What's the deal with Socialism?

**Andre** · 12-31-2011 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by CFH

First of all, let me say that I am not a socialist. I value personal freedom, democracy, and many other liberal (small 'l') ideologies. Calling someone with my views a socialist or comparing us to Stalinists is akin to calling a calling a conservative a fascist and comparing them to the Nazis.

What I am is a social democrat. I do believe in government-run social services, higher taxation for those who make more money, and in prioritizing the needs of everyone.

Certain people in our societies are accorded a distinct and unearned privilege as a result of their race, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs etc. etc. etc. This means that there are other people who are places at a distinct disadvantage as a result. There are also people who are marginalized as a result of their health, mistakes, or just bad luck.

I believe that it is the governments role to address these social problems as it is the single biggest determiner of our culture and social structure. Charities are not sufficient to do so, they never have been, and they only serve to perpetuate a system of advantage and often one of exploitation. Charities are a nice way for societies elites to impose their values on other people and to feel good about themselves. The help a relatively small number of people but almost never effect any change (in fact, I cannot think of a single instance where a charity has done so, but I concede that I may be wrong there).

Despite all the propaganda (which is often inherently racist or discriminatory) about 'welfare queens' and a few extreme examples, the vast majority of people who are forced to rely on the government for help do so for a very short period of time. I don't have the exact statistic in front of me, but in Canada something like 95-98% of those who go on welfare or employment assistance do so for less than a year and never return. That is not becoming a 'dependant' and I would argue that a system of charities with wildly fluctuating resources, capabilities, and competencies would do much more to establish people as 'dependants' than a system that actively works towards social change and personal empowerment.

To take things a step further, I would argue that conservative social ideology does little more than justify the unearned privilege granted to societal elites while vilifying others and perpetuate an inherently biased social structure.

Any privileged person who thinks that they are any better, smarter, or more hard-working than a poor single mother or a minority who cannot find work is a fool. They've usually just been put in a better position to succeed. While there are always exceptions and I believe that success should be encouraged and that a large degree of competition can be a good thing, I also believe in working towards a society in which everyone has the same opportunities and no one, regardless of all other factors, is left to live at a substandard level.

That, very briefly and written in a very off the cuff way, is why I am a social democrat. I'm sure this post is filled with spelling errors and half-finished thoughts because I wrote it quickly, but I hope it explains my position. Honestly, to really explain myself I would have to write an essay and I simply don't have the time. Basically, I believe that the success of a nation should be judged by how it treats those in its charge who have the least, not on how they treat those who have the most and that government, as an extension of the people, is best-suited to address these issues.

Social democracy is also an political system that has achieved great results. The Scandinavian countries have the highest quality of life of anyone in the world. Here in Canada, our system of universal healthcare, arguably (or perhaps inarguably) the single thing most Canadians are the proudest of, was the direct result of a socialist/social democratic politician.

Do I think such a system is possible in the States? No, not for centuries because of the way most people feel there, and that is fine. People have a right to chose how they want to live and be governed. I don't think that means it is not a successful system of governance though.

One more quick note, concepts like perpetual revolution are examples of things taken to the extreme and that is not something unique to socialism or leftist thought (obviously). Even Thomas Jefferson argued for something similar

That is very good mate.

Makes me think I must b a social democrat of sorts.

**Gandalf** · 01-01-2012 01:35 AM

I can't be bothered to go into a lot of lengthy posting and I drank a fair bit of wine last night too, so all I will do is recommend a book for Lyle called '23 things they don't tell you about Capitalism' by Ha Joon Chang. It spells things out in laymans terms and tells you why the typical freemarket perspective on the world is wrong and in particular shows the bias used by economists of the US and British systems and which are in turn abused by the political and corporate elite (don't frget economics is extremely corrupt). Socialist principles are shown to lead to the most impressive rates of growth and standards of living.

It's a good book, you can read it in a couple of days and accompanied by a few cups of tea.

**Kev** · 01-01-2012 06:33 PM

I'm still so fucking ill

**generalbulldog** · 01-01-2012 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm still so fucking ill

Miles will blame it on the Jews.

**Andre** · 01-01-2012 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm still so fucking ill

Try some pure honey for antibiotic and energy boost to get your system on the go again.

Ginseng if you can afford it too.

**Gandalf** · 01-01-2012 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I'm still so fucking ill

Miles will blame it on the Jews.

**VictorCharlie** · 01-02-2012 05:52 AM

The U.S. system is nothing but a perversion of capitalism. We have a system that is conflicted in a desire (or at least a stated desire) for free markets but then leverage the system for one interest or another. Miles is absolutely correct, if we were truly for free markets we would have let many of our major financial institutions and GM fail and been absolutely right to do so. Holding major corporations accountable for atrocious business practices in free market capitalism would disuade CEOs from risky behaivor. Billion dollar bailouts are shear cowardice by anyone that champions the free market. I have no issue with safety net programs for my fellow citizen when they are struggling but not at the federal level. The U.S. is supposed to be based on federalism and these type of programs are best decided at a state level both in quality of benefits and funding. Creating over-arching federal programs for 300+billion people is problematic at best and only adds to the partisanship we are seeing today. Some where along the line too many Americans started believing their ideas were what is best for the entire nation instead of just worrying about their own back yard.

**Youngblood** · 01-02-2012 05:59 AM

Just finished watching Food Inc. Was an interesting documentary. I an't say I'm surprised at the type of hierarchy it presents in the production of food. Bit surprised how damn much corn we all eat though.

El Kabong · 01-02-2012 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Just finished watching Food Inc. Was an interesting documentary. I an't say I'm surprised at the type of hierarchy it presents in the production of food. Bit surprised how damn much corn we all eat though.

You might like the book 'Animal Factory' about how these big factory farms are going to destroy us.

**Gandalf** · 01-02-2012 02:10 PM