Let's talk Socialism...

[nemein]

There seems to be a lot of rumor/concerns/talk about socialism in a few threads but I thought it would be interesting to have a specific thread on the topic. As defined by Wikipedia (maybe not the best reference source but it is the quickest )...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where labor is the main source of wealth.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

So do you see a growing trend towards socialism in the US, and is that a good or bad thing? A lot of people call Obama's ideas socialistic (or maybe just liberal/Dem ideas in general) but are they really? What makes them so? How about the recent "bail out"/buying up of bank stock proposal, is that heading down the same path? How about McCain's idea to buy up home mortgages individually? Can socialism really work on a large scale? One of the main tenants of socialism seems to be all people are equal (or maybe I should say equally deserving), do you think that is true (either my assessment of the tenant or the tenant itself)?

If I get a chance I want to create poll but it's been a busy morning and this draft post has been sitting around for awhile as it is... so I figured I'd get it out while I have the chance.

[VinVega]

From what I've learned this campaign season Socialism is evil, at least when referring to the opposing political party.

I'd like to take a moment to quote my distinguished colleague c-man who has stated many a time that "The Free Market is a myth."

[wendersfan]

Socialism, on a mass scale and for an extended period of time, is pretty much unworkable. Communist countries like China are basically capitalist dictatorships these days. On a short-term basis the nationalization of specific industries has worked in the recent past, but it's not a sustainable model.

Social democracy is a different matter. This has been one of the dominant political ideologies in Europe since the early 20th century. Parties like the British Labour Party, the German Social Democratic Party, and the Swedish Socialist Party have held power for significant periods of time since WWII. However, I think most people would agree that social democracy, whatever the rhetoric is or whatever the origins of the various parties were, isn't really socialism, but a variant of capitalism that has substantial regulation and a large welfare state component. Few if any major industries in those countries are nationalized, and government control of the telecom industries has waned. In addition to that, the dangers of capital flight caused by increased globalization has led to European center-left parties to move further towards the center. There is voluminous academic literature on this subject. What has essentially happened is that welfare states, especially in those countries most exposed to global capital shifts, have adapted to a more supply-side model of social spending - shifting from passive to active labor programs, greater spending on infrastructure, etc. We have also seen a strong correlation between social spending and the level of globalization in a country's economy.

[mmconhea]

the socialism message that one party keeps repeating is nothing more than their usual mindless repetitive chants (barracuda; maverick; drill baby drill) that have no founding in any logic or sense. They are just ways of keeping people from looking at the real issues.

I want to see how many of these people that are so afraid of this "Socialism" that Obama will bring us all have their kids in socialist public schools, or how many are, or plan on withdrawing social security. How many visit national or state parks?
Pay for your own school, save for your own retirement, buy your own parks. Obama's plans are not any more crazy than those things everyone already takes for granted.

Most of those people that call him a socialist have no idea of what that accusation means. Like turning the US socialist is even possible. Give me a break.

[solipsta]

From that definition, the bailout and potential buying of mortgages looks a lot more like socialism than any of the tax plans that have been accused of such lately.

[wabio]

Originally Posted by solipsta

From that definition, the bailout and potential buying of mortgages looks a lot more like socialism than any of the tax plans that have been accused of such lately.

That's my view as well. Government pwnz all!!!

[Ranger]

Socialism is now just a bogeyman.

IMO, we already have had socialist programs for many decades (New Deal, Great Society, etc). I think these programs aren't perfect but have made this country better.

So, at this point, it is silly to pretend that some socialism in certain aspects doesn't already exist here or that Obama will suddenly make this country fully socialist, thus being the harbinger of doom.

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Ranger

IMO, we already have had socialist programs for many decades (New Deal, Great Society, etc). I think these programs aren't perfect but have made this country better.

A very strong argument can be made that the old welfare model (AFDC) helped destroy the two-parent African-American family by essentially subsidizing single-mother households.

[classicman2]

Would you consider public work projects to be socialism?

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by wendersfan

A very strong argument can be made that the old welfare model (AFDC) helped destroy the two-parent African-American family by essentially subsidizing single-mother households.

Yeah, there are other factors, but welfare is a major one.

You're spot on about social democracy, though i'm not sure if it's from capitalism or socialism. Probably both.

It seems like we have redistribution of wealth happening in more than one way. Corporate welfare. Although, countries in Europe seem to have come to the aid of corproations as well.

And just thorwing in this quote from wiki on Medicaid:

Medicaid payments assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States.

37% of all childbirths, pretty amazing. To me, that shows the great need for the program.

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Would you consider public work projects to be socialism?

No.

[Shannon Nutt]

All income taxes are socialist in nature. To suggest that Obama's plan is any more "socialist" than McCain's is pretty silly. The only difference is Obama's plan takes primarily from the "rich"; while McCain's is more spread out across the board.

McCain would argue that it unfairly overtaxes the rich; Obama would simply say he's leveling out the tax rates so all pay their equal share.

Since Americans are so "anti-socialist" these days, I wonder how they'd feel about taking away our biggest socialist program: Social Security.

[Shoveler]

Originally Posted by Ranger

37% of all childbirths, pretty amazing. To me, that shows the great need for the program.

I respectfully disagree, to me, that shows the magnitude of the problem we're facing. It means that too many people are having children they cannot afford because our government has made it so easy for them to do so. Think about it, that Wikipedia quote you provided defines "cradle to grave".

[al_bundy]

back before medicaid women still got pregnant and something like 50% of all babies died before the age of 2 or something like that

[Shoveler]

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

McCain would argue that it unfairly overtaxes the rich; Obama would simply say he's leveling out the tax rates so all pay their equal share.

Since Americans are so "anti-socialist" these days, I wonder how they'd feel about taking away our biggest socialist program: Social Security.

Maybe I've missed where he's said that, but all I've heard Obama and Biden talk about is the rich paying their fair share, not their equal share. And, of course, Obama and Biden get to decide what is fair, and heaven forbid we should accuse them of promoting class envy by suggesting that the rich are plenty rich enough and should do their patriotic duty by forking over more of their money so that the middle class doesn't have to.

And Social Security should be scaled down to a fraction of what it is today. Grandfather in everyone age X and above (where X is probably somewhere around 40-45), the program remains the same for them. Everyone < X will face the new program. It should be "need" based. Social Security is the perfect example of why the government shouldn't be in the business of running social programs!

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Shoveler

And, of course, Obama and Biden get to decide what is fair

There's this concept called representative democracy with which you might want to familiarize yourself. It's not like Obama is leading a coup to overthrow the government, and it's not like he hasn't been upfront about he wants the tax structure to look like if he's elected. If he wins, it's because more people decided they liked his plan than didn't like it.

[Thor Simpson]

Socialists are the new commies. Except they are now WITHIN OUR BORDERS!

[B.A.]

Originally Posted by classicman2

Would you consider public work projects to be socialism?

Not if a private contractor is awarded the contract and performs the work entailed in said contract.

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by mmconhea

I want to see how many of these people that are so afraid of this "Socialism" that Obama will bring us all have their kids in socialist public schools, or how many are, or plan on withdrawing social security. How many visit national or state parks?
Pay for your own school, save for your own retirement, buy your own parks. Obama's plans are not any more crazy than those things everyone already takes for granted.

Most of those people that call him a socialist have no idea of what that accusation means. Like turning the US socialist is even possible. Give me a break.

As a matter of fact, we probably will home school our kids. That is becoming a more difficult option in a number of states as our government seems to think that their system (in which more than a 1/3 of the entrants do not complete) is better at teaching my kid than me.
If I could have the 15% taken out of Medicaid and Social Security to invest as I see fit with the only penalty being I couldn't use those two programs, I would do it in a heartbeat.
I have never been to a state park, so that doesn't really apply.
Also, do you really think that countries never shift their economic systems? I would say that the recent bailout plan is pretty socialistic. All of that to say that I don't really think that Obama is a socialist in the classic sense of the word. He does want to re-distribute income from the rich to the poor though.

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by wendersfan

There's this concept called representative democracy with which you might want to familiarize yourself. It's not like Obama is leading a coup to overthrow the government, and it's not like he hasn't been upfront about he wants the tax structure to look like if he's elected. If he wins, it's because more people decided they liked his plan than didn't like it.

Or that Rock the Vote finally worked.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by orangecrush18

I have never been to a state park, so that doesn't really apply.

Me neither. Thank God for video games and satellite television!

[BuddhaWake]

Originally Posted by Shoveler

Maybe I've missed where he's said that, but all I've heard Obama and Biden talk about is the rich paying their fair share, not their equal share. And, of course, Obama and Biden get to decide what is fair, and heaven forbid we should accuse them of promoting class envy by suggesting that the rich are plenty rich enough and should do their patriotic duty by forking over more of their money so that the middle class doesn't have to.

And Social Security should be scaled down to a fraction of what it is today. Grandfather in everyone age X and above (where X is probably somewhere around 40-45), the program remains the same for them. Everyone < X will face the new program. It should be "need" based. Social Security is the perfect example of why the government shouldn't be in the business of running social programs!

there is already a need based program. is called SSI

[Brack]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

back before medicaid women still got pregnant and something like 50% of all babies died before the age of 2 or something like that

And even so, the US has the second worst newborn death rate in modern world.

[DodgingCars]

Originally Posted by Groucho

Me neither. Thank God for video games and satellite television!

I bet you also hate libraries!

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by Groucho

Me neither. Thank God for video games and satellite television!

Amen!