• 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!

Why Socialism is Good?

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ok, just an obvious difference I see which may make such a system more difficult to implement in the US.
Decades ago, the same could have been said, and probably was, in regards to Social Security and Medicare-- but we got 'em. Victories often come in small chunks at a time.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Ok, without consensus, one has to step up enforcement
In a democracy, bills passed and signed into law are the consensus, as long as the government is doing the people's bidding. Plus, per my last post, we already have socialistic programs that we have now had for decades, so it certainly can be done. Even the Tea Party element had posters and chants saying things like "Don't touch my Social Security!" and "Don't touch my Medicare!".

To put it another way, we economically have a "mixed economy", which has meshed together both capitalistic and socialistic programs, and I don't see any ground-swell to get rid of either.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
LW or RW soclialism? There's many forms of socialism. You have to be more specific.

I don't know what right wing socialism is officially, but I'll tell you what mine is...

...Rate countries by their freedoms, liberties and othe democratic values on a scale of one to ten. The lower the number, the more tariffs and/or sanctions apply to them economically. The higher the number, the free'er the trade.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A lot of people want that, but then, they're not really socialists, are they? Yet, many on the right lambaste them as socialists.
Poor socialism.
Tis a word misunderstood by friend & foe alike.
I wouldn't automatically assume that they don't know what socialism is.
Neither would I.
I pay attention to both dictionary and socialist friends.
Or at least, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from finding out what it is, although they might be exposed to both sides of the argument and make their choices from that.

But you could be right in that many of them are not so much advocates for socialism as much as they believe that capitalism is odious, dishonest, and corrupt. They might be more anti-capitalist than pro-socialist. Those who feel like they're being screwed and dominated by big business interests may resist and rebel against it. They may even want to tear it down completely, but they may not know what they want to replace it.
One thing which falsely separates people is that despite sharing similar
values (eg, social safety net, useful regulation of business), they're
separated by labels, parties, & different means of achieving shared goals.
Tis as though people are predestined to fight with each other, eh.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Poor socialism.
Tis a word misunderstood by friend & foe alike.

Neither would I.
I pay attention to both dictionary and socialist friends.

One thing which falsely separates people is that despite sharing similar
values (eg, social safety net, useful regulation of business), they're
separated by labels, parties, & different means of achieving shared goals.
Tis as though people are predestined to fight with each other, eh.

Hey, glad you're back. It's hard work holding up the fort.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Poor socialism.
Tis a word misunderstood by friend & foe alike.

Neither would I.
I pay attention to both dictionary and socialist friends.

One thing which falsely separates people is that despite sharing similar
values (eg, social safety net, useful regulation of business), they're
separated by labels, parties, & different means of achieving shared goals.
Tis as though people are predestined to fight with each other, eh.

Well, they're also separated by "first class" and "economy."

Some separate themselves into gated communities, exclusive country clubs, elitist fraternal organizations, secret societies, evil cults, etc. I've heard people often refer to the "In Crowd," as if there's some special clique of "cool kids" that the rest of us don't get to be a part of.

I think that's where a lot of lost youth actually come from, since everyone wants to feel a part of something and a sense of belonging, but they find that, for whatever reason, they're being shut out and tossed aside for arbitrary reasons. Some kids may join gangs or get suckered into cults, but then others may see socialism as a way of becoming part of something.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
In a democracy, bills passed and signed into law are the consensus, as long as the government is doing the people's bidding. Plus, per my last post, we already have socialistic programs that we have now had for decades, so it certainly can be done. Even the Tea Party element had posters and chants saying things like "Don't touch my Social Security!" and "Don't touch my Medicare!".

To put it another way, we economically have a "mixed economy", which has meshed together both capitalistic and socialistic programs, and I don't see any ground-swell to get rid of either.

Sorry, even though I've pointed out the difference myself I still tend to think socialism socialism instead of democratic socialism. Maybe they should have called it something else.

Actually I don't have a problem with social programs as long as we can sustain them. Considering the money that goes into corporate welfare maybe that should be more at the forefront of the democratic platform. Considering the trillions into debt the Trump administration is putting us into it is hard to argue that we couldn't find he money somewhere.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
LOL,,,,,,it isn't the spelling...I never heard of the term, I don't know what it is.

Sorry wrong poster. The term offered was emancipatory collective. I assumed a body of people trying to achieve freedom through socialism.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Poor socialism.
Tis a word misunderstood by friend & foe alike.

Neither would I.
I pay attention to both dictionary and socialist friends.

One thing which falsely separates people is that despite sharing similar
values (eg, social safety net, useful regulation of business), they're
separated by labels, parties, & different means of achieving shared goals.
Tis as though people are predestined to fight with each other, eh.

I even find myself conflating the term. I suspect some folks on the left, fighting for "socialism" might be doing the same.

Marx_Birthday.1501872857.png


Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist" and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote." He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism but rather describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.
Political positions of Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I don't disagree here. I'm more interested in how democratic socialism would fix this. Let say I agree, capitalism can be abused by the wealthy. How would democratic socialism prevent this?

Anything can be abused no matter how well constructed. The trick is to minimize the abuse. In this case, progressive taxation that does not give benefits to the top while screwing those on the bottom would be a good start. Taking money away from corporate socialism and redirecting it to education would be another good step. Drastically reforming the health care system so it moves from the current disaster into a new system that has rational pricing and universal coverage (note I'm not saying single payer here because that's a different argument).

I was talking about debt and national spending. The majority of the USA's budget is consumed by social programs of all types. So if people want to reduce the debt cut social programs and stop voting for people that bribe the voter with those programs.

I'd be really happy if the corporate welfare would be attacked. And to quote a conservative source that discusses this. Note that I don't agree with everything in this article but I do agree with the basic idea: Corporate Welfare Lives On and On
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Sorry wrong poster. The term offered was emancipatory collective. I assumed a body of people trying to achieve freedom through socialism.

Interesting. I never thought of socialism as anything but a form of governance. Freedom cannot be given by a government of any kind. Freedom is the starting point before you add the government. To be clear, it can provide a guarantee of some freedoms, but generally at the expense of others.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Then left view of socialism is that socialism equals fairness and equality?

And...
And then I think from there the sort of organizing principle of democratic socialism is to move as much of the economy as possible under democratic control. So, to return control of the economy to the people at large instead of a small number of super rich people.
Deconstructed Podcast: Who’s Really Afraid of Socialism?


My question is how do you propose to accomplish this?

In my view, we can have either fairness or equality, not both. While you can have a compromise between the two, you have to decide which has priority at least.

Fairness, those who work more, invest more, take more risk should receive greater compensation.

Equality, the state of being equal. Maybe this work in a legal sense, well not really, but ideally, justice should treat everyone equal. However my life will never be equal to that of a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Economically, socially I don't see how fairness is achievable.

In my view, capitalism is as close to "fairness" as we can possibly get. In tossing out capitalism we also toss out any chance of fairness.


I think socialism has a lot of good ideas yet hostile to individual freedom*, capitalism has better implementation of policies, yet hostile to collective efficiency.

*Which is why I rant on and on about socialist Democrats.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I never thought of socialism as anything but a form of governance
"Socialism" is an economic system, not a political system, therefore it can be matched with various forms of government. "Marxism" is both an economic and a political system and an anti-religious system based on the philosophy of Karl Marx. Some make the mistake of thinking "Marxism" when they see the word "socialism", but there are numerous forms of "socialism", which is reasonably well covered if one reads the Wikipedia account of it. .
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I think socialism has a lot of good ideas yet hostile to individual freedom*, capitalism has better implementation of policies, yet hostile to collective efficiency.

*Which is why I rant on and on about socialist Democrats.

Keep in mind "democratic socialism" supports capitalism. It's actually not anti-capitalism. It's capitalism with social programs that are hopefully beneficial to all.

I've nothing against social programs that are beneficial as long as they are sustainable. As long as steps are also taken to prevent abuse of these programs.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Interesting. I never thought of socialism as anything but a form of governance. Freedom cannot be given by a government of any kind. Freedom is the starting point before you add the government. To be clear, it can provide a guarantee of some freedoms, but generally at the expense of others.

Hard to seperate the two sometimes. I think they could have save themselves a lot of angst by calling it something else. Like "compassionate capitalism". :cool:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Keep in mind "democratic socialism" supports capitalism. It's actually not anti-capitalism. It's capitalism with social programs that are hopefully beneficial to all.
Exactly.

And the ratio of capitalism v socialism is likely to vary from country to country because the compositions and the internal and external environments are not likely to be the same.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Keep in mind "democratic socialism" supports capitalism. It's actually not anti-capitalism. It's capitalism with social programs that are hopefully beneficial to all.

I've nothing against social programs that are beneficial as long as they are sustainable. As long as steps are also taken to prevent abuse of these programs.
A lot of people are confusing social programs with socialism itself.

It never was and never will be the program's themselves that is the crux of the issue, it's the political philosophy of socialism that incorrigibly removes people's liberties and choices .
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
A lot of people are confusing social programs with socialism itself.

It never was and never will be the program's themselves that is the crux of the issue, it's the political philosophy of socialism that incorrigibly removes people's liberties and choices .
You don't just get to redefine Socialism to only include things you don't like. Have a bit of intellectual honesty and rigor, please. Also, try to avoid meaningless scare phrases like "removes people's liberties and choices" that A. aren't part of Socialist theory B. don't actually mean anything. If you want to persuade people of your POV, use specifics, based on credible, actual examples. stop speaking in vague abstractions.

fiEyQAfhYofhR64r6fLyETsoDig=.gif
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You don't just get to redefine Socialism to only include things you don't like. Have a bit of intellectual honesty and rigor, please. Also, try to avoid meaningless scare phrases like "removes people's liberties and choices" that A. aren't part of Socialist theory B. don't actually mean anything. If you want to persuade people of your POV, use specifics, based on credible, actual examples. stop speaking in vague abstractions.

View attachment 30126

Scare phrases my ***.


I mean every word I say ,and that's not going to change a single bit.

Socialist Democrats and Socialism in general is pathologically geared toward the restriction and removal of freedoms and liberties from people.

Real world examples speak for themselves for which socialists are clearly responsible for the rot that has already pervaded free Society to the extent that it has.

Socialism has defined itself implicitly and I'm going to call out every Democrat Socialist and policy that's responsible, along with whatever particular individual freedom Is lost, wherever and whenever I see it and proverbialy shout it from the rooftops each time it happens.
 
Top