Why is socialism a bad thing?

[AlbqOwl]

"Truth" is in the eye of the beholder many a time.



Wikipedia has a good page on Social Democracy.

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is one on liberalism.

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you but I don't want Wiki's definition. I want your opinion on the basic core principles that define social democrat/liberal in the USA and in what way those are different from or in conflict with socialism.

 

[AgentM]

Thank you but I don't want Wiki's definition. I want your opinion on the basic core principles that define social democrat/liberal in the USA and in what way those are different from or in conflict with socialism.

Well Social Democrats and Liberals aren't really the same thing, they're two political ideologies. I consider myself a social democrat, but I include liberal because that is how most Americans would define me, and I agree with liberal ideology in many respects.

Anyways, social democrats are not the same as socialists, although they branched off from that ideology. Social democrats favour policies that promote social justice. Social democrats also are not revolutionary, and favour working through political action and compromise, as opposed to socialists. Basically social democrats are centre-left politically, and favour welfare state policies.

Socialists are further to the left, and more militant.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well Social Democrats and Liberals aren't really the same thing, they're two political ideologies. I consider myself a social democrat, but I include liberal because that is how most Americans would define me, and I agree with liberal ideology in many respects.

Anyways, social democrats are not the same as socialists, although they branched off from that ideology. Social democrats favour policies that promote social justice. Social democrats also are not revolutionary, and favour working through political action and compromise, as opposed to socialists. Basically social democrats are centre-left politically, and favour welfare state policies.

Socialists are further to the left, and more militant.

So that's it? They are essentially the same but socialists are just more extreme?

 

[AgentM]

So that's it? They are essentially the same but socialists are just more extreme?

No they're not essentially the same. Social Democrats favour working within existing structures of government, whereas Socialists are more revolutionary. Social Democrats are not opposed to capitalism. Social Democrats have a history of not getting along with people like the Communists. For example, in Germany during the chaotic Weimar Republic era the German Social Democrats had a paramilitary, who's 3 stated enemies included: The Nazis, the Imperialists, and the Communists.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No they're not essentially the same. Social Democrats favour working within existing structures of government, whereas Socialists are more revolutionary. Social Democrats are not opposed to capitalism. Social Democrats have a history of not getting along with people like the Communists. For example, in Germany during the chaotic Weimar Republic era the German Social Democrats had a paramilitary, who's 3 stated enemies included: The Nazis, the Imperialists, and the Communists.

I disagree that socialism is necessarily more revolutuionary than any other ideology. There is certainly no reference to 'revolution' in any of the accepted definitions of what socialism is. I find nothing within those definitions that suggest that socialists are opposed to working within existing forms of government. The socialists in our government are certainly working within the existing forms of government even as they are consistently trying to change that government into something more socialist than what it has been.

So you say that Social Democrats are not opposed to capitalism. Would a Social Democrat agree with John Locke that property precedes government and government has no claim on a person's private property? Does a Social Democrat understand Adam Smith's explanation of laizzez faire economics and would agree with it?

In the Social Democrat platform, how much of a person's earned wealth should he be allowed to keep and how much of it can the government take to give to others? Is there any limit to the power that the government has to take what it wants?

What responsibility do those receiving government welfare have toward that government?

Is there a limit to how much wealth any one person is allowed to accumulate?

How does a Social Democrat define freedom?

 

[AgentM]

I disagree that socialism is necessarily more revolutuionary than any other ideology. There is certainly no reference to 'revolution' in any of the accepted definitions of what socialism is. I find nothing within those definitions that suggest that socialists are opposed to working within existing forms of government. The socialists in our government are certainly working within the existing forms of government even as they are consistently trying to change that government into something more socialist than what it has been.

So you say that Social Democrats are not opposed to capitalism. Would a Social Democrat agree with John Locke that property precedes government and government has no claim on a person's private property? Does a Social Democrat understand Adam Smith's explanation of laizzez faire economics and would agree with it?

In the Social Democrat platform, how much of a person's earned wealth should he be allowed to keep and how much of it can the government take to give to others? Is there any limit to the power that the government has to take what it wants?

What responsibility do those receiving government welfare have toward that government?

Is there a limit to how much wealth any one person is allowed to accumulate?

How does a Social Democrat define freedom?

I'm not a textbook. I suggest you read the link I gave you, Google is also useful.

 

[ThatcherAdams]

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Actually no, as I said in the post above, it's corperatism. It seems like sometimes you pick and choose what you reply to or acknowledge only for your own benefit. You have ignored a good few valid arguments.

 

[AgentM]

Actually no, as I said in the post above, it's corperatism.

So when has there actually been "capitalism?" Seems to me that whenever there is a government setting tax rates of any kind one could define it as corporatism.....

 

[ThatcherAdams]

So when has there actually been "capitalism?" Seems to me that whenever there is a government setting tax rates of any kind one could define it as corporatism.....

Well, I for one am almost completely against taxes, but no, a government is not a corperation. It should not interfere with the market. There has been capitalism many times in American history, but not at all in the last 70 years. We have central banking and military complexes to thank for that.

You yourself said, when has there actually been Capitalism? We haven't known true capitalism, so we think we need to get rid of it or change it. The case is, the Federal Government needs to stop spending money to the corporations and the wars, instead, they need to protect the people from exploition, harm, or anything like that, that's their original job.

Government is not there to provide, it is there to protect our rights to live and be what we want.

I'll jump in a savage river before I have a government force me to do a job. Socialism is a good way to cause depression, social unrest, oppression, limited rights and limited powers of speech.

We're sort of dipping into that a bit now.

 

[Regicollis]

Well, I for one am almost completely against taxes, but no, a government is not a corperation. It should not interfere with the market. There has been capitalism many times in American history, but not at all in the last 70 years. We have central banking and military complexes to thank for that.

The government will have to interfere with "the Market" in order for capitalism to function. There wouldn't be any kind of capitalism without the government providing laws, courts and armies for the capitalist class. Capitalism is a government programme.

You yourself said, when has there actually been Capitalism? We haven't known true capitalism, so we think we need to get rid of it or change it.

If you go back a 100 years Laissez-faire capitalism was the standard for the western world and there is a reason it is not like that any more. Pure capitalism failed miserably and created poverty, unemployment, child labour, pollution, workplace accidents and economic depressions. It was only when popular pressure and the organised working class put pressure on government that things started to improve for ordinary people.

The case is, the Federal Government needs to stop spending money to the corporations and the wars, instead, they need to protect the people from exploition, harm, or anything like that, that's their original job.

If you want government to protect people from harm and exploitation then the government has to interfere with the Market (i.e. the right of the capitalist class to prosper by exploitation).

Government is not there to provide, it is there to protect our rights to live and be what we want.

As far as I can tell your ideal government has an even more limited scope; namely to protect people's right to live and be what they want within the inherently oppressing and exploitative confines of capitalism.

I'll jump in a savage river before I have a government force me to do a job. Socialism is a good way to cause depression, social unrest, oppression, limited rights and limited powers of speech.

We're sort of dipping into that a bit now.

So are the "socialist" European countries grey and dull dictatorships plagued by social unrest? Were the anarchist parts of Spain during the civil war not the freest parts of the country that allowed anyone but the fascists to speak their mind freely? When did you last time hear a socialist claim that his opponents should not be allowed to say what they want?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The government will have to interfere with "the Market" in order for capitalism to function. There wouldn't be any kind of capitalism without the government providing laws, courts and armies for the capitalist class. Capitalism is a government programme.

Some government isn't a bad thing. When it's restrained by the rule fo law it can provide the groundwork for a prosperous society.

If you go back a 100 years Laissez-faire capitalism was the standard for the western world and there is a reason it is not like that any more. Pure capitalism failed miserably and created poverty, unemployment, child labour, pollution, workplace accidents and economic depressions. It was only when popular pressure and the organised working class put pressure on government that things started to improve for ordinary people.

Every last thing that you just brought up was around about as much and often more than before the Industrial Revolution. If it wasn't for the Industrial Revolution, there is no way that the economies of the West would've been able to handle the population explosion that was occurring at the end of the 18th century. The Revolution paved the way for the largest increase in the standard of living in history.

If you want government to protect people from harm and exploitation then the government has to interfere with the Market (i.e. the right of the capitalist class to prosper by exploitation).

Yes, people need to have their hand held

As far as I can tell your ideal government has an even more limited scope; namely to protect people's right to live and be what they want within the inherently oppressing and exploitative confines of capitalism.

Can't speak for him, but even virtually all minarchists support laws against fraud

So are the "socialist" European countries grey and dull dictatorships plagued by social unrest? Were the anarchist parts of Spain during the civil war not the freest parts of the country that allowed anyone but the fascists to speak their mind freely? When did you last time hear a socialist claim that his opponents should not be allowed to say what they want?

They have high taxes, high unemployment, growing budget problems (as do we), and huge government controls over one's economic life. Jackbooting someone into someone else's view of equality against their will isn't freedom.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I disagree that socialism is necessarily more revolutuionary than any other ideology. There is certainly no reference to 'revolution' in any of the accepted definitions of what socialism is.

That is because words take on different meanings over time. Historically, what AgentM is saying is completely true; see the conflicts between the social democrats and the communists in Germany around WW1/WW2, for example. Socialism historically has been revolutionary; even the Utopian Socialists were in favor of a complete restructuring of society. Later the Scientific Socialists (communists) were openly revolutionary.

The word has taken on a new meaning in the United States primarily because of cold war rhetoric and the attacks on European welfare systems, for example. The way that it is used is simply not historically accurate.

Also, many get confused because the word refers both to a political movement and a politico-economic system. Adding to the confusion is the mistaken belief that political systems operate on a spectrum, and therefore saying for example that one country is "more socialist" or "less socialist" than another is a valid statement.

So the current usage of the word in the United States has taken on this meaning due to a whole mess of confusing beliefs (which are false) plus the fetish on the right for calling anyone to the left of them a socialist (i.e. the rhetoric).

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Definitions change over time. I'm sure as hell no Liberal, but I'd be considered one 100 years ago in Europe

 

[AgentM]

That is because words take on different meanings over time. Historically, what AgentM is saying is completely true; see the conflicts between the social democrats and the communists in Germany around WW1/WW2, for example. Socialism historically has been revolutionary; even the Utopian Socialists were in favor of a complete restructuring of society. Later the Scientific Socialists (communists) were openly revolutionary.

The word has taken on a new meaning in the United States primarily because of cold war rhetoric and the attacks on European welfare systems, for example. The way that it is used is simply not historically accurate.

Also, many get confused because the word refers both to a political movement and a politico-economic system. Adding to the confusion is the mistaken belief that political systems operate on a spectrum, and therefore saying for example that one country is "more socialist" or "less socialist" than another is a valid statement.

So the current usage of the word in the United States has taken on this meaning due to a whole mess of confusing beliefs (which are false) plus the fetish on the right for calling anyone to the left of them a socialist (i.e. the rhetoric).

Thank you! I agree, many Americans do not understand what socialism actually is, due to the rhetoric used there (where any slightly left of centre policy is deemed as "socialist" by the rabid right-wing), and the fact that there are no serious socialist parties in the US.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That is because words take on different meanings over time. Historically, what AgentM is saying is completely true; see the conflicts between the social democrats and the communists in Germany around WW1/WW2, for example. Socialism historically has been revolutionary; even the Utopian Socialists were in favor of a complete restructuring of society. Later the Scientific Socialists (communists) were openly revolutionary.

The word has taken on a new meaning in the United States primarily because of cold war rhetoric and the attacks on European welfare systems, for example. The way that it is used is simply not historically accurate.

Also, many get confused because the word refers both to a political movement and a politico-economic system. Adding to the confusion is the mistaken belief that political systems operate on a spectrum, and therefore saying for example that one country is "more socialist" or "less socialist" than another is a valid statement.

So the current usage of the word in the United States has taken on this meaning due to a whole mess of confusing beliefs (which are false) plus the fetish on the right for calling anyone to the left of them a socialist (i.e. the rhetoric).

I am fully aware of the history of the Nazis, the Facists, the Communists (USSR/China/Cuba et al) and what 'revolution' wrought in human misery and many tens of millions dead in the name of 'revolutionary' socialism.

I use socialism as it is defined in America and as it is understood here and now. We don't have people here setting up dictatorships or totalitarian governments to install and enforce their versions of socialism here. At least not yet. So the extreme examples of other places and systems are moot so far as I am concerned except for the example of what miserable failures they have all been to secure rights, prosperity, and peace for the people they promised to help.

But whether socialism is accomplished by violent revolution or peaceful coup, it is not something to which I aspire or that I think any thinking American should aspire.

 

[AgentM]

I use socialism as it is defined in America and as it is understood here and now. We don't have people here setting up dictatorships or totalitarian governments to install and enforce their versions of socialism here. At least not yet. So the extreme examples of other places and systems are moot so far as I am concerned except for the example of what miserable failures they have all been to secure rights, prosperity, and peace for the people they promised to help.

But whether socialism is accomplished by violent revolution or peaceful coup, it is not something to which I aspire or that I think any thinking American should aspire.

But America doesn't have any real socialism in it's mainstream politics (a few fringe leftists don't count). The right-wing in America like to spout off the S-word whenever it pleases them to scare the masses into voting for them. Having a government program for something does not equal socialism.

 

[Z3n]

Compared to the rest of the world America is like centrist, maybe even center-right if you want to compare to europe.

 

[AgentM]

Compared to the rest of the world America is like centrist, maybe even center-right if you want to compare to europe.

I'd say centre-right mostly. Most American liberals are centrist at best.

 

[AlbqOwl]

But America doesn't have any real socialism in it's mainstream politics (a few fringe leftists don't count). The right-wing in America like to spout off the S-word whenever it pleases them to scare the masses into voting for them. Having a government program for something does not equal socialism.

Whenever government assumes the right to confiscate the property of one citizen in order to benefit another, that is real socialism. Whenever government takes control of the means of production and/or entities that provide products and services, that is real socialism. When government seeks to enrich one citizen at the expense of another, that is real socialism. All of that has been happening at some level in the USA for some time and we currently have a government that is significantly increasing that trend.

You don't want to see it or admit it? Fine. You approve of it? That is your right. But if you think it wrong to use the S-word when it is absolutely appropriate to do so, you are out of line.

 

[AgentM]

Whenever government assumes the right to confiscate the property of one citizen in order to benefit another, that is real socialism.

So taxation is socialism?

Whenever government takes control of the means of production and/or entities that provide products and services, that is real socialism.

So public police, fire, and emergency medical services are socialist?

When government seeks to enrich one citizen at the expense of another, that is real socialism.

So when the government uses tax dollars to do ANYTHING for the public good, that is socialism?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Whenever government assumes the right to confiscate the property of one citizen in order to benefit another, that is real socialism. Whenever government takes control of the means of production and/or entities that provide products and services, that is real socialism. When government seeks to enrich one citizen at the expense of another, that is real socialism. All of that has been happening at some level in the USA for some time and we currently have a government that is significantly increasing that trend.

None of these are socialism.

 

[Wiseone]

Owl your definition and idea of what socialism is, is probably different than AgentM's or Khay's. So instead of arguing what is and isn't socialism, because its just a label, argue specifics about what you want and don't want the govt to be doing.
If you're missing my point its just like that old Shakespeare quote "That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet." Its not about whatever name you give something its about what its characteristics, the details, what it actually means.

 

[Mach]

Depends where overseas you go if it's an American factory overseas I guess my life would be a bit on the luxurary side, but I don't consider myself or my fellow American workers slave labor.

Check your assumptions. Foreign labor != slave labor, be serious.

Walmart who sells the majority of products in Walmart China or the U.S.?

It's cheap, and americans can purchase it. The rest is irrelevant.

So you are in the tech industry huh.
The Vidieo gane ind. is a 50 billion dollar a year ind. give or take.
Question what percentage of that is controlled my American companies.
At present 72% of Japan already are useing updated version of microsaoft.
NEED I GO ON??

Japan has been showing the U.S. how it's done ever since the bomb. We helped show them what capitalism and quality control were, they just so happened to have a culture that is better at it in a number of areas. Whose fault is that they took what we taught them, and implemented it better, then turned around and taught us? That's freedom, and it benefited everyone.

So this blows your mind huh? The fact that unskilled laborers are still the majority in America. Education is the foundation of skilled laborers ,education is funded by taxes , taxes gotten from paychecks paychecks from jobs every kind of job

Hard work, and responsibilty, are the foundations for being productive and skilled. How did you miss that?

One does not have the freedom to choose if there is no jobs to choose from.

Is that the excuse today? You can live in the guest room, just don't give your mother a hard time.

 

[Mach]

But America doesn't have any real socialism in it's mainstream politics (a few fringe leftists don't count). The right-wing in America like to spout off the S-word whenever it pleases them to scare the masses into voting for them. Having a government program for something does not equal socialism.

Stop for a minute with the generalizing. You aren't debating the world population, or the U.S poulation, or some generalized group in your mind.
It's individual people you should be debating.

Now, given the themes presented in this thread...let's look at the wiki on socialism and see if it matches the rhetoric in this thread, from specific posters:

Socialism wiki:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential[4] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

So, you believe having a public owned and adminstered program, is not in line with a public owned and adminstered program?

And you believe that in this thread, and similar threads, that certain individuals are not promoting the idea that capitalism unfairly concentrates wealth in a small segement of society through exploitation? You really think you're correct, and not incorrect on that position, because I can assure you that you, me, or anyone with the desire, can cut/paste near exact quotes of these things, from countless contributers.

Once you stop with the feel-good at finding things that support your view, you may choose to find out why what people actually believe, why, and how that contrasts to what you believe. You maybe surprised to know that many people, including posters on DP, use to support one way, but over time have taken on entirely different positions for *reasons*!

 

[Mach]

I pointed out that my use of the term exploitation wasn't simply a moralistic buzzword. I don't care for moral arguments, anyways. Determining whether or not something is good or bad is ultimately a pointless endeavor IMO.

IMO you are not being truthful. I showed you that you were using exploitative and its negative connotation, I can't do any more than that.

The surplus value comes from her own labour. Yes, she is charging for her time/materials/skill.

incorrect. It also comes from the choices the buyers make (to outsource the labor to her), the accidental marketing the woman does by wearing the clothes and the other woman wanting them (and thus offering to also buy from the sewer). It also comes from the fact that the rancher/farmer can afford what the woman wants to charge...if they could not, or didn't want to...what just happened to the value? Any simplistic idea of value is absurd, and indefensible, except in the vacuum of academia.

Because in the real world the woman is driven out of business by an influx of cheaper goods in which she is unable to compete, and is therefore forced to find employment elsewhere.

Incorrect. She could be the one to compete, by introducing the cheaper goods. The fact is only that she didn't, she lost, either through forefeiture or being out-competed. If you want a market that caters only to losers, I can't see the value. I want the *best value*, not the *worst value*. It's simple no?

As for this situation in the present day, there is nothing wrong with it. I'm not interested in anecdotal situations or individual circumstances, though; I'm interested in the function of capitalism as a system. Discussing such cases is largely irrelevant to what really matters.

Understand that specific examples are a means to test your ideas. And when routinely any specific investigation illustrates the fallacy of your reasoning, or the ideas (of others in many cases) you present, you can attepmt to call them irrelveant, but I think others might call that "justification", or "reasons against", etc. If the ideas cannot hold up under scrutiny, keeping them in a fantasy world immune from questioning, isn't OK.

I'm sure you're aware that I could write an anecdotal scenario and ask you to comment on it, but I realize how pointless it is and how it doesn't contribute at all to the discussion at hand.

You realize how pointless it is not to show a practical example of how you're correct? Please do indulge me.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Let me clarify:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique
These do not create value, though, as they are simply transactions in the circulation of commodities. Value creation cannot come from circulation.

Transactions in the circulation of commodities you are arguing, cannot add value. Which is obviously false. In fact, in some enterprises, the circulation of the commodity is of far more value than the commodity itself (!).

Marketing, for example. Which is labor.
Investing, for example. Which is labor.
Project management, for example. Which is labor.