Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

FreedomFromAll said:

Well under your reasoning then the military is a Socialist venture as well. Or the government in general is Socialist under the generalized reasoning that you stated. I mean the Government serves the greater good of society a lot more than the individual good of the individual.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. A purely capitalistic society could only exist under anarchy, but anarchy is no guarantee of capitalism. Taxes are socialism, pure and simple: they are all about taking from you according to your ability, and then that money is subsequently paid out according to your need. Since our government requires taxation, then yes, it's socialist. This is simply a fact under the definition we are adhering to: anything between pure capitalism and pure communism is socialism. I'm not passing judgement, since I don't think "socialism" is some closet boogyman, but any modern form of government is ultimately socialist.

Plus there are many private roads in America. Even the National Highway System is not forced on States that do not want to join.

So only 4% of our road system in the US is Nationalized. So what exactly is the other 96% of our road system?

Click to expand...

If anything, this is a red herring. The other 96% of our road system is build and managed by the states. Whether or not it's a state or the federal government that does this is irrelevant. And the fact that not all roads and infrastructure development is public does not mean that that service is not socialistic. Ultimately, any government involvement in a service is socialism under our definition.

Something can be nationalized yet not be socialistic.

Click to expand...

False.

Our national Olympic teams are not a form of Socialism.

Click to expand...

Yes they are. According to our definition of Socialism, anything between Capitalism and Communism is socialism. As soon as a government funded by a "from each according to ability, to each according to need" mentality provides any service, or aid to a service, then you are no longer in capitalism. The fact that the US government provides any kind of funding to the Olympic team makes it socialism. In anticipation of another argument, yes, the Olympic team is also a form of social service: while not immediately practical like fire or police, the Olympic team provides entertainment and national pride, which is just as much a social service.

Infrastructure of an country can be nationalized but that does not make the countries infrastructure Socialism. As shown in Nazi Germany nationalizing can be fascism.

Click to expand...

Fascism and socialism do not describe the same aspects of political philosophy. Fascism inherently requires socialism. A key tenet of Fascism is that the state is willing and able to take control of an industry for the benefit of the national interests (basically the same conclusion as Communism, just different reasoning).

But nationalizing can also just be nationalizing not a description as an element of Socialism or fascism. So infrastructure that has been nationalized is not necessarily anything other than nationalized unless accompanied by other elements.

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia: "Nationalization is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state."
You cannot have nationalization without socialization. By a government taking control of some industry or asset, there is no longer pure capitalism, and socialism is then in effect.

But all that does not mean that I support further nationalizing of anything.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Universal healthcare, dissablity and emergency welfare/medical care.

I would have gone with your education packet over disability, but I do not agree with only aiding up until 4 years after high school. Grad school is FAR more expensive and those students could use aid as well. Why spend money on some party kid majoring in Gaelic literature when you can use that money on a med/pharmacy/law/PhD student?

Ill never understand how people can be against things which are beneficial to a well working society. It´s in our best interest for all citizens to be healthy and productive. It´s in our best interest for children to have access to education. It´s in our best interest to have enough resources so that when a percentage of the population falls on hard times, we can help them. I don´t understand how people can be against any of that in any capacity.

I guess I´m just not from the school of people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust.

Hatuey said:

Ill never understand how people can be against things which are beneficial to a well working society. It´s in our best interest for all citizens to be healthy and productive. It´s in our best interest for children to have access to education. It´s in our best interest to have enough resources so that when a percentage of the population falls on hard times, we can help them. I don´t understand how people can be against any of that in any capacity.

I guess I´m just not from the school of people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust.

Click to expand...

People are against them because we have to pay for it. Those things as you've mentioned are in our best interest, but is that at the expense of higher taxes, more government power and government spending?

Many of these things should be personal responsibility and not government areas of power.

Hatuey said:

Ill never understand how people can be against things which are beneficial to a well working society. It´s in our best interest for all citizens to be healthy and productive. It´s in our best interest for children to have access to education. It´s in our best interest to have enough resources so that when a percentage of the population falls on hard times, we can help them. I don´t understand how people can be against any of that in any capacity.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the same line of thought that brought us Communism. And you're right, if we could provide all those services, it would be in the best interest of mankind. The problem is that these services have an opportunity cost. As soon as you start paying government for a service, you have less money to pay the private sector for a service. History has shown that, time and time again, the private sector is a much more efficient steward of our money, and so by pushing services away from the private sector onto the government (while you may get more coverage), you get far less bang for your buck.

I guess I´m just not from the school of people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust.

Click to expand...

Veiled insults don't really help your cause.

TheDemSocialist said:

All of those are very very important priorities

Click to expand...

You and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum_

You believe in zero boundaries for socialism and I believe in zero socialism_

This poll/thread is about priorities and compromise__Give a little, take a little_

If you understand the concept of priorities and compromise, this should be no problem.

Keep in mind, this is for discussion purposes only and unless people wise up, not likely to happen.

Empirica said:

You and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum_

You believe in zero boundaries for socialism and I believe in zero socialism_

This poll/thread is about priorities and compromise__Give a little, take a little_

If you understand the concept of priorities and compromise, this should be no problem.

Keep in mind, this is for discussion purposes only and unless people wise up, not likely to happen.

Click to expand...

Whats the problem with having all of those? If you have all of those you still will not be considered socialist... Youll just be a mixed market economy like today...

Empirica said:

(1) Universal Healthcare
(2) Education/K-12 + 4 years higher-ed
(3) Emergency & unemployment benefits
(4) Social Security retirement/senior citizens
(5) Disability services/benefits
(6) Veterans services/benefits
(7) Planned Parenthood services
(8) Arts&Entertainment/PBS
(9) Emergency corporate/economy bailouts
(10) Illegal Alien assistance programs
(programs for american citizens only with the exception of #10)

Click to expand...

1. No deal, the problem for health care is too complicated for government to handle fairly at the Federal level. For those in Europe who have a UHC imagine if it were Centralized at the EU level as a One Size Fits All plan. At the State level I would say yes but I am still against it.

2. No, the education of K-12 should remain with the States for funding and should not be run by them. The Federal government should not be involved. With respect to the College level the Federal could do funding but it should be based on what the country needs (policy centered) such as engineers and scientists, and medical doctors; not lawyers, English language teachers, and Basket-weavers.

3. Best handled at the State level.

4. Should be eliminated. Let people invest it in retirement accounts if necessary, a proportion of wages/salaries can be required but this should be free market.

5. State level still.

6. I assume this is a contract between an Inductee and the Federal government and is with in the preview of the Federal Government. I also believe that when possible the veterans should be able to go to non-government facilities given the history of the inadequacies that the federal run ones have had in the past.

7. The federal government should not be supporting the termination of life even if the life of the unborn is not recognized as a person this sets a precedent that it could support termination of life elsewhere.


8. The Federal government can commission works of Art, but that is not what generally implied. Allowing the government to have its own network broadcast to the public is a bad idea it might encourage expansion to exiting ones (not that would change much now).

9. Government should not bailout businesses at all.

10. Federal government must not. The State government should not. The only assistance should be feeding them when they are waiting to be expelled from the USA while in custody.

The end result: 2. (College level and by carrier need.) 6. Appropriate State function with contract law. 8. Limited to specific Commissions.

Mickey Shane said:

I guess the idea of only choosing 3 is to let the others fall by the wayside.

Click to expand...

No, the idea of choosing only 3 is not to "let the others fall by the wayside"__It is about priorities_

The US is currently 16 trillion dollars in the red and still borrowing money to pay the bills.

We are fast approaching the event horizon of a catastrophic financial collapse, without a plan.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

It's not going to happen. I chose 8. Restricted multiple choice is fascism.

Click to expand...

And this is the problem_:yt

No, it's not "fascism", it's about the survival of a nation and a dream_

Do you work?__Do you spend more money than you earn every month?

Do you then swipe your credit card to continue living beyond your paycheck?

If so, your lifestyle is unsustainable and you too are facing total financial collapse_

Wake-up!__This is the real world__There is no debt fairy__We must fix this ourselves.

Nick2253 said:

This is exactly the same line of thought that brought us Communism. And you're right, if we could provide all those services, it would be in the best interest of mankind. The problem is that these services have an opportunity cost. As soon as you start paying government for a service, you have less money to pay the private sector for a service. History has shown that, time and time again, the private sector is a much more efficient steward of our money, and so by pushing services away from the private sector onto the government (while you may get more coverage), you get far less bang for your buck.

Click to expand...

Actually, I´m pretty sure the line of thought that brought us communism was actually related to means of production, ownership of capital and social anomie. Don´t let your ignorance top you though.

Veiled insults don't really help your cause.

Click to expand...

Do you deny people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust exist? If you don´t, then it´s not an insult.

digsbe said:

People are against them because we have to pay for it. Those things as you've mentioned are in our best interest, but is that at the expense of higher taxes, more government power and government spending?

Many of these things should be personal responsibility and not government areas of power.

Click to expand...

Whether you´re against it because you have to pay for it, or against it because of government spending, you´re still against it. Now, I myself find that if a government is elected to maintain the welfare of a people, then it is definitely its goal to ensure that the society which elected it to govern, is well maintain. Taxation is a pretty low price to pay for a well maintained society.

Nick2253 said:

I like where this is going. However, I will complain that your list lacks roads and infrastructure, and that your list also fails to distinguish between government-guided programs, and government-run programs.

For example, I think that government should provide funding for K-12 education. But I don't think it should run education. I'm in favor of a voucher system. Also, I think that government should be in the business of helping the disabled and retired, but it shouldn't be through a single government program. Chile's social security comes to mind as a favorable alternative.

In these cases, it's possible to make the distinction between "Socialism" as a nationalization of certain services, or "Socialism" as government involvement in certain services. A capitalistic society can benefit from combinations of each. For example, having the state provide police and fire services, and paying for infrastructure development, and the state guiding privately run/managed social security.

Click to expand...

This is a very good point.

Just because something is a government program doesn't mean it's a socialist program. Many government programs are done by providing contracts to private businesses to fulfill them. Which means those businesses profit.

So I think that what matters less than the number of socialist programs is the degree of socialist those government programs are.

Empirica said:

No, the idea of choosing only 3 is not to "let the others fall by the wayside"__It is about priorities_

The US is currently 16 trillion dollars in the red and still borrowing money to pay the bills.

We are fast approaching the event horizon of a catastrophic financial collapse, without a plan.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

And this is the problem_:yt

No, it's not "fascism", it's about the survival of a nation and a dream_

Do you work?__Do you spend more money than you earn every month?

Do you then swipe your credit card to continue living beyond your paycheck?

If so, your lifestyle is unsustainable and you too are facing total financial collapse_

Wake-up!__This is the real world__There is no debt fairy__We must fix this ourselves.

Click to expand...

Except cutting spending isn't the only thing worth doing.

Raising revenue to pay for it also needs to be done. So does evening out the tax system so there's less exemptions.

Empirica said:

No, the idea of choosing only 3 is not to "let the others fall by the wayside"__It is about priorities_

The US is currently 16 trillion dollars in the red and still borrowing money to pay the bills.

We are fast approaching the event horizon of a catastrophic financial collapse, without a plan.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

And this is the problem_:yt

Click to expand...

This meme that the National Debt is our largest problem is a fantasy. It's one of the primary concerns of the business class, that's what it's receiving so much attention, and all the talking heads are preaching this gospel, but it's really bull****. Simply allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would clear up most of the deficit by 2015.

(Fearing a soaring deficit, many analysts favor letting Bush tax cuts expire)

Also; as economist dean Baker as observed, adopting a Universal Healthcare system, just like every other industrialized nation, would probably eliminate most of the deficit, it might even lead to a surplus. However; I doubt you'd ever cconsider either option, which reveals the true depth of your professed commitment to debt reduction.

Empirica-

I hear many folks make a great noise about our debt and it reaching some threshold number we are doomed...

What number is that?

Hatuey said:

Actually, I´m pretty sure the line of thought that brought us communism was actually related to means of production, ownership of capital and social anomie. Don´t let your ignorance top you though.

Click to expand...

Providing all those services through a community government would exactly be common ownership of the means of production. Means of production is not just direct capital production, like mineral extraction or automobiles, but it is any service by which one individual stands to make money (aka produces capital). The argument for Communism is that, if capital is being produced and owned not according to need, but according to ability, then those who need such capital, but have no ability, are unfairly disenfranchised by society, because they subsequently lack access to services or products necessary for their own wellbeing. Read any of Lenin's writing on the subject.

Do you deny people who think charity and empathy lead to holocaust exist? If you don´t, then it´s not an insult.

Click to expand...

Don't be coy. No one believes charity and empathy lead to the holocaust. Your comment was clearly an argumentum ad Hitlerum intended to conflate small government and support for the Nazis.

Nick2253 said:

Don't be coy. No one believes charity and empathy lead to the holocaust. Your comment was clearly an argumentum ad Hitlerum intended to conflate small government and support for the Nazis.

Click to expand...

Glenn Beck - Wikiquote

Finally — well, he wasn't the president, he was the chancellor — Hitler, decided that it was the only empathetic thing to do, is to put this child down and put him out of his suffering. It was the beginning of the T4, which led to genocide everywhere. It was the beginning of it. Empathy leads you to very bad decisions many times.

Click to expand...

Lol. Except for Glenn Beck.

Hatuey said:

Glenn Beck - Wikiquote

Lol. Except for Glenn Beck.

Click to expand...

Wow. I can't actually believe he said that. I'll take it back. Or reclassify "people" to not include Glenn Beck. I actually think the latter is more accurate.

However, Beck's arguments are more about euthanasia, and not the Holocaust. Germans didn't kill Jews and Gypsies out of empathy, they killed them out of spite.

Fallacious thread is fallacious.

Providing all those services through a community government would exactly be common ownership of the means of production. Means of production is not just direct capital production, like mineral extraction or automobiles, but it is any service by which one individual stands to make money (aka produces capital). The argument for Communism is that, if capital is being produced and owned not according to need, but according to ability, then those who need such capital, but have no ability, are unfairly disenfranchised by society, because they subsequently lack access to services or products necessary for their own wellbeing. Read any of Lenin's writing on the subject.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "ability". I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should go back and reread your Lenin.

Khayembii Communique said:

It has nothing to do with "ability". I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should go back and reread your Lenin.

Click to expand...

What do you mean it has nothing to do with ability? Communism necessarily demands that each individual contribute to society by providing service to society according to their ability. I'll say it again: the argument for Communism is that a capitalistic system (where you get what you put in) inherently disenfranchises those without the ability to contribute to society.

What do you mean it has nothing to do with ability? Communism necessarily demands that each individual contribute to society by providing service to society according to their ability. I'll say it again: the argument for Communism is that a capitalistic system (where you get what you put in) inherently disenfranchises those without the ability to contribute to society.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. I'll say it again: It has nothing to do with ability.

The "argument against capitalism" is simply a cold hard fact of capitalism, i.e. that accumulation/distribution/redistribution of wealth are done on an anarchic (in the sense of anarchy, not anarchism) basis, regardless of ability.

It has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to provide a service, much less one's "ability to contribute to society," which is pretty much the most subjective and therefore worthless phrase you could use.

Empirica said:

My observations tell me that Socialism is never satisfied in a limited capacity and will forever be attempting to grow and spread.

The Free Dictionary defines Socialism as;
"Marxist theory- the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles"

For this reason, I have always been against all federally funded social programs because I fear what socialism invariably leads to.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that a compromise was reached that allowed for only three specific taxpayer funded social programs with the elimination of all others.

Which 3 of the 10 programs defined in the poll would you choose???

(1) Universal Healthcare
(2) Education/K-12 + 4 years higher-ed
(3) Emergency & unemployment benefits
(4) Social Security retirement/senior citizens
(5) Disability services/benefits
(6) Veterans services/benefits
(7) Planned Parenthood services
(8) Arts&Entertainment/PBS
(9) Emergency corporate/economy bailouts
(10) Illegal Alien assistance programs
(programs for american citizens only with the exception of #10)

Click to expand...

All nations implement more and more social programs and regulations and laws as populations grow and become more diverse, land shrinks, resources become scarcer and pollution creeps. It's not slowly emerging socialism as you so hyperbolicly put it-- it's the natural outcome of national growth. Some day, we'll be like the UK, with security cameras everywhere, insane laws regulating minuscule actions, high taxes and huge, slow government.

Khayembii Communique said:

...that accumulation/distribution/redistribution of wealth are done on an anarchic (in the sense of anarchy, not anarchism) basis.

Click to expand...

While market distribution is not perfect, the basic idea of efficient resource allocation in a supply/demand model is mathematically perfect, not technically anarchic.

First, Any model can be made mathematically perfect. That doesn't mean it reflects reality.

Second, the supply and demand model isn't mathematically sound.