Is Socialism a good thing?

[nclib]

Yes, as capitalism tends to put profit above the interests of the community. It's not so much a question of government control, just that the profit-based private sector just works for those with money and doesn't allow for what's good for society and those without much money.

[Velasco]

collectivism is when people think you should do stuff for them just because they exist even when they haven't done anything for you.

it's all a big scam so that the "community" grows so strong it will sacrifice you for a greater good that doesn't even exist.

I would not like to make stuff for people in exchange for nothing. I believe in reciprocity and fair trade. I mean, why should I sacrifice myself for the "community" if I get nothing in return? The fact is that we are not isolated individuals, but social beings that interact with each other. Leaving aside Robinson Crusoe, most of us depend on interaction and exchange to survive. The framework within we carry out our activities is called "society". While many members of the human society are protective of their individuality and prerogatives, it is a common belief that solidarity is necessary for the good functioning of the social apparatus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes.

no it is very bad. collectivism is a plague

I love that moment early in 1984 where Winston's letter "to the future or to the past" unselfconsciously refutes the "individualism"/"collectivism" false choice in less than half a sentence. "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone"...! (emphasis mine)

[Person Man]

For me it is.

[DeSantis4Prez]

In theory, yes. In reality, no.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Socialism requires that government becomes your God.

Your point is refuted with the existence of Anarchism.

And how do you propose to prevent mutually consensual contracts called  a job using anarchism?

You see, that's a trick question, because it's impossible to do anything using anarchism.

     Anarchism is a meme position, and can effectively be disregarded. Ultimately, Santander is right. The socialist economy does require the government to be able to reckon what is good, and to divide among the people as it sees fit. Those who are losers under its paradigm possess no recourse. That this notion can be sold to people as a vision of freedom is an impressive sleight of hand.

[nclib]

Socialism requires that government becomes your God.

Your point is refuted with the existence of Anarchism.

And how do you propose to prevent mutually consensual contracts called  a job using anarchism?

You see, that's a trick question, because it's impossible to do anything using anarchism.

     Anarchism is a meme position, and can effectively be disregarded. Ultimately, Santander is right. The socialist economy does require the government to be able to reckon what is good, and to divide among the people as it sees fit. Those who are losers under its paradigm possess no recourse. That this notion can be sold to people as a vision of freedom is an impressive sleight of hand.

Government, at least in theory, works for the people. Capitalism simply only works for private profits.

[Santander]

Socialism requires that government becomes your God.

Your point is refuted with the existence of Anarchism.

And how do you propose to prevent mutually consensual contracts called  a job using anarchism?

You see, that's a trick question, because it's impossible to do anything using anarchism.

     Anarchism is a meme position, and can effectively be disregarded. Ultimately, Santander is right. The socialist economy does require the government to be able to reckon what is good, and to divide among the people as it sees fit. Those who are losers under its paradigm possess no recourse. That this notion can be sold to people as a vision of freedom is an impressive sleight of hand.

Government, at least in theory, works for the people. Capitalism simply only works for private profits.

Private, meaning people.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

collectivism is when people think you should do stuff for them just because they exist even when they haven't done anything for you.

it's all a big scam so that the "community" grows so strong it will sacrifice you for a greater good that doesn't even exist.

I would not like to make stuff for people in exchange for nothing. I believe in reciprocity and fair trade. I mean, why should I sacrifice myself for the "community" if I get nothing in return? The fact is that we are not isolated individuals, but social beings that interact with each other. Leaving aside Robinson Crusoe, most of us depend on interaction and exchange to survive. The framework within we carry out our activities is called "society". While many members of the human society are protective of their individuality and prerogatives, it is a common belief that solidarity is necessary for the good functioning of the social apparatus.

Profits are a more effective motivator of interaction, exchange, and work than mere feelings of "solidarity."

[John Dule]

collectivism is when people think you should do stuff for them just because they exist even when they haven't done anything for you.

it's all a big scam so that the "community" grows so strong it will sacrifice you for a greater good that doesn't even exist.

I would not like to make stuff for people in exchange for nothing. I believe in reciprocity and fair trade. I mean, why should I sacrifice myself for the "community" if I get nothing in return? The fact is that we are not isolated individuals, but social beings that interact with each other. Leaving aside Robinson Crusoe, most of us depend on interaction and exchange to survive. The framework within we carry out our activities is called "society". While many members of the human society are protective of their individuality and prerogatives, it is a common belief that solidarity is necessary for the good functioning of the social apparatus.

This is my biggest problem with capitalism. The division of labor makes us narrow-minded and ignorant of the wealth of knowledge in the rest of the world, and we end up producing whatever the mass public thinks is best. People become dumb as a result. I would much rather live in a shack in the woods; I'm just afraid I'd get mud underneath my fingernails or something awful like that.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Depends on how you define "socialism".

For some, Obamacare is socialism. For others, the Kim regime in North Korea is socialism. The former is good (albeit still not enough "socialism" IMO), the latter is obviously bad.

[Vittorio]

The dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is an illusion, a consequence of the obscurantism of the capitalist mode of production (what we call commodity fetishism - the disappearance of social relations behind the commodities produced by them). In the name of 'private interest', individuals are compelled by market forces to regiment their lives - to wake up at the same time, to travel to the same places, to do the same jobs with comparably skilled workers. Capitalism in this sense is far more 'collectivistic' than previous modes of production, which held out the possibility of existing outside the system. Collective production structures the very essence of the individual's existence to a vastly greater degree under capitalism than under any previously prevailing system, and does so increasingly to precisely the extent to which capitalist 'individualism' (and with it lifestyle materialism and the labor necessary to support it) predominates. The corporation is the ultimate expression of the collective principle.

Again, per Marx:

Communist theoreticians, the only communists who have time to devote to the study of history, are distinguished precisely by the fact that they alone have discovered that throughout history the “general interest” is created by individuals who are defined as “private persons”. They know that this contradiction is only a seeming one because one side of it, what is called the “general interest”, is constantly being produced by the other side, private interest, and in relation to the latter it is by no means an independent force with an independent history — so that this contradiction is in practice constantly destroyed and reproduced.

Capitalist 'individualism' produces capitalist 'collectivism' by compelling individuals to labor at comparable positions and maintain compatible lifestyles. This is called 'ordered liberty' by bourgeois ideologues.

[GovBillWeld]

I say no, by Marxist definition Socialism is state control of the economy, which is objectively bad. It grants total power to a "guiding hand" revolutionary, which too often becomes an iron fisted despot before the transionary period is over.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

When Dems finally enact campaign finance reform, immigration reform and DC statehood,  that were blocked due to Reid protection of filibuster.  Dems arent gonna repeat that twice and will go by simple majority.

Socialism is about a reform agenda, not just about health issues

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing is most people support mixed economies. After all, even Lenin introduced the NEP which amounted to proto-Dengism and most "free market" leaders like Reagan and Thatcher used the power of state planning when they needed. If you look at most countries that have rapidly grown or reduced poverty levels, you'll see similar patterns: the Asian Tigers are all good examples of polities that used the free market and statist methods in tandem t enormous success, as was France under dirigisme and the American School/National System.

In general, I think that wealth and the means of generating wealth should be distributed amongst the population. I will leave it at that, but to note that many of the dreams of neoliberalism's early days was to achieve something similar - creating a "nation of shareholders" for instance.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Socialism isn't a coherent "thing", so dumb question.

[Mr. Smith]

Socialism requires that government becomes your God.

Your point is refuted with the existence of Anarchism.

And how do you propose to prevent mutually consensual contracts called  a job using anarchism?

You see, that's a trick question, because it's impossible to do anything using anarchism.

     Anarchism is a meme position, and can effectively be disregarded. Ultimately, Santander is right. The socialist economy does require the government to be able to reckon what is good, and to divide among the people as it sees fit. Those who are losers under its paradigm possess no recourse. That this notion can be sold to people as a vision of freedom is an impressive sleight of hand.

Government, at least in theory, works for the people. Capitalism simply only works for private profits.

Private, meaning people.

No, meaning individuals.

The word meaning people is "public".

[Non Swing Voter]

In theory maybe.

In terms of what socialist voters want it's awful IMO.  If you don't agree with socialism and try to debate someone who says housing, health care, and food are human rights that society needs to provide it doesn't go well.  I don't believe that the rest of society should have pay for someone elses healthcare or food or housing because that doesn't just fall from the sky, somebody ultimately has to work to make that happen.  And some of the other things like paying off student loans, which Warren proposes are also completely unfair.  So the person who just worked hard for 5 or 10 years to pay off $200,000 in student loans has to see everyone else get theirs paid off?  At the same time, I don't think big businesses should be bailed out either. 

[Goldwater]

Socialism requires that government becomes your God.

Your point is refuted with the existence of Anarchism.

And how do you propose to prevent mutually consensual contracts called  a job using anarchism?

You see, that's a trick question, because it's impossible to do anything using anarchism.

     Anarchism is a meme position, and can effectively be disregarded. Ultimately, Santander is right. The socialist economy does require the government to be able to reckon what is good, and to divide among the people as it sees fit. Those who are losers under its paradigm possess no recourse. That this notion can be sold to people as a vision of freedom is an impressive sleight of hand.

Government, at least in theory, works for the people. Capitalism simply only works for private profits.

Private, meaning people.

No, meaning individuals.

The word meaning people is "public".

Individuals are people tho

[Senator-elect Spark]

No. Has it worked anywhere?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Socialism means pro growth and consumer laws being protected, capitalist means trickled down economics and making rich people happy.

[Goldwater]

Socialism means pro growth and consumer laws being protected, capitalist means trickled down economics and making rich people happy.

*citation needed*

[brucejoel99]

The problem with these kinds of questions/discussions is that you need to define what you mean by "socialism" to begin with. Socialism is a tricky term because not even self-proclaimed socialists necessarily agree on what it means. It's a theory of an economical system, it's a political movement, it's an ideology, & it's not clearly & definitively separated from terms like "social democracy," "social liberalism," or even "communism." What all these terms share are a critique of capitalism & a lack of belief in the market as the solution to problems in society, but "socialism" is still such an incredibly varied field of philosophy/economics that it has run the gamut from terrifying, one-party, genocidal dictatorships to parliamentary republics that have created the most prosperous societies on Earth.

[538Electoral]

The problem with these kinds of questions/discussions is that you need to define what you mean by "socialism" to begin with. Socialism is a tricky term because not even self-proclaimed socialists necessarily agree on what it means. It's a theory of an economical system, it's a political movement, it's an ideology, & it's not clearly & definitively separated from terms like "social democracy," "social liberalism," or even "communism." What all these terms share are a critique of capitalism & a lack of belief in the market as the solution to problems in society, but "socialism" is still such an incredibly varied field of philosophy/economics that it has run the gamut from terrifying, one-party, genocidal dictatorships to parliamentary republics that have created the most prosperous societies on Earth.

I mean socialism as in the type that's close to communism.

[The Mikado]

Government nationalization of industry isn't usually a good thing, though there are industries like water supply which work better as public utilities.

Things like social security and government funded health care are good, but they also are not "socialist." Welfare state programs are not socialist by definition because socialism is state takeover of industry.