Well, as Ive noticed alot of people making some random comment about how socialism is the downfall of modern society, I am interested in knowing what everyone's distaste for it is.

I'll be surprised if you get an intelligent answer. In the crudest sense it just means government. See if you can find anybody who wants to get rid of the DOD or Social Security, both as socialistic as anything Stalin ever conceived. Social Security was practically invented by a home grown socialist - Norman Thomas and was first presented in similar terms on the Socialist Party platform.

I guess if you want to be pure here's what my Webster's Dictionary says:



You can say we live in a mixed system although, as far as I know, all European countries that call themselves socialist do also. Just about everybody supports a mixture of socialism and capitalism and if they say otherwise they are probably lying.

A good definition of a corporate capitalist. Somebody who wants to privatise the profits and socialize the costs.

I beg to differ, Dingo. Many of our members are capabale of eloquently discussing this matter. (Good topic, btw, Kim). Of course, too many of the "man on the street" types couldn't tell you the difference between Socialism, Capitalism and a hole in the wall.



Found me! In my ideal world we'd have VERY little government. That would require a LOT of personal control and responsibility acceptance by idividuals, however. I don't see that happening anytime soon. That's why it is my ideal world. I understand the differences between "in theory" and "in practice."

I have no distaste for socialism whatsoever. I do believe that a fully socialist form of government is as unworkable as a fully capitalist form of government and recognize that most western democracies are a combination of both. Like Jaime, I'd prefer virtually no government (though I come from a more anarchist point of view where she's a die-hard libertarian), but also recognize that that is simply not going to happen in this country - or anywhere else - in the lifetime of anyone reading these words.

So, while we have to live in this world, I'd also be interested to know why the very notion of socialism strikes such fear into the hearts of so many otherwise stalwart individuals. Like Dingo, I don't believe I've ever heard a truly rational explanation for why various agencies, corporations, services, or utilities should not be run by a government - especially when governments can clearly do a far better job of some things than the private sector.

Um...no, I'm not. I'm not a die-hard anything. I'm very apathetic about most things.



I hate to get in this sort of debate, but I don't believe I've ever heard a truly rational explanation for why various agencies, corporations, services, or utilities should be run by a government. I know I'm not the only one that stood in line at the student aid office in college, the DMV, or any criminal or civil clerk's office (in my capacity as a paralegal) and thought, "This is what I get for my tax dollars? Wouldn't I be better off if I never had to hand it over in the first place?"

I'm not against socialism (or even communism) per se. What I'm really against is ineffiency and irresponsibility.

I believe that a free market is more efficient in peoples' use of time and money than any governmental system. There is little incentive for a government to be efficient in the use of money. People are much more careful with money that comes out of their own pocket than out of someone else's pocket.

Look at the USG. It's in debt to a tune of over 6 TRILLION dollars! That's over $21,000 debt for every man, woman, and child in the US. This fact alone is evidence that government doesn't know how to handle money. If any family or company had a similar type of debt hanging over it, it would not be able to survive for long.

I would agree though that certain projects can only be done by government. The military comes to mind. But the number of government programs needs to be as minimal as possible since they are so inefficient.

OK here's what I think is a better definition of socialism (from Merriam Webster, its the third definition):



I think modern socialism doesnt truly advocate the destruction of private property, and I think communism is more defined by that.



I see socialism as somewhere in between, where private property is owned but there is a little more emphasis on the common good. While I wish there was no need for a government to control anything, it seems that history and human nature dictate otherwise.

Well, anyway, still waiting to see why so many people hate socialism. This obviously stemming from the healthcare thread where at least two people were like "socialism = yuck", although no clear explanation why it is so.

I'm all for getting rid of social security. Or at least, massivly overhaul it to return it to what it was intended for....retirement. DoD. Nah, I'd keep it. thats our military.

Socialism, like a lot of people have said, is somewhere between capitalism and communisim.

Take for instance, Holland. Very socialist over there. My ancestors are from Holland (my last name is Dutch) and my Boss immigrated from Holland 10 years ago. So I ask him questions all the time...about where my family is from...

This is what he tells me. The top tax bracket is somewhere around 70%. US it's what...like 38? WIth that huge amount of income tax the gov't collects, they pay for programs like unemployment and social security.

Did you know, that it is more economical in Holland to NOT have a job and collect unemployment, than it is to work? Unemployment is huge in Holland. Why? Why bother working when the gov't supports you better than you could support yourself if you HAD a job.

Another example. I can't remember which country this is....I think it's Germany. But somewhere, no one actually owns a telephone. They RENT it from the gov't. I'm not talking about the phone line, I'm talking about the actual hardware that hangs on your wall. I tend to wonder if you get a choice, or if the gov't just ISSUES you a telephone.

Again though, most countrys have some socialist tendencies. Some are worse than others.

I believe that the distaste for socialism is really based on the degree of government control. We have evolved over the years in terms of levels of regulation / deregulation. I don't think that anyone can capably define the "right" level of government, but many people think they know it when they see it. Most capitalists just think that government is inherently inefficient, accountable to no one, corrupt and run by people who are not wise in the ways of the business world. That being said, corporate America has hurt itself immensly in the recent years and must be reigned in. It will always be so (the negatives of both - that's why they need each other).

I read once that the fear of capitalism forces socialism to allow more freedoms and that the fear of socialism forces capitalism to allow more equality. Things tend to lurch towards one side or the other and the electorate tend to finally say, enough!

Mark

Hey, DP,

I guess you weren't around before the AT&T breakup. Nobody in this country owned telephone equipment either. The telephone company was a monopoly ensured by law.

If my memory serves, the top tax rate during and for a period after the Vietnam war was 75%. Ronald Reagan gets credit for bringing the top rates down to the under 40% range.

I'm no big fan of socialism, but capitalism certainly isn't the shining example of the best possible system either. It's better than most, though, mostly speaking. It's just that extreme greed leads to melt downs due to over gambling, crooked ways, and pretty much what has tanked the economy this time around--again.

After many years of union busting, welfare reforming, and safety net cutting, it seems that a stink is about to rise from the middle class that just might demand more socialistic programs. This situation has been cooking for about three years now. Actually, when you follow the numbers as to where the wealth of this nation is concentrating, you might be able to go back a couple of decades.

I believe there is another economic system that works better than anything we have now. It's just that we haven't discovered it yet. I kinda like the Star Trek system: no money. Synthesize what you want. Concentrate on your studies and careers. What the heck, we're blue skying here, right?

I think the most important thing (well, maybe not the most, but it's important anyway) is that we clean up Corporate America in terms of financial reporting. I am all for beefing up the SEC. Millions upon millions of Americans are counting on their 401(k) balances to supplement SS and we need to have better information regarding the performances of the companies that we invest in. I hope Bush bumps up the budget. He reversed field this year, but I read this morning that he supports raising the budget in 2004.

I think that enforcement of the rules is a great role for the government. Let businesses push the economy along and create jobs, but the government needs to be the cop.

Mark

I'm 24. So...no...I wasn't really around during the state run AT&T. But your right, about that and the pre-Regan tax brackets.

However, the direction we have moved since then, proves Marks' point about how fear of one pushes us further tword the other. It coudl be said that a fear of socialism is what made the gov't break up AT&T, or lower the tax bracket to < 40%

I LOVE what you said about Star Trek. I have often thought the same thing myself. "Wouldn't it be great if all we had to do to get a home cooked meal, is push a few buttons?" How great would it be if money didn't exist?

ST:TNG was the best series

--cheers

Socialism looks good its alluring to have government security. Under socialism a ruling class of bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the power of the state to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, socialism is a form of legalized theft. Socialism is only stealing from the productive to give to people who are either unwilling to work or are in fact, prevented from working by a system that wants to make more people dependant on the state.

Germany is a good example of capitalism and socialism. Following ww2 both West Germany and West Berlin turned to capitalism while East Germany and East Berlin turned to socialism. in the west living standards became much better and people prospered, in the east living standards went down hill.



Socialism is the enemy of freedom.

East Germany turned to communism, which is different.



And this is crap. Its not making anyone dependant on the state, its insuring that when someone falls on hard times they wont be left in a gutter to rot.



This is just funny. Do you realize how little freedom we have compared to other western countries? Freedom of speech comes to mind. How many countries are jailing dissidents, or giving their citizens secret trials? How many nude beaches to do we have in America, and how many are there in France? Why cant one of our citizens drink until they are 21, but in most other countries the age is 18 (or not enforced)? How is that for freedom? How many people ask you for your state issued ID card in this country (for buying cigarettes, alcohol, to write a check, to get into a nightclub or bar, etc.), and how many will ask you in Germany (and certainly for nothing as trivial as buying cigarettes)?



http://holland.jobserver.org/
It says that the highest tax bracket (meaning there is a graduated tax system) is 60%. And I lost the link, but it said that average income was about 20,000 (whatever their currency is). Which means that most workers pay about 38% in taxes.



Unemployment in Holland is about 6.9%, which isnt "huge". Its not great, but I hardly think its because people are getting rich off their welfare system. I am tired of people thinking that any sort of welfare means benefitting the lazy. People dont get rich of welfare, if they did we'd all be doing it (ha. I bet people are tired of me saying that). Its unfortuante that people abuse the system, but is that an excuse to let the majority who benefit from it suffer?

DP,

ST:TNG was written during a time when great hopes for our abilities to evolve economically were in the air. JLP was a role model for management, Jordy for engineers, Troy for psychologists. The Borg was, of course, Microsoft Right now the metaphor might more closely fit IBM Global Services and its notion of grid computing (you rent everything). Just plug into the grid and draw computing resources like plugging in for electricity.

The original, academic idea of grid computing is to share computing resources on the public network (Internet). Since no money changes hands, we might think of this as a sort of socialistic, or socially responsible, model. The universities, worldwide, want to explore and share knowledge without economic strings.

The IBM model could be thought of as the capitalistic side: provide the computing utility for profit.

If grid computing becomes like the electricity grid, perhaps the analogy carries through. We can expect to be overly exploited, as what happened with California recently. However, perhaps opportunities for entrepreneurship will arise. Could we, as small business folk, offer up our unused CPU cycles for use in grander computing efforts? Will a trading scheme arise for CPU, memory, storage, and network resources? Grid computing stocks, bonds, and futures?

I frankly like the idea of grid computing. It's just clustering SMP machines together over a massive WAN. So, if I want to expand my company's computing ability, I just clickey clickey and off the processes go. I just pay for what is used. If business slows, the computing resources are released with a few more clickey clickies. And this all can be automated, too.

But the rub is that nothing happens this simply in real-world computing. What about security, performance, and capacity management? Who is watching all this magic happen, and who ensures service? What if the WAN itself bellies up or gets overused? I see this as an emerging source of highly paid employment and consulting opportunities.

The arguments for and against socialism or capitalism could become moot as the Information Age morphs into something not yet seen on this planet. The Matrix or ST:TNG? Whatever comes of this, the worldwide collaborations to bring it about are well underway.

You've got one heckuva future ahead, DP. Let's hope your elders don't fritter it away in useless wars over what ought to be obsolete issues. Watch out for those Klingons!

kimpossible,



Our unemployment rate just hit 6%. GWB has suddenly discovered economic problems and has shaken up the leadership. Job listings are getting almost shrill in their demands for exact fits plus extraordinary performance for half pay, plus current DoD security clearance.

Hmm, do you suppose? A military/industrial-based welfare system? Perhaps war is needed to reduce the excess population and create demand for more supporting goods (or "bads", as the case may be).

BTW, the Clinton quote is right on the money.

Lets all be aware of one thing.

No matter what the political leanings of the Government in power from Communism to Capitalism they all crumble down to the same thing.
Dictatorship in one form or another.

We in the 'civilised' world believe we have the right to choose our leader when in fact our leaders are already chosen, prior to election, by the major parties and the difference between their philosophies, once in power, is minimal.

Our elected leaders dont run the country, the permenant bureaucrats do.

Whats more, the freedom of the people to evict that leader during the term of office is next to non existant.
It only happened once here in Oz when the then PM Gough Whitlam was removed by the Governor General.
The Americans tend to shoot theirs.

So what do we have?.
A quasi democracy, quasi liberal, quasi socialist for an elected term.
A rose by any other name.........

Regards.....Alan

The state of Oregon had a proposition on the ballot during the last round of elections. It was a plan to convert the state to socialized medicine. Well let's compare socialized medicine to our current system. Right now, anyone who needs medical care for an emergency is treated, that is a law, so no one is left out of the loop under our current system. However, if a mandated system is put in place, does that mean that everyone has the same amount taken out of their pay? What about people like me that use medical services once every two or three years? Why should I pay the same amount as people that would abuse the system for every little cold and sniffle? And I work for the U.S. Government as an active duty military member, so my medical is covered 100%, while my family is covered 80% if they have to use non-military health care providers. Yet I still uses the doctor only when mandated(anthrax/hepatitis shots) and major illnesses. A socialized system encourages , they figure, it's free, what the heck. But it isn't free, not by a long shot. With socialized medicine, you are talking a minimum of 25% taken from our paychecks, before income taxes and social security are taken. This highlights the major failure of socialism. Socialists believe in cradle to grave government support. And the more tax money they get for programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, the more power they have over our lives. I want the power to make all financial decisions regarding my life, not the government.

The biggest problem with socialism: supply will never match demand.

Hear, hear Neil !

Also remember that socialism is a loss of personal freedom and choice.

Because having the largest military in the world doesnt threaten my life in the least. Hm.



If this were true England, France and rest of the EU would have fallen into some sort of abyss, never to return. Sometimes higher taxes improve the quality of your life, as well as those less fortunate than you. But of course, it would asking too much for you to see there are others suffering around you. I mean, as long as your money isnt going to help those lazy fat and stupid people getting rich off the welfare system.



Maybe Holland should go to war with us (not against us)



Why cant it? Just because the state owns things doesnt mean that production stops after a certain number. There can be a healthy mix of socialism and capitialism, it being that capitalism is an economic system and socialism is a form of government. They can co-exist.

Explain Las Vegas.

Economics has a basic law that the exchange of goods or service happens when the exchange improves the well being of those in the exchange. The two people who determine whether the well being has been improved as those involved in the exchange.

There are plenty of times where I think people have made an exchange which is to their detriment but I respect people's right to decide for themselves. An example could be gambling. One person may think the thrill of the possible has a greater value than a second person. It comes down to the individual to decide what maximizes their well being.



This is basic economics. If you have not had an opportunity to take a class in microeconomic or macroeconomics seek out the opportunity. Supply and demand curves are a tremendously valuable model for analyzing the interaction of the marketplace. No one person, or group of people, is smart enough to know what the demand (undersupply and oversupply) will be for a certain good or service. The market is always perfect at this by definition.

The role of government in a free market is an interesting debate. I do think a degree of socialism in a marketplace is a good idea. The level of this intervention by a government in the marketplace is something that needs to be debated. I believe the free market should be protected and the level of socialism should be kept at a very low level. The seperation of economics and government is a line which is so blurred that seperation is not possible.

That's a good question, what's the appropriate level of governmental role in a free market society.

I would agree that the lower the better. Some things that I feel the government should be in are large projects that contribute to the safety and increases the productivity of society. I've mentioned the military already. Building the highway system was a good one.

As for things like healthcare, social programs, retirement, education, I think those are better left up to the free market.

As for the casual gamblers, they see gambling as their form of entertainment. They choose to throw away their money and they are freely willing to do it.

As for compulsive gamblers, they have an addiction, so they are not careful with their money.

Perhaps we also have many politicians who are compulsive spenders (of other peoples' money)?

A basic principle I have held for the Unitied States is to have policies which are based on the concept of equal opportunity. The hallmark to this end, to me, has been public education. Socialistic as is it, it is the only plausible means I know of to achieve this.

I do not like socialism but this is an example government intruding in the free market is a good idea. Does anyone disagree with the concept of equal opportunity ? Is there any alternatives to public education ?

--------

I do think a military is required. I have some quibbles about the highways. Which transportation system should be subsidized and which should not ? There is a problem with fair competition once one system is subsidized. The benefits to productivity has been tremendous so it has been successful but maybe someone knows a creative way to get back on the right side of this line between socialism and a free market.

The "current system" that you are talking about is a Socialistic mandated system.



You tell us you and your family are part of a socialistic medical program and then bum rap socialistic medical programs. You and your family must be getting rotten medical service. Tell us about it so we will be warned.



So why are you in the military with all its socialistic benefits and mandates? You sound badly confused.

Well I obviously dont agree. What about the abuse of power in a free market system? In the earlier part of the 20th century, there were little to no regulations on businesses and the people suffered with 12-16 hour work days for little pay, there were numerous health hazards (and in some places still are, and esp. when big business mixes with the government, slaughter houses are the perfect example), and children were working. If not for the workers right movement (and the Communist and Socialist parties that most workers at that time were a part of) none of that would have changed.

Safety and health need to be regulated. Business needs to be regulated regarding the treatment of its employees, and in a free market this wouldnt happen (and sometimes I think it happens too little, even now.).

I am in agreement with you on the need to establish saftey standards, health standards, and age restrictions on employment. I do not consider any of these to be restrictive on a free market. Under all of these, there is no restrictions on the ability for people to compete with each other. It is good to establish health and saftey guidelines under which a market will operate.

I am a supporter of collective bargaining. It does not interfer with a market and free choice. Competing for wages is part of the market place and employees should use collective bargaining. I am not a supporter of some of the Union laws.

There have been some major problems in not protecting the market place by keeping it free of monopolys and coercion. The prime example is the Microsoft case. It is best example of a trial with an unbelievable amount of evidence of guilt and no repercussions since the O.J. trial. This sort of regulation must be done and is lacking.

As to more regulation of businesses to protect employees, I can tell you as a small business owner the level currently is very high. Unfortunately, the regulations seem to be used to generate work for lawyers. I am in a county which lives off of lawsuits. I do not think people realize how many regulations there are until they own a business.

Give me some other things you think are bad in a free market. So far, your list is compatable with a free market.

Kimpossible, excuse me for calling you Century Mark, I am not very experienced with computer forums. But you are dead wrong about America having the world's largest military. Ever heard of a small country called China? They have a standing army of 5 million people, compared to current U.S. active duty forces of 1.4 million. If you are more scared of the U.S. military than China, whose military is not subordinate to the civilian government, then thank god you are not in any elected office

Yes kimpossible, Communists effected change. Ask Ronald Reagan who discovered that Communists had infiltrated Hollywood unions in the 1940's and beaten and threatned those who refused to join the Communist party. Reagan stood up to them, walked through their strike and broke their hold on actor's unions. Isn't it strange how Communists/Socialists resort to brute physical coercion, terror when pushing their views, maybe because they know people won't choose socialism if given a choice.

You are obviously uninformed about this. While China may have more people in our military than we do, we spend more than they do .China and Russian COMBINED spend 1.7 million dollars, while we spend 369 billion. We spend SIX TIMES as much as Russia does (Russia is the second largest military spender and their spending is in the millions not the billions, like every other country in the world). We have the largest military arsenal in the world. We spend a majority of our budget maintaining a military, and building more weapons.



Oh please, and isnt it strange how Republicans always point out the failings of a party when they really need to look in the mirror? And isnt it funny how during the Red Scare many Communists and Socialists were killed and/or put in jail for their political view, by mainstream politicians? (This is the place I want to live. Land of the free, only if youre not voicing political dissent) Or how about in WWI when Socialists were put in jail becaues they opposed the draft (WW1 was not a popular war, in case you care.) And how many Socialists terrorize the populace now? There have been more crimes committed in the name of democracy than in the name of socialism (I am speaking specifically in America, and actually I may risk saying the whole world, since it was communism that collapsed not socialism).

Gray Seal, I am not entirely against a free market economic system. I believe that people need to compete in order to get the best product and service. I am against certain things that arise from the system, such as low work regulations (not necessarily in America, but in general), I am against exploitation of workers (such as in Asia and S. America), tax loopholes. I also think that there should be a living wage instituted, and not a minimum wage. I just dont like seeing people suffering because there is some rich wanker who is taking their money. I dont know a whole lot about economics, so Im not sure what else there is. I just think there needs to be some radical change in the way we run things right now.

Kimpossible, be nice and refrain from things like, "You are obviously uninformed about this." Thanks
-------
Socialism is one of those things that sounds nice but it seems to go against the spirit of competition that seems prevelant in all animals (we humans happen to express it through money, as one example).

Maybe I was a sucker and fell for all that Age of Reason stuff, but I've always liked the idea of individual control of choices. It seems natural to be competitive, it seems unnatural to surrender personal control to the government, even if it is for the "best of the group."

Maybe it's because the idea of "the group" can't really be defined, or more likely the "what's best" part. Socialism won't be a reality anytime soon in this country; we love competition too much.

Sorry Jaime, its just so hard....You should really just be happy Im not swearing like a sailor. But Ill try harder. I know how infuriating it is have someone call you uninformed....

And I agree that human nature includes competition, but I also think that human nature involves caring for another humans suffering, which is where socialism comes into play.

I have mulled over the idea of minimum wage and living wage. Both are flawed as they make it illegal to hire people who produce at rates lower than this.

The purpose of either is to make it possible for anyone to be able to have the opportunity to make a living. I have a couple of alternatives. I will start a new thread as it would be taking this one on a tangent.

I would agree that all people should have opportunity to succeed in life free from any discrimination. However, I don't believe Socialism is a good answer to that.

Ideally, the answer is individuals who freely choose to help those who are less fortunate. Like non-profit organizations and people who freely give their time and energy and sincerely desire to help others. It is those type of people that should be encouraged and given more power to help others.

In a Socialistic society, people might have some concern for others, but wants the State to take care of them. It's the easy way to show concern for others, but it's not the best. The number one reason like I already mentioned is that governments are not efficient with resources.

But its obvious the private sector isnt working as well as it should, and people need to be taken care of. Whether people like it or not, they have a responsibility to help others.

HeatherRob,

The US does have the most powerful and far-flung military in the world. We spend about ten times the amount of money on our military than the top five military spenders combined. Or maybe it's five times the amount the top ten spenders spend. Either way, we spend the most of any nation on earth.

Desert Storm showed that the number of people in your military does not equate to the amount of power that military has. China has a lot of soldiers. That's the WWII model of power. We have fewer soldiers who have a lot more power. An army of one, eh?

Warfare has changed dramatically with the introduction of modern communications, sophisticated weaponry, and lots of technical toys like robots and drones.

Check out Toffler's book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

People have a responsibilty to take care of themselves. Socialism and communism are fancy terms to describe forms of servitude.

Living wages and minumum wages create artificially high prices. So basically you will feel better about having more money in your pocket, but the money in your pocket will buy less. If you would like me to go into detail then let me know.

I agree with Neil. I am for a fair wage, but I am also for someone getting a raise based on merit. I don't feel that socialism is the answer because I want to have the chance to excel in life and not just be able to "survive" on what the government deems is my share. Just because some people are so afraid of failure that they are willing to give all control up to the gov't does not mean my chance should be stifled as well. We do have a right to help others, and most people do. America is the most charitable and generous country in the world. There needs to be a program to help those that truly cannot help themselves, but it should be a safety net and not a way of life. To me, if the gov't starts handing out checks to people, then they are really hurting those people, because they are making them become dependant on that money, and taking all motivation away from them to try and do something better with their lives. Living wages are fundamentally wrong because they artificially raise what the employer must pay his employees for the service they provide. If you want an example, look at several Unions within the auto industry. The major U.S. manufactures all have to deal with the UAW, so the wages they pay are "artificially" higher than what they should be based on demands from the union. I say "artificially" because they may be more than many Japanese plants, but they are not based on performance, so the company as a whole suffers. The wages at Japanese auto companies are usually just as high, but they are raised based on merit and performance, and so the company is not dragged down with being forced to give unproductive workers higher wages "just because." It has hurt GM, Ford and Chrysler severely because their products are lackluster because of no motivation from artificial wage increases over the years, and they are struggling mightily to play catchup. This is merely an example I have seen and you can apply the same principle around the country. Why would anyone want to excel or do better when there is no reward or motivation to do so?

One of the reasons that a living wage drives up costs is because it cuts into the profits of a business. Do you really think if Nike implented a living wage for its factory workers (raising them from 37 cents to 75 cents a day, and this is depending on the country) would drive up costs? It may make Nike lose a few million dollars in profits, but when its a billion dollar corporation would losing a million dollars hurt the company. Instead of Phil Knight making 55 million dollars a year (I dont know how much he actually makes) he would be making 50 million dollars. Is that a horrible profit, I think not, but it does insure his employess in Indonesia eat food and can buy clothing. Ideally, prices wouldnt raise on Nike profits and the only reason they would is because he wants to maintain the high salary he used to make, even though he would still have an incredibly high salary. (I dont think I made alot of sense..)

Also where does it say that in a socialist government you would not get a raise based on merit?

I am more interested in making sure everyone has at least a standard level of food, health care, shelter and clothing. It doesnt mean everyone makes the same salary and has the same possesions. (I may be interpreting socialism the wrong way but ....c'est la vie). There is still incentive to work hard, because people are greedy and want material possessions, or a higher standard of living.

kimpossible, I like arguing with you, you seem genuine and honest. when you quote that Russia and CHina combined spend 1.7 million dollars a year on their defense budget, you must see where I call your views into question. First of all, the U.S. obviously spends more overall than Russia, because we have about 20 states that have bigger economies than Russia. Did you know that? But we were talking about size not money, so I'm still right. BUt let's get back to money. The pct that we spend on defense compared to the overall federal budget is less than Russia or CHina spend. THat's the beauty of capitalism, we can afford a good sized, modern, efficient military, without burdening the tax base. That's how Ronald Reagan won the COld War. He ramped up defense spending, and then started with SDI, which the SOviets could not match, he stopped the flow of technology to Russia, he got the Saudis to lower oil prices, good for us as a buyer, bad for Russia as a seller. He was brilliant.

As for your claim that democracy has killed more people than socialism. You are just plain wrong. Did you know that Nazism is a form of socialism. Hitler totally controlled all industry, media, education in Germany. Him and Joe Stalin together killed more than 50 million people. I'm counting war dead in WWII because the two of them started the war. Your claim that communism isn't socialism is a bit disingenuous. But if it is not, then where exactly has socialism ever worked as a government. The answer is nowhere, it works in theory, not in practice, I don't care if you disguise it as Communism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Marxism. You are right, there are no socialists terrorizing the populace nowadays. Because no one cares about them anymore, the ideas of socialism have been laughed out of the nations of the world. THe ideas spouted by socialists are as relevant today as Strom Thurmond is, both of them are relics from another time.

All I want to say is, Socialism is the enemy of ECONOMIC freedom.

That's the thing, Republicans push for economic freedom while sacrificing some personal freedom, whereas Democrats push for personal freedom while sacrificing some economic freedom.

Why can't we have all freedoms and all be Libertarian!?

I suppose that's another debate...

I lied, I had something more to add; couldn't let this one just go by.

Why is it that you feel it's people's "responsibility to help others"? Why can't these people help themselves?

Survival of the fittest!

--Just waiting to get flack for that one...

I agree but with one added point related to what I have said before. The great thing about this country is that we have the freedom to excel, but with that freedom comes the ability to fail as well. I believe there should be programs in place for those who truly cannot help themselves, but others who are able should not rely on the gov't to help them. Survival of the fittest is correct, but chances are if you work hard you will not just survive but lead a pretty great life.

Kimpossible, While I don't really think socialism is the answer, I do agree that there will always be some people who need to be taken care of. I have pointed this out, more than once on this message board.

The strange thing ( to me anyway) is that people do not seem able to understand that they DO take care of these people in one way or another.

If people don't have affordable health insurance the tax payer will end up paying for their health care which will be passed on to them by the hospitals and clinics in the form of higher costs.

If people are homeless, because of drug abuse, mental illness, etc and there are no programs to help them recover, the taxpayer may eventually support them in prisons.

If children don't receive good educations their potential won't be realized and they won't contribute to society as they should and neither will their children and it goes on and on.

MT

Youre not right. We still, in fact, have the largest military in the world. Here is a source on military spending:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/

Size of the army is not only factor to take into consideration when speaking of having the largest army. As AuthorMusician pointed out, we have more power per person than all of the Chinese army combined. There is more to defining an army than its size. Perhaps a better statement is that we have the most powerful military in the world. But I still think that saying the largest works.

And the Nazi party is facist, not socialist. The Nazis were called the National Socialist to fool socialists into voting for them. They needed that small percentage of left wing voters to win the elections. Facism also requires government control, but uses police force and wide spread nationalism. I really dislike using dictionaries as true sources, but I dont feel like giving you a history lesson on facism.



Do you see the difference? Socialism doesnt call for a dictator (while Communism does, just another difference between the two.)

And again, socialism works in MANY countries. Ill go through a list for what seems like the millionth time: France, Canada, UK, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Australia etc.

There are many socialists worldwide, and they are hardly irrelevant. Working for social change is hardly irrelevant. But if you see them as such, there is no point in continuing this debate. It must be irrelevant to figure out a way to help those who need it, it obviously irrelevant to try and reign in the abuse of power from the government....

Stotty, I still dont see how the freedom to excel (and/or fail) is affected because of socialism. Ask Audrey Tautou (from Amelie) if being from France had impeded her ability to succeed as an actress.....And its not true that hard work = a good life. There are plenty of people who work hard who barely recieve a life to live. Ask the single mom who works two jobs so she isnt on welfare how working hard is improving her life.

Check out otseng's Political-isms Quick Reference. It's a very helpful synopsis of the differences between Socialism, Communism and Fascism (and a bunch of other "isms" - hence the name). He also provides links for more in depth information. I keep it bookmarked.

Thanks for doing the hard part, otseng

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism. In capitalism exchanges are voluntary, therefore exchanges are only made if both parties perceive a benefit from them. Washington said it best "Government is force" a "dangerous servant". Infringements on liberty are evil, except when needed to preserve liberty. Why are we the most powerful nation on earth? Because we are the least socialistic of all modern nations. With the possible exception of a little island off the coast of China which is an economic dynamo.