User	Comment
Melf	posted 10-Jul-2008 5:33am   In theory In practice
Kristal_Rose	posted 10-Jul-2008 7:29am   There's some truth to every option here. I feel the more socialism the better, as long as it is democratic and only pertains to those aspects of society common to most everyone, such as eating, health care, or the environment. Socialism does not have to be centralized. It can be the very opposite, spreading out concentrically from individual to family to neighborhood to city to state. Just because one community has publicly owned nudist swimming pools doesn't mean everyone in the nation has to. That's one mistake the USSR made, trying to implement communism from a central hierarchy. Seaside community restaurants need to serve fish and chips, not the nationally mandated hamburger menu. I would like to see corporations socialised such that their objective was the greatest common good, and not just profit for their limited investors. On the other hand I can see that government regulation would interfere even with companies whose objective was indeed the common good. Socialism is not contrary to freedom of choice and entrepreneurship either. For instance the government could issue school vouchers with the caveat that private contractor teachers or schools could only accept them if they were non-discriminatory (except IQ o academic gifts) and accepted no money beyond the voucher. People would have equitable education expenditures, yet still be able to select their most fitting choice of program in capitalism free-choice style. I don't think anyone will be coming up with any radically new system, as the polarities between capitalism and communism/socialism are pretty clear cut opposites of the possible range already, self-interest or collective-interest. - Defining systems can be a matter of defining things like collective interest. I feel that is in the collective interest for people to have diverse skills and interests, and choose them for themself. I do not feel it is in the collective-interest for some people to make 400 times the income of others working just as hard, nor to choose who our doctors and engineers will be based on the income of their parents or their economic motive. We could stand to have a society with a lot more people accomplisihing great things, and a lot fewer people employed solely in how to extract money from the efforts of others. If there was some public say in what people did for a financed living, I think we would have a lot more street cleaners and fewer telemarketers. Also inventions would be developed more on their merit then on the marketing of it's investors. I was once looking for think-tank work and walked away thoroughly disgusted. All anyone was looking for was creativity in increasing profits, not creating new solutions for public benefit. I just heard that in China that people who take bribes greater than $14k are executed. We wouldn't be working here to support Haliburton CEO's if that sort of thinking reigned here. Integrated clock-work is inevitable if we are to support an increasing population, but socialism is not necessarily inevitable. Classist slave societies were the norm in early history, and we can accomplish the same now in Brave New World fashion without people even realizing it's happening. There's a huge difference between the apparent promise of equal opportunity and actual just equity, or even equity for things like effort, commitment, creativity, and intelligence.
Matty	posted 10-Jul-2008 7:31am   I feel economic and political theories are good when you study them in Economics or Political Science class.
dab	posted 10-Jul-2008 7:41am   Central control is more orderly, it appears simpler and less chaotic, and it produces worse results. If your goal is for a fairer, more evenly distributed bad, socialism is the way to go.
they	posted 10-Jul-2008 10:16am   I didn't read the wiki article. Maybe I should... because I don't know much about this. I really don't like the idea of government run anything... but this is only because of the attitude I have towards government. For the most part, governments fudge crap up. Maybe it's too many cooks in the kitchen... or maybe it's just too many control freak, greedy cooks in the kitchen, but it doesn't seem to work. So if a government that sucks starts controlling even more things, I can imagine our country looking like abandoned Russia after a few years.
LindaH	posted 10-Jul-2008 11:18am   Some socialism is good, but not too much; Some social programs are important for a stable society (e.g. universal health care, welfare, unemployment) I don't think the government should own the means of production and distribution though.
Galomorro	posted 10-Jul-2008 11:25am   I don't understand enough about it to say for sure, but it seems like a good idea in some ways -- like maybe with health care.
llamamama	posted 10-Jul-2008 11:56am   Communism? No. I mean, some aspects are good..but..it doesn't really work. Look at all the communist countries and tell me something good is going on there.
llamamama	(reply to Melf) posted 10-Jul-2008 11:57am
Enheduanna	posted 10-Jul-2008 12:36pm   I think of myself as a socialist in terms of social welfare programs, but I think a capitalist economy supports it better than a socialized or communist one. Competition is still important for a healthy economy, I think. So I believe in private ownership of most industries (maybe with limited community- or government-owned things). Then I think the government should impose a pretty steep graduated income tax and use the money to provide good healthcare and education for everyone in the country. If there's extra, they can subsidize food, housing, and utilities, too.
LJD	posted 10-Jul-2008 1:02pm   People lose their freedoms through socialism. They lose their creativity. People are not all alike. The elitists want a centralized government (the Beast) so they can better control people. For freedom, government has to be decentralized. We must keep our state rights, decentralizing government. Government wants everyone to become dependant on them, thereby the distribution of wealth. I believe in individual responsibility. The enemy within controls us through taxation.
kcthedog	posted 10-Jul-2008 11:31pm   I'm too tired I abstain.
JessicaWoman99	posted 11-Jul-2008 12:46am   Sounds like a bad idea
Melf	(reply to llamamama) posted 11-Jul-2008 3:30am
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 11-Jul-2008 8:36am   If you read my comment, you'll see I mention how socialism doesn't have to be and shouldn't be centralized. At it's etymylogical roots, communism is about communities, not big brother (as it was done in China and the USSR).
Biggles	posted 11-Jul-2008 1:06pm   I am a moderate socialist - I am less socialist than the Socialist Workers Party and more socialist than New Labour (which is a democratic socialist party, supposedly) who form our government. I think that the privatisation that occurred under the Conservatives was largely negative and I would wholeheartedly stand against further privatisation - particularly of the National Health Service and in education (both of which are threatened by the current government, and will suffer greatly at the hands of the likely next government). This is a difficult survey to answer, because definitions of socialism vary so much around the world. A lot of Europe sees the UK as very conservative, while I imagine the US sees us as pretty socialist.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 11-Jul-2008 7:13pm   I know very little about communism, but what I see is big centralized control. Naturally, like most people think, that communities, through their churches should help those in need. That is as it once was. Charity is to be volunteered, not demanded. You mentioned communist China and the USSR, I bet their elitite aren't starving, living in shacks. .
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 11-Jul-2008 9:05pm   Obviously not enough charities are volunteering, or we would have no need for government assistance programs.
dab	(reply to LindaH) posted 11-Jul-2008 9:58pm   Or the government is taking so much money from people for assistance programs that the people don't feel charity is needed so much anymore. They already given at the office, so to speak. Even with that, people in this country give a lot to charities on top of what's taken from them in taxes.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 11-Jul-2008 10:09pm   First of all we have to quit depending on government assistance. This is exactly what the one world elitists want. They set the stage for the need for government assistance.(centralization) The elitists set the stage for the 1930's depression. Then offer government assistance...social security program. It snowballs. We have the medicare program, we have every kind of program known to man. All in the control of a centralized government. It's a redistribution of wealth. Then we have Wall Street....a house of gamble that take control of peoples money, through their employers, through unions. The enemy is very clever. People really don't have control over their lives, especially when someone is manipulating everything. The enemy is planning another depression for us....worse than the last.
LindaH	(reply to dab) posted 11-Jul-2008 10:17pm   I personally think that the need is greater than the charity. Hypothetically, if we took away all the assistance programs, there would be a massive glut of needy people, and not enough charitable people to make up for it.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 12-Jul-2008 2:52am   China and the USSR were corruptions of the ideals of communism from the very start. It's rather inevitable when decision power is not shared equally. At least in the church implementation the decision makers had supposedly dedicated their lives to the will of God first. If one spends 20 years as monk first, that's probably the case, and unbiased unselfish decisions result, but if the church is a powerful televison business from the very start, no such pre-qualification of decison makers exists. True socialism/communism would require true total democracy (not just a representaional republic as we have here). China and the USSR didn't attempt democracy at all. They can't be entirely blamed for that though. Until recnt modern communication technology, true democracy has never been posible for an entire nation. Because people in power are already firmly situated, it's not going to happen now either unless there's a Populist revolution. The Populist movement, if you are unfamiliar, is where the Progressives and the Minute-Men can meet eye to eye. With such a revolution we might finally have a truly democratic system which disallows powerful politicians, media, and big business from manipulating the public, and holds them fully accountable to the public instead. The significant remaining divide between progressives and libertarian-conservatives is over the immigration issue. L-C's see them as a threat to values and limited resources, while progresives simply see them as more of the masses in a system which should theoretically work just as well economically at any population scale, and see the existing problem as more about the classist leveraging tactics big business uses than about who's being manipulated. I'm figuring as times goes on, LCs and Ps will get to understand each other positions better and unite against both the Democrats and Republicans which have all betrayed us. *** BTW, I've been meaning to bring up a proposal with you, that of a 'vote exchange'. We are both familiar with the notion of not being able to 'throw away' our vote on a third party candidate we prefer. I'd rather vote for Nader, Kucinich, Gravel, or perhaps even Paul or Sheehan than Obama (especially now that he's catering to republican views), and I recall hearing that you would rather vote for Paul than McCain. I can't risk McCain winning, and presumably you aren't keen on Obama either. Still, I think our nation would be far better off if third parties had a chance of winning, and even if 3rd parties at least got eough votes to have their platforms taken seriously by any candidate concerned over public opinion. My proposal is that we vow to cancel out each others Rep/Dem vote impact (thus not throwing away our vote), and each vote for our 3rd party preference. In fact I was thinking to go much bigger with this (not that I'll have time), maybe create a website or forum, and have discontent Republicans and Democrats across the nation hook up with each other to each safely vote third party instead. I had a similar idea years ago to have people register in each other parties, but that would more result in a single middle of the road party, rather than the diverse choice I feel we need. If it truly became one party, that would be good in a way, that each candidate would be like a separate party, but unfortunately the established party members would filter out which candidates they ever supported in the first place. So far the Rep/Dem vote cancelling program is my best idea for getting third parties back into serious contention.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 12-Jul-2008 9:21am   I agree with you Kristal Rose. I'm not voting for either McCain or Obama....a third party, yes! To me the Republican party and the Democrats are one in the same. I vow to you, I will not vote for the two main parties. I will vote third party for sure. I hear many people say they'd rather not vote at all if they have only McCain or Obama. I've told them to vote for a third party. People are seriously concerned over our future as a nation, because where is the leadership?
southernyankee	posted 12-Jul-2008 10:55am   Good in VERY small doses (some welfare, unemployment, public education, progressive income, a small minimum wage even), bad when in large doses taken too far. The best way to do things is a mixed capitalist economy. And off course, the more socialized we become, the less freedom we have (duh!). Whether or not thats a good thing or not is debatable, but theres no debate socialism means less freedom. Off course giving up a small amount of freedom is tolerable and the price we pay to not live in anarchy.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 12-Jul-2008 10:04pm   Good, we've got a deal then. Spread the idea around. It's better than votng for no one at all. I was worried that I had lost this post entirely in a computer crash. * * * I did lose half the post though. Wierd. It was probably another post I lost, come to think of it, in which I was suggesting that you give too much evil mastermind credit to those inadvertently creating the depression through short-sighted greed. If they truly had long-range manipulation plans, they would strive instead to keep us prospering to tap our success as profit. Instead of manipulating us though the problem is that they can care less about us, and it's easier for them to sell cars and video games in China instead where people are beginning to prosper. The closest to evil mastermind they can muster is the failed project to run an oil pipeline through Iran and Afghanistan ito Iraq, and the WTO/NAFTA sort of agreements which favor no single evil fareaching plan, but rather just collaborate enough to agree on ground rules such that any of them are free to exploit powerless populations. There have been great evil masterminds with agendas to manipulate the populace, but none all that good at it in recent decades, thankfully. Today's problems are caused by intelligent yet ignorant short-sighted greed, not insidious evil ideological plans. First I explained how true socialism-communism requires true democracy, something we don't even have here in our representative republic, and wasn't even possible on a national level until recent communication technology. China and the USSR were corrupted by a separate class of powerful leaders from the start and never attempted a shred of democracy. I then went on to explain that evil is limited by self-interest. They can't truly collaborte because they are even in competiton with each other. The only thing which could win against them are thos with no self-interest at all, who's position is "I wish joy and prosperity for all the world, and have no preference what form that takes for them". This is the position of anarchist nests who's strategy is to simply grow in numbers until the day there is no one left to suppport anyone who wishes to become an economic, military, or ideological ruler. Even the global colonizing Catholich Church, helping the poor, had the self-interest demands of spreading their ideology and stregthening their position. Oh, I also explained how Progressives and Minute-Men see eye-to-eye as the Populist movement, seperated mostly by their views on immigration, libertarian-conservatives seeing them as threat to limited resources, progressives seeing the problem as that of big-business classist leveraging tactics, and feeling any fair sustainable economic order can be scaled to any size population. A populist revolution might attempt something like a democratized socialism, a system in which political leaders, media, and big-business served the democratic public, and not the other way around. We could have deep reaching democracy now, but it won't happen without a revolution because powerful leaders are already happy with the status quo.
Iseult	posted 13-Jul-2008 11:20am   It's often crap, unlike Communism, which is always crap.
cloudhugger	posted 16-Jul-2008 2:35pm   After reading comments...I don't think letting the government control health care is a good idea. If I want acupuncture and the governemnt is forcing me to go to surgery that is wrong. If I want to take herbs instead of pharmy's, or if I want to meditate instead of having to go to a church, or if I want to take a nap instead of working one day...kiss my free butt.
LindaH	(reply to cloudhugger) posted 16-Jul-2008 4:56pm   How does meditating vs going to church fit into the equation. You lost me there.
cloudhugger	(reply to LindaH) posted 17-Jul-2008 9:20am   Government telling me how to and where to pray. You know, if I didn't go to the church the government wanted me to and tithed my amount, but rather sat in my basement and meditated at my own alter...you know how some church/state groups hate that.
LindaH	(reply to cloudhugger) posted 17-Jul-2008 11:52am   Oh. I was trying to fit it in with the concept of government health care.
docgbrown	posted 25-Jul-2008 6:27am   On paper it reads well and sounds great but every society that has tried it has failed or been awful in some way. I don't want it.

 
Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/29497.html

Hits: 1 today (286 in the last 30 days)

Google Search: