• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

POLL 49%+ of 'Millennials'choose Socialism over Captialism.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And capitalist countries aren't as good as you think in terms of coping with adversity: 11 Facts About Hunger in the US
I haven't actually claimed that capitalist countries are good at coping with adversity.
Only that they're better at it than socialist ones. This is because of the advantage
of decentralization & greater reliance upon individual initiative.
About hunger....
Capitalism isn't the problem, but it affords the solution, ie, using tax money to fix
social ills. Tis up to the voters to decide whether they want this or not.
We should also note that social ills afflict socialist countries too.
2 reasons.....
Socialism requires a more authoritarian government.
Socialism results in lower productivity, & therefore less benefit to spread around.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
All this and you still are under the delusion that Socialism is just another word for Communism!! Get educated, it would mean much less inane posting!!

I haven't actually claimed that capitalist countries are good at coping with adversity.
Only that they're better at it than socialist ones. This is because of the advantage
of decentralization & greater reliance upon individual initiative.
About hunger....
Capitalism isn't the problem, but it affords the solution, ie, using tax money to fix
social ills. Tis up to the voters to decide whether they want this or not.
We should also note that social ills afflict socialist countries too.
2 reasons.....
Socialism requires a more authoritarian government.
Socialism results in lower productivity, & therefore less benefit to spread around.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, that was part of it, but we also had a system which took the needs of working people into consideration. That required government intervention, New Deal social programs, stronger support of labor unions and the overall cause of labor. Reagan and his cohorts railed against such programs, and his push for deregulation and more towards laissez-faire capitalism is what caused America's decline since then.
Why do you believe that government regulation of business has decreased?
As one in business, I've seen it increase over the decades. But a more objective
measure is the number of pages in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
It grows without a hiccup, including continuous increase during Reagan's terms.
I find that many of the stalwart supporters of capitalism are actually non-capitalists; many are even working stiffs who could even benefit from socialism. On the other hand, a lot of wealthy capitalists are also liberals. Strange irony.

Fact is, most people are insulated from wars, too. Wars are things that happen far away and to someone else. Sure, it's sad when a US service member dies in the line of duty; we feel compassion for their families and honor them for their sacrifice. But in terms of actual numbers, how many people are actually affected by any of what goes on? Not that many.

Most people go on with their lives, taking vacations, enjoying all the luxuries and benefits they can afford, spending leisure time, etc. Compared to situations where people have had to huddle in bombed-out buildings, foraging for food, enduring bombings and artillery barrages, rationing, shortages, etc. - there's really no visible indication that the US is involved in any kind of war at all.
War.....
My experience has been avoiding it & enabling it.
First as a felonious draft dodger, & later as a weapons systems designer.
We shouldn't be forcing people to wage it, & it should happen only in
self defense....real self defense, not the tenuous kind.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
All this and you still are under the delusion that Socialism is just another word for Communism!! Get educated, it would mean much less inane posting!!
You've offered no significant differences.
But then....you'd need a dictionary to do that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Actually, I see far more misuse of the term "socialist" coming from the other side.
I see the misuse of "socialism" as pretty balanced.
Fanboys & detractors both appear to eschew using dictionaries.
My disdain is a rainbow, flowing in all directions.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
When people refer to socialism in Scandinavia, I believe they're mainly referring to socialized medicine - which many see as more humane, more efficient, higher quality, and generally better than capitalist medicine which is practiced in the United States.
It's debatable, but I say that health care isn't included in the "means of production".
And there's no reason we cannot have that...a free single payer version....under
our thriving, wild west, greedy, chaotic capitalism.

What I wonder....
Why is it that fans of the Scandinavian model (which I label "social capitalism")
don't call it that? They use either "socialism" or "democratic socialism", which
don't describe what they ostensibly want.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, now you're moving the goalposts.
There's a miscommunication then.
I use "frequent flyer" to show a correlation between every socialist
regime & the occurrence of famine...not the number of famines.
In short...if you have a socialist country, you've had a major famine.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, famines did happen - as a result of world wars, civil wars, upheavals, outside interference (which was no small matter), internal sabotage. But once they got through the rough transitional period, things normalized and production improved.
There are always direct reasons for famines.
But these reasons are more powerful in socialist economies.
To once again use the old joke....
The 4 problems of Soviet agriculture are spring, summer, fall, & winter.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Perhaps you're the one that should be studying definitions, as you can see here, Socialism has lots of different meanings in different countries all over the world Including Europe and Scandinavia

Socialism - Wikipedia
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Perhaps you're the one that should be studying definitions, as you can see here, Socialism has lots of different meanings in different countries all over the world Including Europe and Scandinavia

Socialism - Wikipedia

From wikipedia - on socialism page you can find social democracy Social democracy - Wikipedia and there is this:
"Not to be confused with democratic socialism."
The Scandinavian countries are not democratic socialistic, they are social democracies or as pointed out social capitalism or if you like capitalistic welfare states.
Sometimes in these debates it is like there are only 2 options. Socialist or capitalist.
To some people I am a socialist and to others I am capitalist. I am neither, I am a combination. Some things should be left to public ownership and others private.

From your link: Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.

To me it means of production should only belong to the public if it is better overall. Likewise the means of production should only belong to the private if it is better overall.
So in some cases I am not a socialist and in others I am not a capitalist.

And again. The Scandinavian countries are not socialistic overall. They are capitalistic with welfare states parts, which are socialistic, sort off.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
They are Demcratic Socialism, no matter what you may try to state as if you are wikipedia!! nice one!!
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
They are Demcratic Socialism, no matter what you may try to state as if you are wikipedia!! nice one!!

I used Wikipedia.
Start with socialism.
Find 6.2. Democratic socialism. Read and find the part about social democracy. Click the link to social democracy. Read the header of social democracy and it says: Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

Now I used Wikipedia and it stated that democratic socialism is not the same as social democracy. If you use Denmark as an example based on the last election around 30% are social democrats (Socialdemokratiet and Socialistic Peoples Party) and only 10% are democratic socialist (Unity list) and 9% are social liberals in the European sense equal to liberal in the US sense. It means that 49% of the Danish populations are democratic socialist. No, because if you read the parties' manifests only the Unity list are democratic socialists.
I don't subscribe to the idea that all means of production should be owned by the workers, yet I support the regulation of capitalism, public health care, equal rights, the UN and human rights, public schools and so on. In short the state is the security net from cradle to grave, yet the general production is capitalistic. The state is limited, but so is capitalism.

Next time read Wikipedia before you use it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I haven't actually claimed that capitalist countries are good at coping with adversity.
Only that they're better at it than socialist ones. This is because of the advantage
of decentralization & greater reliance upon individual initiative.
About hunger....
Capitalism isn't the problem, but it affords the solution, ie, using tax money to fix
social ills. Tis up to the voters to decide whether they want this or not.
We should also note that social ills afflict socialist countries too.
2 reasons.....
Socialism requires a more authoritarian government.
Socialism results in lower productivity, & therefore less benefit to spread around.

I would take exception with your use of the phrase "capitalist countries," since they're not all the same in this regard. When you say "capitalist countries," aren't you really just talking about the USA and other first-world economies? The third world is mostly capitalist, too, yet they can't really handle adversity very well at all.

But in the U.S., there's really no excuse for anyone to be hungry in our society. It's not like we've been ravaged by war or that much internal turmoil - nothing like the Russians or the Chinese went through during the years pre-revolution and post-revolution. The fact that they were able to survive intact is a testament to just how much adversity they actually can handle. Yes, there were some famines - which is one of the many drawbacks of war and internal strife.

That should be all the more reason to strive for economic stability here in the United States. We should be making efforts to minimize the amount of adversity we may have to face. The OP was frightened that 49% of Millennials favor socialism, but in all honesty, if you really don't want socialism to come to the U.S., then why not share some of this nation's vast wealth with the workers and the downtrodden? We're talking tens of millions facing hunger, along with many more millions struggling to survive from day to day.

Socialism (such as in the SU and PRC) was (and still is) preventable. Not with propaganda or McCarthyism or the cloak-and-dagger tactics of the Cold War. If only their pre-revolutionary governments had given just a wee bit of consideration for the workers and toilers in their society, they might have avoided such a build up of volcanic resentment and violent uprisings which caused their governments to fall.

We should take a lesson from that and learn to do things differently in the United States. Just a thought.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Why do you believe that government regulation of business has decreased?
As one in business, I've seen it increase over the decades. But a more objective
measure is the number of pages in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
It grows without a hiccup, including continuous increase during Reagan's terms.

Reagan was a big advocate for deregulation. He deregulated the airlines, for one. It became much easier for companies to close up their factories in the US and set up overseas. A minor, personal note of irritation was in the allowing of infomercials - that was never allowed prior to Reagan.

As for the small businesses, I can't say. A common complaint I often hear is that the government screws the small businesses while letting big business run roughshod over everyone. Maybe they should start screwing the big businesses and leave the small businesses alone. I'd be in favor of that.

War.....
My experience has been avoiding it & enabling it.
First as a felonious draft dodger, & later as a weapons systems designer.
We shouldn't be forcing people to wage it, & it should happen only in
self defense....real self defense, not the tenuous kind.

I was too young to be drafted back when we still had the draft, although I did have to register. I actually wanted to serve, and I tried to enlist in the Navy when I was 19. I didn't quite pass the physical.

I have somewhat mixed views about war in general. I'm not a total peacenik. I understand that wars are sometimes necessary. I just wish they would be more open and honest about their intentions and pretexts for going to war.

But it's not just war, it's the continuous lack of peace. The Cold War was ongoing, and even in the post-Cold War era we're in now, it's just an ongoing thing - one crisis after another. And now we're seeing that the Cold War never really ended. We can never just sit back and say "Ahhh, peace at last."

Or as the old saying goes, "No one ever forgets where they buried the hatchet."
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I see the misuse of "socialism" as pretty balanced.
Fanboys & detractors both appear to eschew using dictionaries.
My disdain is a rainbow, flowing in all directions.

Well, on that subject, let's look at the definition: Definition of SOCIALISM

socialism
noun
so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
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 goods
2a: 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 state
3: 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

----

The first definition is a catch-all: "any of various economic and political theories," which is where all the different types of socialism can come into play.

There is also a usage guide attached to the definition:

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Democracy
Communism is one of our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest that’s because it is often used in opaque ways. In some sources, communism is equated with socialism; in others, it is contrasted with democracy and capitalism. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the abolition of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people, and it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers. The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers used communism to refer to the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society, societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production, and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controls a society’s economy and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories.

Communism is often contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic theory in which a society’s means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where prices, distribution of goods, and products are determined by a free market. It can be contrasted with the economic theories of communism, though the word communism is used of both political and economic theories. Democracy refers to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. Democracy is contrasted with communism primarily because the 20th-century communism of the U.S.S.R. was characterized by an authoritarian government, whereas the democracy of the 20th-century U.S. was characterized by a representative government.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's debatable, but I say that health care isn't included in the "means of production".

I would actually consider it analogous to the police and fire department. But there's also some production involved, such as the production of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and so on.

And there's no reason we cannot have that...a free single payer version....under
our thriving, wild west, greedy, chaotic capitalism.

Except for the fact that both parties have sold out to big business - insurance, big pharma, etc. Government is still spending a lot on healthcare, but it's like they've given a blank check to these leeches. In countries that spend much less per capita than we do, they can provide healthcare for all at much higher quality than is provided in the U.S.

It's ludicrous that we can't have that here in the U.S. (when it would cost much less than we're spending now), all because too many people have a phobia about {gasp} socialism.

What I wonder....
Why is it that fans of the Scandinavian model (which I label "social capitalism")
don't call it that? They use either "socialism" or "democratic socialism", which
don't describe what they ostensibly want.

I'm not sure why the Scandinavian model gets cited all the time anyway. I don't really bring it up that much myself. I'm not sure how important it is to call it one thing or another, since no country is "socialist" or "capitalist" just by itself. They have a mixed system, just as we do.

Besides, how many people are truly advocating for "socialism" as in the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Do you see anyone out on the streets shouting "Gulags now! Gulags tomorrow! Gulags forever!"? Nobody is advocating for famine - and there really aren't that many real "revolutionaries" out there.

All anyone is really asking for is economic justice. It doesn't have to involve a complete takeover of the means of production or the elimination of private property.

But on the subject of definitions, I might also ask why something is labeled "socialist" if it only advocates socializing a single industry or aspect of society? Unless someone is truly advocating for a Soviet-style state with a Politburo and Central Committee and KGB and Gulags and the whole works, why call it "socialist" at all?

If someone is just advocating for socialized medicine - or rent controls, price controls, stricter environmental regulations - why would this be considered "socialist"?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There's a miscommunication then.
I use "frequent flyer" to show a correlation between every socialist
regime & the occurrence of famine...not the number of famines.
In short...if you have a socialist country, you've had a major famine.

Are you claiming that socialism caused the famines? Are you saying that if they didn't become socialist, they wouldn't have had famines?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There are always direct reasons for famines.
But these reasons are more powerful in socialist economies.
To once again use the old joke....
The 4 problems of Soviet agriculture are spring, summer, fall, & winter.

I remember a lot of old jokes like that.

The Russians had experienced famines in pre-revolutionary times as well. They've had wars, internal strife - and it continued for years after the Bolshevik Revolution. That doesn't excuse or mitigate anything they did, but after a time, their agricultural system became reasonably functional. The problem wasn't really the farms or the growing of food. Their main problem was transportation and storage. Russia is a huge country, with an inhospitable climate. A lot of crops would rot while awaiting transport - or get eaten by vermin.

To be sure, their transportation system had lagged behind the West even going back to Tsarist times. Compared to Western Europe and the U.S., their railroads were few and far between, and truck/auto industries also lagged behind - along with road building. That was the whole reason Stalin was having everyone work at breakneck speed towards industrialization, to try to catch up.
 
Top