Socialism
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 16:07
VIEWED: 8502
PAGE 2 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY
None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all capitalist economies with a heavy social welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees.
Just because you continue to call Social Welfare states Socialist states does not mean that they are.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY
None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all capitalist economies with a heavy social welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees.
Just because you continue to call Social Welfare states Socialist states does not mean that they are.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
And just because the right continues to call Obama a socialist ALSO does nott mean that he is.
It's humorous, though - every time someone mentions nationalized health care (where the state wouldn't OWN the healthcare industry, but would be the single payer that gets billed), people come running to scream "Socialism! Bad!" - and they always point at such "socialist" places as... SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY. Oh, and the UK.
So if the left and the right can agree that THEY aren't socialist places, maybe we can also agree that healthcare isn't socialism any more than the fire department is socialism.
Deal?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh, I always thought social welfare states were considered somewhat socialist, in that they require workers to give up a certain percentage of their income, and direct it towards state sponsored programs that redistribute wealth to the less fortunate.
In America, there are two socialist parties, the democratic socialists, and the social democrats. The democratic socialists reject capitalism, and call for an economy managed entirely by worker unions. The social democrats advocates a mixed ecomony blend of socialism and capitalism with a social welfare state.
Quote:
There is not one single definition for a mixed economy, but relevant aspects include: a degree of private economic freedom (including privately owned industry) intermingled with centralized economic planning and government regulation (which may include regulation of the market for environmental concerns and social welfare, or state ownership and management of some of the means of production for national or social objectives). ~wikipedia
So you see, it is possible to be socialist AND capitalist, and social welfare states are kind of sort of socialist states.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
... I'll do my best to avert my eyes and resist telling you how full of shit I think you are.
Gosh, Sarge... coming from you, that means...
well, almost nothing!
After all, you think Stalinist Communism is synonymous with socialism!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all capitalist economies with a heavy social welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees.
Just because you continue to call Social Welfare states Socialist states does not mean that they are.
Social Welfare is Socialist. As is regulation. Just because you say they aren't doesn't mean that you're right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Social Welfare is Socialist.
Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.
Every definition of Socialism I can find stresses either state or cooperative ownership of the means of production and either curtailment or abolishment of private property.
Here's a compilation of definitions.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIB_enUS308US308&defl=en&q=
define:socialism&ei=Vy1FSpCVIY7SMs-ttd0M&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY
What I take away from this whole "Socialism" spin is how little faith we in the US seem to have in ourselves. As someone else has mentioned it's not the ism as much as the people working it. I still believe that we have some of the smartest fraking people available on this planet to maximize whatever ism we choose, so why do so many have such little faith? Feels like it's just more empowering to dismiss and discredit.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.
Isn't the clue in the name?
Your definition sounds more like Communism to me, and Communism is certainly a type of Socialism, but it's not all there is. What about Social Democracy? Also, your definitions seem to focus solely on Socialist Economics, but since Socialism is a social and economic system, that's necessarily missing at least half the picture.
What's the essence of Social economics? Central Government control? What's the essence of Capitalist Economics? Government staying out of the way? In which case surely that makes regulation of markets socialist by their very definition?
Or as Wikipedia puts it (since it's convenient and short):
Quote:
A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates a mixture of private and government ownership or control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Wikipedia's entry on Socialism makes mention of the foundation of the NHS as well as other social programs under the "Social Democracy in Power" section:
Quote:
The post-war social democratic governments introduced social reform and wealth redistribution via state welfare and taxation. The new U.K. Labour Government effected the nationalizations of major public utilities such as mines, gas, coal, electricity, rail, iron, steel, and the Bank of England.[33] To wit, France claimed to be the world's most State-controlled, capitalist country.[34]
In the UK, the National Health Service provided free health care to all of the British population. Working-class housing was provided in council housing estates, and university education available via a school grant system. Ellen Wilkinson, Minister for Education, introduced free milk in schools, saying, in a 1946 Labor Party conference: Free milk will be provided in Hoxton and Shoreditch, in Eton and Harrow. What more social equality can you have than that? To wit, Clement Attlee's biographer says this contributed enormously to the defeat of childhood illnesses resulting from bad diet. Generations of poor children grew up stronger and healthier, because of this one, small, and inexpensive act of generosity, by the Attlee government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
That's just a starter, since Wiki isn't really the best source on which to base an argument, come on, I know you were thinking it.
Encyclopedia Britannica says:
Quote:
[Social Democracy]
political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes.
...
After World War II, social-democratic parties came to power in several nations of western Europe—e.g., West Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain (in the Labour Party)—and laid the foundations for modern European social-welfare programs.
...
The Marxist view of democracy as a “bourgeois” facade for class rule was abandoned, and democracy was proclaimed essential for socialist ideals. Increasingly, social democracy adopted the goal of state regulation, but not state ownership, of business and industry as sufficient to further economic growth and equitable income.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551073/social-democracy
Rather gives me the feeling that Social Welfare programs are an intrinsic part of Social Democracy, and that in turn Social Democracy is a form of Socialism.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Here's a compilation of definitions.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIB_enUS308US308&defl=en&q=
define:socialism&ei=Vy1FSpCVIY7SMs-ttd0M&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
From your google:
"The view that the government should own and control major industries using the dollars earned to provide benefits to citizens."
Doesn't that describe a socialised health industry?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by citizen:
Social Welfare is Socialist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.
Every definition of Socialism I can find stresses either state or cooperative ownership of the means of production and either curtailment or abolishment of private property.
He's not even defining socialism, he's defining social welfare; ie. social welfare is socialist by definition - which is even worse. Social welfare could maybe be claimed as a tenet of socialism (though I don't like this sprawling and misleading definition of socialism), but that doesn't mean social welfare has to be 'socialist' - it can be a tenet of many other philosophies also, and not just exclusive to 'socialism' (citizen's definition of).
An example of what I mean; Christians believe in parents loving their children - does that mean parents loving their children anywhere in the world is 'Christianity'?
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
He's not even defining socialism, he's defining social welfare - ie. social welfare is socialist by definition; which is even worse. Social welfare could maybe be claimed as a tenet of socialism (though I don't like this sprawling and misleading definition of socialism), but that doesn't mean social welfare has to be 'socialist' - it can be a tenet of many other philosophies also, and not just exclusive to 'socialism' (citizen's definition of).
How about you back up that assertion from one reputable cite? Or even reading and responding to my post honestly for once would be a start...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME