A question for critics of Socialism

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Did you even read the other parts of his article? I just cant understand your exuberance considering it invalidates a lot of the perceptions laid out in this thread.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

The IEA is a right wing think tank so it analysis isn't exactly without bias (not that any economic analysis is).

You will notice that there is no clamour amongst the Swedish population for the adoption of radical economic libertarian polices.

Sweden is successful not because of capitalism and not because of the state but because of both. It has very successfully for most its history achieved a good balance between promoting private economic interests and still providing a strong welfare state.

This is the socialism that most posters on here are talking about a balanced mixed economic & social model. Instead as per normal the conversation has degenerated into the usual socialism = state control of everything nonsense the was brought up in the OP.

a reply to: ScepticScot

If it works for them FINE we doubt such a sysytem would work with 300,000,000 + people, is all most of us are saying.
I personally understand we should maintain our socialist programs but it is contrary to individual development as a government, that would establish more control.
WE don't have men of appropriate character in leadership roles to do so,whom America could accept.
NOT to mention it is not Constitutional and we have been fighting and dying in countries that used that particular model.
We don't see a malfunctiong system like ours as safe to actually try that.
A meritocracy would be ideal but based on WHAT?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Well the piece argues that the success is owed more to the ethics of the people. This is what I meant earlier about homogeneous cultures. Its not so much the theories in play but the ethic of the people, the shared culture and values, it makes social endeavors much easier to accomplish with fewer competing views and interest.

I understand what you mean about the version of balanced socialism you speak of. I think that isn't really socialism though but an attempt to describe something closer to what happens when there is less diversity and people ascribe to common view points and beliefs.

I align more with the right and am also aware of some of the extremist of the right and their views. As an example I could use extreme right wing skinheads. If they banded together to fulfill common goals and to take care of their "own" or however they see it they could simultaneously be partaking in your view of "socialism" while maintaining their right wing views. They could succeed because of their unity and singularity through some shared belief, ethnicity, or what have you.

Iceland is not really a socialist country although it gets labeled that by some. Iceland really has a libertarian/minarchist heritage with chieftains and such yet they are high on the indexes used to uphold the Scandinavian model. They are homogeneous and are able to accomplish goals similar to what you propose by virtue of them being one people. This is why I had mentioned Japan previously.

I am not advocating any sort of segregation or supremacy here I just want to illustrate the similarities to tribalism based on unified culture and the type of "socialism" you are talking about. It would be interesting to see some sort of breakdown/comparison to show rankings on happiness index being tied to shared culture,ethnicity, beliefs etc a sort of unity.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The argument about scale is an interesting one and I don't completely disagree, as a general rule I think decision making should be as local as possible. I am not sure scale alone determines the workability of an economic model or social system however however I think the diversity of state economies within the US certainly challenge any single model.

I don't think there is anything unconstitutional about socialism however I would be the first to admit to not being an expert on the US constitution.

I am not sure what you mean by fighting and dying in countries that use that model. Pretty sure the US has not invaded any social democratic countries recently but then you do get around a lot so I could be mistaken.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

I actually agree with most of your last post. I think that the importance of institutions (in the economic meaning of the word) is important and often unappreciated when looking at the success of economies.

There are certainly cultural and political factors in place in regard to the Scandinavian economies and I think trying to separate this out and say that these countries work because of capitalism/socialism with taking the culture in to consideration is flawed and even dishonest.

Despite what some more theoretical economists might like us to believe you can not separate economics from politics and culture.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The key demarcation is the compulsory nature of modern socialism or the statist model. Where as the unified culture form I speak of is voluntary or at the very least something which doesn't have to be coerced. Perhaps it is a matter of how they view sacrifice. On a tribal level people can put aside their own goals to work for the welfare of the tribe.

a reply to: ScepticScot

State's right superior to the govts power is more Libetarian than socialist.
The Social issue only happens when used as a federal level model over all things ,which is a gateway to global governance ,they would need a martial law order to establish such and idea here and then the states would have to go along or rebel.
As a model for societal support, we are already doing so ,as long as leadership stops raiding it for a bigger country.
As to the military we spend on well I guess we'll have to do MORE based on what the world is doing and what the MORONS who have led us here have done. Europe essentially will have to get a better military and more troops.
They don't appear to have as many aggressive warriors to choose from as they haven't the populations to choose from and most aren't wired that way.
UNLESS you WANT to surrender,your values completely, in which case .I would disagree.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Socialism needs big government.

Big business uses big government.

Big business uses socialism by way of using big government.

Why else would the greedy powerful top allow any socialism?

Maybe because they didn't have a choice. The masses have power too you know?

Capitalism has no top.

Socialism makes a top in order to enforce fairness or whatever.

This is a lie. Democratic Socialist countries (like the US) use capitalism to let the economy go unbounded.

Powerful people make use of socialism's top.

You say that is not socialism. Technically true, but the existence of the top is all socialism, and rich people take advantage of that top.

Rich people take advantage of anything they can take advantage of. Hell, that holds true for literally ALL humans. It's human nature to exploit any hole we can to get an edge up. You make it sound like capitalism is immune from such things, but we all know that isn't true since we haven't seen a true intervention-less economy since forever.

You need to look where socialism came from

Start with the French revolution

Socialism gave the world democracy

But there was a hidden agenda to it

They had found a way to control the masses

Socialism is a tool to turn you into a Marxist stooge

Also google the words

The long March through the instatutions

It is a real eye opener

I no longer call anyone crazy
Because I found out
This was a Marxist tool
I was becoming a Marxist stooge

Here are some more Marxist tools

Feminism
Homosexuality
Racism
Multiculturism
Sexism
Democracy

Reds under the bed

a reply to: NihilistSanta

I just cant understand your exuberance considering it invalidates a lot of the perceptions laid out in this thread.

I did read Bandit's points - and continued in dialogue on those lines. Bandit is trying to point out "financial freedom" as a better thing. I get it.

I've also read your posts, and I appreciate the point that homogenous, smaller 'tribes' of like people can do better than can a huge spread out nation of diverse ethnicity. But that doesn't mean it is impossible. Your first point to me, I think, was that it was "racist" related.

I just don't understand how you make it about race.
If each state in the USA has their own government (which they do), and is already using socialist policies (like first-response, health-care (Medicaid/Medicare), highway systems, infrastructure and civic projects (new convention centers funded by tiny increases in sales tax), etc), then we can measure the success rates of those more socially progressive, and those less so.

I live in Kansas. Kansas is failing - our Dominionist governor has pushed so far right that we are all hurting now, and is having to roll-back his tax strategy (by upping taxes, because lowering them left the govt holding the bag and resulted in underfunded schools, and his refusal to participate in medicaid reform using Federal Grants has resulted in many uninsured all over the state, etc). So, it's clear to me that the far-right conservative approach is a big, fat FAIL, no matter what Bandit thinks over there living in a tiny island off the coast of north Africa. Maybe it works in Aruba.

It doesn't work here.

If the USA were more like the EU (sovereign nations unionized), in that every state is responsible for their own oversight and policy outcomes - rather than being under the umbrella of "Federal Oversight", it could be implemented here - we would see which states fail, and which prosper.



I am perplexed by how negative you remain about it, rather than trying to add to the possibilities and options through reasoning that I know you are capable of.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

If you think of states being tribes - rather than racially homogenous - you can see that it DOES work.

The marijuana legalization movement is a perfect example. The states that have moved forward and made progress on that front have done very well. The states that have refused federal grants (on principle?) to improve access to health care and food for EVERYONE in their state are failing.

So, if you think of "socialism" /progress in terms of smaller populations, the marijuana movement is clear evidence that it can work in multi-ethnic "tribes" called citizens of that state.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Rich people take advantage of anything they can take advantage of. Hell, that holds true for literally ALL humans. It's human nature to exploit any hole we can to get an edge up. You make it sound like capitalism is immune from such things, but we all know that isn't true since we haven't seen a true intervention-less economy since forever.

Competition keeps power dispersed. Any oppression by a big business will motivate new companies to compete with the oppressor. Without governmental intrusion, the most popular company will always win.

Sooner or later, the truly evil will get control of the socialist State. It is just a matter of time.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Rich people take advantage of anything they can take advantage of. Hell, that holds true for literally ALL humans. It's human nature to exploit any hole we can to get an edge up. You make it sound like capitalism is immune from such things, but we all know that isn't true since we haven't seen a true intervention-less economy since forever.

Competition keeps power dispersed. Any oppression by a big business will motivate new companies to compete with the oppressor. Without governmental intrusion, the most popular company will always win.

Yeah and if that popular company gets popular enough it'll drive all other competition out of business.

Sooner or later, the truly evil will get control of the socialist State. It is just a matter of time.

According to your posts throughout this thread it has already happened. So are you changing your mind now and the Socialist state isn't in the hands of evil yet? Though, to be honest, this is just fearmongering plain and simple. "We shouldn't use Socialism because the evil will take hold of it! Never mind that it has never happened and I have no evidence of it being able to happen!"

I was reading an article yesterday about the wealthiest person from each state in the country. The majority of them are self-made. Some picked up the mantle where their parents left off and continued in the family's business, growing and expanding their products and services. They create jobs for thousands and thousands of people. All of them were big contributors to various and sundry causes and charities. I even learned that the Koch brothers contribute to the United Negro College Fund. Capitalism at its finest! I applaud every single one of them and the thought of taking the wealth they have earned and managed, in order to redistribute it to whomever a bunch of politicians and their voters think should get it, is sickening.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You are focusing too much on race. Race is just usually one of the most identifiable aspects of a culture but not always.

I am surprised to see you attempt to apply the socialism lite approach. It would require a lot of capitalism though. You need a big tax base to support the programs. This requires people. People require jobs. How do you lure businesses? Through competition. You could also end up with say Mississippi being a third world country due to the fact that over half of its population relies on federal funds to eat, be housed, etc.

The marijuana movement is unique because its only successful due to an unwillingness by the federal government to enforce or prosecute. This could change at any time though. The marijuana example helps your case but what if the issue were gay marriage?

a reply to: queenofswords

Yet somehow they managed to do it in a Democractic Socialist country. Hmmm... I guess Socialism isn't all that bad and restrictive then?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mississippi should be a socialist utopia then right? Over half the population is on government assistance. Finally they get that even footing and leg up. Oh whats that poorest state in the country? Highest rates of obesity ,teen pregnancy, highest rates of cancer, one of the highest high school drop out rates, fairly high on unemployment listings, highest rate of illiteracy and I am sure there are more I am forgetting.

a reply to: queenofswords

I even learned that the Koch brothers contribute to the United Negro College Fund. Capitalism at its finest!

The Koch brothers are also busy simultaneously raping the planet for fossil fuels and making sure the Fed Govt lets them by BUYING THEM.

They SUCK. They are monsters. My nephew was flown in their private jet to be interviewed for a job with them (in financial management) and he turned it down.

They are scourges.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

How do you feel about Warren Buffet?