Why do some people believe Socialism is the way forward when it has never worked?
26-30, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
If it wasn't for "socialism" people wouldn't have retirement or be able to own their own businesses. Both of those are examples of socialism.
Do people really want to go back to wage slavery as it was in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? In the book he was trying to push for socialism but instead brought light to the conditions of the meat packing industry. In the industrial revolution there were no social systems to protect the people. That is what a country without socialism looks like. And I've never heard anyone want to return to that.
All modern nations have at least some socialism in place. Japan is socialist, Germany has the oldest social welfare system if I remember correctly. England is socialist. Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, etc...
Socialism is multi-facted and can be applied to many areas. But it's basic premise is that it is social ownership. Such as employee owned business or co-ops. And a social welfare system to help the needy.
Charity doesn't work as people and their money do not like to be parted. And I'm not saying that it should be. If you have worked for it then you should keep it. But a social welfare system needs to be in place to soften the edges of such strict capitalism.
People are still terrified of the Nazis and the USSR. Both had social systems in place as well. But just because those states failed it was not because of socialism. It was endless wars on the part of Nazi Germany and over-reach. And corruption, dissent, lack of freedom of the part of the USSR which fractured the state once Gorbachev tried to bring in more democratic ideals.
Do people really want to go back to wage slavery as it was in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? In the book he was trying to push for socialism but instead brought light to the conditions of the meat packing industry. In the industrial revolution there were no social systems to protect the people. That is what a country without socialism looks like. And I've never heard anyone want to return to that.
All modern nations have at least some socialism in place. Japan is socialist, Germany has the oldest social welfare system if I remember correctly. England is socialist. Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, etc...
Socialism is multi-facted and can be applied to many areas. But it's basic premise is that it is social ownership. Such as employee owned business or co-ops. And a social welfare system to help the needy.
Charity doesn't work as people and their money do not like to be parted. And I'm not saying that it should be. If you have worked for it then you should keep it. But a social welfare system needs to be in place to soften the edges of such strict capitalism.
People are still terrified of the Nazis and the USSR. Both had social systems in place as well. But just because those states failed it was not because of socialism. It was endless wars on the part of Nazi Germany and over-reach. And corruption, dissent, lack of freedom of the part of the USSR which fractured the state once Gorbachev tried to bring in more democratic ideals.
4meAndyou · F
@canusernamebemyusername There's a massive amount of difference between a capitalist society with socialist programs contained within, as a social safety net or social benefit and socialism. There are some folks who are too dumb to know there is a difference between that and straight socialism which always crashes.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@canusernamebemyusername Holy crap. That’s really good. And you said all that without any hateful rhetoric.
Kudos 🤗
Kudos 🤗
@SimplyTracie Oh thank you:3 All I did was remembered reading The Jungle, looked up the definition of socialism to make sure I wasn't getting it wrong. Also I've been a recipient of social welfare too so I have experience being in the system.
I do think many people mix up the definitions though. I remember a couple of weeks ago listening to NPR and they said many people that confused the terms remember the days of the cold war and associate the term with that.
I do think many people mix up the definitions though. I remember a couple of weeks ago listening to NPR and they said many people that confused the terms remember the days of the cold war and associate the term with that.
PikachuTrainer · 26-30, M
@canusernamebemyusername you're confusing social welfare with socialism, both different things, so no socialism didn't give us retirement.
"It was endless wars on the part of Nazi Germany and over-reach. And corruption, dissent, lack of freedom..." I hope people keep this in mind every time the news media starts railing against XYZ dictator and how imperative it is for American taxpayers to foot the bill in the name of spreading democracy, but balk at the notion of their tax dollars being allocated for their very own welfare.@causernamebemyusername]
@PikachuTrainer
What I am seeing is that the dfinition varies depending on where you get it. Even as far back as the 19th century it was used interchangeably with the word communism. But communism takes it's teachings from Marx. "...and meant that workers and their community should control the market for what they make."
What a community is is the sticking point as a government is a community and ownership can be thus controlled by the government. Or a community can be collective like a co-op: "...a business that is owned and operated by and for the benefit of its members."
But socialism if often interchanged anymore with social services. And social services is a part of socialism, communism, democracy, republicanism etc... And modern nation. As they all try to equalize disparities across a society.
And I see that as sticking in people's craw really bad on here as they are afraid of some type of communist take over of their wealth. They don't want to give to charity. They don't want to share with those that they see as less. They don't want their taxes to go to what they see as lazy people or people that should be euthanized. These are the traits of extreme capitalism. And socialism in the counter balance to those attitudes. It forces people that are greedy to help take care of society.
It's along this logic, Why should I have to pay taxes on roads I don't even use. If I'm not sick why should I pay for someone else doctors bills. I'm a pacifist so I shouldn't pay taxes that the government uses to fund the military. This is again extreme capitalism and is the ultimate outcome if it is allowed to run unchecked like it did in the industrial revolution.
Also the US has tried to be tax free under the Articles of Confederation which predated the US. It didn't work as there was no money to pay the soldiers and the army disbanded and the first country fell apart.
The extreme of socialism is the government takes so much money that the people are basically given an allowance while having most or all of their basic needs met. Which I believe one of the Baltic states actually does do the allowance thing. But since it is the opposite of capitalism there is no need for any one person to work harder than anyone else as all people receive the same benefits. Such a system can lead to jealousy and hate as some people may have to work harder (due to disability or such) that a lazy person does.
So a mix of the two systems is best so as to counterbalance each other. And if you are an American you know how important checks and balances are.
What I am seeing is that the dfinition varies depending on where you get it. Even as far back as the 19th century it was used interchangeably with the word communism. But communism takes it's teachings from Marx. "...and meant that workers and their community should control the market for what they make."
What a community is is the sticking point as a government is a community and ownership can be thus controlled by the government. Or a community can be collective like a co-op: "...a business that is owned and operated by and for the benefit of its members."
But socialism if often interchanged anymore with social services. And social services is a part of socialism, communism, democracy, republicanism etc... And modern nation. As they all try to equalize disparities across a society.
And I see that as sticking in people's craw really bad on here as they are afraid of some type of communist take over of their wealth. They don't want to give to charity. They don't want to share with those that they see as less. They don't want their taxes to go to what they see as lazy people or people that should be euthanized. These are the traits of extreme capitalism. And socialism in the counter balance to those attitudes. It forces people that are greedy to help take care of society.
It's along this logic, Why should I have to pay taxes on roads I don't even use. If I'm not sick why should I pay for someone else doctors bills. I'm a pacifist so I shouldn't pay taxes that the government uses to fund the military. This is again extreme capitalism and is the ultimate outcome if it is allowed to run unchecked like it did in the industrial revolution.
Also the US has tried to be tax free under the Articles of Confederation which predated the US. It didn't work as there was no money to pay the soldiers and the army disbanded and the first country fell apart.
The extreme of socialism is the government takes so much money that the people are basically given an allowance while having most or all of their basic needs met. Which I believe one of the Baltic states actually does do the allowance thing. But since it is the opposite of capitalism there is no need for any one person to work harder than anyone else as all people receive the same benefits. Such a system can lead to jealousy and hate as some people may have to work harder (due to disability or such) that a lazy person does.
So a mix of the two systems is best so as to counterbalance each other. And if you are an American you know how important checks and balances are.