Benefits of Socialism

In the Capitalistic system, the government collects the property, income and sales taxes for use on public projects. It has city work crews that do daily maintenance projects, e.g. pothole repair. Repaving a street is considered a capital works project, and is put up to bid by private firms. The winning bidder then purchases the needed resources and uses its own workers and equipment to complete the project
Click to expand...

Hmm... And that's capitalism in the form of a public works project? But if you collect tax money and pay it to private doctors instead of paving companies, THEN it's Socialism. I get it now. Thanks.
 
ilwrath said:
Hmm... And that's capitalism in the form of a public works project? But if you collect tax money and pay it to private doctors instead of paving companies, THEN it's Socialism. I get it now. Thanks.
Click to expand...

true, because the road is for public use

paying for the doctor visit is welfare, that's socialism
 
Robert posited:
"The problem is exacerbated when those criticising people for favouring socialism think they also get to define the word, effectively dictating to others what it is that they are supposed to be in favour of.
Such behaviour is either illogical, disingenuous or both.
Either way it makes any debate completely pointless.

Same thing seems to happen with 'liberal' and 'progressive'."
-------------------------------------

Is that why you are forever saying stuff like "Europe is only considered socialist by people whose definition of socialism is skewed."
-------------------------------------

Seems to me that you are the one telling everyone that you should get to define Socialism, because anyone that criticizes it is "illogical or disingenuous", and their definition of socialism is skewed.

Your pot is as black as your kettle.
 
Fade said:
Is that why you are forever saying stuff like "Europe is only considered socialist by people whose definition of socialism is skewed."
Click to expand...

Forever? I wasn't aware I said such things so often but I'll accept 'forever' if it floats your boat.

Seems to me that you are the one telling everyone that you should get to define Socialism, because anyone that criticizes it is "illogical or disingenuous", and their definition of socialism is skewed.
Click to expand...

I could argue there's a distinction here but I'm guessing it would be a waste of time as you already know that...

... so let's pretend there isn't and see how much difference it makes:
Your pot is as black as your kettle.
Click to expand...

Yes, you got me; I should perhaps have said, "skewed from mine." (Although if pushed I'd further argue that most dictionaries would agree with me.)

However, the pertinent point remains. If someone is criticised for favouring socialism, with Europe presented as an example of such, the argument is only valid if the person being criticised agrees that the example is a valid one. Otherwise it's a false criticism.
Describing Europe as socialist does indeed require a definition of socialism which is at odds with my own (and, I would hope, that of anyone who pays attention to dictionary definitions).
 
@ Glaucus
"Discrediting a concept like socialism by taking it to it's extreme level is not fair. "
"Balance is what's needed "
----------------------------------
That is some slippery slope.
Because that is not what happens. The Socialists are the ones who always take it to the extreme level.
Eventually they get around to the practice of forcing you to become one of the hive, whether you want to or not. It's for your on good. They would deny you employment if you don't join their union, or force you to pay union dues anyway if you don't join the union. Local governments like NY even pass laws that say "You don't have the right to work, without joining the union." Join or suffer.

If you are not part of the collective, you are punished by taxing you at a different rate if you earn more than they do. If you excel at something, you need to be brought back down to their level.
There is no room in the hive for individualism, no room for entrepreneurship. If you are the one that employs some of the drones, your compensation should be limited. You should never be rewarded for risking your own wealth in a startup. Besides that, you probably inherited that money or stole it in the first place.

If your entrepreneurship leads to excessive wealth, your company should be nationalized by the government. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, and the government can run the company better than you. They know best; as long as it is a Socialist form of government!
 
socialism, in its purest form sux, but so don't capitalism... one of the hive? surely you didn't just say that? what is minimum wage now? it sure aint a living wage... think capitalism and rampant greed wants to make your life better? dont fall for that, we need the right combination of isms...and the good news is we could do that...
 
Fade said:
The Socialists are the ones who always take it to the extreme level.
Eventually they get around to the practice of forcing you to become one of the hive, whether you want to or not. It's for your on good. They would deny you employment if you don't join their union, or force you to pay union dues anyway if you don't join the union. Local governments like NY even pass laws that say "You don't have the right to work, without joining the union." Join or suffer.

If you are not part of the collective, you are punished by taxing you at a different rate if you earn more than they do. If you excel at something, you need to be brought back down to their level.
There is no room in the hive for individualism, no room for entrepreneurship. If you are the one that employs some of the drones, your compensation should be limited. You should never be rewarded for risking your own wealth in a startup. Besides that, you probably inherited that money or stole it in the first place.

If your entrepreneurship leads to excessive wealth, your company should be nationalized by the government. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, and the government can run the company better than you. They know best; as long as it is a Socialist form of government!
Click to expand...

So this is your description of Europe, Fade?

Absolutely hilarious, dear fellow.

Thank you.
 
Fade said:
@ Glaucus
"Discrediting a concept like socialism by taking it to it's extreme level is not fair. "
"Balance is what's needed "
----------------------------------
That is some slippery slope.
Because that is not what happens. The Socialists are the ones who always take it to the extreme level.
Click to expand...
'Always' makes your sentence false. There are degrees of socialism in every society and clearly not every society has gone to the extreme.

Eventually they get around to the practice of forcing you to become one of the hive, whether you want to or not. It's for your on good.
Click to expand...
Many businesses run in this manner. So even capitalistic systems do have socialist aspects.

If you are not part of the collective, you are punished by taxing you at a different rate if you earn more than they do.
Click to expand...
It's socialistic to share any costs in society. The reason for higher taxes isn't for punishment. The reason for higher taxes is those that earn more usually draw from the pool of shared resources in a larger amount.

If your entrepreneurship leads to excessive wealth, your company should be nationalized by the government. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, and the government can run the company better than you. They know best; as long as it is a Socialist form of government!
Click to expand...
While you use the extremes to discredit all socialism should you not do the same for capitalism? At the extreme it becomes a kleptocracy where the business is superior to the individual. This kleptocratic system is one that ends up being based on inherited wealth more so then actual contributions.

IMO the best society is one that balances all forces some capitalistic, some socialistic, to best ensure the individual is maximized.
 
faethor said:
IMO the best society is one that balances all forces some capitalistic, some socialistic, to best ensure the individual is maximized.
Click to expand...

I think you'd find most people agree with this. It's just that some on't like to admit it.
 
faethor said:
'Always' makes your sentence false. There are degrees of socialism in every society and clearly not every society has gone to the extreme.
Click to expand...

yet
as time goes to infinity, socialism goes to extreme

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
 
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
The same probem is exactly true of unfettered Capitalism.
 
faethor said:
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
The same probem is exactly true of unfettered Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Capitalism creates wealth
 
metalman said:
Capitalism creates wealth
Click to expand...
Socialism creates wealth too. Very often a shared cost results in shared benefit. For example bridges. We take a shared responsiblity to pay for new bridge construction and existing bridge repair. In general bridges return to the economy more than their shared costs.

Capitalism, like socialism, not only creates wealth it centralizes wealth.
 
faethor said:
Socialism creates wealth too. Very often a shared cost results in shared benefit. For example bridges. We take a shared responsiblity to pay for new bridge construction and existing bridge repair. In general bridges return to the economy more than their shared costs..
Click to expand...

So Greece needs to cut back their socialist policies to only building bridges so they can create wealth.

Then they can sell the Bridges to the Germans!
 
I'd say Greece could use a cut back on socialist policies. Having the majority of your working base retiring by the age of 50 then living for 30 years doesn't cut it without some seriously tight planning. I'd say Kenya could use a cut back on capitalistic policies. They're a good example of the extremism and barbism that comes from unfettered capitalism.

As for Bridges, again, one example of socialistic (aka shared responsibility) that does indeed make a net positive contribution to wealth within society. Of course not all bridges have this return. But, most do. Nor is do you get to falsely constrew this to mean that we should build a heapload of bridges. The wrong quantity of anything will result in a negative outcome. Capitalism has the same problem. If Ford make 10 Trillion cars they wouldn't profit. But they do on a few million a year.

Also it's false to assume that all businesses in a capitalistic system have a net positive contribution. For example, take the insurance industry. They aren't creating anything, so they're not creating true wealth. Instead they are moving money about and taking a small fee to do it. The result is wealth is centralized. In some cases in a capitalistic system the business has acheived a size sufficent for it's continuation even if it's not creating any wealth. Instead those businesses harvest wealth of others. Corporate raiders, for example, steal the profits for their pockets and don't contribute to wealth.

Again - the best society is one that's a mix of socialistic and capitalistic policies.
 
faethor said:
I'd say Kenya could use a cut back on capitalistic policies. They're a good example of the extremism and barbism that comes from unfettered capitalism.
Click to expand...

Kenyan government is gangster government

Kenya is among the world's most corrupt countries. Kenyans, most living on less the $1 USD per day, pay on average 16 bribes a month, 2 in every 3 encounters with a government official requires a bribe to be paid.

Capitalism requires "Rule of Law" and property rights
 
faethor said:
I'd say Greece could use a cut back on socialist policies. Having the majority of your working base retiring by the age of 50 then living for 30 years doesn't cut it without some seriously tight planning.
Click to expand...

Looks like there is a socialist solution to Greece's problems that doesn't require any raising of the retirement age!
and the less planning they do, the better the solution works!

Greece's state hospitals are cutting off vital drugs, limiting non-urgent operations and rationing even basic medical materials

and luckily Greece has LOTS of islands so they NEED lots of bridges
 
metalman said:
Looks like there is a socialist solution to Greece's problems that doesn't require any raising of the retirement age!
and the less planning they do, the better the solution works!

Greece's state hospitals are cutting off vital drugs, limiting non-urgent operations and rationing even basic medical materials
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what happens when the system fails. But capitalism isn't immune to failure, and a capitalist society failing could have worse results. With a high unemployment rate you'd have a large portion of people that could not afford to pay insurance never mind actual medical costs. In such a case only the rich would survive a medical emergency. There certainly are great examples of where socialism doesn't work, but socialist medicine isn't one of them. That's why piss poor countries like Cuba have a medical system that is overall comparable to the richest nation on the planet, and why slightly better off socialist medical systems are noticeably superior. A sick poor man is still better off in Greece than in the US.

I should also note that the Greek medical system is not FULLY socialist. You can find private clinics. However, the real problem with the Greek system is that it's corrupt. You could go into a publicly funded hospital for an examination that is covered by the state, but the staff will ignore you until you pay them off with cold hard cash. That's where Greece's problems stem from, deep rooted systemic corruption in all aspects of daily life. It isn't strictly limited to the government. There is no one thing you can point to blame. I know Fluffy has his favorite targets and you have yours, but the two of you should take some comfort that you have at least one thing in common: you're both wrong about Greece.
 
metalman said:
Looks like there is a socialist solution to Greece's problems that doesn't require any raising of the retirement age!
and the less planning they do, the better the solution works!

Greece's state hospitals are cutting off vital drugs, limiting non-urgent operations and rationing even basic medical materials

and luckily Greece has LOTS of islands so they NEED lots of bridges
Click to expand...

Obama Tries to Speed Response to Shortages in Vital Medicines​


WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue an executive order on Monday that the administration hopes will help resolve a growing number of critical shortages of vital medicines used to treat life-threatening illnesses, among them several forms ofcancer and bacterial infections.​
Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.​
​
The order offers drug manufacturers and wholesalers both a helping hand and a gloved fist in efforts to prevent or resolve shortages that have worsened greatly in recent years, endangering thousands of lives.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top