What is Socialism?

[bystander]

Sweden is not Socialist. They do have socialize Heath program. However, every citizen pays roughly 50% taxes. Tell the 47 % of the US citizens that currently do not pay taxes, they need to start giving 50% of their income to the government. You make $10,000, $5,000 goes to government. Everyone pays into the system.

That will never happen. The AOC's of the world will say the poor should be subsidized as reparations or tribute to be paid by the rich because the poor are poor because of discrimination or oppression. And when legislation that reflects the two plus century's of oppression is not passed, she and her squad will double down on their hatred.

This may sound like hyperbole but I think it's the exact reality of the AOC et al mind-set.

 

[Horns11]

Sweden is not Socialist. They do have socialize Heath program. However, every citizen pays roughly 50% taxes. Tell the 47 % of the US citizens that currently do not pay taxes, they need to start giving 50% of their income to the government. You make $10,000, $5,000 goes to government. Everyone pays into the system.

While it's true that the "local" (municipal) tax rate for Sweden seems high, Sweden's federal income tax only kicks in at individual earners making over $57,000 annually (top 36% here, top 17% there). They also make a lot of revenues through twice the cap gains tax rate as the US. There's not a chance that every citizen pays 50%.

 

[Monahorns]

Would you say that they have more socialist characteristics than the US?

Bubba, they are in some ways but not in others. They have more socialized services yes. But they have about equal levels of economic freedom. They are actually in the process of privatizing things because the level of socialization was too heavy for the economy to carry.

 

[humahuma]

I stand corrected, apparently got some bad information from CNN.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Would you say that they have more socialist characteristics than the US?

Kinda depends on what you mean by "socialist." It's a pretty loaded term. Do they let their government have a much greater role in healthcare than ours does? Sure, and they do have a generous welfare state. However, if we're looking at a more literal application of the term (meaning government ownership and management of the means of production), they aren't much more socialist than we are.

 

[bystander]

I wonder if we know the % of able-bodied adults in those all white socialist countries living off of those who care to work versus in the US.

 

[bystander]

American Socialism - Able bodied adults who no longer have to work. The do not have to ask what they can do for their country. No, instead, it means the country THEY HATE owes them a living. And their children. And their grandchildren. Nothing is earned. Not citizenship. Not respect. Not the rewards of effort.

 

[Horn6721]

Was it AOC who said how liberating it would be if people didn't have to worry about jobs? They could do the things they had dreamed of.
It might have been Pelosi
but some idiot said it not long ago

 

[Chop]

Was it AOC who said how liberating it would be if people didn't have to worry about jobs? They could do the things they had dreamed of.
It might have been Pelosi
but some idiot said it not long ago

1. Become independently wealthy; or
2. Dramatically lower your standard of living to do what you really love.

A friend of mine is an artist. He absolutely hated working in the business world, so he quit it and hasn’t held a job in around 30 years. His living standards are primitive, and he gets no welfare, etc., but he’s happy doing what he loves.

 

[Monahorns]

American Socialism - able bodied adults no longer have to work. The do not have to ask what they can do for their country. No, instead, it means the country THEY HATE owes them a living. And their children. And their grandchildren. Nothing is earned. Not citizenship. Not respect. Not the rewards of effort.

If we really continue this, the government will collapse followed by many large corporations. That isn't going to be pleasant, but it is reassuring to me that it can't last for that long.

 

[Horn6721]

Ah Chop. He is doing what he loves but not taking welfare. Good for him!!!
Here is what Pelosi said about the benefits of obamacare in March 2012
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Obamacare facilitates the type of “liberation” that the “Founders had in mind” because it allows you to quit your job and become a “photographer,” a “writer,” a “musician”--or “whatever.”

“As you hear from these stories, this is a liberation,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday.

“This is what our founders had in mind--ever expanding opportunity for people.

“You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever -- an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk,” she said."

We know how that in reality played out.

 

[bystander]

Ah Chop. He is doing what he loves but not taking welfare. Good for him!!!
Here is what Pelosi said about the benefits of obamacare in March 2012
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Obamacare facilitates the type of “liberation” that the “Founders had in mind” because it allows you to quit your job and become a “photographer,” a “writer,” a “musician”--or “whatever.”

“As you hear from these stories, this is a liberation,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday.

“This is what our founders had in mind--ever expanding opportunity for people.

“You want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever -- an artist, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, you want to change jobs, you no longer are prohibited from doing that because you can’t have access to health care, especially because you do not want to put your family at risk,” she said."

We know how that in reality played out.

They were trying to come up with a way to help "artists" with health insurance and the like here in Austin a while back. It was mainly talk, but the problem with these people is that as soon as you do something like that, then you have every yahoo who took piano lessons for three or four years as a child calling themselves an artist. The standard of expression would plummet.

I can see helping out Willie or Stevie Ray Vaughn (RIP) but the people who are dreamers but in reality are delusional as to their skills are the one's who would become the freeloaders.

We've never been short-changed for art. We have been blessed with words, songs, sculptures and paintings. The patronage system of the rich funding the great artists is how it should be because the taste of the patron is usually the only legitimate arbiter of true art and true crap.

The Pope hired Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

 

[Chop]

Van Gogh died penniless and possibly insane. The world now know him very well. It knows nothing of his contemporary local banker, lawyer, merchant, etc in Van Gogh’s
town. Neither Church, nor state, nor wealthy donor ever patronized him. This is probably true for most of the greats. They don’t live for creature comforts, but rather to create their artistic vision. With state funding comes state control and restrictions.

 

[iatrogenic]

Great discussion. Good thoughts by Deez, Monahans, ShAArk92, and everyone else. Let me go back to one of the repeated statements thrughout the thread stated initially by ShAArk.

Socialism is the government confiscating wealth from those who created it and sends it to those who didn't earn it ... in accordance with whatever the government deems necessary.​

I'll concede that to be true, but not necessarily bad. Let me explain.

If there is a surplus from the economy, such that the excess resulting from commerce exists and can be expropriated from taxes and distributed to the needy, as well as improve infrastructure and provide for the common defense, I don't have too much of a problem with that.

However when the charity/distribution of wealth exceeds the surplus generated by the economy, in other words you can no longer expropriate from taxes enough to cover the spending (deficits), then socialism heads down an unsustainable path. The more programs that get added eventually overwhelm the ability of the economy to satisfy the expenditures. At this point you are no longer "distributing the wealth" but robbing from the future to sustain the social programs. And that is where the western world stands now.

In the 40's and 50's, demographics and the booming US economy were able to generate surpluses that could pretty much be distributed through taxation without stealing from the future. So Socialism appeared to work. For a while. But with changing demographics, and periodic economic slumps, Socialism could only be extended by stealing from the future (running recurrent deficits).

For those of you who curse Socialism and say it will lead to failure, I think some of you don't realize you aren't talking about other nations. It is the United States that is well down that path already.

How Socialism Wiped Out Venezuela's Spectacular Oil Wealth

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Phil Elliott]

We can all rest easy now:

Op-Ed: Today's Youth Simply Don’t Have The Work Ethic To Build The Gulags Needed For Their Communist Ideals

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Garmel]

Not totally true. There would be dog meat in there.

 

[Monahorns]

Garmel, most likely rat meat.

 

[Chop]

Socialism relies on the cooperative spirit. From each according to his abilities. This only works in a family, small group, religious, or small tribal setting—where you actually know, and generally like, the people who benefit from your efforts.

Some problems are that people who are working hard and producing more will get resentful of those who slack off, or are simply less talented, and produce less. Since there is no impetus for the producers to work harder and smarter, they will be less motivated. If you’re getting paid the same as someone who produces half what you do, why work so hard and put out so much? Why stress yourself out when you get paid the same regardless? If you just coast, you get paid the same. The motivation is to do just enough to stay out of trouble. So that’s what this sort of system results in.

When socialist systems realize this—and it doesn’t take long for them to get it—they either:

(1) modify and add some market based incentives, (post-Mao China) or
(2) resort to using the stick instead of the carrot. Force the peasants to work hard by threat of torture and death (Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Pot, the rest of them)

 

[Monahorns]

Socialism is based on central planning. The myth is that it is collective ownership. Reality is central power and planning. The rest of society must be compelled to carry out the plan and any deviations are have to be harshly punished.

But socialism can not work because you to distribute resources properly to society you need the price signal to determine what should be pursued and what should be abandoned. Without a market there is no prices. Socialist economies abolish markets.

 

[Horn6721]

Remember how well the Bradford experiment worked? It was a kinda agri_commie socialism that had to be abandoned for predictable reasons.

 

[guy4321]

I think it's this, right? If a ticket is $95 for everyone, then it's fair.

Pay $95 to Hear Bernie Sanders Complain About Capitalism

 

[mchammer]

Kinda depends on what you mean by "socialist." It's a pretty loaded term. Do they let their government have a much greater role in healthcare than ours does? Sure, and they do have a generous welfare state. However, if we're looking at a more literal application of the term (meaning government ownership and management of the means of production), they aren't much more socialist than we are.