Talk Elections

 Castro Vows Cuban Socialism to Survive Bush (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20040501/wl_nm/cuba_mayday_dc)

So, I briefly read this article and wonder to myself, what exactly is socialism.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

What is so bad about Socialism then?

Absolutely nothing. It is a far better system than capitalism.

Are you familar with the Soviet Union?

Any system can be done the wrong way.

Another country you might want to take a look at is North Korea.

I think that Hitler proved that having a govenment that is accutally more socialist than free market requires that you have a country that is constantly gearing up for war and then of course, must acctually go to war.

LOL good point

What about this...

Have the people run the economy?

Also, tie in the profit to their paycheck. So, the higher the GDP, the more money they get in addiction?

Why is having a few people own production and distribution better than everyone owning a piece of the cut?

Very good point.  The powerful do pretty well for themselves, while the rest of the people get shafted.  Ironically, socialism claims to do the exact opposite.

The problem is that "socialism" means such different things to different people.  It's different in Cuba, China, the former Soviet Union, Scandinavia, France, England, and America.  Even the Nazis called themselves "socialist"!

People who call themselves socialists actually take a range of positions, such as:
- Government should establish a broad array of social welfare programs funded by progressive taxation.
- Government should manage those industries that are "natural monopolies" (usually utilties, transportation infrastructure, health care)
- Government should own and operate "the means of production" (big industries)
- Government should own all businesses, employ all citizens, produce all goods and distribute income.
- Private property should be eliminated.  People should work according to their ability, and be granted use of goods according to their need.

In the US it gets an especially bad rap because of our cold war history.  Also, our "socialist" parties are generally Stalinist or Trotskyist as opposed to social democrats or Fabian/utopian socialist types.  
In most countries, "socialism" is not a dirty word, even though "Marxism" has been discredited.  Then again, we do have one "socialist" Congressman, who most in the US Socialist Party would say is not a socialist at all.

Not if you own something.  Those who own have an incentive to shoot you socialists.

we'll keep a chair for you to the right of the king   ;)

Socializm as in Social democrats party is thr best way

While I no longer follow a Socialist doctrine as I did in my teenage years (ah, the idealism of youth) I still believe there is a need for a social-democratic framework to regulate capitalism. Otherwise, trickle-down economics and the post-Reagan/Thatcher abolition of the welfare state will slowly create a state of quasi-feudalism.

1) Castro is not a Socialist
2) Stalin was not a Socialist
3) Mao was not a Socialist
4) The Nazis were not Socialists

I dislike Capitalism, but I am afraid that it is the only system that works.

Socialism fails because it rejects real human nature. Man is selfish and wants prize for his work for himself not for common good. Why you should work hard, if it only  benefited common good? Equal sharing of prosperity is not only impossible but also UNFAIR.

On other hand some LIMITED regulation is needed in the market economy. 100 % pure capitalism is almost equally unthinkable than pure socialism.
 
I believe in market economy with some fairly limited government's regulation. (Healthcare, education, consumers rights, minimum wage, environmental, legislation...)

Socialism can work if it is based on religious values. the downfall of Marxism is that it was a completely atheistic, anti-religion movement. Man is naturally selfish. Why would he want to help his fellow man for nothing in return?

The simple fact is, American's in particular, associate Socialism with Communism. Socialism is such a diverse political theory that it can encompass people as diverse as Josef Stalin and Tony Blair. Socialism in Western Europe ceased being Marxist in the 1950's and became Keynesian in economic ideology and practive, making it compatible with capitalism. Pure capitalism, like pure socialism can be opressive, and Europe has for the main part reached a balance, with a welfare state and conservative economic policy.

exectly

Good point. If you look at most Anglophone Social Democrat parties (Labour, NDP, ALP, NZ Labour etc...) their usually a strong religious tradition within the party... which is almost always bigger than the Marxist/Hard Left groups in the same party.

Socialism, in its more radical forms, is much worse than capitalism. Capitalism actually works.

Another good point.

Depends what Socialism means and what Capitalism means.
Mid 19th Century Capitalism was horrific... five year olds hauled coal trucks down the pits... if they were lucky... the unlucky ones had to work in the mills...

U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says (http://www.talkaboutinvestments.com/group/sci.econ/messages/193236.html)

()

Yes it does. My point is that since capitalism is self-regulating, in one sense or another it always works. That might mean horrible conditions for the poor, so I'm not saying that it's good. Socialism on the other hand means manipulting the economic system, thus it can easily not work at all, which is worse.

Look at pre-NEP Soviet Union for instance.

why is that good?

I think it was meant to be sarcastic.

I like inequality.  You just have to get on the right end of it.

I am sick and tired of delusional liberals defending socialism and cimmunism by cliaming that if only it were done the right way, it would be fine, if only they were true socialists.  Manure.

There is no pure capitalist country that practices pure capitalims, it is always some bastardized form, just like socialism is always some bastardized form.  The difference is that capitalist economies generate wealth everywhere they go, so we never have to complain that the world isn't fair.  The socialists have a system that just doesn't work, so like a losing team that blames the refs, socialists blame fallable humans who didn't stick to the pure principles of socialism.

Just remember, losers always find an excuse to fail, winners find a way to succeed.

19th and early 20th Century capitalism was not self regulating.
Trust me on this.

Socialism is cool. I love socialism. I am one big happy liberal who believes Capitalism is bad. Socialism done right without killing works better. When the masses agree collectively then it will work. Just like you can't force Democracy on a country, you can't force Socialism on the masses. It is like if I crammed food down your throat, you're going to sooner or later vomit. The masses will reject it if it is forced. Go Socialism! Down with Capitalism!

I didn't mean it in the sense that they regulated poor working conditinos and stuff. Only that it will WORK.

Take a look at one of those composite images of photographs of the earth taken in the night sky.  You'll notice that South Korea looks like an island cut off from the rest of asia.  Need any more evidence?  My neighbor, from France, and I had a long talk about this just yesterday at the pool.  He and I are both pretty sold on capitalism.  Most Americans think there are still three remaining socialist countries.  I got news for you:  Cuba never was, and China is racing toward market economy faster than you can say Mei Guo.  (This is my chief problem with the Kyoto accord on global warming, as an aside.)  Castro's is a castrocentric government, much like Saddam's was a saddamcentric government to which no other label may be so aptly applied.

Or, as Neil Peart writes in "The Trees"

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(and they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream `oppression!`
And the oaks, just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
"the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light"
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw.

In other words, that graph is cute, and if you want to completely remove the gap by putting us all on the lower curve, elect a socialist congress!

You know, the exact same song came to my mind?  I love Rush, their lyrics are rational.

and sometimes hedonistic, as in "Passage to Bangkok"

Our first stop is in Bogota
To check Columbian fields
The natives smile and pass along
A sample of their yield
Sweet Jamaican pipe dreams
Golden Acapulco nights
Then Morocco, and the East,
Fly by morning light

We're on the train to Bangkok
Aboard the Thailand Express
We'll hit the stops along the way
We only stop for the best

Wreathed in smoke in Lebanon
We burn the midnight oil
The fragrance of Afghanistan
Rewards a long day's toil
Pulling into Katmandu
Smoke rings fill the air
Perfumed by a Nepal night
The Express gets you there

We're on the train to Bangkok
Aboard the Thailand Express
We'll hit the stops along the way
We only stop for the best

I saw Rush five times in five different venues.  Awesome.

Socialism doesn't work, it sounds good in theory, but in practice it's doomed to failure. The simple reason is... it doesn't take human nature & human fallability into account. Some people are simply lazier than others for example. You need some degree of inequality otherwise what inspires people to work hard, produce and improve their lives?
By and large truly socialist economies are stagnant and inefficient, workers are unproductive and industries are polluting and outmoded.
That said, rampant capitalism doesn't work either since you get an economy dominated by a few massive corporations who then can pretty much do as they please. You need a balance between business and the state.

It's interesting to me that the anti-corporate-big business ,ie Ralph Nader crowd, promomotes policies that make it impossible for the little guy to compete.

Examples

-excessive environmental regulation

-make it very difficult to fire or lay off employees.

-Push for huge legal liability of companies from everything to racism, sexual harassment, and a host of other things.  

-Acres of Red tape, fees, licenses, etc.

-High taxes.


Under the climate that greens & Socialists push for, only huge multi-national corporations can afford to comply with all the regulation.  When regulations and red tape are lessened, the little guy has a chance to be in the game.

Compare the opportunity for upward mobility in Europe to that of the U.S.

I tend to agree with some of that. However you can't group Europe together as one mass. Germany is extremely heavily regulated, which explains it's high unemployment rate. Italy and UK are much less so, although regulation in the UK has increased considerably since 1997. Some of that regulation is good, most bad.

Same here. Continental Europe, such as France and Germany, is generally very regulated and bureacratic (that's why they're doing so badly). Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries are usually less so. Finland and Sweden both have among the highest predicted future growth rates in the world.

Couldn't agree more.  But let's look at Germany.  What would it take to begin an enterprise in that country.  Imagine the resources it would take and risk you would have to assume.  Why would anyone choose Germany to venture out?  Many people in Germany are anti-corporation, but their policies insure that only big business can survive.  Very interesting.  

The German economy was planned by the CDU (ie: Christian Democrats) not by the SPD.

I was under the impression that it was a coalition between the cdu and the greens that brought about that ghastly economic plan.  Now they need to try to figure out an sensible in-migration policy that will allow them to hire the foreign workers that they're spending their tax dollars to educate.  

The CDU were in coalition with the FDP ("liberals") actually

Well I didn't have the time to read threw this thread so sorry if what I'm saying may sound like regurgitation of other posts...

The basic difference to me is in Capitalism there is much more emphasis on the indvidual s/he must be self reliant and should(or cannot) rely on the government to live and individualism is much more clearly visible in Capitalism...

In Socialism the Government takes care of the people thus making them more dependant on the government and much less self reliant.

Of course the extreams of both are not as good as a little of both... Still I tend to like Capitalism hands down when compared to other forms of economy.

In a word, POVERTY!

Free enterprise rewards those who meet the needs of the consumers, thereby encouraging efficency, new/better products/services.

Socialism rewards those who meet the commands of the planners.

Where free enterprise exists, the standard of living improves.

Where socialism exists the standard of living stagnates.

Suggest you read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, or just look at the world and see that the more socialist a country is, the poorer it is on a per capita basis.  I have to same 'more' because no county can long survive if it does not include some private enterprise (the Soviets depended on private plots to feed their country, as well as imports from Capitalist nations).

In short, free enterprise rewards those who work productively (i.e. the size of the 'pie' is increased) while socialism is concerned with DISTRIBUTION of a pie which doesn't increase.