Socialism -- a pathway to disaster

[Kenny]

You and I will just never agree. Socialism works great! Public roads and infrastructure makes everyone have more wealth. Laissez faire capitalism has serious problems. You should study the works of Karl Marx. He will enlighten you:

You are correct. that is why we have Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union and China. There are always people like you. You would be a great party man and maybe even better as a dictator. That way you have the money and everyone else is equal

It takes capitalism to have the money for great public roads and infrastructure.

 

[Kenny]

You and I will just never agree. Socialism works great! Public roads and infrastructure makes everyone have more wealth. Laissez faire capitalism has serious problems. You should study the works of Karl Marx. He will enlighten you:

The BEAUTIFUL roads that socialism has provided in Cuba.

 

[Kenny]

You tell me what is the "right" distribution of wealth in this country? Because it seems to me we are as about as far away from communism as we can get and still have a currency worth a shred of value. I very much doubt the workers of this country are going to own any factories in the near future. My prediction is people will have excessive debt to the day they die.

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH...

The alternative universe Robin Hood... Take from the poor and give it to the rich:

vs.

 

[metis]

Why should we as Christians be in favor of dog-eat-dog capitalism that basically says "every man for himself"? I don't recall Jesus ever saying or implying that this is what he believed. Matter of fact, he strongly emphasized sharing and taking care of others, and that ain't what capitalism is mostly about.

So, should I more believe in Jesus or in materialism? It seems to me that Jesus was not even close to advocating "social Darwinism" that is the basic for laissez faire capitalism. Fortunately, all countries today have abandoned that form of economic system and have adopted what we call a "mixed economy", which is a blending of capitalistic and socialistic programs.

 

[dfnj]

The BEAUTIFUL roads that socialism has provided in Cuba.

Again, what you fail to understand is both left-wing and right-wing governments can be awful. Government corruption is a problem regardless of the type of government.

The problem with people like you is you think one set of tactics is better than another. When what we should be concentrating on is outcomes. I don't care if we privatize the schools and at the same time have the government take over the healthcare system. Both solutions end up not working at some point. All I care about is outcome.

The thing is at this point in history you are arguing like we are living in the early 1970s: "Between 1979 and 2013, the top 1 percent’s share of income doubled nationally, increasing from 10 percent to 20.1 percent."

"The unequal income growth since the late 1970s has brought the top 1 percent income share in the United States to near its 1928 peak."

This is not the 1970s. We are closer to 1928. Again, I don't care what tactics we use. But you definitely have a prejudice. With you and your hammer everything is a nail.

Maybe we can find some common ground with the work of Hans Rosling and the importance of culture:

Of course, you never really did answer my questions on slavery.

 

[Sand Dancer]

And so too will remain America, so why then all the screeching and squealing?

From the beginning, we have been a predatory country, coming over and taking over the indigenous people in each country we colonize. We don't have the sense of community that older countries, like in Europe, do. We also have the Protestant "work ethic," which makes people hesitant to help others. So sad.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why should we as Christians be in favor of dog-eat-dog capitalism that basically says "every man for himself"? I don't recall Jesus ever saying or implying that this is what he believed. Matter of fact, he strongly emphasized sharing and taking care of others, and that ain't what capitalism is mostly about.

So, should I more believe in Jesus or in materialism? It seems to me that Jesus was not even close to advocating "social Darwinism" that is the basic for laissez faire capitalism. Fortunately, all countries today have abandoned that form of economic system and have adopted what we call a "mixed economy", which is a blending of capitalistic and socialistic programs.

We are so unChrist-like in so many ways.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yes, with a more or less regulated capitalism. Many of them have a party that can be identified as social democrats who are in and out off power. Bernie's policies are modeled after those social democrats, not after socialists like Cuba or the USSR. Not seeing that (or seeing and lying about it) results in wrong assessments.
Fearing Bernie because he's a socialist rests on a false premise. He's a social democrat.

Capitalism should have government oversight. We need that in the US badly.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Did i say, completely? No but you qualification is telling...


45,000 medical bills ERASED!

You are throwing congratulations around like candy in the above link because 45000 people were given free healthcare... By a church.

I'm sure people were pressured to "get saved" first. That's generally the idea.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm sure people were pressured to "get saved" first. That's generally the idea.

yes, and its the same now with coronavirus, the church stockpiles and sells to those who pray to be saved.

 

[metis]

We are so unChrist-like in so many ways.

Evidenced by the fact that we elected as president an adulterer, materialist, hedonist, racist, zenophobist, mysogynist, and "pathological liar" as even some in his own party have called him.
And what he has done to get support from all too many Christians is to pander to them much like the three fascist leaders did prior to WWII when they declared themselves to be defenders of the Christian faith whereas all of them in reality were not theists. The fact that Trump bragged during a 2016 rally that he doesn't need God's forgiveness and that he doesn't pray should have been enough warning by itself.

IOW, much like the Germans, Italians, and Spanish, we fell for Trump's pandering hook, line, and sinker. And his ineptness is now clear to those who at least try and look at things objectively, all at a time when we need strong and moral leadership.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

 

[Kenny]

Again, what you fail to understand is both left-wing and right-wing governments can be awful. Government corruption is a problem regardless of the type of government.

Again... you failed to read carefully our discussion. Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism isn't a "no tax" for infrastructure, which you failed to realize, it is simply a system for production that generally rewards those who work harder or have more to contribute.

Socialism produces more lazy people. Why should I work an extra 5 hours if I get the same if I don't? It is already proven.

You, on the other hand, are a Marxist which was proven not to work.

But, variety is the spice of life. Marxism gives greater value to liberty found in capitalism.

 

[metis]

There are many different forms of socialism: Socialism - Wikipedia , plus no country today is 100% socialistic.

Also, socialism can be matched with all different forms of political structures, but the ones that are least compatible with why socialism originated are totalitarian systems, with the exception of Marxism, which is a economic, political, and philosophical system based on Karl Marx's teachings. Swedish "socialism" (actually Sweden also has just another example of a "mixed economy"), for example, is a VERY far cry removed from Marxism.

 

[Vouthon]

There are many different forms of socialism: Socialism - Wikipedia , plus no country today is 100% socialistic.

Also, socialism can be matched with all different forms of political structures, but the ones that are least compatible with why socialism originated are totalitarian systems, with the exception of Marxism, which is a economic, political, and philosophical system based on Karl Marx's teachings. Swedish "socialism" (actually Sweden also has just another example of a "mixed economy"), for example, is a VERY far cry removed from Marxism.

Well said.

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has stated:


firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it [Democratic Socialism] became the political party of the Catholics . In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.​

The pope emeritus knew very well what he said here. He was speaking about the ‘Democratic socialism’ of then British Labour, not just ‘social democracy’. And he understood that it was the traditional political party of English Catholics and recognised its closeness ‘in many respects’ to Catholic social doctrine.

The common distinction between “socialism” as ‘state ownership of the means of production’ (in a system without any private property or enterprise) and “capitalism” as ‘private ownership of the means of production’ (in which private individuals and companies own capital goods) is much too crude and binary, in my honest opinion.

It obscures the historical process by which we arrived at the ideological compromise underpinning ‘social market’ economics and ‘social democracy’ (with generously public funded welfare states, multi-level collective bargaining, a large unionised workforce etc.).

For the men and women who pioneered this socioeconomic order in postwar Europe, from the 1950s onwards (many of them Christian Democrats inspired by Catholic Social Teaching, which was the official political philosophy of the CDU in Germany), they were adamant about the fact that they were charting a middle path inspired by elements of both models but rejecting the deficiencies of both as well, that retained a ‘market economy’ (and a very vibrant pro-free trade one at that) but with strong socialised elements and state intervention to level the playing field / provide social balance and counteract the excesses of capitalism.

In West Germany, for example, the ‘Christian Democratic Union’ (Angela Merkel’s party today) led by the devout Catholic Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, came up with the “Ahlen Program” of social market economics which was adopted in February 1947.

It explicitly called for a “socialist economic order”:

GHDI - Document

The capitalist economic system has served neither the state’s nor the German people’s vital interests…

The content and goal of this new social and economic order can no longer be the capitalistic pursuit of power and profit; it must lie in the welfare of our people. A socialist economic order must provide the German people with an economic and social framework that accords with the rights and dignity of the individual, serves the intellectual and material development of our nation, and secures peace both at home and abroad.

The economy must unlock the productive forces of both the individual and the community. The starting point of all economic activity is the recognition of the individual. Personal freedom in the economic sphere is closely related to freedom in the political sphere. Efforts to shape and guide the economy must not deprive individuals of their personal freedom."
​

The German CDU’s “Ahlen Program,” for instance, also states that:

“Legally acquired property that is not used in a politically abusive manner must be respected within the framework of general laws” (ibid., 4), later further clarifying that: “In industry, commerce and skilled trades, private entrepreneurship must be preserved and further promoted” (ibid.).

Pope St. John Paul II stated in Laborem Exercens that he supported “socialisation versus collectivisation”:


Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981) | John Paul II

The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism …

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production …

The many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church take on special significance: proposals for joint ownership of the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of businesses…​

 

[joe1776]

Again... you failed to read carefully our discussion. Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism isn't a "no tax" for infrastructure, which you failed to realize, it is simply a system for production that generally rewards those who work harder or have more to contribute.

Socialism produces more lazy people. Why should I work an extra 5 hours if I get the same if I don't? It is already proven.

You, on the other hand, are a Marxist which was proven not to work.

But, variety is the spice of life. Marxism gives greater value to liberty found in capitalism.

Ken, the statements in your post show that you don't understand that there are two basic factors involved when plans, like socialism or capitalism, succeed or fail. They are (1) the plan itself, (2) the execution of the plan.

The execution of the plan is the responsibility of government. So, you can't say that socialism (the plan) failed unless you can show that it was tried (the execution factor) by an effective, un-corrupted government and it failed. And you can't do that because we humans have yet to invent an effective, un-corrupted government.

Government regulation is needed for the competitive, free markets for the same reason that rules and officials are needed in professional sports: All other things being equal, if players could cheat and get away with it, they'd win the game. The cheating in the USA's free market is called "fraud."

The fraud is abundant, but not out of control, if manufactured products are involved because the buyers are lots of well-informed consumers spending their own money. But it's impossible to be a well-informed consumer if the service is healthcare; and, if insurance is involved, they aren't spending their own money. They don't even know what service they need.

In the current system, because they are dealing with deep-pocket insurance companies and not individual consumers spending their own money:

-- doctors over-treat to keep their malpractice insurance costs down
-- doctors, hospitals and drug manufacturers justify price gouging
-- malpractice lawyers and their clients file fraudulent claims

And here's the kicker --- the deep-pocket insurance companies benefit from overcharges and outright fraud because they can pass the cost along to consumers and add a percentage for profit.

 

[metis]

Well said.

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has stated:


firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it [Democratic Socialism] became the political party of the Catholics . In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.​

The pope emeritus knew very well what he said here. He was speaking about the ‘Democratic socialism’ of then British Labour, not just ‘social democracy’. And he understood that it was the traditional political party of English Catholics and recognised its closeness ‘in many respects’ to Catholic social doctrine.

The common distinction between “socialism” as ‘state ownership of the means of production’ (in a system without any private property or enterprise) and “capitalism” as ‘private ownership of the means of production’ (in which private individuals and companies own capital goods) is much too crude and binary, in my honest opinion.

It obscures the historical process by which we arrived at the ideological compromise underpinning ‘social market’ economics and ‘social democracy’ (with generously public funded welfare states, multi-level collective bargaining, a large unionised workforce etc.).

For the men and women who pioneered this socioeconomic order in postwar Europe, from the 1950s onwards (many of them Christian Democrats inspired by Catholic Social Teaching, which was the official political philosophy of the CDU in Germany), they were adamant about the fact that they were charting a middle path inspired by elements of both models but rejecting the deficiencies of both as well, that retained a ‘market economy’ (and a very vibrant pro-free trade one at that) but with strong socialised elements and state intervention to level the playing field / provide social balance and counteract the excesses of capitalism.

In West Germany, for example, the ‘Christian Democratic Union’ (Angela Merkel’s party today) led by the devout Catholic Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, came up with the “Ahlen Program” of social market economics which was adopted in February 1947.

It explicitly called for a “socialist economic order”:

GHDI - Document

The capitalist economic system has served neither the state’s nor the German people’s vital interests…

The content and goal of this new social and economic order can no longer be the capitalistic pursuit of power and profit; it must lie in the welfare of our people. A socialist economic order must provide the German people with an economic and social framework that accords with the rights and dignity of the individual, serves the intellectual and material development of our nation, and secures peace both at home and abroad.

The economy must unlock the productive forces of both the individual and the community. The starting point of all economic activity is the recognition of the individual. Personal freedom in the economic sphere is closely related to freedom in the political sphere. Efforts to shape and guide the economy must not deprive individuals of their personal freedom."
​

The German CDU’s “Ahlen Program,” for instance, also states that:

“Legally acquired property that is not used in a politically abusive manner must be respected within the framework of general laws” (ibid., 4), later further clarifying that: “In industry, commerce and skilled trades, private entrepreneurship must be preserved and further promoted” (ibid.).

Pope St. John Paul II stated in Laborem Exercens that he supported “socialisation versus collectivisation”:


Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981) | John Paul II

The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism …

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production …

The many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church take on special significance: proposals for joint ownership of the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of businesses…​

Thanks so much for posting this, especially so others may see what I believe is a moral approach under Judeo-Christian teachings. IMO, no political/economic system should operate like a casino minus keeping people's welfare first and foremost as Jesus commanded us to do.

 

[Father Heathen]

The BEAUTIFUL roads that socialism has provided in Cuba.

Cuba is 3rd world. Try a first world example such as a European country.

 

[Heyo]

Ken, the statements in your post show that you don't understand that there are two basic factors involved when plans, like socialism or capitalism, succeed or fail. They are (1) the plan itself, (2) the execution of the plan.

And (3) outside influences.
According to the Domino Theory the US feared the success of communism. I.e. if a country switched to communism/socialism it had to face immediate reaction in form of propaganda, embargoes, sanctions, subverting action by the CIA up to military invention.
Socialism never had a chance to evolve and compete as an economic system.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, the statements in your post show that you don't understand that there are two basic factors involved when plans, like socialism or capitalism, succeed or fail. They are (1) the plan itself, (2) the execution of the plan.

The execution of the plan is the responsibility of government. So, you can't say that socialism (the plan) failed unless you can show that it was tried (the execution factor) by an effective, un-corrupted government and it failed. And you can't do that because we humans have yet to invent an effective, un-corrupted government.

Government regulation is needed for the competitive, free markets for the same reason that rules and officials are needed in professional sports: All other things being equal, if players could cheat and get away with it, they'd win the game. The cheating in the USA's free market is called "fraud."

The fraud is abundant, but not out of control, if manufactured products are involved because the buyers are lots of well-informed consumers spending their own money. But it's impossible to be a well-informed consumer if the service is healthcare; and, if insurance is involved, they aren't spending their own money. They don't even know what service they need.

In the current system, because they are dealing with deep-pocket insurance companies and not individual consumers spending their own money:

-- doctors over-treat to keep their malpractice insurance costs down
-- doctors, hospitals and drug manufacturers justify price gouging
-- malpractice lawyers and their clients file fraudulent claims

And here's the kicker --- the deep-pocket insurance companies benefit from overcharges and outright fraud because they can pass the cost along to consumers and add a percentage for profit.

I think you are estimating my understanding without enough information about me or what I know. As a matter of fact, I know how a country, like Venezuela, logically went from a failed capitalistic country to a worse socialistic country

Government regulation is needed. Governmental control is not. Laws are needed, governmental businesses are not.

But I'm sure you know that government can be just as corrupt.

Did you know that the CDC owns vaccine patents and gets the profits thereof?

 

[Kenny]

Cuba is 3rd world. Try a first world example such as a European country.

And compare the European impact vs US impact. There is a reason that England got out of the European Common Market. And there is a reason why more and more Canadians cross the border for medical care.