What's new

Let's Discuss Socialism

Are you for or against socialism? Choose as many as you want, I'm not your mom.

  • Socialist programs should be heavily limited, let the free market fix everything.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some socialist programs are fine as long as I don't have to pay for it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If you can't pay for it, then that is your problem.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Socialist programs are the cause of all our problems.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13
Socialism related thoughts:

1. Medical prices are out of control. Way too many people are homeless or cannot even afford food due to extreme medical costs.

2. FICA should be charged on all incomes up to $1M to help support social security solvency for our most vulnerable, but we also should not pay anything out of the fund for non-citizens. These changes would help keep the program strong and self sufficient.

3. Many people that complain that they don't get enough governmental support should look more at what they can do to cut back as well. I work with or know numerous people that spend tons on super expense clothing and purses, eat out 15-20 meals per week at pricey restaurants, have nearly every streaming service and attend lots of movie theaters and sporting events or concerts, and drive new high end vehicles ($75K+), have fancy boats/ATVs and the latest iPhones, and travel on multiple fancy tropical vacations (ie: cruises, Caribbean, Hawaii, or Europe) every year yet they still always complain about money and why they deserve more from their employer and the government (lower taxes or more stimulus etc). I don't care how you spend your money unless you complain about it all the time.

4. I like cheese.

People who have money and just spend too much and then complain about it after are small beans and should have no bearing on our world-view. The vast majority of those in poverty are struggling for real.

We shouldn't blame the victims of systemic problems for their issues, we should try to improve the system.

1722022892311.png
 
Government should be by the people and for the people. We need a reformation of how elections work to ensure the government more closely reflects the will of the majority. The government should be controlled by the people by design.
Forbid gerrymandering for one thing. Shouldn't be too hard to generate an algorithm that can fairly divide out our cities into districts that make some sense and do not constantly benefit the winners. That is the firs and most basic level of corruption in our system. Hell, get some AI on that and see what it can come up with. Has to be miles better than the current inherently racist and classist system.
 
None of anything you listed is socialism. Social safety nets, social welfare programs, and public services are not socialism. LogGrad's definitions hit the nail on the head. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. The two main branches of socialism differ in what is considered the 'means of production'.

The communist socialists consider the 'means of production' to be property. The people in communist socialism are allocated the state's tools, the state's housing, and the state's food, but it belongs to the state.

The syndicalists / fascists consider the 'means of production' to be the people. The people in fascist socialism can own houses and food, but all efforts of labor are dictated by the state.

In practice, they end up looking almost identical, with massive police states enforcing the state's ownership.

Colloquially, Socialism is now considered to be those things you listed. Sorry bro, I don't make the rules

Things provided for from the guvmint but not cops and military -> socialism
Private industry but gay -> Still Socialism
Private industry but Elon (ignore the subsidies!) -> Based Capitalism
Private industry but **** the gays -> Also Based Capitalism.
Cops and the Military -> always fund forever, this **** is based capitalism.
 
I edited my post above. I don't agree with authoritarian or state-owned means of production. Only democratically owned businesses. Big ****ing typo, lol.
That is a distinction without a difference unless you are advocating for all means of production to be owned by publicly traded corporations with shareholder meetings where the shareholders get to vote on things. I doubt that is what you meant.

With Giovanni Gentile's flavor of socialism, the workers are all unionized. The labor unions are organized into trade sectors, and the union has a voice in management of all companies in their trade sector. As a hypothetical example of how it would work: workers at Ford, GM, and Chrysler would all belong to United Auto Workers by mandate. The UAW would then manage Ford, GM, and Chrysler. The UAW would decide how many of each car would be made, how much to sell them for, how much workers would be paid, etc., and all of that would be decided by democratic vote of the UAW union members. The companies themselves can be privately owned, or publicly traded corporations, but the employees have direct input and receive proceeds from the collective labor of their trade sector.
 
Forbid gerrymandering for one thing. Shouldn't be too hard to generate an algorithm that can fairly divide out our cities into districts that make some sense and do not constantly benefit the winners. That is the firs and most basic level of corruption in our system. Hell, get some AI on that and see what it can come up with. Has to be miles better than the current inherently racist and classist system.
Additionally, Find a way to get moneyed interests out of the elections. FPTP is also an issue, I think. Bulletproof elections, bulletproof civic liberties, REAL eeparation of powers, checks and balances are all prerequisites for a socialist economic system IMO. Those making the decisions from the top down need to be 100% accountable to their constituents for any truly moral governing system.
 
Colloquially, Socialism is now considered to be those things you listed. Sorry bro, I don't make the rules

Things provided for from the guvmint but not cops and military -> socialism
Private industry but gay -> Still Socialism
Private industry but Elon (ignore the subsidies!) -> Based Capitalism
Private industry but **** the gays -> Also Based Capitalism.
Cops and the Military -> always fund forever, this **** is based capitalism.
Just because stupid people who don't know the difference between 'social service', 'socialized', and 'socialism' are in the majority, it doesn't mean they are correct. It is particularly grating when they post the definition of 'socialist' in their post, and then go on about social programs while incorrectly calling them 'socialist programs'.
 
1. Housing
2. Health-care
3. Education
4. Food and Water
5. Electricity
6. Public Transportation
and
7. Internet access? I'm thinking about it.

Poverty is relative in every society, if for instance in the US you could not afford an internet connection you would be at a significant disadvantage so yes its a required basic of life in a modern society.

Would you consider adding to the list a compulsory insurance scheme for injured workers? The right to to join trade unions? The right to strike? The right to have unions represent workers in collective bargaining?

Most people are fantastically ignorant about the history of socialism. Worse are Americans who are generally fantastically ignorant about everything. If you look at say the Soviet Union in the early days after the civil war and before collectivisation and forced industrialisation under Stalin (He basically took Trotsky and Preobrazhensky's position after he had liquidated them) it basically was a mixed economy the state handle power, water, railroads and so on and industry more or less continued as usual under the guidance of the local soviets. People have this idea that a socialist state is necessarily collectivist, this is not the case.

Many on the right would criticise the Welfare state that dominated post war Europe and Australia as a form of socialism and it was, it was effectively a new deal for workers after the destruction of the depression and two world wars. In Australia this took the form of widespread public ownership of utilities, banks, key industries and facilities like ports and airports, airlines and so on. What this represented in my opinion was a form of democratic socialism, these resources provided for all Australians. Their sale in the the last 40 years represents a great theft off the Australian people as a whole. A transfer of wealth from all to a few, at a great cost to the many. The Milton Friedmans of the world and the market fundamentalism they unleashed on the world after the 74 oil crisis and stagflation is one of the quieter revolutions and assertion of class power in history. Within two generations the common wealth of a raft of developed nations was transferred into the hands of the middle class and elites at fire sale prices and not a shot was fired. (in the developed world anyway, many died in the third world at the hands of their own government implementing the plans of the IMF) The consequences for people in Chile were horrendous.
 
Additionally, Find a way to get moneyed interests out of the elections. FPTP is also an issue, I think. Bulletproof elections, bulletproof civic liberties, REAL eeparation of powers, checks and balances are all prerequisites for a socialist economic system IMO. Those making the decisions from the top down need to be 100% accountable to their constituents for any truly moral governing system.

Politics in a democracy is inherently adversarial, all interests should be represented, however the US has never really had a proper left. i think a real big problem for the US is the number and frequency of elections, politicians are always running for re-election, are always cap in hand to donors. It makes their capture by moneyed interests inevitable.
 
Poverty is relative in every society, if for instance in the US you could not afford an internet connection you would be at a significant disadvantage so yes its a required basic of life in a modern society.

Would you consider adding to the list a compulsory insurance scheme for injured workers? The right to to join trade unions? The right to strike? The right to have unions represent workers in collective bargaining?

Most people are fantastically ignorant about the history of socialism. Worse are Americans who are generally fantastically ignorant about everything. If you look at say the Soviet Union in the early days after the civil war and before collectivisation and forced industrialisation under Stalin (He basically took Trotsky and Preobrazhensky's position after he had liquidated them) it basically was a mixed economy the state handle power, water, railroads and so on and industry more or less continued as usual under the guidance of the local soviets. People have this idea that a socialist state is necessarily collectivist, this is not the case.

Many on the right would criticise the Welfare state that dominated post war Europe and Australia as a form of socialism and it was, it was effectively a new deal for workers after the destruction of the depression and two world wars. In Australia this took the form of widespread public ownership of utilities, banks, key industries and facilities like ports and airports, airlines and so on. What this represented in my opinion was a form of democratic socialism, these resources provided for all Australians. Their sale in the the last 40 years represents a great theft off the Australian people as a whole. A transfer of wealth from all to a few, at a great cost to the many. The Milton Friedmans of the world and the market fundamentalism they unleashed on the world after the 74 oil crisis and stagflation is one of the quieter revolutions and assertion of class power in history. Within two generations the common wealth of a raft of developed nations was transferred into the hands of the middle class and elites at fire sale prices and not a shot was fired. (in the developed world anyway, many died in the third world at the hands of their own government implementing the plans of the IMF) The consequences for people in Chile were horrendous.

Great ****ing post.

Yeah, the rights of workers enshrined in law would benefit society greatly. Unions themselves being regulated from corruption would also be great.
 
Politics in a democracy is inherently adversarial, all interests should be represented, however the US has never really had a proper left. i think a real big problem for the US is the number and frequency of elections, politicians are always running for re-election, are always cap in hand to donors. It makes their capture by moneyed interests inevitable.

This is only tangentially related to the discussion but very related to the post above. Could also be titled, how money controls congress, and majority interests are superseded. Or maybe, why we don't have free health-care.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFi73TzEN_8&t=1270s
 
Last edited:
Back
Top