Socialism

[Guest]

There seem to be quite a few people on this site who think socialism is a good thing.  I've looked into it quite a bit and simply cannot see the good in it.  So, I'd like to discuss this and see why so many people like it.  Anyone interested?

[joeb]

I am the author of the above post.  I don't know how I happened to not be logged in when I posted, but I was.

[whbae]

The socialism would work well if the people are not corrupt.  The fallen human nature is corrupt and selfish.  Just look at the a little kid after they come out of the womb, everything is "for me", "for myself", cry to get to get something for himself.

Also look at the communist countries.   They are supposed to take care of poor people.  Do they really do that?

Look at the poor congressmen or a senators.  One they occupy the seat at the "House" they become rich.  Have you seen a congressman or a senator who struggle to make ends meet in his daily life with his meager salary?  Where do they get the money to live as they do.  "Me first" just like a new born baby's behavior!

[phkrause]

I agree won, that goes for capitalism as well. I remember back in Jr Hi, one of the teachers explained the differences between capitalism, socialism, communism, etc., and in his opinion communism if done without greed would've been great. I think that would also be correct for the others systems as well, but as you say greed gets in the way.

[Bravus]

Good and interesting question, joeb, thanks for asking.

I think one of the issues is that people tend to think of it as a binary rather than a continuum: totalitarian communism as seen in China and the former Soviet Union or capitalism. The capitalism often imagined is laissez-faire, free market capitalism, but the system we actually see in the US at the moment is much more crony, robber baron capitalism with subsidies and other distortions of the free market.

Obviously there is a large continuum of possible positions, including social democracies like Australia and Canada. They have more socialism - socialised healthcare, for example - than the US, but are not communist or even socialist countries over all. When we talk about making America 'more socialist', it's not saying it must become a centrally-managed totalitarian communist state. (It's arguable that such states are socialist in name only anyway, as a side comment.) It's looking at ways in which government can be involved - it is already involved in many ways - to make citizens' lives better.

It is completely appropriate - in fact it is essential - for us to have disagreements about what we consider to be the optimal level of government involvement and activity, and which areas of life we consider government should be most involved in.

Those on the (conservative and to some extent neoliberal, rather than libertarian) right typically want government to be involved in defense spending and to some extent the regulation of behaviour - sex lives and drug use and law enforcement in general. Those further to the left see a role for government in healthcare, welfare (support for the most vulnerable) and education.

I acknowledge the point that human beings are imperfect and often selfish, and any system that does not take it into account is bound to fail. All systems are vulnerable to it: and some forms of capitalism seek to make a virtue of it.

My view is that in a country where the most vulnerable are helped rather than punished, everyone is better off: this means that this form of socialism doesn't rely on altriusm, but on enlightened self-interest. It turns out that looking after others is the most pragmatic thing to do, as well as the kinder thing.

Hope these somewhat scattered thoughts are at least interesting as part of a conversation.

[Naomi]

I respect all of your comments.

My ideal government probably leans more towards capitalism.   Yes, I have expectations of what I expect from a strong national government:  International relations, military,   National Parks, Coast Guard, etc.

However, I lean more towards Federal Government having less control in states affairs.  Not to mention the Federal system having much less  control over private enterprise; price fixing, etc.

The money Whbae referenced would at least in part, dry up if there would be less reason for lobbyist to "buy"  votes.  Health Insurance, medical care cost would drastically reduce if there were less hands in the bucket.  Human which is government is now taking over prescriptions under the guise of lowered cost.  Which will be true until it is all in place then watch the cost increase! 

As for caring for those who cannot care for themselves, state and local controls would be in a much better position to help these people.  From my observations there is no need for anyone in the USA to do without their basic needs.  That is not saying that they can live the Ozzie & Harriet life, but have basic needs to allow them to live safely, with dignity.  However, many refuse to deal with the system to receive help.

When I first went into communism countries I was surprised at how the families lived in government owned apartments for several generations.  Then I came home and after working in inter-cities I see the same thing in the US.  Which begs to ask, when did we slip into a socialized society?

I doubt that many grew up poorer than I.  My family had their land and fought hard to keep it.  We worked hard with limited equipment and funds.  The government came in and passed laws concerning your crop production, then forced many dairy people out by forcing them to buy certificates to determine how much milk they could produce and sell.  This cost many thousands of dollars.  Then after a few years they declared the certificates to be nil and invalid.  No monetary value!  Praise be to DC!   Today you see very few family farms, large corporate farms control our food supply.  

Back to our family,  in spite of everything, we kept the land, and are very proud that no one in our family took money of any kind from the government, or no one went to jail or prison.  They didn't want to be owned.  Also, you went to a Doctor for a death certificate (okay thats an exaggeration but close).  If the deadly "C" didn't kill them they lived to be 100 or close to it.  Without Humana!  I share this because these hardworking families were so independent because they had left everything they had when they escaped communism. 

As you can quickly ascertain my feelings are from a personal, emotional prospective.  Three things my Daddy drilled into us are:

1:  Absolute power corrupts absolutely

2.  There is no tooth fairy,

3.  If you take from anyone or anything, they own you!

 

Sorry, this has not been well thought out ... just early morning thoughts ... blessings

 

[Stan]

In Canada, crime continues to drop and it is at its lowest rate in 40 years, Homicides is at tied at a 50 year low. that is one of the downsides of socialism when you give mothers time off with Unemployment pay so she can be with her child. Men can also get time off, up to a year at 1/2 salary. (or close)

[Naomi]

Impressive percentages.  Does the funding come from taxation?  This would have to be monies allocated for the employed mother and father; correct?  Who reimburses their employers? If men can take off up to a year, how long can the mother take off?

[Stan]

I do not know where the funding comes from, I suspect it is from the amount of UI we all pay every paycheque. The employer does not make the payments.. comes from the gov't  

I do not know most of the details of this, one of my co-workers has taken a year off work to be with his child.

 

I posted the link to those crime stats on here someplace a couple of weeks ago.

[Naomi]

I mis-stated my question/comment.  My thoughts are that the employer has to pay another individual to do the job of the person taking family leave, which is an additional cost of doing business.  Is the employee given the same position when they return to work? 

I would have loved to take off a year with pay to care for my babies ... just don't understand how it can work on an economic level.  Interesting

 

[Stan]

The employer has the option to hire another person if they choose, they usually advertise it as a short term opening.. they do not have to pay anything to the one on leave, but several do.

[Naomi]

Interesting.  So their only cost would be the salary to the person they hired as a replacement.  Sounds good. 

[Stan]

The children are turning into good tax paying citizens, rather than a drain on society.

[Naomi]

Which is a BIG PLUS ...

However, playing Devils Advocate here:  So did your kids and my kids.  Am wondering what other factors are in the equation.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Naomi

[Stan]

Better to spend money on that, then spend money on prisons..

[Naomi]

Agree 110%

[bonnie]

In Canada, crime continues to drop and it is at its lowest rate in 40 years, Homicides is at tied at a 50 year low. that is one of the downsides of socialism when you give mothers time off with Unemployment pay so she can be with her child. Men can also get time off, up to a year at 1/2 salary. (or close)

The money comes from somewhere,it does not rain family leave from the sky.

How long out of the child's life does the mother get paid to stay home?  Study after study from specific groups claim either how much better off a child is with a working mom and daycare.Most people are fully in favor of a full time working mom.

Thousand's of mothers are paid to stay home with their children, they have subsidized housing,free medical,food stamps,and many programs with grants that can be utilized. Thousands of other mothers are working full time,placing their children in daycare to provide that. Are the mother's being paid to stay home doing a better job of raising honest hardworking future citizens?

Those that cannot care for themselves need to be helped. Those that need a little boost to get out of a mess that many times they have created should be given that.

What is your information that says a drop in crime rate is related to a very short few months out of a child's life with his mother at home?

[Stan]

I t takes an attitude to reverse crime. It is not just because of a single event.

[Gail]

Who knows what difference those first months of bonding between parent and child will make? I am happy for the option- at least it is an option. And yes, I think it is one of the benefits of this insurance (EI- Employment Insurance) that we all contribute to.

[whbae]

Socialism has nothing to do crime.  Take a look at Norway, a typical socialistic government.  The country has been one of the nice places to live, no crimes, people have 5 weeks of vacation a year paid by the government, maternity leave for women and man paid by the government.  Doesn't it sound good?  The people pay high tax about 70% of their income.   Free education and free healthcare, but wait until you sick .  It could take up to 5 years of waiting period for nonemergency cases for an operation.  Now some physicians are opening up some sort of private practice and the people who can afford and cannot wait are treated by these private providers. You pay your own cost.  An automobile costs sky high because what they call value added tax.  A small Subaru would cost the Norweigian about $120,000.00.  Since influx of foreigners from especially Middle Eastern countries the crime has been steadily going up, mind you this is a socialistic country which takes care of people. The crime free Norway has disappeared .  Look at another socialistic country, Greece!  This country is broke.  People do not want work.  They oppose raising retirement age from 52yrs. age!  Who would pay to run the country whether it is capitalistic or socialistic?   The America has been a good country to live, but it has been steadily declining because corruption of politicians, too many who get freebees from this liberal government who are more than anxious to  hand out freebees in exchange for the votes.

[bonnie]

If it is voluntary by the employer or the employee pays for disability insurance it is a great option. That really wasnt the question

Do the mother's that are already paid to stay home full time raise more responsible law abiding children. Will the effect of a few months paid leave produce more law abiding responsible children than those already paid to stay home full time?

My granddaughter just had their third child. She is a stay at home mom by choice. She does not want someone else to raise her children.Her husband makes 20.00 an hour and they make it work. They do struggle but are willing to go without the material goods their peers have.No cable,no internet,no subsidized anything etc.They are willing to wait for that until the children are in school.

He of course pays taxes to support other mother's that are paid to stay home. If there is taxpayer funding involved they should pay more in taxes for the choice of others to have children,while they scrimp and struggle to raise theirs the way they think is best?

[Stan]

The need to have a different name for Greece other than socialist..

[Bravus]

Crime is a bit of a red herring in this discussion, I think. Societies are complex: was Norway low-crime because it was socialist or because it was ethnically homogeneous? Probably a little from column A and a little from column B. I've also seen people argue that it's because it was Lutheran.

I'm pretty sure 70% taxes on individuals in Norway is not accurate, by the way: just checking into that.

In Australia the top tax rate is just under 50%, but that doesn't mean Australians pay 50% of their income. That's a marginal rate only for very large incomes and only applying to some of that income. Even the wealthiest in Australia pay only about 30% income tax. I was interested, when I considered moving from Canada to the USA, to discover that my total tax burden would be comparable in either country, which rather invalidates the myths about Canada as a tax-and-spend liberal wasteland and the USA as a low-tax utopia.
 

[Bravus]

In Norway, ordinary income is taxed at a flat rate of 28%, with the first 36% of income not taxed and also another amount not taxed, so the personal income tax is closer to 20%, depending on income level, than to 70%. There is a 9% social security contribution.

This is one problem with these discussions - people are told 'facts' and don't check them, so their perception of what 'socialism' means for individuals is skewed by false information.

[Bravus]

I'll try to return later to discuss the 'enlightened self-interest' theme in a bit more detail.