Socialism

[Phi for All]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a range of [/size]economic and [/size]social systems characterised by [/size]social ownership and [/size]democratic control of the [/size]means of production;[/size]^%5B7%5D as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[/size]^%5B8%5DSocial ownership may refer to forms of [/size]public, [/size]cooperative, or [/size]collective ownership; to [/size]citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[/size]^%5B9%5DAlthough there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[/size]^%5B10%5D social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[/size]^{%5B5%5D%5B11%5D%5B12%5D}

 

What does Socialism mean to you? What are it's strengths and weaknesses?

 

In the US, we're being exposed to the Sanders campaign as a liberal socialist candidate, yet elsewhere he's barely on the left side of the scale. Is Sander's brand of socialism a good step in the right direction, or does he go too far for the US, or not far enough for everyone else?

[EdEarl]

Socialism is such a broad topic it is impossible to discuss in this forum and do it justice. Moreover, no president could possibly change the US system to socialism.

[Phi for All]

Socialism is such a broad topic it is impossible to discuss in this forum and do it justice.

But I gave some parameters, and I did ask for your subjective take on it. I thought it was clear I didn't want to talk in broad terms. Maybe I should change the title?

 

Moreover, no president could possibly change the US system to socialism.

This is why I wanted a discussion. My version of socialism seems to be right in line with a majority of the population, but like you, many seem to be convinced it could never work. I was hoping you could at least tell me why you think it can't work in the US.

 

What makes the socialism in your head unworkable? What could be changed about socialism to make it work in the US? Why do you think the level of socialism we already have is all we can handle?

[Willie71]

Sanders is advocating social democracy,

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

 

rather than socialism. Democratic socialism is different still. The US is a social democracy already, but a lousy expression of it.

[StringJunky]

But I gave some parameters, and I did ask for your subjective take on it. I thought it was clear I didn't want to talk in broad terms. Maybe I should change the title?

 

 

This is why I wanted a discussion. My version of socialism seems to be right in line with a majority of the population, but like you, many seem to be convinced it could never work. I was hoping you could at least tell me why you think it can't work in the US.

 

What makes the socialism in your head unworkable? What could be changed about socialism to make it work in the US? Why do you think the level of socialism we already have is all we can handle?

State-level autonomy is a major barrier to 'socialising' America. This autonomy is the biggest problem to bring about change; it inhibits every major aspect of US life that needs changing. This autonomy guarantees stasis with very little freedom for political innovation. You do, indeed need to move to the left more. I'm not a Socialist by UK standards, by the way, but definitely to the left of the US left.

[Phi for All]

Sanders is advocating social democracy,

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

 

rather than socialism. Democratic socialism is different still. The US is a social democracy already, but a lousy expression of it.

 

My goal with this discussion is to dispel the misunderstandings so many conservatives in the US have about any kind of socialism, if they'll bother to read. Rush Limbaugh has them equating it with communism, no matter what form it takes.

 

So how would you express the US social democracy in a less lousy form? One suggestion I liked from another thread is to stop running appropriations for our social programs through the Dept of Defense. That sounds reasonable, not having all those defense contractors swaying votes on what happens to a widowed mother of three.

[EdEarl]

What makes the socialism in your head unworkable? What could be changed about socialism to make it work in the US? Why do you think the level of socialism we already have is all we can handle?

During the Cold War our adversaries was the USSR, a socialist country, which led to the word socialism being maligned US. I know new generations have grown, and the word may not be as tainted. I suspect it still is to a lesser degree. In addition, the GOP is typically against social programs.

 

Social programs are a necessary part of government policy, and if you believe people should not suffer then more programs are needed. IMO the critical issues relate to child rearing. There should be no latch key kids. Mothers and children should be supported to assure no child lives in poverty so severe they are hungry, ill clothed, without shelter or in need of medical care.

 

I have a neighbor, a veteran of WWII, who is in his 80s. He faces living in a substandard nursing home, because our social services are poor. He has a home, and prefers to live there, but cannot get the help he needs to stay there. IDK what will happen to him. I think he will end up in a nursing home he feels is degrading, and will become depressed and die sooner than if he had good care.

 

We are giving huge sums to corporations and rich people, instead of taxing them, and allocating vast sums to our military, when there should be no wars, spending atrocious sums on the war on drugs that makes drug abuse worse, and other insanities.

Edited March 14, 2016 by EdEarl

[Phi for All]

For me, capitalism/business is about profit. If I want a venture to grow, I apply a business model. It works very well.

 

But there are some things that people need when they increase population density, like police and fire protection, hospitals because we're more susceptible in greater numbers to disease, roads to get us where we need to be. In these cases, I think it's smarter to use public funds where profit shouldn't be the goal. The goal is having smart, healthy citizens who add to the society in every way.

 

I think it's inhuman to keep people ignorant, poor, and unproductive, and then hate them for it. Not when we can afford to educate everyone as much as we possibly can, so the whole society benefits from a lack of ignorance.

 

I try to keep an eye out for mistakes in business. How smart is it to use business models with our prison system, when we'd rather have fewer criminals?

 

This is the kind of socialism I embrace. Where the People have basic advantages for being productive citizens, and there's no foot on their neck because they were born into below average circumstances.

[Willie71]

My goal with this discussion is to dispel the misunderstandings so many conservatives in the US have about any kind of socialism, if they'll bother to read. Rush Limbaugh has them equating it with communism, no matter what form it takes.

 

So how would you express the US social democracy in a less lousy form? One suggestion I liked from another thread is to stop running appropriations for our social programs through the Dept of Defense. That sounds reasonable, not having all those defense contractors swaying votes on what happens to a widowed mother of three.

The US has public infrastructure, health care, police/corrections, social security etc, but those programs are run inefficiently and underfunded. Social wellbeing is seen as based in character for many, where people struggle because of poor character, not the social and genetic lottery.

 

Not allowing for profit corporations be responsible for core social programs such as health care. There is always the risk of excessive beurocracy in government programs which need checks and balances. There are ways to do this. There is always a balance between freedom and oversight. Banking should be regulated to prevent financial crashes. The energy sector benefits from centralized investments in infrastructure, especially now that the switch to renewables is critical. Lowest cost with highest short term profits doesn't allow for large infrastructure investments for long term gains.

 

We know from game theory that people don't play fair, making any system prone to cheating, whether socialist, or capitalist. The problem isn't in the system itself, but that the system relies on people.

[overtone]

 

 

The US has public infrastructure, health care, police/corrections, social security etc, but those programs are run inefficiently and underfunded.

Underfunded they may be, but things like Medicare up until the Republicans burdened it with Plan D, or the Post Office while it was a government agency, or most municipal sewer and water systems, were very efficient compared with their private counterparts - Medicare has very skinny overhead compared with private medical insurance, for example.

[EdEarl]

Underfunded they may be, but things like Medicare up until the Republicans burdened it with Plan D, or the Post Office while it was a government agency, or most municipal sewer and water systems, were very efficient compared with their private counterparts - Medicare has very skinny overhead compared with private medical insurance, for example.

What role should bureaucratic efficiency play in determining whether a program is passed to a corporation (or not), whether a program is established, continued or abandoned, whether funding is increased or reduced, etc? Moreover, how does one measure such efficiency?

 

In the past, mental institutions existed to house people who were incapable of caring for themselves or who were a danger to themselves or perhaps to others. For several reasons they have largely been shut down and patients released onto the streets. Now, mentally incapable people are living in various places, including prison, homeless, or family. Is it right to force a mentally incapable person onto the streets, leaving them with no recourse except begging and theft to survive, and when they are caught stealing food prosecute and imprison them? Is lack of care for mental patients really an efficient use of funds? Is it really cost effective to keep a non-violent mental patient in prison rather than a mental ward? Is it ethical? What are the ramifications of forcing families to house mental patients, especially if they have small children? Why consider efficiency when mentally incompetent homeless people die from exposure, neglect, or police bullet on a regular basis?

 

Who are we? Is Scrooge our role model? It seems to me there are way too many emotional sound bytes, and too little rational thinking about social programs in the US.

Edited March 14, 2016 by EdEarl

[Phi for All]

Underfunded they may be, but things like Medicare up until the Republicans burdened it with Plan D, or the Post Office while it was a government agency, or most municipal sewer and water systems, were very efficient compared with their private counterparts - Medicare has very skinny overhead compared with private medical insurance, for example.

 

I thought it was a big mistake letting the utilities fall under private management. Our Public Service of Colorado grew just fine, matching the population and providing electricity and natural gas at affordable, not-for-profit rates to heat and light the homes of our citizens.

 

Prices went up 40% in the first two years after privatization, and increase as often as they can talk CPUC into it. They've never matched the quality of service for the price that our publicly owned utilities had. A good example where using public funds benefits everyone, rather than the already wealthy.

What role should bureaucratic efficiency play in determining whether a program is passed to a corporation (or not), whether a program is established, continued or abandoned, whether funding is increased or reduced, etc? Moreover, how does one measure such efficiency?

 

In the past, mental institutions existed to house people who were incapable of caring for themselves or who were a danger to themselves or perhaps to others. For several reasons they have largely been shut down and patients released onto the streets. Now, mentally incapable people are living in various places, including prison, homeless, or family. Is it right to force a mentally incapable person onto the streets, leaving them with no recourse except begging and theft to survive, and when they are caught stealing food prosecute and imprison them? Is lack of care for mental patients really an efficient use of funds? Is it really cost effective to keep a non-violent mental patient in prison rather than a mental ward? Is it ethical? What are the ramifications of forcing families to house mental patients, especially if they have small children? Why consider efficiency when mentally incompetent homeless people die from exposure, neglect, or police bullet on a regular basis?

 

Who are we? Is Scrooge our role model? It seems to me there are way too many emotional sound bytes, and too little rational thinking about social programs in the US.

 

Another Reagan legacy, creating mentally ill homeless people. This sort of mismanagement causes untold costs down the line, which I'm sure exceeds the cost of caring for them. More weirdness from the right, let's stop paying to take care of the crazies (ironic, no?), and instead we'll pay for emergency room visits, police intervention, crime, costs to the legal system, etc.

 

If you have a candidate who's racist, it's doubtful they're going to think much differently about the mentally ill. These are the people we can't get to STOP using the word "retard" to dismiss them. These folks tend to assume somebody in charge is just going to sweep that problem under a rug so they don't have to spend much time being guilty about it.

 

As far as bureaucratic efficiency goes, for me it boils down very simply. If you're Medicare, you get to focus on paying claims and keeping people healthy. If you're United Healthcare, you have to focus on the extra 20% or so you have to charge as profit for your company, so your stockholders and C-suite executives are happy, and only then can you really think about the people you're being paid to keep healthy. When our social programs are funded well, and oversight is by people invested ideologically in those programs, they can be enormously efficient.

[EdEarl]

I think picking on bureaucratic inefficiency is a convenient political tactic that a challenger can use against an incumbent. The government is large. All large organizations have inefficiencies. Since corporations aren't the responsibility of an incumbent, it is not possible to blame an incumbent for corporate maladies. Their problems don't become public knowledge very often, but governmental problems are frequently news. Unfortunately, I fear gross governmental inefficiency is a straw dog.

[Willie71]

Underfunded they may be, but things like Medicare up until the Republicans burdened it with Plan D, or the Post Office while it was a government agency, or most municipal sewer and water systems, were very efficient compared with their private counterparts - Medicare has very skinny overhead compared with private medical insurance, for example.

 

Yes, it's better than corporate profit driven services. I have worked in the Canadian health care system for over two decades, and making the assumption that Medicare works similarity, there is a lot of room to improve efficiency. I am a strong supporter of single payer, just so I'm clear.

[EdEarl]

Room for improvement is a human condition. It shouldn't be used as an exclusive reason to abandon something in need of improvement.

[Phi for All]

Room for improvement is a human condition. It shouldn't be used as an exclusive reason to abandon something in need of improvement.

 

What are we abandoning? We have a social democracy now. We can choose to enhance the social programs we have now, or let the conservatives continue to destroy them. We have history, and lots of reality-based evidence that shows the conservative way is more costly over time, and doesn't really achieve what they think it does. In the US, we pay more for just about everything, and for some reason this seems to be a point of pride for Trumpets and their ilk. It's unbelievable to me, who grew up with lots of conservative folks, that any American would allow the overcharging that goes on with contractors to our federal government. The corruption there is treasonous, imo.

 

 

 

 

 

http://theweek.com/articles/449215/does-welfare-make-people-lazy

And here is where the evidence undercuts conservative attacks on welfare. The data shows decisively that the problem is not laziness at all, but a lack of job openings.

This is a fact about welfare I wish every conservative could know. They fear the safety nets will turn into hammocks, and that's such an easy visual for them to get behind, since this is what they fear is happening.

 

But it's not. Even when welfare benefits have been more generous, they still don't drastically affect the number of job seekers. This is probably one of those confirmation bias points where more evidence to the contrary entrenches the belief that this is happening, but I don't think you'll ever hear this kind of evidence on conservative news sources. Those guys are all about how we shouldn't help anyone unless they can help themselves, or unless they're different, or lazy, or colored.

[EdEarl]

 

What are we abandoning?

The GOP finds any minutia as reason to abandon social programs. They don't often succeed, but they make a lot of noise and try try again. And, yest they "improve" programs, making them less effective and too expensive.

[Phi for All]

The GOP finds any minutia as reason to abandon social programs. They don't often succeed, but they make a lot of noise and try try again. And, yest they "improve" programs, making them less effective and too expensive.

 

Perhaps we need a minimum subsistence standard below which they can't make any more cuts. Then we might be able to weather their insanity until they have no more power.

[dimreepr]

If history teaches us anything that pertains to the current US conservative bias; it’s in the Victorian era that the lessons of our modern times need to be learnt, such as:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_(United_Kingdom)

 

Essentially the only time the super rich actually paid tax.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Government_1905%E2%80%9315

 

I do, however, realise that ‘some’ will, given free handout’s, choose to take “advantage” and opt to do nothing to improve themselves/work; but given:

 

“He is richest who is content with the least” – Socrates.

 

Why does it matter if you want to work for more?

How many countries have 100% employment?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate

 

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-184751,00.html

 

Given the above, lazy/content people are necessary to every country; so their persecution is detrimental to that society since overcapacity is an essential business model.

Edited March 14, 2016 by dimreepr

[EdEarl]

 

Perhaps we need a minimum subsistence standard below which they can't make any more cuts. Then we might be able to weather their insanity until they have no more power.

I think it is an idea whose time has come. In fact I think it's inevitable as automation takes over more an more jobs. It's not all that's needed, but it would go a long way.

[dimreepr]

I think it is an idea whose time has come. In fact I think it's inevitable as automation takes over more an more jobs. It's not all that's needed, but it would go a long way.

 

 

What else is needed?

[EdEarl]

 

 

What else is needed?

A drug program like Portugal. Cutting defense spending. Improving schools, the current effort is a mess according to my wife, a teacher. She spends too much time on paperwork instead of teaching, and she works too much overtime Imo.

[dimreepr]

A drug program like Portugal. Cutting defense spending. Improving schools, the current effort is a mess according to my wife, a teacher. She spends too much time on paperwork instead of teaching, and she works too much overtime Imo.

 

 

Drugs do skew the issue (as does a sufficient education) but my basic point remains, without an adequate overcapacity most countries would fail.

[Phi for All]

We have a fantastic example of how high tax rates on the super rich (90% top bracket) did NOT hurt the economy, and it did NOT make people lazy because of all the help the government was able to give. In fact, super high rates on the top bracket also seem to smooth out the boom/bust cycles we've seen so much of when taxes are low.

 

We call it the 50s and 60s, that era that conservatives love for all the wrong reasons. Business boomed, the market boomed, the middle class took off like a rocket. BECAUSE we super-taxed the super-rich, it flooded the economy with jobs, and smart people to work those jobs, and prosperity was more well-rounded, not something reserved for the silver spoons.

 

I think it is an idea whose time has come. In fact I think it's inevitable as automation takes over more an more jobs. It's not all that's needed, but it would go a long way.

 

I wouldn't approach it as an offset to automation taking jobs. It should me a minimum amount of resources so anyone can subsist on it while looking for work. Low-cost housing, healthy food, I guess some sort of basic clothing. If we had universal healthcare, and free access to education up to the college level, those bases are already covered.

 

Nobody homeless, ignorant, sick, or hungry. A level below which a citizen of the USA doesn't have to go.

A drug program like Portugal.

We could have this for basically nothing. Just use the money we spend incarcerating drug-only offenders.

Cutting defense spending.

Since the way we've "waged" the War on Terror has only caused terrorism to grow, if we could show that diplomatic efforts, like sanctions on countries that allow terrorists to operate within their borders, might work just as well to reduce the risks of attacks on our own soil, I think many might see the wisdom in not giving terrorists such an international stage (which is EXACTLY what they want, right?).

 

Trade sanctions over carpet bombing. Could work, let's try.

Improving schools, the current effort is a mess according to my wife, a teacher. She spends too much time on paperwork instead of teaching, and she works too much overtime Imo.

The whole conservative anti-intellectual movement has left our schools in a shambles. Again, since they want to privatize education with vouchers, profit rather than knowledge becomes the focus. With all the modern technology we have at our disposal, and modern examples from around the world of more effective teaching systems, I think we can make education something to be proud of. The teachers I know are like your wife, Ed, they want to educate in a meaningful way.

[EdEarl]

I wouldn't approach it as an offset to automation taking jobs. It should me a minimum amount of resources so anyone can subsist on it while looking for work. Low-cost housing, healthy food, I guess some sort of basic clothing. If we had universal healthcare, and free access to education up to the college level, those bases are already covered.

 

Nobody homeless, ignorant, sick, or hungry. A level below which a citizen of the USA doesn't have to go.

 

We could have this for basically nothing. Just use the money we spend incarcerating drug-only offenders.

I agree, we should not wait for automation, but it doesn't appear such a thing will be done anytime soon, and automation is coming on strong.