So, socialism is when the government controls the means of production and allocation of resources. A command economy, basically. Before people start talking about it going against human nature, it doesn't, because socialism has no clause stating that a socialist country must have equalized wages (and I think none do, though some are more-equal than others). It's also not the same thing as communism, which is a society without a government where individuals do things for the good of the society as whole, and which might go against human nature (but is still a fantastic ideal for societies to aspire to).

What do you people think of socialism? This is a pretty open topic, feel free to discuss if Obama is leading us towards socialism, whether socialism would bring benefits to society as whole, the application of socialism in other countries (and how it can be applied in the US/Canada/UK/NZ/whereveryoulive), what random people have told you about socialism, etc.

I'm posting this in Null because I'm apparently suspended from SD for two years (I just noticed, lol ). Though technically Null, it'd be nice if people pretended that this was Light Discussion, just to keep spam out. I'll post my own views in a later post; if I posted them right now, it would fit under SD rules and a cruel person might move it to where I can't reach it.

I think socialism as a economic policy is more effective and attainable than communism to say the very least. Socialism attempts to equalize whenever possible without effectively taking away the incentive for the average person to work, because without incentive, there is no productivity, and then there will be no goods and services to be sold. I'd personally like to live in a country that operates under socialism for a while, to see what it's like. (Though I doubt there would be any noticeable clear cut differences.) I think I'd enjoy the highly subsidized education especially. Sweden is a country that runs socialism correct? They seem pretty well off, even with the extremely high taxes everywhere. I like the idea of a "hand up, not a hand-out." My political science teacher told me that you can either make everyone equal by "treating everyone the same" or by "treating everyone differently" (which may sound stupid) but I personally agree that equality is only attained through by recognizing differences, and socialism helps with that.

[rant]Honestly, listen to the State of the Union address again. Obama basically shouts Socialism. Communism does not exist in practice; humans are too greedy, just as much as Capitalism does not exist in practice due to the same trait. The people in power always want a bigger piece of their pie, and as long as we have governments, nothing will change.
If you ask my opinion on the best government, I would say none. Not Anarchy, that's crazy--all you people that play Grand Theft Auto and think it's cool to blow up cars around pedestrians need regulations and shit, yo. I'd be perfectly happy with a government that was only a police force, judicial system, penitentiaries, and a military. Even better would be that the government doesn't throw me in jail for things that don't harm other people. Say I wanna shoot up with some heroine, smoke a reefer, or snort some crack. Does any of those things hurt you? No? So why make something that hurts nobody illegal?

Because governments want to control us, man.[/rant]

I would move it to SD anyways, if I had the power >:D

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 30 2010, 5:55 am by poison_us. Reason: I'm not a druggie.

if you shoot up a speedball, then drive to the grocery store or something and hit a little girl with your vehicle, then yes, it does hurt me. Or her at least.

But did the drug do it? Regardless, you can at least argue that the lil ho shoulda seen you coming. You're in a bright n shiny car and all

Joking aside, the government will never see things that way. They'll look at it like "he hit the girl because he was drugged up", but never "he hit the girl and he was drugged up".

When i shoot up speedballs, my first thought is to go to the grocery store.

Yes, because certain substances are proven to impair motor skills and spacial judgement. There's a huge statistical difference in substance related deaths and non-substance related deaths, whether it be alcohol, weed, speedballs, or w/e you want. So yes, the drug hit the girl, and if its your choice to take the drug and drive, then you're responsible, end of story.

Grocery store, Mcdonalds, w/e. Don't tell me you've never had a case of the fuckin munchies when you were on something or w/e or I'll call bullshit on you.

Wouldn't he be responsible for hitting the girl anyways?
I probably used a bad example. Not wearing your seat belt, I think, we can agree hurts nobody but you. Yet it's illegal in my state (Ohio).

My point is this: American government is too involved in day-to-day activities of the constituents.

The point is that there is a much less chance of him hitting the girl if he's not on drugs.

This has nothing to do with your day-to-day life. If you choose to use the government-owned roads, you must agree to their terms. If you own your own private estate and you wanna do jumps in your car in your backyard without a seatbelt on, be my (and the government's) guest.

When i smoke yes i do get the munchies, but i wouldn't drive high, just like i wouldn't drive drunk.

Life isn't all about you, bud. There are 300 million Americans out there. If we exclude you, that's 299,999,999 Americans who might drive high or drunk when they get a case of the munchies.

Ultimo, Sweden isn't truly a socialist country. It's considered a country which successfully took the 'middle way'. While most of the businesses and such are privately-owned, which is not how a socialist state would function, at the same time, high taxes allow for free education and security for its citizens. If your company throws you out, for whatever reason, you'd still be making 75% or so while you look for your other job, and there's a culture of shame of being unemployed. I think that this security can make people much happier, and indeed, Sweden ranks as happier than the US by most indicators. Where the government plays a large role, amazing things can happen. I've been to Stockholm, and they have bicycle paths along major roads. A pretty simple way to stave off obesity, cut emissions, etc, isn't it?

It must be noted that while I believe Sweden is the closest to socialism, all of Europe is more or less like this, especially in Scandinavia. Denmark shares Sweden bicycle culture is also largely a welfare state in that it supports those without a job, and I believe that education is free there as well. Norway is a bit different, because of its geography; a lot of people are scattered. I haven't been to Oslo proper, so I can't tell you much about that, but I believe Norway also heavily subsidizes unemployment and allows for free education. At the same time, they might not even need to tax people heavily, because they're a major energy exporter to Europe, and all that wealth is spread among less than 5 million people. Also, I highly recommend the Norwegian fjords for travel; I took a bus tour and only spent three days there, but it was amazing. Ignore the cities (boring), go for the nature (waterfalls, lakes, mountains, roads built right near a sheer drop into the abyss with a beautiful view, etc)

Now, my argument for socialism. First of all, people arguing against it like to bring up that there has never been a truly prosperous socialist country. I believe that this is because there have never been enough socialist countries. A socialist economy is inherently less efficient than capitalism, because it would have less control and the employees would have less incentive to work, because they are paid something anyway (compared to people starting new companies in the US, who usually don't get an income until after a few years). For this reason, a socialist country cannot have free trade with a capitalist country. The socialist country's economy would crumble, as happened when the USSR disintegrated. So socialist countries have to trade, for the most part, with other socialist countries. During the Cold War, these included the USSR and Eastern Europe (and, technically, the Asian 'communists', but those were really bad at making stuff). Eastern Europe was traditionally the most economically underdeveloped portion of Europe, and throughout the Cold War the USSR supported a lot of bad, weird leaders, like Nicolae Ceauşescu, to maintain political power in the region. Still, I read a few articles recently that showed that a lot of people in Eastern Europe had nostalgia for socialist times (exacerbated, of course, by the crisis, but still). The socialist bloc didn't have access to cheap labor in Indonesia or India, and were self-sufficient in most ways (except agriculturally; the USSR had to buy grain from the US).

Factors working against the USSR during the Cold War included the devastation brought upon by WWII, and the needed reconstructing of so much of the infrastructure; the climate, increasing the cost of maintaining its infrastructure and reducing crop yields; its vast size (3x the size of the US, I believe), requiring more resources to facilitate travel and creating travel infrastructure like railroads, etc. Despite this, it managed to compete in the military and high-tech fields with a country trading with the rest of the world and exchanging ideas with the likes of France, Western Germany, and Great Britain (also, the US got most of Germany's scientists after WWII, so that definitely helped). The USSR also managed to give its citizens a decent living, and the economy developed until, after Brezhnev got into power, the economy started stagnating (I heard it was because it was becoming more complex).

So, the USSR was a rather imperfect picture of what a socialist country could develop into. If it wasn't competing with the US (really? 40k tanks, 10k nuclear warheads and a few dozen thousand missiles), or if it was a bit more democratic, or if it had a better system of checks and balances, it could've been much nicer. Plus, the 'efficiency' of capitalism can actually be questioned when you look at the products themselves. Back in Russia, we have a 40-year-old Soviet refrigerator that's still running. In the US, products break down often, are sometimes sabotaged to get you to buy more, and are often replaced even if in fine working condition (cars?). Because of this, I think that it's possible for a socialist country, running maybe 20% behind capitalist countries in efficiency, to provide its citizens with the same services as a capitalist country.

There's also the argument that a socialist country is capable of controlling emissions and usage of resources, which I believe in. Fossil fuels are running out, fusion isn't invented yet, and a socialist country could make the transition to a less-energy-using economy better (in the political sense. It's not happening in the US, is it?). Same with controlling emissions or overpopulation (proof on the second one: One child act in China).

Anyway, this isn't really as fancy a response as I imagined it should be, but I think it's fairly comprehensive and debate-inducing .

If you don't wear a seatbelt, your body flying through your windshield and into the other vehicle's has now become a hazard to them.


Unfortunately that culture seems to be lacking in other countries, such as the US, and people are just fine being bums, as long as they get to have what people consider "the essentials".

Command economies cannot have good technological growth because of lack of competition and rewards system. (no patents for the innovative)
The only reason a command economy can control emission is that people will be less likely to work and thus will not produce emissions.
(if you don't need to drive anywhere and really make anything how are you going to produce anything good or bad)
A better method is to keep the mixed economy and just move towards green technology.
Overpopulation is not a problem now. China's one child act is a violation of human rights. It is an economic failure to just stop population growth you will have less people to work. (thus technically control emissions but at the cost of slowly eliminating society)
Socialism is the same thing as mass murder.

Command economies don't lack competition or rewards systems. Even the USSR had competing companies (though state-owned) - different aircraft-companies, like Sukhoi, Tupolev or Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG), designed aircraft, and a commission decided which of the designs would best fit what's needed. In other fields, it was the same. Patents aren't a factor, because those that did very well still got paid more than those that did poorly. You simply cut away the step where filing a patent leads to trying to create a product using it to sell for profit - you profit straight out of it.

A command economy (and corresponding government) can control emissions. Unlike in the US, for instance, where lobbies from different industries and how much effect the money from those industries has on deciding who's in power, a socialist government/economy isn't subject to the profiteering of entities like Exxon Mobil. It can invest very heavily in nuclear energy (access to more funds than the government of a capitalist country), or it can invest very heavily in optimizing industries. While the US government can do it to an extent, it cannot do it to the extent a socialist government can, and it has obstacles, apart from monetary, such as lobbies, popular support (Random channel: OMG DOES THE PRESIDENT WANT NINETY CHERNOBYLS? PROTEST!) to the contrary, etc.

Overpopulation is a problem. It is impossible to raise everyone on earth to the level of living of the US, because there aren't enough resources to support it (or even the current level, for the matter, for long). For all its flaws, China's One Child Act lowered the population growth in China. Meanwhile, India's just keeps growing at the same pace

Err.. why is socialism mass murder? Is Sweden halfway between mass murder and whatever you consider capitalism to be?

It is mass murder because you would have everyone in nearly the same standard of living without a means to improve it.
Your argument is completely based on the idea that "the ends justify the means"
To do your socialist system. You would need to sacrifice technological advancement and human rights. Which I find completely unacceptable because it is not a solution merely a shortcut.

First of all, please tell me how everyone having the same standard of living without a means to improvement is 'mass murder'. Second of all, please note that I said, in my first paragraph: 'Before people start talking about it going against human nature, it doesn't, because socialism has no clause stating that a socialist country must have equalized wages (and I think none do, though some are more-equal than others).'. There is a way to improve it, and not everyone has the same standard of living (though I don't see anything bad about that).

My argument doesn't touch upon 'the ends justify the means', because there's nothing to justify having government control. How is it inherently more evil than private control?

Why would one need to sacrifice technological advancement and human rights?

Less incentive to work = less technological advancement. It does touch upon the ends justify the means because you need to understand you are sacrificing technological advancement for a SHORTCUT to control emissions. If you just stop advancement you will never have any emissions.
Also some starting companies in the U.S. can make profit pretty quick if you know where the demand is.

Less incentive to work doesn't necessarily equal less technological advancement because of the nature of the competition - specifically, R&D. The same R&D is done by many different companies, all of it to achieve the same goal. It's repetitive. The US government realizes this reality, and hasn't created competitors for NASA, or two Manhattan Projects - because one will bring about the same result. When it's not about the money, there are a lot of things about capitalism that are inefficient.