Whats so wrong with socialism

**Shek** · 19 May 08,, 01:20

Originally Posted by Masada

Also, I've noticed that a lot of American posters here are in or contracted by the military- a conservative organization to say the least.

In what way?

**~~Bel~~** · 19 May 08,, 01:24

Personally I feel that socialism was born due to a lack of parenting.
Hear me out.

Every human child is born thinking life should be fair and they certainly complain when life isn't fair to them. It is normally the role of the parent to ensure children are taught that life isn't interested in being fair, life just happens/is.

Socialism is an attempt to make life "fair"
Ergo socialists are all the result of poor or non-existant parenting.

Elder children get to stay up later.
Thrifty doctors have more than alcoholic shoe shiners.

Some people never learn to put two and two together :P

**Oscar** · 19 May 08,, 01:36

Even in America there's Medicare and Medicaid, financial compensations for jobless, Education programs for the less well off, progressive taxes (the more you earn the more you pay, in percentage), all kinds of state helps...with the bureaucracy that goes with it.

There's no "true liberal" state which exists in the world today. Maybe because it's not feasible.

**dalem** · 19 May 08,, 02:29

Originally Posted by felakuti

I live in britain a socialist country and I dont feel like the state has control of me.

You can't own a weapon and there are police cameras mounted on every corner in London. You don't have a free press. You have only what rights the government sees fit to grant you, and no redress if you decide differently.

The state has quite a bit of control over you.

-dale

**dalem** · 19 May 08,, 02:30

Originally Posted by Masada

This thread is pretty much guaranteed to end in a shitstorm. Just saying.

You haven't been around long enough to make that call.

-dale

**dalem** · 19 May 08,, 02:38

Originally Posted by Stan187

Is there any way to avoid the entrenchment of an inefficient bureaucracy in a socialist form of government? When you find a way, let me know.

Now, let's be fair, Stan. Bigby's Ever-Bloating Bureaucracy is not a spell cast solely on socialist governments.

-dale

**~~Clarkie~~** · 19 May 08,, 03:03

Originally Posted by dalem

You can't own a weapon and there are police cameras mounted on every corner in London. You don't have a free press. You have only what rights the government sees fit to grant you, and no redress if you decide differently.

The state has quite a bit of control over you.

-dale

You can own weapons, you just cant own handguns and assault rifles which I'm really not too fussed about.

And no free press??? Have you ever read a British tabloid??

If 'senior contributor' equates to a certain amount of ill-informed posts then you can add one more to your list. well done.

**JAD_333** · 19 May 08,, 03:03

I see some here approve of socialism. I wonder how many of them could pay the real costs of the benefits they receive, and if not, are they comfortable knowing that people who can afford them and more, are taxed to make up the difference. I don't mean that to sound like a criticism, but rather to question whether such a system is really good for society. It seems to me that once you eliminate the need for self reliance in providing for one's needs, you take away many people's drive to innovate, to get ahead through hard work, and to practice entrepreneurship. Ultimately, the loss of those qualities, even if only marginally, will impact the nation's ability to grow and remain strong.

The analogy I see is a train full of people being pulled by another group of
people. Quite understandably, the ones riding have no desire to pull. The ones pulling eventually get fed up. One by one they say, screw this, and jump on the train. In time the train becomes so full that the remaining people pulling it cannot move it. In other words, socialism tends to gather weight, not energy; it's is an attempt to create a perpetual motion machine. It will always fail in the long run.

**Ironduke** · 19 May 08,, 03:14

Originally Posted by Oscar

And you can conduct socialist policies and be violently anti-commie (JFK) or simply defiant defiant vis a vis their intentions (Mitterand).

I don't think you know what socialism is. Socialism is state ownership over key sectors in the economy and a planned economy.

As anti-commie as Mitterand was, his nationalization of sectors of the French economy were a complete and utter failure.

**JAD_333** · 19 May 08,, 03:16

Originally Posted by Clarkie

If 'senior contributor' equates to a certain amount of ill-informed posts then you can add one more to your list. well done.

You will find if you continue to post here that we all have moments of being ill-informed, and in time you may actually contribute a few. Dale is one of the better informed.

Let's split hairs: a weapon defines the use to which a gun may be put. Are Brits allowed to possess guns to be used as weapons?

And is not the British press prohibited from reporting on court cases while in progress?

Dang, you edited out the following. I was going to have fun with it.

As a moderator here I feel you should a least try to be a little more informed.

**~~Clarkie~~** · 19 May 08,, 03:22

Originally Posted by JAD_333

And is not the British press prohibited from reporting on court cases while in progress?

Yes and for a very good reason; they restrictions are there to limit news organizations’ ability to publish pictures or articles about the subjects of criminal investigations.

The rules are intended to ensure fair trials by keeping potentially prejudicial information from would-be jurors.

Regardless, I don't think anyone wants to see this thread getting off-topic. I will say that there seems to be some confusion over the application of the word socialism with regard to European countries - For one there is very little state ownership in Britain. I dislike 'socialism' being used as a catch-all term for any tax policies and egalitarian systems that seek to ensure a baseline of living standards in a democratic country. It is more helpful to think of the UK, Germany, perhaps France and certainly the Scandinavian nations as belonging to what is termed 'Third Way' politics - seeking a centrist mixture of both opportunity & competition with interventionist social and economic policies.

So while this thread is about socialism (and by the classic definition there really aren't many socialist countries left in the world), I would ask that you all try and refrain from confusing Third Way politics with that form of much maligned socialism which is sure to first and foremost in the minds of some contributors.

**JAD_333** · 19 May 08,, 03:25

Originally Posted by Clarkie

Yes and for a very good reason; they restrictions are there to limit news organizations’ ability to publish pictures or articles about the subjects of criminal investigations.

The rules are intended to ensure fair trials by keeping potentially prejudicial information from would-be jurors.

A laudable reason, but it is a limit on freedom of the press.

And what about guns as weapons?

**Masada** · 19 May 08,, 03:33

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I see some here approve of socialism. I wonder how many of them could pay the real costs of the benefits they receive, and if not, are they comfortable knowing that people who can afford them and more, are taxed to make up the difference. I don't mean that to sound like a criticism, but rather to question whether such a system is really good for society. It seems to me that once you eliminate the need for self reliance in providing for one's needs, you take away many people's drive to innovate, to get ahead through hard work, and to practice entrepreneurship. Ultimately, the loss of those qualities, even if only marginally, will impact the nation's ability to grow and remain strong.

The analogy I see is a train full of people being pulled by another group of
people. Quite understandably, the ones riding have no desire to pull. The ones pulling eventually get fed up. One by one they say, screw this, and jump on the train. In time the train becomes so full that the remaining people pulling it cannot move it. In other words, socialism tends to gather weight, not energy; it's is an attempt to create a perpetual motion machine. It will always fail in the long run.

I think we need to differentiate between social-welfare states (like most of western europe) and socialist states like the former USSR, etc. Most people in this thread are thinking of social-welfare, so I'll continue with that.

List of "western" social-welfare states:

Canada
Denmark
Sweden
Italy
France
Germany
Austria
Spain
Norway

Wow. They all seem to be first-world states with a high HDI and competitive market economies.

Every country has it's problems, and there are countries for which socialism has no hope of working in (like the U.S.), but you can't speak in broad generalities (the wagon/train example) and expect me to take you seriously.

**~~Clarkie~~** · 19 May 08,, 03:50

Originally Posted by JAD_333

A laudable reason, but it is a limit on freedom of the press.

And what about guns as weapons?

Yes it is a limit, but remember I took exception to Dalem's comment that Britain does not have a free press. Our press is mostly free, just like yours, and all other democracies - in short there are some things that are never printed, I see these restrictions as being in the same boat as those governing publication of material that could incite racial hatred - in other words, a damn good idea.

Guns as weapons?? when is a gun not a weapon by its very nature??

Well it depends, its much easier to get a firearms license in rural areas for obvious reasons (pest control, hunting) and such applications are dealt with by the regional police forces and so numbers of licenses issued can vary between constabularies. This is again different on the Isle of Man which by comparison has relatively liberal firearms regulations. Gun control has done nothing to stem gun crimes on British streets, as they are obviously committed with illegal weapons, so I'm not going to defend the British governments hideous over-reaction to the Dunblane massacre which only succeeded in punishing sports shooters.

And lastly, if I really want to own a gun to use as a weapon, I'll nip down to Nottingham or some other gun-crime hot spot and pick up a 9mm for less than the price of a new pair of glasses.

**astralis** · 19 May 08,, 04:21

dale, ironduke,

some extra definition needed here.

Socialism requires that the individual be surrendered to the state.

-dale

Socialism is state ownership over key sectors in the economy and a planned economy.

not altogether- that's the middle stage of communism.

socialism is more sketchily defined than communism. communism is an economic-political philosophy, in which wealth distribution is done to give the oppressed proletariat the power it "deserves" ("true democracy"), political revolution occurs, and one fine day the state will evaporate.

socialism on the other hand is just an economic philosophy. it simply means some form of wealth re-distribution to achieve "greater fairness", which is defined however much the state wishes to define it.

socialism doesn't necessarily mean a planned economy and complete surrender of economic rights (although it can). one can have a democratic socialist state in which one's economic rights are reduced but not gotten rid of altogether. it can range from a more extreme version of a normal "free-market state" to one verging on the economic conditions of communism.

masada,

Wow. They all seem to be first-world states with a high HDI and competitive market economies.

there's a general trend between greater socialism and greater economic inefficiency. some countries are willing to make that trade off. however, those countries they are wealthy IN SPITE of socialism and not because of it.