Socialism -- really?

gusto

Registered Member
#21
So if someone is a pragmatist they are liberal thus conservatives......are not?:-/
------


You couldn't be more wrong. Free market solutions hardly chain and restrain, and it's silly to think Democrats bring in policy that is going to be successful and Republicans HAVE to oppose it. They've opposed Obama's polices because they will in all likelyhood fail. Not sure who you're talking about, but the comments I've read are that they believe his policies WILL fail, not HOPING they will fail....big difference.
Cons don't tend to be pragmatic because they have to reject policy that could solve a problem because it does not satisfy the conservative ideolgy. You just have to look at the people who are being drummed out of the Republican party for not toeing the party line to know that's the truth. I watched Newt on Utube stating he hoped that Obama would fail and then went on to say he already has.LOL. It's not silly to suggest that the republicans have to oppose,you just have to look at the record since Obama came to power. They are not known as the party of NO for nothing. Free market solutions as you say are just the tip of the conservative policy iceburg. There is a lot more to governing a country than freemarket solutions. There is no such thing as a free market anyway. It's just a myth. Since Teddy Roesevelt put the boots to the free market monopolies a century ago American commerce has been regulated and restrained by a host of laws. When those regulations are relaxed we see what happens. They destroyed the economy of the world in 1929 and they came within a whisper of doing it again in 2008.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#22
I think what you are missing Sim is how many of those "free businesses" are regulated, taxed, and given the heavy hand of government when ever they do something government doesn't like.

Sure they may not be directly owned by the government, but most of them are controlled by the government.
Yes. But that's hardly something Obama started. There have always been taxes. Even the founding fathers were not anti-taxes, although they didn't introduce an income tax; they too believed the state has a reason to exist, even if that should be a small, but powerful state that makes sure law and property is protected -- and that this state needs taxes.

You may give good reasons for lower taxes and fewer regulation, all nice and fine, and I could give you good reasons for stronger regulations. That would be a serious discussion. But as long as you cling to mere ideological slogans you probably don't even understand yourself, just like for some reason, we won't get anywhere with that discussion.

If you want to engage in an intelligent discussion, then give me good reasons for fewer regulation, but stop using hyperbole and simply counter-factual hatemongering labels like "socialism". A few regulations don't make socialism.

If you stopped seeing everything in black and white terms, you might learn one thing or two, and maybe teach me a few things too. That would be a win-win scenario for both of us. Throwing around labels like "socialism" and hyperbolic BS like "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST, AND SOCIALISM IS ANTI-AMERICAN!!!!1111" is not.

socialism is the opposite of liberty.

America was founded on liberty and individual freedom. Not government control of every aspect of your life via taxes, permits, regulations and other such nonsense.
You are right, socialism IS the opposite of liberty. The point is, even despite all regulations and taxes, you still have a 97% free system and only 3% "socialism" -- so you are fighting a windmill here. Genuine socialism collapsed in 1989/90 and has never come back since. You are hunting phantoms.

Regardless of that, there are good reasons to support certain regulations or public welfare systems (which, as I have to say again, don't equal "socialism"). We can have an intelligent debate about the pros and cons of such regulations or systems, I am sure you, pro2A, can name many good arguments against them. But just throwing around silly labels and ideological fundamentalist slogans won't bring us anywhere.
------
Certainly, the takeover of GM doesn't make the US a socialist country for example. But to object to it BECAUSE it's a socialist policy and BECAUSE it's heading the country in that direction is a valid objection. Just because the market is still 99.8% free as you state, doesn't invalidate the objection. You're objecting to someone calling it socialism because you're looking at the most narrow definition of the word and applying the socialism objection to the entire country.
When you have vanilla icecream with chocolate chips, don't you think it would be silly if someone said "I love vanilla and hate chocolate, that's why I won't eat THIS CHOCOLATE ICECREAM!"? Of course it's legitimate not to like vanilla icecream with chocolate chips, but calling it "chocolate icecream" would not just be wrong, it would be silly.

Especially if he started a new icecream business next to your shop, selling vanilla only and starting campaigns mocking your shop "because of this chocolate infection that is spreading" and "they are ONLY selling chocolate icecream", telling every costumer that he won't get any vanilla in your shop, while all you do is putting some chocolate chips into the cream you sell, on request of your costumers.

Ok, that's maybe a silly example, but I hope you get my point.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#23
Cons don't tend to be pragmatic because they have to reject policy that could solve a problem because it does not satisfy the conservative ideolgy.
This is why you shouldn't speak in absolutes, it's ridiculous. You're making blanket statements based on what YOU think will work. You're ignoring the possibility that they're rejecting Obama's policies because they don't think will work, not because it doesn't fill some model in your head.
------
I watched Newt on Utube stating he hoped that Obama would fail and then went on to say he already has.LOL. It's not silly to suggest that the republicans have to oppose,you just have to look at the record since Obama came to power. They are not known as the party of NO for nothing.
From what I saw, he said he was going to fail and has. I don't see any information to contradict that, do you? I mean, the unemployment rate as of May is 9.4%. Granted, he's only been in office 5 months, but it's way to early to say he's been successful.
------
Free market solutions as you say are just the tip of the conservative policy iceburg. There is a lot more to governing a country than freemarket solutions. There is no such thing as a free market anyway. It's just a myth. Since Teddy Roesevelt put the boots to the free market monopolies a century ago American commerce has been regulated and restrained by a host of laws. When those regulations are relaxed we see what happens. They destroyed the economy of the world in 1929 and they came within a whisper of doing it again in 2008.
Actually, no. What destroyed our economy in 1929 had nothing to do with relaxing regulations, it had a lot to do with the signing of the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act. Protectionism doesn't work. The problems in 2008 also had a lot to do with the government guaranteeing housing loans to people who couldn't afford them. Blaming it on capitalism or unregulation is looking at the situation with blinders on.
 
Last edited:

kcdad

Registered Member
#24
History has shown time and time again that socialism fails. That's not to say capitalism is perfect, or that some regulation isn't necessary. It's not that it's evil, it's a system that doesn't work.
Socialism works ALL the time. Most families are run in a Socialist manner.

The problem with Socialism or Communism working in this country is that people can't let go of the "mine mine mine" whiney attitude about things that we hate in our children.
------
Capitalism is the opposite of liberty too. It presumes that an elite cadre will exploit labor and other natural resources and become oligarchs. The vast majority of the population becomes their serfs dependent upon wage slavery for survival.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#25
Socialism works ALL the time. Most families are run in a Socialist manner.

The problem with Socialism or Communism working in this country is that people can't let go of the "mine mine mine" whiney attitude about things that we hate in our children.
------
Capitalism is the opposite of liberty too. It presumes that an elite cadre will exploit labor and other natural resources and become oligarchs. The vast majority of the population becomes their serfs dependent upon wage slavery for survival.
We're not talking about a small association like a family.

That's not capitalism, it doesn't mean the market is unregulated, it means the market provides for and sets the price of goods and services. Doesn't mean the owners of businesses are allowed to exploit their workers.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#26
We're not talking about a small association like a family.

That's not capitalism, it doesn't mean the market is unregulated, it means the market provides for and sets the price of goods and services. Doesn't mean the owners of businesses are allowed to exploit their workers.
I agree with you, the free market is by far more efficient and superior to a central command economy, when it comes to allocating goods and services and creating prices.

But I also think the free market has certain disadvantages: Some people who are lacking skills or education may get so few payment for their low-paid jobs they can hardly have a life in dignity. Also, if everything is left to the market, there are vicious circles of poverty. Also, very often, you are not paid for your work in a free market, but for your money -- the more you have, the easier it is to make even more.

That's why I think, although price control and business should generally be left to the free market, a few social welfare programs should correct the extreme inequalities that come with a free market. I'm not in favor of making everybody equal regarding material wealth, but I am in favor of equality of opportunities.
 

kcdad

Registered Member
#27
We're not talking about a small association like a family.

That's not capitalism, it doesn't mean the market is unregulated, it means the market provides for and sets the price of goods and services. Doesn't mean the owners of businesses are allowed to exploit their workers.
Where does that happen? The market doesn't determine anything in our economic system. Advertising and the news media do.

And with a built in unemployment rate of 5-8% (or more), where is the power of the laborer to negotiate his selling of his labor.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#28
I agree with you, the free market is by far more efficient and superior to a central command economy, when it comes to allocating goods and services and creating prices.

But I also think the free market has certain disadvantages: Some people who are lacking skills or education may get so few payment for their low-paid jobs they can hardly have a life in dignity. Also, if everything is left to the market, there are vicious circles of poverty. Also, very often, you are not paid for your work in a free market, but for your money -- the more you have, the easier it is to make even more.

That's why I think, although price control and business should generally be left to the free market, a few social welfare programs should correct the extreme inequalities that come with a free market. I'm not in favor of making everybody equal regarding material wealth, but I am in favor of equality of opportunities.
I couldn't agree with more, I have no problem with social nets and regulation of businesses to the extent that they are not exploiting their workers.
 

gusto

Registered Member
#29
The way I look at it is very simple. We need large numbers of workers in our society that are very low paid. For example a couple that both work at housekeeping jobs at a motel. They don't make enough money to keep body and soul together and as far as supporting a couple of children, forget it. However these people and millions like them are necessary for the functioning of our society as a whole. So the country has a few choices that can be made. They can leave things as they are and have an entire class of working wage slaves and all the trouble associated with that. Crime, Ghettos, Political instability, etc.
The minimum wage could be raised to insure that working will pay the worker enough to lift him out of poverty. This will always be opposed by the haves in the society because all they see is an increase in the cost of services for them.
The government can supply social benefits that enable the worker to have dignity and respect for themselves and their country. This is what we try to do in Canada. Let me give you an example. I know a couple who both work but at low paying jobs. They have 2 children. They live in a very nice apartment in a building that is a housing co-op where the rent is geared to income. Many people live there that make good incomes and they pay market value for their apartments. This works very well because you are not throwing a lot of really poor people in together and creating a poor peoples ghetto. Of course this being Canada their health care costs are very minimal. They recieve subsidized child care for their children while they are out working. This is important as it enables poor people to go to work and not just throw up their hands and go on welfare. They also get a child credit from the federal government that is geared to their income and tax rebates also.
Even though they have really low paying jobs they were able to buy a new toyota for their transportation needs.
Is this socialism? I don't think so. The government is actually making up the difference in what I think the Capitalistic business' where they work should be paying them.
 

kcdad

Registered Member
#30
The way I look at it is very simple.



Is this socialism? I don't think so. The government is actually making up the difference in what I think the Capitalistic business' where they work should be paying them.
" We need large numbers of workers in our society that are very low paid."

Who is "WE"?

"these people and millions like them are necessary for the functioning of our society as a whole. " THESE people... thank God you aren't one of THEM, eh?

Is this Socialism? Well duh, yeah.
 
Top