You're dealing with a country of people who have read no socialist/Marxist theory, have been raised from birth that socialism/communism is the ultimate evil, and think any goverment program or tax is socialism.
I think you're expecting too much.
And let me guess this was a business class?
2007-11-14 13:08:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
the best kind of healthcare is not the private ones- taking into acc that doc with more exp has better skills, so i think the goverment ones has it, cos they get to see more pple due to the cheap rates, and that will brush up their skills a lot better
Education is not a luxuary- thinking u have to study even after school, where once u end work u end work, and memorising the facts in textbooks is another issue altogether
the rich should pay more taxes- the cost a gucci t blouse is 1500 and the tax they are paying is just one of the suitcase in the cardboards, so it really dun hurt paying more
social security should not be privatize- then social security will cost more, so why are we paying tax? the tax are meant for certain order in the neighbourhood and country
governments should not provide for the poor, instead help the poor- providing will only encourage lazy bumbs, they need to work 12hrs a day which is very normal for asia like people in japan or korea, help the elderly ones they will be poor bcos they can't work
labor laws should inhibit business owners- then there will be order, for all you know it is to protect the individual from lousy owners that cheat in their business and clean up people's wallet and run away with it
mini wage do not hurt the economy- it will set a certain standard for the economy, and push the people to work harder to earn that kind of $$, if not you can work 12hrs a day and paid only $1 a day for lousy reasons like, the company is not doing well so i am not paying much....
Socialist is just more critical on the views of the sociaty, well with relavant basis and truth, but not extreme to cos disorder into the sociaty, socialist are fine
2007-11-14 21:18:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by chocolate929 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you were probably blindly labeled, but I'll address each of these, and people can call me whatever the hell they want.
"The best kind of healthcare is private healthcare." It IS "the best" kind, but the unfortunate truth is that less and less people are able to afford it. Healthcare needs to be addressed, and we need to start with the insurance companies.
"Education is a luxury, not a right." This is a 50/50 topic. A certain level of education is a right, but higher education, graduate and post-graduate educations are not for everyone. Still the criteria should be more intelligence-based and less financially-based.
"The rich pay more than their fair share of taxes." TRUE. I thoroughly disagree with increasing the tax rates with increased income and assets. The tax rates should be flat, so that everyone pays the same percentage. That's the only fair way to manage the taxes.
"Social Security should be privatized." NO, but Social Security does need to be restructured and taken back to what it once was and what it was intended to be. Get the drug-addicts and laggards off of SSD and SSI and give the retirees and truly needy the money they deserve.
"The government is under no obligation to provide for the poor." I think the government has a LIMITED obligation to assist the poor, but not provide for them. People hit hard times and sometimes need assistance, but government assistance shouldn't become a way of life.
"Labor laws inhibit business owners too much." In some ways, I agree. I think the rights of the business owner are being taken away, and while the government is claiming it wants to promote small business enterprises, it's obvious that some laws are making it harder and less appealing for small business owners. The boss should always be the boss, and being the owner should count for something. The employee should never have more rights than the owner.
"Minimum wage laws hurt the economy." Not really, but minimum wage should more frequently reflect the cost of living. The raises in federal minimum wage are too rare to keep pace with the economy, and raises in the wage usually are not equal to the increases in living costs.
I'm a rationalist. I don't ascribe to any other political ideology. I dislike conservatives and hate liberals, because neither of those extremes is right. Our government, like Social Security, needs to be restructured.
2007-11-14 21:16:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Disagreeing with some, but not all of the entries on your list would probably be supported by socialists, however, that alone does not make you a socialist. People, like those writing the first two answers usually have no idea what socialism really is. They are just using the word as a label for people with which they do not agree. Believe what you want, but make sure you research your position. That way when ignorant people try to place you in a category with a label, you will be able to laugh in there faces.
2007-11-14 21:07:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sordenhiemer 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
Yes apparently you were called a socialist because you are a caring compassionate person. If that is how the hysterical right want to define socialism it can hardly be considered an insult.
It would also have to be considered the standard of developed world government since every developed nation provides safety net healthcare (although some like the US should provide more), public education, progressive taxation, unemployment and retirement welfare, labor and wage protection.
When whoever called you a socialist wants to demonstrate his/her ignorance by screeching for a Smithian lasseiz faire economy my advice is let them.
2007-11-14 21:13:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sageandscholar 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital
No, the fact that you do NOT agree with those statements, does not in fact make you a socialist.
That mean that you agree with SOME socialized programs , i.e. healthcare, education, poverty reduction, etc. The stand you have taken in terms of workers rights has absolutely NOTHING to do with socialism. The idea that employees of a company should be able to expect a safe work environment free from danger or harrasment and to be compensated fairly is hardly a socialist idea. Or maybe we should go back to having 6 year olds working the mines. But I digress...
The idea that you are against capitalism in its entirety is NOT inheirant in your statements. So no, I wouldn't call you a socialist. I think people just don't really understand what it means exactly.
2007-11-14 21:19:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by slushpile reader 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
communism is an economic system where all means of production are owned by the State. Socialism is an economic system where certain key means of production are owned by the State. Both flow out of the writings of Karl Marx. Socialism was defined by Marx in his book "Das Kapital" (Capital). Communism was defined by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in the "Communist Manifesto". Both systems are alternatives to the capitalist system. Communism has failed utterly, culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. That was the first nation to adopt communism as an economic system,beginning in October of 1917. There are but three communist countries left: the Peoples Republic of China (mainland China), the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Cuba.
There are many socialist countries still around. The three nations which make up Scandinavia, some other European countries, Mexico and other nations of Latin America and several in Africa.
2007-11-14 21:06:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
No - those are not policies of our current government and you are correct to reject them as an American. They are quite radical deconstructions of business regulations that protect the free market from abuse.
They are also counter to the "safety net" provisions that our government provides to its citizens.
The US is not a socialist country - it is a free market economy. The US does not take over troubled businesses to run them as France did with it's airlines and auto industry in the past. In fact the government throws tax money back at troubled businesses and buys the items that it uses on the free market. The CIA World Factbook declares the US economy to be a free market economy - NOT SOCIALIST.
2007-11-14 21:16:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by oohhbother 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Per Britannica Online: Socialism is a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.
Socialism refers to both a set of doctrines and the political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. Although doctrinal aspects loomed largest in the early history of socialism.
Per dictionary.com: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Go to this website: http://sp-usa.org/ for further info- see if you fit with those doctrines.
2007-11-14 21:12:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are not necessarily a Socialist, but neither are you a Conservative. Socialism is about state-control of the means of production, as well as believing in equality of economic outcome. You say you don't believe that the best kind of healthcare is private-healthcare. If by that you mean you favour a state-controlled health-service, then that could be seen as a Socialist policy. A belief in a welfare-state could be seen as a Socialist policy too - but not uniquely so. Even some conservatives on most issues or economic liberals would concede that the State should provide limited-aid but they might emphasis that it should be measured so as not to disincentivise work like in France and Germany where they are so lavish as to clearly do this (despite some reforms in Germany helping to cut unemployment). Admittedly, I am looking at this from a European perspective. After 1945, many European governments believed they needed to nationalise much of the economy in case of another emergency. This emergency never transpired in terms of a major war in Europe involving the big nation states. As such, some politicians have advocated privatisation, especially given a perception in some countries like Britain and Ireland and Eastern Europe that public-sector monopolies were inefficient and gave the unions too much power. Ironically then, some in Europe who only advocate minor steps in this direction would be judged as "rightwing" in Europe but perhaps "leftwing" in the US because they would favour some role for the State in the economy or in terms of a less limited welfare-state. That is why in Europe, despite what American commentators would say, most would probably regard BOTH American parties as "rightwing" in comparison. I don't think either of the main parties are Socialist by any stretch of the imagination. I also don't think you are necessarily a Socialist. I would need to know more about your views to determine whether you are or not.
You are a Socialist if:
You believe in a major role for government in the economy in terms of state-owned companies.
You believe in equality of economic outcome rather than just opportunity.
You believe in an expansive welfare-state.
You believe in redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor through the income-tax system.
You believe the unions should have a lot of power.
2007-11-14 21:17:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Paranormal I 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
They hate because it doesn't work, check out the USSR, it limits individual freedoms and Americans are notorious independent and don't want to rely on anyone or any entity other than themselves. I know I don't want to be paying for your health care, I pay for my own so why can't you. The wealthiest 1% pay over 50% of the taxes. Social security's rate of return is considerably less than what could have been seen in stocks. Minimum wage does hurt the economy, when minimum wages rise so does the price of everything else to compensate. It isn't a true raise.
2007-11-14 21:11:23
·
answer #11
·
answered by cmdrbnd007 6
·
1⤊
3⤋