long time and if people feel so oppressed then they can move elsewhere. Because Canada is soooo much better! quote>

Not "turning into", but it's heading in the same direction—less freedom, more government. Slightly more interesting in communication traffic than, say, "socialist" Sweden. Why can't those who like that the government listen in on their calls move, then?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: vistla This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. It's those who support the move towards socialism that should move elsewhere.quote>

Who says Socialism cannot be without 'Freedom and Liberty'? Freedom and liberty are not exclusive to a few select ideological cults...

[vistla 3]

Q: Who says Socialism cannot be without 'Freedom and Liberty'? 

A: Most people that lived under the Soviet yoke during,........let's say; the 60's.

S: Freedom and liberty are not exclusive to a few select ideological cults...quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: vistla This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. It's those who support the move towards socialism that should move elsewhere.quote>

Who says Socialism cannot be without 'Freedom and Liberty'? Freedom and liberty are not exclusive to a few select ideological cults...quote>

Look at it this way: in a socialist state, people are provided with a lot more services. That may seem like a good idea, but at the same time that's robbing people of their freedom.

Example: with a social healthcare system, your tax dollars go to pay for healthcare collectively for everyone. You don't have a choice about that. <<<Key point. But in a capitalistic healthcare system, your money goes to pay for only how much and what kind of healthcare you specifically want. So in that sense you have more freedom.

Of course, if you can't afford all the healthcare you want, then a social healthcare system might seem beneficial. But that's not freedom. That's being given handouts. You can only take what the government is willing to give you, after all.

And this applies to all isues in some way. Essentially, socialism gives people more equality at the expense of reducing their individual freedom. There is a tradeoff, after all. You can't have complete freedom and complete equality at the same time. Because the only way to have equality is to enforce it. It won't occur naturaly. And by enforcing it, you reduce freedom.

True pure sociaism is devoid of all but basic freedom and liberty. True pure liberatrianism is devoid of all but basic equality.

So, basically, it all boils down to which situation you prefer:

A) be free to do whatever you are capable of but perhaps be less capable than you'd like, or

B) be equally capable to everyone else but not be free to do whatever you want

Equality and freedom are not completely mutually exculusive, it isn't one or the other outright, but the more of one you have the less of the other you have. You can't have all of both. Though, you can have none of either.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: vistla

Q: Who says Socialism cannot be without 'Freedom and Liberty'? 

A: Most people that lived under the Soviet yoke during,........let's say; the 60's.quote>

That socialism in the USSR in the 60's gave little individual freedom does not mean that socialism has to be without freedom or liberty, just as democracy or capitalism doesn't necessarily means you have freedom and liberty. Remember 9/11? The 1973 one?

S: Freedom and liberty are not exclusive to a few select ideological cults... 

R: The concepts of freedom and liberty are directly tied to democratic forms of government. They certainly didn't come from Stalin. I wouldn't, however, say that it's exclusive to America, rather that it originally evolved in ancient Greece. Ideological cults? I don't even know where to go with this one.quote>

Freedom and liberty are absolutely not exclusive to America, which is the very reason for this thread. Ancient Greece wasn't a haven for individual freedom either; no state (in this case Athens) with ostracism procedures can ever be considered that.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: vistla This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. quote>

Socialism is an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the level of freedom found within a nation.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Socialism can involve liberty and freedom, it's just once a socialist government is instituted it's taken away by those in power

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: vistla

Q: Who says Socialism cannot be without 'Freedom and Liberty'? 

A: Most people that lived under the Soviet yoke during,........let's say; the 60's.quote>

They chose to be that way, Socialism did not force them to do what they did.

S: Freedom and liberty are not exclusive to a few select ideological cults...

R: The concepts of freedom and liberty are directly tied to democratic forms of government. They certainly didn't come from Stalin. I wouldn't, however, say that it's exclusive to America, rather that it originally evolved in ancient Greece. Ideological cults? I don't even know where to go with this one.quote>

Not directly... as I said, its not exclusive. Democratic governments can choose to be as ruthless as they want, just as Dictators can choose to be as benevolent as they want. Democracys tend to be free'er however since they rely on the public to keep the leading party in Power... thats in a perfect world; Democracys can also become hugely corrupt, as we can see with Mugabe.

Duke - I agree with what you said, but thats purely monetary,  it does not turn a free society into a limited access dictatorship. Taking a persons freedom to pay for health care does not take away a persons freedom to have healthcare, in fact, it makes that freedom greater... the person is free to have healthcare whenever he or she wishes, whereas if your paying for healthcare with your own money, your only as free as your bank balance. But freedom is a funny thing... everybody wants more but to be totally free would mean to live in anarchy... freedom can only go so far before it verges on the dangerous.

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: vistla This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. quote>

Socialism is an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the level of freedom found within a nation.quote>

Socialism is more of an ideaology... I always think of Economic systems as Free, Command or mixed...

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: beebs

Originally posted by: vistla This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. quote>

Socialism is an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the level of freedom found within a nation.quote>

Socialism is more of an ideaology... I always think of Economic systems as Free, Command or mixed...quote>

Unless I've been incorrectly taught, socialism is a command economy.

[vistla 3]

There's alot written here about socialist/communist societies having all of this freedom. Anyone have an example of one?

[vistla 3]

Unless I've been incorrectly taught, socialism is a command economy.quote>

 

No, in fact you were taught correctly. Here's how Websters defines 'socialism'; (it's a noun, by the way) "social system with governmental ownership of the means of production and the distribution of goods".

Communism; (also a noun) "social system based on the common ownership of property".

And finally, here's my favorite,...

Democracy; "government by the people".

........although I will admit that it is not without it's flaws.

[RJ11 0]

Socialism is an ideal form of government that has no chance in heck of working. Now now.. where is our U.S. Constitution? First of all, before talking socialism, with the crazy huge government/nanny state people. What about the second amendment? Theirs a discussion about wanting to ban guns on here and people have the guts to say wheres the Constitution and involve socialism? Please.

[vistla 3]

Originally posted by: RJ11 ..........that has no chance in heck of working.quote>

I agree.

What about the second amendment?quote>

I love the second amendment! It's one of my favorites.

 

 Theirs a discussion about wanting to ban guns on here and people have the guts to say wheres the Constitution and involve socialism? Please.quote>

 

What?

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: RJ11 Socialism is an ideal form of government that has no chance in heck of working. quote>

Bingo. Of course Socialism doesn't work, the only way it would work is if everyone was perfect and willing to agree with eachother, and if we were like that there would be no need for Socialism in the first place.   See, we humans are, well, stupid and greedy. And no matter what kind of government you try we're always going to screw it up.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

You do realise the UK is socialist :\ And we aren't communists. We have a free market and we are a capitalist country.

[belfastuniguy 18]

You do realise the UK is socialist :\ And we aren't communists. We have a free market and we are a capitalist country.quote>

We're not really a socialist country per se. More like a democratic socialist country. The UK and many countries in Europe have developed this system where they have such things like universal healthcare and government intervention in several areas others, such as in the US would just find utterly appalling......while at the same time have developed a strong and free economy. London despite being the capital of a 'socialist' country is the worlds leader financial centre, European countries in general are doing better in terms of market stability and economic development than the United States. We have better education, better health in terms of both access and general statistics. I think the American fear of socialism is somewhat based in confusion and mis-understanding. As well as of course the highly flawed opinion that equates socialism with communism...which are COMPLETELY different things.

I'm not a socialist, but I can see the system we have in the UK and in European nations does work.

[JanYpe 17]

Quite frankly I don't see the point of this topic. It got split from the other thread at my post, so let me say this about that post: that was the politest way of expressing how mind-numbingly silly I thought it was to connect socialsm (omg help scary word) to the topic at hand.

There is simply no use in sitting here when every genius in the joint  is just going to come by to give their own tattered little view and definition of socialism. Full socialism is as idiotic as full untamed capitalism, but I see little point in giving explanations when people just want to lay their own ignorant prejudices on the table.

[fukuda 351]

^ Agreed

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Quite frankly I don't see the point of this topic. It got split from the other thread at my post, so let me say this about that post: that was the politest way of expressing how mind-numbingly silly I thought it was to connect socialsm (omg help scary word) to the topic at hand.

quote>

I think this topic could be educational.  There are many people here who don't know the difference between socialism and communism. or understand the varying degrees of socialism, just like there are varying degrees of capitalism.

People seemed to be very interested in pursuing the topic.   Which is fine but, as you said, this discussion didn't belong where it was.  Which is why I split the topics.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: vistla This country was founded on the principals of freedom and liberty. Not the ideals of socialism. It's those who support the move towards socialism that should move elsewhere.quote>

Who says Socialism cannot be without 'Freedom and Liberty'? Freedom and liberty are not exclusive to a few select ideological cults...quote>

Look at it this way: in a socialist state, people are provided with a lot more services. That may seem like a good idea, but at the same time that's robbing people of their freedom.

Example: with a social healthcare system, your tax dollars go to pay for healthcare collectively for everyone. You don't have a choice about that. <<<Key point. But in a capitalistic healthcare system, your money goes to pay for only how much and what kind of healthcare you specifically want. So in that sense you have more freedom.

Of course, if you can't afford all the healthcare you want, then a social healthcare system might seem beneficial. But that's not freedom. That's being given handouts. You can only take what the government is willing to give you, after all.

And this applies to all isues in some way. Essentially, socialism gives people more equality at the expense of reducing their individual freedom. There is a tradeoff, after all. You can't have complete freedom and complete equality at the same time. Because the only way to have equality is to enforce it. It won't occur naturaly. And by enforcing it, you reduce freedom.

True pure sociaism is devoid of all but basic freedom and liberty. True pure liberatrianism is devoid of all but basic equality.

So, basically, it all boils down to which situation you prefer:

A) be free to do whatever you are capable of but perhaps be less capable than you'd like, or

B) be equally capable to everyone else but not be free to do whatever you want

Equality and freedom are not completely mutually exculusive, it isn't one or the other outright, but the more of one you have the less of the other you have. You can't have all of both. Though, you can have none of either.quote>

See, I don' t buy that argument. As ANY minority view can testify, there are unending lists of things we don't get to choose. Do I want the mega-interstate in Texas to be built.... heck no. Do I want the US to spend more than every other country combined on defense, heck no. Socialist or not, its part of a democracy where you don't get to decide EVERY dollar. If that were so, this country would be a complete wasteland. Even in a capitalistic health care system, we don't get to choose the fact that premiums are higher than they should be due to the lack of preventative health care. I don't CHOOSE to allow people to suffer for that to come back in higher health care premiums. Democracy does not and never will allow ALL views to get EVERYTHING they want, particularly since many are incompatible. Why is health care capable of being singled out? Cause people fear the state taking over it irrationally. And what you call handouts, I call a god-given service. I'm not looking to give money for nothing. This is money for SURVIVAL. Would you deny water to a community? Or is that a hand out? It should very well be a service. Besides, without citing numbers, the US economy loses hundreds of billions (or more?) in lost production due to illnesses. I certainly didn't choose to weaken our economy cause of some wishy-washy view of private health care.  The problem with a private health care system is that the LACK of healthcare is completely externalized and not factored in (much like pollution). If somehow, you could internalize the lack of healthcare and force companies to pay for every sick worker, I guarantee employers would be demanding universal health care. But since its not, companies can say "eh... not my problem".

True and pure socialism doesn't necessarily negate personal freedom. You still CHOOSE to use services... if for some reason you want to be sick, then you don't have to go. Don't wanna take state sanctioned rail,... then walk. The choices in a socialist system is the same as the choices in a capitalist system... the only difference is where the money goes. But does that really matter, no because in the end, its still money leaving your wallet. BUT socialist services don't necessarily have to turn a profit. Thats whats wrong with capitalist systems. So much of the profits are sapped not to improve service, but to pad wallets. And yes, I don't believe in Reaganomics, I don't believe that helping rich people helps everyone. Many of the rich are rich by NOT spending money. Give 100 million to one person, and they might spend 50 million... sound good for the economy? Sure, but give 100 million to 1 million people and I gaurantee that it'll all be spent and end up back at that rich guys pockets ANYWAY. Many of our wealthy simply live of the interest of savings. That essentially means that their principle is out of the market (until they die, but if you were a true capitalist, you'd be against taxing estates...).

Capitalism has a following because capitalism has AWESOME public relations ( guess that only befits a system that depends on selling itself). People believe that you can get ahead yet many other semi-socialist countries are similarly developed or more developed (see Scandinavia). And seeing that half my family has suffered from extreme poverty, I personally believe that the mediocre benefit of the whole is far better than the phenomenal benefit for less than 0.5% of the population.

I don't see how people connect socialism to "I can't do what I want". There's PLENTY of room to do what you want. Personally, I don't feel like "I can do what I want" as is because I don't have the money.

[sakarr 1]

i do consider myself a socialist, and im proud to say that =]

just to add my few bits in here, socialism isnt without freedom and rights. socialism isabout equality and teh idea that everyone is equal and should be treated equally. it is not about taking everything away from everyone and giving it all to the state. that would be more along the lines of communism, which is notttttttt the same as socialism. economic socialism is where the government is set up to actually take care of the people it governs. in fact, most of the governments in europe are socialist or semi-socialist governments, and as far as i know, europe is as free, if not more free, than the united states

[screamingman12 30]

Originally posted by: confused04 >See, I don' t buy that argument. quote>

Exactly, tell me how someone can have the "freedom to choose" if they are shackled in debt with healthcare bills?

[underwearman2007 0]

dude, Socialism is Communism. And Communists are evil.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: underwearman2007 dude, Socialism is Communism. And Communists are evil.quote>

[M-SIL 2]

Pros: Free College Education and Healthcare (I think)!

Cons: It breeds laziness, hurts economic creativity, and  you're pretty much at the same level as everyone else which really sucks.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I'll add my opinions, since this is an interesting discussion.

'Socialism' is a governmental system where all citizens are equal legally and economically.

That is the difference between socialism and other ideologies. Socialism and Communism have economic and legal equality, most others have legal but not economic equality, and some have no legal or economic equality.

Contrary to popular belief, I do not consider the USSR to be a communist state. Everything was owned by the state, instead of the people collectively. I think it was more of a blend between socialism and totalitarianism.

Socialism can be with or without freedom and liberty. All of the self-described socialist countries to date have had little freedom and liberty. A state can have socialism and liberty.

An example of this is the more moderate Democratic Socialism, such as the UK. The British have rights and liberties, and as a result have more freedom than the USSR's citizens did. However, the government is more powerful than the United States.

Socialism has it's benefits, such as equal treatment, increase of status for the poor, single-payer health insurance, etc.

It also has it's flaws, just like any other system. 

I believe that equal economic status mandated by the state deprives the people of ambition to better their position. As a result, the economy stagnates and the state is at risk of failure.

Regulation of the economy is good, as it ensures fair treatment for the consumers and competing companies. But there is a difference between fair and equal treatment.

Socialism, in my opinion, does not work because it eliminates the ambition to work harder and increase economic/monetary status. It also has a risk of decreasing innovation, since there is no incentive to benefit from inventions, due to equal economic status.

I'm not a communist or socialist. I'm more of a liberal. 

Equal under the law is essential. 

Equal under the economy is not good.

Ecomonic fairness with competition laws and consumer protection is good.

In short, equality is good. Too much or too little is not.

- Patricius Maximus

[City2TheMax 3]

hmm... personally I support democratic socialism as can be seen in a lot of European countries. There needs to be more government intervention in some areas b/c some people just can't help themselves - think of the people living on minimum wage.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: underwearman2007 dude, Socialism is Communism. And Communists are evil.quote>

quote>

Its a matter of oppinion. If you believe that everybody who disagree's with you is an enemy, the people who question you are traitors and killing people is the right way to combat desent, then yes, your evil and should die... but that doesn't neccesarily need to be linked with Socialism/Communism. You can't call Communism evil because nobody has achieved it therefor it hasn't effected the world one iota... the word has been flug around abit the past 100 years but calling an Apple an Orange doesn't make it so. As I said before, People choose to be evil but socialism does not force them or encourage them to be so; I feel many dictators around the world use it as an excuse to gain A. The Majority of Support and B. Use the foolish words of Marx to take 'Dictatorship over the proletariat'.