posted November 27, 2012 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
In Socialism the means of production is owned by the public. The U.S. isn't remotely close to that model.

---

From your link above, bold mine, for emphasis:

quote:

---

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

---

My point is there is no such thing as a "pure" model of socialism. It is always a relative term.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
A markedly closer country is Norway, which is doing splendidly (not that we could necessarily copy them or anything, but it's a good illustration of the fact that moving towards a more "Socialistic" society isn't necessarily a recipe for disaster).

---

I don't think it's a recipe for disaster- Germany is proudly Socialist, for example, and I think Bavaria is the most beautiful place on earth.

Could I cope with all the regulation Germans face? Maybe. Would I want to? Does this resonate with me as an ideal way for society for progress? No, it doesn't. It is not the ideal I subscribe to.

Culturally, Norway has some values that the US hasn't adopted yet; they are extremely minimalistic and have a deeply ingrained sense of duty to their community.

Not sure if the government could orchestrate that for Americans, except maybe by imposing dire circumstances on us and forcing us to learn coping skills.

^ Norwegians are masters at having a good life, with less junk around them. This room's fully decorated for Christmas.

posted November 27, 2012 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

My point is there is no such thing as a "pure" model of socialism. It is always a relative term.

---

Your previous point was that we were already rather Socialist. I don't see how you get to that opinion from a comprehensive knowledge of Socialism. It seems like you've seen an out, and you're taking it.

You didn't bold the definition the article started with, which is the most apt general description: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."

quote:

---

I don't think it's a recipe for disaster

---

Once again, your previous position was, "socialism provides equal opportunity to reach a glass ceiling and go no further. It de-incentizives work." Maybe I took this criticism of yours wrong, but the implication I see is that you were saying that Socialism makes people lazy. That's obviously not the case in Germany. That case would be better made of Norway where 22% of people are on welfare and 13% are too disabled to work (the highest rates in the world), though unemployment there is a tiny 2%. I am also surprised to hear that German is proudly Socialist.

quote:

---

Not sure if the government could orchestrate that for Americans, except maybe by imposing dire circumstances on us and forcing us to learn coping skills.

So there are ways that people live better in Socialist countries, I agree, but I'm not sure if socialism takes the credit or longer-held cultural values. Or, more likely, it's a reciprocal relationship between society and government playing out over time.

---

I agree to a large extent.

America's values, especially of late, have been perverted to suit certain political agendas/special interests, which, in turn, perverts our government.

posted November 27, 2012 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
germany, socialist? Angela merkel is conservative, and shroeder, previously, had reformed the working conditions to please the markets. i suppose for americans, anyone in europe is socialist then. Anyway, merkel is conservative. Not socialist.
Divisions of the political spectrum are different on thz 2 continents, indeed. Correct me if I am wrong but you have liberals on one side and conservatives on the other. With libertarians that side with conservatives and socialists that side with liberals democrats because the ultimate axis in US politics is the importance of the federal state. In europe, the divisions of the political spectrum are essentially economic, with liberals on one side against the
socialists and communists on the other. But times are changing. divisions are being challenged and redefined. The socialist are increasingly changing towards liberals democrats, accepting the rules of the market. and a portion of the population is left feeling unprotected because the liberals and the socialists (democrats?)push forward a forced economic liberalisation whose purpose is the famous new world order. The reaction is an increase in the less mainstream parties, the most radicals. On the left they ask for a communist sort of revolution, for and by the people. While on the right, the traditionalists become nationalists.
But europe is 27 countries. Thos doesn,t apply to all.

---

pire - While direct, trans-national comparisons may be difficult on some points, it's useful to take into account that the political spectrum seems to be generally shifted to the left of that in the US in most Western European countries.

For example, could you imagine conservative Merkel claiming that climate change is a hoax, advocating for instruction in intelligent design in public schools, or advocating for a scaling-back of Germany's health care measures to match those of the US?

From my (admittedly somewhat limited in breadth - mostly in a University setting) conversations with Europeans, Obama seems like he would be considered to be a slightly hawkish, perhaps conservative-leaning moderate in most of the EU.

posted November 28, 2012 06:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
germany, socialist? Angela merkel is conservative, and shroeder, previously, had reformed the working conditions to please the markets. i suppose for americans, anyone in europe is socialist then.

---

Apparently you believe that the political orientation of Germany's leader decides what the whole country is? I disagree. There are other factors to take into consideration like Germany's history and culture, main political parties and their ideologies, social market economy, socialized medicine, wealth redistribution and tax levels.

One of my best friends is German, she is a member of the Social Democrat Party (SDP) which is one of the two major political parties in Germany. She is proudly socialist.

No need to tell you, because you are French, and Europeans always know more than Americans that...

quote:

---

The SPD is a full member party of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. It is Germany's oldest extant political party, established in 1875, in the German Parliament. It was also one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world.

---

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

But I'm not supposed to say they're socialist.

posted November 28, 2012 06:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Your previous point was that we were already rather Socialist. I don't see how you get to that opinion from a comprehensive knowledge of Socialism. It seems like you've seen an out, and you're taking it.

---

I don't have to look for an out. America is rather socialist, in my opinion. In your opinion, I suppose, there is no such thing as "rather" socialist. The country either meets your criteria (owns all the modes of production, etc., so it's Socialist) or it doesn't meet those criteria, so it's not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You didn't bold the definition the article started with, which is the most apt general description:

---

Actually, that's just your preference, to emphasize one part and trivialize the rest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Once again, your previous position was, "socialism provides equal opportunity to reach a glass ceiling and go no further. It de-incentizives work." Maybe I took this criticism of yours wrong, but the implication I see is that you were saying that Socialism makes people lazy. That's obviously not the case in Germany.

---

Perhaps it does make some people lazy, I don't know. I do know that, as I said, one of my best friends is German. She's a Capricorn who speaks about six languages fluently and once held a high-paying job at an essential oils company.

Currently she doesn't work. One of the main reasons is, her husband makes so much money that if she worked, they would go up into the next tax bracket, and consequently most of her earnings would go to their joint filing of taxes. She doesn't feel like taking on a full-time job just to give most of her earnings to the government. She loves socialism, but not that much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
That case would be better made of Norway where 22% of people are on welfare and 13% are too disabled to work (the highest rates in the world), though unemployment there is a tiny 2%.

---

Interesting, thanks for the figures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I am also surprised to hear that German is proudly Socialist.

---

Why? You're the expert on Socialism, you should have known.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I agree to a large extent.

---

We agree?? We agree!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
America's values, especially of late, have been perverted to suit certain political agendas/special interests, which, in turn, perverts our government.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Less stress = less mental clutter = less physical clutter.

---

posted November 28, 2012 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

I don't have to look for an out. America is rather socialist, in my opinion. In your opinion, I suppose, there is no such thing as "rather" socialist. The country either meets your criteria (owns all the modes of production, etc., so it's Socialist) or it doesn't meet those criteria, so it's not.

---

I think calling Norway rather Socialist would be more appropriate. At least there, the government does run one industry (oil) for the benefit of all (like Sarah Palin's Alaska deal), and then additionally has great social welfare programs. We have ok social welfare programs at best, and that's all.

quote:

---

Actually, that's just your preference, to emphasize one part and trivialize the rest.

---

I just pointed out that that was what YOU did. The part I gave my preference to summarizes Socialism the same way a dictionary would:

1. : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

It's not merely my preference.

quote:

---

Why? You're the expert on Socialism, you should have known.

---

I'm not the expert on Socialism, but you're the only person I've ever heard refer to Germany as Socialist (in the modern era). It's interesting to learn that their economic style is actually a hybrid.

The social market economy seeks a market economic system rejecting both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, combining private enterprise with measures of government regulation in an attempt to establish fair competition, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, a standard of working conditions, and social welfare. The term "social" was chosen rather than "socialist" to distinguish the social market economy from a system in which the state directed economic activity and/or owned the means of production,[1] which are privately-owned in the social market model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

posted November 30, 2012 07:03 AM            

quote:

---

At least there, the government does run one industry (oil) for the benefit of all (like Sarah Palin's Alaska deal), and then additionally has great social welfare programs. We have ok social welfare programs at best, and that's all.

---

I'd say that agriculture subsidies here in the US are comparably socialistic.

quote:

---

The part I gave my preference to summarizes Socialism the same way a dictionary would

---

Okay but my point, again, comes from the wiki page on socialism that you directed me to: "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them."

I like katatonic's phrase "mixed grill socialism."

Regarding the waitress coughing: she probably just has a cold, and since when can doctors cure that? Having healthcare isn't going to solve her cold. She should have built up her immunity. Sick people aren't always blameless...I think implicitly blaming Republicans for everyone's sickness ignores the facts of life: if you neglect your health, if you refuse to take responsibility for your body, that is mostly your fault. Yes, socioeconomic factors play into the etiology of disease on a macro scale, but the emphasis should always be more on preventing disease than, as the Chinese say, "waiting until you are dying of thirst before you start digging the well."

So I think the poster of the coughing waitress should say, "Remember, servers, to eat clean food, get your rest and exercise, and take immune boosting supplements when the weather gets cold!"

@kat

Welcome back!

quote:

---

faith, socialism has nothing to do with "glass ceilings" but with glass "floors" ie, once everyone is taken care of to a baseline extent, you are free to pursue money and possessions to your heart's content. at least the european, mixed grill kind of socialism..

---

Well, it's both then. And some people shoot up through the ceiling and some fall through the floors, regardless.

quote:

---

my question is, why is the pursuit of wealth considered the same as the pursuit of happiness?

---

I dunno. I just live here.

quote:

---

and what is "free market" about the development of monopolies which inevitably happens when business is unregulated (ie a real "free" market)?

---

posted November 30, 2012 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Happiness is more when one is aware that there is no need to suffer just to survive, and that one can pursue greater wealth at ones leisure without having to cheat others in the process.
Wealth accrued from cheating can never give happiness. Depriving honest wages, fixing stock prices, fixing fake IPO Prices, usury, manipulating currencies... these can never give happiness.
Look at my post where I mentioned two greedy billionaire brothers who were crony capitalists of the highest level. They shot each other to death over a couple of properties. If excess wealth is always excess happiness, none of the celebs will take drugs.

---

Well said! I agree 100%

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Let America lead the way in 100% free food security, free health security and very cheap education. Everything else will take care of itself because America has the greatest Constitution in Earth's History.

---

If you take from workers to give to non-workers, you aren't necessarily generating happiness that way, either.

Some Native Americans still living in reservations can live entirely on government subsidies. Go to a place like Browning, Montana, where the Blackfeet Indians live in a virtual welfare utopia: all their basic needs are handed to them by the government.

And the people are miserable, they have no drive, they complain to tourists about how despirited and lazy so many of their neighbors are.

I think about the time I spent there when people are pushing the theory that a nanny state produces happy people. It's just not that simple.

posted November 30, 2012 11:59 AM            

** that would be BlackfOOt indians, many of whom left the reservation and integrated long ago..and if you put a wild roaming animal or human in a cage (reservation) just big enough to pace two steps each way, they will lose their capacity to hunt and care for themselves before long.

however it is hardly "robbing" the rich to ask them to pay a few more pennies on income OVER 250 or 500K - the very same folk who once paid 90% are the ones who are screaming that the LAZY are sucking them dry. which is bullcrap.

let's try to remember that MOST people use the safety net only as long as they have to and that many highly successful people have needed govt assistance for awhile...

and the same folk who call it "humane" to insist that HOSPITALS - who receive fed funding - should care for the indigent call it SOCIALISM that the people should be asked to buy insurance to cover cost of same HUMANE procedure.

posted November 30, 2012 12:16 PM            

I don't see why wealth should be stigmatized; every person has their own story and ethics which deserve attention and the benefit of the doubt.

The bitterness that comes through when some people talk about the millionaires, I don't think that's healthy. To look at rich people and say, "They don't deserve to keep all that money" seems outright bigoted to me. Let THEM decide what to do with their earnings. We are not just automatically entitled to a huge slice of their pie.

posted November 30, 2012 01:47 PM            

The poor should feel guilty and the rich scared.?

arguing for socialism is not necssarilly arguing for a stigmatization of the wealthy or wealth. The bitterness u mention may come out of frustration of having to argue obvious right such as healthcare. At a period where healthcare was a priviledge bzcause very few doctors knew what to do, yes. But now. What justify it? No enough... Good will??
What is the point of living by society's rule if all we get is the right to.... Nothing. The peace of the rich has a price. This isn't a threat, but nature.
Slightly off topic but still similar argument about being too many humans on earth. only a third or less of the population is having an impact on nature. And we already blame the rests for just existing while they have insignificant impact. Saying what if they were like us?