Thread: Socialism Works!

Or does it?

http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/

Interesting web-site.

I'm sorry, I don't actually get it. Some of those quotes had nothing to do with socialism....and some of it is based on a true ignorance about what socialism actually is. (Hitler, despite the name of his party, was not actually a socialist....)

I'm not a socialist but I actually don't get the site. Just, "Socialism is bad, mmmkay?" Is that it?

Did you follow the link all the way to the bottom where it says "Fascism doesn't fit?"? Click on that and read if you are so inclined.

I look at the total scope of politics in a slightly different and much less complicated way which is as follows:

You have systems that see the individual rights as the important factor and then you have systems that see the state as the important factor, in other words, one puts the people above its government, which the US used to be an example of and hopefully will be again. conservative values as we see in America follow this trend. And the other puts the Government above its people. Socialism, Fascism, communism and so on are great examples of this.

Great thread! Thanks Scott.

Originally Posted by JMS

Did you follow the link all the way to the bottom where it says "Fascism doesn't fit?"? Click on that and read if you are so inclined.

I look at the total scope of politics in a slightly different and much less complicated way which is as follows:

You have systems that see the individual rights as the important factor and then you have systems that see the state as the important factor, in other words, one puts the people above its government, which the US used to be an example of and hopefully will be again. conservative values as we see in America follow this trend. And the other puts the Government above its people. Socialism, Fascism, communism and so on are great examples of this.

Great thread! Thanks Scott.

I agree that, on the surface, the conservative movement recognizes that individual rights are more important than the government, but I would disagree with the implication that the liberal side of politics does NOT. Both "sides" of the American political spectrum focus on the value and essential necessity of the preservation of individual rights. I think, however, that the difference is actually WHAT those rights are. The conservative movement focuses on economic rights. That is, freedom from government control of money. Thus the emphasis on lower taxation, less regulation of business, etc. Then there is the emphasis on "tradition", under which rubric I place gun control, right-to-life and same sex marriage. (I personally believe that the conservative political movement focuses on tradition as a way to ground itself with the working class rather than any kind of true dedication to these ideas, but that's neither here nor there.)

I think the liberal side is rather more concerned with social rights--freedom of sexuality, religious choice (including the freedom FROM religion...), reproductive rights etc. Economically, the liberal idea is that without some government control of the economy, there will be no room for these social rights to flourish, as economic power equals social power, and the tendency is for wealth to accrue in more conservative strata of society, where there is a difference of opinion on social rights. There is of course, also the basic idea that every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the poor simply do not enjoy in the same way that the wealthy do. Life--health care is exceedingly expensive. Liberty--see also legal representation and the "OJ effect"; rich people, when they are accused of crimes, simply don't go to jail as often as the poor--often due to poor legal representation. And Happiness? Well...that's different for every individual, so who's to say? But basically, the government's job is to protect the weak, not to allow the strong to flourish.

The fallacy that the Liberal political side believes that the government is more important than the individual comes form a conservative misunderstanding of the liberal idea that, without government protection, there IS no individual freedom. Without government regulation of business, you get sweatshops. Without government regulation of the economy, you get meltdowns like we're seeing now, where innicent people lose their work and their homes due to the greed of a few. Without government helathcare, people (even some of whom are lucky enough to have health insurance) are denied care that will save their lives because of corporate decisions. It's not that liberals believe that the government is more important than the individual--we believe that the government should be the extention of the individual, that there is strength in numbers, and that there are problems that can be solved when people work together that cannot be solved when people are on their own.

Whether or not it always works that way is another story...

But that's what I believe. If that's socialism, well, call me a socialist. (It's not, though...)

JimR, I believe where our true difference lies is that you see Government as a force for good and I see Government as a necessary evil.

Originally Posted by JMS

JimR, I believe where our true difference lies is that you see Government as a force for good and I see Government as a necessary evil.

Indeed. Or rather, I see government as a POTENTIAL force for good, but all too often a tool of evil.
I'm actually relieved, Mark, that you at least think it's necessary. Far too many Libertarians (I'm assuming that is what you are? Forgive me if I'm wrong) are much too close to anarchists for my comfort.

I certainly understand the appeal of less government, the freedom to do as I see fit with my money and my life, but there are far too many NON-governmental forces that would take those very things away without the government's prevention...

Funny. Am I too naive, or too cynical?

Originally Posted by JMS

You have systems that see the individual rights as the important factor and then you have systems that see the state as the important factor, in other words, one puts the people above its government, which the US used to be an example of and hopefully will be again. conservative values as we see in America follow this trend. And the other puts the Government above its people. Socialism, Fascism, communism and so on are great examples of this.

Great thread! Thanks Scott.

And perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle?
The rights of the individual cannot always trump the decisions of the government.

For example: you could argue that since the 2nd is not specific, you should be allowed the right to bear thermonuclear weapons. And the government would be wise to tell you to sod off. And if you were trying to build one, they'd be wise to throw you in jail because there is no reason why you should own a thermonulear weapon.

Despite the fact that you can argue it's an individual right allowed by the constituation, it is for the good of the whole that individuals don't have them. If no good can come from something, then the government has a case for restricting you, as indicated by the previous example.

Originally Posted by JimR

Indeed. Or rather, I see government as a POTENTIAL force for good, but all too often a tool of evil.
I'm actually relieved, Mark, that you at least think it's necessary. Far too many Libertarians (I'm assuming that is what you are? Forgive me if I'm wrong) are much too close to anarchists for my comfort.

I certainly understand the appeal of less government, the freedom to do as I see fit with my money and my life, but there are far too many NON-governmental forces that would take those very things away without the government's prevention...

Funny. Am I too naive, or too cynical?

Once the principles of "someone can make better decisions about my fate than I do - in the name of overall good and a better society" are established as a society's mantra (which *is* the building block of socialism), you are always on a verge of establishing some form of dictatorship. Human imperfection make noble intentions quickly deteriorate into "I can make better decisions about them than they are - for their own good", and there are no mechanisms in such environment that can prevent or stop massive abusing of power and moral corruption.

For that reason, I see governments as a necessary evil. They need to be kept at bay and closely watched and purged and stripped of false entitlements. If you do not see the danger of empowerment of "the wrong elites" (the weakest link of democracies, IMO) and their entitlement to run your lives, you are certainly very naive in my eyes.

Originally Posted by JimR

... But that's what I believe. If that's socialism, well, call me a socialist. (It's not, though...)

Always ready to welcome a comrade.

Originally Posted by JimR

I certainly understand the appeal of less government, the freedom to do as I see fit with my money and my life, but there are far too many NON-governmental forces that would take those very things away without the government's prevention...

Funny. Am I too naive, or too cynical?

One great mistake the Soviets made was assuming that their Communism could be implemented at all. It is common to misinterpret Marx to mean that radical changes are what drive social progress. Politics and Social convention, like all things in nature, evolve. I might use the interesting developments this line of discussion has shown throughout the last several months as an example of how a set of memes, those we've been bandying through these conversations, have evolved. Marx believed that a period of global Socialism would be necessary before true Communism (which I envision much like the Libertarian ideal) could be practised. Under such a system people would have plenty and need much less so there should be less disruptive behaviour.

X

First of all I didn't read all of the page, but i did skim through the par about Sweden.

But first of all what kind of socialism are we talking about? For example Social democrats and communists hate each other more than anything. I think we must make a distinction as the term Socialism is too broad, like Christianity..they all have some things in common but may be very different indeed.

Also, why is there a pic of Jacques Chirac? he is not a socialist.. Also one might question weather national socialism and fascism are socialism, but generally sure we could accept that as they are actually closer than socialists want to admit for example they share the idea that capitalism is not good (but we must remember that capitalism is also an integral part of some forms of socialism).

Anyway about some of the Sweden parts - Some of the stuff written here are just ridiculous with the only aim of saying socialism is bad, I wont go in to details as I'm too lazy for that. But some of the stuff is just playing with numbers and (perhaps) theoretical assumptions. Like the statement "Workers can earn up to 570 paid days off a year (that's no typo - we know there are only 365 days a year - Swedes can earn more paid days off than days they actually work)" this is just bullcrap, I have never heard of such a thing and even it is so theoretically (although i doubt it) in real life thats not how it works.
Also that sweden has high taxes, now that is true the municipal tax is around 32-33% and the VAT is 25% except for food 12% and books 6% (I dont know if there are other exceptions. And of course there are also other taxes. But this IMO does not tell us much if we do not ask the question of what the citizens get it return for their tax.
Here is a short list (except for the usual things like lawenfocement, government administration, defence etc.) - Free schools (and school lunch), free univeristies and higher education, child support and students allowences, free health and dental care for childern and for adults at a very reduced price, various wellfare support, pension etc etc.

These are things that many people would have troubble affording if it werent for these taxes, they may be high but what you get in return is worth it.

Sure the serilizations etc did occur but it would be wrong to say "The history of Swedish domestic relations is chock full of civil rights abuses[...]". I also doubt that the sterilizations were conducted just because of the socialdemocrats were in government, it would probably have been going on even with another government in rule. Also non-socialist countries also engaged in civilrights abuses. Sweden probably have a more clean past when it comes to these thing than most other modern countries both socialist and not.

"While the government spent 70% of the Swedish Gross National Product in the '90s, for 4 years the national debt doubled and for 3 years the nation experienced negative financial growth." Ok, but during these years the government was led by a center-right coalission, not socialdemocrats. But the financial crisis of the 90's was not started by this new government it was quite global. however the effects of the crisis was in many cases milder in Sweden because of the measures that were taken (along with the then oppositional socialdemocrats).

Alright I'm tiered now, but the webpage is highly biased and gives an unfair portrayl of "socialism" and of sweden.