# What would a Socialist (Socialist Party, USA) America be like? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2007, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234 "2007-01-09T01:02:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/41 "2007-01-10T21:31:36Z")
[QUOTE=Plan B] [NY Times on Chavez](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/business/worldbusiness/10venezuela.html?hp&ex=1168405200&en=c7f0817e3a2a3cf0&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Stock market down 19% in one day. Please explain how this will be good for the average Venezuelan. [/quote] And how many average Venezuelans have money in the stock market? If the government can run the electric and telephone companies better as public utilities and if the users have to pay less, **that** will be good for them. Or do you think the private sector always does it better? [_cough_]Enron[_cough_] [QUOTE=Plan B] I like Tony Snow’s comment, from the article. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Tony Snow, a White House spokesman, said on Tuesday, “Nationalization has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world. We support the Venezuelan people and think this is an unhappy day for them.” 😕 What, that? There’s nothing profound about it – it’s just the sort of asservation you or **Sam** might have made, minus the cites and arguments, and rendered into Press Secretarese. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/42 "2007-01-10T21:42:51Z")
> [@](#): > > 😕 What, that? There’s nothing profound about it – it’s just the sort of asservation you or **Sam** might have made, minus the cites and arguments, and rendered into Press Secretarese. It’s an accurate and pithy description of events. If I lived in Venezuela I’d be buying a plane ticket right about now if I hadn’t already. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/43 "2007-01-10T22:51:54Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] his ‘sow the oil’ project is essentially plundering an industry for short-term gain. He’s going to find it impossible to attract investment to fund upgrading and maintaining his oil infrastructure. He’s going to wind up like other countries that have done this - with a rickety infrastructure over the years, declining production, and cuts to his social programs. [/quote] Cite? How do you know he’s “plundering” the oil industry by spending its revenue on infrastructure and social programs? And why would he need to “attract investment” in the nationalized oil industry? If it needs upgrading or maintenance, he can simply take less of its revenue for other projects and reinvest the remainder in the oil industry. And since they’re now collecting the income tax **seriously** for the first time in Venezuelan history, he’ll be able to afford it. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] My guess - because there’s no demand for them. [/quote] And you should take a lesson from that. Sometimes there’s a very real **need** for something for which there is no market **demand.** [QUOTE=Sam Stone] ‘Public Works’ projects are an awful way to spend the government’s money. You wind up with drab concrete buildings and second-rate infrastructure. But most importantly, the government is not as good at determining where the real need for infrastructure is than is the market. You’ll build stuff you don’t need, and not build stuff you do. [/quote] Ever driven on the American Interstate Highway System? Mostly well-designed, useful, and something that the private sector never would have built. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Imagine if our communications networks were built as ‘public works’ projects? Had the internet not evolved out of the forces of the market, but been driven by the state computer communications bureau. [/quote] It **was,** in case you’ve forgotten. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Would Fed Ex have been created by a government bureau? [/quote] Would the U.S. Postal Service ever have been created by the private sector? Each has its place. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Would you accept a casual dismissal like that from me regarding business? If I just casually tossed off, “there’s too much corruption in America’s large corporations, but that’s to be expected”, and then continued on like it wasn’t a problem? [/quote] I **expect** business to be corrupt when the government isn’t watching. When the government itself is corrupt, that’s a much bigger problem. OTOH, the Venezuelan business community doesn’t seem to mind. From [“Hugo Chavez and Petro Populism,”](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti/6) by Christian Parenti, _The Nation,_ 4/11/05: > [@](#): > > There are some in the opposition whose critique focuses less on Chávez’s supposed abuses of power and more on the government’s alleged mismanagement and left-wing economic tomfoolery. Oscar Garcia Mendoza is president of Banco Venezolano de Credito, a very old and conservative bank. He’s what Chávez would call an “oligarch,” the official enemy: a capitalist financier. But when I meet him in his beautiful corner office on the ninth floor of a Modernist highrise, he is beaming. He wears a dark blue suit, his gray hair is cropped stylishly short and he has that healthy look that seems to come from being rich and relaxed. > > Classical music filters out from speakers in the ceiling; on the table are fine Cuban cigars. We sit in bent plywood and leather Herman Miller chairs, and gaze out across the city through a glass wall lined with thick green plants. > > “Business has never been better,” says Garcia. “This government is totally incompetent. They have no idea what they are doing. The head of their land reform, Eliezer Otaiza, is a former male stripper. And did you see they just appointed Carlos Lanz, a former terrorist kidnapper, a communist, as head of Alcasa, our largest aluminum company?” Through it all, Garcia wears a slightly suppressed grin as if he thinks the whole thing is hilarious. “I mean, can you imagine that?” > > In a way, Lanz’s appointment is not so outrageous: Another former guerrilla, Ali Rodriguez Araque, once minister of mining and energy, then head of OPEC, is now foreign minister and widely respected as a level-headed negotiator. > Garcia also has some very concrete criticisms. He says that the current economic boom is a chimera based on oil prices. In 2004 government spending jumped 47 percent, much of which went to pay for healthcare and education–the missions. But despite the oil windfall, the government has had to borrow heavily. Instead of turning to international financiers, it has increased its internal debt to Venezuelan banks. > > Garcia says that in the past four years this internal debt has gone from $2 billion to more than $27 billion. The Finance Ministry confirms these figures and says that 60 percent of this debt is held in government bonds. > > “But what makes this really crazy,” says Garcia, “is that the government is depositing all its oil revenue in the same banks at about 5 percent, then borrowing it back at 14 percent. It’s a very easy way for bankers to make money. That’s why I say this is a government for the rich.” > > Last year Venezuelan banks made $1.38 billion in profits, just a bit more than they did the year before. And most of that money came from lending to the Chávez government and trading in special government-approved, dollar-denominated bonds, a legal loophole in the new currency-control law. Garcia’s bank actually does no business with the government, but the huge increase in oil revenues has doubled his loan portfolio. The economy is awash in money: Growth was 17.3 percent in 2004. > > So if the economy is booming, why does Garcia dislike Chávez? > > “These people are crooks,” he says. “Look, Venezuela has always been corrupt, but these guys are the worst.” When I point out that the government just fired 120 managers in Zulia state for corruption, Garcia waves it away as insufficient. That said, I really hope the leaders of the MVR (Chavez’ party, the Movement for a Fifth Republic) keep their enthusiastic post-election promises to crack down on corruption. At present, [Transparency International](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html) assigns Venezuela a “Corruption Perceptions Index” of 2.3, putting it at the 138th rank (along with Ecuador, Cameroon, and Niger). (For comparison, the U.S. is in the 20th rank with a CPI of 7.3; Canada is in the 14th rank with a PCI of 8.5.) [QUOTE=Sam Stone] Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, huh? I think I’ve heard that before. [/quote] :rolleyes: Oh, come **on!** By “too authoritarian for my taste,” I meant stuff like suppressing opposition radio stations. That’s bad, but it ain’t Joe Stalin bad. There are no purges, show trials or gulags in Venezuela, and you won’t live to see any. You **probably** won’t even see private property expropriated without some kind of compensation. I don’t like the tinkering with press freedom one little bit, but take him all around, Chavez is an apostle of civil liberties compared to, say, [Alvaro Uribe, the right-wing president of Colombia:](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060612/parenti) > [@](#): > > “I blame the professors for the political disorientation of these youth,” said Uribe at one point, his anger just barely showing. It was a statement made all the more chilling by recent revelations that the leadership of Colombia’s Administrative Department for Security, or DAS, has been infiltrated by rightist paramilitaries who are supportive of Uribe and have used government computers to draw up hit lists of trade unionists and, yes, professors. Uribe has brushed aside the scandal, attacked the press for reporting it and sent a key suspect to a cushy diplomatic post in Italy. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] No, they’ll be told that their problems are everyone else’s fault - especially Americas. [/quote] That wouldn’t be the whole truth, but it wouldn’t be a lie, either. (Never forget that Chile’s economic woes under Salvador Allende **were** at least partly, and probably largely, the fault of the U.S.) [QUOTE=Sam Stone] He’ll build up his military and start meddling all over the place. [/quote] 😕 **Where?!** Most of SA is on **his** side now. If he sticks his nose into Colombia’s interminable civil war he’ll probably get it bloodied; if he doesn’t, so much the better. But he won’t. He’s trying to build **unity** in SA. [QUOTE=Sam Stone] It makes no sense whatsoever. Intentionally cutting your country off from the biggest source of products and capital in the world is simply idiotic. It’ll make a bad situation worse. [/QUOTE] It made sense when the Europeans did it. And they didn’t cut themselves off from American imports, markets or capital; they merely worked themselves into a position to trade with the U.S. on **their** terms. And Latin America **needs** some solid protectionism if it’s going to nurture its own “infant industries” wihtout American competition for the domestic market. Exactly the same reason the U.S. needed tariff protection in the 19th Century (and stopped needing it when the infant industries had grown up). As Henry Clay or Abe Lincoln might have told you. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/44 "2007-01-10T22:55:00Z")
BTW, **Sam,** what would an NDP-governed Canada be like? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/45 "2007-01-10T22:58:56Z")
[QUOTE=Debaser] It’s an accurate and pithy description of events. If I lived in Venezuela I’d be buying a plane ticket right about now if I hadn’t already. [/QUOTE] But it’s not true. Sure, there have been “failures” of some nationalized industries. OTOH, lots of countries have done very well by nationalization – especially, nationalization of natural resources like oil and natural gas. That’s why Saudi Arabians pay no taxes, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/46 "2007-01-10T23:04:44Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] But it’s not true. Sure, there have been “failures” of some nationalized industries. OTOH, lots of countries have done very well by nationalization – especially, nationalization of natural resources like oil and natural gas. That’s why Saudi Arabians pay no taxes, IIRC. [/QUOTE] Are you seriously holding up S.A. as an example of a successful state? What would you say if Bush nationalized the US oil industry, eliminated income taxes, and kept 2/3 of the oil revenues for his consumption and that of his closest 1,000 relatives? Success? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/47 "2007-01-10T23:19:09Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Are you seriously holding up S.A. as an example of a successful state? What would you say if Bush nationalized the US oil industry, eliminated income taxes, and kept 2/3 of the oil revenues for his consumption and that of his closest 1,000 relatives? Success? [/QUOTE] I’d call it impossible. The U.S. domestic oil industry isn’t nearly profitable enough to pay for the federal budget. As for the privileged status of the SA princes, that’s another matter. Certainly I don’t approve of the Saudi monarchy, but we’re talking here about industry nationalization as such. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/48 "2007-01-11T00:29:18Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] BTW, **Sam,** what would an NDP-governed Canada be like? 🙂 [/QUOTE] They currently hold the Premierships of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/49 "2007-01-11T00:36:40Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] They currently hold the Premierships of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. [/QUOTE] And have governed several provinces for periods in the past, I know. But they’ve never held the premiership of Canada, have they? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/50 "2007-01-11T00:42:45Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I’d call it impossible. The U.S. domestic oil industry isn’t nearly profitable enough to pay for the federal budget. [/QUOTE] Then just nationalize more industries, and only elimiate income tax on incomes of less than, say, $200k/year (or whatever works). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/51 "2007-01-11T01:50:00Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Then just nationalize more industries, and only elimiate income tax on incomes of less than, say, $200k/year (or whatever works). [/QUOTE] [shrug] I don’t think you’ll find anything like that on the SPUSA’s platform . . . All I’m saying is, **sometimes** nationalization works out for the best, and Tony Snow is flatly and predictably wrong on that point. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/52 "2007-01-11T15:35:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] And have governed several provinces for periods in the past, I know. But they’ve never held the premiership of Canada, have they? [/QUOTE] No, there’s never been an NDP Prime Minister. They’re not big enough for that. Their main role in Parliament has been as spoilers propping up minority governments. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/53 "2007-01-11T17:21:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Then just nationalize more industries, and only elimiate income tax on incomes of less than, say, $200k/year (or whatever works). [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [shrug] I don’t think you’ll find anything like that on the SPUSA’s platform [/QUOTE] I think we can. From the SPUSA’s [principles](http://sp-usa.org/principles.html) page: > [@](#): > > Production For Use, Not For Profit > > In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups. The primary goal of economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, health care, education, child care, cultural opportunities, and social services. > These social services include care for the chronically ill, persons with mental disabilities, the infirm and the aging. Planning takes place at the community, regional, and national levels, and is determined democratically with the input of workers, consumers, and the public to be served. It sounds like they want to nationalize everything to me. As to taxes, it’s hard to tell what they want. The principles page doesn’t mention taxes at all except to complain about the current system. Will there be taxes in a SPUSA state? What will they be? Do we even need them since we’re all just working for eachother? Do we need money at all? Whatever they mean by all the broad brushstrokes on the SPUSA page, I think it’s fair to say that their version of government is drastically different than the current system. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/54 "2007-01-11T17:34:25Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [shrug] I don’t think you’ll find anything like that on the SPUSA’s platform . . . All I’m saying is, **sometimes** nationalization works out for the best, and Tony Snow is flatly and predictably wrong on that point. [/QUOTE] If the government (acting as proxy for “the people”) don’t control the means of production, how is that “Socialism”? As \*\*Debaser \*\*pointed out, it looks like all industry would be nationalized. From their “platform” page (click on “economics” link): > [@](#): > > The Socialist Party stands for a fundamental transformation of the economy, focusing on production for need not profit. So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations. Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries. > > 1. We demand the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and oppose the creation of a widened Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). > > 2. We call for worker and community ownership and control of corporations within the framework of a decentralized and democratically determined economic. > > 3. We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living. > > 4. We call for a full employment policy. We support the provision of a livable guaranteed annual income. > > 5. We call for all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks. In the meantime, we call for re-regulation of the banking and insurance industries. > > 6. We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes. > > \ What a recipe for disaster!!! ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/55 "2007-01-11T17:34:38Z")
Nevermind. I’ve answered my own question. In another area of their page, they mention taxes in a description of the 2006-7 party platform. [cite](http://sp-usa.org/platform/economics.html) > [@](#): > > We call for a steeply graduated income tax and a steeply graduated estate tax, and a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum. We oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes. > > We call for the restoration of the capital gains tax and luxury tax on a progressive, graduated scale. This isn’t very specific, but I suspect that by eliminating “regressive” taxes and making other taxes **steeply** graduated, they mean that the poor will be paying very little taxes if any at all. Here’s some more fun stuff from the SPUSA page: > [@](#): > > We call for a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation. > [@](#): > > We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living. > [@](#): > > We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker’s previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer. Uh-oh. Sounds like the economy is going to be in trouble. > [@](#): > > In socialism, full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work. Wow. That solves that. I thought we would be in trouble for a minute there with the small businesses going under by the thousand, nobody working because you get paid even if you don’t and those few who do work spending half their time laying on a beach. But, nope. They’ve just decided that we won’t have any unemployment. Brilliant! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/56 "2007-01-11T17:52:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Production For Use, Not For Profit > > In a socialist system the people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups. The primary goal of economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, health care, education, child care, cultural opportunities, and social services. > These social services include care for the chronically ill, persons with mental disabilities, the infirm and the aging. Planning takes place at the community, regional, and national levels, and is determined democratically with the input of workers, consumers, and the public to be served. My whole problem with this is this sentence: “The primary goal of economic activity is to provide the necessities of life, including food, shelter, health care, education, child care, cultural opportunities, and social services.” It seems to imply a belief that taking care of the necessities of life would take up all or most of the output of the American economy. Whereas my suspicion is that taking care of the necessities of life would only take up a fraction of the American economy, and that eventually this will be true of the world economy as well under a wide open capitalist regime. My only real problem with capitalism – and it’s a REALLY HUGE problem – is that capitalist societies tend to do a piss-poor job of taking care of the necessities of life for those at the bottom of the economic pile. Now, you conservatives may hate the old Soviet Union all you like. But one thing they did, inefficient as their system was, was take care of the necessities of life for those who survive Stalin. Everybody had a job (maybe one they hated) a place to live (a crummy cement block apartment) and food to eat (let’s not get into Russian food). And there wasn’t a lot of crime. That’s because, for all their other failings, and Og knows there were plenty of them, they had the will to take care of their people. I’m not seeing that in the good 'ol US of A. I find that diminishes my respect for the people in charge. A lot. If capitalists were to say, “Hey, it’ll cost us money but it’s important that everybody have enough food and stuff, so let’s allocate a portion of our budget for this and get it done” I’d feel a lot better about them. But I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/57 "2007-01-11T19:16:24Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] Now, you conservatives may hate the old Soviet Union all you like. But one thing they did, inefficient as their system was, was take care of the necessities of life for those who survive Stalin. Everybody had a job (maybe one they hated) a place to live (a crummy cement block apartment) and food to eat (let’s not get into Russian food). And there wasn’t a lot of crime. That’s because, for all their other failings, and Og knows there were plenty of them, they had the will to take care of their people. I’m not seeing that in the good 'ol US of A. I find that diminishes my respect for the people in charge. A lot. If capitalists were to say, “Hey, it’ll cost us money but it’s important that everybody have enough food and stuff, so let’s allocate a portion of our budget for this and get it done” I’d feel a lot better about them. But I don’t. [/QUOTE] So, you’re saying the bottom tier of the USSR society had it better than the bottom tier in the US wrt “the necessities of life”? Cite? We could solve the housing problem (to the extent that there is one) by forcing people to share apartments, just like the Soviets did. Are you seriously proposing that as a policy? And there wasn’t a lot of crime because it was a freakin’ police state, for crying out loud!! ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/58 "2007-01-11T19:20:03Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] My only real problem with capitalism – and it’s a REALLY HUGE problem – is that capitalist societies tend to do a piss-poor job of taking care of the necessities of life for those at the bottom of the economic pile. [/quote] Yeah. It’s the worst system, except for all the others. > [@](#): > > Now, you conservatives may hate the old Soviet Union all you like. But one thing they did, inefficient as their system was, was take care of the necessities of life for those who survive Stalin. Everybody had a job (maybe one they hated) a place to live (a crummy cement block apartment) and food to eat (let’s not get into Russian food). And there wasn’t a lot of crime. That’s because, for all their other failings, and Og knows there were plenty of them, they had the will to take care of their people. > > I’m not seeing that in the good 'ol US of A. I find that diminishes my respect for the people in charge. A lot. Yeah. The Soviet Union took great care of it’s citizens, if we don’t consider the millions that it butchered and starved to death. I just don’t know what you’re talking about here. Maybe I read my history books backwards but I seem to recall millions of people starving to death under Soviet rule. In America, how many people starved to death in 2006? (In millions, please.) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/59 "2007-01-11T19:35:49Z")
**Evil Captor** , the problem with the USSR was that it used the power of the goverment to feed these people, and it did so with gross thugishness and inefficiency. In the US, there are plenty of non-governmental charities to feed and house the needy. If you feel that the needy aren’t receiving enough help, start a media campaign, and raise public awareness of the issue. The 9/11 charities, the Katrina charities, and the Tsunami charities all demonstrate (to me) that the average American is still a compassionate person, and is willing to help those in need. Using the power of the government to “level the playing field” between the rich and the poor, to the extent described as Pres. Chavez is doing, has historically led to oppressive authoritarian regimes. And then, it’s the poor that always suffer the most, not those in control of the system. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234/60 "2007-01-11T20:18:39Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] **Evil Captor** , the problem with the USSR was that it used the power of the goverment to feed these people, and it did so with gross thugishness and inefficiency. [/QUOTE] I don’t think you mean to be saying this, but by the way you worded your response you are implicitly acknowledging that the US doesn’t feed its people. That is simply wrong. No one starves in the US. (And I’m sure we all know what I mean by “no one”. I’m sure you can find the odd starvation in the US, but it’s essetially nonexistent). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-a-socialist-socialist-party-usa-america-be-like/387234.md?page=4)