What's your opinon on Socialism?

[jduster]

I may be an atheist but I am anti-socialist.

[tymygy]

I may be an atheist but I am anti-socialist.

I will agree 100%

What would you consider yourself?

[jduster]

i would consider myself more toward capitalism.  i do not support complete 100% laissez-faire though, as there are some circumstances where the government should get involved with the economy.  capitalism is flawed, but it is optimal and better than socialism.

[tymygy]

yeah, I'm a liberitarian. I feel both parties are right in certain situations.

[Tom62]

I'm a bit of everything   . I support whatever is good for mankind and for me in particular. On a political scale, you could put me somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans, with a little green and Ralph Nader added to the mix. Never liked socialism, because this is for me more like an ideology than a proper way of running things.

[Sophus]

A lot of socialist states are different from each other, as are republics, so this is sort of broad. Certainly socialism can have some good qualities to it and the US government is set up to take advantage of those. So.... I like some things about socialism and dislike some things. At the same time I like some qualities about our representative democracy and dislike some aspects as well. The only perfect form of government would be a universal monarchy with me as king.  

[Roganthis72]

wow, 50 posts and its still on topic, us TAF boys could take a lesson here

ANyways, I'm a pretty hardcore socialist.  I think that the government should regulate, if not control, all of the more vital and major industries like power, water, health care, things like that.  Also, if there is gonna be a law saying that you have to do something (like buy car insurance) then it should damn well be government regulated, Otherwise you get rates like here in Alberta where $1500 a year is cheap, as compared to Manitoba, which has a government run auto insurance company, where most people pay under $600 in the course of a year.

Also, I hope mentioned this already, but incase they didn't, for the record, National socialism was the furthest thing from socialism you could have.  Its was a Facism, which is an extreme form of Capitalism.  NAtional socialism was just the name.

Ideally, I would like to see a worl like that of Star Trek (whats that?  he's a trekkie?!) where a communism is finally accepted as the proper means for the dissemination of resources.  A world were everyone gets what they need to survive, plus a bit extra depending on their job, where everyone gets a vote on everything if they want, thats my kind of utopia.

[Intercourseman72]

Just off the bat, I need to differentiate between socialism by free-association and socialism mandated by the state. Socialism emerging through voluntary interaction rather than obligatory force is just fine with me so long as basic principles of secession and non-aggression apply. When you have a state governing society uni-laterally within a geographic area it arbitrarily gives to itself, you completely guarantee not just a monopoly on certain services, but a monopoly that has the perceived legitimate use of force to do as it wants.

Before elaborating, I think we need to outline and discuss exactly what we mean by the term socialism (capitalism if need be) because it is often thrown around with a vague colloquial meaning but often goes without being explained very definitively.

What most fundamentally separates the two concepts we think of as "socialism" and "capitalism" is the system of allocation of resources. In the most general sense, under socialism, resources are allocated either by workers and worker-ran firms, administrative councils usually appointed through a democratic process, or they are allocated through the state. What these processes of allocation have in common is that they are intended to be co-operative rather than purely individualistic as is portrayed in capitalism. Resources are allocated by groups explicitly formed for the very purpose of allocating resources rather than allowing for individuals to decide upon their individual market transactions. Some other things socialism can include but doesn't always are oppositions to wage-labor or "wage-slavery", hierarchical firms, individual ownership of property instead of collective ownership of property, and the like. But in the context of this discussion, I assume we are referring to socialism through the apparatus of the state rather than tenets of libertarianism.

I think this gets at the very core of what is meant by socialism and how it differs in the most significant ways from what we think of capitalism. Go ahead and add on to what you think defines socialism for definitive purposes and keep that separate from what you thin describes socialism.

My overall thoughts on socialism in the statist sense rather than the libertarian sense differ quite significantly from various examples we see in the world. In Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland yes there is a lot of state control of the means of production and allocation of resources, but both are societies that are highly cooperative. This is a cultural phenomenon that cannot be state mandated. As a result, they set up a structure that reflects the most significant parts of their cultures. One thing that is overlooked, however, is that there is a vibrant market system that I would describe as being less repressive in some ways than in the US. It's what we would probably call a very "mixed economy". It is somewhat analogous to mutualism in libertarianism. I would prefer to live in a system of government like what the Scandinavian countries have as opposed to the US, but that is by no means because I dislike the ideas of free-enterprise and individual autonomy. Rather, I think that the US is more statist and authoritarian than Scandinavia generally is. the US is mis-properly coined as having the freest market and purest form of capitalism in the world. This is horrendously fallacious given that the US is simply the greatest haven for rent-seeking corporations. Corporations are of course not products of free-enterprise and never will be in the sense that we know of them today. They are direct creations of the government.  If I could take what I thought was the best the modern world had to offer, I would take Hong Kong's market system and combine with either Scandinavia's or Bahrain's cultural system (minus the religion of course).

As for socialism in the libertarian sense, I would prefer a completely individualistic society of free-association and consider it optimal to libertarianism, but I would not scorn libertarianism either. I think it's just fine if people want to voluntarily cooperate and form a market system based on their own preferences. My preferences and convictions fit in more with the Austrian school of economics rather than a form of anarcho-syndicalism/communism/socialism or whatever.

[elliebean]

I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  

[Intercourseman72]

I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  

Not much capitalism with the smurfs is it?

[Roganthis72]

I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  

Okay, going off topic here for a second:
Your username (which I assume is your name) is the same as one of my friends baby mama.  For a second I thought that was you.  Very confusing.  Carry on then.

[elliebean]

I'm anti-state and anti-capitalist, but whatever.  :yay:

[The Magic Pudding]

Hehe, that isn't actually my name... well, Ellie's my name, but Bean is short for Jillybean, which is my avatar's last name on Second Life, where there are both Smurfs and capitalism.

I'm not saying I don't like your current avatar, but I really liked this one.

[epepke]

I've been thinking about this for a while.

The trouble is that I don't know what socialism is.  I've read Marx and Engels.  I've heard lots of people talk about it.  I've been to "socialist" countries.  The more I hear about it, the less I know what it is.

Even when people say "democratic socialism," that doesn't help me much.  Democracy sounds nice.  So does socialism.  I get to vote, and I get to have social services.  Sweet!

Still, it seems to be a description of the outcome, and not of the process.

Speaking of outcomes, I once got $200,000 worth of great medical care in a sterile or at least very sanitary environment, for free.  I lived.  My father got some medical care in a septic environment and was killed by an infection he got because of that sepsis.  My family paid $70,000 for that.  I think I got a way better deal than my father did.  The idea of getting a really good deal, especially when it doesn't involve killing me, is something I find quite nice.

Still, it doesn't tell me much about the policies to get there.  That just seems to be assumed.  I just don't think that anybody has figured out how to cure governmental stupidity.

[Intercourseman72]

Well, of course it feels nice to get something "free" of charge. The thing is that this is only possible by forcing everyone else to pay a portion of the products of their labor to accommodate these services. The ends may be desirable and often are, but one has to always consider if they are willing to put up with the costs in order to achieve these ends.

I for one am not willing to literally force everyone within an arbitrarily defined territory to pay for some service "voted" upon by with with certain interests that happen to influence the violent apparatus of the state. This is what strikes at the core of socialism and/or statism in general.