Socialism

I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism as an economic theory, because as unjust as it is, it still works better than most of the other theorys. I believe in a managed capitalism (You need worker protections, Unions, environmental protections, Protections against fraud, and so on and so forth.).

Socialism means two things. One is that the government takes a certain interest in the health and happiness of the common man through programs such as (in the US), Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and so on. These are all noble programs. As we all know it's best from both a moral and a practical point of view to take care of our people.

However, Socialism also means the redistrubution of wealth. It means the government taking money away from person B and giving it to person D. And that's what I find problemattic. The assumption is that some people have more than they need, and others have less so we even it up. But at a certain point you have to go to person B and say, "Hey we are taking this and this and this and you can't do much about it." I'm not sure where any government or any person gets the moral authority to do that.

I also am not sure where socialism as a theory fits with the Democratic party. Isn't the Demcoratic party a capitalist party? Certainly on more than one occasion I've been called a communist or a socialist because I'm a Democrat and I've always made fun of the idea.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Isn't that the definition of a Social Democrat? It describes my views pretty successfully.

Socialism is a word that is used by so many as to lose a concrete meaning. But one implication of socialism is that eventually you move beyond Capitalism. But if you don't want to do that, well than it's fine.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Moral socialism in the sense of seeing societal issues through an egalitarian / socialist model. \

The implication of social programs are certainly not to go beyond capitalism. Social programs were invented by german and british conservatives and not by socialists. Socialists actually feared the welfare state, because it made the workers settle for anything less than full socialism.

Based upon your example, your mixing economic and political structures. A social democrat pushes the ECONOMY toward a socialist model, while maitaining the POLITICAL constructs of democracy. (One person, one vote, government by the governed and so on.)

One is either a capitalist or a socialist, since those are the polar positions on the economic scale. Of course, there are plenty of options in the middle, but one is either primarily a capitalist who favors some social economic systems run by gov't (that would be me) or a socialist who favors some measure of personal wealth accumulation and business ownership. (Like the Chinese gov't, right now.)

So you can be a capital communist, a social democrat, a socialist/communist or a capitalist democrat. Those are the four quadrants, with room to manuever within each.

But, one is either tending toward socialism or capitalism.
The Professor

has a pretty good blend of the two.

And I think even the staunchly socialist Scandanavian countries still have people able to afford Volvos etc. I don't think it really is as bad as Americans think. Certainly we are not talking shades of the USSR and full-blown communist dictatorship by any means.

Yes, X amount of money is given to the gov't, but an awful lot of services are given back in return. Great education, health care, LONG family leave. This isn't X amount given to gov't PLUS paying for all those services. Americans always forget to subtract those things from the outgoing funds list of their Scandanavian counterparts when trying to size up their quality of life from a monetary view.

Actually, over two thirds of all norwegians recieve more from the state that they pay in taxes.

If you eat your vegetables, you can have some cake.

A diet of only cake is not healthy, sooner or later the child will get sick, feed him nothing but veggies and he will push them around on his plate and gaze out the window, but the incentive of some cake will encourage him to eat his veggies, enjoy his cake and be a well-rounded child.

If all your people are fed, housed, and doctored, you can have a big slice of capitalism with free market on top!

Any taxation, any government redistributes the wealth one way or another. In the US, the wealth is redistributed to corporations.

in a government BY the people (Democratic) and FOR the people (socialist).

I want the children in my country fed, housed, clothed and educated equally, without distinction, with my tax dollars, and yours too.

I just believe in sharing.

I have no qualms about giving up some of my money so that others will have the things they need. Charities, while a wonderful thing, cannot possibly reach every needy person out there. Only the gov't has that capability.

(I have some scripture on my website in support of Socialism, if anyone is interested.)

In the US, the wealth is redistributed to corporations

How so? What percentage of the Federal Government budget goes to corporations?

as well as the trade subsidies for exporting companies as well as indirect subsidies, such as leasing mining rights to companies at 1872 prices or allowing them to set up offshore dropbox addresses to avoid taxes and still get government contracts.

If you want to consider "privatization", we're about to be hit by an avalanche....

Kanary

....is that it treats the recipient like a four year old child -- unable to make educated choices, think critically, plan ahead, and sacrifice immediate gratification for a higher purpose.

That in a nutshell is my problem with socialism.

....And if he misbehaves (ie dissents from his parents' opinion and discipline) he goes to bed without any supper at all!

Extremism does not bring a good result.

If you read my analogy in its entirety, you will see that I am referring to a balanced diet, not one consisting either entirely of broccoli or entirely of cake.

A little common sense goes a long way, unfortunately, common sense, even love for one's grandchildren, is no match for unchecked greed.

The cold war years gave us the chance to see how even the most equitable theory on paper was just as subject to corruption and greed as the previous theory, which did not pretend to be at all equitable.

And in many countries around the world, we can see the result of unchecked greed without benefit of any balancing ideological or economic counterweight.

If you have worked hard for all your success and material gains, you stand to lose more in the US system than even the poorest of the poor, who after all, have little to lose, that is why they are poor.

Unbridled greed and exploitation, whatever name you wish to give it, empowers you to decide if you would prefer to spend your disposable income on your chilrens' education, put something away for their future, or spend it on security guards to stand with guns in front of your house 24 and 7, to prevent people with nothing to lose, and an equal expectation of perishing regardless of whether they do what you want them to or not, simply breaking down your door and stealing what you have worked hard to have.

The current US transition to feudalism robs you of your freedom to take the prudent step of ensuring that the poor are not so desperate for basic needs like housing and food and medicine, that they turn the city where you live into a Brazilian favela, or a Rwandan warlord territory.

Feudalism is undeniably more profitable for the lord. And if that is you, then indeed, I can offer no argument that does not rest essentially on moral and/or ethical considerations, or your hope that your children's children will not grow up in Rwanda.It is unlikely that such arguments would be relevant to your concerns.

If, however, your concerns do include remaining in the middle class, or avoiding the choice of choosing whether to educate your children or pay gunmen to fend off desperate hordes, then eating your vegetables before you have your cake is a very good idea, and one that most thinking adults are wise enough to do.

Many first world countries have adopted their particular brand of what can be called a Social Democracy. They do not forbid capitalism. They have more than one party so there are checks and balances--one side doesn't overwhelm the other. The idea of taking money away from one and giving it to another isn't right. It's about the TAXES that all governments take from all citizens that should be BETTER spent. It's about helping to keep people from "falling through the cracks" and preventative measures to insure even the modest wellbeing of the whole society..not just a fortunate few.
I cannot understand how people in this country (USA) can live their lives in a la la land fashion while stepping over bodies on the street! How MUCH poverty and how many unsheltered and unhealthy people will it take in this country before the haves start to feel really creepy and uncomfortable--to the point of DOING something about it? STOP THE PORK and lend a hand to your neighbor.

:think:

it really depends on what you define as Socialism...Socialism can be defined as an Economic Model, or as a government model

Full Funding of Social Programs is what I mainly think of about Democratic Socialism...and about the redistribution of wealth, well you can't have a society where some people can get filthy rich while others work just as hard to never break the breadline

Can you have a society where some are filthy rich and others are getting by?

What good does it do anyone for a small percentage of people to take wealth out of circulation? That is what happens when you have people who are "filthy rich"--they have more money than they can use. I'm fine with those who invest their large sums of money into businesses that employ others and generate more wealth, but there are plenty who either waste their money through conspicuous consumption or essentially stuff a mattress with it. I am all for compelling these people to keep their money working through the threat of confiscatory taxes on unproductive wealth.

And the bottom of the capitalist system is not people who are "just getting by." It is people who aren't getting by, people who are living on the streets, living on hand-outs, living on the good will of people who have barely more than they have. The filthy rich aren't the ones to be faced with housing a newly homeless former neighbor or ponying up money to try to keep a disabled friend off the street. Capitalism doesn't help these people and doesn't care. It doesn't even see them, because it takes into account only people who already have money.

It seems to me that the mixed system of capitalism and socialism is the best way to go--encouraging both creative risk and wide dispersal of wealth.

Welcome to America.

Where someone with enough money to buy an island can't be bothered to buy a sweater for a 2 year old who doesn't have one.

because millions AREN'T getting by at all

you want to work hard and earn alot of money, good for you...but you should pay a much higher rate of tax to ensure some of that money goes to help others get by

This past Sunday, I volunteered at my church's meal program for the poor.

Sure, there were a lot of the usual "street people" types whose appearance and behavior suggested the ravages of alcohol and drugs. But there were others who seemed to have a certain middle class air about them, as if they were new to poverty. They seemed vaguely embarrassed at being there.

However, I remember from my years of working with street kids in Portland that many of them found that even after getting a full-time McJob, they could make it to the end of the month only because they were still eligible to have their main meal at the center.

Perhaps the people I saw Sunday night have been downsized into working minimum wage.

A couple of months ago, we heard a sermon about how obscene it was to spend so much money on war when the number of people seeking help at just our church (not to mention the others in the city) is increasing rapidly.

a "redistribution of wealth", or a two-tiered feudal society like most of europe had in the middle ages?

With the have-nots receiving sub-standard medical care and education...?

more people would suffer under pure capitalism than under pure socialism(unless you consider a lack of opulence and wretched excess to be "suffering").

And you don't need to throw out Capitlism to give the poor medical care and good education.

"...you don't need to throw out Capitlism to give the poor medical care and good education"

then how do you do it, without adding some socialism to the mix?

how does laissez-faire capitalism account for the medical/educational needs of the underclasses?

You are putting words in my mouth. Can I do the same to you?

Where did I call for a "Laissez-faire" capitalism? If I gave you taht impression I'm sorry, but I am in fact in favor of a managed capitalism with some socialistic elements to care for the needy among us.

especially with automation, globalization, the multiplication of the population, as well as financial optimization through mergers and aquisitions.(ok, so jesse jackson i ain't...)
the upper classes constantly demand an increasing amount of profit, fueling a race to the bottom among the worker classes for wages and costs of production.
Human nature being what it is and all, Capitalism is doomed to devour itself.

You can't put a price tag on the environment, and things like the rain-forest and the coral reefs, etc...in terms of their importance to the earth's eco-system, but capitalists do it all the time....and people have to be seen as people, not as numbers on a spreadsheet, above or below the bottom-line.

and what about religion?
Having been raised in a religious household and educated at parochial schools, I still don't understand how capitalism and christianity can really co-exist("compassionate conservative"???)

Yeah it's dangerous adn it needs to be managed, but it's still a damn sight better than eating meat raw.

and to me, capitalism is like a cancer on the soul of humanity...ultimately- money talks, and the bottom line makes the final decision, not the moral concept of right and wrong.

Actually, when the system is in place, I would claim that there was less material based suffering in eastern Europa than in capitalist countries.

Yes, under communism people do lack luxury goods, but everyone has enough to eat and can get medical treatment and education.

What really is a problem with capitalism, is that the nation can get richer, but poverty and suffering still isn`t abolished over even near abolished.

Right now. In America.

And it's supported by the Republican Party.

It's being TAKEN from people who work hard, for long hours and for little pay. To provide barely enough for themselves and their families, but not enough to attain what Madison Ave preaches. The needs that they can afford don't always include safety, health, education, or even escape.

Wealth is being taken from the people who can least afford it.

Ronnie Raygun cut taxes on the wealthy, then doubled the FICA tax on wages and put the revenue into the general fund instead of a "lockbox" to pay for the tax cuts- All he did was rob from the blue-collars to give it to the white-collars.

http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden

so the called "third way." Using the profit motive to better society

just found one quick was looking for something specific but didnt see it so I pasted one of the first I found.

obviously it is, but they did not get that money solely on their own. They got it because they are part of a wider society that has made all kinds of investments.

In a world without community or society, just individuals out for themselves, no one would be able to make money because we'd be in chaos.

We can pursue our own interests exactly because we are part of wider society; exactly because the government, representing our interests, ensures an infrastructure and investments that give us the opportunity to pursue our own personal interests.

SO the money is not only "yours," it exists because of society. And taxes are society's share of the money that you have "earned."

DU is a place for "Democrats and other progressives". Are Communists considered progressives?

Can a party that calls for:
"Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."

Be considered "progressive" or is it anarchic?

We live in a mixed economy. Some parts are best served by capitalism and some are best served by socialism. One thing I always think makes the distinction is the infrastructure of the the item. National Parks, Schools, Hiways, Electrical Service, Insurance, Postal Service are best served by socialism because they share a common infrastructure. Most business is best served by capitalism because it benefits from competition. Socialism has many problems, but can also be more effective than capitalism in some applications.

The government's, or person's, moral authority for redistribution of wealth comes from the fact that "it's best from both a moral and a practical point of view to take care of our people". Either it's a moral standpoint (a religious injunction to take care of the weak, or a humanist wish to benefit all people), or a practical one (starving or desperate people are disruptive and harmful to society, while healthy, educated citizens can contribute to the common good).

I would also say that socialism involves the common ownership of at least the infrastructure (utilities, public transport), and maybe industrial and financial corporations too. I don't think anyone outside America would call the Democratic party socialist.

It means the government taking money away from person B and giving it to person D. And that's what I find problemattic.

Hmmmm. Sound familiar?

It's not about the system that's in place. It's about the people within the system. Unless we're just talking about distatorships, authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes, those are a different story. Those systems, in and of themselves, are exactly what they say they are.

I like the Sweden post. Seems to be working for them. As with anything in life, you need a balance. That's why everything in life has an opposite. Dry/wet. Hot/cold. Big/small. Matter/anti-matter. Up/down. And the list goes on. If everything is the same, what's the point of existence?

Everybody can't be just a capitalist. Then everyone is out for themselves, and eventually(whether today, or 100 years from now) you end up in very few controlling everything. Everybody can't be just a socialist. Then everyone becomes dependant on someone else all the time. Neither one works by itself.

But then one side will say that the other is evil, even when that's not true. But society(apparently except Sweden...time to move to Sweden) seems to be molded into one of division. Label people as much as possible. Get people to get pissed at another human beings for their beliefs, even if their core beliefs are essentially the same. Get people to fear the other guy, even though that fear is based on the same mind set. Get average everyday people to look down at someone else, even though technically, we're all one step away from being in the same spot.

You need a blend of everything. Life is a crapshoot anyway. Why was I born a white kid in America? There's no reason. Whatever chemicals I'm made of just happened to come about in the manner in which they did. I'm not supposed to be white, I just am. But that topic is for a different discussion.

Everybody can't be just a socialist. Then everyone becomes dependant on someone else all the time.

But we are all dependant on one another all the time. I can't make my own car or build my own house or do any number of other things for myself. Socialism isn't about some folks doing little or nothing while others do all the work. In fact, there are a lot of wealthy capitalists who do very little or nothing (except travel or play golf!) but they live on the income generated by their investments. Those people depend on workers who are out there forty hours a week actually producing goods and services, and getting not enough to afford even some basics. What's wrong with that picture?

I'm not saying we're not all connected. We're all from the same place, and we're all going down with it if we're not careful. I was just saying that it might lead to people expecting someone else to do it all the time. Which is, like you said, what some of the wealthy capitalists do(and so, in a way, that's socialism gone bad...but it's also capitalism, so...ahhh, humans). And what a lot of society does these days, especially here in this country.

And I consider myself a socialist more than a capitalist. Either one can be corrupted though. But then again, I also don't like those terms, because all it does is create more division among the people who, in general, have the same fears, concerns, wants, needs, thoughts, hopes, etc, etc, etc. It's only the elite in either category, with ambitious ambitions, that use it to their advantage.

Socialism does not mean either "big government" or "wealth redistribution" per se. Those are common myths promoted by capitalist propagandists to keep people in fear of socialism.

As for the Democratic Party, yes, it is a capitalist party. Even in its most leftwing phase (under FDR), it was a capitalist party. Usually, those who call Democrats "socialists" or "communists" are either arch-conservatives or outright fascists.

Martin

Particularly since most socialism gets traced back to Karl Marx, who was very much a promoter of wealth distrubution if not big government.

You certainly make yourself sound like an expert. But I doubt it. If you had read Marx, you would know that he neither supported "big government" nor "wealth redistribution".

And, yes, I am quite dismissive of capitalist myths.

Martin

of what socialism is, rather than what it isn't.

How's that?

Martin

but Religion/God. There was the baby in that bath water.
Communism = Kingdom of God (on Earth).

Germany being the location of the first communist revolution,
and average wages in Capitalist countries dropping,
and the Labor Theory of Value,
and so many, many other things.


Not.

Germany being the location of the first communist revolution,

Throughout much of the 19h century, when Marx lived, that was considered to be the case.

and average wages in Capitalist countries dropping,

... in relation to what the capitalists get. And the facts bear that out. Did you ever look at the difference between workers' and CEOs' pay?

and the Labor Theory of Value,

Even bourgeois economists accept LTV nowadays.

and so many, many other things.

Yeah, like his analysis of commodity production, his critique of bourgeois democracy, the relations between the economic and political aspects of society, etc.

Sounds like we're agreeing on a lot today, Nede.





NOT!

Martin

Although it's been a couple of years.

Do socialists favor redistribution of wealth? Oh and as to "democracy in all aspects of human life" that doesn't make it right. You can certainly use a democratic process to arrive at an injust end. IT's called the tyranny of the majority.

"Tyranny of the majority". I just LOVE that phrase. If there was ever an anti-democratic statement, put in a succinct and unequivocal way, that is it.

Democracy, by definition, protects the democratic rights of minorities. It is not democracy without those rights firmly in place. To use the argument of a "tyranny of the majority", put simply, is an apology for a social system (capitalism) that actively promotes a very real, very brutal tryanny of the minority -- that minority being the capitalist class.

(Incidentally, no, I do not consider private ownership of capital a "right" -- democratic or otherwise. Capital is created by collective labor, and appropriated by individuals through coercion. If there is anything anathema to democratic rights, it is the private ownership of capital.)

As for your understanding of Marx, I would recommend reading The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Civil War in France to see what Marx's view on "big government" was. Also, you may want to review The German Ideology and the Grundrisse for his views on "wealth redistribution". You will see that he opposes both.

Martin

Capitalists believe in private ownership of capital, socialists don't. Its probably one of the few things Martin and I agree on...

Like that's an absolutely GOOD thing. Silly rabbits...No wait...Subjective rabbits.

On a side note I only have two people on ignore and I would bet a million dollars which one is popping up as "Ignored" here.

You seem to be like reverse "OFF" for the one I'm thinking about;-)

In a way, every society stands for redistrubution of wealth, because in a truly "natural society" without any laws, institutions or moral norms being forced on people by the state, you will end up with small egalitarian tribal societies.

Therefore, the redistrubutive welfare state is just giving something back to the people that have been worse off because of the introduction of property rights.

Since the rich get rich by using cheap labor shouldnt they share it more equally with the people who actually did the labor?

Since the rich get rich by using cheap labor...

You'll have to prove this before simply asserting it.

Find an example of someone whose wealth did NOT come from labor.

Martin

I never said wealth didn't come from labor.

Hence, "cheap labor". No strawman intended.

Martin

The problem is, you assume that all labor is equal. It isn't.

Did the people who bought their albums not work?
Did the people who produced, pressed and delivered their albums not work?

Martin

They worked and got rich. Who did they exploit to get that way? Answer: nobody.

The people who bought the albums did so freely, and had no need to whatsoever, so there is no element of coercion to it. Lennon and McCartney did not employ the people who produced, pressed and delivered their albums; their compositions and playing abilities earned them large amounts from the record companies.

It's also about freedom and liberty. Socialism always has a face that looks good to us in that most of us want to do the right thing and are willing to give up some cash to help out someone who needs it. Problem is, governments never have the interests of the people as a priority for long once you hand them too much power -- and in a monetary economy and culture, control of the money as in redistribution of wealth is where the power is. To me, we not only vote a couple times a year and every four years for president, we vote several times a day whenever we spend a few bucks.

It's about the fact that you can't have economic determinism (anything from high taxation to redistribution of wealth) and at the same time have social liberty. Economic determination NECESSARILY leads to social determinism.

Here's a personal example: when I turned 18, there was a fairly new law on the books regarding college financial aid. If a young man wanted any, he had to first register for the draft. At the time I had a problem with that, but in order to be eligible for money that had been in part paid for by taxation of everyone in my extended family, I had to compromise my beliefs. Now that's a pretty minor example, but when government gets involved in providing financial resources, true oppression is not far behind. I always look at socialism and even too large social welfare programs as kind of a velvet curtain with an eventual gun or jail cell behind it.

In many ways the federal govenment already uses a form of socialism to extend its powers beyond what is outlined in the constitution. Whenever there is a contentious bill or policy wherein power of the states overrides federal power, they usually threaten to withhold federal funds for highways, etc. The message there is, "get them dependent then use the dependency to get them to give up their rights." The mafia tends to work the same way.

We live in a capitalist state. The vast majority of Americans like it that way.

A social safety net and progressive tax system are there to protect not destroy the capitalist system.

Beyond the benefits of a progressive tax system that taxes the haves harder than the have nots, redistribution of wealth in this nation is not something the majority of Americans want at all. Not only that, a good tax system is beneficial for a capitalist society. It gives those who have less more breathing room as they fight their way up inside the capitalist model.

On the social safety net, markets are cyclical but not god-like in their majesty. Blind faith in the markets is pure insanity. Unemployment, disability insurance and social security are all there to protect people when the excesses of the market economy smack them down. Grandma can have the best money manager in the universe at her side and still lose her entire savings in another Wall Street scandal. It can happen and has happened. The most skilled worker in the world is still SOL when everyone downsizes at once to compensate for the down market. The social safety net preserves the people and insulates from these cycles.

To protect the common good and civil liberties of the people, businesses have to be regulated. When the business interests and public interests collide there is only one force in a capitalist society powerful enough to protect the population. That is a representative democracy. Otherwise, even a few disreputable businesses can destroy the lives and livelyhoods of millions of people.

That is my take. You have to balance the reality of the markets and the capitalist society with the protection of the common good and the liberties of the individuals on which the democracy is founded. That protection may take a form that resembles socialist policies. However, these policies are actually vital to the protection of the capitalist society.

The value is decided by the community, not just you. The paper is worthless without the society that goes along with it. Sorry if you don't like the rules!

"Redistrubution of wealth"? That's capitalism, and every other system. In fact, that's what an economy is, isn't it, the creation and distribution of wealth?

... and by that, I mean the type of capitalism practiced during the Industrial Revolution. With round after round after round of market practices, capital tends to concentrate itself. If somebody is rich enough, their money makes its own money. With a finite supply of money on this planet, taken out to its logical conclusion, the world's supply of capital becomes concentrated in the hands of the few.

Money is only useful if it's flowing. If it accumulates in large lakes of wealth, it becomes stagnant and useless to an economy. You should read what Einstein said about socialism - he makes some very interesting points.

Capitalism is fine, but it needs balance.

because the managed capitalist economies are being left in the dust as the corporations flee the cost of labor, insurance, environment, and litigation costs for the unmanaged capitalist economies.

The only business that can survive in the major managed capitalist economies (US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Austrailia) are those who's product or service is location dependent, such as food distribution, some merchandizing, medical care, and energy distribution. All other businesses are moving to cheap labor, unregulated environments, with the myopic assumption that the products and services they are developing there will have a market, even though the means of acquiring income are being destroyed in those markets.

Managed capitalism will self destruct in the presence of unmanaged capitalism. Capital will become balanced when the regulatory and labor costs of the two merge to an equivalant point. In my opinion, reaching that point will cause the total destruction of the standard of living in the US.

The US has many socialist rules and regulations. One prominent example is the WTC, Greg Palast did a good article about how it being built was a triumph of American socialism. It was built with government money, the land is still owned by the ny mta. To have a good government you need to draw the line at the right place between pure socialism and pure capitalism. You need to find the right rules to make the country work as efficently as possible without trampling on the ones who get the least. The argument isnt between socialism and capitalism, its between where to draw the line. Many people have lost sight of this and believe the us is purely capitalistic.

The problem is that you got it all wrong. You see property rights as something that people are born with, something that certainly is not the case.

For the first tens of thousands of years of her existance, modern man existed without any rights at all. They lived in small autonomous and egalitarian societies, when noone owned anything else than their clothes.

Even when man invented agriculture, it took thousands of years before man invented individual property rights to means of production and land.

My point is that the right to propery in itself is a form of government regulation. Heck, even the right to life is a form of government regulation. Life is a struggle to survive, and in nature killing someone to eat them or steal from them is not immoral in any sense of the word. Even among several historical cultures, stealing from people not a member of your tribe was an honourable thing.

The problem with these rights is that they are not neutral. They are to the advantage of people with some abilties over people with other abilities. In a society without any form of government or rights, society will remain egalitarian because noone is able to get enough power to dominate others.

Also, the right to natural resources or land is in itself immoral, because claiming the right to own resources that you have not yourself created means denying other people access to things they are dependent on by force of arms.

Also, moral authority are irrelevant. Morality is subjective and particularistic. What is immoral and moral is different from culture to culture and time period to time period. Therefore, you can`t base your society on "moral standards"

"in nature killing someone to eat them or steal from them is not immoral in any sense of the word."
and
"Also, the right to natural resources or land is in itself immoral, because claiming the right to own resources that you have not yourself created means denying other people access to things they are dependent on by force of arms. "
Someone's life is something they have created themselves; therefore killing them is immoral. Therefore your first statement is wrong.

Also:
"Even when man invented agriculture, it took thousands of years before man invented individual property rights to means of production and land."
How do you know?

"What is immoral and moral is different from culture to culture and time period to time period. Therefore, you can`t base your society on "moral standards""
That's a non sequitur. What follows from the first sentence is that there is no universal 'perfect society'. Nothing stops you basing a society on temporary moral standards.

Well, I didn`t state whose the ideas were. The first idea is in regards to nature. No animal seems to get a bad concience when they kill their prey, and there seem to have been no tabu to kill other human beings not in your "tribe" in earlier times.

The second idea was in regards to the libertarian idea of morality. Why is it amoral to kill someone, while it is moral to deny them food at gunpoint?

When it comes to earlier societies, we learn about them in two ways. The first is ideology. There is no evidence of classes in the early agrarian societies, and certainly not in earlier times. The second way we can learn about the past is to look at the primitive people that still exists, and historical sources where they exist. A phenomenon found in both Russia and among indians upto the last century, is communal land ownership.

When it comes to moral standards, there is another principle which you can base a society on, utilitarianism.

An animal killing its prey is a different situation from human relations. Many animals' behaviour is geared towards preventing, or minimising harm to others of their own species, or cooperating with them.

If you mean 'amoral', ie 'it's not a matter of morality', and therefore perfectly acceptable, then that's a view that very few people hold. If you mean 'immoral', ie 'against morals', then it can be immoral to kill someone because you end their life permanently; while denying them food just means they have to look elsewhere for it. If the land is their only possible source of food, then I would say denying it would be immoral too. However, it would be immoral for them to take the food without offering something in return.

Your ideas about earlier societies appear to be guesses with no facts to back them up. Absence of classes says nothing about property rights; and you can also find primitive societies where livestock and fields have definite owners. Communal land ownership does not mean the absence of the idea of property; it means that several, specified, people own it, or that there are agreed limits as to what can be done with the property (eg you can graze animals on common pasture, but you can't plough it and grow crops). They wouldn't allow just anyone to slaughter a lamb they've reared, or to walk off with a crop they've grown.

So I struggle a bit to write in english.

When it comes to property, you have both individual and communal property. To allow a system like capitalism, you got to have individual and not only communal property rights.

Also, I`m not only guessing, but I am citing the near consesus among modern antrophologists. When it comes to moderne primitive societies, many have in fact been "contaminated" by more modern concepts, and breeding livestock in itself is a phenomenon that didn`t exist in any large degree before the invention of collective property rights.

When it comes to "looking elsewhere for food", that ain`t easy when every source of the given resource is hemmed in by property rights! The problem is that when you own land or resources, you also deny others the possibility to collect food or use the given resources on the land.

First claiming ownership of resources, and then demanding something in return to let others use it, is actually a kind of blackmail.

When it comes to morals, I don`t have much belief in it. The laws of the land should be governed by which laws give the most pleasure for the most people, NOT morals.

how do anthropologists know that agrarian societies predated individual property rights by thousands of years? Do they think that no-one ever tried to take their neighbour's crops, or that no-one ever objected? Or that all such disputes were resolved by fighting? Since these were illiterate people, they can't have any records proving this, and I don't see how the archaeological evidence can show this.

In modern day society, looking elsewhere is indeed difficult, but that didn't necessarily apply to earlier societies. The point is that most land (or other property) has been maintained or improved by the owner, and so you cannot expect the owner to give free use of it to everyone.

To dismiss modern private ownership of land as 'theft of public property' is to ignore the history of the land. It also ignores the possibility of development of the land as a productive resource that private ownership can bring.

I would say that utilitarianism is another moral system.

Well, I actually stated that propery rights didn`t exist in many primitive societies, and certainly in those primitive societies less "contaminated" by modern societies. It is always nice to nitpich, but do you really think early societies were a form of capitalism?

The archeological evidence have shown little evidence for war before collektive ownership, but from collective ownership was invented, there are several signs of warfare between the farmers and hunters.

The fact that the owner maintains it doesn`t alter the facts, that land and resources are limited, that ownership denies others access to work the land and that everyone is dependent on these resources.

Also, I don`t claim that ownership is wrong. MY POINT is that the right to property is no natural right, and the people that are affected by in negativly, should get some sort of compensation.

The difference between utilitarianism and moral systems is that utlitiarians actually have to give a reason for something, not just "it is so because I say so"

"Even when man invented agriculture, it took thousands of years before man invented individual property rights to means of production and land." What I am disputing is that we can determine the times at which collective or individual property rights were first thought of.

Yes, I really do think that early societies would have commonly agreed ideas of ownership of objects (clothes, tools, the results of a hunt or foraging), and of the rights of someone who planted a crop to harvest it. When land was in short supply, then I do think they would have ideas of prior use giving a right to present ownership.

I agree that landowners should pay compensation for being the ones who own land - property taxes. That doesn't make their continued ownership theft. Their previous investment of labour in the land gives them more rights to it than the rest of us.

There may be translation problem with the word 'morals' - a dictionary definition is 'of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior' - there's no implication that the principles have to be defined by one person, or by one religion. Utilitarian principles are to do the most good to the most people - and I find them highly agreeable.

When it comes to property rights, we are in all practical terms speaking of land and means of production. Clothes are personal posessions, and no significant ideologies are opposed to those.

When it comes to land, peasants didn`t even own land in the midde ages. It was still the commune(or again, after the regression of roman collapse) who owned the land, and the peasants particioned the land all over again regulary. When it comes to early agriculture and hunting, the metholds used were collectivistic and not individualistic, and it was therefore difficult to determine which labour belonged to each individual. And if some people got more than others, why isn`t this reflected in burials for example? And why are there no evidence of any worker or upper class in pre-state societies?

Ever read John Locke?

But i know his ideas. I really don`t think that there exists anything like natural rights. I actually feel that the concept is totally unrealistic, because the human race existed for so long without these right existing. Even the "right to life" are a fairly recent invention.

redistributive effects. Whenever we permit universally-needed social services -- education, health, defence, housing, road-building, etc -- to be carried out for third-party private profit, we're redistributing wealth upward.

Universally-needed social services are important to protect for all people from the markets because of this very fact.

For example, the lack of a universal healthcare system in my opinion actually harms the capitalist state because employers have to either burden administration costs or not offer healthcare at all leading to loss of productivity because of the lack of preventitive care.

It's a point I was thinking of making. but to me the problem with the direction our country is taking toward socialism -- yes I think it is -- is strongly illustratable by using healthcare as an example.

When it comes to the health insurance debate in this country, we think mainly of two options: health insurance provided by employers or universal healthcare provided by the government. And therein lies the problem with socialism or even socialistically influenced society -- the debate is immediately truncated.

Are there really only two options? I mean, we get home owner's insurance on our houses, but we don't cash in to cut the grass or to fix the plumbing. Suppose we look at health insurance the same way: everyone keeps a health care savings account to cover routine exams and minor injuries and use health insurance to pay for higher priced unanticipated coverage. My question is, would that then lower the cost of insurance premiums and make them affordable to a greater number of people and disconnected from both employers and government?

So if you look at this as one example, there's a paradox one arrives at: when you take away income through excessive taxation, you also take away resources available to pay for options like this one, then government HAS to provide the resource that your income was taxed to provide.

In the end it becomes the middle class that's squeezed.

This is my idea. I don't honestly care as long as we have a universal plan that covers the uninsured and does not end up putting us at the complete mercy of insurance industry.

You have a single payer system with lots of private insurance choices. The government provides a couple of functions. It gathers the money and negotiates the price from the standpoint of protecting the consumer. We are talking collectively bargaining of prices for huge numbers of people. That cost saving right there can pay for a large number of the uninsured. A small corporate tax would cover the rest. After all, a huge amount of money would be freed up with businesses not having to worry their HR departments about health insurance.

In this way, both the taxpayer would see a benefit and corporations in general. The only issue is close monitoring of the practices of government over price negotiations to prevent a payoff scandal and abuse.

If you have I;d like to know what you think

That's what I think.

Looked over his papers and it sounds like some scary stuff.

He is for privatizing schools for goodness sakes!!

Free Market and privatization person from what I see. Very nasty IMO.

" everyone keeps a health care savings account to cover routine exams and minor injuries and use health
insurance to pay for higher priced unanticipated coverage. "

Everyone?? How in the world is a person supposed to do this who doesn't even have the $$$ to maintain a home, or to own a car, or to purchase their prescriptions?

Are you aware that there are people who do *NOT* have the options and the luxuries that you have?

I realize that the upper classes are oblivious of those "below" them, but it truly astounds me when
the middle class is so unaware.

Everyone?

I am truly astounded.

Kanary

...that the poster was describing the way things would work in his proposed solution, not the way they actually are today.

Actually I'm not out of touch at all. I've lived in a variety of social strata throughout the course of my life -- pretty much every one but the top.

I was merely trying to indicate the paradox of socialism as it pertains to creation of freedom and equality.

When government taxes at too high a rate -- by that I mean individuals and businesses -- there are fewer economic resources available to these groups to actually make choices with their money themselves.

Funny thing happened there though: in his response, the previous poster supported my point regarding the truncation of debate, when we consider socialism. He immediately offered up a knee jerk reaction that assumed my position emanated from ignorance and just as immediately disregarded anything I might have to offer.

you'll find that the monthly premiums are not that much less than the ones for traditional medical insurance.

The fact that the majority of insurance programs are based in coverage for every physical exam and ache and pain being covered -- it drives the cost of all health insurance up?

It is the fact that these programs are so individual based that any kind of collective bargaining for lower prices does not exist. You need a larger program that can bargain for large pools of the American public for the lowest possible premiums.

BTW, it is not high health costs that drives up premiums or the myth of large settlements for malpractice suits. It is the fact insurers invest their money to a large degree in the bond and other free floating markets. When their margin of profits in these markets go down then premiums go up. One of the necessary evils of a market economy.

You're letting me in on stuff I didn't know and you're being nice about it. Should be more of that on these boards and internet boards in general!

I think you are very conservative for this forum.

Its actually kind of refreshing in some aspects since you do not appear to be a freeper or a disrupter.

Where are your leanings sir? Are you a libertarian checking out the other side? Are you a conservative Democrat?

Listen in this reality we have to balance in all things the desire of the people to continue the capitalist economic model with the realities that without a safety net that model will collapse.

Examples:

A flat tax for example will cripple the lower and middle lower class with a tax burden that will prevent them from being able to claw their way out of debt and stymie consumer spending. Progressive taxes that hit those most able to pay harder is the only fair and reasonable thing in a capitalist society.

With no social safety net market cycles that we shrug off now can cripple the economy and burden it with large numbers of people who have to squirrel away their earnings under a bed or something to save it for their retirement. This is why we need Unemployment and Social Security. I have already made my healthcare arguement in this thread.

Without regulations, just a few bad businesses can literally screw over millions of people impacting them and their buying power hurting the entire economy and other businesses. We need to promote competition and small business growth while putting reasonable restraints on corporations to protect workers and the environment. Corporatism or being whores to business interests only works in the short term. It is the Enron model of economic policy that the BushCo. folks push. Eventually it will hurt the economy and capitalism more than it benefits it.

Honestly I don't know what I am politically, though I'm beginning to suspect that I'm liberterian.

Conservative? Damn I hope not! I registered with the liberal party on my eighteenth birthday, but liberal has changed a lot in the last 20 years! I believe in nearly absolute social liberty.

No I'm not a disrupter and it takes a lot to get my goat. Lately I've begun to believe that the best way to make any progress poitically is to ignore the labels of liberal and conservative and begin to borrow and synthesize ideas from both sides.

I was drawn to this particular because I've noticed an inherent paradox in the political systems of both liberals and conservatives.

Conservatives believe in social determinism (ie family values) and economic liberty (ie low taxation, free markets)

Liberals believe in social liberty (ie same sex marriage etc) and economic determinism (dominant social welfare programs, or democratic socialism)

The paradox to me is that you can't have it both ways -- or at least if you're going to try and balance the competing systems we need an overt debate on the nature of the relationship between liberty and equality.

Check out my other post "it's not just about money" above for a little more on this.

But...

You cannot have personal civil liberties and the protection of the common good without some sort of protection from the whims of the markets with a social safety net and protections from the excesses of a few bad corporations.

We almost took the dark slide during the Great Depression. If it had not been for the leadership of FDR. Other fine countries fell into the hole of fascism at the same time. The social safety net protects the citizens and the democracy.

Also, there was a time when huge corporate trusts put their interests above the consumer and profit above the health of the employees. Literally during the Spanish American Wars US soldiers were poisoned by rancid meat from Hormel and Armour. The FDA was necessary and the anti-trust laws were necessary to protect the public interest from the business interests if the representative democracy was to survive.

For mor check out my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=919748&mesg_id=920067&page=

Acts 4:32-35. It's a paragraph that Lord President Shrubbypants* and the other un-christian phonies don't want people to know about because IT ENDORSES THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.


32
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.
33
With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all.
34
There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale,
35
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.


Also, Corporate America is pulling the same "Hey we are taking this and this and this and you can't do much about it" routine - against US, solely for the benefit of the mega-wealthy CEOs.

Sorry, but capitalism is wrong. Especially how those who have their talons embedded in the system are raping it for their own gain. Ruthlessly and mercilessly.

Become a socialist. It's not only the humane thing to do, but the Christian thing to do as well.

That passage deals with new believers giving of themselves and their belongings in response to what Christ has given to them. They are moved by the spirit to give as Christian believers.

It is not forced giving and it is not government instituted giving. It parallels giving as in giving to your church where you are fed by God, not government type "Robin Hooding- Taking from the Rich and giving to the poor".

That bible reference has nothing to do with Socialism.

The rich have been able to become rich thanks to the "theft of public property", that property rights over land and natural ressources really are.

to clarify the verse, I had no other intent.

more so than ever...Sports, Stock, Entrepreneurs, Entertainment, down right scams, online porn :)

It's not just about Rockefellers, Kennedys, Fords, etc. anymore.

Although if you go to Palm Beach Florida...your new money might not be respected :(

That these people have money, is just a natural consequence of the fact that the government gave some people the right to own and have their interests protected several thousand years ago.

....of millionaires in the US are first generation. They were not born into money, they worked for it, sacrificed immediate gratification and planned ahead.

I have seen that statistic, and I don`t agree with it. The reason?

I states that 80 percent of all millionares did not inherit their first million. That can still mean that they got their first million thanks to daddys contacts!

Chrisitanity was not only a spiritual revolution, it was a political revolution against big intrusive government -- the Roman Empire!

but I wonder how much of their income they give to charities that are not aimed at converting people but merely in alleviating human suffering.

Socialism says that no one should be above another. And the state enforces that noone should be above one another. There is no choice to give freely. There would be no landowners to give, because everyone would have equal (except the leaders of course).

The bible is at its essence about individual choice...not collectivism. Fellowship is great, but you have to choose it.

I don't trust any system in which burocrats run it. They'll always rip off the people. And there'll be no accountability.

Let's give free healthcare, welfare for those who need it, financial aide, etc. But let's stay capitalist. I like Open Software because it combines sharing ideas, but can be used freely in a capitalist economy...but the main goal for individuals to contribute ideas to better create a technology that can be used in a commercial environment for $$$

So long as you have at state or overriding norms and moral guidelines, you are NOT free to chose. The right to property in itself is the "original" government regulation.

Also, privat charity is a disaster in helping the poor in much the same way communismn was a disaster in creating material wealth.

unless they have the consent of the people below or somehow have the moral authority to command?

But by what right should someone not have to work as hard in order to be at the same level as someone who does on the same job at the same company? What's wrong with one boss paying more than another if he can?

Maybe I'm too old world.

But normally in socialist countries, the government turns out being more "equal" than the people.

We need some things to even the odds at the beginning or to get a fresh start, and from there on...we should be able to make our choices and live with them. I like responsibility and the chance to rise based on merit...maybe I'm just too selfish and vain...:(

sorry :)

First of all, like the posters above noted, the key aspect of this passage is to note that the people that sold off there property and gave the proceeds to be redistributed to the apostles did so willingly. There was not threat of force by government that made them do it. They did it of their own free will.

Second of all, the most wonderful thing about the Bible is that its so incredibly inconsistent that you can basically find a passage that supports any ridiculous stand you want to take. Slavery, polygamy, genocide, you name it and I can probably find a verse to support it. Which brings us to verses that support Capitalism. Here you go:

2 Thessalonians 3:10 - For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Plain and simple. If you don't work to support yourself, you shouldn't expect a free ride. Sounds like Capitalism to me.

and Paul is warning the church in Thessalonia against idleness. Two important points. First, Paul is writing to believers about believers and he is speaking about everyone in the church doing what they can for the good of the body. Second, the bible is very rarely inconsistent when taken in context, with the historical background considered, and taken as a whole.

You can take any sentence or passage from any document written in history and interpret it falsely anytime.

...All men are created equal... (Men only?!?!?!) -- that's an example of my point folks not a jab at women. :-)

Second, the bible is very rarely inconsistent when taken in context, with the historical background considered, and taken as a whole.

Sure....if you say so. :eyes:

A green face.

I must be silly, misinformed and wrong. That's the only thing a green face can mean. My point and example must be totally misguided.

We are getting off topic with this, so I started another thread. I offer a clear example here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=13868

Have fun trying to get around that one :)

The Democrats should call Republicans Fascist. It's the same stretch, although less of a stretch in the Fascist area.

If we didn't have an aggresive empire and a huge pentagon budget, we wouldn't have homeless people. I'd rather my money go to helping the homeless than killing the innocent.

The Republican Party today is, as Trent Lott said in 1984, "the party of Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln". The ideology of the ruling circles of the Confederacy was as close to fascism as you could get in the mid-19th century. Add to this the close ties with "classical fascism" (the KKK, Nazis, etc.), clerical-fascism (Christian Reconstructionists, Falangism, etc.) and neo-conservativism (which stems from national socialism) within the GOP, and what do you have?

If the jackboot fits,...

Martin

It has a much higher standard of living than America and has health care for all. A much lower infant mortality rate and longer life span. Education is much better and a higher average education for all is obtained. They don't take from the rich and give to the poor as your post would suggest but they do have a high taxation rate so they can best provide for all their citizens. I would venture to say we (Americans) could learn a lot if we were so inclined, but alas we are not.

If you travel a few miles "to the left of Sweden", you come to a country that is even nicer!

You seem to see the redistribution of wealth and power only in terms of political systems not the much more serious inequalities inherent in the capitalist system itself. The problem isn't what is socialism. The problem is what is capitialism.

This is a typical ideological confusion used by politicians to justify the unrestrained power of monopoly corporations by appealing to the quaint Americana mythology: true innovative competition fostered by a class of independent entrepreneurs and small business. The fact is -- and this is where Marx was right on the mark -- laissez-faire captialism when left to itself will eventually destroy itself: concentration of money and power, gobbling up small business, forcing out competition, etc. With the advent of WalMart, this trend has moved from the level of production and service to the realm of retail, the last hold out of small shops.

This is a huge topic, of course, but the more you consider it, the more it becomes clear that capitalism is inherently not the expression of personal liberty and public democracy. It's difficult to imagine a universe so different from all accepted convention.

Today our local and state governments are pandering to the mega-corporations...giving huge tax breaks, etc. Instead, they should threaten these corporations that: you take your jobs elsewhere and we'll use tax money to fund a startup competitor.

There's plenty of talent out there...sometimes the forest has to burn so new vegetation can spring up.

Western European-style socialism is Capitalism with a certain baseline standard guaranteed for everyone. You're still incented to make money, but if something goes wrong you're not out in the street.

We are taxed at the same level, but our taxes are diverted into killing foriegners instead.

and we get less for our taxes than any other country, since about 50% of non-entitlement spending goes to the Pentagon. That's where the tax revolts come from.

'the American people'

lets be careful about pandering to the idea of the "American People" that the media has made up. Let's be careful about letting them define normalcy.

The American People are more apathetic than conservative....more pissed off than "supporting".

the American People

maybe you're confusing socialism with communism.

If you're saying socialism does redistribute wealth by some other means then taxes, then how?

The main difference between your 'regulated capitalism' and socialism wrt redistribution of wealth, would be in the tax scale:
socialism would be more inclined towards a non-flat tax.
But both capitalism and socialism involve taxes, and taxes is a means of redistribution of wealth - how else would the poor be able to afford healthcare (which you say is important).

Besides, during the past 30 years income distribution in the US has become more unequal (in favor of the rich). That to is redistrubution of wealth - the wrong way; it certainly is not the "trickle down" that we'r being told it is.

in our world like Sweden and Canada. Capitalism and socialism go hand in hand but not instead of each other. Basic human rights like health care need to be socialized. On the other hand you don't want to socialize trade and commerce.

As far as redistribution of wealth. If one man is getting rich because he is underpaying his employees, then you need the unions to make sure each worker gets paid for what he contributed to the company.

The Republican myth that your taxes are going to pay for five families on welfare is just that, a myth. The truth is today your taxes are going into profits for corporations and the wealth is being redistributed in this way but upwards not downwards. The corporations of today that benefit from government tax cuts and contracts are the real welfare queens.

How much better would it be for your tax money to pay for social programs, like health care, day care and public works instead of privitization of those things where you get little bang for your buck unless you are a stockholder.

It's an interesting question why America is the only developed democracy that has NOT instituted socialist reforms? The answer, I think, goes back to how dependent the wealth of the United States has always been on some form of cheap, "foreign" labor (that is, outside of the Christian obligation to be they brothers keeper): black slaves, Chinese coolies, Mexican Braceros, migrant workers, nonunionized labor, all those "other people." Not surprisingly, when this form of worker exploitation can no longer be maintained by immigration, corporations turn to outsourcing and globalizing.

I would never want to live under it again. The simple truth is that it takes away the most any incentive to work since benefits are guaranteed by the govt. Let's face it there are too many lazy people, including myself. I would rather not work if I don't have to. Please note that most labor-saving devices were invented by lazy people who were looking to short-circuit hard work.

But, I also believe that the TRULY NEEDY must be taken care of in any civil society. Just need strict standards to define truly needy. I would include children, severly disabled, anyone over age of 75 etc as needy.

I also spent some time in Sweden since my wife was Swedish. Socialism muddles thru in Scandinavia because of two reasons. First, it is very small population wise, and second, people still have a work ethic there.

But some elements of it could be incorporated such as free corporate healthcare, temporary welfare and affirmative action. That in addition to making the corporations and rich pay their fair share of taxes would really go a long ways towards making things more fair for all.

Just not total socialism! :(

Socialism dampens two of the greatest qualities of humanity: risk taking and planning.

Capitalism encourages people to work hard, innovate, and risk personal capital in exchange for a payoff in the end.

then so is capitalism.

they both may work on paper, but in a real world, with human nature and religion to consider- it's a wash.

The one that gives me the wildest ride...the big C.

capitalism is about selfishness, and socialism is about the common good. I'm a born again athiest myself, but for those that claim to believe- if you put the "WWJD?" test to it, which system do you honestly suppose would win out...?

Because folks who don't have often want what others do have and don't want to work for it in socialism. They expect to get just because.

Generalization? You betcha!

Socialism and Capitalism don't necessarily breed selfishness. Human immaturity does. If you don't care about the best interests of your fellow man, then neither will make you.

I donate, pay my taxes, volunteer and I take my pay raises when I get them. I work hard and take pride in my work and I'm rewarded. I'm happy to pay taxes and will pay more if it helps. But I think that we feel happiest when we have the ability to excel and advance.

I think we feel happiest when we know that we have helped someone- I'm more cooperation-oriented than competition-driven...I feel that competition ultimately brings out the worst in people, and cooperation brings out the best.

Why does anyone work in countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden? The unemployment and work participation rates in these countries are actually higher that the average in rich countries. I also think that people actually should work less in the rich countries.

I neither do see any reason why everyone should work either. Making everyone work just overloads the labourmarket and creates a large surplus of labour, causing many to take "McJobs".

People are under the misconception that in Norway, Denmark and Sweden that are hordes of lazy people roaming the streets and living high on the government dime.

The kind of Capitalism with a safety net vision of society is just a few stone throws away from European Socialism but it is dangerous to say that because socialism is so vilified in America.

There are big huge holes in the American safety net that are still open, healthcare is the biggest of course. It is just important for us Americans to understand how to voice our opinions.

It is important to note that European Socialism is not necessarily anti-busines. Taking the burden of healthcare off of employers would do wonders for the economy I believe for example.

There is a social issue in America that we are fixated on the live to work ethic. We have no concept of idle time and very little time or concern for the arts and intellectual pursuits in the same way as some Europeans I have known in my day.

I disagree with you about the idea that not everyone should work.

Everyone should contribute something to the society where that is labor or intellectual pursuits or well ... something. Maybe that is part of the fact I grew up in this work ethic culture. However, I will agree with you that Americans in general work too hard.

A quote from a song:

You better grab ahold of something
Simple but it is true
If you don't stop to smell the roses now
They might end up on you.
--Bob Mould, Husker Du "These Important Years"

...when I learned about what was happening in the European social democracies, I decided that was a better way. It helped that I have some significant savings, and that my Irish-born grandmother gives me immediate Irish citizenship, and entry and benefits to several of the social democracies on the continent.

But aside from that, working at intellectually demanding or stressful work year in and year out is simply madness, period.....

As for the previous poster who said he lived under socialism, I wonder where. Quite frankly, he seems ill-informed. For one, Sweden is not socialist--it is a social democracy: a mixture of socialism and capitalism, where people own businesses and their own homes, and where corporations are taxed less, and workers taxes more. The state does not own the means of production, people and corporations do.

The fact is that our lives are not homogeneous, in the respect that we are different at different times in our lives. Sometimes we feel like working hard, and sometimes we do not. Often, in our twenties and thirties, we want to work to get things that will give us social status and make us attractive to the opposite sex. The social democracies take advantage of this natural drive through high taxation. They tap into these natural drives and thus exploit their citizens....but only when the citizens feel like being exploited.

And by having a universal and very accessible social safety net, it makes it easy for people to STOP WORKING when they feel like it. Also, by giving the citizens the freedom to risk everything (welfare, universal health care and schooling is always there), many more people have the freedom to take risks such as entreprenurial risks. ALso, it enhances creativity and productivity by allowing long sabbaticals.

My conclusion, upon studying the european social democracies, is that they have a far superior system to our own, for the MAJORITY of the people.

One of the most fascinating and informative webpage I came across during my research was this one:

http://www.american-pictures.com/english/racism/articles/welfare.htm

It tells the story of how the Danes have fought time and time again for their welfare state. And it tells you what a welfare state is, and should be.

I highly recommend it!

Also, here are some other links of similar nature:


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/AmericanProsperityMyth.html

http://www.geocities.com/kew1788/SocialDemocracy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/kew1788/TakeBackNation.htm

http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00000791.html

http://geocities.com/aufheben2/stc_intro

http://faculty.insead.fr/fatas/econ/Articles/Chasing%20the%20Leader.htm

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2001papers/HIER1933.pdf

http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~cryofan/

Please read these and tell me what you think.....

I'm curious what socialist country you lived "under". And whether you're not confusing it with a Stalinist state.

You sound like you were oppressed because the government allowed you to be lazy. Whereas under capitalism, I suppose, workers are energized by the daily terror of losing their livelihood or not being able to pay their kids' doctors bills. The grass is always browner on the other side of the fence. And does "lazy" mean that only working to live and living to work is worthwhile in life?

There are many in America who would gladly welcome the security of more social protect in lieu of the uncertainty and degradation of the survival-of-the-fittest jungle. I know of few in socialist countries, save those whose wealth is not involved, who admire the system we have here.

We want to cut this and that, but we don`t want "an american society".................

The ones that always spout off about the foreign workers taking all the benefits of socialism and not giving back to the society and that sort of nonsense crap, are those the same ones? The racists pig ones?

I was thinking about the more "serious" right parties. The parties that you mention are acutally getting less and less rightwing, and more and more centrist. Quite a few of them is actually slightly left of center, and they have actually in some cases stopped traditional right parties in their attempts to reduce benefits.

As a talking point you mentioned in a previous post, the work to leisure ratios and some other things.

What are the unemployment rates in Norway for example?

Republicans tend to always say that jobs are at risk anytime someone suggests say a mandated four week vacation time or other reforms.

Need some real information on this.

In Scandinavia we have few homemakers. This means that though we have many on state support, we also have a high workforce participation. In Norway, 70 percent of all people between 18 and 70 have a job, but many are part time. The unemployment rate is at 3 percent, but that do not count people on disability, which is quite a lot. We have as much as 13 percent on disability.

In this country, almost everyone either works or goes on some kind of welfare.

Not bad for those Socialists, huh?

Way to go Norway.

to your post were from some DU'ers who also live in a social democracy, namely Canada, I find your post peculiar. I had a Swedish neighbor for many years, who was married to an American. At first she thought America was great, I think it mainly was because she was free to smoke all the dope she wanted, with few repercussions. She worked as a waitress with no health care and her husband had a low paying job as well as with no health care.

One day she got run down by a hit and run driver. Well, to make a long story short. Without insurance from anyone, her hospital bills were out of the couple's pockets. Not being able to work, the burden fell on her husband. It soured the marriage and eventually her husband left her. She went back to Sweden. Before she left she told me that she had left Sweden because she felt bored and restricted, but damn in her country no one would be left on the street to die because of lack of medical care. Exchanging Christmas cards, she eventually married another Swede, has children and is quite happy. She will never come to America ever again.

Except the woman had another injury. Can't remember...was it Dean who talked about it?

Damn.

Makes sense though.

Read Discovering America As It Is by Valdas Anelauskas.
Anelauskas was a pro-Western Soviet dissident who came to the U.S.

The tendency to view people as inherently lazy is really, I think, uniquely American, stemming from our Calvinist foundings. In reality, Americans work more than people in any other country.

then you lived under the degenerate form: state socialism. State socialism is indistinguishable in principle from state capitalism, aka fascism. When a small group control businesses (ie, the means of production), then it doesn't matter whether they call themselves socialist or capitalist--the ordinary people are left out. (State socialism can be reasonably benign for all of that, as we saw in Britain. However, the powerlessness of the ordinary people was made plain when the Tories and then New 'Labour' started to sell off the common wealth.)

This is where the moral authority for redistribution of wealth comes from...

For over 99 percent of human history, there was no such thing as property. Now, by property, I don't mean personal possessions -- I mean the means of production and exchange, which for most of history has meant land.

"Ownership" was defined by use, and the land was more or less shared.

Then, someone decided to mark off a square of land, and kill anyone who stepped on that square without his or her permission. Eventually, s/he got others to do the killing. That's the origin of the nation-state.

Property is an institution that is inherently coercive, resting upon a foundation of violence. Property rights could not exist without a state to protect them.

Thus, the right to property is not absolute. It is dependent upon government intervention. Institution of private property exists only because states allow it to exist. Thus, states have a right to stipulate the conditions under which property will be protected, including those conditions which entail redistribution of wealth.

For over 99 percent of human history, there was no such thing as property.

And for 99 percent of human history people lived to an average of 35 years old. Today we have property rights and things are much, much better. Are they related? Perhaps. Regardless, your point about how things have been for 99% of human history fails to mention that for that 99% of human history, life sucked. A telling ommission IMHO.

But there was very much the idea of "my territory" -- "your territory." For example, take the Iroquois and Huron Indians. They had a concept of property and land ownership that was very much different from Europeans. However, if a Huron set foot on territory the Iroquois laid claim to, they did so at their own peril and vice versa.

The difference was not so much that land ownership by force of violence didn't exist -- it just wasn't owned by an individual. It was owned by the clan or the tribe. The best most productive land, though was very much "owned" by some group.

It is the change to ownership by individuals that is so significant.

The essence of my argument is that government has a right to regulate capital because capital couldn't exist without the protection of government.

Of course, what you said was mostly correct -- but that's wasn't the essence of my argument.

The one thing you were wrong on was your assertion that "life sucked". Besides being a matter of opinion, it neglects the fact that in terms of work done relative to standard of living obtained, most of humanity had it much better them.

Read the classic essay on the topic here: http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

I consider myself a Pascalian socialist. Maybe it isn't possible. Even so, it's a noble ideal, and nothing is lost in struggling to acheive it.

Actually, "natural anarchism" is the longest running ecnomic system in human history. Man didn`t change it before after the collapse of the megafauna! Isn`t is strange that agriculture evolved just after the extinction of the mammouth?

This implies that man didn`t abandon this system out of "humans natural desire for progress", but because they had to after the extermination of their traditional food sources, and in other parts of the world, this way of life went on for much longer.

n/t

Regarding your other question: yes, the Democratic Party is thoroughly capitalist, always has been, and always will be.

The Democrats started out as the party of Southern wealth. It remained that way until Northern liberals took control of the party, led by FDR.

One should keep in mind, though, that even in the liberal period, the party was still a party of the rich. New Deal and Great Society reforms were seen as necessary by sections of capital who wanted to pacify progressive social movements.

Starting under Carter, the Democratic Party began to enthusiastically support economic imperialism (what is called "free trade" in this country and neoliberalism everywhere else). This support, as well as a general rightward shift, intensified under Clinton.

In every other Western democracy, social-democratic and labor parties gained strength as industrialization became more prevalent. For various reasons, similar parties were never very successful in the U.S. Both parties have at various points co-opted popular progressive movements. Since around the New Deal period, the Democrats have been the ones doing the co-opting. But this co-opting more often makes the movements more conservative than the Dems more progressive.

There is a group called Democratic Socialists of America that has some members who are active in the Democratic Party. Congressmen Bernie Sanders and Major Owens are members.

However, even DSA is not really socialist. DSA supports a market economy; they merely want reforms along the lines of what Scandinavians had (and still have, to some extent).

There is no Democrat currently holding elected office at the national or state level who seeks to abolish capitalism.

You say that you don't like the idea of redistribution of wealth (and I'm not going to respond to that with regard to Socialism - I am not qualified) -

However, Socialism also means the redistrubution of wealth. It means the government taking money away from person B and giving it to person D. And that's what I find problemattic.

Capitalism - specifically speaking here of the American version - does exactly that. Through subsidies to corporations (read: our tax dollars) and tax breaks, the wealthy gain direct benefit. Defense expenditure sustains a high rate of profit for corporations - transferring taxpayers’ dollars directly into the pockets of the privileged.

How is this not redistribution of wealth, exactly?

On edit - I should have read all of the posts before I asked - the point has been made several times, already.

It is redistribution of wealth, but it is not Capitalism.

Any subsidies going to corporations are violations of the Capitalist principle of governmental non-interference with the market. Capitalism, even regulated Capitalism, is a system where the government should not be in the business of deciding who wins and who loses. If they are, they are not practicing Capitalism, they are practicing Corporatism.

You are simply assuming that what we have in this country is Capitalism. It isn't.

you're right. I did say that, didn't I? (To be fair, I did modify it with "American version".) :)

I stand corrected.

Some up, some down, some sideways, some upside down, some underground, some straight to the top.

But about a gagillian others have already mentioned this rather obvious point so I'll just post this to kick it back up top:-)

I caution one to remember that the Socialist Democrats did break off into left and right factions...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j111003.html

The NED was a sop thrown to the neocons during the Reagan administration, so they could have a little domain of their own, a small but strategically placed contingent of "Socialists for Reagan" embedded deep in the bowels of the U.S. government. The first President of the group, Carl Gershman, was a longtime member of the Social Democrats, USA, formerly the Socialist Party, a group dominated by the legendary Max Shachtman. The founder of "third camp" neo-Trotskyism, Shachtman broke with Trotsky in the 1940s and evolved, over the years, into a firm supporter of U.S. military intervention worldwide, while retaining – like Sidney Hook – his dedication to the "democratic" socialist cause.

...snip of article, it also has some great links