Does socialism work?

[Azlier]

If there are leaders/decision makers, then they are not equal to the people. That's not Communism.

In fact, we shouldn't need to vote. So it's not really a direct democracy. Just anarchy .

 

[T.s.e]

Then that's the second time you've proven me wrong today.

 

[uberfoop]

I fail to see how it can be a true anarchy, Communism incorporates a strong state, not no state whatsoever.

Soviet 'communism' generally wound up incorporating a strong state. True Marxian communism would be stateless.

 

[Kershbob]

The top ranked countries all have universal healthcare and free education up to university level. I find it obvious that all countries that see themselves as modernised should have universal healthcare and free education up to university level.


The US needs to get off the idea of it being the land of freedom and wealth for all. Because it's not and never has been. Working hard all your life can get you nowhere.

Pure socialism doesn't really work with the current population of the world and it's ideals but socialistic ideas put into practice work well and have worked in many countries for a very long time.

It's never been hard to talk about what type of government would work best in a Eutopian world but my guess would be Socialism, you could gradually move towards Centralism after social issues are dealt with, but that's going to be a while since there are still political groups like Abortmotstandernes Liste and most of the aging US to get in the way.


Commenting on some of the more right wing posters ITT, I have to say that it's odd seeing people who clearly are the patriotic type once again going against policies such as universal healthcare which can help their country. You can't mix patriotism and apathy for your fellow man, it makes you look hollow and moreso; a terrible person.

 

[ElderKingpin]

ok. i have to change something. im shifting more towards america. Do you support social SERVICES. that means. do you support the government helping the poor and the such? (I think its up to the charities to do that, it should be a private charity matter)

Why did i change it? because that is the debate for this year of school. Social SERVICES.

---

I suppose there is a difference between socialism and social SERVICES. Socialism [insert opinion here] and social SERVICES is helping out the needy, which is what Socialism attempts to achieve.

 

[T.s.e]

do you support the government helping the poor and the such?

Yes.

 

[Sickle]

The problem here is that the poor exist, not if we are helping them or not. There should not be anyone who is poor.

 

[ElderKingpin]

there will be poor if people dont help

 

[T.s.e]

there will be poor if people dont help

People are helping, but poverty still exists.

 

[MasterOfABCs]

Socialism will not work because people like me are not willing to give up their standard living for the better of the whole.

Oh, and it wonl't work cuse' socialism is scientifically proven to be lame.

See figure 1.1



Socialism is lame.
figure 1.1







Also, all ism's are gay.

 

[ElderKingpin]

Yes.

I would LOVE to have the government help the poor. If the government in America wasnt made of inefficient retards.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

Socialism will not work because people like me are not willing to give up their standard living for the better of the whole.

This.

 

[WolSHaman]

is it not true that the nations that are not purple have a higher standard of living?

Is it not true, that the more power government has, the less freedom the people have?

For the most part it's not true... The USA has the highest standard of living, but after most every country that has a generally high standard of living seems to fall in the purple socialist countries, although Australia and Canada are also there, although even that isn't necessarily the best judge of what's right, as it's been found that a higher standard of living DOESN'T always equate to having a happier country, which I'm assuming is the ultimate end goal. Coincidentally, the countries that seem to have higher standards of living were also the ones that didn't have all their factories destroyed during world war 2, so they never had to rebuild.

And your definition of socialism is flawed. What you gave was a biased account of socialism that has no bearing on the actual theory. Socialism is NOT about taking from the rich and giving to the lazy poor people, although that is a popular stereotype. I could say that the free market is just about the rich cheating the poor and robbing everyone blind, and it would not be true either, it's just rhetoric.

However, on to the actual topic. Pure socialism doesn't really work, neither does free market capitalism. Socialism doesn't work because, as some have probably mentioned, it goes contradictory to human nature. It's foolish to expect people to be completely altruistic, all the time, although it would be nice. However, free market capitalism makes the mistake of working completely WITH human nature, including things like greed and people acting out of pure self-interest. the answer is in some happy medium, a capitalist system, but it needs regulation, and some things are best left out of the private sector, and under government control, and vice versa.

 

[ElderKingpin]

so in other words, you want a golden middle, not too captalist, not too socialist.

 

[WolSHaman]

so in other words, you want a golden middle, not too captalist, not too socialist.

you could say that, yes. But I figured I should also provide why I don't like either pole and specify why the middle would be the nicest.

 

[ReVolver]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Class_US.svg

In the United States the upper class, also referred to simply as the rich, is often considered to consist of those with great influence and wealth. In this respect the US differs from countries such as the UK where membership of the 'upper class' is also dependent on other factors. The American upper class is estimated to constitute less than 1% of the population, while the remaining 99% of the population is either middle class, working class or "steerage/under class." The main distinguishing feature of the class is its ability to derive enormous incomes from wealth rather than work.[1][2][3] CEOs, politicians, investment bankers, some lawyers, heirs to fortunes, successful venture capitalists, stockbrokers as well as celebrities are considered members of this class by contemporary sociologists, such as James Henslin or Dennis Gilbert.[1] There may be prestige differences between different upper-class households. The actor Bruce Willis, for example, might not be accorded as much prestige as former U.S. President Bill Clinton.[2] Yet, all members of this class are so influential and wealthy as to be considered members of the upper class.[1]

"Upper-class families... dominate corporate America and have a disproportionate influence over the nation's political, educational, religious, and other institutions. Of all social classes, members of the upper class also have a strong sense of solidarity and 'consciousness of kind' that stretches across the nation and even the globe."

This is why Socialism should work, preferably to the highest percent of people living here. 1% shouldn't be in control...or have the power to decide what to do.

 

[T.s.e]

However, free market capitalism makes the mistake of working completely WITH human nature,

The "human nature" argument is just pure nonsense, the only reason we need to act this way is because that's the way capitalism works, not because it's the fundamental way humans are created.

 

[WolSHaman]

The "human nature" argument is just pure nonsense, the only reason we need to act this way is because that's the way capitalism works, not because it's the fundamental way humans are created.

why is the human nature argument pure nonsense? If humans could act however they wanted, and human nature was pure nonsense, socialism could work because people wouldn't feel inclined to be lazy, and they'd care enough about the group to put in their share of the work, and it wouldn't matter if they were getting stiffed for doing more then enough, because they could control their desire for stuff and glory to help the greater whole. But human nature is a very important part of this.

 

[ElderKingpin]

does capitalism take into consideration the human nature? isnt that why it works? because it knows people make mistakes?

 

[WolSHaman]

does capitalism take into consideration the human nature? isnt that why it works? because it knows people make mistakes?

it's not that people make mistakes, it's that people are and always will be self-interested. This isn't always a bad thing, though, as it does lead to innovation as some people pointed out. But, left unchecked, people can go very far in their own self interest.

An example of this would be the Ford Pinto. It was found unsafe, and that the cars were blowing up, killing and seriously burning people. However, Ford calculated that it would be cheaper to just let people die and get burned and pay legal fees then recall every vehicle and repair it, so instead of launching a recall they initially intended to just let people die, because technically it was in their self interest.
(http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Pinto.htm )