• 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!

Socialism

Your thoughts on socialism


  • Total voters
    66
Depends on what is defined as socialism. If you're talking about the dictionary definition of socialism in which the means of production are collectively owned, then it depends on whether it comes from the government or from the free market (worker cooperatives).
 
I chose not to respond to the poll because like many things here, it is too black-and-white. No nuances. It's similar to the simplification liberal vs. conservative. Many simpletons here believe that there is nothing in-between. Actually there are hundreds of nuances in the political spectrum. Similarly, there are hundreds of nuances in the spectrum of economic models, ans systems of government. Said simpletons rarely even know the true meaning of these words: liberal, conservative, communism, socialism, capitalism...

So, it's a matter of degree. America already has a blend of socialism-inspired controls, and free(ish) market, and it is a variable blend, regarding different sectors of the economy. Some sectors are more regulated than others.

So, it's not a matter of simply saying that socialism is good or bad for America. It's rather a question of the degree of regulation and of governmental interference in different sectors of the economy: how much is desirable or undesirable for each sector?

Take healthcare, for example. As a dual citizen of the European Union and of the United States, I've experienced more than once, the benefits of universal health care in two European countries, the one I'm a citizen of, and another one where I lived for many years. Most people in the United States wouldn't understand how huge these benefits can be, when it's a well-oiled system (both European countries I'm talking about have truly excellent systems; other countries are not as successful and deal with issues such as rationing of care and long wait for elective procedures; not in my country, and not in the other country I lived in). So, is it desirable to implement such a system in the United States? Sure, as long as it's a successful and high-performing one. But how can we make it happen? Our existing system is more complex than what we see in Europe. Reforming it or regulating it has and does generate(d) a number of unintended consequences. Say, for example, "Medicare for all." Neat, but most likely, this would result in a decrease in the quality of care and amount of care delivered to existing seniors who benefit from Medicare. So, this would be beneficial for someone not currently benefiting from any sponsored care, while it would be detrimental to the ones who are already benefiting from it.

Free college tuition for all, something I've also experienced in one of my European countries (very low tuition for qualified applicants - my doctoral degree that I earned there, came up at the time to the equivalent of $16 per month, no kidding): a very good perk to have. But again, it functions well in a very organized system in that European country which has operated like this for decades. Suddenly try to implement the same in the United States by decree, and you're faced with a number of unintended consequences: dilution of quality, glut of graduates with college degree fighting for non-existing jobs, and the pressing question of "who would pay for it"?

Because the issue of "who would pay for it" is quite fundamental. While I praise the healthcare and the educational systems of the two European countries I'm most familiar with (for being a citizen of one, and for having lived for many years in the other one), one needs to realize that income taxes there are way higher than in the United States: there is no free lunch. The money must come from somewhere. Doctors and professors, hospitals and universities, need to get paid over there too.

There was a poll a while ago that tried to measure the reaction of Americans to a two-step question. "Would you be for free healthcare and free college tuition for all?" Answer: "Yes, of course, that sounds neat!" "Would you still be for it, if it doubled the income taxes you'd have to personally pay?" Answer: "Really? Huh... in this case, no." Sorry, I don't have a link. I just remember reading about it at some point, a while ago. I don't remember the details. But you get what I mean.

So, the issue is a lot more complex than the OP and the poll pretend.

Am I for a bit more in terms of education, healthcare, workers and consumers protections, in America? Sure. But am I for extremes of it, especially if implemented in radical shifts rather than slow, measured, and well-planned reform? No. Do I think the healthcare system in the European countries I'm familiar with is a good thing? Sure. Can it be implemented here in America, exactly the same way? I doubt it.

Can reform work? Well, it depends. It hasn't, for the most part. The systems resist reform. No lucrative system wants to have their profits curtailed by regulation. It doesn't mean that more can't be done for the American people.

Reaching a balance is the desirable idea. Getting there is complicated, though. It won't happen by simply electing this or that president from this or that party.

The bottom line is: things are a lot more complicated than this black-and-white thinking that prevails here.
 
Except you skipped several key elements.

Public goods
Public services

Therefore, clubs, churches, non-profit organizations, political parties, etc aren't socialism.
A public good or service is built and operated by the government. A public school district is built and operated by the government for the benefit of its citizens, and paid for by taxes.

Yes, of course socialism is "a lot more than what" (you say) I am claiming, but you also skipped over the part where I said:



"How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"





If you use the word loosely enough then yes of COURSE we the PEOPLE profit from it. Now try telling that to all the reactionary types who claim that they are entirely self made. They even made a meme lampooning Obama by lifting his quote out of context and beating him over the head with it in their righteous indignation, as a means of labeling HIM a socialist.



But shareholders, CEO's and investors didn't take home a dividend in cash, did they?


What you asserted though, is just as dishonest as those memes lampooning Obama. Apparently you were taught wrongly that infrastructure is socialism. Or you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest.

What you claiming is that ALL governments are mixed governments, because you think that infrastructure is socialism. It is no different than claiming that since Nazi Germany had a Judicial System, then all governments with a Judicial System have some nazism in it. It is not logical and not only intellectually dishonest but ignores the fact that infrastructure pre-dates socialism. Even kingdoms have infrastructure. And lets be honest we are talking about infrastructure. Go ahead and look up infrastructure, nowhere does it say that its socialism. What I am saying is that infrastructure alone is not a form of socialism like you claim. And I will also add that Obama is not socialist and that is old news. Not sure why you want to talk to me about what Republicans do.

If we are going to talk about socialism lets be honest about it. I am not a rightwinger, so lets get past that crap. I do not want to talk about Obama or how the right is wrong about socialism. But I am probably talking to the wrong person since you went there with the obtuse video insult crap. Were you just trolling or what? Did you expect me to not be insulted? Seriously do you talk to your friends like that? Your Mom?

If you want to show evidence of your claim (without citing a leftist source or hell right wing crap too) I mean a respectable non-partisan source. So far you have only made the claim. So I am left with a thanks for your opinion. As far as my assertion goes and a source, well my source is the entire history of modern governments, and add to that most older governments as well. What you and many socialists (of many different flavors) are doing is attempting to rewrite history and steal infrastructure and claim it as socialism. Even far right governments have infrastructure and it seems a bit too dishonest to claim that far right governments have a form of socialism in it. Even feudal Japan had some infrastructure.

BTW I did not skip over anything that you said, I read it all and clearly. Its just that claiming a "form of socialism" is too vague and incoherent. What do you really mean by a form of socialism? Sure you claimed that they are funded by taxes and not expected to survive on a purely profit trajectory. But that also describes governments in general. It may be somewhat like whatever form of socialism that you are talking about but that does not make it that form of socialism just because you think so. So far you are only talking in opinions. Its indeed your opinion that its a form of socialism. The thing is that it will be impossible for you to show clear evidence that it isnt just an opinion. Meanwhile if you like tomorrow i could show you plenty of evidence for my argument. But it seems that you are too dogmatic to be honest about the specifics. You will probably comeback with another video full of insults and no actual argument. The devil is in the details and you have offered nothing but opinions, your play.
 
BTW I did not skip over anything that you said, I read it all and clearly. .

It sure looked you did. So yeah, tomorrow, it's late.
To be continued.

And by the way, are you REALLY going to play the INSULT card that hard?
Here? On Debate Politics?

I responded to what I read in your reply, and based on that, to ME, it looked like you were skipping over a lot.
So, to me, that seemed obtuse.
So okay, go ahead and be "insulted" even though 90% of the readership would just chuckle or arch an eyebrow.
You cannot possibly be that thin skinned.

But sure...tomorrow, to be continued, if you're not still "insulted".
Good GOD, not even people from 14th Century Spain ever got that insulted.
 
Your thoughts on socialism?

As ever it depends on one's definition of 'socialism' - a word that shapeshifts over time and space. Europeans, having experienced various versions of it, are a bit more informed than Americans who know little or nothing about what has taken place beyond their shores.
 
As ever it depends on one's definition of 'socialism' - a word that shapeshifts over time and space. Europeans, having experienced various versions of it, are a bit more informed than Americans who know little or nothing about what has taken place beyond their shores.

"a word that shapeshifts over time and space"

And it will be the battlecry for the Republicans in the next election.
 
Thank you, please vote accordingly.

Thank you. I voted. My conscience is clear.

Capitalism and free enterprise are what makes this country great and it's going to get greater every day thanks to President Trump.

MAGA!
 
Your thoughts on socialism?

For the politically uninitiated: Socialism exists nowhere in the world (except perhaps North Korea)!

Howzat? Definition of socialism (from here):
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The notion of socialism has evolved into what is more commonly employed today as "Social Democracy". Which has this definition (from here):

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

A mixed-economy is totally based upon "capitalism", which is defined as:
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Moreso, capital is also a medium-of-exchange for goods and services as defined by:
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available for a purpose such as starting a company or investing.

Which means in most economies that there is a mixture of "trade and industry" some of which may be run by governments on a non-profit basis. In today's modern economies, those examples in which government participation is most evident are the key elements of HealthCare and Education. (Whilst some states go a bit further and control the supply of Energy.)

The key aspect of a Social Democracy is that there is a balance between services provided by states/governments and and private companies. Whyzzat?

Because some components of any market-economy require government control because the availability of product/services is of such of such importance that governments have guaranteed their provision at acceptable costs.

What is the key aspect of Social Democracies? It is Income Taxation that prevents Income Disparity (or Unfairness) - which ipso-facto becomes an essential public guarantee of any national governance. Typical of such key public provisions (beyond defense, policing, etc.) of Social Democracies are those of National Healthcare and Education (primary/secondary and tertiary) levels!

Thus there is no clear distinction in any country today as to its level of Social Democracy (and thus government provision of key services) - but the broadness/depth of those provisions does differentiate most countries today ...
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I voted. My conscience is clear.

Capitalism and free enterprise are what makes this country great and it's going to get greater every day thanks to President Trump.

MAGA!

Capitalism and free enterprise are not unique to the USA. They have also made many other countries great. Before both Trump and he US existed.
 
As ever it depends on one's definition of 'socialism' - a word that shapeshifts over time and space. Europeans, having experienced various versions of it, are a bit more informed than Americans who know little or nothing about what has taken place beyond their shores.

How about the "book definition" of Socialism? That is:
*A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

*Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. Which, in Marxist theory, is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

Neither of which above exist in governments today having been largely replaced by that of "Social Democracies" ...
 
Last edited:
Apparently you were taught wrongly that infrastructure socialism. Or you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest.

What you claiming is that ALL governments are mixed governments, because you think that infrastructure is socialism.

Nope, and for two reasons:
*Socialism today no longer exists and has been replaced by Social Democracies that make key provision of some services, but maintain capital markets as well as the basic elements of private ownership and capital-markets.
*Public ownership in Social Democracies is therefore very carefully controlled/contained but far more extensive than in the US.

If we understand the differences, we can also see that some social-democratic policies exist in the US - but they are or a nature far less evolved than in the European Union. Which is the forthcoming issue that must be decided by the Americans themselves.

That is, for instance:
*Do you really want to pay between $150–$200 to see your GP in the US, or would you rather pay (as I do in France) 25€? And the difference doesn't stop there. It goes beyond the GP should you require any medical intervention? Or,
*Would you rather pay the average state-university fee of $14K a year for your children's education or the less than $1000 that most pay here in Europe?

The answers are up to you - but they kinda-sorta seem evident to me ...
 
Millions? I doubt millions.

2 heart bypasses? A hip replacement? Monthly visits to a doc office and/or outpatient hospital visits for blood transfusions?

10+ years of this?

Of yeah, millions..

And YOU are paying for it.
 
For the politically uninitiated: Socialism exists nowhere in the world (except perhaps North Korea)!

Howzat? Definition of socialism (from here):


The notion of socialism has evolved into what is more commonly employed today as "Social Democracy". Which has this definition (from here):



A mixed-economy is totally based upon "capitalism", which is defined as:
Moreso, capital is also a medium-of-exchange for goods and services as defined by:


Which means in most economies that there is a mixture of "trade and industry" some of which may be run by governments on a non-profit basis. In today's modern economies, those examples in which government participation is most evident are the key elements of HealthCare and Education. (Whilst some states go a bit further and control the supply of Energy.)

The key aspect of a Social Democracy is that there is a balance between services provided by states/governments and and private companies. Whyzzat?

Because some components of any market-economy require government control because the availability of product/services is of such of such importance that governments have guaranteed their provision at acceptable costs.

What is the key aspect of Social Democracies? It is Income Taxation that prevents Income Disparity (or Unfairness) - which ipso-facto becomes an essential public guarantee of any national governance. Typical of such key public provisions (beyond defense, policing, etc.) of Social Democracies are those of National Healthcare and Education (primary/secondary and tertiary) levels!

Thus there is no clear distinction in any country today as to its level of Social Democracy (and thus government provision of key services) - but the broadness/depth of those provisions does differentiate most countries today ...

Governing FAIRNESS with Democrats in charge of course. :roll: I love the way you word play too with social democracy vs democratic socialism. It sounds so much prettier, doesn't it? Nothing but candy-coated hogwash.
 
Your thoughts on socialism?

I am assuming that anyone that votes "Socialism is bad: I don't want socialism in the U.S.", to be intellectually consistent and not a hypocrite, will of course refuse Medicare (the largest socialized medicine program on earth), Social Security (quite possibly the largest social safetynet on earth), unemployment, any sort of government financial aid for college, any sort of government backed loans such as for mortgages, the Earned Income Credit should they ever qualify for it, any sort of government backed job training, refundable child credits and so on.

Otherwise, then one is a hypocrite that wants socialism for themselves, but not for anyone else.
 
2 heart bypasses? A hip replacement? Monthly visits to a doc office and/or outpatient hospital visits for blood transfusions?

10+ years of this?

Of yeah, millions..

And YOU are paying for it.

Medicare is the largest socialized healthcare program on earth and most people get more in benefits than they ever paid into it. Its a huge wealth transfer from the young to the old.
 
Its not a dichotomy. It neither inherently bad nor inherently good. Capitalism is also neither inherently bad nor inherently good. No economy is pure one or the other, but usually blends of both.

What we do know, however, the countries have a tad more socialism in the mix have happier and healthier citizens than the US. Since economy and a government are ultimately accountable to the people, it seems the US should tweak the formula a bit.

What we know is that all these happy countries would be speaking Russian, and turning in their fellow comrades over to the KGB, if it wasn't for a capitalist country in the West.
 
I am assuming that anyone that votes "Socialism is bad: I don't want socialism in the U.S.", to be intellectually consistent and not a hypocrite, will of course refuse Medicare (the largest socialized medicine program on earth), Social Security (quite possibly the largest social safetynet on earth), unemployment, any sort of government financial aid for college, any sort of government backed loans such as for mortgages, the Earned Income Credit should they ever qualify for it, any sort of government backed job training, refundable child credits and so on.

Otherwise, then one is a hypocrite that wants socialism for themselves, but not for anyone else.

Will the leftwing hypocrites pay us all our money back that we were forced to pay in for Medicare and Social Security?

Yeah, I didn't think so. That argument of yours is a dog that won't hunt. It's tired, old, and without substance.
 
I am assuming that anyone that votes "Socialism is bad: I don't want socialism in the U.S.", to be intellectually consistent and not a hypocrite, will of course refuse Medicare (the largest socialized medicine program on earth), Social Security (quite possibly the largest social safetynet on earth), unemployment, any sort of government financial aid for college, any sort of government backed loans such as for mortgages, the Earned Income Credit should they ever qualify for it, any sort of government backed job training, refundable child credits and so on.

Otherwise, then one is a hypocrite that wants socialism for themselves, but not for anyone else.

Yep, that's my point with my father in-law. He gets and uses socialized Medicare and SS, has for 10+ years, and the cost has been MUCH more than he put in.. But he don't want anyone else to have it. Especially if the 'other' people getting it look different that he does.

He is a typical Republican hypocrite.
 
How about the "book definition" of Socialism? That is:


Neither of which above exist in governments today having been largely replaced by that of "Social Democracies" ...

Neither definition quite satisfies me. Just take one example from the first one: " ... should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Even an anti-socialist like me thinks that capitalism and the companies that operate within it require constant, vigilant and strict regulation. The second implies that all socialists see themselves as in transit towards communism; I do not think this is the case.
 
Goes back to the point of running out of other people's money. When we had start printing money [with no backing] to pay for our socialist-like programs, we crossed that line.
 
Neither definition quite satisfies me. Just take one example from the first one: " ... should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Even an anti-socialist like me thinks that capitalism and the companies that operate within it require constant, vigilant and strict regulation. The second implies that all socialists see themselves as in transit towards communism; I do not think this is the case.

Well, if you live in Sweden you can't be "that anti-socialist". In the chart here of per-capita healthcare expenditure Sweden is ninth and the US twenty-third. (Meaning that Sweden is higher.) Based upon that criteria alone (which is insufficient) your country is far more of a Social Democracy than is the US.

And if it bothers you that much, why not immigrate to the US? There a doctor's visit will cost you (on average) $150 whilst in Sweden your average Doctor's visit is 150SEK (actually, 100 to 300SEK, from here) - about the same. (Correct me if I got that wrong!)

Except that in Sweden, isn't it totally paid for by your National Health Insurance and regardless of whether you are working or not? Well maybe - because your life-span in Sweden is 82 years, whilst in the US it will be close to 79!

Makes a difference, doesn't it ... ?
 
Will the leftwing hypocrites pay us all our money back that we were forced to pay in for Medicare and Social Security?

Yeah, I didn't think so. That argument of yours is a dog that won't hunt. It's tired, old, and without substance.

How do you think socialism works? You pay taxes for it, that is how it works. I for one would be perfectly OK with refunding anyone's money they pay into Social Security and Medicare on the agreement that they would then never qualify for it.

Let me ask you this. When you are 75, do you think any insurer would be able to sell you a health insurance policy that you could possibly afford and that they could make any money off of without any government subsidies? Even if you were in good health, your premiums at that age for a private sector insurance policy on the individual market would easily exceed 50k a year due to the risk you posed to the insurer. A married couple would easily be well over 80k a year - and every year it would go up due to the higher risk you posed to an insurer. Sure though, let's give you all your Medicare tax money back and you can go out on the private sector and try fending for yourself in retirement since you hate socialism so much.
 
Goes back to the point of running out of other people's money. When we had start printing money [with no backing] to pay for our socialist-like programs, we crossed that line.

What nonsense.

I'll bet you don't think that way about the DoD-expenditure that swallows almost half of the total Discretionary Budget of the US!
0070_Discretionary-Breakdown-full.gif


If that is value-for-money, please do explain how? And, if the DoD is more important than health-care, please divulge on which planet you live ... ?
 
Back
Top Bottom