Honestly, if you’re going to call someone ignorant here in GD, you need to bring something to back it up. I’ll leave it at that because I have a strong feeling I’m wandering into Junior Mod territory and that’s not my intention. Personally, however, I’m inclined to take you a lot less seriously the next time I see your contributions in a thread.
I missed addressing this the last time I answered you. Saying “Marxism is socialism” is akin to saying “Calculus is mathematics”. Calculus clearly isn’t the whole of mathematics, and neither is Marxism the whole of socialism. But Marxism shares some fundamental economic and political principles with other progressive and radical schools thought that also fall under the broad umbrella of ‘socialism’, just as calculus shares fundamental characteristics with the four operations we know as basic arithmetic. Therefore, Marxism is socialism and it is incorrect to try to completely separate the two.
Unless, of course, you can somehow prove that calculus isn’t mathematics.
Saying that monarchy and socialism are diametrically opposed when your living in the social democratic monarchy of sweden doesnt make you ignorant?
Well Ill let you suggest a word that you find more palatable.
Because I dont think socialism is some kind of checklist provided by marx to identify the true believers.
Revolution to end the plight of the workers - CHECK.
Personal ownership abolished - CHECK
Malnourished prince of acaedemia in position of power - CHECK
Socialism is about the equality of man.
Marxism is just about making everyone except a few “enlighted princes” really poor.
Any other, er, relevant comments about socialism and its plusses/minuses?
Thinking about it, I’ve heard people consider the UK socialist because they have higher taxes than we (America) do, to support more, and better funded, social programs than we do.
Whether that’s better or not… you’ll probably run into the same old arguments of either, it’s the right thing to do, or, recipients are free loaders, or at least will have no motive to excel… or something like that.
As for me, I think that there should be a certain amount of social programs, but that (I probably already said this, if so, sorry), for the most part, they should be to help people who can’t help themselves, so unemployment insurance, for example, I consider a good thing, and frankly, I’m leaning towards favoring universal health-care. And if these things are considered socialist… so be it.
I guess it depends on how you define socialism. Are you talking about a specific system of society, or just the economic mechanism? I think very few would argue that a complete Marxist socialist revolution would have a good outcome, but many of us think that socialism has its place in a healthy society. Just as few would would argue that anarcho-capitalism is the way to go, but most think free markets work very well for most goods and services.
To give two examples that are often socialized (including in the U.S.) lets talk about medicine and education.
There are benefits to medicine in both systems. Capitalistic, for profit medicine, has produced great hospitals and many wonderful treatments. But it has limitations built in. Basic research doesn’t pay well. It is sometimes more profitable to invest in advertising a drug that is less affective because you still have the patent on it. New antibiotics are needed all the time due to the fact that evolution drives diseases to become resistant, but because of how they are used it is not very profitable research. If the government removed all health funding we would have more proprietary varieties of drugs to help men get erections than drugs to fight staph infections.
In education, it looks like private schools are more efficient. And some of them are, but private schools do not have to provide an education for every student. They can pick and choose. If you eliminate all the problem students (academically and behaviorally), the process becomes a lot cheaper. In a free market school system, schools would charge the parents of these students more money. Since these students skew towards the lower income levels, that would create an even bigger divide between the education of rich and poor.
As in most things, there are good implementation and bad implementations. The real question is what things could work better centrally controlled and publicly funded, and which could not. And many times the answer may be a mixed system is the answer.
Jonathan
You are the one that stated that you wouldn’t get anything like 83% of the population in favour of them with nothing to back it up. When pressed on that by me you came out with a single opinion piece, which was probably only in the paper due to the recent announcement of a royal engagement.
Perhaps you should get your own house in order.
Well the fact that it comes with a Swedish King is putting me off.
Have you seen the daughters?
Sorry, Slip - still haven’t broken the habit of rising to bait. Let me try to rectify that.
It also closes hospitals not considered profitable, which leaves people - especially the poor - with fewer available, or even affordable, choices. For-profit health insurance in the US has left some 50 million people uninsured. The pursuit of profit in medicine has allowed the distribution of drugs that are outright dangerous (thalidomide and Vioxx, for example) or hazardous (like that medicine for “restless leg syndrome” that had increased desires for sex or gambling as possible side effects). Protecting profits through patents leads to situations where generic copies are taken off the market in places that sorely need them, like AIDS drugs in Africa.
Public education in the US is drastically underfunded, and the inevitable results are used to argue that public education doesn’t work, thereby justifying further funding cuts. Obviously private education is more profitable for the administrators of those institutions, but as you noted it results in a bigger divide in educational opportunities due to income.
It really boils down to this: Do you (not you specifically, Strassia, the general ‘you’) consider medical care and education a right, or a privilege? Should providing those services be the responsibility of society as a whole, or a transaction between individuals? Socialism says it’s the responsibility of society, and revolutionary socialism says it can’t be done in a capitalist environment. Under capitalism any service-providing entity has to profit to survive, since profits are where reinvestment comes from. If you don’t profit, you can’t reinvest; if you don’t reinvest, you can’t grow; if you don’t grow you eventually lose out. Therefore providing purely for need without regard to profit is impossible.
Pushing the market out of individual socioeconomic spheres means the market is still there on the outside, pushing to get back in. Doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit hospital or a public school, a healthcare or education system, or even a whole country. Regulating the market will always be met with resistance (the last 30 years are a great example of this). Any encroachment on profits will always be resisted so long as capitalism remains the world economic system. Providing for human need, the goal of socialism, cannot permanently exist alongside the pursuit of profit. One or the other has to ultimately prevail.
No, but you are given money or some other form of compensation in exchange for your work. The work becomes the company’s and you have some money to do with as you please.
The reality is that most work we do is a relatively small portion of the overall success of the organization and is often of little value outside the context of our job within the company.
The drug that was invented in “socialist” Europe and the FDA refused to approve? You’re blaming capitalism for that? 
It was put on the market without adequate research behind it in order to sell it as an anti-nausea drug and make the issuing companies a profit. Doesn’t matter where it was invented or who refused to approve it (which the FDA eventually did anyway), the point is that the profits it could potentially bring in were deemed more important than determining whether it was safe to use.
And without a profit motive, many of the successful drugs would not exist. I suspect, and of course have no way to prove, that if we had a pure socialist society starting 100 years ago, we would not be having this conversation because technology would not be far enough along for the cheap PC to come about.
It is the all or nothing arguments like the one you make that have given socialism the stigma that it has in the U.S. I argue that socialism is only a good idea in limited areas of the economy. For me, it has little to do with rights or privileges and more to do with what is best for society as a whole. We all benefit when poverty goes down and when the population has at least a certain level of education. What needs to be socialized and how is certainly up for argument, but IMHO full socialization would be a disaster.
Jonathan
Finally had the followup conversation with my father this morning. FWIW, here’s his objections:
1). Socialist programs require “big government”
2). Socialist programs will increase taxes
3). Government in general screws up everything it touches
4). People who work shouldn’t be forced to pay for the “wino’s” healthcare or the “illegal” child’s education.
I can kinda see the risk of #1 and the potental for #3. I don’t think that either of them HAVE to happen, however. Unfortunately, #2 is probably a given. I would dispute #4, especially since we as a society are already paying for these two specific areas and that providing basic healthcare and education for all is the proper (IMHO) thing to do.
So it does seem to depend on how an individual defines socialism and how much “buy-in” there is. Where is the line drawn? What are basic human rights/requirements/needs, and how does that balance with the very basic human desire for betterment (as opposed to just doing your job to the best of your ability for the reward of a job well done)?
For medicine, do we let the government take over everything (as my dad fears and I would vote against)? Or we provide basic health insurance for all, with “supplemental” insurance available for those who want it? Seems to work in places like Costa Rica and the UK.
Nobody, I’ve typically thought of the UK as being socialist. The “dole” of DHSS sounds much more comprehensive than unemployment insurance in the US. They do have the “two-tier” system for healthcare - basic needs yes, boutique needs through private health insurance or out of your own deep pocket. And British Airways is still under government control, I think? (hoping that someone like **Illuminatiprius **pops by with feedback).
PS: not as a hijack, but thanks to **kidchameleon **about thalidomide. Must admit, I never knew it was not approved initially in the US; so much for my honors in pharmacology!
Eh? The drug was invented and approved under a system of social medicine and was not approved for decades later under a capitalist medical system (with the proper warnings). Yet somehow this shows that a capitalist medical system failed?
Looking at drug developement in a socialist countrydoesn’t support your baseless assumption any better:
My support of socialist policies (ie health care) revolves around the fact that there are certain services I believe everyone is entitled to have, whether they can contribute or not. I have lots of debates with my best friend about this. he believes that this attiude is a drain on society; the hard workers bear the work of the lazies on their backs. I disagree on the principle that a lot of disadvantaged would be willing to do their fare share if they COULD, but because of disability or other factors they are unable.
An example I like to give (maybe not a good one) is to look at homeless people, and find out how many non-mentally ill (a whole other debate in itself) homeless people actually WANT to be homeless. because of my job I am in contact with lots of disadvantaged individuals, and purely anecdotal, but many of them would LOVE to have a job where they could work their ass off to support themselves. But because of various factors (disabilities, past felonies, etc) they are at a disadvantage.
Saying, “Socialism is bad,” is like saying, “Freedom is bad,” or, “Liquids are flammable.” It’s not really true in every case.
UK-style socialized medicine could be considered socialism of a single sector (though there is still private medicine in the UK as well). It’s highly cost-efficient, & as it funds with taxes instead of patient fees, it allows the country to bypass the particular problems of the medical care demand side in a free market.
Leninist-Stalinist total socialization has historically had problems with its concentration of authority over multiple sectors in the hands of a single elite. Perhaps something close to it, with a little pragmatic privatization of small business, could work if it were developed slowly & piecemeal (instead of foisted on the country all at once & with ideological insistence on more socialism always being better).
I think it’s dangerous to assume socialization is always good or always bad. Pragmatically judging the effects of different policies one by one would be better.
Nor can you prove that the successful drugs would not exist today if this were a socialist society. Though the profit motive is undeniably part of some people’s motivation for improvement in modern society, it is not inherent in the human psyche. It’s social conditioning.
The specter of a bloated, unaccountable bureaucracy is a potent bugbear. It would be facile to assume that socialist programs wouldn’t require any administration whatsoever, but bureaucracies happen when people are passive - whether by choice or otherwise.
As long as society operates on money, the money’s got to come from somewhere. That doesn’t mean the tax burden has to fall unduly on working people; even Eisenhower-era tax rates on the rich would provide quite a sizable chunk of funds to work with.
Only if people let it. Then again, this past year doesn’t seem to be a good one for proactively deregulating the market, either…
This one, sorry to say, is just plain bigotry. Again, though, increasing the tax burden on the rich would go a long way towards paying for everyone’s health care and education without further eating away at working people’s wages.
Socialism isn’t that altruistic. This desire for betterment, which I would argue is inherent in the human psyche, is key in making a socialist society function. Socialism wouldn’t work to increase productive capacity (that is, the amount of production in a given amount of time by an individual) only when it’s fiscally profitable to do so, but as a general policy. Producing more in less time with fewer people not to reduce labor costs and throw people out of work, but to decrease the amount of time people need to work, giving them more time to pursue other things of interest. At the base of this society is the explicitly stated right to that portion of overall production sufficient to meet an individual’s needs.
The presence of socialized medicine doesn’t make a country socialist. Progressive, certainly, but not socialist. Moreover, socialized medicine is primarily concerned with the provision of health care to the population and has nothing to do with the companies that do research and development in medicines. In other words, making the medicine is left to the market, while providing the medicine isn’t. Drug companies are free to manufacture whatever they think will make them a profit regardless of the potential or actual effects, and clearly there can often be little in the way of required testing. Ergo, a drug like thalidomide which is highly dangerous under most circumstances can easily make its way onto the market because there is a profit to be made on it, regardless of who’s administering the medicine at the consumer level.
There are no socialist countries, nor have there ever been.
If this is the case, than socializing medicine fails to protect the people and thus is a poor way to operate medicine. However your lack of knowledge in the approval process for pharmaceuticals undermines your argument; the approval of drugs is not left up to the market but rather the governmentally appointed regulating bodies. Contrary to popular belief Viagra didn’t sail through the FDA because of the market, it sailed through because sildenafil citrate had been tested as a medicine to help treat angina. True, drug manufacturers are free to manufacture whatever they think will make them a profit, but they aren’t free to sell just any product they want.
This is totally contradictory to…history. Thalidomide is not ‘dangerous under most circumstances’ nor it did not make it’s way onto the US market because of the profit to be made, rather it ended up costing Richardson Merrell a pretty penny. The FDA really could care less how much money you have, they slapped Abbott around to the tune of $100M for not validating their processes.
What about Scotland? :rolleyes: