Socialism - Why the F Not?

[Taverner]

OK - Socialism's BAD! BAD BAD BAD!

Why? Because it discourages competition, which means mediocrity is promoted.

But does it have to?

Absolutely not - let's use an example. Cuba. Yeah, big, mean bad Cuba.

Their tourism industry is run by the government. But yet it's top notch. What the government did was have one state owned company, and broke it up into three distinct, autonomous companies. Then the tours, routes, etc were given to every company. that means you can take a tour of Old Havana through Cubatur, Ecotur, or one of the other companies. The one that pulls in the most business gets rewards that go out to the entire company in the form of cash bonuses. So naturally, there is competition between the companies.

And if a company is doing piss poor, they don't shut their doors but go through a re-organization so that it starts making money again.

So why is this bad?

How will this foster mediocrity?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Socialism works great for the US military and the NFL. nt

[Ron Green]

2. I don't think private enterprise is going to dry up and blow away if we get the socialism

we need. Hail to small business! Up with Mom and Pop! 50% in taxes is fair enough, and I'll pay it for the right kinds of governments.





Edit for tpyo.

[Echo In Light]

3. There'll always be a predatory % who favor attaining and having what they do at another's expense

... of course they'll rattle off a long line of 'sensible,' 'rational' sounding BS about how it Has To Be That Way, Inc, but it's actually subjective preference couched within 'logical' propaganda. And such types can remain smugly comfortable in the tried n true since they realize their view is shared by those who own and run everything.

[ecstatic]

4. I think we're close to the right mix of socialism/capitalism in this country

Once healthcare is fixed, I think the balance will be about right. No need to shift fully into one or the other.

[Echo In Light]

6. I don't think we're remotely close to that point, but we can agree to disagree n/t

[KansDem]

8. I agree: Socialism for energy, healthcare, education, and the environment...

Capitalism for cosmetics, running shoes, pizza, and CDs...

[Cleita]

5. Socialism in the past was associated with military dictatorships, which

the USA always considered "the enemy". A mix of socialism and commercial enterprise exists in many countries and we should start looking at what might work for us. Letting the corporate interests of Wall Street take over our lives is not acceptable and it's ruining our country.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Socialism is for too big (or crucial) to fail and too small to get ahead, as a broad range

There's a large middle ground where reasonably regulated capitalism has plenty of room to operate and actually be of a substantial benefit to society and the individual for as long as we are continuing with a monetary based system.
At some point we're probably going to have to accept that there will never be enough useful work for most people to do anymore and do something like a minimum automatic existence where one works to improve their lot over the basic package. We haven't touched the tip of the automation iceberg yet and already a healthy chunk are doing the TPS reports, for all intents and purposes..

[DavidDvorkin]

9. Because it's the first step to Communism!

Which is the first step to atheism!

Which is the first step to unrestrained hedonistic immorality!

Which is ... um ...

Yeah! Why the F not?

[BuyingThyme]

10. Because you can't built a socio-economic system on a semantic argument.

[Taverner]

11. Get real - No one was asking for that

But answer the question - why not socialism?

Methinks you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I think the post you're replying to makes a good point.

"Socialism" does not define a political system; it's a word used to mean very different things by different people.

E.g. Most communists use it interchangeably with "communism. Many Western liberals use it to explicitly exclude communism, and mean something like Sweden's economic system. Many American conservatives use it to mean pretty much any state-provided services at all except law enforcement and defence. Tony Blair clamed that he was a socialist; Ken Livingstone claimed that he wasn't.

The strongest praise one can sanely offer socialism is that there exist many very good economic systems that some people would term "socialist"; the worst one can sanely condemn it with is that there exist some very bad ones that some people would.

So arguing for or against Socialism is basically just semantics.

[Taverner]

13. But I'm not asking for a political system - I'm asking for a econ one

I think you're confusing things - I am asking for an economic model where the state controls some businesses. Nationalization.

Should I rename that Nationalizationism?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. You needn't name it at all.

What you *do* need to do, before anyone can sensibly support you, is to specify exactly what you are advocating. What it gets called is only an afterthought.

[Taverner]

20. I disagree with you. Socialism means something. If DU can't read basic English that's their problem

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. It means a great many different things.

The problem is not that no definition of socialism exists; it's that lots do, and no one is significantly better than the rest.

When you say "socialism", do you mean what Marx meant? What Stalin meant? What modern European socialists mean? What Castro or Chavez mean? What modern American conservatives mean? They're all different.

A word which means lots of different things to lots of different people is almost as useless as one that doesn't have any meaning.

[Egalitariat]

14. I hope nobody finds out how great it is there. We'll have people drowning as they try to swim there

in order to improve their lives.

[Taverner]

16. Hyperbole - just because their tourism works doesn't mean everything does

Come on, that's a fundy-like argument if there ever was. "Look! Look! Evolution doesn't explain everything therefore the whole thing's wrong."

I've been to Cuba, have you?

I've been all over Latin America, have you?

Cuba has the "richest poor people" in the world, in that you don't see the mass starvation, the armless beggar children, the beggars who the shopowners hire hit men to kill, so they don't lose business.

Granted, its also very boring for the average Cuban, and there is nothing to look forward to. No raises, no chances of you or your children being anything other than 'comrade.'

And the food, well if you eat like a Cuban national you eat what you get, not what you want.

That would drive most of us crazy, me included.

Supression of freedom of speech? Yes they have that. Although its nothing as bad as the CANF would have you beleive.

And guess what, their medical system is superior to ours. Hands down. I've seen this first hand. Cuba puts out more doctors than any other country. And this is a small island in the gulf.

[JVS]

15. In order for socialism to happen the working class needs to decide that it is going to destroy...

the employer class. Until that is the goal of workers, it will never happen.

[Taverner]

17. They never killed the employer class in Holland, the UK, Germany...

[JVS]

21. They never achieved socialism there either. Although a major portion of Germany's employer class...

was destroyed along with the nation's economy in WWII.

[Taverner]

22. They do have real Socialism there - - and it works

Their Public Health System is Socialism (just like our Fire Dept, Police Dept, School system and library system)
Some of these countries have even made the step of nationalizing gas companies.

We need to do that here

[JVS]

23. In Germany, Bismarck set that up long ago, and it isn't socialism

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialgesetzgebung

[Taverner]

24. Smells like a duck, walks like a duck....

[JVS]

26. Isn't a duck. A pacifier is not a breast.

[Selatius]

19. Actually, you could theoretically have a socialistic economy with competition.

You just need to set up a public banking mechanism to support a co-op sector in an economy alongside the private sector. The public banking system would be supported by taxes, and the funds generated would go to start up labor co-ops, capitalize existing co-ops, and buy out failed/failing firms (either co-ops or traditional firms) to be reorganized into new co-ops.

As long as the public banking mechanism isn't crippled or destroyed, the co-op sector should be able to compete with and grow against the private sector. Wages and benefits would theoretically rise, as employers in both sectors would be competing for a finite supply of workers. In the long-run, I would think most workers would prefer to work collectively to enjoy the fruits of their own labor vs. under-selling away their labor to a capitalist, especially the more miserly capitalists. It doesn't necessarily need to be limited to labor co-ops either. This bank could be allowed to provide funds to traditional businesses as well following the same regulations because the goal is also to promote innovation and job creation, so if a small business owner has worked for 30 years supporting his small business and has no heirs to take over his enterprise or he simply just wants to get out, he could theoretically sell his enterprise to the bank for a profit, and the bank will reorganize his firm into a brand new labor co-op.

Capitalism and socialism have their place in society, but if people are sick and tired of being abused by capitalists, then they have a right to an alternative, a real choice.

With a large, expansive co-op sectors, workers would have a real choice if they feel they are being mistreated by capitalists. This co-op sector's existence would essentially police capitalists, probably better than any single regulation or combination thereof alone could hope to do because most regulations don't threaten the capitalist with bankruptcy through competition if he does misbehave.

I believe true socialism means having a real choice to work to enjoy the fruits of your labor. The current US economy does not give such a choice to any worker. It needs to be changed, or we could very well face another Great Recession in our lifetimes due to corrupt bureaucrats being funded by sociopathic capitalists.

[paulsby]

27. because it sucks

but why am i not surprised on yet another post lauding socialism?

[BolivarianHero]

28. Because...

Reactionaries hate an ideology that gives women the opportunity to become literate and think for themselves.

Look at how the West and the Saudis backed the Mujahideen barbarians over the one forced that could have civilized Afghanistan in the model of a country like Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan.

[Echo In Light]

29. Bumping