Opinions on Socialism & Socialist democracy

[hellas1]

Hi everyone,

I'm new here. I like this forum, so I decided to start a new post.

What do you think about Socialism? and in particular a Socialistic democracy?

Don't forget one thing (If American): We have MANY socialistic programs such as Social Security and Food stamps, etc. & we also have Government, which in my eyes IS the State, stepping in on certain business affairs: Enron, Microsoft, etc.

Comment away, please!

hellas1

[Kiljan Arslan]

I support it however I feel one should have to qulify for such things in a way through some sort of national service program.

[Gary88]

well its running my country so...i'm in favour

[MaximiIian]

I think that a socialised medical system, and other aspects of a welfare state, would greatly help this country. The general populace should, like Kiljan said, qualify themselves for welfare via some form of service, either to the national government or to their respective state government.
Exceptions, obviously, for disadvantaged people like the homeless, the starving, the extremely impoverished, and the disabled.
Perhaps have a system where, for a certain period of time, welfare is unconditional, but to maintain that welfare after that point, they should contribute state service on a regular basis, until they can find a stable job.

I think, also, that the nationalisation of the largest industries, such as the oil industry, the steel and coal mining industries, and the arms manufacturing industry would greatly decrease the amount of control those industries and corporations have over our government. It would practically eliminate the military-industrial complex by cutting out the middleman and making it directly owned by the state.

There may be other aspects of socialism I might disagree with, such as full nationalisation of the economy or the abolition of private property, but for the most part, I think a democratic socialist system can work, and can benefit the people under it.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Hate it.

Leave my property alone.

[Atterdag]

Love it!

It's the policy of Social Democracy that has turned Denmark into what a great state it is today.

[ErikinWest]

Love it!

It's the policy of Social Democracy that has turned Denmark into what a great state it is today.

Correct me if I'm wrong Atterdag, but wasn't Denmark a rich and free society before it had socialism? And I also want to clarify something. I break socialism into two categories: economic socialism (a bloody disaster) and a welfare state. Now things like government provided education and health care are much different from the government controlling the economy. If one looks at Scandinavia, it has become wealthy when the government did not control the economy, and when individuals and the free market let capital go where capital wanted. Now the welfare state at least doesn't try to control the economy, and therefore I tend to argue with it less. I think socialists should get their act in order. Explain to me whether you're talking about economic socialism or the welfare state.

Erik

[Princeps]

Hate it.

Leave my property alone.

The anarchists, like me, would argue that property is theft.

[wilpuri]

The anarchists, like me, would argue that property is theft.

I would argue that your arguments suck.

[NaptownKnight]

Socialism used to be used interchangebaly with Communism, now all of the sudden it meens the pussified communism. While I do think Socialism is good, Communism is much better, but hopefully Socialist countries will be able to make the transition to a Communist country easier than say a capitalist government.

[Tom Paine]

Welfare socialism no one really argues with, because in the end its the safety net for those who - for whatever reason - can't work. Of course, some people believe that providing health and education - basically, anything more than food - is too much. I don't. In the end socialism of that form has to happen to have a society of people rather than a collection of wolves.

[Freddie]

Welfare socialism no one really argues with, because in the end its the safety net for those who - for whatever reason - can't work. Of course, some people believe that providing health and education - basically, anything more than food - is too much. I don't. In the end socialism of that form has to happen to have a society of people rather than a collection of wolves.

The only problem I have with welfare is that people become to dependant on it and get trapped into a cycle, whereby they want to work but the money they take home won’t cover the benefits they lose if they were to stay on the benefits system. Ann Widdecombe pointed this in her documentary the other week.

I’ll accept that a certainly level of state control is required to keep the public safe from being exploited by big companies but I don’t accept it’s the governments jobs to hold everyone’s hand from cradle to grave people should take reasonability for their own life’s and not rely on the government all the time.

[Vladimir Lenin]

IMHO Socialist programs is no better then someone robbing you.

Robin Hood, though he may be a Romantic Chracter to most, to me is a horrible bastard.

THE MAN STOLE! The day Socialism/Communism dies is the day people everywhere admit Robin Hood was nothing more then a thief and a brigand.

[Kiljan Arslan]

You have been reading far too much ayn rand Avarius, once again I'll repeat myslef in saying read some Heinlien much better author and much better philosophy.

[Gary88]

IMHO Socialist programs is no better then someone robbing you.

robbing you...and then giving you stuff back...like Health care and state schools and roads and public services and...

[GrnEyedDvl]

robbing you...and then giving you stuff back...like Health care and state schools and roads and public services and...

I already have all that, keep your hands out of my pockets.

[sanada]

So if you are okay, it does not matter about next man, women, or child?

[GrnEyedDvl]

So if you are okay, it does not matter about next man, women, or child?

I didnt say that at all. But I provide mine (talking medical here) and you should make every effort to provide yours. If someone CANT thats one thing, if they make bad choices thats another.

I started with nothing, my parents certainly arent rich. My father was a cop and died at the age of 51, so he didnt leave much behind. I busted my ass and my bank account going to school, earned 4 degrees, and spent years paying off the debt. All that time working jobs like finishing concrete and driving a truck.

After I paid all my debts I spent years saving money to start a business while at the same time raising 3 kids and making sure THEY had health insurance, not through the government but either through my job or paying cash for it. It CAN be done.

I finally got my business going mostly the way I want it to, and yes now I make really good money. But I still work my butt off for it. I pay my employees well and THEY have insurance benefits through me. But they earn it too, believe me they work for it as I wont tolerate lazy people.

So I say again, keep your hands out of my pockets. If people arent willing to work as hard as I am, then they shouldnt have all the things I have. I am really tired of people that complain about their lifestyles when their work ethics suck. Most especially the people that say they "Cant find a job".

Not one single time have I ever opened the paper and not found a job listed in the Help Wanted section. Sure it might not be the job you WANT, but so what? I sure as hell didnt WANT to pour concrete for a living, in fact I hated that job. Its hard physical labor in brutal conditions, 120 degrees in the summer with all the heat that reflects off it, and either cold as hell in the winter or the conditions are too bad to pour so you cant work. No work = no paycheck.

But it put food on the table and clothes on my back and gave my kids the insurance they needed. When better things came along I went for it. Just because someone else doesnt want to apply themselves I see no reason to hand them a damn thing.

Now I know someone is going to mention the people that cant provide for themselves. While we will probably argue over the definition of "cant", I have no problem with some of my tax money going to those who truly cant; the disabled, the mentally ill, etc. I even have no problem giving someone who is struggling a little help with educational expenses, after all the goal there is to get them to the point that they CAN provide for themselves. But the people who "cant" provide for themselves are in the minority. Most people can, and most people do. Of those that dont provide for themselves its not because they cant, with most of them its because they either choose not to or are too lazy to actually work for it. Piss on em.

[sanada]

Wow, I respect you for what you have achieved in life. You remind me of my mum (I'm not been sarcky, really you do.)

I understand your point of view about where benefits will stop, e.g some people will sponge of the system whilst others truly need it.
But you don't (or wont, I don't know the benefits system in America so I wont comment on it) have the luxury of choosing who your tax money goes to other then by placing a vote, its the Governments choice who the money goes too, and if you see a benefit fraud you can call them in and they will lose their benefits.
But likewise that money will go to some single mothers and fathers, or the disabled and so fourth.

Its a tricky one this whole shindig thing

[Vladimir Lenin]

Healthcare: No thank you, I don't want it.

State Schools: Charge me tuition don't take away my income though.

Roads: Legitimate function of the Gov.

Public Services: Legitimate function of the Gov.

I hate Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and I'm against the Department of Education as well.