CDZ What is socialism?

[2aguy]

We

Socialism or communism are Utopian economic structures that are no more viable than capitalism. According to Marx socialism is a step between capitalism and socialism. However, taking that step is far from being inevitable. In the 20th century, communism was exposed as a miserable failure and collapsed in all but a few countries. Today, some form of socialism co-exists with free markets in almost all countries.

Although socialism does not necessary lead to communism, too much socialism can certainly have a negative impact on economic growth just as to little can create social inequalities and economic and political instability.

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

Then I guess by that metric, evolution is nothing more than a theory, has zero value nor any application, and should be ignored. After all we cannot replicate those conditions.

A. We could easily get the markets very close to being free. All it involves is restricting governments capabilities to restrict or supplement

B. We've seen plenty examples throughout history of freer markets thriving, and self correcting when markets crash. During Pres. Coolidge's term (president who cut government in half) had a market crash that by every metric should have been worse than the Great Depression, but it self corrected within a year. And ushered in the roaring twenties (until more progressives got into power and started pumping the breaks when they should have been pressing the gas, and vice versa). JFK, made some of the most drastic tax cuts (weren't even anything special), tax cuts pretty much only on the supply side mind you, and that started growing well paying jobs at rates that would boggle our minds today.

C. I haven't heard anyone here talking about completely free markets, where our economic policy is essentially anarchy. At least not that I have seen. I certainly haven't been advocating that. I do think there is a need for some regulation, laws, and etc. To ensure that everyone is pretty much playing by the same rules
D. Social justice is a whole topic in and of itself. Where do those problems arise from? Policy? Culture? If it's culture, whose culture? What about that culture? Can you even answer that question fairly? I feel as though you are using social justice as a tool in this situation so forgive me if I have doubts on your ability to answer that honestly

In theory we could make markets much freer but in the political environment we live in, I doubt it. If we're talking about capitalism, we're speaking of completely free markets but if we are talking about regulated capitalism, that's a different story.

Whoa when I talk about socialism I don't assume one step down from communism, why is it ok for you to do the same

Well...that is the actual definition according to Marxist Communism......

 

[320 Years of History]

We

I personally don't see capitalism as a utopian society, it's not. I think it does a nice job at creating not only a nice and high bell curve, but also raises the bell curve up on the Y axis of the graph comparatively more than socialist countries. I also think capitalism does more to drive science, technology, and even art, than it does in more socialist countries. I don't think the problems like we see today arise in unchecked capitalism, but stem mostly from business getting too friendly with government and encouraging government to over step it's bounds. Problems arise when competition and alternatives are allowed to be stamped out. It does require a vigilance in capitialism to make sure that doesn't happen. And I think that vigilance has been deteriorating for a long time very slowly

We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

??? Do you mean the equilibrium price? Just asking to be sure I know what you are talking about.

Yes

TY for the reply.

Well what factors, pray tell, could conceivably determine the equilibrium price other than supply and demand? Has someone invented a new theory and set of laws of supply and demand such that some factors other than supply and demand contrive to determine the equilibrium price?

Common factors today are government regulations and direct intervention in the markets which alter the supply and demand and yield a different equilibrium price than that found in a free market.

Don't get angry with me....I'm just running with what you wrote and trying to understand it:

• "There will never be a time where...supply and demand are the only factors that affect [equilibrium] price."
  • In my mind, those are the only two things that have affected equilibrium price for all time.
• "Common factors today [that affect equilibrium price] are government regulations and direct intervention in the markets which alter the supply and demand and yield a different equilibrium price than that found in a free market."
  • Well, not one of those things appear on any graph I've seen, so this is news to me. Would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to something that depicts equilibrium price as a function of not only supply and demand, but also "government regulations and direct intervention in the markets."

Additionally, reading your earlier remark and then subsequent one, I'm not even sure how they aren't inconsistent. The earlier comment was pretty straightforward. The second one seems, when considered as your reply to my prior comments (the ones in the post with the graph), to sit on two sides of the fence, so to speak:

1. "Government regulations and direct intervention in the markets" are factors that affect equilibrium price,
   and
   "government regulations and direct intervention in the markets" affect supply and demand.
2. Supply and demand affect equilibrium price.

Let me put it another way, your collected remarks seem to say that equilibrium price occurs at the intersection of and is a function of the following four functions:

• Supply (S)
• Demand (D)
• Government regulations (G) -- I presume here you mean laws that have no direct monetary impact.
• Direct intervention in the markets (M) -- I presume here you mainly mean tariffs and subsidies.
  
  (You may mean purchases, but I don't think you intentionally do because who makes a purchase is irrelevant, economically speaking, to the price, unless, of course, the buyer actually does something akin to what was jokingly described as "Bureaucracy, American Style" back at post #49 and consumed enough of the supply to have a material impact on the market price. If you want to consider that, we'd need to keep a foot in the realm of economics, while also spreading it and the other foot across the realms of finance, marketing and strategy, and integrate them simultaneously. I'm okay with doing that, if you insist (I won't lie; I'd prefer not to, but I am okay with it if we must), but I didn't perceive that as being a place you want to take this.)

By that and letting equilibrium price = (f(x), one (you, someone else; I don't care who) must be able to devise an equation that, using whatever be the appropriate operators, reflects the nature of the relationship you've proposed.

For example, if (f(x) = S ∩ D ∩ G ∩ M is surely not an accurate depiction of the relationship, but it illustrates that the four factors you've noted contribute to produce an equilibrium price. So in asking for something that shows the correlation between the four factors you've identified, I'm asking for either whatever is the actual equation that correctly depicts that relationship, or a graph and a link to its source that shows the four curves intersecting at the equilibrium price.

Now I'm going to tell you that I don't see what you're suggesting as being so, at all. What I think you are doing is confusing supply and demand "movers and shifters" as well as misconstruing what is in fact a "shifter" and perceiving it to be an independent factor that is a "peer," of supply and/or demand in determining equilibrium price. The things you've identified are very commonly covered in basic econ classes -- macro and micro; context being the only real difference -- but to be sure the role/impact of government is more rigorously covered (at the level we're discussing) in basic macroecon texts than in basic microecon texts.

Take a look at this short video and see if I'm right about the confusion you're experiencing.

 

[Flopper]

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

I worked for such a company some years ago. We did commercial construction work in India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. We followed the laws or did what the competition did. If that meant dumping raw sewage in rivers we did it. If the laws required chemical scrappers we put them in. If not, we didn't. Expecting corporations to go beyond the law in regard health, safety, and the environment is really naive.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I would say that "socialism" has been used in so many different ways it's hard to get people to agree on one definition. From what I've seen, socialism simply represents the population owning the means of production, whether this be through a state, or through communes.

 

[Flopper]

We
We will never know because there will never be a time in which markets are totally free of government regulation, where supply and demand are the only factors that effect price. and where social injustice is considered irrelevant.

??? Do you mean the equilibrium price? Just asking to be sure I know what you are talking about.

Yes

TY for the reply.

Well what factors, pray tell, could conceivably determine the equilibrium price other than supply and demand? Has someone invented a new theory and set of laws of supply and demand such that some factors other than supply and demand contrive to determine the equilibrium price?

Common factors today are government regulations and direct intervention in the markets which alter the supply and demand and yield a different equilibrium price than that found in a free market.

Don't get angry with me....I'm just running with what you wrote and trying to understand it:

• "There will never be a time where...supply and demand are the only factors that affect [equilibrium] price."
  • In my mind, those are the only two things that have affected equilibrium price for all time.
• "Common factors today [that affect equilibrium price] are government regulations and direct intervention in the markets which alter the supply and demand and yield a different equilibrium price than that found in a free market."
  • Well, not one of those things appear on any graph I've seen, so this is news to me. Would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to something that depicts equilibrium price as a function of not only supply and demand, but also "government regulations and direct intervention in the markets."

Additionally, reading your earlier remark and then subsequent one, I'm not even sure how they aren't inconsistent. The earlier comment was pretty straightforward. The second one seems, when considered as your reply to my prior comments (the ones in the post with the graph), to sit on two sides of the fence, so to speak:

1. "Government regulations and direct intervention in the markets" are factors that affect equilibrium price,
   and
   "government regulations and direct intervention in the markets" affect supply and demand.
2. Supply and demand affect equilibrium price.

Let me put it another way, your collected remarks seem to say that equilibrium price occurs at the intersection of and is a function of the following four functions:

• Supply (S)
• Demand (D)
• Government regulations (G) -- I presume here you mean laws that have no direct monetary impact.
• Direct intervention in the markets (M) -- I presume here you mainly mean tariffs and subsidies.
  
  (You may mean purchases, but I don't think you intentionally do because who makes a purchase is irrelevant, economically speaking, to the price, unless, of course, the buyer actually does something akin to what was jokingly described as "Bureaucracy, American Style" back at post #49 and consumed enough of the supply to have a material impact on the market price. If you want to consider that, we'd need to keep a foot in the realm of economics, while also spreading it and the other foot across the realms of finance, marketing and strategy, and integrate them simultaneously. I'm okay with doing that, if you insist (I won't lie; I'd prefer not to, but I am okay with it if we must), but I didn't perceive that as being a place you want to take this.)

By that and letting equilibrium price = (f(x), one (you, someone else; I don't care who) must be able to devise an equation that, using whatever be the appropriate operators, reflects the nature of the relationship you've proposed.

For example, if (f(x) = S ∩ D ∩ G ∩ M is surely not an accurate depiction of the relationship, but it illustrates that the four factors you've noted contribute to produce an equilibrium price. So in asking for something that shows the correlation between the four factors you've identified, I'm asking for either whatever is the actual equation that correctly depicts that relationship, or a graph and a link to its source that shows the four curves intersecting at the equilibrium price.

Now I'm going to tell you that I don't see what you're suggesting as being so, at all. What I think you are doing is confusing supply and demand "movers and shifters" as well as misconstruing what is in fact a "shifter" and perceiving it to be an independent factor that is a "peer," of supply and/or demand in determining equilibrium price. The things you've identified are very commonly covered in basic econ classes -- macro and micro; context being the only real difference -- but to be sure the role/impact of government is more rigorously covered (at the level we're discussing) in basic macroecon texts than in basic microecon texts.

Take a look at this short video and see if I'm right about the confusion you're experiencing.

I understand. I was approaching the discussion as a pure free market without constrains of government, monopolies, liquidity, etc.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

 

[Flopper]

I would say that "socialism" has been used in so many different ways it's hard to get people to agree on one definition. From what I've seen, socialism simply represents the population owning the means of production, whether this be through a state, or through communes.

Socialism today can mean just about anything from government ownership of all industries to zoning laws and property taxes.

 

[sakinago]

No...socialism is the step between capitalism and true communism...where the government takes control of the means of production until the true communist state can be formed....of course it has always led to mass murder....about 100 million people around the world.

and marx stated that primitive peoples....2 stages behind the adoption of the communist state would have to be destroyed.....

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

 

[Flopper]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

Looking at the growth of wealth in America, I don't see that as a problem. In 1957, the wealthiest man in America was J. Paul Getty with a net worth in today's dollar of 8.4 billion. The wealthiest man in America today, Bill Gates has net worth of nearly ten times that.

In 1957 in the US, there was just bit over 10,000 households with a million dollar net worth. Today there are over 4.7 million.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

Looking at the growth of wealth in America, I don't see that as a problem. In 1957, the wealthiest man in America was J. Paul Getty with a net worth in today's dollar of 8.4 billion. The wealthiest man in America today, Bill Gates has net worth of nearly ten times that.

In 1957 in the US, there was just bit over 10,000 households with a million dollar net worth. Today there are over 4.7 million.

Welfare costs The United States $152 billion a year. $8.4 billion is about two weeks worth of welfare checks.

 

[Flopper]

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

 

[jasonnfree]

I always hear that '100 million people murdered' accusation. That was under extreme regimes. Most first world countries like USA and those in Europe practice a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wouldn't want to live under pure capitalism or pure socialism.

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

You're right about the asbestos, which I had experience with. The government knew about it's dangers during WW2, and kept quiet about it because of the war effort, or so I was told by a lawyer that handled asbestos cases. Still, if corporations get caught, they usually just pay a fine. Too big to jail and all that.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

Looking at the growth of wealth in America, I don't see that as a problem. In 1957, the wealthiest man in America was J. Paul Getty with a net worth in today's dollar of 8.4 billion. The wealthiest man in America today, Bill Gates has net worth of nearly ten times that.

In 1957 in the US, there was just bit over 10,000 households with a million dollar net worth. Today there are over 4.7 million.

I think out government today is less capitalistic now than it was then. There is more cronyism. At the height of cronyism during the industrial revolution, one man, Rockefeller owned a 6 of the total wealth of the nation...that is un-heard of. When he died, his money handlers told his son he could not give his money away fast enough, but he had too, bc if he didn't, when the market crashed all eyes would be on him. That's why the Rockefeller foundation is a big as it is to this day. That's not even including the vanderbilts, and other heavy hitting cronys of the time.

But let's not forget what capitalism , not socialism has brought us outside of the great products and services we undeniably have today. 5 day 40 hr work week, as opposed to 6 12 hr days like it was before (should be shorter now a days). Employer provided healthcare. Competitive waging. 401k's and other investment plans.

 

[sakinago]

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

You're right about the asbestos, which I had experience with. The government knew about it's dangers during WW2, and kept quiet about it because of the war effort, or so I was told by a lawyer that handled asbestos cases. Still, if corporations get caught, they usually just pay a fine. Too big to jail and all that.

Thanks to government being friendly with them, that's called cronyism, not capitalism. It does need to be addressed. Let's not forget over 100 hydrogen bombs detonated in the pacific!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What is socialism?"

Something most conservatives clearly know nothing about.

 

[jasonnfree]

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

You're right about the asbestos, which I had experience with. The government knew about it's dangers during WW2, and kept quiet about it because of the war effort, or so I was told by a lawyer that handled asbestos cases. Still, if corporations get caught, they usually just pay a fine. Too big to jail and all that.

Thanks to government being friendly with them, that's called cronyism, not capitalism. It does need to be addressed. Let's not forget over 100 hydrogen bombs detonated in the pacific!!

I guess we get back to there is no pure socialism or capitalism. It's a mixed system which all first world countries have.

 

[jasonnfree]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

Looking at the growth of wealth in America, I don't see that as a problem. In 1957, the wealthiest man in America was J. Paul Getty with a net worth in today's dollar of 8.4 billion. The wealthiest man in America today, Bill Gates has net worth of nearly ten times that.

In 1957 in the US, there was just bit over 10,000 households with a million dollar net worth. Today there are over 4.7 million.

I think out government today is less capitalistic now than it was then. There is more cronyism. At the height of cronyism during the industrial revolution, one man, Rockefeller owned a 6 of the total wealth of the nation...that is un-heard of. When he died, his money handlers told his son he could not give his money away fast enough, but he had too, bc if he didn't, when the market crashed all eyes would be on him. That's why the Rockefeller foundation is a big as it is to this day. That's not even including the vanderbilts, and other heavy hitting cronys of the time.

But let's not forget what capitalism , not socialism has brought us outside of the great products and services we undeniably have today. 5 day 40 hr work week, as opposed to 6 12 hr days like it was before (should be shorter now a days). Employer provided healthcare. Competitive waging. 401k's and other investment plans.

We have the 40 hour work week because of progressives and democrats. The capitalists fought any advances of the working class tooth and nail.

 

[Flopper]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

Sooner, or later, the few run out of money to give to the many.

Looking at the growth of wealth in America, I don't see that as a problem. In 1957, the wealthiest man in America was J. Paul Getty with a net worth in today's dollar of 8.4 billion. The wealthiest man in America today, Bill Gates has net worth of nearly ten times that.

In 1957 in the US, there was just bit over 10,000 households with a million dollar net worth. Today there are over 4.7 million.

I think out government today is less capitalistic now than it was then. There is more cronyism. At the height of cronyism during the industrial revolution, one man, Rockefeller owned a 6 of the total wealth of the nation...that is un-heard of. When he died, his money handlers told his son he could not give his money away fast enough, but he had too, bc if he didn't, when the market crashed all eyes would be on him. That's why the Rockefeller foundation is a big as it is to this day. That's not even including the vanderbilts, and other heavy hitting cronys of the time.

But let's not forget what capitalism , not socialism has brought us outside of the great products and services we undeniably have today. 5 day 40 hr work week, as opposed to 6 12 hr days like it was before (should be shorter now a days). Employer provided healthcare. Competitive waging. 401k's and other investment plans.

Yes, capitalism has been wonderful for America and it's been terrible. The best of all wolds is the proper balance between regulations and pure capitalism. The question that is unanswered is where does that balance lie which is as much a philosophical issue as it is a monetary issue.

 

[320 Years of History]

No.....Germany was a modern nation state...with the rule of law, modern universities......democratic institutions....and what happens under socialism...the power of the state gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and becomes more and more powerful with vast networks that control the daily interactions of the people. Then, a bad guy gets in charge, and the tools needed to oppress the people have already been put into place...

In the United States our government was set up to fracture power in the Government...checks and balances and separations of power to keep any one group from becoming too powerful and ending up oppressing the people...socialism is the opposite of this....it seeks to concentrate the power into an ever smaller group of people..who are supposed to do good things with that power...and then it all goes wrong....

That is why socialism has to be fought...no matter how good it is now.......in countries that are wealthy and do not have to spend money in their own defense, so they can spend all of their money on social welfare programs....eventually the money runs out...and then the squabbling over limited resources starts...and the strong, small group of bad guys get in charge, and everything is set up for them to start killing people....

The concentration of power under socialism is what leads to mass murder.......it may not be right away...especially if a nation is wealthy and has a history of democratic institutions...but because socialism undermines the individual, and gradually degrades the society..the bad guys will always rise up......

Maybe it depends what we call socialism. But I said we need a mix of both systems. We need government for certain protections, and people call this socialism. Look what's happening in Flint with the water crisis as just an example. Switching to the cheaper water source harmed thousands. Capitalists wouldn't care about this since profit is the only motive. Capitalism has to have something to counterbalance it.

Well I disagree, capitalist would absolutely care about the water quality. Why...because their customers would flip shit, and they'd be broke and out of business, and be getting sued with huge class action suits, and probably be in prison because they've caused harm to people. But that's not happening right now, is it. Let's not forget that flint Michigan WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT, and they did it because there's not much alternative to the public water works system that they run. I find it fascinating that people are finding a way to blame flint michigan on capitalism.

You gotta be kidding, I could post stuff all day long about private industry taking shortcuts that jeopardize the public's health. One reason why companies like to offshore. Notice how the pollution is almost unbearable in China now. One link below.

Major Chemical Company 'Poisoned Water Supply' for 50 Years

Yes, but it was also government who turned the colorado river yellow, detonated 100 hbombs in the pacific, laced naval yards with asbestos, agent orange, injected blacks with syphilis...whose holding them responsible to that? At least in most cases where we can find corporations of wrong doing, they go down for that.

Most of that happened before anyone paid much attention to what we were doing to the environment; back in the good old days when no one though twice about dumping raw sewage in lakes and rivers, underground storage tanks with toxic chemicals were abandoned, air pollution was consider the cost of progress, and medical facilities threw untreated bio-medical waste in the garbage.

Bizarre....as if one needs to "pay much attention," or know much of anything, to realize that one has a debt to someone (or many someones) for turning a river yellow, or injecting people with syphilis or for defoliating massive swaths of terrain....

Even if one isn't to be held accountable in a penal sense, at the very least, one could show some integrity given our newly found knowledge about the impacts of one's earlier actions and make reparations in a prospective sense, as a genuine show of remorse such as doing a good deal more than is absolutely required by a court. Isn't that what you'd do? Would your conscience not call you to handle the matter that way? Mine sure would.

 

[MisterBeale]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Socialism is fine, as long as it is voluntary.

The same can be said of Capitalism.

As soon as coercion is used, as soon as the instrument of the STATE is used to FORCE people into it's tenets, it becomes something entirely different, it becomes immoral, and ceases to operate as a communal force of good.