The Viability of Socialism

[joG]

In relation to health related discussions, It's an easy answer. Who needs it the most gets it first. Irrespective of ethically irrelevant factors such as capacity to pay, social status, whether or not someone is considered "worthy" by others, race, religion, gender, maritial status, etc. Treatment should be available and offered on a needs alone basis to patients who need it the most first.

Actually it is in all but special situations not those with greatest needs that gets it first. It is the elite. This makes considerable sense in a rational system of ethics.

 

[jonny5]

You imagine limits like 3/4 state agreement, why can you not have social democracy with limits. Not really a question is it, we can, and do, and will.

We have that largely now, it's just that corporate interests have more of that control, than the people. Not surprising, look how fast people gave up their information privacy...to corporations. You think people protect themselves? Government on the other hand, had all sorts of protections in place for you and me, from government and from other people, in how they had to get court approval and show mal intent to get your phone tapped.

Now? They can monitor all your internet activity likely with no warrant *at all*. That's because government is just a tool of people, just like a corporation is a tool, neither are inherently good or bad, and both need to be used wisely but the people that wield them.

You can not have social democracy and natural rights (limits). Which is why we dont. We have tyranny of the majority.

 

[Verax]

You can not have social democracy and natural rights (limits). Which is why we dont. We have tyranny of the majority.

Seems tyranny of the 51% is more fair than tyranny of the 1/10th of 1%.

 

[Zyphlin]

Not sure how things work there but here the Social Security Disability Support payment is designed to offer financial support for people who suffer from a physical, intellectual or psychiatric condition that prevents them from working. They are assessed by a medical professional, and if deemed to have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment, are unable to work, or unable to be retrained to return to the workforce, for 15 hours or more per week, and they meet the income and assets tests, they are eligible.

As they should be.

So long as the medical examination is a legitimate one (IE, is not trying to deny people for the sake of denying them, nor being too lenient to get people on the public doll) I have no issue with that. If your disability legitimately makes you UNABLE to work, or unable to be retrained, then providing some level of financial support makes sense.

That is not on par with what SCitizen has argued in the past, as "moderate depression" as he describes it generally would never cross the bar, nor would the instances where he describes as disabilities that are "unproveable"; yet he still wants to see those people being treated with full support. Additionally, I believe there is a large difference between a literal IMPAIRMENT that is making them unable to work, and an instance that simply makes it somewhat difficult to get yourself to work for more than 10-15 hours a week.

I don't have any issues with the government supporting those who are disabled to the point where work is simply not feasible for them, at all. As a society, I see worth in providing some support there. But there must be a level at which we go "no, that's asking too much", and there's a point where you end up minimizing those with legitimate severe disabilities by broadening the term by so much. What you're talking about here, and what he's historically talked about on this forum, are two very different things.

 

[DA60]

Socialism cannot work for humanity at this time in our evolution, imo.

One, government - ALL government - is corrupt and INCREDIBLY inefficient. The bigger the government, the more waste, corruption and inefficiency. Even the Progressive Champion, Bernie Sanders, freely admits how incredibly corrupt government is.
Socialism requires government to do things instead of the private sector.
That automatically means that it will do a far, FAR more inefficient job at FAR greater cost. How can that possibly be a better way?

And second, there is complacency. When everything is provided for you, many people stop challenging themselves. They give up, buy lottery tickets and sit on their asses because the government pays them to do just that. Why do a job you hate and make just a little bit more money than a socialist government gives you for doing nothing?

Now, I believe that the government should provide all the basic necessities of survival - food, shelter, basic medical/dental (full for children/disabled/veterans), clothing, security and basic education...but only in basic form. People in rich countries like America should never have to worry about enough to eat or a safe, clean place to live.
But to start promising them guaranteed incomes and free university and free everything they not only need...but many things they want (but do not need) - that is 1) completely unsustainable fiscally...TOTALLY. and 2) it results in a population whose productivity drops fast...which hurts everyone in the long run.

Nope, socialism is not a good idea. It's a nice thought, but I am afraid it is little more than a moocher's paradise - and a fiscally unsustainable one, at that.

 

[MrWonka]

I know that there are a lot of you who believe that Socialism is a ludicrous pipe dream, but I disagree.
I think that Socialism can be viable if it is gradually implemented and the people are educated in the pros and cons of the system.
If you think about it, Socialism is a system dedicated to the rights of workers and economic/social equality. It also emphasizes government regulation and workers cooperatives, and it sets up universal healthcare and public colleges.

If you are against Socialism, express your deal breaker calmly and explain. I know this stuff causes tempers to flair, so let's try to have a pleasant debate.

There are varying degrees and types of Socialism. True socialism involves government ownership of the means of productions. All corporations are owned by the state, and strictly controlled by the state. That type of system will almost certainly struggle over time. However a system of heavy regulation, with relatively high taxation, and an excellent social safety net where taxes are re-invested in the country in the form of infrastructure, education, healthcare, and energy production where all the people of the country share in the prosperity of the country is not only a potentially viable system, but a system that we can currently see in action working very well in many parts of the world. This is not strict socialism, but it is generally what people now days seem to be referring to when they talk about socialism.

 

[Roycarn]

I know that there are a lot of you who believe that Socialism is a ludicrous pipe dream, but I disagree.
I think that Socialism can be viable if it is gradually implemented and the people are educated in the pros and cons of the system.
If you think about it, Socialism is a system dedicated to the rights of workers and economic/social equality. It also emphasizes government regulation and workers cooperatives, and it sets up universal healthcare and public colleges.

If you are against Socialism, express your deal breaker calmly and explain. I know this stuff causes tempers to flair, so let's try to have a pleasant debate.

What you're describing could be described as either social democracy or democratic socialism, although I'm assuming the latter to be the case since you emphasize workers coops. There are already a large number of coops out there, but in general it's hard to see the advantage of having those over regular enterprise. Sure they are by definition part of the community, but the same can be said of small businesses depending on how you define the term. Large companies can take advantage of economies of scale to produce goods more efficiently. So the strongest argument against socialism in my opinion is the efficiency aspect.

During the Cold War, there were a number of socialist economies so socialism clearly is possible. But once the Iron Curtain fell, most of Eastern Europe adopted market oriented economies because that's what led to their standard of living improving, sometimes quite dramatically as was the case with Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia.

 

[JonahsArk]

I know that there are a lot of you who believe that Socialism is a ludicrous pipe dream, but I disagree.
I think that Socialism can be viable if it is gradually implemented and the people are educated in the pros and cons of the system.
If you think about it, Socialism is a system dedicated to the rights of workers and economic/social equality. It also emphasizes government regulation and workers cooperatives, and it sets up universal healthcare and public colleges.

If you are against Socialism, express your deal breaker calmly and explain. I know this stuff causes tempers to flair, so let's try to have a pleasant debate.

I am against socialism, simply because bigger government has never been a good thing. Thomas Pain, a brilliant english writer, said "government is a necessary evil" and that is so true. you have to have government or you'll have anarchy, little to no military, and little to no money per citizen. we tried having too little government at the beginning of the country by implementing the articles of confederation, and it simply wasn't working. BUT on the other end of the spectrum, if you have too much government (socialism), the government has too much control, and the citizens opportunities to be successful are much more limited. not to mention, when government has as much power as a socialistic one, it leaves many open doors and windows for usurpation.

 

[Fritz]

I'd prefer what we are doing now compared to full on socialism, I don't think it works very well. I think the most reasonable approach is social democracy but to not go beyond that. Social democracy allows people to build their dreams in a freeish capitalist society while lessening the negative impact on the lower classes which are often unfairly picked on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

I have read about social democracy before posting this thread, and it seems to be the medium between capitalism and socialism in a sense.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Why don't you move there if its so great? its amusing how high the suicide rate is in those socialist paradises

That's because of their latitude. Everywhere where you have long periods of winter darkness also have higher suicide rates. Does socialism explain Alaskan suicide rates? It has a higher suicide rate than any of the Nordic countries. Besides, the average suicide rate for the Nordic countries is only slightly higher than ours are anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

[Fritz]

Why gradually?

Fast implementation backfires, see the French Revolution for example. They were too radical and chaos happened, until a dictator like Napoleon had to step in and restore order.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

However, Socialism in the right atmosphere will be very effective for a society. You think?

Mixed systems tend to work best where you have capitalist economies with strong social safety-nets, strong environmental protection, and a lot of public sector regulation and protections in regards to healthcare and public health.

 

[Fritz]

Mixed systems tend to work best where you have capitalist economies with strong social safety-nets, strong environmental protection, and a lot of public sector regulation and protections in regards to healthcare and public health.

So you are advocating social democracy?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So you are advocating social democracy?

I am saying that political / economic systems that range between what we have in the United States on one end to countries like Canada, Germany, Japan, and then to the other end the Nordic Nation's seem to work best in terms of quality of life.

 

[Fritz]

Define "the right atmosphere"? Such a system doesn't exist until we reach Star Trek levels of advancement. When people work for the sake of gooodness: yes. When people work to feed themselves and they're families, there's only so much altruism to go around.

Even "SCANDINAVIAN STYLE SOCIALISM" benefits from non-stop U.S. babysitting of European military affairs.

The right atmosphere that I am saying would be an altruistic atmosphere that is definitely plausible. Reading all these posts the problem with socialism is it is too altruistic and big government. I also think most would think that social democracy is the most viable of the "socialist" variants since it balances capitalism and some government services (i.e. healthcare).

 

[Fritz]

I am saying that political / economic systems that range between what we have in the United States on one end to countries like Canada, Germany, Japan, and then to the other end the Nordic Nation's seem to work best in terms of quality of life.

Oh I see your point, different methods can lead to the same goal like quality of life.

 

[natsb]

The right atmosphere that I am saying would be an altruistic atmosphere that is definitely plausible. Reading all these posts the problem with socialism is it is too altruistic and big government. I also think most would think that social democracy is the most viable of the "socialist" variants since it balances capitalism and some government services (i.e. healthcare).

There is no such thing as a viable form of socialism. Dozens, if not hundreds of variants have been tried under the premise that it just hasn't been done right yet. Throughout the history of civilization, there has always been the same constant; socialism (of any variant) fails 100% of the time. Human nature cannot be changed by law, the law has to conform to human nature.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Oh I see your point, different methods can lead to the same goal like quality of life.

Yes, but the extremes never tend to lead to that goal. Societies that lack safetynets, strong environmental protections, and strong public health systems, never have good quality of life. Point being that the libertarian ideal is every bit as foolish as the communist ideal.

 

[Master PO]

socialism, fascism, and communism all consist of BIG government.

these types of systems are based on the collective, destroying individuality were the collective body uses force to keep everyone under its control.

BIG government leads to authoritarianism.

the founding fathers where correct when the made the senate a body of the state governments to Block the collective capacity of the people from making law.

the collective capacity of the people will destroy themselves, and thats were we are headed because of the 17th amendment

 

[Fritz]

There is no such thing as a viable form of socialism. Dozens, if not hundreds of variants have been tried under the premise that it just hasn't been done right yet. Throughout the history of civilization, there has always been the same constant; socialism (of any variant) fails 100% of the time. Human nature cannot be changed by law, the law has to conform to human nature.

Yes I know that, but there are altruistic people who would make altruistic ideals (like Karl Marx). You can argue that socialism works only on paper, but what to you propose? Capitalism is just as bad as socialism because it is just as susceptible to oligarchy, look at the US now. The US is drowning in corporate corruption. I know you will argue that capitalism works here, but it isn't how people would like to live just like socialism.

 

[vesper]

socialism, fascism, and communism all consist of BIG government.

these types of systems are based on the collective, destroying individuality were the collective body uses force to keep everyone under its control.

BIG government leads to authoritarianism.

the founding fathers where correct when the made the senate a body of the state governments to Block the collective capacity of the people from making law.

the collective capacity of the people will destroy themselves, and thats were we are headed because of the 17th amendment

Repeal of the 17th Amendment would protect states' rights and reduce the power of the federal government.

The one thing that socialism, fascism and Communism have in common is all three destroy liberty.

 

[celticwar17]

Why don't you move there if its so great? its amusing how high the suicide rate is in those socialist paradises

They have more debt than we do and GDP growth is stagnate...

 

[Peter King]

The right atmosphere that I am saying would be an altruistic atmosphere that is definitely plausible. Reading all these posts the problem with socialism is it is too altruistic and big government. I also think most would think that social democracy is the most viable of the "socialist" variants since it balances capitalism and some government services (i.e. healthcare).

Health service doesn't have to be a government function if the government sets it up properly. We in the Netherlands may not have a perfect system (don't know if there is one) but here people buy health insurance from commercial or non-commercial companies (non-commercial in the way that it does not want to make a profit but just to break even, and if profits are made it goes back towards their customers in the way of lower health insurance).

We have a system in which there is a mandatory (for every citizen) basic health care insurance which costs around the 90 to 110 euro (depending on your insurance company and collective bargaining) which pays for all basic health care (hospital, GP, medication, ambulance transport, maternity needs, etc.) and for that insurance people with a lower wage get a subsidy which if you have a really low wage almost fully pays for that basic insurance.

But people do not want to live in a one stop health care system with just one choice, so people can get additional insurances (like alternative health services, more physical therapy session, etc.) things that maybe nice to get but are not necessary to live a healthy life. Those extra insurance can go for a few euro's to a few dozen euro's not more.

In a system like this the government can decide what basic health care needs have to be met by insurers and they must deliver those services in their basic health car insurance. And they can make sure it is affordable by all through subsidies. For me, I have a basic health care insurance and I pay about 1600 euro and I get about 1100 euro government subsidy and that gives me good health care.

In a manner like this the government does not have to run health care but can still guarantee services.

 

[antiquity]

I know that there are a lot of you who believe that Socialism is a ludicrous pipe dream, but I disagree.
I think that Socialism can be viable if it is gradually implemented and the people are educated in the pros and cons of the system.
If you think about it, Socialism is a system dedicated to the rights of workers and economic/social equality. It also emphasizes government regulation and workers cooperatives, and it sets up universal healthcare and public colleges.

If you are against Socialism, express your deal breaker calmly and explain. I know this stuff causes tempers to flair, so let's try to have a pleasant debate.

May I point a finger at one of the largest failed socialist country in the world....Venezuela

 

[ecofarm]

May I point a finger at one of the largest failed socialist country in the world....Venezuela

Socialists advocate charging 2 cents per gallon for gas?