Anyone here consider themselves socialists?

[Locut0s]

I thought it would be interesting to see how many people would be willing to call themselves socialists. The term doesn't have nearly the negative connotations outside the US as it does within. The right wing in the US love to throw the term around as a catchall term to smear anyone they deem too far left but outside the US it is seen in many countries as a viable political stance to hold. This is NOT meant to bee a thread for arguing the political merits of socialism, I just want to see if anyone here would label themselves as such.

For the sake of this thread I am defining socialism as "European" socialism. Think of the Nordic countries. Not communist socialism, see Cuba et al.

Edit: Ok right we should have a better definition. So for the sake of this argument socialism will be defined as follows:

A strong emphasis on public social programs such as welfare, universal health care, education, etc... This may or may not include free education for citizens up to or including university. High taxes to pay for said services. Redistribution of wealth from the top few percentage to the bottom 10 percent or so. A fairly liberal view of social values like gay marriage, drug laws, environmental protectionism, affirmative action and the like, but by no means necessarily all of these. All the above but still including a fully democratic legislature and other branches of government and a mostly open Market.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Magic Eight Ball sez- "This will end badly"
Ok gang, try to act with a little less vituperation than usual. It's a fair question, but it's a likely target.

As for me, no. I think that government has the tendency to creep into too many areas of our private lives and considering how screwed the government is that's too spooky for me.

 

[MovingTarget]

I wouldn't call myself a socialist. Not only would I like to avoid the stigma associated with that term, but I don't actually advocate many of socialism's basic tenets (direct government control over the means of production). Neither am I a capitalist, as the free market has its downsides as well. I suppose that term just doesn't have any stigma associated with it in the US as it might abroad. I guess that it is just a matter of the political culture...

 

[seemingly random]

Still need a definition for socialism. I can think all day long about the nordic countries but it doesn't help since I've never lived in one or researched one.

 

[sandorski]

See one Socialist, you've seen them all!

That seems to be the prevalent attitude in US Politics/Culture. One person can be speaking of Sweden and everyone hearing them is thinking of Stalin. Of course there's no comparison, but the word is so tainted it simply can't be used for anything other than scaring people shitless.

 

[sactoking]

I'm definitely not socialist. As far as government goes, I'd be laissez-faire. The more the US starts acting like the Republic that it is, the better.

 

[seemingly random]

Is mass transit socialistic?

Are farm subsidies socialistic?

Is a politician traveling to another country in an attempt to get business to locate in his state socialistic?

---

I'm for mass transit, probably against farm subsidies but could be proven wrong, and for a politician trying to drum up business for his state but against him giving away the treasury in the form of tax breaks to get it.

Don't know what ism this is a part of...

 

[Moonbeam]

A socialists is a Republican who supports Medicare and Social Security. I am not a Republican so I am not a socialist.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Probably would have been one over a hundred years ago, but not today as capitalism has reformed drastically since then. Currently content being a Conservative Democrat.

Some pseudosocialist things I like and/or agree with, I do not consider them socialist, but I am sure some do:
*Coops
*Employee stock ownership programs
*Labor unions (when they do not get too powerful)
*Government regulation of food, water and drug safety standards with inspections (including false advertising)
*Government ownership and maintenance of major roads and canals
*Domestic monopoly busting
*Tariffs that prevent flooding and protection from foreign monopolies
*Medicare
*Food stamps (with limitations)
*FDIC, bankruptcy and the public / private Federal Reserve System
*Basic education for those that cannot afford private education (either state owned schools or vouchers)
*Grants for promising future college students (that have proven themselves in high school) that cannot afford it

I am also fine with city / state owned or subsidized mass transit systems like trolleys, buses, etc. Probably some other things that I did not think of off the bat.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Still need a definition for socialism. I can think all day long about the nordic countries but it doesn't help since I've never lived in one or researched one.

The key point of socialism as it seems to be defined in the U.S. is a desire to achieve a more even distribution of income/wealth across the population; particularly if by government interventions and/or outright redistribution.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Still need a definition for socialism. I can think all day long about the nordic countries but it doesn't help since I've never lived in one or researched one.

The key point of socialism as it seems to be defined in the U.S. is a desire to achieve a more even distribution of income/wealth across the population; particularly if by government interventions and/or outright redistribution.

I think I see. It's trying to rectify 'unnatural' manipulations. For example, a politician who (or his cousin, etc) has a snow removal company and gets his district to contract with this company for snow removal when there are other companies willing to do it cheaper.

Or like the federal government collecting taxes and then doling it back to each state in proportions different from how it was collected.

 

[irwincur]

That seems to be the prevalent attitude in US Politics/Culture. One person can be speaking of Sweden and everyone hearing them is thinking of Stalin. Of course there's no comparison, but the word is so tainted it simply can't be used for anything other than scaring people shitless.

Could it be that one more often than not leads to the other, eventually. You can only pass so much power from the citizens to the government before there is an eventual runaway slide into total government control. A government with power, requires more power to grow (as they all must). Think of a government as a business entitiy, it is their job after all to collect money while providing service. The goal of any business entity is to grow their power year over year. The only thing in the way of government power is the people that surrendur it to them. The only way the government can guarantee to remain in power is to provide more and more services.

Problem being, once critical mass is reached, citizens at the bottom are recieving all they need to live while those at the top are either part of the government or part of a depressed business class. Once this hits say 60% or more, the government has little to fear as those on the dole will always vote for more goods from those that produce. Eventually industry collapses and the government must take over as there is no longer incentive for the individule to actually produce anything. This is where it gets violent. Those that have been on the dole soon find themselves working at gunpoint for the new government corporations - because well, they have to, there is no more private industry because taxation and government controls have ereased all incentive.

Sweeden is actually closer to the end than you would think. 20% of people in Sweeden don't bother to work, some by choice (since you can actually hold a job and you cannot be fired for lack of work). Further, a welfare recipeint recieves the same net income as a middle class worker at a private corporation, after tax and welfare adjustments are made. So, those that do not work, are essentially getting the same gain as someone that spends 40 hours a week working.

What is the point of working then? Furthermore, what is the point of actually owning a company when total tax rates are above 90% for those that the government deems to be too rich. Which is funny, because the government actually hand selects some top tax rates based on their 'feelings' about the actual individule.

Not quite Stalin, but slowly moving in that direction.

 

[totalnoob]

calling craig...calling craig. Don't try to pretend your a "progressive" or some nonsense.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: irwincur

That seems to be the prevalent attitude in US Politics/Culture. One person can be speaking of Sweden and everyone hearing them is thinking of Stalin. Of course there's no comparison, but the word is so tainted it simply can't be used for anything other than scaring people shitless.

Could it be that one more often than not leads to the other, eventually. You can only pass so much power from the citizens to the government before there is an eventual runaway slide into total government control. A government with power, requires more power to grow (as they all must). Think of a government as a business entitiy, it is their job after all to collect money while providing service. The goal of any business entity is to grow their power year over year. The only thing in the way of government power is the people that surrendur it to them. The only way the government can guarantee to remain in power is to provide more and more services.

Problem being, once critical mass is reached, citizens at the bottom are recieving all they need to live while those at the top are either part of the government or part of a depressed business class. Once this hits say 60% or more, the government has little to fear as those on the dole will always vote for more goods from those that produce. Eventually industry collapses and the government must take over as there is no longer incentive for the individule to actually produce anything. This is where it gets violent. Those that have been on the dole soon find themselves working at gunpoint for the new government corporations - because well, they have to, there is no more private industry because taxation and government controls have ereased all incentive.

Sweeden is actually closer to the end than you would think. 20% of people in Sweeden don't bother to work, some by choice (since you can actually hold a job and you cannot be fired for lack of work). Further, a welfare recipeint recieves the same net income as a middle class worker at a private corporation, after tax and welfare adjustments are made. So, those that do not work, are essentially getting the same gain as someone that spends 40 hours a week working.

What is the point of working then? Furthermore, what is the point of actually owning a company when total tax rates are above 90% for those that the government deems to be too rich. Which is funny, because the government actually hand selects some top tax rates based on their 'feelings' about the actual individule.

Not quite Stalin, but slowly moving in that direction.

No

Thanks for proving my point though.

 

[irwincur]

Nice response. I assume that you cannot come up with anything even remotely as insightful as that.

Like it or not, there is a natural progression to every government. And the progression of Socialism has been outlined as a complete failure in every single venue that it has been tested. Why is Europe reversing itself? Why did China expand free market incentives while weakening government controls? Why is Cuba a total failure? What about Venezuela - huge employment success story there...

How can a country succeed when the very basis of its government is to remove incentive from producers and simply give the fruits of their labors away to those that choose not to produce? It must end in total control - as nobody who wants to produce and actually earn will stay in that nation as long as there is an alternative.

 

[rchiu]

I think people are making mistake by all these labels like socialist and capitalist. There is no absolute socialist or capitalist, and I don't see how any absolute system can work.

There is only a degree of socialist/capitalist. I'd say I am 40/60 with 40 being socialist. There has to be safety net in a society, and there has to be some kind of government planning so income gap doesn't get out of control. But more importantly, the economy is more efficient if there are less regulation and there is more incentive to be productive if there are less give aways. A government need to meet the minimium reguirement to provide basic safety net and protect the poor, and let free market work out the rest.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Nice response. I assume that you cannot come up with anything even remotely as insightful as that.

Like it or not, there is a natural progression to every government. And the progression of Socialism has been outlined as a complete failure in every single venue that it has been tested. Why is Europe reversing itself? Why did China expand free market incentives while weakening government controls? Why is Cuba a total failure? What about Venezuela - huge employment success story there...

How can a country succeed when the very basis of its government is to remove incentive from producers and simply give the fruits of their labors away to those that choose not to produce? It must end in total control - as nobody who wants to produce and actually earn will stay in that nation as long as there is an alternative.

Slippery Slope Fallacy noted.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: irwincur

That seems to be the prevalent attitude in US Politics/Culture. One person can be speaking of Sweden and everyone hearing them is thinking of Stalin. Of course there's no comparison, but the word is so tainted it simply can't be used for anything other than scaring people shitless.

Could it be that one more often than not leads to the other, eventually. You can only pass so much power from the citizens to the government before there is an eventual runaway slide into total government control. A government with power, requires more power to grow (as they all must). Think of a government as a business entitiy, it is their job after all to collect money while providing service. The goal of any business entity is to grow their power year over year. The only thing in the way of government power is the people that surrendur it to them. The only way the government can guarantee to remain in power is to provide more and more services.

Problem being, once critical mass is reached, citizens at the bottom are recieving all they need to live while those at the top are either part of the government or part of a depressed business class. Once this hits say 60% or more, the government has little to fear as those on the dole will always vote for more goods from those that produce. Eventually industry collapses and the government must take over as there is no longer incentive for the individule to actually produce anything. This is where it gets violent. Those that have been on the dole soon find themselves working at gunpoint for the new government corporations - because well, they have to, there is no more private industry because taxation and government controls have ereased all incentive.

Sweeden is actually closer to the end than you would think. 20% of people in Sweeden don't bother to work, some by choice (since you can actually hold a job and you cannot be fired for lack of work). Further, a welfare recipeint recieves the same net income as a middle class worker at a private corporation, after tax and welfare adjustments are made. So, those that do not work, are essentially getting the same gain as someone that spends 40 hours a week working.

What is the point of working then? Furthermore, what is the point of actually owning a company when total tax rates are above 90% for those that the government deems to be too rich. Which is funny, because the government actually hand selects some top tax rates based on their 'feelings' about the actual individule.

Not quite Stalin, but slowly moving in that direction.

and yet despite all of that, Sweden is a cool place with great music and art.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: irwincur
Nice response. I assume that you cannot come up with anything even remotely as insightful as that.

Like it or not, there is a natural progression to every government. And the progression of Socialism has been outlined as a complete failure in every single venue that it has been tested. Why is Europe reversing itself? Why did China expand free market incentives while weakening government controls? Why is Cuba a total failure? What about Venezuela - huge employment success story there...

How can a country succeed when the very basis of its government is to remove incentive from producers and simply give the fruits of their labors away to those that choose not to produce? It must end in total control - as nobody who wants to produce and actually earn will stay in that nation as long as there is an alternative.

Slippery Slope Fallacy noted.

Failure to connect abstracts noted.

irwincur, talking with sandorski is like talking to a brick, as 90% of his posts are concrete-bound one-liners... or close to it. And speaking of bricks, anyone who puts as much faith and support into government as he, is about as smart as one.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: irwincur
Nice response. I assume that you cannot come up with anything even remotely as insightful as that.

Like it or not, there is a natural progression to every government. And the progression of Socialism has been outlined as a complete failure in every single venue that it has been tested. Why is Europe reversing itself? Why did China expand free market incentives while weakening government controls? Why is Cuba a total failure? What about Venezuela - huge employment success story there...

How can a country succeed when the very basis of its government is to remove incentive from producers and simply give the fruits of their labors away to those that choose not to produce? It must end in total control - as nobody who wants to produce and actually earn will stay in that nation as long as there is an alternative.

Slippery Slope Fallacy noted.

Failure to connect abstracts noted.

irwincur, talking with sandorski is like talking to a brick, as 90% of his posts are concrete-bound one-liners... or close to it. And speaking of bricks, anyone who puts as much faith and support into government as he, is about as smart as one.

So much Fail. You keep proving my original post with every reply. Thanks.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: irwincur

That seems to be the prevalent attitude in US Politics/Culture. One person can be speaking of Sweden and everyone hearing them is thinking of Stalin. Of course there's no comparison, but the word is so tainted it simply can't be used for anything other than scaring people shitless.

Could it be that one more often than not leads to the other, eventually. You can only pass so much power from the citizens to the government before there is an eventual runaway slide into total government control. A government with power, requires more power to grow (as they all must). Think of a government as a business entitiy, it is their job after all to collect money while providing service. The goal of any business entity is to grow their power year over year. The only thing in the way of government power is the people that surrendur it to them. The only way the government can guarantee to remain in power is to provide more and more services.

Problem being, once critical mass is reached, citizens at the bottom are recieving all they need to live while those at the top are either part of the government or part of a depressed business class. Once this hits say 60% or more, the government has little to fear as those on the dole will always vote for more goods from those that produce. Eventually industry collapses and the government must take over as there is no longer incentive for the individule to actually produce anything. This is where it gets violent. Those that have been on the dole soon find themselves working at gunpoint for the new government corporations - because well, they have to, there is no more private industry because taxation and government controls have ereased all incentive.

Sweeden is actually closer to the end than you would think. (1) 20% of people in Sweeden don't bother to work, some by choice (since you can actually hold a job and you cannot be fired for lack of work). 2.Further, a welfare recipeint recieves the same net income as a middle class worker at a private corporation, after tax and welfare adjustments are made. So, those that do not work, are essentially getting the same gain as someone that spends 40 hours a week working.

What is the point of working then? Furthermore, what is the point of actually owning a company when total tax rates are above 90% for those that the government deems to be too rich. Which is funny, because the government actually hand selects some top tax rates based on their 'feelings' about the actual individule.

Not quite Stalin, but slowly moving in that direction.

1.Would that be referring to Sweden's roughly 6% unemployment rate?
2.Welfare benefits are caped at 680 kroner per day which works out to about 11 bucks an hour. And these benefits are based on a falling scale 80% of sallary the first 200 days, 70% up to day 300 etc... You also have to be enrolled in a job seeking program.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Fuck no.

But I believe that the US could take a few lessons from the Europeans in terms of providing a better safety net for citizens, just as I think Europe could take a few lessons from the US when it comes to labor laws and encouraging business growth.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Nice response. I assume that you cannot come up with anything even remotely as insightful as that.

Like it or not, there is a natural progression to every government. And the progression of Socialism has been outlined as a complete failure in every single venue that it has been tested. Why is Europe reversing itself? Why did China expand free market incentives while weakening government controls? Why is Cuba a total failure? What about Venezuela - huge employment success story there...

How can a country succeed when the very basis of its government is to remove incentive from producers and simply give the fruits of their labors away to those that choose not to produce? It must end in total control - as nobody who wants to produce and actually earn will stay in that nation as long as there is an alternative.

Indeed there is no scientifically proven "natural progression to every government". Modern governments as we know them simply haven't been around long enough for us to say that with any level of certainty at all. Indeed the very notions of modern communism and socialism are little more than 50 or 60 years old.

Again you are conflating socialism and communism here. I noted in my OP that I was NOT referring to current communist countries such as China and Cuba. Whatever arguments one may have against those countries should be a moot point in this thread as I started quite clearly that I was referring quite specifically to modern western socialism as one sees in Europe. These countries do indeed have more forms of wealth redistribution than countries like the US. But these are mainly in the form of social programs like health care education and the like and very little in the form of raw "here's some money from the rich". I see no evidence of "remove(ing) incentive from producers and simply give(ing) the fruits of their labors away".

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I think people are making mistake by all these labels like socialist and capitalist. There is no absolute socialist or capitalist, and I don't see how any absolute system can work.

There is only a degree of socialist/capitalist. I'd say I am 40/60 with 40 being socialist. There has to be safety net in a society, and there has to be some kind of government planning so income gap doesn't get out of control. But more importantly, the economy is more efficient if there are less regulation and there is more incentive to be productive if there are less give aways. A government need to meet the minimium reguirement to provide basic safety net and protect the poor, and let free market work out the rest.

Thank you for making a thoughtful and insightful post.


I would put myself somewhere around the same. There needs to be a balance and hedges to the needs of capitalism. In extremes, liaise faire can led to feudalism just as likely as Utopian socialism can lead to marxism (as the conservatives berate constantly.)

Capitalism has the sole motivation of making wealth. Full stop. It is only as moral, beneficial or fair as the participant's behavior in it, or as advantageous/disadvantageous it is to the goal of securing wealth. Socialism has a different motivation of equality, fairness and risk deferral. They are two counterbalancing forces, and each are important to a well functioning and stable society, esp if a large middle class or democracy is desired. Too far in either direction creates instability, chaos and inefficiency to the larger goal of creating a prosperous society.
Sounds like the closest definition would be a market socialist. (there are many flavors and degrees of socialism, despite what the neocons may declare where all socialism=communism.)

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
A strong emphasis on public social programs such as welfare, universal health care, education, etc... This may or may not include free education for citizens up to or including university. High taxes to pay for said services. Redistribution of wealth from the top few percentage to the bottom 10 percent or so. A fairly liberal view of social values like gay marriage, drug laws, environmental protectionism, affirmative action and the like, but by no means necessarily all of these. All the above but still including a fully democratic legislature and other branches of government and a mostly open Market.

so you do mean the US....