socialism

[frogboy]

so anyway i've noticed that american white trash really hates "socialism". i would really like it articulated to me why "socialism" is still seen as such a disgusting slur and overall just a "bad thing", while in the background you have some of the undercurrents of fascism (particularly rampant jingoism and militarism).

from my perspective in a country which provides free healthcare to all citizens, as well as interest-free student loans and many other things which are taken for granted here but perceived as foreign or "socialist" in america, i cannot understand the vitriol for such policies.

[Demonic]

Central and East-European history, 20th century from 1945-1989.

I'd rather a state that doesn't tell me what to do with my money, but would rather set up an OPTIONAL and otherwise rewarding (tax deduction / whatever) system for charity and helping of those who are less fortunate financialy.

Socialism sucked cock.

[frogboy]

great but state communism as it existed in that time is a strawman that doesn't further any sort of discussion for the sole fact that it is nigh impossible for equality to exist in a system where everything is controlled by a select few who aren't accountable.

[Demonic]

I'll narrow it down: the stronger you make the state, the greater corruption gets and the less accountable your elected leaders become. Hungary is practically still being a socialist state in terms of welfare, healthcare and whatever, our political elite is nigh' unremovable, and through these last twenty years most decisions were made to favour the political class and the lobbies sponsoring them.

A crap system will stay crap however you call it, and it doesn't matter how much you sugar coat it in democracy.

[that being said, I'm not in the favour of a state controlled by the invisible hand of the free market either, because true human values cannot and should not be counted as a percentage of GDP.]

[mar77a]

it's all about the honesty of the people in power imo, and it turns out socialism is very susceptible to corruption

[a-4-year-old]

Socialism is when the government takes my money and spends it for me.


Socialism isn't always bad, if we obviously can't let free market run our military or some public works and one of government's biggest roles is to keep the economy stable by adjusting spending.

So every working government is not completely free market. Meaning every government is to some small extent socialist.

Thats all very well until you mess with business opportunities. Lets use wind power as an example:

If I socialized wind power I would higher some government contractors to go through the process of building them spending tax payer money then when it gets built the power is free and the money required to keep them running comes from taxes. Being the only ones in "business" and being run for no profit, they have no incentive to develop technologies for cheaper power. Other things equal, regardless of how much energy you use your taxes will rise just as much as someone who uses more/less than you.

If an entrepreneur (perhaps the electric company) comes along and decides to take out a loan, rent/buy land and build wind farms, he will sell energy by the quantity consumed by the customer just as energy is sold now he will do so and make lots of money off of the cheaper/guilt free power, then some others will copy him and enter the industry and make competing wind farms which will compete and lower costs. They will then have competing research and development departments constantly trying to patent technology which will give them a cheaper/more efficient power output, which lowers the price for consumers.

In short, the Socialist pays more than the Capitalist for the same good, the free market allows for the fairest options for the consumer and the producer gains profits. Thus, government has no business in socializing almost all goods and services industries.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

you can put the power into the many or the few, into a mass of equals or a selected elite, but ultimately you will always be putting power into humans

we are just as susceptible to corruption as each other. you can give each and every human a number, a potential for corruption and either way you slice it you will always have the same chance of that outcome becoming true for either sample

to summarize, i think they are as good/bad as each other

how about rather than putting the power of collective decision making into humans, put it into robots that work according to a long term goal rather than lining their pockets and upholding their image. and then mount laser cannons onto them. and give them nuclear access to start a new world war where we can fight back at our robot oppressors and reclaim the world

or maybe we should just let robots kill us all and let them take care of the world and explore the universe and do all the things that we are too weak to do

sorry what was the question

[The Epic Guy]

Socialism is bad because people with more money than you say it is.

Anarchy is the perfect government. Too bad humanity isn't the perfect species.

[xDANKNUGZ420x]

well too bad because if humans were perfect any kind of government would be perfect

[The Epic Guy]

well too bad because if humans were perfect any kind of government would be perfect

True, but if humans were perfect, they wouldn't need government.

[iDante]

Socailism is bad because people with more money than you say it is.

YES!

Give it a few decades and America will be more socialist. Healthcare is gonna go first, then others.

[eYe]

Socialism is bad because people with more money than you say it is.

Anarchy is the perfect government. Too bad humanity isn't the perfect species.

Keyword: Education. It's practically nonexistent in our society.

[a-4-year-old]

Socailism is bad because people with more money than you say it is.

YES!

Give it a few decades and America will be more socialist. Healthcare is gonna go first, then others.

That would have Regan rolling over in his grave.

I certainly won't vote for socialists.

[m00`]

Americas healthcare is pathetic

and thats all I know lolol

[Graham]

Best government is a mix of both. I have a new found view of socialism now that I am in the Army. Since the government controls everything I do and to some extent own right now I have to say I am not loving the socialist ideas. Hell I get free healthcare now and its so useless I just try to treat myself.

[m00`]

are you a medic graham

[Graham]

EOD in training.

[frogboy]

In short, the Socialist pays more than the Capitalist for the same good, the free market allows for the fairest options for the consumer and the producer gains profits. Thus, government has no business in socializing almost all goods and services industries.

how then do you reconcile this with, for example the current state of the US auto industry, which has spent the past few decades building the biggest, most inefficient vehicles that people will buy?

all three of the big auto manufacturers are now in varying states of chaos, which will and has lead to job losses and recession. all three should have seen that petrol will not last forever and done something worthwhile to at the very least curb fuel consumption. yet both ford and chrysler have had no car smaller than a 2.0 in the past decade. toyota has marketed the prius in the united states since 2001, why has it taken gm until 2010 to release a comparable vehicle?

at the heart of what i'm asking is also what's been touched on in this thread: why is properly socialised healthcare a bad thing? i have not heard a single well-reasoned point as to why america still does not guarantee health to its citizens. to me, that is far more important than getting a few extra dollars every month.

also reagan is more of a crackpot than even the most insane of college trotskyites but that's not particularly relevant here.

[a-4-year-old]

Consumers wanted big vehicles so the big three made big vehicles. Consumers since the late 60's have had a choice between fuel efficient and big/fast cars. They didn't "get away" with it, they saw what the market wanted and delivered.

What exactly do you want? If you socialize GM it will just keep producing cars people don't want or you could let the market decide if it will survive or fail and keep the firms that make the better cars.

Socialized Healthcare, at least in America, is a joke. The people who are wealthy enough to afford healthcare (and the firms they work for) will pay the vast majority of the costs of socialized healthcare and then receive a worse plan than the one they have. Healthcare policy needs to be reformed so that plans can be affordable and so we don't have to pay for poor people's emergency room visits.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

frogboy how come you know so much about politics and shit its confusing

-____- i also have no idea what is going on in this thread i swear i hardly can keep track of anyone on this forum anymore and can someone please tell me what the fuck was going on in that ville thread or whatever

on topic now

i do agree with what you are saying about socialized healthcare though. we have it in this country and i cant say theres anything wrong with paying a percentage of your wage to have the knowledge that if you break your leg you wont have to pay to get it fixed because youve already payed

i suppose the point at which people start disliking that kind of state plan is when the government start using that percentage for fucking stupid things like putting your money into helping assburgers or whatever shit doctors come out with nowadays