Why not Socialism?

[quentinc]

What would be wrong with adopting a Socialist economic policy in the U.S.? I fail to see what the problem would be with having a national health care system, higher education paid for etc. I realize that the U.S. has been historically conservative (in economic terms), but what would be wrong with a socialist economy?

[futbolrey]

you can put me down for economic socialism...but to answer you question big business here is opposed to any economic reform. Also nobody want to pay higher taxes.

[quentinc]

Of course people don't realize that they would be paying taxes on the same things they are now (health care comes to mind) and would in reality probably pay less since everything is under one umbrella.

[eric_appleby]

What do you define as a socialist economic system?

Do you mean one where government bureaucrats with poli sci degrees decide how many pcs get manufactured in the next 5 years? No thanks.

[quentinc]

No, that would be more a form of communism. Countries such as England are socialist and perform very well. Basically, a socialist economy gives the government the power to step in when a certain industry becomes unfair (think Microsoft). They also have the ability to pick up businesses that are beginning to slip. It is designed to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

I like the idea of basic socialism fine, it's just that I don't trust hardly anyone to properly implement it. We should stick to our current system that's misunderstood and abused instead of jumping ship for another one that'll be misunderstood and abused.

[BenReilly]

No, that would be more a form of communism. Countries such as England are socialist and perform very well.

LOL, you can come up with a better example of socialism than the United Kingdom!

[Shurik]

Communism doesn't have a government. You poor victims of American education always confuse Communism with what they had in the Soviet Union. What they had in the Soviet Union, by the way, was an ultra right wing authocracy.

Socialism will probably be the next economic system, when capitalism finally collapses under its own weight. Which is inevitable, for nothing in this world is eternal. Capitalism's downfall will be its reliance on the stabilizing influence of the free market. As soon as stable conditions are taken away for whatever reason, capitalism finds itself in a deep crisis and, with a clear alternative available, is discarded by the wayside.
Socialism provides additional checks and balances for the economy. Of course, since the checks and balances are furnished by the political structures, it doesn't quite work with a corrupt or authoritarian government. And representative democracy is corrupt by definition. So, economic socialism is a half-measure. Whether political socialism effectively follows in its steps, who knows. At this point it's probably unprovable either way.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

Communism doesn't have a government. You poor victims of American education always confuse Communism with what they had in the Soviet Union. What they had in the Soviet Union, by the way, was an ultra right wing authocracy.

Oh come on now. I've read Animal Farm. I get what went down in the Soviet Union. Communism is what they told the people they were doing, so that's the label it's been stuck with, simple as that.

[Shurik]

Oh come on now. I've read Animal Farm. I get what went down in the Soviet Union.

How? It talks about what went on on an animal farm.

Communism is what they told the people they were doing, so that's the label it's been stuck with, simple as that.

Word up, brother! They also said they were building a paradise for the workers. There are about 20 million graves in Siberia than can attest to their success.

[churchill2000]

Communism doesn't have a government. You poor victims of American education always confuse Communism with what they had in the Soviet Union. What they had in the Soviet Union, by the way, was an ultra right wing authocracy.

Socialism will probably be the next economic system, when capitalism finally collapses under its own weight. Which is inevitable, for nothing in this world is eternal. Capitalism's downfall will be its reliance on the stabilizing influence of the free market. As soon as stable conditions are taken away for whatever reason, capitalism finds itself in a deep crisis and, with a clear alternative available, is discarded by the wayside.
Socialism provides additional checks and balances for the economy. Of course, since the checks and balances are furnished by the political structures, it doesn't quite work with a corrupt or authoritarian government. And representative democracy is corrupt by definition. So, economic socialism is a half-measure. Whether political socialism effectively follows in its steps, who knows. At this point it's probably unprovable either way.


Hell Yes with Marxism!

[NoodlesMacintosh]

How? It talks about what went on on an animal farm.

...it's a story full of symbols concerning the events of early Soviet Communism.

Word up, brother! They also said they were building a paradise for the workers. There are about 20 million graves in Siberia than can attest to their success.

I didn't claim that they were actually doing what they were saying, but you may be acknowledging that. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

[Shurik]

...it's a story full of symbols concerning the events of early Soviet Communism.

No, it's not. It's a book about agriculture. The movie Babe is based on it.

I didn't claim that they were actually doing what they were saying, but you may be acknowledging that. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Can you tell now?

[Mikeshi]

No, that would be more a form of communism. Countries such as England are socialist and perform very well. Basically, a socialist economy gives the government the power to step in when a certain industry becomes unfair (think Microsoft). They also have the ability to pick up businesses that are beginning to slip. It is designed to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

Look Johnny learned a new word at school today. England is not socialist. Such a statement should insult socialists and capitalists alike. Yes, they have socialized sectors of their economy, but they would be considered socialists by only the most liberal use of the word.

England has a form of welfare capitalism((a compromised form of capitalism that tries to answer for the inequalities and injustices of unregulated markets. Changes made to avoid or waylay the radical changes that true socialism would bring. The relief of a pressure valve so to speak)) that is further evolved((more liberal, in some cases much more)) than the US, yet it is still very very capitalistic.

The US govt. does step in when a business becomes unfair(think Microsoft...it isn't exactly ancient history) plus numerous others throughout its history. The FAA, the FCC, the FDA, etc. are all govt. organizations that regulate a capitalist economy. Utilities have to operate under a whole different set of guidelines.
The UK would probably just be considered more liberal when they will step in, more regulated((especially with EU), and more union supportive(although unions are not entirely a socialist entity, many free market capitalists favor their usage)), and so forth and so on.

The US govt. does prop up businesses. Think tariffs, subsidizing, tax breaks, bailouts(Chrysler and more recently the airlines), protectionist regulations, university funding, church charity funding, etc.

England has socialized medicine, but the industries that supply them are mainly capitalist(making medicines, food, linens, equipment). Also there is access to private care for those wealthy enough who want to pay extra.
US medical support pales in comparison, with medicare, medicaid, SS, and corporate supported health insurance.

Socialism is a stretched and politicized word, but England should not be considered so. It is simply, in my opinion, a more liberal form of welfare capitalism than the US. We have our safety nets and socialized controls too, England's are simply more widespread and denser than ours.
The money is still made by capitalists, it is just redistibuted on a wider scale.
A larger welfare system not a socialist system.

The UK is much closer to social democracy than socialism. Even the Labour party that was founded on democratic socialism is moreso today manifest as social democrats. I do not think you understand what you are actually saying when you say you throw around words like socialism. Maybe you should know better what you are asking for before you ask for it. Wanting a govt. funded healthcare system and a govt. funded higher education system and more govt. regulation is not socialism. Socialism is more geared to who controls the means of production and private property than social welfare.

[Metroweenie]

No, that would be more a form of communism. Countries such as England are socialist and perform very well. Basically, a socialist economy gives the government the power to step in when a certain industry becomes unfair (think Microsoft).

You're a century too late buddy. (As you ironically acknowledge with your example)
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/class/law/trustbuster.roosevelt.gif

And why is Social Security not socialist, if nationalized health care is?

[DoyleG]

Socialism takes on many forms in different countries. One value in a nation would be interpreted differently in another.

Universal Health Care was brought in by Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan more on his religous beliefs than any socialist ideals promoted by his CCF party members. It was resisted by much of the country until points today in which UHC is used more as a way to protest what they feel is "American-style*** health care reforms.

Another aspect of Socialism here is Old Age Pensions. They were brought in during the Great Depression because the Liberal Prime Minister, W.L.M King, needed support in a minority gov't and introduced OAP in order to get backing from the CCF.

Canadian Gov't was always involved in the running of industry in the country. Trans Canada Airways (now Air Canada), Canadian Pacific Railways, Canadian National Railways and other companies were started by the gov't to ensure a Canadian presence in various industries.

[quentinc]

Communism doesn't have a government.
You are right and wrong on that point. Yes, communism implies that it is a communal society, and everything is owned by everyone. But technically, everyone could be considered the government. Theoretically, in the United States, the people run the government.;)

The US govt. does step in when a business becomes unfair(think Microsoft...it isn't exactly ancient history) plus numerous others throughout its history. The FAA, the FCC, the FDA, etc. are all govt. organizations that regulate a capitalist economy. Utilities have to operate under a whole different set of guidelines.
In Microsoft's case, the government would have physically taken control of the software industry and done things to make the market level again. Organizations like the FDA are simply regulatory groups that make sure that drugs that are potentially dangerous are not purchased by consumers. That does not mean that they are controlling things like how drugs are priced. What the U.S. government does is watch over industry and when there is an exceptional case they put them on trial for monopoly, split them into software and hardware, and then leave (to use the Microsoft example). The U.S. does just enough to make sure that the consumer isn't being cheated.

[Unorthodox Yank]

No, it's not. It's a book about agriculture. The movie Babe is based on it.


Wrong pig movie. Gordy was the one based on animal farm, not Babe.



































...I hope those of you that have actually seen that complete travesty of a motion picture get why that is funny.

[quentinc]

How? It talks about what went on on an animal farm.
Have you read the book by any chance? The entire book is based off of the Soviet Union up to the point that he wrote the book in the late 30's, early 40's. It is brilliantly symbolized using farm animals, which, I just thought about this right now, is a great symbolism. Think about it, farm animals are supposedly harmless creatures. This is the exact light the Soviet Union was viewed in before this book. The book was shocking in part because it seemed ridicolous that farm animals would do something like that, kind of like the Soviet Union.

[Shurik]

Have you read the book by any chance? The entire book is based off of the Soviet Union

Why? Have you been to the Soviet Union by any chance? How about the author who wrote it?
Russians allowing pigs to survive long enough to build a complex political structure? Riiiiiight.

And as long as we are on the subject of judging economic and political structures (let alone terminologies) based on works of fictional satirical literature, have you ever read Starik Khottabych? 'Cause if you haven't you are barely qualified to even mention the word "capitalism".