Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What is Your Definition of Socialism?

1 Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a) system of society or group living in which there is no private property b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3 A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

HarryDemon

Definately not 3, the Marxist transitional phase one. That is not the definition I recognise. All of the rest of your post describes Socialism. For my position, I consider our Labour party and the unions to have ruined Britain every time they were in power. I never want things to get that bad again. The split between Christianity and Socialism is a uniquely American thing. Europe is full of parties that describe themselves as Christian Socialist, and our own Labour is an example. Churchmen frequently express support for it. If you listen to Radio Five Live on a Sunday night, Bishop Stephen Lowe, a Labour party supporter, can be found arguing with Charlie Wolf, an American journalist based in Britain, as they discuss what is in the newspapers, to give one example. I have always felt that the welfare system (which I support) has nothing to do with Socialism, but is instead what rich countries do to show off. "Look at how rich we are; we can afford this generous welfare system." Of course, when in an economic downturn, like now, these things get cut back. Of course, there are rich countries which are exceptions, and more unwilling to give much by way of welfare, such as America or Japan. Which is up to the voters in those countries.

Lickitysplit · 70-79, M

In general, I do not oppose "welfare" programs so long as they provide support only to those who are incapable of supporting themselves (or supplementing people who can only partially support themselves) due to no fault of their own, such as injury, illness, or disability.

In the US, there are populations of people who have chosen not to take advantage of the free education that is available to them and thus are basically unemployable by choice. There are others who choose to have children starting at age 12 and then turn the babies out about once a year. These people then claim that they cannot work because they must take care of the babies and therefore must be supported through welfare programs. Even more aggravating, the system is designed to encourage this behavior by essentially rewarding people for each additional child they have. These factors result in a continuous cycle of lack of education, single parent families, and perpetual poverty.

I cannot vouch for the specific accuracy of this, but I have read that on average, a person who is eligible for most of the US Federal, State, and Local welfare programs earns at least $66,000 per year for not working. The vast majority of these own at least one care, one television, a smart telephone, and many other modern conveniences. Many of them live at no charge in government provided housing.

Not to focus solely on the poor, the US subsidizes numerous wealthy businesses and organizations such as the EXIM Bank, ethanol, agriculture, oil, and almost any company that exports any product or commodity. I generally refer to these with the single label of "Corporate Welfare." I can see no justification, nor can I find any legal basis in the US Constitution for any of these programs that are designed to transfer wealth from one group of citizens to another through taxation.

HarryDemon

There is nothing wrong with the state providing social programmes, providing it has the money to afford it. The problem with countries that try some form of socialism tends to be that they can never raise enough in tax to pay for their spending, so they borrow money, and as the chap quoting the iron lady alluded to, they often don't know how they will pay the debts off, so the money runs out. I have worked in the Social Enterprise sector, so I tend to not believe that the state is necessarily best equipped to provide social programmes. Social Enterprises, which make profit, but plow it back into the social purpose of the business, are often preferable. I might add that, during the years of the Blair/Brown government, there were a hell of a lot of things Labour were doing nothing at all about, and just leaving it to charities and Social Enterprises to fill the gaps. They also cut a lot of funding to Social Firms, the side of the sector which differs from Social Enterprises in relying on a lot of government support.