• 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?

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.
From Wikipedia:
Democratic socialism can be characterised as follows:

  • Much property held by the public through a democratically elected government, including most major industries, utilities, and transportation systems
  • A limit on the accumulation of private property
  • Governmental regulation of the economy
  • Extensive publicly financed assistance and pension programs
  • Social costs and the provision of services added to purely financial considerations as the measure of efficiency
Publicly held property is limited to productive property and significant infrastructure; it does not extend to personal property, homes, and small businesses. And in practice in many democratic socialist countries, it has not extended to many large corporations.​

Equality takes the form of state regulated services and publically owned infrastructure and facilities.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
No country has ever achieved, nor ever will achieve, complete equality. This issue of socialism in reality is to try and make people more equal both economically and politically.

So emphasis on equality over fairness?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
From Wikipedia:
Democratic socialism can be characterised as follows:

  • Much property held by the public through a democratically elected government, including most major industries, utilities, and transportation systems
  • A limit on the accumulation of private property
  • Governmental regulation of the economy
  • Extensive publicly financed assistance and pension programs
  • Social costs and the provision of services added to purely financial considerations as the measure of efficiency
Publicly held property is limited to productive property and significant infrastructure; it does not extend to personal property, homes, and small businesses. And in practice in many democratic socialist countries, it has not extended to many large corporations.​

Equality takes the form of state regulated services and publically owned infrastructure and facilities.

Again emphasis on equality? Or am I wrong about fairness being merit based?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Left and right are two sides of the same coin.

I might agree with you politically, the difference is an illusion? Smoke and mirrors. Still I want to understand if my view of democratic socialism, the US version, is wrong.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
I might agree with you politically, the difference is an illusion? Smoke and mirrors. Still I want to understand if my view of democratic socialism, the US version, is wrong.
In USA? It still is by inertia, Imo.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

If someone wants to move control the economy
back into the hands of the people, they way has
been shown, it has worked before.

Everyone should live on a small family farm,
and employ only themselves in producing
any goods.

Better still, take digging sticks and go forth
to hunt, and gather.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Liberism is the opposite of Socialism.
Capitalism means nothing in Political Economics since in any socialist states any Capitalist has a freedom of entrepreneurship.

I give you an example of Socialism.
The Whirlpool Italy has decided to close one of his biggest factories in Naples. According to a profit maximization plan, that factory was irrelevant and after a cost-benefit analysis, shutting it down had been considered more profitable.

The Minister of Industry has clearly forbidden them to close it. Because the Ministery had prepared a plan of investments for that factory.

I think most understand the evils of European socialism. At least I don't think that is what the Democrats in the US are trying to promote. I think why they promote socialism is because they see it as a system that has the best chance of achieving fairness and equality.

Ok, I'm not against fairness or equality, just trying to understand how the socialism being promoted by the democratic party in the US would be accomplished.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
That's what I'm asking. Is it different from the OP? I'm trying to understand the view from the left. Why is this something desirable?
What do you mean when you use the word "socialism" because it means something different to me. To me it is when the means of production, its support and distribution is owned and controlled by the community as a emancipatory collective. Now what do you mean by it?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I think most understand the evils of European socialism. At least I don't think that is what the Democrats in the US are trying to promote. I think why they promote socialism is because they see it as a system that has the best chance of achieving fairness and equality.

Ok, I'm not against fairness or equality, just trying to understand how the socialism being promoted by the democratic party in the US would be accomplished.
I think an Economist is like a physician that after visiting a patient (the economy) prescribes a cure.

I do believe a fiscal shock (tax cuts, done by Trump) in order to push enterpreneurs to invest was a good idea.

And we need it here too.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If someone wants to move control the economy
back into the hands of the people, they way has
been shown, it has worked before.

Everyone should live on a small family farm,
and employ only themselves in producing
any goods.

Better still, take digging sticks and go forth
to hunt, and gather.

To @metis point, Scandinavia is the ideal example. I suspect why it works in Scandinavia is because of a lack of diversity. DIversity is the "nemesis" of socialism. I suspect this is why Scandinavian countries are becoming more anti-immigrant.
Overwhelmed by Refugee Flows, Scandinavia Tempers its Warm Welcome

The Scandinavian countries are somewhat homogeneous. People have a common identity so everyone is willing to do their best to help out each other. Smaller groups allows for an easier common identity.

The assumption is that immigrants will assimilate into this homogeneous identity. Where they can, where they do, no problem. Nobody who accepts membership in a group wants to be a burden on the group. Unfortunately there is enough who don't want to assimilate to where this becomes a problem for the countries who have allowed unrestricted immigration.

Even if I go to live on a small farm and decide my own interest are more important than the community there's going to be problems. Maybe this community could, begrudgingly deal with my self interest, however if many of "my type" decide to move in we would become a greater burden than the community could afford to keep around.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I think an Economist is like a physician that after visiting a patient (the economy) prescribes a cure.

I do believe a fiscal shock (tax cuts, done by Trump) in order to push enterpreneurs to invest was a good idea.

And we need it here too.

We, the US, sees this, the left specifically, as corporate welfare. A moral evil. A redistribution of wealth to the wealthy.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What do you mean when you use the word "socialism" because it means something different to me. To me it is when the means of production, its support and distribution is owned and controlled by the community as a emancipatory collective. Now what do you mean by it?

Basically a path to freedom?
I see it the same, sans the freedom part.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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?
Capital investment is a good thing. But giving the capital investors total control of commerce is not, because they inevitably use that control to their own advantage, and to the disadvantage of everyone else engaging in the commercial activity. So the solution is to give everyone involved in a given commercial enterprise some control over how it operates. That means that business would be obliged to share profits, as opposed to passing them all on to the capital investors. And decisions about how the business operates should be shared among those engaged in it, and those effected by it, and not just by the CEO and board of directors; hand chosen to serve the singular goal of the investors: to maximize the profit returned on their investment. Most democratic socialist countries do this by giving equal representation in government to business, labor, and social well-being (involving issues like the environment, public infrastructure, equitable security and opportunity, public health, taxation, human rights, etc.), and then allowing these to work out the practical decisions and solutions of overseeing the course of the nation.
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.
No one is claiming otherwise. The problem is not that humans invest themselves in commerce unevenly (time, creativity, risk, capital, etc.). The problem is that under capitalism ALL the control is in the hands of the capital investors, alone, and they are not concerned with, nor are they acting upon the well being of anyone else engaging in the commerce that they control.
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.
Equality, in this instance, refers to equality of opportunity. That means having equal access to education, both basic and advanced. Equal access to the justice system. Equal representation in government. Equal access to health care and security. It means the rich don't get to commodify justice, opportunity, and general health and well-being and then price it out of the reach of everyone else.
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.
Your view is quite wrong. Capitalism is fundamentally socially destructive because it's nothing more than systematized greed. It pits everyone against everyone else in the pursuit of excessive and undeserved wealth.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
To @metis point, Scandinavia is the ideal example. I suspect why it works in Scandinavia is because of a lack of diversity. DIversity is the "nemesis" of socialism. I suspect this is why Scandinavian countries are becoming more anti-immigrant.
Overwhelmed by Refugee Flows, Scandinavia Tempers its Warm Welcome

The Scandinavian countries are somewhat homogeneous. People have a common identity so everyone is willing to do their best to help out each other. Smaller groups allows for an easier common identity.

The assumption is that immigrants will assimilate into this homogeneous identity. Where they can, where they do, no problem. Nobody who accepts membership in a group wants to be a burden on the group. Unfortunately there is enough who don't want to assimilate to where this becomes a problem for the countries who have allowed unrestricted immigration.

Even if I go to live on a small farm and decide my own interest are more important than the community there's going to be problems. Maybe this community could, begrudgingly deal with my self interest, however if many of "my type" decide to move in we would become a greater burden than the community could afford to keep around.

I have very mixed feelings about immigration.
I am an immigrant myself, though it is not
of my doing, I was a minor at the time.

Its plus and minus for the immigrant, the country
they left and the country they move to is highly
varied and complex.

On socialism, I am deeply suspicious of social
engineers. How the heck do they know what
they are doing.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
We, the US, sees this, the left specifically, as corporate welfare. A moral evil. A redistribution of wealth to the wealthy.
Our Constitution says 1)Italy is a republic founded upon Labor and 2) the state must eliminate any obstacle that prevents citizens from being assured the right to Labor.
The rest is just blah blah imho
 
Top