• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Limited Socialism Possible In A Capitalist Economy?

Choose three social programs(3 only)


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

Empirica

~Transcend~
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
4,682
Reaction score
1,905
Location
Lost at sea~
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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)
 
Why can i only choose 3? What are any of these going to lead to if we have all of them?
 
Why can i only choose 3? What are any of these going to lead to if we have all of them?

I think that was her 'point', such as it was.

There's no such thing as a purely capitalistic society-- even the most minimal government functions needed in order to maintain a capitalist market economy, such as law enforcement and the court system, are supported by the taxpayer for the benefit of all. Thus in order for a society to even be recognizable as a society, it must have socialistic elements-- just like for a society to have any of the benefits of a modern, industrialized society, it must have capitalistic elements.
 
I think that was her 'point', such as it was.

There's no such thing as a purely capitalistic society-- even the most minimal government functions needed in order to maintain a capitalist market economy, such as law enforcement and the court system, are supported by the taxpayer for the benefit of all. Thus in order for a society to even be recognizable as a society, it must have socialistic elements-- just like for a society to have any of the benefits of a modern, industrialized society, it must have capitalistic elements.
I agree!

I was wondering why she left out one of the basics and it's, more or less, right in the Constitution - roads.
 
My observations tell me that Socialism is never satisfied in a limited capacity and will forever be attempting to grow and spread.

That is because it is the path of least resistance, which is why it also ultimately fails.
 
I think that was her 'point', such as it was.

There's no such thing as a purely capitalistic society-- even the most minimal government functions needed in order to maintain a capitalist market economy, such as law enforcement and the court system, are supported by the taxpayer for the benefit of all. Thus in order for a society to even be recognizable as a society, it must have socialistic elements-- just like for a society to have any of the benefits of a modern, industrialized society, it must have capitalistic elements.

You damn commie!
 
I agree!

I was wondering why she left out one of the basics and it's, more or less, right in the Constitution - roads.
Well because roads are part of infrastructure and have nothing to with Socialism. Look the OP gave what definition that is being used for Socialism and its the Marxist on the way to Communism one.
 
My observations tell me that Socialism is never satisfied in a limited capacity and will forever be attempting to grow and spread.

Like a cancer.

Public Education = cancer.

Public Libraries?

Public Parks?

Public toilets?

Public sidewalks?

Public roads?

Public air, water....

I see.

How about the police that patrol your neighborhood? Let's get rid of them.
 
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.
 
i would prioritize your list, but i feel that eliminating all but three would be a significant negative for the nation.
 
Personally I never understood the Capitalist vs Socialist debate, both systems will have the same inherent flaw that will cause neither to work within their idealist parameters. That flaw is human greed and corruption. When those empowered to regulate the system are more concerned with ways in which to manipulate the system for personal gain is it really going to matter which system we have?

Capitalist system - Governing powers grant favors to businesses/wealthy groups in return for monetary/position gain.

><

Socialist system - Governing powers grant favors to government powers/wealthy groups for monetary/position gain.


While the people at the bottom suffer. We are simply shifting where persons can best exploit the system, the private sector or the public sector.
 
I agree!

I was wondering why she left out one of the basics and it's, more or less, right in the Constitution - roads.
Like a cancer.

Public Education = cancer.

Public Libraries?

Public Parks?

Public toilets?

Public sidewalks?

Public roads?

Public air, water....

I see.

How about the police that patrol your neighborhood? Let's get rid of them.
Police, Fire, military, highways, etc-etc-etc, are classified as "for the common good" and not considered socialist programs that benefit specific groups.

Well because roads are part of infrastructure and have nothing to with Socialism. Look the OP gave what definition that is being used for Socialism and its the Marxist on the way to Communism one.
Thank you for paying attention FFAll_:thumbs:
 
You say you're against all socialist inroads but then want to limit it to 3? You really don't want disability services really? So should homeless kids and the deaf dumb and blind just starve to death or what? People who are laid off thru no fault of their own should starve? I happen to think a for-profit prison and health care system has been disastrous, but then so have K-12 public schools. I think the lesson is, whether public or private, what matters is how things are managed.

Then some things on your list i'm not unopposed to removing entirely at least in theory, such as social security, but how would we ever get out of that quagmire? Too many rely on it, too many have put huge amounts of income into it. Even a phasing out would be difficult to do fairly. Planned parenthood i see as an investment if it results in fewer welfare and foster care. I dunno much about it though. The problem with bailouts is they don't attach strings like gutting the banks and banning credit-default swaps. They never addressed what led to the nightmare in the first place. They were just like "Here have some $ on the taxpayer and btw you don't need to give their house back." I'm not going to pick 3, i would never compromise that. What i find sane to cut:

grade 6-12 public education (it's ****)
i would shrink the military greatly so that would shrink VA
#7 maybe i dunno
#8
#9
#10 (i support immigrants coming here legally but not at expense of taxpayer)
 
Last edited:
Eh,
Probably the bottom three would be least harmful to society.
 
Personally I never understood the Capitalist vs Socialist debate, both systems will have the same inherent flaw that will cause neither to work within their idealist parameters. That flaw is human greed and corruption. When those empowered to regulate the system are more concerned with ways in which to manipulate the system for personal gain is it really going to matter which system we have?

Capitalist system - Governing powers grant favors to businesses/wealthy groups in return for monetary/position gain.

><

Socialist system - Governing powers grant favors to government powers/wealthy groups for monetary/position gain.


While the people at the bottom suffer. We are simply shifting where persons can best exploit the system, the private sector or the public sector.

I agree, but then I am not an American, and I have not grown up with the socialist bogey man. The concept of socialism is not confined to, nor does it necessarily lead to, the politico-economic system of Marxism.

Engels was more moderate in stating: "Modern Socialism is, in its essence, the direct product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing in production."

But there is another concept of socialism, and that is concerned with social justice. It is not analogous to, but not completely unrelated to, the social contract. It is in fact employed, to a lesser or greater extent, by every modern, developed society on earth. It is characterised by systems such as unemployment benefits, taxation funded education, and taxation funded health care, amongst many others. In fact any collective enterprise on behalf of society is a form of socialism.

This form of socialism, which I will refer to as 'social justice', ensures that all citizens, irrespective of family status or economic advantage, are granted equal opportunities at the most elementary level. And relative freedom from poverty, hunger, lack of education, and lack of health care. I cannot think of a single sane person who would not consider that a desirable outcome.

Therefore, there are forms of socialism which do not inevitably lead to the Gulags, governmental corruption, and dictatorship. A balance of free enterprise capitalism and social justice is already employed by the world's most successful societies - it is only a matter of striking the right balance.
 
We need all of those things. All of them are very important in their own way.
 
Well because roads are part of infrastructure and have nothing to with Socialism. Look the OP gave what definition that is being used for Socialism and its the Marxist on the way to Communism one.

Why do roads and infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism? The logic for nationalizing the construction and management of infrastructure is exactly the same for all the other things on that list, and they just as similarly serve a social function. The idea in all of these cases is that nationalizing service X changes the distribution of service X from one that favors the individual to one that favors the greater good. Roads and infrastructure as we deal with them in this country seem to serve exactly that purpose: instead of only benefiting those with the ability to pay, they benefit all at the cost of those with the ability to pay.
 
Well because roads are part of infrastructure and have nothing to with Socialism. Look the OP gave what definition that is being used for Socialism and its the Marxist on the way to Communism one.
:kissass
Police, Fire, military, highways, etc-etc-etc, are classified as "for the common good" and not considered socialist programs that benefit specific groups.
:kissass

I notice you both left the moderator out. LOL!
 
Why do roads and infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism? The logic for nationalizing the construction and management of infrastructure is exactly the same for all the other things on that list, and they just as similarly serve a social function. The idea in all of these cases is that nationalizing service X changes the distribution of service X from one that favors the individual to one that favors the greater good. Roads and infrastructure as we deal with them in this country seem to serve exactly that purpose: instead of only benefiting those with the ability to pay, they benefit all at the cost of those with the ability to pay.
They know they use those things and they're afraid of the S word.
 
How about the police that patrol your neighborhood? Let's get rid of them.

Police and courts existed before socialist ideology came together and they deal directly with the purpose of government.
 
I guess the idea of only choosing 3 is to let the others fall by the wayside. It's not going to happen. I chose 8. Restricted multiple choice is fascism.
 
The term 'common good' is socialist. That some want to limit socialism to the most modern form doesn't make that concept true.

Capitalism would have private security forces, private intel sources, private healthcare with private emergency services. Some counties are trying to force people to pay a fee if the emergency services are called by a non county resident.

Socialism is the common good is paid for by a pool of resources vs capitalism which believe the for profit sector should run things most of us consider essential services.

Limiting the services to three is not realistic. More to the point is where does the greater good end and individual responsibility take over.
 
Why do roads and infrastructure have nothing to do with Socialism? The logic for nationalizing the construction and management of infrastructure is exactly the same for all the other things on that list, and they just as similarly serve a social function. The idea in all of these cases is that nationalizing service X changes the distribution of service X from one that favors the individual to one that favors the greater good. Roads and infrastructure as we deal with them in this country seem to serve exactly that purpose: instead of only benefiting those with the ability to pay, they benefit all at the cost of those with the ability to pay.

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. Plus there are many private roads in America. Even the National Highway System is not forced on States that do not want to join.
National Highway System (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe system includes 4% of the nation's roads, but carries more than 40% of all highway traffic, 75% of heavy truck traffic, and 90% of tourist traffic.[4] All urban areas with a population of over 50,000 and about 90% of America's population live within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the network,[4] which is the longest in the world.[5]

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

Something can be nationalized yet not be socialistic. Our national Olympic teams are not a form of Socialism. 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. 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.

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