Socialism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:23 am
Why do people consider socialism so bad? It's not meant to depreciate the value of other people's lives and values and independent rights, it's meant to act on society for the greater good. The Marxist ideaology of a socialist society, when he believed that socialism developed after capitalism and before communism, is a great idea. There would be very few obscurities in what defines America and otehr countries. They would be able to survive economic hardship, such as the recession we are facing right now. So why are there peopkle who believe socialism, in lack of a better word, sucks?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:25 am
@gotmilk9991,
I don't know, like all politics really they all become corrupt because of the politicians, imo none of them can be trusted but maybe I'm missing the point huh.
 
gotmilk9991
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:43 am
@gotmilk9991,
Well socialism, as it's denotation calls it, is an economic system in which the distribution and production of goods is controlled substantially by the government and not private enterprise. So as far as most people are concerned they are misled by others whom wish to cloud the truth with lies.

---------- Post added 09-15-2009 at 07:47 AM ----------
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:48 am
@gotmilk9991,
Well I've always been a socialist myself.
 
gotmilk9991
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:50 am
@gotmilk9991,
I've been socialist for a long time. I just beleive democracy relys too much on peoples good nature, which is very, unfortunately, scarcely shown. You cannot leave other people in charge of someone else, there will always be a point where they cannot connect. Therefore they cannot govern properly without proper insight.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:54 am
@gotmilk9991,
Yes indeed but with Socialism the people shoud have a say on how they are governed, very much so, it is the only way it works, the leader is there only to oversee the best decisions for the people and play mediator bewteen them to reach peace and understanding and eventually harmony not rule with an iron fist as that is not democracy or socialism, it's tryanny.
 
gotmilk9991
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 05:58 am
@gotmilk9991,
Yeah, true. But in most cases, you need someone, as a mnediator, that is not self-righteous. such things creates dicatorships like Stalin, and even Lenin, but to a lesser extent Lenin. Basically what you need is an ubermensch. Someone who can see logic, and even deal with decisions that may be unpopular. Although that usually makes people regret thier decision in government, they get someone they don't appreciate in maybe one decision and eventually they replace him. It's really just a case of healthy checks and balances.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:01 am
@gotmilk9991,
Yeah but will the people see the benefit of an unpopular decision for themselves?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:19 am
@Caroline,
Im a socialist and i rejoiced at new labour, now im regretting their rise to power. I cant abide extremes. This government is not sticking to its principles ,its trying to pandering to every one and pleasing no one.
 
gotmilk9991
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:40 am
@gotmilk9991,
No people never see the logic. People are too subjective to emotions to be able to step back and view the bigger picture.

what i dont get though xris, is that i dont see this government as being extreme. They are doing the best they can with what they got. being left with trillions of dollars in debt, a war, and a recession is not the best situation for any person to enter into presidency as.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:48 am
@gotmilk9991,
I think what Xris is trying to say is, he supports the principles behind socialism and that the party does not actually reflect these which shows your point, that the government is doing the best it can, I believe so anyway and that the people do have to work with the government not against it, unless they can see good reason to. As for the people, yes they do pay attention to their emotions which is important but I also believe that they are capable of thinking and seeing logic and perhaps sometimes all they need is a prompt to see this. It's all about having confidence and trust in your leader and building that up.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:57 am
@gotmilk9991,
gotmilk9991;90279 wrote:
No people never see the logic. People are too subjective to emotions to be able to step back and view the bigger picture.

what i dont get though xris, is that i dont see this government as being extreme. They are doing the best they can with what they got. being left with trillions of dollars in debt, a war, and a recession is not the best situation for any person to enter into presidency as.
I dont agree with their move towards privatising certain parts of the health service or the short term gains of private money in education.

I would have thought their main aim was to bring back certain services back into public ownership, such as water and electricity. Their attempt at selling of the post office was too much for me.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:35 am
@xris,
Hi,

I think most economies in the world are mixed economies nowadays. I can't think of one that is not.

Socialism suffers from the same problem as capitalism. The original theory just totally disregards the multitude of personalities participating the human work force that are playing the economic game.

There are all kinds of players, many of whom are quite ruthless when it comes to wealth accumulation and don't really care about the laws (rules). Because of this, they tend to rise to the top, whether it be government or corporate governance and they really don't give a heck about what happens to other people as long as they stash away a good amount of money in their Swiss accounts.

There are also people in mid-management who just give jobs to their friends and don't care much what or how much they produce.

And there are all other types of people in all areas of the spectrum, each doing what they can do to survive within the economic system. And what you get at the end is a whole mix of economic ideas, none of which are satisfactory so they are constantly being tweaked and changed.

Rich
 
gotmilk9991
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 10:42 am
@gotmilk9991,
Well also, such things cannot be done very quickly. I agree with that with such things should be public ownership, but if it is done too fast, then it can create culture shock. But xris i deffinately see your point. I'm not happy with the state of the government, but i am not also dissappointed in it eitehr.
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 06:59 pm
@gotmilk9991,
Socialism starts out with what sounds like a good premise "equality and fairness".
Inevitably however socialism ends up repressing indiviudal freedom, initiative and ingenuity. Socialism is based on a false premise about man and nature. "for the greater good" is used to take from those with talent, drive, ambition and opportunity and give to those without. In the end the entire society is impoverished by it. It is markets (albeit with some controls and regulations) which have created the vast share of wealth in the world and individuals who have created the majority of new ideas, innovations and businesses. Laws against "the right to rise or to become wealthy" invariable do more harm than good.
"human rights" are individual rights not "collective rights".
People are not equal (except before the law) and nature is not fair.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:19 pm
@gotmilk9991,
I'll leave this quote to state my point.

A recent study that compared international cancer survival rates demonstrates what opponents of socialized medicine have been saying for years: socialized medicine kills.

The study found that Britain, whose much-touted "universal health care" system is held up by the left as a model for America, has among the lowest cancer survival rates in the West. It is drastically lower than the United States, which has the world's highest survival rate.

Researchers attribute Britain's dismal numbers primarily to late diagnoses and lengthy waiting lists for treatment. But long lines and waiting lists are necessarily endemic under socialized medicine. Just as a "free" grocery store would not be able to keep its shelves stocked, a "free" health care system necessarily lacks sufficient resources to adequately treat all those seeking care. The result is thousands of unnecessary deaths and millions of grief-stricken families.
 
RDanneskjld
 
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:57 pm
@gotmilk9991,
One of the main problems I have with Socialism is a purely pratical one. Socialist systems often tend to be less efficient (with very few exceptions) than the workings of the free market. Market pressure and the price mechanism are crucial for Economic efficiency. By aiming for greater equality and fairness this can actually often lead to Economic growth being stunted, which then has a negative effect on those we orginally set out to help. Many talk of 'Market failure' without ever talking of the many 'Government failure'.

IMO It is also very naive to believe that Governments can act in the interest of 'the people'. Work in the field of 'Public Choice Theory' has set to show how governments (in specific bureaucrats) often work in their own interest. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows how no voting system can convert the prefences of individuals into a community wide ranking of prefrences. To assume there is a 'general will' (Rousseau The Social Contract) and that a government can both know and act on this 'general will' should be a very worrying idea for anyone who values individual freedoms.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 04:43 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;90466 wrote:
I'll leave this quote to state my point.

A recent study that compared international cancer survival rates demonstrates what opponents of socialized medicine have been saying for years: socialized medicine kills.

The study found that Britain, whose much-touted "universal health care" system is held up by the left as a model for America, has among the lowest cancer survival rates in the West. It is drastically lower than the United States, which has the world's highest survival rate.

Researchers attribute Britain's dismal numbers primarily to late diagnoses and lengthy waiting lists for treatment. But long lines and waiting lists are necessarily endemic under socialized medicine. Just as a "free" grocery store would not be able to keep its shelves stocked, a "free" health care system necessarily lacks sufficient resources to adequately treat all those seeking care. The result is thousands of unnecessary deaths and millions of grief-stricken families.
Well thank you very much but i would still take my chances here than the US. We as a nation don't invest as much as americans because your a darned sight richer than us. US health care is three times more expensive and selecting one portion of our health system is not giving a true representation of its benefits.


What you wont see is the underprivileged queueing up like a third world country for basic health care or minor ailments developing into cancer because the patient could not afford treatment. Here everyone has the same benefits and no one is turned away.

---------- Post added 09-16-2009 at 05:48 AM ----------

R.Danneskjöld;90473 wrote:
One of the main problems I have with Socialism is a purely pratical one. Socialist systems often tend to be less efficient (with very few exceptions) than the workings of the free market. Market pressure and the price mechanism are crucial for Economic efficiency. By aiming for greater equality and fairness this can actually often lead to Economic growth being stunted, which then has a negative effect on those we orginally set out to help. Many talk of 'Market failure' without ever talking of the many 'Government failure'.

IMO It is also very naive to believe that Governments can act in the interest of 'the people'. Work in the field of 'Public Choice Theory' has set to show how governments (in specific bureaucrats) often work in their own interest. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows how no voting system can convert the prefences of individuals into a community wide ranking of prefrences. To assume there is a 'general will' (Rousseau The Social Contract) and that a government can both know and act on this 'general will' should be a very worrying idea for anyone who values individual freedoms.
What are you talking about democratic socialism or communism? When has commerce been stunted by socialism ? these strange accusations need a certain clarification.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 04:52 am
@xris,
xris;90529 wrote:
Well thank you very much but i would still take my chances here than the US. We as a nation don't invest as much as americans because your a darned sight richer than us. US health care is three times more expensive and selecting one portion of our health system is not giving a true representation of its benefits.


It is only expensive because of the patent laws and the lack of options for patients. If the medical industry was more competitive prices would be much lower and quality much higher. But companies have long since petitioned the government to favor corporations profits over consumer benefits. It is a failing of government that caused the medical care not the lack of it. Things will only get worse the more government tries to manage it. Since when has government ever been efficient at anything? Education system, Failure, the law enforcement, failure. Social security, failure. Medicare, failure.

xris;90529 wrote:

What you wont see is the underprivileged queueing up like a third world country for basic health care or minor ailments developing into cancer because the patient could not afford treatment. Here everyone has the same benefits and no one is turned away.


No one gets turned away in the states. If you show up at the emergency room they will treat you weather you are covered or not. But like I said before, people who will receive "free" health care will over consume thus creating lines. Over consumption reduces the over all resources from those who really need it. Not to mention it wont cost any less, but instead, more. But instead of paying upfront you will get docked in your paychecks.

Pay more, for lower quality. That is what this new health care system will entail.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 05:13 am
@Krumple,
The point im making is if we where as rich as the US and if we invested the same amount we would be the best in the world.

Failures are relative and how do you judge success above your idea of failure give me comparison to validate your opinion.

So why do we see queues in car parks for charitable medical care ?

I agree anything for free is abused but not by the vast majority, we value its service and in general the public are happy with the system. The biggest problem are the claims for malpractice, encouraged by unscrupulous solicitors. That is modern problem for any health system but it does over burden the system when doctors refer patients to specialist ,just to be sure. If you have indigestion you will get your heart checked out because of fear of the consequence.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 02:50:59