Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

originally posted by: ketsuko

The dog was living quite well and satisfied with it as you all seem to be.

So you don't have a government in the US? My mistake then.
You aren't governed and have no laws.... you pay no tax and your police don't brutally assault and kill people fairly regularly.

Honestly... explain to me in what way are you freer?

Also you have no universal healthcare and that IMHO, is a disgrace for a civilised, western country in the 21st century.

But yes... I know... if people can't stand on their own then they deserve to suffer.
There should be no welfare because if people are too lazy and/or stupid and poor then they deserve everything they get.

I'm glad most in your country don't think the way you right-wing nutters do... because a hell of a lot more would suffer.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Gryphon66


The endless and false comparisons with the Soviet Union, or China or even Scandanavia are either ignorant, disingenuous or both.

Yeah unlike the USA the Scandinavia country's have a more stable, sustainable economy

Excellent point ... and better healthcare, education, etc.

a reply to: crazyewok

Never been to Europe but from what I can tell the same stuff happens there that happens here. Seems to be big divisions along various lines. You have your good and bad in each country. Rich and poor in each country, etc. One thing I find rather amazing is that no matter what country you live in there seems to be a lot of infighting among various groups. All blaming the other side. All looking to ever increasing governments to implement their version of a solution. It's like a blue print has been laid out and implemented world wide. Then again maybe I've been on ats too much

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Traveled around Europe and the USA and your pretty much right. Apart from surface looks its pretty much the same. Some area are crap, some good ect

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Without socialism there wouldn't be a lot of things.

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally" -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

Fire
Paramedics
Police
Garbage Pickup
Street Cleaning
Snow Removal
Public Tree Pruning
Public Grass Mowing
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Streets
Sidewalks
Streetlights
Street Repair
Infrastructure Building and Maintenance
Local Parks
National Parks
Public Garbage Cans
Public Water Drinking Fountains
Community Centres
Community Gardens
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Public Museums

...and so on and so forth. Each and every one publicly funded via pooling taxpayers' monies.

What is your point?

Add - I don't remember the ATS member I borrowed this from. But thank you again.

That was my post from some other "socialism is evil" thread.

Guilty as charged.




What a lot of people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that it doesn't matter at what level any of those programs are implemented from (local, state, federal, whatever). The sole purpose of those programs are to insure that all citizens have equal access to comfort and security for the overall health and cohesion of the nation.

It's a co-op.

And the only way those programs can work is by government control (state, local, federal, doesn't matter which one)... it's the only way to make sure that these imperative services to society can't get manipulated and monopolized by any singular entity (corporation, individual, cartel, whatever).

There was a time that none of those public services existed, each individual had to pay for it (or it just simply didn't exist at all). Which meant that if your neighbour didn't pay his fire brigade bill and his house caught on fire, it risked every other house on the street of catching fire and also burning to the ground.

Or if the guy next door to you doesn't haul his garbage away regularly, the next thing you know you've got a rat infestation throughout the entire neighbourhood.

The "everyone for himself" thing was the way of the world for centuries and it failed miserably... with people starving, dying, widespread diseases and plagues, filth and squalor... which is the exact reason why these social programs (read: tax pooling) started to get implemented... they were out of necessity !

It's a pretty straight forward simple concept that actually works and has been working for well over a century now.



Great thread by the way and I get what you're saying about finding the proper balance between socialism and capitalism. It is a concept that can and does work... (obviously it works or police, fire, streets, and flushing toilets would have been done away with decades ago). Socialism is a necessity to keep capitalism in check, and vice versa.

It's just unfortunate that some people can't get past their "all or nothing ism" mindset.

With everything in life their must be a proper balance, particularly when it comes to socio-economics.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
What a lot of people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that it doesn't matter at what level any of those programs are implemented from (local, state, federal, whatever). The sole purpose of those programs are to insure that all citizens have equal access to comfort and security for the overall health and cohesion of the nation.

It's a co-op.

And the only way those programs can work is by government control (state, local, federal, doesn't matter which one)... it's the only way to make sure that these imperative services to society can't get manipulated and monopolized by any singular entity (corporation, individual, cartel, whatever).

First of all, government control is the purest most deleterious form of monopoly.

Second, I am glad to hear that it doesn't matter whether socialist programs are local, state or national. Let them be local.

If everybody agreed with you, there would be no cause for argument. As long as the ability to escape the tyranny exists, it can be held in check through the migration of people and property.

Once the tyranny is federal, there is no escape without complete expatriation.

a reply to: CranialSponge

And what you can't seem to understand is that the idea of the "common good" amounts to force. You can claim the greater good all you want, but what is actually happening is that people are being forced into things against their will.

You can make arguments about it being charity and so on and so forth, but it really stops being charity when it stops being voluntary. It then becomes people being forced to service others. It breeds resentment into the system even if the system does serve the greater good.

You cannot lose that component to your system no matter how much you try. It is tyranny.

And the next problem is that once everyone gets the idea that it is acceptable to force others to work to service them, then the next little inconvenience they have is that much more acceptable to lobby to socialize. Why should I be inconvenienced with the trouble of providing my own when the greater good can be coerced into providing it for me? And that kind of thinking pervades top to bottom. Pretty soon, no one is taking care of themselves and all are reliant on a system to do it for them.

You all live in a cage.

a reply to: greencmp

And without social programs our countries wouldn't be first-world nations.

We'd be on par with Ethiopia.

It's the implementation of social programs and social safety nets that improved our quality of life into what we all enjoy and benefit from today.

I don't know about anyone else on ATS, but I quite like having water coming out of my taps right in my very own home without having to hike 5 miles down a dirt path to gather some water in a bucket out of a cesspool pond to make a cup of coffee... the same pond water my neighbour is washing his ass with as I'm scooping some into my bucket.

a reply to: ketsuko

And what you can't seem to understand is that the idea of the "common good" amounts to force. You can claim the greater good all you want, but what is actually happening is that people are being forced into things against their will.

Do you like having running water in your home ?

Do you like being able to pick up the phone and have the cops arrive to haul off the a-hole that's trying to steal your car ?

Do like being able to sit in a green park with a bench and water fountain ?

Do like the comfort and convenience of cement under your feet instead of a foot deep of muck when you run to the store for a carton of milk ?


"Every man for himself" doesn't work.

Without the co-op of revenue pooling, you'd still be reading by candlelight.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Sigh.

Someday I hope the simple fact that all local services are just that, local will dispel these spurious arguments about government spontaneously creating society and magnanimously bequeathing it to the helpless masses.

Having a minuscule federal government will have absolutely no effect on municipal services. If anything, most communities would benefit enormously by eliminating public services in favor of private service providers in competition with one another.

Or are you saying that we need public grass mowing too?

a reply to: CranialSponge


There comes a point when resources are maxed out. Pooled money programs have expanded over the years . What happens when you can't borrow another buck, can't print anymore money, and the interest payments alone on money previously borrowed money makes it impossible to maintain the system. It eventually happens, it always does.

a reply to: greencmp

If anything, most communities would benefit enormously by eliminating public services in favor of private service providers in competition with one another.

So you'd be more than happy forking out $350 bucks to have the fire department come down and put out that fire in your attic ?

Or are you saying that we need public grass mowing too?

So you'll happily pay the monthly bill that comes in the mail from Boulevard Mowing Inc ?

And the other bill right under that one from Garbage Pickup & Sons ?

And the one right under that one from Parks 'R' Us ?


And the minute one or two or twelve of your neighbours don't pay their bills for the month, nobody gets their garbage picked up on the entire street the following week until everybody pays up...?

Have fun with that.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Considering that most people pay somewhere between $15,000 and $50,000 in taxes per annum, yes, I'll take my chances on a private fire department and pay them $1000.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: CranialSponge

Sigh.

Someday I hope the simple fact that all local services are just that, local will dispel these spurious arguments about government spontaneously creating society and magnanimously bequeathing it to the helpless masses.

Having a minuscule federal government will have absolutely no effect on municipal services. If anything, most communities would benefit enormously by eliminating public services in favor of private service providers in competition with one another.

Or are you saying that we need public grass mowing too?

Most communities would benefit because the citizens wouldn't be forking over the lion's share of the revenue to the Feds. It would stay local and it would be a lot easier for people to say, "We need a new swimming pool." and pass a bond issue to raise the money or similar with a new school. Now, odds are they have to apply to the state or the fed to get part of that money because the money is laundered through those entities via our taxes, and what can and can't be done with it is controlled via those entities.

Why should the Feds get to determine if my small town gets a pool which is really what happens when the mayor has to ask the local Rep nicely to insert the pork into this or that bill.

This left right discussion is likely all for naught anyway.

In the next 30/40 years our current economic models may very well be obsolete.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, the chief problem is the passage of the 16th amendment authorizing the federal government to directly tax the income of the citizens of the states.

The states then have to play federal foosball to even be considered to have access to the ill-gotten plunder from their very own citizens.

Socialism for our needs and capitalism for our wants. It is really that simple.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

So, take everything away from everybody and give them just enough to live and then let them try to rebuild?

Since we can all pretty much agree that the US will go socialist, can anyone tell me how that transition will work?

Would the Constitution finally be scrapped?

How would everyone deal with the sudden wealth redistribution?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: nerbot

I agree too much socialism leads to communism.

I am not asking for anything but a balance. I don't want to stifle anything. Nor do i promote group think.

Democracy is not group think, except for those who refuse to think for themselves. You can't make someone think for themselves, but you can give the choice to.

It may even be possible to indoctrinate our kids to be free thinkers through the education system. We need 7 billion free thinkers, who use a democratic system to compromise according to the majority.

We don't need any group thinkers. We can cooperate without giving up our ability to think for ourselves.

when a you say (not that YOU said this, but socialist ideas certainly do) "limit who you are in the name of equality, limit your possibilities, work hard for your neighbors well being, utopia is possible if we all work together!" you are indeed telling people to stifle or squander their lives, their desires, their motivations, their needs, to uplift the state, state capitalism, and "the common man." you tell them to accept a little bit of suffering and a little bit of a loss of freedoms so that everyone can feel better at the end of the day. BUT I SUFFER FOR NO ONE BUT MYSELF! and i refuse to pretend that if i give or sacrifice pieces of myself, that any other man will be lifted. we lift ourselves. nothing anyone says or does can motivate someone to do what they will not do. they do not will it. "suffering" in america, is not a physical or poverty induced suffering...it is an emotional or social suffering, and economic and government changes will not fix that, it will only warp and morph it into something with a new name.

and who drives this free thinking forward in a socially homogenous society? when certain behaviors and cultural conditions are frowned upon, who decides what is free thinking and dangerous thinking? just what the hell is free thinking anyways? i say free thinking is dangerous to a state, and thus ALL of them will do what they can to limit it, one way or another. state power is derived from the ignorance of the population. true free thinking in all men and women would symbolize the beginning of the end for statism. what happens if a "free thinker" comes along and destroys this wonderful socialist system? is he still a free thinker, or a soon-to-be dictator?

"indoctrinate our kids to be free thinkers..." wouldnt that rob it of its meaning, its weight, its power, its intellectual purity, AND rob them of their ability to decide what is and is not free thinking? the moment you label something as "free thinking" is the moment it is no longer free thinking. in that moment you have limited it, you have defined it, you have put boundaries around what is and is not free thinking, and thus it is no longer free. indoctrination of any kind is still indoctrination and limits a person's worldview, perspectives, critical thinking. it tells them what is good and what is bad without allowing them to find it themselves. you say you dont endorse groupthink, yet you endorse indoctrination of "free thinking" which would literally create groupthink.

to me "free thinking" is achieved when everyone in the room is totally opposed to and challenging one another's ideas. in those moments you learn the most, in those moments you grow the most, in those moments thoughts are free and expressive and empowering.

"Democracy is not group think, except for those who refuse to think for themselves." so basically, "you are refusing to think for yourself if you are dont think as i do." democracy is indeed a form of groupthink. the majority decides the direction of the state. they collectively decide, within their minds, because of their thoughts, almost certainly derived from media of some kind, what the next step will be. the minority loses, the minority does not get what it wants, and is encouraged to follow the will of the majority, with only meaningless or token forms of dissent to express their dissatisfaction. also, there is a reason why we dont usually put the rights of minorities up for a vote; and that reason is because the majority will usually vote to limit or strip the minority of its rights and protections. how would minorities OF ALL KINDS be treated in this socialist society? are they equal to all? would it be majority rule? how is majority rule equal? what is equality anyway? how does total equality affect individuality?