Socialism: What does 'Socialism' mean?

[Willias]

Well, some aspects of socialism are great, it's true but socialism as a whole is bad. Very bad.. and it causes countries to stagnate. It's especially bad for the US because we actually depend on the inflow of brains and the best and the brightest from poor socialist countries coming to actually get paid for their ideas and effort.

Besides, most of these threads end up with a bunch of lefties bashing everyone who doesnt share their views. Such arguments on the internet, when there is actually no "right" side but everyone thinks theirs is the only way never go well:P

If some parts of a thing are good, then how can the whole be entirely bad? Using socialism as your form of government wholesale is very bad, but I feel that in any proper modern society, you'd have socialist fail-safes for when your citizens hit rock bottom for whatever reason.

[Deleted]

If some parts of a thing are good, then how can the whole be entirely bad? Using socialism as your form of government wholesale is very bad, but I feel that in any proper modern society, you'd have socialist fail-safes for when your citizens hit rock bottom for whatever reason.

You answered your own question there Socialism as a whole is very bad and would probably destroy most countries. But that doesn't mean some aspects of it aren't positive. Like the fail safes you mentioned. But high taxes, government controlled market, using tax money to build and buy things most people don't want or need.. no thanks.

[Willias]

Blarg. Words.

But high taxes, government controlled market, using tax money to build and buy things most people don't want or need.. no thanks.

Eh, taxes should just be "high enough". High enough to pay for things that society needs and no higher.

Not entirely agreed on government controlled market. A completely free market is as bad a thing as a completely controlled one.

And who defines most people? Should most people get to decide for everyone? I seem to recall our constitution being built around the idea that majority shouldn't always decide and always be the most powerful group, hence why the Senate was created.

I sometimes wonder if when the United States decided to build our transportation infrastructure if there were people protesting about it because who needs paved roads when dirt roads work just fine.

[Austilias]

It has several meanings in political theory (having studied Politics myself at university level), but in the real world it much more easily defined as "Failure".

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." - Thomas Sowell

[Dezerte]

Socialisms goal is to adapt & control Capitalism to make it more humane, or downright work towards complete removal of Capitalism through political reform.

My view on it, anyway. Pretty much all developed countries follow the former.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

[Tradewind]

Full on socialism can be a bit dangerous and very few countries survive or are at all successful. Modern examples of ones that make it work somehow are China and Cuba. The latter imo being a better example of it.

But many countries incorporate portions of Socialism and are also quite successful. Look to Scandinavian nations, the UK, Canada etc. Most "borderline" Socialist nations have fared well despite the downturn because their policies insulated them from some of the damage. None are truly socialist, but they do have a balance between capitalist free market and socialism that seems to work.

[Kulanae]

Well the problem here OP is that.......that is not the correct definition of Socialism. Socialism in a geopolitical sense is about control of the means of production of a society. There is no need to tax the citizens in Socialist countries, because the government already controls all aspects of the means of production and provides what the workers need.

Therefore I have to conclude that this discusion is specious as your definition is flawed.

[SkyBlueAri]

Well the problem here OP is that.......that is not the correct definition of Socialism. Socialism in a geopolitical sense is about control of the means of production of a society. There is no need to tax the citizens in Socialist countries, because the government already controls all aspects of the means of production and provides what the workers need. Therefore I have to conclude that this discussion is specious as your definition is flawed.

Yep you are correct, a society that only adopts every aspect of Socialism has no need for taxes since revenue is pooled and distributed for the good of everyone. Oh but wait:
Taxation "A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of..."
It is compulsory in a Socialist state to contribute to state revenue though? Yes controlled by the govt. (which is elected by the people), yes the income (everything of monetary value the person receives) and business profits (this could equate to international trade or any revenue received by funds appointed by the govt.).

Taxation in terms of Socialism is like a sliding scale. At 0% the country is purely Capitalistic meaning everything you earn you get to keep. At 100% the country is purely Socialism, everything you earn goes towards the govt. which spends it on everyone equally. Therefore I propose that 100% taxation could be viewed as purely Socialist, which is the opposite of what you just said.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you on the grounds that whilst you provide a very good point, your definition of taxation represents only one aspect of what the word actually means. In reality the word is easily adaptable to be an essential component of Socialism. Technically everything a Socialist earns is being "taxed" towards the govt. to provide everyone with benefits.

[Kulanae]

I disagree with your definition of taxation as it only incorrporates two aspects of societal formation (Capitalism and Socialism). Societal benefits and responsibilities incur regardless of political leanings. If taxation were simply a means of wealth redistribution, you might be correct......but it is not. What if the tax money is solely used to develop a strong military to attack neighboring countries? Is it still Socialist?

[Tradewind]

I think you guys are getting hung up on a weird concept. What Kul is getting at, I think, is that the taxation becomes irrelevant as the government provides for their citizenry...in the form of allowance/income, and their basic needs. There's no direct taxation. Since production, manufacturing etc. is all owned by the state. The government essentially funds itself through entirely state owned businesses, since there is no private ownership. Tax as a concept, goes out the window.

[SkyBlueAri]

I disagree with your definition of taxation as it only incorporates two aspects of societal formation (Capitalism and Socialism). Societal benefits and responsibilities incur regardless of political leanings. If taxation were simply a means of wealth redistribution, you might be correct......but it is not. What if the tax money is solely used to develop a strong military to attack neighboring countries? Is it still Socialist?

If attacking neighboring countries is to the benefit of the nation, then yes, it is. A strong military protects all the people of the state, equally.

I'm relating to what the purpose of taxation is in context specifically with Socialist ideologies. I never said taxation is solely a Socialist idea, I just said Socialism in cannot survive without it. As I said above, taxation is a very adaptable word that can be used in a number of ways. I'm just using it in reference to Socialism and Capitalism because that's what I'm talking about... Its just a way of looking at it.

Taxation in terms of a purely Socialist govt. can be seen from two, equally relevant perspectives:
1. Everything is 100% taxed and redistributed equally for everyones benefit.
2. Everything is 0% taxed because it all belongs to the government/people in equal portions.

Just two sides of the same coin. So I will concede that I am half right and so are you guys since you can look at it both ways and still be right.

Lets not get hung up over the intricacies though, the point of my post still lies with the stigma that comes with the word Socialism.

PS The actual definition that I quoted is from google which I think uses a combination of official dictionaries.

[Kulanae]

I think what you are actually describing is Social Democracy as you seem to see taxation as a tool to move a society from Capitalism to Socialism.

[Deleted]

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me most leftists seem to think like this..

There are problems in the society, science, education, welfare etc. needs funding. Am I willing to work to make it happen for free? Hell no! Im poor and I need free stuff too! But wait, there are some really rich people, why cant they pay for all this? They have a lot of money after all.

or the baser "Im stupid and incompetent but I do my best, I deserve stuff!".

Well, to be honest, I believe people who have vision and can make it happen deserve 100% of what they earn. They owe nothing to the society or the poor or anyone. If they want to give to charity, thats really nice of the but it's not their obligation.

[Tradewind]

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me most leftists seem to think like this..

There are problems in the society, science, education, welfare etc. needs funding. Am I willing to work to make it happen for free? Hell no! Im poor and I need free stuff too! But wait, there are some really rich people, why cant they pay for all this? They have a lot of money after all.

or the baser "Im stupid and incompetent but I do my best, I deserve stuff!".

Well, to be honest, I believe people who have vision and can make it happen deserve 100% of what they earn. They owe nothing to the society or the poor or anyone. If they want to give to charity, thats really nice of the but it's not their obligation.

That's a pretty condescending look at it I guess. I'm comparatively "leftist", I don't live in the US, so I'm probably more left than "Murrican Left." I work for a living, I don't expect handouts but I know that if I am in trouble they are there for me. I pay taxes and I know those taxes go to help others, but I know that if I am in trouble they are there for me. I know my taxes pay for educational subsidies so college tuition is almost 1/4 the price than that of US colleges, but I know that when my kids need it it's there for them and that I used it without getting into a mountain of debt.

The stronger my country is from the bottom to the top, the better it is.

[sevaj]

I don't like socialism, because it would force me to pay, through taxes, for a bunch of shit I don't want, will never use, and don't support.


Also, in theory Communism and full blown socialism are great, but as soon as you add the human element into leadership, the whole thing becomes completely fucked.

And school teaches me a bunch of shit i dont want will never use and dont support!

[Catta]

Well, to be honest, I believe people who have vision and can make it happen deserve 100% of what they earn. They owe nothing to the society or the poor or anyone. If they want to give to charity, thats really nice of the but it's not their obligation.

Not a fan infrastructure, I see...

[Dezerte]

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me most leftists seem to think like this..

There are problems in the society, science, education, welfare etc. needs funding. Am I willing to work to make it happen for free? Hell no! Im poor and I need free stuff too! But wait, there are some really rich people, why cant they pay for all this? They have a lot of money after all.

or the baser "Im stupid and incompetent but I do my best, I deserve stuff!".

Well, to be honest, I believe people who have vision and can make it happen deserve 100% of what they earn. They owe nothing to the society or the poor or anyone. If they want to give to charity, thats really nice of the but it's not their obligation.

I believe you are wrong.

The 'left' are about the greater good, advancing humanity for all or seeing the bigger picture. And because of these ideals, greed is not a virtue. We don't want to live in a world governed by the laws of the jungle. If you are physically strong, does it give you the right to harm those who are weaker than you? The 'left' ideal is similar to that.

And the rich people do benefit greatly from society, so you can't use that as argument either.

[Redblade]

Didn't we have a 50+ page thread about this just the other week?

[Tradewind]

Not a fan infrastructure, I see...

I am fond of the times where they admonish universal healthcare as being a socialist drain to prop up other people when they'll likely never use it for themselves...then go on to pay their health insurance premiums.

[Catta]

I am fond of the times where they admonish universal healthcare as being a socialist drain to prop up other people when they'll likely never use it for themselves...then go on to pay their health insurance premiums.

I just find it daft...