DescentBB

What is it? What is wrong with it? What is good about it?

I am very interested in your answers to these questions.

Socialism= Bread lines and government cheese.
Capitalism= Puts McDonalds in China.

All extreams are bad -- with socialism it is that it ignores human nature.

But what is socialism?

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

That is far and away from the purpose of this thread. I want to know what you think socialism is, not a link to the wikipedia article.

Socialism is where the government controls all aspects of commerce. They control all transportation. They control education. Everything is decided by a very select few.
Everything is gathered into one storehouse and dispersed according to need. Sounds good on paper but as Gooberman points out, totally neglects to take human nature into account. Capitalism feeds greed and individualism. The lesser of 2 evils in a fallen state.

null0010 wrote:

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

That is far and away from the purpose of this thread. I want to know what you think socialism is, not a link to the wikipedia article.

I think its just a word that depends greatly on context and varies meaning from person to person. If we are talking modern US politics it is just a buzzword for the RNC to get votes. If we are talking social philosophy then the Wiki link does the word justice.

While few people in the world have warm feelings for energy companies beyond perhaps their stockholders, Russia's state-owned natural gas monopoly Gazprom has shown an unrivalled and unique capacity to alienate is customers over the past two decades since the collapse of the USSR.

Source:
http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/22166

My definition.

A recourse of socialism is that no one cares about the what they own. Property and the like fall into disrepair. 1. The government pays for everything so a lot of "little things" get left out or missed due to budget. 2. The government pays for everything so no one cares how they treat things. THAT is human nature.

This is comes to me from a friend I work with that is from Soviet controlled Poland.

Socialism is a system set up for the bearucrats to get and retain power over the people. Much the same way our system is setup to do. With both systems having the elites having everything the want and the have not still having nothing.

Socialism breeds complacency, laziness, and kills the will of people to try and work harder to better themselves. it stifles vision and invention and provides you with products like the Yugo. and places like Cuba and North Korea.

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and finance.
The way it affects the citizens and causes them to affect each other is similar to the dynamic that exists between slum lords and their tenants.

As the tenant you don't own the apartment and have no hope of actually getting your security deposit back so you don't care the condition you leave the place in.
In the tenants view the landlord is keeping all the wealth and not caring for his tenants or improving the quality of the living conditions to your liking.

If the slum lord owned not only all the apartments but your job as well as the police force imagine how society would devolve from where it is now.
There would be two classes within the law, the powerful ruling class and the poor working class and there would eventually evolve a third class outside the law called the rebellion.

wow, thus far not one of you seem to actually understand the damn definition. Maybe that's part of the problem. Socialism and Capitalism are economic structures. In capitalism, all one's labor goes to acquisition of capital, which, in turn, can be used to procure goods and services. Post-industrial revolution, this expands to the fact that those with a lot of capital pool it into corporations, which produce very large amounts of goods and services and employ workers. Socialism was developed in response to the abuse of the latter developments, in which workers were kept in a situation wherein it became difficult to amass capital and better their lives. Thus, in socialism, the state, via collection of taxes in a fashion skewed toward the highest capital-holders, is expected to provide a minimal level of social welfare for all. This means support for housing, healthcare, food, transportation and in some cases income subsidies. At this point, pretty much all Western democratic nations are a mix of both systems, to varying degrees. Communism or collectivism is the outgrowth of Socialism wherein the state controls all means of production and compensation. Very few nations(even 'Communist' in name) adhere strictly to this model, as it really doesn't work.

Socialism by definition is a system of production and distribution controlled by the people, and it basic purpose is fairness and equality. Without getting into the means to an end…here is my problem with “socialism”.

Fairness…

Fairness is inherently subjective and relative, meaning one man’s fairness in another man’s oppression.

Equality…

The only place people can be equal is at the lowest common denominator, the higher up the economic ladder, the less likely any person can maintain, or be worthy of that position.

Socialism destroys the beautiful godess of freedom, in lieu of her false face stepsisters, fairness & equality.

........................

Capitalism’s common usage taday is just the free market system, but in fact capitalism is the means in which capital is used to create further wealth, by lending, investment and insurance etc.

Our economic system in fact is not capitalism, but consumption based (70+%), where capitalism provides the supercharging effect.

Capitalism…

Banks
Wall Street
Insurance

Not Capitalism…

Labor
Farming
Trade

Example…

A business produces a product with labor…this is not capitalism, when he gets a bank loan to buy equipment…that is capitalism.

Let me make it simple, Socialism (like unions) promotes mediocrity with no real chance for capable people to do better than those who are incapable. Capitalist look for and reward capable people thus bolstering a countries dynamic strengths. China realized this and is one of the reasons they are becoming a economic power house. Like Slick said tho, most countries to a varying degree support both economic models.

woodchip wrote:Let me make it simple,

as you frequently demonstrate, 'simple' is what you do best.


there is no inherent disincentive to succeed in a socialist system. Just look to the Nordic nations for examples, which abound, of folks becoming quite wealthy, without the society as a whole getting dragged down.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Let me make it simple,

as you frequently demonstrate, 'simple' is what you do best.


there is no inherent disincentive to succeed in a socialist system. Just look to the Nordic nations for examples, which abound, of folks becoming quite wealthy, without the society as a whole getting dragged down.

Or look at Russia under the old USSR to see how the worker fared.

Pure Socialism does have that problem, no incentive to strive and work hard to do the best in order to succeed. But on the reverse side, neither does pure Capitalism, because when a few powerful or wealthy people take what they want and rig the system to perpetuate it, everyone else is left with the scraps. Then there's nothing left for everyone else TO strive for. Both systems essentially end up the same when they go to the extremes. The few powerful and elites will always try to accumulate everything for themselves, no matter the system. It happened to the Soviets, and they were Communists. It happened to the Capitalists during the Great Depression. Same old, same old.

What everyone is missing is that greed, avarice and sloth (yes Woody, laziness) will degrade both systems when not checked by some form of rules or restrictions, fair incentives and the desire to make things work. It's human nature to always take as much as they can, when they can and screw everyone else doing it. Our individual need to survive is always a problem within a group society. The most successful systems do a good job of blending the 2 ideologies to damp down the worst of our human nature and behaviors.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Let me make it simple,

as you frequently demonstrate, 'simple' is what you do best.


there is no inherent disincentive to succeed in a socialist system. Just look to the Nordic nations for examples, which abound, of folks becoming quite wealthy, without the society as a whole getting dragged down.

Or look at Russia under the old USSR to see how the worker fared.

but that was not socialism, it was collectivism, run by an elite oligarchy. Marx would have been appalled.

flip wrote:Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.

no, that would be communism.

Are you sure about that Not so Slick.

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

tunnelcat wrote:Pure Socialism does have that problem, no incentive to strive and work hard to do the best in order to succeed. But on the reverse side, neither does pure Capitalism, because when a few powerful or wealthy people take what they want and rig the system to perpetuate it, everyone else is left with the scraps. Then there's nothing left for everyone else TO strive for. Both systems essentially end up the same when they go to the extremes. The few powerful and elites will always try to accumulate everything for themselves, no matter the system. It happened to the Soviets, and they were Communists. It happened to the Capitalists during the Great Depression. Same old, same old.

What everyone is missing is that greed, avarice and sloth (yes Woody, laziness) will degrade both systems when not checked by some form of rules or restrictions, fair incentives and the desire to make things work. It's human nature to always take as much as they can, when they can and screw everyone else doing it. Our individual need to survive is always a problem within a group society. The most successful systems do a good job of blending the 2 ideologies to damp down the worst of our human nature and behaviors.

You may be right, but I have a thought on the capitalism lines:

In a capitalistic system, a lack of incentive for the worker hurts all parties involved in the form of reduced production. In a sense, a "capitalistic" system where the powerful have rigged the system is a form of socialism where the government is replaced by the corporation.

I don't know my economics well enough to know where unions and the worker's freedom fits, but it's an important part of the American model. Unions and the worker's ability to quit and move on give the worker power to affect the profitability of the rich and powerful. These mechanisms force the corporation to give incentive to the worker, which in turn motivates the worker to produce in hopes of receiving the promised incentive. All party's greed is used to balance the scales.

I'd argue that the best systems are the ones that are most effective at preventing all corporations from "rigging the system" while also allowing them the potential to grow and raise capital in proportion with their success.

tunnelcat wrote:Pure Socialism does have that problem, no incentive to strive and work hard to do the best in order to succeed. But on the reverse side, neither does pure Capitalism, because when a few powerful or wealthy people take what they want and rig the system to perpetuate it, everyone else is left with the scraps. ...

I think you are assigning blame to capitalism where in fact it belongs at the feet of our corrupt politicians for allowing the electoral process to become nothing but a marketplace for special interests to buy the creation of legislation favorable to their interests.

It isn't that capitalism inherently rigs the system the way socialism inherently deprives the people of innovation and incentive.
Capitalism didn't happen to politics...corruption did.

Trying to mix in some other bad influence like socialism to counter the bad influences of capitalism is making a bad recipe worse. Fire the cooks and regain control of the kitchen...re-establish the rules and bring in new cooks because the original recipe was good!.

Heretic wrote:Are you sure about that Not so Slick.

you expect this loon to define socialism honestly?(source of funding for your quoted article/definitions)
http://www.libertyfund.org/

it would be like asking Trotsky to define capitalism.

snoopy wrote:I don't know my economics well enough to know where unions and the worker's freedom fits, but it's an important part of the American model. Unions and the worker's ability to quit and move on give the worker power to affect the profitability of the rich and powerful. These mechanisms force the corporation to give incentive to the worker, which in turn motivates the worker to produce in hopes of receiving the promised incentive. All party's greed is used to balance the scales.

that wasn't inherently part of the system until a long-term wave of Progressive reforms were brought to bear upon the sweatshops and child labor that were the hallmarks of the early rise of Industrialism. Interestingly, part of the force that changed our nation for the better was massive public demonstrations and long, sometimes brutal strikes.

Will Robinson wrote: Trying to mix in some other bad influence like socialism to counter the bad influences of capitalism is making a bad recipe worse. Fire the cooks and regain control of the kitchen...re-establish the rules and bring in new cooks because the original recipe was good!.

but, Will, wasn't the 'original recipe' prepared before large scale industrialization, and the rise of the common-stock corporation? Those were watershed events for the economies of the Western world, and forever changed the relationship of capitalists to both workers and government.

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:Are you sure about that Not so Slick.

you expect this loon to define socialism honestly?(source of funding for your quoted article/definitions)
http://www.libertyfund.org/

it would be like asking Trotsky to define capitalism.

Here ya go TC another classic case of Projection, Even though the first definition came from a former socialist he has to be a loon because he doesn't conform to Not so Slicks way of defining socialism.

Funny How I didn't include the Webster def It's still wrong because I quoted a "LOON" as Not SO Slick says.

So here go Webster

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Will Robinson wrote:I think you are assigning blame to capitalism where in fact it belongs at the feet of our corrupt politicians for allowing the electoral process to become nothing but a marketplace for special interests to buy the creation of legislation favorable to their interests.

It isn't that capitalism inherently rigs the system the way socialism inherently deprives the people of innovation and incentive.
Capitalism didn't happen to politics...corruption did.

Trying to mix in some other bad influence like socialism to counter the bad influences of capitalism is making a bad recipe worse. Fire the cooks and regain control of the kitchen...re-establish the rules and bring in new cooks because the original recipe was good!.

Yes, the politicians are part of the problem. By enabling graft and benefiting themselves in our Capitalistic system, they poison it. But even if you discount or remove the politicians altogether, the very people that benefit and profit in a Capitalistic system are just a susceptible to corruption and greed as any other human being. Why do you assume that Capitalism is inherently free from any abuses or greed? There is no perfect system. Humans need rules and limits, or it's a free-for-all that only the few will succeed at.

I think definition #3 would suit Marx best. I will defer to him on that one.

Know your socialism.

TC, when you said:

tunnelcat wrote:... few powerful or wealthy people take what they want and rig the system to perpetuate it, everyone else is left with the scraps. ...

You are describing the behavior of a few. If Capitalism was inherently responsible for causing people to rig the system you would have a point but it seems that, by definition, "rig the system" implies something being done to the system.. the system being capitalism...therefore the rigging is not of capitalism, it is of some outside source....bad peoples greed etc. Greed and the hunger for power existed long before the first capitalist system was put in play and it will exist long after they all fall if they do.

I'm not saying that capitalism can't have any negative results but there is an inherent nature to the cause and negative effect socialism has that isn't paralleled in capitalism. None of the examples you gave of the down side to capitalism were the result of wealth accumulation/ loss or competition and market driven values etc. they were the result of selfish manipulations. Those manipulations could be dealt with by government to keep capitalism relatively benign but instead politicians have put themselves on the payroll of the 'manipulators'.

The reason socialism creates disincentives is the very practice of socialism does so without any bad actors required to deviate from the proper implementation of socialism to create them.
It is an important distinction to recognize if you want to counter the negative effects of capitalism because you otherwise don't see the source of your problem you instead wind up doing dumb things like occupying Wall Street with nary a clue as to why you are there.

I think definition #3 describes exactly the crossroads America is at. Now would be the only time to reverse or delay it, as of this moment, all different models of government are being considered for world management. Unfortunately, from the outside or in the office of high-ranking officials , the Chinese model looks most attractive right now. It's just easier to manage a large population with a heavy hand. I know this from experience.
On the jobsite, if you want everyone to shut the hell up and start working, just get pissed and start hollering. Everybody else gets mad as hell, quiet as hell and all that pissed off energy makes them start working like hell. It's just how most people are. After several years, I found a better way. To treat people with respect and make them feel as part of something, that paid well , but hollering is alot easier .

am I the only one that figured the question was to A) define socialism in my own words, and to elaborate on the pros and cons of such a governmental system?

I could give the standard definition but I'll be the first to admit that I really don't know enough ABOUT socialism to comment.

oh and.. if anyone wants to be a smartass by referring to the wiki article, it's really not the purpose of this thread It's too bad really. Something that looked interesting has degenerated into 'socialism sucks because...'

It's a popcorn thread then ?

flip wrote:I think definition #3 describes exactly the crossroads America is at. Now would be the only time to reverse or delay it

why?

Will Robinson wrote: The reason socialism creates disincentives is the very practice of socialism does so without any bad actors required to deviate from the proper implementation of socialism to create them.
It is an important distinction to recognize if you want to counter the negative effects of capitalism because you otherwise don't see the source of your problem you instead wind up doing dumb things like occupying Wall Street with nary a clue as to why you are there.

I agree that Socialism by itself is a disincentive to work and create. That's why most people in the U.S. don't like the idea of it. They don't like being told by a government what to do and think. But some socialistic aspects can be a good thing when dealing with the "commons", in other words, those aspects of society which we all have to share as a group to keep this country functioning, just as Capitalism is good for bringing about growth, prosperity and creativity. We live with socialistic ideas all the time and most people never think a thing about it. Roads and transport, police and fire protection to name just a few.

So why is Occupy Wall Street any dumber than what the tea party is calling for? I've heard many a protester calling for Washington, not just Wall Street, to be cleaned up and purged of the money interests. Both are problems as I see it, because they've become symbiotic parasites that support one another to the detriment of the rest of the organism.

tunnelcat wrote:So why is Occupy Wall Street any dumber than what the tea party is calling for? I've heard many a protester calling for Washington, not just Wall Street, to be cleaned up and purged of the money interests. Both are problems as I see it, because they've become symbiotic parasites that support one another to the detriment of the rest of the organism.

actually, the main interest I have in seeing where this new thing is heading is that you have to go after the money to have any long-term effect on politics. That, to my mind, is where the Tea Party went off the rails, they let the money come in and dictate a different agenda than was first put forth.