Do you support socialism as defined...

[usregimechange]

Poll question: Do you support socialism as defined...

The government owning all means of production in all sectors of the economy. If socialism is so defined are you one?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[usregimechange]

2. I believe that when socialism is more accurately defined almost none of us would support it

The most common definition seems to be based on the deliberate or accidental misconception marketed by freepers, teabaggers, and other various ignorant liars.

[usregimechange]

3. Please rec to 5 so we can get a larger sample of DUers

Thanks

[Naturyl]

4. No, but pretty close.

I think a certain degree of free-market competition needs to be preserved just for the sake of efficiency. But right-wingers need not rejoice - at the rates I'd be taxing income, it would be almost as if the government did own the means of production. I'm talking 75+% top marginal tax rates.

[usregimechange]

5. Well progressive taxation has been a part of our capitalist system for a long time.

Though, that would be pretty darn progressive, it wouldn't require government ownership of production.

[Naturyl]

6. Indeed. I see no reason to bother with a socialist scheme

If we are willing to apply robust progressive taxation.

Might as well be honest - right-wingers are correct, the income tax is essentially a socialist device, if used properly. It is a way to achieve the equivalent of government production ownership while preserving some capitalistic incentives.

I wish American theorists and commentators would finally figure this out. Most of Europe did decades ago, and as a result they have some of the most equitable societies with the highest quality of life in the world.

[usregimechange]

8. Taxation is a part of an larger system and while I agree that it is a device, I wouldn't call it...

socialist. My car is a device to drive south, that doesn't mean I will drive it to Antarctica.

[Naturyl]

10. It's not "socialist" per se

It doesn't even begin to resemble anything socialist until top tax rates on the rich are well over 50%. And even then, it's only "socialist-flavored." My point wasn't that taxation is literally socialism, but that it can achieve many of the desirable aims of socialism if implemented strongly.

Current USA tax scheme is decidedly non-socialist. It isn't even socialist-flavored, despite what the teabaggers claim. Thanks to decades of large cuts, American taxation is quite lenient, especially on the rich. Even so, the teabaggers won't be satisfied until it is non-existent - and I won't be satisfied until pre-Kennedy levels are restored.

[usregimechange]

9. dupe

[Motown_Johnny]

17. Eisenhower's (R) top rate was 91%, Nixon's (R) was 70%

IMO that is a bit to high for the way our economy is now, but I have no problem going back to the 50% rate that was in place at the end of Reagan's first term (depending on exactly when it kicks in).





http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[leftstreet]

24. What is inefficient about your local Fire Department?

How would capitalism improve the equipment, services and technology available to you when your house is burning down?

:shrug:

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. I THINK (could be wrong) we might be looking for...

...socialist democracy. Socialism per se, bad idea.

[WVRICK13]

11. That IS NOT SOCIALISM

when you get the definition right I will vote. Until then, back under the bridge TROLL.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. 374 posts, an upside down flag as an avatar and you are yelling "Troll"?!?!?

It is a reasonable definition. A bit inexact but reasonable.

[usregimechange]

21. I guess my 14,680 posts were unconvincing

[Overseas]

25. +1.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I think necessities should be socialized and luxuries should be privatized

over simplification but I think you get the point.



One example


Public transportation should be socialized because in our society a certain amount of mobility is necessary to get to work and to purchase food, clothing etc.

Private transportation such as motor vehicles should be privatized because it is a luxury for most citizens and not a necessity.

[usregimechange]

27. I agree in theory. Depends on the sector and extent

[Juche]

13. No, here is my view

Issues that the private sector does better it should do. Issues the public sector do better it should do. And anything that is necessary to have a functioning country which would not be available to everyone under a private system (health care, roads, education) should be public.


Things that the public sector is better at (or should be responsible for ensuring universal access to) or both from what I've seen include infrastructure, health care, medical research, education, military, law enforcement.


I'm sure we could have an intelligent debate on this subject and see where each of us views the government's role.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. who decides which is done better by whom? All the (R)s will argue that

the private sector does everything better, and will point to their own incompetence as proof.

[Juche]

18. Communists believe the public sector does everything better

I take American republicans about as seriously as I take Asian communists. Neither cares about pragmatism, good ideas, humanitarianism or national interest when their radical ideology is threatened.

I think certain things people need universal access to to have a functioning society. Transportation, education, health care, communications, protection from threats. So we have (or should have) either free or heavily subsidized roads, public transit, educational systems, military, law enforcement, consumer and environmental protection agencies, broadband investment.

On top of that there are certain things the government does better. Government is capable of promoting incentives that evaluate long term benefits and benefits the nation (or planet) as a whole. The incentives of the free market are incentives based on immediate (or near immediate) economic benefits for a small slice of the nation.

So government uses incentives to encourage development that there is no market incentive to do, or that the market does not have the capital to do. Or the government gives a boost to a new technology or program to help it get on its feet until the market can take over. The interstate, rural electrification, switching to alternative energy, medical research on neglected diseases, global humanitarian aid. As examples with global humanitarian aid something like every $1 donated results in $7 in higher GDP (due to better health and infrastructure). So with more economic growth overseas those nations can stand on their own and buy/sell products with us as well as contribute to global science and help us solve our own problems with energy, health, communications, etc. With alternative energy the government uses funds to promote R&D and early adoption until those technologies are self sustaining. Wind is a great example of this. Wind used to be 50 cents a kwh back in 1980 but due to R&D (both public and private) wind power dropped to nearly 4 cents a kwh, and is still declining. Now it is cost competitive with coal and the market is taking over. Wind power grows in capacity nearly 50% a year in the US, China and Europe because it now is as cheap as other energy sources like coal. But it only became that cheap because government's helped build the industry back when market incentives didn't exist for it.

Plus I think we need social safety nets for people so they do not fall through the cracks. Unemployment insurance, social security, food stamps.

I am basically just trying to explain my viewpoint on these issues to get feedback from other people on their counterviews.

My view on the role of government is they should provide universal access to infrastructure and services needed to have a functioning democracy (transportation, education, health, protection from threats, communications); they should use their capital and long range planning to manipulate the economy to work in everyone's best interest and they should have a social safety net.

However do I think the US government should control all the private companies on earth? No. From what I know of nations that have tried that (communist nations) it didn't work very well. In fact nations like China and Vietnam abandoned economic communism because it didn't seem to work.

[izzybeans]

16. No because the soviet model is merely predatory state capitalism. Accumulating capital within the

state. It only works if each government official operates in good faith in response to citizen demands. Imagine the American version of Stalin rising to power. Sara Palin lurks around the corner and the proto-fascists are hijacking the rhetoric about liberty through their faux-tax revolts.

I'm for direct worker control of capital and open participation in markets. A free market is impossible without empowering the lowest worker economically through direct ownership. We live in a captive market. And predatory capitalism whether it is controlled by the corporation or the state is the antithesis of socialism and they both make talk of "free" or "fair" markets oxymoronic.

[Froward69]

19. "ALL" is an absolute term

as it is governments job to look out for its citizenry. but not to control their lives.
As in:
consumer protection
Defense
Health care
Police and Fire departments
Public works (paved roads)
Clean water
environment

but not telling anyone where to live or what to do or how their "moral" framework should be. in short Government has no business in the individuals "pursuit of happiness."

[OnionPatch]

20. To chime in

I would say I believe in a mixed economy......that our citizens should exchange goods and services as the basis of our economy (capitalism) but also, that in some cases, its best to join together through our government to provide some essential services (socialism.) Some things are just too important to be totally controlled by those who have only profit as a motive, like healthcare and education. Also some energy sectors should not be private, especially those that extract resources from our public lands. I also believe that an unregulated "free market" is basically a primitive "dog eat dog" system that usually results in all kinds of problems and social inequities. So while I believe people should be reasonably free to trade their goods and services, capitalism needs to be regulated to protect consumers, investors and our economy as a whole. Our constitution allows and encourages us to have something better for our citizens than "Dog Eat Dog" economics. ("Provide for the general welfare...") A mixed system is the best, IMO.

[usregimechange]

22. I agree. Well put.

[OnionPatch]

23. Black and white thinking conservatives have such a hard time with this.

Everything must be completely one way or the other. If you agree to some type of socialist aspects to your economy, you are 100% socialist. They, on the other hand, feel they must be 100% capitalist. :eyes:

[usregimechange]

26. Yep, their logic is full of false dichotomies

[usregimechange]

28. kick!

[MSchreader]

29. No, and I'm a communist!

Your definition of socialism is one that I, as a communist, cannot support. It's my opinion that this definition of socialism is one of the reasons why so much opposition exists.

I favor revolutionary industrial unionism, direct workers' control of production and distribution, and outright abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution. It's fundamentally democratic, eliminates the need for "big government" or bureaucracies in general, and opens the path to the abolition of classes and class antagonisms altogether.