Socialism does not compete with Democracy?

Question

it competes with Capitalism.. so why so much fear over a few social programs? Our Democratic Republic was designed to balance out the best qualities of all ideologies.. so why not let it do it's job?

to specify, I believe pure socialism is a horrible idea to try and implement.. but pure capitalism has it's draw backs as well.. we live in a world where balance is what will prevail.

I do agree that the government has issues.. as for me personally I believe in many cases the money is already there.. we just need to actually focus on fixing the programs we have.. education would be one such area.. there is a plethora of money there.. but the way we use it is grossly ineffective.. I see no reason to raise taxes on such things until we have sat down and actually looked at the issues and tried to fix them instead of both parties running around pointing the finger.

as for those that fear the lax work ethic that can come with socialism.. that's why I say balance with capitalism! practically speaking it should be tipped towards the side of capitalism.. that keeps people motivated.. but that doesn't mean there should be 0 social programs in the equation.

Answer 1

It's not quite mutually exclusive.

The problem we have, pip, is that many people disagree over what government should be running exclusively versus having a free market. I really fear governement running healthcare, simply because you would be doing two things - having bureaucrats decide the priority of your care and forcing people to buy coverage they may not want.

Look to our northern neighbors. The ones with money (after the crazy Canadian income tax rates) come here for care. Why? Because the system sucks there.

I believe on many levels we need smaller government, which is against the goals of socialism.

As an insurance professional (though not in the healthcare arena), government has traditionally insured the 'unininsurable' exposures, such as flood insurance. Health insurers (as highly regulated as they are) aren't going away, unless legistated to do so.

Why not let the market do its job, if it's willing?

Answer 2

In my opinion, you are correct in your thinking. Any social program that provides a net gain will benefit capitalism. Examples of such programs are funding education and infrastructure.
All entitlement programs, however, consumes national wealth rather than expand it.
Programs for the poor should be designed to provide opportunity to rise up out of poverty, not perpetuate poverty as the current welfare program does.
Retirement programs should be required of each American, but not though a government entity as the Social Security System of today. The current Social Security System takes hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy each year, and thus shrinks the economy. If that retirement money went into privately control funds, it would expand the economy at a great rate.
Socialists, however, don't take a practical look at socialism. There really isn't any difference between a socialist and a pirate. The socialists in Russia seized the country's wealth during the revolution. These Bolsheviks when on to kill every single elitist in Russia. This purge killed over 20 million people. The notion behind this was that the revolutionaries would each have an equal share of the country's wealth as a result.
Guess what? It took these socialists only 70 years to consume the wealth of the 20 million people they murdered.
Socialism doesn't work. Entitlement programs don't work. The current social security system doesn't work. The way the current social security system works is the elderly must live off the wealth of the young, not the wealth they generated during their working lives.
Liberals who want to make the world a better place need to design programs that create a net gain, not consume wealth. Only then will everyone enjoy prosperity.

Answer 3

Because socialism didn't create the revolutions that built this country. Socialism didn't foster the industrial age. Socialism didn't create the technology boom and the highest GDP in the world.

Socialism seeks to TAKE, not give. In 2007, in this country, you will not find Americans too willing to part with their money via huge tax increases to fund all of the garbage that comes out of Washington. The worst part of it is, the people who do the most complaining and call the government inept, are the very ones who want to give it more power--socialized medicine, refusal to give up trying to "save" social security themselves and all while proving again and again that the government is incapable of balancing as many social programs as we've created. Social security is broke, welfare is broke, the school systems are broke and at this point in our history, the two parties can't even come to agreement on how to keep it's own military alive. How in the world can we honestly give them more power over us?

Ever notice how tax breaks increase spending and general consumer happiness? How do you think we pay for social programs? Taxes. Tax this, tax that...if it's not being taxed right now, it either hasn't been discovered or someone's paying someone else off on the inside. There is no more room in Americans' paychecks to keep taking more.

I'm not saying that 100% capitalism is the way to go, but let's be real with ourselves for a minute and agree that whatever kind of ideas we can muster, there's a good chance the government will "f" it up.

Answer 4

Balance was NOT the intention of the founding fathers. Nor was economic equality.

Read the Federalist Papers and you will see very clearly that "a little democracy" is a dreaded and hated thing.

True, socialism competes with capitalism, BUT both have to exist in a political environment that fosters their individual agendas.

A little socialism breeds more socialism and the end result is an over regulated and taxed free market capitalism where socialism is free to expand.

If our system of government WERE doing its job, the impact and influence of socialism would be held to a minimum. That is, if our constitution as originally written were enforced, socialism wouldn't stand a chance to get the foot hold it has achieved in America in the last 80 years.

There IS a difference between socialism and a free and self-governing Representative Republic, and the sad situation is that apparently neither you nor most of America can see the difference any more.

Answer 5

Moderate socialism implemented in a capitalist economic environment is designed to help the people of the country. What's wrong with that? How can a country claim to be the greatest nation in the world when they are happy to let people starve in the streets and would rather their countrymen not have adequate healthcare available to them?

More needs to be learned about socialism - or moderate social programs in America.

Answer 6

You are correct. Most people don't distinguish socialism from the form of government known as Communism. It is true that most Communist governments utilize socialism to implement their social policies.

Democracy and socialism do not compete and in fact, there are some forms of socialism that are implemented in a democracy. Hence the "social" programs, utilized by the Democratic government, to benefit the group.

Answer 7

Maybe it's because those social programs are not funded equally. If you want to tax Everyone the same and have those programs then I'm for it!

Answer 8

You Might Be A Democrat If ...

You think the rich can get richer off people who have no money.

You've named your kids "Stardust" or "Moonbeam."

You've tried to argue that all of societies problems are based on the
fact that McDonald's, by law, only has to pay $5/hr.

If you utter the phrase "There ought to be a law" at least once a week.

If you have ever used the phrase "protecting prisoner's rights".

If you find yourself nodding vigorously and saying "someone finally said
it right" during an episode of Oprah.

You've ever referred to the Military/Industrial Complex during a
conversation.

You know you never laughed as a kid, the world was in just too
bad a shape.

All of your 1970's "Beware of Global Freezing" signs now have
"Beware of Global Warming" on the back.

Your friends told you how much fun you had at the Grateful Dead show,
but your not sure what year you saw them.

You file suit against the mall rent-a-cops for posting signs stating
that your bags are subject to inspection.

You've ever argued that "you can't legislate morality".

Referred to the Founding Fathers as "those aristocratic, chauvinistic,
lily white, slave owning, land stealing oppressors of indigenous
personnel".

You argued that a few more months of sanctions and Sadam Hussein would
fold like rookie poker player.

You know more than 2 people who have a degree in "Womyn's Studies."

You've ever said "But look at all the good Ted Kennedy has done for
the women of this country!"

You blame things on "The Man."

You believe that Bart Simpson only needs a little more affection.

You've ever stared at a wall and said "Now THAT is definitely man's
inhumanity to man!"

You argue that the only flaw with Marx is that Russia was an agrarian
society.

You've ever called the meter maid a Fascist.

You are giddy at the prospect of the return of bell bottoms.

You argue that the Second Amendment only refers to Federally organized
militias.

You view Jane Fonda as a courageous heroine with strong convictions.

You view Hootie and the Blowfish as the bedrock of culture refinement
for the 90's.

After looking at your pay stub you can still say "America is
undertaxed."

You've ever said "We really should call the ACLU about this."

You've ever referred to "the glass ceiling."

You know 2 or more people with "concrete proof" that the Pentagon is
covering up: Roswell the Kennedy assassination the CIA's role in
creating AIDS.

You came of age in the '60s and don't remember.

You've ever owned a VW bug or ridden in a Microbus.

You own something that says Dukakis for President, and still display
it.

You believe it because "Dan Rather wouldn't lie about something this
important."

You ever based an argument on the phrase, "But they can afford a
tax hike because..."

You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "is a victim of Draconian
budget cuts."

You've ever argued that with just 1 more year of welfare that person
will turn it around and get off drugs.

You think Lennon was a brilliant social commentator.

You keep count of how many people you know in each racial or ethnic
category.

You are outraged that Baseball Players make millions and the poor clerk
at the unemployment office only makes 28 bucks an hour doing such good
work.

You believe that an elected official attending religious services is a
violation of the separation of Church and state.

You believe that a few hundred loggers can find another career, but the
defenseless spotted owl must live in its preferred tree.

You believe our government must do it because everyone in Europe does.

You think that Al Gore macherena thing was a laugh riot.

You feel that Green Peace is misunderstood.

You keep your PC dictionary with you at all times so as not to offend.

You think communism will catch on once society has evolved.

You've tried to argue in favor of anything based on "Well, they're
gonna do it anyway so...."

You've ever stated "How does what he does in his personal life have
any bearing on doing his job?"

You don't understand all the commotion about Whitewater, Vince Foster,
selling US foreign policy for campaign contributions, it's just
politics, right?

Answer 9

First of all what is it about socialism that has any merit! Since when did bureacracies ever run efficiently!!

What happens in socialism is a few people run the institutions very ineffectually because they have no incentive to modernize or innovate!

Dude, stop listening to your commie professors..they're way wrong!!!

Answer 10

Beacause socialism = spending money on the public, and spending money on the public isn't as fun as spending it to benifit some massive corporation, or oil tycoon, or crooked CEO, who will inturn, will bankroll your candidacy.

This is not an exaggeration; this is the free market, this is capitalism, this is American Democracy.