SOCIALISM - if you like it, please read!!!?

Question

Please- no angry anti-socialists comments... I'm very interested in seeing what "good" things people have to say about socialism.

If you're a socialist, or kind of like one.... can you share with me WHY you are all for a socialistic society? Do you know someone in the lower class or on welfare, and have something to say about why socialism would be good for them....AND everybody else? (the rich and the poor)? Id like to hear your opinions... thanks

Answer 1

Here's what I like about socialism:

I like the idea of sharing. At least in the U.S., there is plenty of money and other resources, if allocated properly, to provide housing, medical care, education and other things we all agree are good, to every person, so I see no real reason to refuse to do so.

People's main argument against socialist ideas always have to do with the fact that some people don't deserve certain things. These are circular arguments, mostly, for instance, poor people don't deserve medical care because they're good-for-nothing, lazy, criminal, whatever. The arguments are always about the victims' character.

My point is that, good or bad character, it doesn't matter. You can treat bad people well, as well as (so-called) good people, and society as a whole will still benefit. That's why most people who actually study economics like some socialist ideas, because typically, increasing people's wages, benefits, and raising their standard of living decreases anti-social behavior like stealing, vagrancy and other problems. In almost every case, it's cheaper to provide a good standard of living early, than to intervene with police and social services later.

For instance, several cities have started to realize that it costs them a lot of money to chase after and repeatedly incarcerate mentally-ill, substance-abusing homeless people. One homeless guy in Oklahoma City costs the city over $200,000 a year in police, hospital and jail services. It would be cheaper to get him an apartment and a full-time social worker (for example).

One could go on and on about such things. It's far easier on your heart and conscience to be generous and kind to everybody, than to spend your days being judgmental, harsh and cruel to those you think don't measure up, and therefore are undeserving of good things.

If you are a Christian--and I am--you absolutely have to compare the mercy you receive through Christ's forgiveness with what you show others. Even though Jesus will always win this contest, you have no excuse, upon consideration, for treating anybody as being of lesser worth than you. To do so is hatred; it's a denial of Christ, and it's an insult to His mercy.

Answer 2

I am a Socialist (with a big S to differentiate from liberal/democratic socialists) because I think that capitalism is inherently injust, and that equality can only come through the creation of a classless society. I think everyone has a duty to his fellow man, and that the capitalist system of greed and self-gratification doesn't make anyone happy in the long run.

Answer 3

jj has posted that same answer to a half-dozen questions.

Most socialists agree on common ends but not common means. Some point to welfare states and call them socialism. I don't call them socialism. I point to voluntary cooperation and call that socialism.

Ben Tucker states that socialist ends "include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute."

It is this anti-social power to compel tribute - it is class rule - which makes it possible for one person to collect the profits on war, or pollution, or corruption, and force another person to suffer the losses.

If we abolish class rule, we can create systems where people control the decisions which affect their loves, and the same people both collect any profits and suffer the losses their decisions create.

Answer 4

Hi...

Excellent question.

The only thing good about Socialism is how it looks on paper... in practice it leaves much to be desired.

You'll note that people living under socialism tie boards to inner-tubes and brave shark infested waters to escape it.
I'd call this an "experienced vote against..."

The reason it doesn't work...? The Human Spirit and desire for liberty.

Warm regards,
Douglas

Answer 5

put simply socialism is the best solution for some problems and capitalism is the best solution for other problems, but NEITHER is the solution for everything, you just take from each system what works well

what is happening now is that some people are attempting to portray the US health care debate as an issue of all socialism or nothing at all, which is wrong

Answer 6

Frankly, our whole lives, everyone who is alive today, has lived in and is living in a "Socialist" society.

ANY society which collects taxes for the common good is a socialist society, it the definition. Some examples of American socialism:

The US Post Office
Organized Religion (exists on donations or "tithes", which are the same as taxes)
The US Military
Border Security
Low Income Healthcare Programs
Senior Citizen Healthcare Programs
Aid to Dependant Families (Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, etc)
The Food and Drug Adminstration
The National Transportation Safety Board
NASA (a private company but hired to work solely for the government on taxpayer money)
Public Schools
Child Protective Services
The Salvation Army
The Foreign Service Board
Intelligence Gathering Agencies
Public Libraries
UNICEF
The Peace Corps
The Tennessee Valley Authority
Law Enforcement and Investigation
Fire Prevention and Investigation
Criminal Incarceration, Parole and Probation Systems
Streets, Roads and Highway Maintenance
Street Light and Traffic Light Installation, programming and Maintenance;
Public Utilities, Sewer, etc.

While I do believe in innovation and market forces to generate income, there are certain industries which just should not be "For Profit" (or at least, not for "Windfall" Profit), Healthcare (at least the Insurance Companies end of it - they contribute nothing yet take the lion's share of profits), Municipalities (Electric and Water), Education, Old Age Caretaking of our Senior Citizens, etc.

The reverse side of making ALL these services "for Profit" is, only the rich would be able to afford to have a crime investigated, or have their housefire put out, or have their child looked at by a competent doctor, or taught by competent teachers. It levels the playing field without hamstringing the talented, the cream who will naturally rise to the top, regardless of money or social position.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story called "Harrison Bergeron", in which a completely equal society had been forcibly achieved. Artists were made to wear thick glasses to distort their clearer perception of the world, brighter than average people wore helmets which disrupted their trains of thought every so often, athletes wore weights to slow them down, overweight people given antigravity belts to achieve "average" weight, etc. They had achieved perfect euality for their citizens, but they paid a very heavy price for it.

No one in America is advocating complete and total Socialism IN America.

We are just fed up with insurance companies denying claims and letting people bleed to death in hospita emergency rooms because they didn't have the right "form filled out". We are sick of those same companies making medical decisions NOT with the welfare of the patient in mind (since they are not doctors themselves, they are not bound by the Hyppocratic Oath), but with only PROFIT in mind when approving or denying a claim, we are sick of hospitals in the US charging patients $35.00 for aspirin and drug companies not finding cures for diseases, just "treatments" (we understand there's no profit in CURES, which is why we need to remove the "profit" carrot from in front of drug companies as well.- I would suggest a policy in the US if you want to do drug R&D, thats fine, but you do it without government subsidy and the only drugs you are allowed to patent in the US will be "cures", not drugs which only relieve symptoms without addressing the cause of the symptoms. In other words, you cant patent treatments, only cures. You will also be required to "Match" your US drug prices with those of the least expensive country in the world you sell those drugs to. If you sell aspirin in India for a dime, I better get it for a dime in Phoenix as well.

Answer 7

I am a STRONG anti-socialist. I respect the wishes of the questioner to a point. I still reserve the right to answer, but I ANSWER their question.

Socialism is a wonderful dream. The sentiments of socialism are very attractive and I really wish such a thing were possible. It is like "democracy", in that it seems like a wonderful thing to do, but in practicality, it is impossible (YET!)

Socialism blames the failed socialist countries on the corruption of the leaders. It is something like giving a full art studio to a two-year old.

We aren't capable of it, we aren't ready for it.

There are no perfect circles in reality.

Thank you for asking this question. I'll come back and read the answers. Most people who argue against socialism have never read any socialist works. It's unfortunate. There are some interesting and helpful ideas in them.

Answer 8

The following is a stock answer I've written to address the definition of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"; I believe it should be obvious enough why one would support socialism in the traditional definition.

One must be careful to make one's intended meaning
known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"
(as well as related terms) because they have undergone
polemic re-definition over the decades that causes a great
deal of confusion.

In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by a class of
"capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital,
or means of production used by workers other than the
capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political
system that favors this.

In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by the workers
themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives,
communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and
political system that favors this. One should note that this
does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole, nor does
it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it necessarily
imply a non-market form of organization; historically,
anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-market form
advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been an important
form of socialism.

In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership
and control of the means of production by the people as a
whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the
ownership and control of the means of production by the state,
or more broadly any form of central planning by the state.

In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private
(non-government) ownership of the means of production,
and more generally the absence of central planning by the
state.

Matters have become especially confused because these
terms have been used in ways that include both the traditional
sense and the later re-definition of the terms. Thus, Marxist-
Leninists will define "socialism" in the traditional sense, but
at the same time refer to examples of "socialism" in the later
re-definition, in order to gain support for totalitarian Bolshevik
regimes that actually destroy any examples of "socialism" in
the traditional sense; likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will
do the same, in order to support the belief that There Is No
Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic
despotism. (In this connection, one should note that according
to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a
transitional stage between capitalism and socialism/
communism, which will not exist until the state has withered
away to nothing.)

In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the
term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete
examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing as
positive examples dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile.
And just as with "socialism", some opponents of
"capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the
sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate
globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations,
international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is
the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by
most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market.

This effectively means that there are (at the least) three
common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism",
and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is
using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples
one refers.

One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used
by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state
ownership and control of the means of production in
varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships
such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist
dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This
extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the
state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private"
capitalist class to varying degrees.

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 9

Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.

Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).

Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.

Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.

Anti-democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents and false government.

Answer 10

What most idiots (neo-cons, even though they are really the same fat *** 32 year old who lives with their mother) on these forums think socialism is communism but socialism is where everyone gets equal oppurtunities but whatever sucess they get is their own and no-one elses.