Socialism

[Typhoid]

I read a little debate that sparked this, and I thought I should just make a new thread rather than jamming the other one up.


But in your view, why is socialism a bad idea? Don't use specific examples of what Obama's doing and how it's not going well - but really, what do you (Not aimed directly at anyone, just anyone in general) have against (or for) socialism?
Why is covered health care a bad idea, in your eyes? Why is "Socialism" the new faux-pas word to use to you? Why are you so afraid of a little bit of "socialism"?

[BreakABone]

I think the fundamental flaw in thinking of socialism is while the output is equal for all, the input isn't. People see it as a system that encourages the weak and the lazy to get by since others will pick up their slack and still reap the same rewards.

[Professor S]

This is from a post I made in 2004:

Lets look at the details of a passively originated and "perfect" socialist company.

Widget Inc.

Widget Inc. is 100% owned by the employees in equal shares and each employees are paid exactly the same on a profit sharing basis. Sounds great, right? Except for the fact that you have no leadership.

Now, recognizing a CEO is elected by the owners/empliyees of the company and much of the stress of everyday decision making is put on his shoulders. The everyday workers put in 8 hour days, while he often sleeps on the couch in his office crunching numbers late into the night as his leadership will be held accountable if the company is a failure. Meanwhile, he is still being paid the same as the 8 hour a day workers.

He takes his case to the workers and requests more money for his time and importance to the company. The workers, being true socialists, refuse but offer to allow him to elect Vice Presidents to help with the beurocracy of running the company. The CEO chooses several VPs who are then given different tasks to ease his load. They become a huge success and the company succeeds tremendously under the CEO's leadership... and he's getting pissed.

-He selected the VPs
-He's made the decisions that have been profitable to the company
-He's built the company up from his ideas

And he is making as much money and receiving as many rewards as the janitor.

Now accross the street there is a Capitalist company that is doing pretty good but not as well as the Socialist company. The Widget Inc. CEO sees the other company's CEO driving a Porsche and asks why he is trying so hard to make his company a success when those that are not nearly as important as him, disposable employees, make as much money as he does. The company accross the street apporaches him and offers him 10 times what he makes now, and he leaves to work for what he is worth.

The employees are pissed too. There is no advancement. The janitors, factory workers, middle managers are stuck in ruts. No one advances because there is no point. Everyone makes the same money so why bother trying to get a job that is harder for the same money? Life becomes a drudgery. Work suffers and profits decline. The CEO has left so leadership has deteriorated. What made the company such a success to begin with has imploded, a victim of its very nature.

Meanwhile in the Capitalist company, advancement and ambition abounds. There is consistent turn over, as employees accept higher paying jobs and more responsibilty from other Capitalist companies, so internal promotion is the norm. Their employees are paid less then at Widget Inc. initially, but their lives are progressing and the opportunity to achieve more is real and tangible. Wideget Inc's CEO has come aboard with a new vigor with the promise of reward for hard work and a bustling, ever changing work environment. Their company reaches higher and higher profit margins.

It is not the functionality of the structure of Socialism and Communism that is its inherent flaw. It is that these philosophies require humans to be forever apathetic to their own self-worth for them to succeed. This defies the very nature of man.

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/sho...ight=socialism

That pretty much sums up my feelings on socialism.

[Bond]

Are you asking concerning the theory of total Socialism, or enacting a few Socialist policies?

The dictionary defines socialism as:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

So, briefly, from the definition we can surmise that socialism nationalizes the idea of production and property. There is no individual production, no individual property (this is the key point). An individual does not bear the fruit of his or her labor, but, rather, the community does. An individual is not entitled to property rights, but, rather, the community is entitled to property rights. The nationalized economy, also, controls all aspects of production within the country, ie. a centrally planned economy. Historically, all centrally planned economies have failed to meet the demand of its citizens, and have collapsed within when confronted with capitalist economic policies. Socialism, as a philosophy, denies the inherent inequalities within humanity, and tries to economically equalize them. Capitalism, on the other hand, accepts the inherent inequalities within humanity, and tries to progress individuals positively.

The above was my breakdown of a pure socialist state. Enacting a few socialist policies in an otherwise capitalist country is quite different and more complex, similar to what one would find in Western and Eastern Europe.

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."

"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."

- Ayn Rand


What do you think, Typhoid?

[Typhoid]

Are you asking concerning the theory of total Socialism, or enacting a few Socialist policies?

A few socialist policies, not all-out socialism.
I'm aware of what the definition is. I know what socialism is.

Why are a few socialist things that might be better for the "greater good" threatening your way of life and scaring your children while they sleep.

What do you think, Typhoid?

I think a lot of what you were quoting towards the end is a total load of shit. When people think Socialism, they immediately think Communism. I suppose that is the idea of why they keep saying "socialism", however. You don't need to follow socialism directly to the point to have socialist valus, and some socialist principles.

Nobody's mentioning taking anything away from anyone. Nobody is talking of abolishing private property or anything of the matter.

What is the loss of public healthcare? What is there to lose from representation for the states by population?

I agree, enacting some socialist ideas in a large population will be hard. Not everything, however will be socialized. The main issue, is obviously healthcare. It's nearly ludicrous to have private healthcare with a population as large as the U.S.

I'm not talking about full-blown everybody's completely equal communism. But an everybody-at-least-deserves-to-be-treated-for-their-wounds system.

Double Edit:

And by the way, I'm not looking for quotes, links, definitions. I want to know your collective personal opinions and why.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

A few socialist policies, not all-out socialism.
I'm aware of what the definition is. I know what socialism is.

Why are a few socialist things that might be better for the "greater good" threatening your way of life and scaring your children while they sleep.

Ah, okay. I apologize for the misconception. What socialist policies specifically then are you asking for an opinion on?

I think a lot of what you were quoting towards the end is a total load of shit. When people think Socialism, they immediately think Communism. I suppose that is the idea of why they keep saying "socialism", however. You don't need to follow socialism directly to the point to have socialist valus, and some socialist principles.

Nobody's mentioning taking anything away from anyone. Nobody is talking of abolishing private property or anything of the matter.

Interesting view on Ayn Rand.

I apologize for quoting those passages, again, I was unclear as to whether we were speaking of Socialism in general, or specific Socialist policies.

What is the loss of public healthcare? What is there to lose from representation for the states by population?

I don't understand these two questions. The House of Representatives functions under the premise of your second question.

I agree, enacting some socialist ideas in a large population will be hard. Not everything, however will be socialized. The main issue, is obviously healthcare. It's nearly ludicrous to have private healthcare with a population as large as the U.S.

Okay, so are we just talking about health care reform specifically, then? We've touched on this issue before in other threads.

I'm honestly confused as to what we should be discussing.

[Typhoid]

I'm honestly confused as to what we should be discussing.

But in your view, why is socialism a bad idea?

So far, the only person who actually got it, is Babsy. He didnt link or quote anything. He just gave his personal view.


Bond, I'm not talking healthcare only. I was using that as an example, clearly.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

A few socialist policies, not all-out socialism.
I'm aware of what the definition is. I know what socialism is.

Why are a few socialist things that might be better for the "greater good" threatening your way of life and scaring your children while they sleep.

That depends on what you define as few and and what you consider the "greater good". Personally, even the idea of a "greater good" is terrifying. Most of the horrors of the 20th century were a result of trying to achieve a "greater good".

I agree, enacting some socialist ideas in a large population will be hard. Not everything, however will be socialized. The main issue, is obviously healthcare. It's nearly ludicrous to have private healthcare with a population as large as the U.S.

Actually the size of the US is one of the reasons I'm so against public healthcare. The larger an institution is, the worse it is in meeting demands and the more likely it is that the customers will become a number rather than a person.

I'm not talking about full-blown everybody's completely equal communism. But an everybody-at-least-deserves-to-be-treated-for-their-wounds system.

I've yet to hear anyone say they were against everyone getting healthcare. We'd like the people to be empowered to make those decisions, have less of their money taken from them so they can decide what they'd like, reform lawsuits to lower insurance costs for providers (that we pay in the long run), and allow companies to compete against each other to create competition and lower cost.

As for those who are left who wouldn't be able to afford any healthcare at all, well, they already qualify for the healthcare programs we currently have and those programs would be greatly relieved by having many of the people on them be able to matriculate to private healthcare systems that give better luxury care options. (Yes, I consider a doctor's visit paid by my insurance company to be a luxury as most people could easily afford their yearly check-up).

The problem is that we're trying to cure a problem based on a lack of choices by inevitable reducing those choices to one, and any public plan, I don't care what anyone says, has the inevitable goal of becoming single payer. It doesn't work otherwise.

Choices creates competition and competition lowers cost and fuels advancements. Fewer choices equals higher prices and low rates of advancement because there are fewer people to compete with and the motivation to innovate and serve is reduced.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So far, the only person who actually got it, is Babsy. He didnt link or quote anything. He just gave his personal view.


Bond, I'm not talking healthcare only. I was using that as an example, clearly.

Interesting... well, my personal opinion is that socialism is a bad idea based upon its historical, economic, and moral implications that arise from such a philosophy.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

So far, the only person who actually got it, is Babsy. He didnt link or quote anything. He just gave his personal view.

Um, how did my first post not "get it"? I answered the question as it was asked, and so did Bond. He has nothing to apologize for.

You asked out thoughts on socialism, but you seem to think socialism is just a few socialist ideas, and this is incorrect. if you wanted to know our thought on European social democracies, you should have asked that question. You didn't.

Bond, I'm not talking healthcare only. I was using that as an example, clearly.

That wasn't clear at all, honestly. Public Schools would have been a far better example to defend your point.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Um, how did my first post not "get it"? I answered the question as it was asked, and so did Bond. He has nothing to apologize for.

You asked out thoughts on socialism, but you seem to think socialism is just a few socialist ideas, and this is incorrect. if you wanted to know our thought on European social democracies, you should have asked that question. You didn't.



That wasn't clear at all, honestly. Public Schools would have been a far better example to defend your point.

I missed the "From a post I made" part at the top. Not too good for multitask, plenty good for pretty.

but you seem to think socialism is just a few socialist ideas, and this is incorrect.

Stupidly commenting on this because an argument is bound to ensue - I'm aware of what socialism is. As I said. I am asking what peoples opinions are on socialism. From the broad, to the minute. What do you think of it as a whole, what do you think of specific ideas. Are you for/against - why? What ideas do you like, why/why not. That type of thing.

Also, I never told Bond to apologize.

And I was asking the opinion on the socialism that is all the rage now in the news. I figured it would be pretty obvious I wasn't talking Communism or any form of Marxism. I honestly thought it was fairly blatent that I was talking the type of socialism that the media is so afraid will happen in the U.S.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Stupidly commenting on this because an argument is bound to ensue - I'm aware of what socialism is. As I said. I am asking what peoples opinions are on socialism. From the broad, to the minute. What do you think of it as a whole, what do you think of specific ideas. Are you for/against - why? What ideas do you like, why/why not. That type of thing.

Ok, as whole (government policy) I think socialism is dehumanizing and inevitably crushes those it aims to help under it's own weight and devolves rather quickly into a authoritarian regime with few human rights.

As individual structures, I think it can work for small things when run locally, like in the public school system, but the larger it gets, the more unwieldy and ineffectual it becomes.

And I was asking the opinion on the socialism that is all the rage now in the news. I figured it would be pretty obvious I wasn't talking Communism or any form of Marxism. I honestly thought it was fairly blatent that I was talking the type of socialism that the media is so afraid will happen in the U.S.

Ok, but just to clarify, do you think either Bond or myself were referencing communism in our original posts?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Ok, but just to clarify, do you think either Bond or myself were referencing communism in our original posts?

No, but since there was mass confusion, I was blocking every other confusion-point I could.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

No, but since there was mass confusion, I was blocking every other confusion-point I could.

Was my above opinion satisfactory?

[Typhoid]

B+.