Think Police Department, Public Schools, Food Stamps, Welfare & Fire Department…all socialist constructs.
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Think Police Department, Public Schools, Food Stamps, Welfare & Fire Department…all socialist constructs.[/quote]
I think they are social programs
[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Think Police Department, Public Schools, Food Stamps, Welfare & Fire Department…all socialist constructs.[/quote]
Police are local, public schools are local (private schools running on less money are better), food stamps and welfare are as corrupt as they come, and most fire department (and things like ambulances and hospitals) are not public.
I point out that much of what you listed is locally run and locally funded, because in a national sense it is not collective ownership. The running of and funding of these are selective geographically.
Further, different people pay different amounts to these services. In a true socialist sense the government would take everything everyone produces, meaning that no matter how much you make, if something is 5% of the government budget, everyone essentially contributed 5% of their earnings to it. In our current system, some people pay a higher percentage, some lower, some none at all. This is once again a selective process and not very socialistic. (socialism is in truth a flat tax)
government control of every aspect of your life.
it has never succeeded anywhere.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Since I apparently don’t get it and some of our members on here claim that socalism is the way I figure I would start this thread so that they can clearly describe how their system would work.[/quote]
Well what is your point?
Socialism would not work in America no more than would a totally free market. A strong private sector along with good social programs is the frame work America is set up for. To let one of those sectors become too heavy the other will eventually swing out and equal the imbalance.
[quote]animal6fat9 wrote:
government control of every aspect of your life.
it has never succeeded anywhere.
[/quote]
This is totalitarian and could apply to fascism on the far reaches of the right or communism on the far reaches of the left. It does not describe socialism. This is what I hate about the criticism of socialism: people confuse it with totalitarianism and condemn it when they don’t know what it really is.
I am not a supporter of a purely socialistic society/economy, but I do believe that there are aspects of it that, when implemented within a largely capitalistic society, can benefit people. Socialism in its most simple form mandates that workers have control of the means of production in order to provide an incentive for maximized efficiency. The key word being “workers”, not the unemployed.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The basic idea, though, originated with the principle that workers ought to control the means of production, and receive the total value (or as near to it as practical) of their work, with none of it being siphoned off by idle capitalists. Thus, the original, core idea has virtually nothing to do with government control, taxation, or planning of any kind. It is here that things branch off.
[/quote]
I don’t think I understand. So, all workers are equal in this model? The new guy is lopped in there with the guy that has been doing it for 30 years? Are there supervisors in this model? Any way to move up?
It seems to go against basic motivational thought. “If I’m going to get paid anyway, then what’s the point in working?”
Now, if each worker is somehow reimbursed based on his output, then you’ve got something.
There are two different schools of thought about socialism, namely that the state should own everything (a horrible idea) or that certain things should be nationalized within the framework of a free market.
“Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.”
“Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, have instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[10]”
“Modern social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. (In the 19th and early 20th century the term was used to refer to those who wanted to completely replace capitalism with socialism through reform.) Modern social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets; many, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, despite holding pro-capitalist viewpoints, thus adding ambiguity to the meaning of the term “socialist”. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers’ councils and workplace democracy.”
I agree with the above for the most part.
You have to remember that socialism is not a way of electing people, and doesn’t necessarily inform (and in fact shouldn’t, but often does) social aspects of the society. It’s an economic model, that describes government control/involvement with certain or all industry (when an industry is socialized). An entire economy could be socialized, but most of the social democracies people on the left hold up as examples, don’t do that, and it is the industries that are deemed necessary for the common good that tend to be socialized (things many on the left say are rights): health-care, education, energy, defense, police, EMS, exe.
Our education system in the US (K-12) is socialist, our military is socialist, our EMS is for the most part socialist, our police system is socialist.
[quote]florelius wrote:
If people on here are genuine interrested in learning about socialisme and communisme I will recommend them to read the communist manifest…
[/quote]
I was smart enough to disregard that flaming pile of donkey dung when they made us read it in high school.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I agree with the above for the most part.
You have to remember that socialism is not a way of electing people, and doesn’t necessarily inform (and in fact shouldn’t, but often does) social aspects of the society. It’s an economic model, that describes government control/involvement with certain or all industry (when an industry is socialized). An entire economy could be socialized, but most of the social democracies people on the left hold up as examples, don’t do that, and it is the industries that are deemed necessary for the common good that tend to be socialized (things many on the left say are rights): health-care, education, energy, defense, police, EMS, exe.
Our education system in the US (K-12) is socialist, our military is socialist, our EMS is for the most part socialist, our police system is socialist.[/quote]
So lets go through the list
Public schools-fail
military- wouldn’t the fact that we get our equipment from the private sector make that more of a fascist organization? To me the military is the perfect example of cooperate and state merging.
EMS - I for the most part see it as a private contractor(around here that is)
Police- Most corrupt group of people I have ever seen, a few good people but most abuse the hell out of their power.
your inability to grasp gradation is unbelievable.
[quote]John S. wrote:
So lets go through the list
[/quote]
Why? I was giving examples, not making a statement of judgment.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Public schools-fail
[/quote]
Okay… but would our society be better off if the poor or kids who’s parents didn’t care got no formal education?
[quote]John S. wrote:
military- wouldn’t the fact that we get our equipment from the private sector make that more of a fascist organization? To me the military is the perfect example of cooperate and state merging.
[/quote]
No. The “Industry” is the people involved, and the organization itself. I can’t think of a single “socialized industry” in any country that gets all their materials and product through socialized means. You’d need your entire economy to be socialist then, and that doesn’t exist.
[quote]John S. wrote:
EMS - I for the most part see it as a private contractor(around here that is)
[/quote]
Why do you see it that way? If your employer is a government, you are working in a socialized industry, or at least the public-sector socialized part of the industry.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Police- Most corrupt group of people I have ever seen, a few good people but most abuse the hell out of their power.[/quote]
Sure. But look at places where police can get REALLY rich being even more corrupt? If the police were run like a corporation, they’d have to function in their own self-interest, rather than even having the face of functioning for the general good.
I think your points are valid, and illustrate that the government is a necessary evil, however, it’s still necessary.
[quote]Boomhower113 wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The basic idea, though, originated with the principle that workers ought to control the means of production, and receive the total value (or as near to it as practical) of their work, with none of it being siphoned off by idle capitalists. Thus, the original, core idea has virtually nothing to do with government control, taxation, or planning of any kind. It is here that things branch off.
[/quote]
I don’t think I understand. So, all workers are equal in this model? The new guy is lopped in there with the guy that has been doing it for 30 years? Are there supervisors in this model? Any way to move up?
It seems to go against basic motivational thought. “If I’m going to get paid anyway, then what’s the point in working?”
Now, if each worker is somehow reimbursed based on his output, then you’ve got something.[/quote]
All workers are equal in the sense that they have equal voices in workplaces decisions, whatever those might be.
But no, if you don’t work, you don’t get paid, period (other than pensions and disability pay, obviously). Skilled work is compensated better than unskilled work, so for instance an engineer would make significantly more than a mechanic, and a mechanic would make more than a janitor. But they would all make more than they make today.
If you want to move up, you ask to moved up, and if you demonstrate that you are capable of performing the work, then your request must be granted.
socialism, like all other left of center ideologies, is using the power of the state to enforce the subjective view of “equality”.
socialism, like all other left of center ideologies, is using the power of the state to enforce the subjective view of “equality”.
socialism, like all other left of center ideologies, is using the power of the state to enforce the subjective view of “equality”.
Socialism is where we all “work together and shit.”
What we learned in kindergarten is that there about two kids in each class that lead the rest of the herd, because the herd just isn’t capable of working together.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
All workers are equal in the sense that they have equal voices in workplaces decisions, whatever those might be.[/quote]
So, there is a vote on everything? If I decide to nominate a proposal that my factory is going to go on a two day work week and we will all get 40% bonuses at the end of the year and everyone agrees with me, then that’s it? We get it? We would put the direction of some industries in the hands of 19 year old drop outs?
You say “obviously” like a pension isn’t a big deal. I don’t have a pension program at my current company and I work my ass off. It’s all 401k, here. I have to put in to get anything out of it. The disability part I, kind of, get. But, even then, there are blind, crippled people that still work somehow.
This makes sense to me. But, does the janitor still get to have the same vote as the engineer even if he is a half-wit retard that dropped out in the second grade?
How’s that?
[quote]If you want to move up, you ask to moved up, and if you demonstrate that you are capable of performing the work, then your request must be granted.
[/quote]
It MUST be granted? What if there isn’t a spot available currently?
“Hell, I can delegate things. I want to be moved up to CEO [or whatever the HMFIC is called in this model]. What? We already have one? Well, then, I guess you are about to have two. Now, get me that idiot janitor. I need to have my office cleaned out prior to my 5 day weekend. Good thing we don’t need to make a profit on anything, since we don’t have shareholders holding our feet to the flame. Hookers and booze for EVERYBODY! Oh wait, we need to vote on that first. All in favor?”
It all seems like a negative sum game to me. I’ll go with Churchill on this one. “Eventually, you are going to run out of other people’s money”
Private schools cost less and produce better results, you have to understand that the way our economy is right now is not how it would be under capitalism, under Capitalism we would be a manufacturing giant thus parents could easily afford to send their kids to school.
Second, since we are not socialist our government has to run the military in a fascist way. It is simply merging cooperate and state, Also the Military is not egalitarian.
EMS can have many private contractors, I am seeing more and more private forces take over as states are forced to cut budgets.
A private police force would be the best, since they can be replaced with another force very easy it will cause them to do their jobs much better.
Our government is not socialist, it is actually set up with the power granted to it by the constitution to have more of a fascist way of doing its duties.