News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

What's your opinon on Socialism?

Started by KebertX, July 31, 2010, 07:21:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

KebertX

I actually joined a group called the Atheist Socialist Club (ASC).  And every decent American we encounter wants to shut us down!

I'm sure everyone here can agree with the Atheism, but how do you all feel about Socialism? The Democratic kind, not the Hitler kind!  Countries like Sweden and The Netherlands make a convincing case for having the government provide Health, Education, and other Public Services, if I do say so myself. My parents flipped. My Mom thinks I'm broken because my soul rejected the Holy Spirit, and my Dad thinks I'm a Communist!

Communism prevents religion, and Marxist Socialism is a transition to Communism, so this topic is loosely relevant!

Please put up some opinions, I hate when my threads go unnoticed and slowly die out.
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

The Magic Pudding

Hello KebertX
The hardcore socialism has probably passed us by.
Governments don't own the means of production very much.
But they do take responsibility for providing services.
Where I live government is responsible for health, education and many services.

QuoteCommunism prevents religion.
Possibly with a Kalashnikov, not alltogether good.

QuoteMarxist Socialism is a transition to Communism, so this topic is loosely relevant!

What do you mean?
Capitalism has failures, see leaky oil well, communism is inefficent, see collapse of USSR.
I don't think anyone serious is talking up communism, maybe 70 years ago.
I live in the state of New South Wales, Australia, the state currently owns the electricity utility.
Pressure is on to sell, I don't support the sale because I think I will end up paying more for electricity.
I think there is a case for governments providing basic services, electricity, water health and some telecommuications.
Localy both state and federal government owned banks 20 years ago, they sold them, but they could have been useful.
Now the government tells the banks they're being unfair, banks ignore them, and goverment is unwilling to take action.

KebertX

There are 3 kinds of Socialism:

1) National Socialism: That thing Hitler was doing.
2) Democratic Socialism: The Government provides certain public goods and services to the people, rather than everything being privatized and letting the free market do what it wants.
3) Marxist Socialism: Karl Marx postulated that Socialism would be the transitional state of Revolution between Capitalism and Communism.

I'm mainly just focusing on Democratic Socialism.  But, I wanted a loose connection to Atheism, so I brought up the whole communism thing.  Incidentally, most Socialist Nations tend to be Secular enough without having to systematically destroy religious institutions, so in retrospect, that was probably an unnecessary segue.  Sorry if I failed to make sense there.
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

Whitney

I think basic needs should be handled via a system like socialism....for instance, I am all for socialized fire fighting and police.

Medicine is also a basic need; but not all medical care is a basic need and not all of it is scientific so the line there isn't nearly as cut and dry...but I do think that everyone should have ready access to necessary and scientifically valid medical care.  Plus, we pay for that care anyway (people going to public hospitals then not paying their bill comes back on the taxpayer) so we might as well plan for paying for it rather than picking up the increased costs after the fact. I don't know how such a system should handle illegals; but, as already pointed out, we are paying for their care anyway.

Tank

I suppose I'm quite socialist in my outlook. I think more people respond to a benign social environment where basic needs are met than one where people worry about their basic needs being met. I don't deny for one nanosecond that there will be lazy bastards who will try to exploit such a system. But on balance I would accommodate a few fat lazy buggers rather than have people who can't cope with society suffering on the streets homeless and uncared for.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Businessocks

Great responses, Whitney and Tank.

A lot of the right-wing media outlets here in the US definitely try to convince people that all forms of socialism are Hitler-esque.   :hmm:
The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.  -Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "Businessocks"Many people don't want socialized medicine here because of the cost,
Does this mean vested interests in the USA want to keep the cost of healthcare up?

Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Australia   3,137
Canada     3,895
France      3,601
Germany   3,588
Japan        2,581
Norway     5,910
Sweden     3,323
UK            2,992
USA          7,290

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-coun ... eir-money/

The wiki link has an interesting table.

Businessocks

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Does this mean vested interests in the USA want to keep the cost of healthcare up?



I would say, yes.  But many right-wingers would try to argue that the only reason our health care costs are too high now is because of all the "illegals"  and "lazy welfare" recipients, I think.  So they claim that we can't afford to cover everyone.  What is always missing from the conversation is how we can re-arrange our money and priorities (prisons, military, big-business tax breaks) to pay for socialized medicine.
The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.  -Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "Businessocks"I would say, yes.  But many right-wingers would try to argue that the only reason our health care costs are too high now is because of all the "illegals"  and "lazy welfare" recipients, I think.  So they claim that we can't afford to cover everyone.  What is always missing from the conversation is how we can re-arrange our money and priorities (prisons, military, big-business tax breaks) to pay for socialized medicine.
I note you "say, yes"
The figures are per capita.  There would have to be a very high proportion of the population not being counted in the population (illegal) and receiving healthcare, to effect the stats.  I suppose right-wingers don't care about the numbers, it's about propaganda.
The wiki page I linked to isn't favourable on a few of measures including life expectancy and child mortality, you deserve better.

Businessocks

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"There would have to be a very high proportion of the population not being counted in the population (illegal) and receiving healthcare, to effect the stats.  I suppose right-wingers don't care about the numbers, it's about propaganda.
The wiki page I linked to isn't favourable on a few of measures including life expectancy and child mortality, you deserve better.

Exactly on all your points.  I agree that we deserve better.  It's an embarrassment to look at our infant mortality rate compared to other industrialized nations.  :shake:   The other argument all the time is that we'll have longer waits to get in to see a doctor.  This line drives me bats for two reasons 1.) it implies that they would rather the poor and uninsured not get care because it will be an inconvenience for others to wait longer  2.) it assumes that there will never be an increase in the number of doctors, only an increase in the number of patients.  There's no consideration that the more people who have access to preventative and early intervention care will actually free up the over taxed emergency system, etc.  

Also, the other scare tactic is that the government will decide what care you get and not the doctors.  But the same people don't complain that insurance companies right now make all the financial decisions:  my insurance can deny or accept the prescription my doctor writes, it can tell me a surgery my doctor thinks would be beneficial is not covered because they don't view it as necessary, it can tell me what doctors I can and can't see.  

But anyway, sorry if you misunderstood my point in the beginning.  I agree with you completely.  I am angry that our country can't make this a priority and a reality.
The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant.  -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Businessocks"Great responses, Whitney and Tank.

A lot of the right-wing media outlets here in the US definitely try to convince people that all forms of socialism are Hitler-esque.   :hmm:

An excellent point.

To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.  But I also understand that right now, created wealth is being hoarded.  I prefer a stable middle ground where vital services (police, fire, health care, national defense) are socialized, but production means are kept private.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

KebertX

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"An excellent point.

To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.  But I also understand that right now, created wealth is being hoarded.  I prefer a stable middle ground where vital services (police, fire, health care, national defense) are socialized, but production means are kept private.

I agree, but I feel there is more to be Socialized. Health Care, Colleges, Housing, etc.

I also think tax codes should be put in place to narrow the gap between the extremely rich, and those who have nothing.  Perhaps a Maximum Wage law, (If there's a minimum wage, why not a maximum?)  I was so Excited when Obama tried to pass Universal Health Care, but I had no idea how much anti-socialist fear Americans had! The conservatives just used a series of slippery slopes to try to make people think that providing Government Health Care would somehow lead to a Communist Fascist regime!

When my friends and I actually started an Atheist Socialist Club, everyone just immediately lost their minds! Traditional American values are so deeply grained against those things, and I don't think there's a real reason why. I think it's all just propaganda, but it works amazingly well.
"Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away.  Ignorance is that which allows you to close your eyes, and not see reality."

"It can't be seen, smelled, felt, measured, or understood, therefore let's worship it!" ~ Anon.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.
I accept the basic economic principle that a free market will provide the most efficient use of resources.
There aren’t that many free markets, intervention is often required, eg monopolies, market stability and public interest.
It seems to me in the USA many sensible interventions are prevented by those with a dogmatic free market philosophy, or a cynical self interest.
After the abuses of Enron, Worldcom and others you might have thought everyone would agree on the need for action.
Well no, the Sarbanesâ€"Oxley Act was opposed by many.
Perhaps if reasonable controls had been placed on markets, the GFC would not have happened.

Back to the comparative health table, the US per capita expenditure is double the average of the other countries.
The outcomes for life expectancy and child mortality are the worst.
I think healthcare for the poor is a good thing, but we don't have to be wishy washy lefties to agree on this point.  
Does anyone believe this is an efficient use of resources?

Tom62

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To answer the OP, I confess a suspicion of socialism writ large; government expenditures typically give smaller returns.
I accept the basic economic principle that a free market will provide the most efficient use of resources.
There aren’t that many free markets, intervention is often required, eg monopolies, market stability and public interest.
It seems to me in the USA many sensible interventions are prevented by those with a dogmatic free market philosophy, or a cynical self interest.
After the abuses of Enron, Worldcom and others you might have thought everyone would agree on the need for action.
Well no, the Sarbanesâ€"Oxley Act was opposed by many.
Perhaps if reasonable controls had been placed on markets, the GFC would not have happened.

Back to the comparative health table, the US per capita expenditure is double the average of the other countries.
The outcomes for life expectancy and child mortality are the worst.
I think healthcare for the poor is a good thing, but we don't have to be wishy washy lefties to agree on this point.  
Does anyone believe this is an efficient use of resources?
:hail:
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Laser Sailor

I tend to view Socialism with a skeptical eye. I see a great potential for abuse in a system where most of the infrastructure is government run. I tend to be distrustful of big government, as "a government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away." I'm not sure if this is correct or perhaps I'm coining a new term, but Constitutional Socialism is something I could accept. The liberties and rights of the people should be first. There are rights that no governmental body has the right to take away. I'm sicked by the UK's trend to strip it's citizens of their right to self defense. If a man cannot legally defend himself, what's the point of free speech or freedom of religion? Any path towards socialism would have to be very carefully laid out, with the liberties of the people coming first, lest it become a totalitarianism.
When I was little, I prayed to God for a new bike.
But then I learned that God doesn't work that way.
So I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.