Why Socialism?
Raymond
Socialism is all around us and we should be thankful for it.
Socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end
The word “socialism” scares most Americans at the same time that they
are making use of it every day of their lives.
(America needs more iconoclasts).
noun 1. a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for
religious veneration.
—–. a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional
institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition
Synonyms:
—- nonconformist, rebel, dissenter, radical.
Capitalism and socialism are not forms of government as suggested by
some. They are economic arrangements practiced within democracies,
monarchies and even dictatorships. The difference is, to what degree
each economic system is conducted within the country or nation under
discussion. For example most democracies own the natural resources
and
transportation systems within their borders. Even President Bush
acknowledges this. He says that the oil in Iraq is the people’s oil
and the revenues from it should be returned to the people in the form
of services. [socialism] Not the case in the US. Natural resources
and
transportation systems are privately owned, and very often subsidized
by taxpayers.
Depending on where on the earth one lives and what their
understanding
of such words as capitalism and socialism mean to him or her, each
word can generate either praise or disgust and anger.
Most Americans, for example, associate socialism with totalitarian
governments with failed nightmarish economic experiments. Yet, at the
same time, and as much of the rest of the world moves more and more
toward private ownership of the means of production, the Americans
are
rushing to embrace socialist ideals. Is this a bad thing? Not
necessarily. It is no more dangerous or troublesome than countries
like England, Russia, or China moving toward some privatization.
Hopefully, what will eventually happen will be a universal adjustment
to an economic center, where socialism and capitalism will meet to
provide an agreeable understanding of what “benefits” are rightfully
due the people and what should remain as “free enterprise”. Americans
will never abandon free enterprise and capitalism, nor should they;
nor will they ever be able to abandon the socialism that has always
been part of the human development that has inspired Americans and
has
acted as a model for the rest of the world to copy.
“…Americans have been taught that if American businessmen support a
government enterprise, then it must be free enterprise. After all,
haven’t we all learned in our government schools that American
businessmen favor free enterprise? The unfortunate truth, however, is
that the American businessman of today, unlike his counterpart of the
19th. century, is all too ready to run government for his own
welfare.
He wants nothing to do with such notions as self-reliance, private
ownership, unhampered markets, and private capital investment. He
wants partnerships with the politicians to ensure that his potential
losses will be covered by the citizenry whether they like it or not.”
We presently have a plutocracy in America whether you agree or not.
The term plutocracy indicates a form of government where all the
state’s decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of
citizenry, and the degree of economic inequality is high while the
level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of
government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and
often occur concomitantly with the features of those systems. The
word
“plutocracy” itself is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos,
meaning wealth.
The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two unrelated
phenomena. In writings about history, plutocracy is the political
control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such
plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece and the
Italian merchant republics of Venice, Florence, and Genoa.
Plutocracies typically emerge as one of the first governing systems
within a territory after a period of anomie. Plutocracy is closely
related to aristocracy as a form of government, since wealth and high
social status have been closely associated throughout history.
The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to the great
and undue influence the wealthy have on the political process in
contemporary society. This influence can be exerted positively (by
financial “contributions” or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by
refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay
taxes,
threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc). It
can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties
which can shape public perception of political issues
(e.g. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp’s alleged political agendas
in Australia, the UK and the United States or George Soros efforts to
back left-leaning political action committees).
Recently, there have been numerous cases of wealthy individuals
exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favorable
legislation. (see: Lobbying) Most western partisan democracies permit
the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-
known that political parties frequently accept significant donations
from various individuals (either directly or through corporate
institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the
legislative decisions of elected representatives; however it would be
unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these “contributions”.
The more cynical might describe these donations as “bribes”, although
legally they are not. In the United States, campaign finance reform
efforts seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance
reform has to successfully surmount challenge by officials who are
beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first
place.
The social welfare programs of government have been for the most part
positive, if partial, responses to the genuine social needs of the
great majority of Americans. The dismantling of such programs by
conservative and corporate elites in the absence of any alternatives
will be disastrous. Abandoning schools, health care, and housing, for
example, to the control of an unregulated free market magnifies the
existing harsh realities of inequality and injustice.”
Any subsidy is socialism at work in America. Should we privatize
everything?
Originally, a person had to have a contract with a fire department
company. If you did not have one., your house could burn down if you
lived next door to the fire house if you did not have a financial
agreement with them. Want to go back to that? Who built and paid for
your airports? Not the airlines.YOU did. Socialism at work. Who built
most of the athletic stadiums? Not the teams.
Tennesse Valley Authority ?
Socialism
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federally owned corporation
in the United States created by congressional charter in May 1933
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
Republicans want to privatize it.
The freeway system may have been meant for the military, but all
roads
(except private roads) are socialized. Golfers drive on public roads
to get to the course and they park in a public parking lot; …
People drive on highways and freeways and they cross bridges, … its
socialism.
Most Americans are without proper understanding of socialism. No
country is absolute socialistic or capitalistic
It’s time for greatness — not for greed. It’s a time for idealism —
not ideology. It is a time not just for compassionate words, but
compassionate action.
– Marian Wright Edelman:
Proponents of privatization believe that private market actors can
more efficiently deliver many goods or service than government due to
free market competition. In general, over time this will lead to
lower
prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red
tape, and quicker delivery. Many proponents do not argue that
everything should be privatized; the existence of problems such as
market failures and natural monopolies may limit this. However, a
small minority thinks that everything can be privatized, including
the
state itself.
Privatizing a non-profitable company which was state-owned may force
the company to raise prices in order to become profitable. However,
this would remove the need for the state to provide tax money in
order
to cover the losses.
Corruption. A monopolized function is prone to corruption; decisions
are made primarily for political reasons, personal gain of the
decision-maker (i.e. “graft”), rather than economic ones. Corruption
(or principal-agent issues) during the privatization process –
however
– can result in significant underpricing of the asset. This allows
for
more immediate and efficient corrupt transfer of value – not just
from
ongoing cash flow, but from the entire lifetime of the asset stream.
Often such transfers are difficult to reverse.
SEE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialists.htm
Perhaps the time has come to be perfectly frank. We Americans live in
a socialist country. In point of fact, we have for quite some time, …
We Americans live in a socialist country. In point of fact, we have
for quite some time, even though private property has a long,
continuing and still revered position in our society. To be sure, we
aren’t an entirely socialist country, but instead a mixed one that
teeters between the two extremes of collectivism and freedom (i.e.
socialism and capitalism). In the past century or so, however, the
scale tipped noticeably toward the socialism side, and we are now at
the point where capitalism is not the dominant force. Of course,
there
are many who will disagree with my assessment. ( Mostly uneducated
hillbillies)
NOTE: The fact is, American has always had a mixed economy, as do all
modern, developed economies. The question is not one of category –
capitalism or socialism? – but of degree
http://www.qando.net/?p=2893
Some words are less acceptable in America. Socialism is one of them.
If you do not understand some of the words in a topic being
discussed,
do you try to find out what they mean?
Do You Realize That American English Has Over 600,000 Words.? “Ya
all”
is not included in these many words.
Of course, most Americans are not intelligent enough to understand
the
difference. The word “socialism” scares them even though every
Americans are
surrounded by socialistic enterprises and takesadvantage of them
every
day of their lives
“Why is there so much quote-mining by uneducated people on this
forum?
People give you a barrage of Bible quotes, but they never make the
slightest attempt to explain their interpretation of them. They just
expect you to assume that their interpretation is the best. Is it due
to a lack of education, laziness, or another reason?”
—- bum creationism
Why socialism?
Socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. The economic
anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion,
the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge
community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving
to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor — not
by
force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally
established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that
the means of production — that is to say, the entire productive
capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as
additional capital goods — may legally be, and for the most part are,
the private property of individuals
— Albert Einstein
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
Jerry
Read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand
proffsl
> Why Socialism?
> Socialism is all around us and we should be thankful for it.
> Socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end
> ( Mostly uneducated hillbillies)
> Do You Realize That American English Has Over 600,000 Words.?
> “Ya all” is not included in these many words.
You seem to express a certain bigotry against Southerners. Why
"uneducated hillbillies"? Why not "educated hillbillies"? Or, why
not "uneducated New Yorkers?
Myself, I happen to be an High Tech Redneck Educated Hillbilly from
Kentucky, and damn proud of it.
And, in an attempt to "educate" you, it's spelled "y'all".
You see what you've done, inserting your bigotry into your
discussion? You've distracted from the subject of Socialism vs
Capitalism.
Socialism is the socioeconomic principle that things belong to the
collective.
Capitalism is the socioeconomic principle that things belong to the
individual.
These two principles are, of course, in opposition to each other, but
this does not mean they can not, and do not, exist together. Just as
the walls and ceiling of a structure are in opposition to each other,
but in such a way that each gives the other it's strength and support.
Throughout human history, both Socialism and Capitalism have been
practiced in varying degrees and forms.
Socialism can not be entirely discarded, because without some form of
Socialism, there can be no Society to secure Capitalism. Capitalism
can not be entirely discarded either, because without some form of
Capitalism, the Incentive for Human Productivity is eliminated, along
with the funding for Socialism. Both must exist together. The
question then becomes, what is the proper blend of Socialism and
Capitalism?
In the United States, both Socialism and Capitalism are being
practiced, but in my opinion, in complete opposition to the proper
blend of the two. The United States exercises the most repugnant form
of Socialism, that being Marxism ("from those according to their
ability, unto those according to their need"), in the form of Income,
Sales and Property Taxes. The United States also exercises the most
repugnant form of Capitalism, that being Land Ownership, which can
only lead to a Land Monopoly. In the United States today, we have 1)
and 2) below:
1) The product of your labors belong mostly to everyone (socialism,
Marxism).
2) The natural resources belong mostly to the rich (capitalism, Land
Monopoly).
As I said, these two are in complete opposition to the proper blend of
the two, those being A) and B) below:
A) The product of your labors belong entirely to you (capitalism).
B) The natural resources belong equally to everyone (socialism, NOT
Marxism).
The Greater Good is served best when the Liberty of every individual
is secured and enhanced by Society. This Liberty means that the
Individual must own them self, which means also that they must own the
product of their labors. Otherwise, they are only Slaves, and without
Liberty, and the Greater Good is diminished.
The Greater Good is served best when Society is empowered to secure
and enhance the Rights of Individuals. This means that Society secures
and enhances not only the Individual's Right of Liberty, but also
their Right of Life and their Right to Own the product of their
labors, through the employment of Police, Fire Departments and Public
Health Care.
Funding must be obtained in order for Society to maintain a Police,
Fire Department and Public Health Care. But, to obtain this funding
from the product of our labors (through taxation or otherwise) is
contrary to the Greater Good which is served best when the Liberty of
every individual is secured and enhanced by Society. This takes from
the Individual to serve the Collective, diminishing the Greater Good.
The only proper and Rightful way to obtain funding for these Social
Services is from the Natural Resources. This, instead, takes from the
Collective to serve the Collective, increasing the Greater Good. This
is in support of my principles B) above.
The Greater Good is served best when Human Productivity is maximized.
Socialism (especially Marxism) provides no Incentive for Human
Productivity, and therefore diminishes the Greater Good. On the other
hand, Capitalism provides that needed Incentive for Human
Productivity, and therefore increases the Greater Good when applied to
Human Productivity. This is in support of my principle A) above.
This idea is called GeoIsm, or Georgism.
I prefer Geoism.
Jerry
proffsl
> Homework assignment:http://aynrandlexicon.com/
> Type 'capitalism' and press return.
Homework assignment: Actually respond to the points of a post with
your own thoughts and observations.
Jerry
Why? Are you interested in my thoughts and observations? First
demonstrate interest by doing the homework assignment that I assigned:
Allistar
> Why socialism?
> Socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end.
No, it's not. Socialism is based on the principle that compulsory wealth
redistribution is ok. It is not. Compulsion is askin to slavery, and is
unethical.
If it's wrong for one man to take the wealth of another without consent,
then it's wrong for 10 men to do the same. For 1000, for a million. Saying
that certain people (politicians, in this case) are allowed to do what
normal people cannot do is hypocrisy.
Socialism is a system based on such hypocrisy. It's based on a foundation of
compulsion: that the dilution of primary freedom is acceptable. It is not.
> The economic
> anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion,
> the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge
> community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving
> to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor — not
> by
> force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally
> established rules.
Legally established rules? Sounds like regulation to me - a sure sign of a
socialist system.
> In this respect, it is important to realize that
> the means of production — that is to say, the entire productive
> capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as
> additional capital goods — may legally be, and for the most part are,
> the private property of individuals
Yet socialism is a system where the private property of individuals is able
to be taken (extorted, using a threat of force) from them by the state. You
cannot be for the private property of individuals and also for socialism.
--
A.