Socialism

So basically the only two arguments that can really be made against socialism is that it doesn't provide adequate incentive to work and it doesn't provide opportunities for research and development?

So can't socialism be enhanced to deal with those specific issues?
If you can come up with ways to provide individual incentives to work and innovate, without changing what makes it socialism, I don't see why not in theory.

I just don't believe that you can come up with such incentives that would actually work.
 
If you can come up with ways to provide individual incentives to work and innovate, without changing what makes it socialism, I don't see why not in theory.

I just don't believe that you can come up with such incentives that would actually work.

Why?
 
Capitalism failed in 1929.

Since then the US has been Socialist. While at the same time also being bigoted, greedy and having a strong streak of classism.
 
Capitalism failed in 1929.

Since then the US has been Socialist. While at the same time also being bigoted, greedy and having a strong streak of classism.

Nuh uh! We tried capitalism again when we elected Bush Jr.! Life has been super peachy ever since!
 
Because I've seen many failed theoretical attempts, and no successful ones.

Really? You have examples of creating individual incentives to work and innovate within a socialized system? Can you post some?

I'm perfectly happy to listen to your ideas on the issue, though.

Let's start with the failures. I would like to hear what you have.
 
With Social Security still on the table, and Socialist Education.

He wanted to privatize Social Security! He signed the No Child Left Behind Act which denies federal money to schools that underperform!
 
Really? You have examples of creating individual incentives to work and innovate within a socialized system? Can you post some?

Let's start with the failures. I would like to hear what you have.
Oh, mainly things like "if only people would love each other more," and nonsense like that. I don't really know anyone willing to advocate a purely socialistic system. Even in grad school for Econ (I'm a Ph.D. candidate at U.Penn right now,) there's not a single professor or student, no matter how liberal in his views, willing to argue for a purely socialistic system, because they understand how insurmountable the incentive issue is.

In any case, I'm not advancing a position, I'm saying that I doubt your position (that being that such incentives can be created.) I never said that such things are impossible, just that I doubt they are feasible, and that I have seen no examples otherwise. If you wish to argue against this, then it is your burden to provide an example, not mine.
 
Little things like antibiotics, vaccines, libraries, sewers, education, irrigation, liberation of women, increased life span, telecommunications, radio, the internet, and, by the way, the computer you just used to communicate the above (not to mention a million other things you'd hate to live without).

Like I said I am not anti technology I phrased it that way cause I was pissed.

People tend to WORSHIP technology and yes it makes life more comfortable and convenient but does it really make life BETTER, does it make people happier. Cause if were not here to be happy what the hell are we doing?

I am opposed to the Techno=god attitude, not technology in of itself.

The faster technology advances the more we "progress" the more trouble we get into.
...(not to mention a million other things you'd hate to live without)
Would I hate to live with out most of the things you listed? Really? I'd probably miss women's lib but prehistoric (ala non technological) societies were typically egalitarian so I am not worried.

Other then that there is not much to miss, people can live a happy life with out most of the "million other things" technology provides.


What is the "high environmental cost" of novacaine?

Just one example I gave, plus the manufacture of anything has a high environmental cost because it requires a lot of electricity manufacturing is the one of the biggest causes of green house emmisions.

In the U.S., companies not adhering to the laws and standards of "good manufacturing practice" (GMP) administered by the FDA and EPA, can be fined and, ultimately, shut down and put out of business.

They are violated anyway and the cost of technology aren't limited to production.

If you've ever tried to set up a commercial research laboratory in the U.S., you would know the incredible rules and regulations governing safe, environmentally appropriate laboratory design and practice
.

In the US sure there are plenty of regulations involving manufacturing, but what about other countries?

Second corruption abounds and laziness abound perhaps not so much in commercial labs, but in plenty of other areas of commerce.

I repeat I am not opposed to technology I just want materialists to dismount there high horse. I want them to realize that technology is not that imperative were as thinking about the spiritual and environmental consequences of our progress over thousands of years is.

:m165:
 
Last edited:
Oh, mainly things like "if only people would love each other more," and nonsense like that. I don't really know anyone willing to advocate a purely socialistic system. Even in grad school for Econ (I'm a Ph.D. candidate at U.Penn right now,) there's not a single professor or student, no matter how liberal in his views, willing to argue for a purely socialistic system, because they understand how insurmountable the incentive issue is.

In any case, I'm not advancing a position, I'm saying that I doubt your position (that being that such incentives can be created.) I never said that such things are impossible, just that I doubt they are feasible, and that I have seen no examples otherwise. If you wish to argue against this, then it is your burden to provide an example, not mine.

Pure socialism can work, but only within very small, homogeneous groups. The likelihood of any pure economic system working on a large scale is infeasible. As such, there are ways to mitigate the incentive and innovation issue, but they are only effective on a community scale.

The point of this thread was to dispel myths associated with socialism. It has become so demonized that people no longer think rationally about it. It is a tool. It can be used for good or for evil. It depends upon the people who use it.

The real issue is the amount of control government's exert over people. Socialism is a tool that governments can use to that end, but so is capitalism.
 
What you describe is how it currently is in America, and how it has been through much of its history of becoming a world power. We have a progressive tax rate, so the rich pay a larger percentage of taxes than the poor. Our largest welfare base is our seniors. We dedicate nearly a third of our yearly federal budget just to them. Its a rather sad thing to consider when you realize that the largest group that is in poverty in this country are children.

I suppose the argument here is that in socialism, everyone is lower middle class, whereas in capitalism, some people are steeped in poverty and some people are ultra rich. I say that because there was a time when America had a middle class, due to its mixed economy, but the last 3 decades of the free market movement has eaten away at it.

Like I said: Good or bad - is pointless! How much, on the other hand, is not!!!! In america people don't pay 59 % tax when their sallary is $4000 (which is considered HIGH sallary here)... Nor does an author with a revenue of many millions have to pay 101 % taxes in USA...

But there are middle classers in America! As are there are still poor people in Sweden...
 
Like I said: Good or bad - is pointless! How much, on the other hand, is not!!!! In america people don't pay 59 % tax when their sallary is $4000 (which is considered HIGH sallary here)... Nor does an author with a revenue of many millions have to pay 101 % taxes in USA...

But there are middle classers in America! As are there are still poor people in Sweden...

Noone on earth has to pay 101% tax, unless you're dealing with a loan shark.
 
She couldn't make any money, and had to pay for the right to publish?
 
Anyway, with regard to the United States, the reality is that Socialism is not and will not be on the table for the foreseeable future. Notwithstanding programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Government funding of research, etc., "Socialism" is a dirty word here. There is only one self-avowed Socialist in Congress (Bernie Sanders of VT). Increasing taxes is almost politically suicidal and even a "public option" to compete with private healthcare insurance is likely impossible, given political reality. Many who threw tantrums at town hall meetings this past summer, are going against their own best interests and this is all in response to that dirty word, socialism. This is reality, despite a handful of popular Government programs that would appear to be "Socialistic." So, whether you're for or against Socialism philosophically it doesn't much matter, because it's just not going to happen here in the U.S.
 
Capitalism is only efficient as long as there is competition. Monopolies, for example, are by no means efficient.

Natural monopolies can be efficient - eg services on a small island - the island is not large enough to support duplication. Only the threat of competition is required.

As such, virtually all other commercial monopolies that exist only do so because they have received a substantial amount of government protection or support.

Not to mention you are also neglecting the fact that governments are also monopolies.

Markets don't necessarily yield the most efficient distribution (how is that even defined anyway?), but it does automatically perform computations of magnitude that are impossible to do through central planning. The ultimate limits aren't even due to lack of computational power, but rather lack of information input.

If you want socialism that approaches the efficiency you get with a market based economy, be prepared to give up all of your privacy and spend a large amount of time filling in questionaires.

Otherwise, one size fits all policies never work effectively on a large scale(see higher suicide rates in comparable countries eg East vs West Germany).

Socialism might work ok for a family, but it faces major computational problems on larger scales.

I'm finding it interesting that people seem to think that socialism is inherently authoritarian and that capitalism is inherently liberalized. They don't seem to realize that socialism and capitalism are economic systems, not political systems. A liberalized government can be socialistic and an authoritarian government can be capitalistic. It's actually worrisome that some people can't separate the economics from the politics.

A socialistic government has control over the economy, whereas the alternative does not. How can that not be considered authoritarian?

Noone on earth has to pay 101% tax, unless you're dealing with a loan shark.

(dodgily translated) Source:
http://translate.google.com/transla...ssa-i-monismanien&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania
 
Last edited:
Wow. I'd have killed someone...

Actually no. I'd have killed everyone in the government if they asked me to pay a 102% tax rate.
 
Back
Top