Why does Socialism have a bad name?

[word]

I'll add that in de Tocqueville's description, what we have here, is the public being bribed with their GRANDKIDS money, not their own.

[coyotes_geek]

I'll add that in de Tocqueville's description, what we have here, is the public being bribed with their GRANDKIDS money, not their own.

Well said.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll add that in de Tocqueville's description, what we have here, is the public being bribed with their GRANDKIDS money, not their own.

Gotta love moral hazard!

What's awesome in the current situation, is that banker CEOs pretty much used moral hazard to rake in cash for themselves at the expense of loans to ignorant people, screwing up the financial system. They do this knowing that by the time their screwups are found out, they'll have already raked in plenty of cash to survive comfortable in the future.

And to FIX the financial system, the government relies on money from future generations, compounding moral hazard.

[word]

Bottom line, repealing Glass-Steagall back in '99 was a bad idea and the consequences were disastrous. This is what gives republicans a bad name. They are incapable of understanding that regulation is a necessary thing.

Then again, zipper billy could have vetoed the damn thing so, plenty of blame to go around.

[Geezerballer]

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production. Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned en y (potentially through the use of force).

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

[coyotes_geek]

Bottom line, repealing Glass-Steagall back in '99 was a bad idea and the consequences were disastrous. This is what gives republicans a bad name. They are incapable of understanding that regulation is a necessary thing.

Then again, zipper billy could have vetoed the damn thing so, plenty of blame to go around.

Also important to note that congressional democrats overwhelmingly supported the repeals.

I know Volcker has been pushing to get Glass Steagel put back in place. Hopefully Obama and the dems listen to him.

[word]

They also need to change some of the tax code, and as I eluded to in another thread, how capital gains is taxed. It's going to be interesting to see what they do. The inheritance tax law has expired. No telling what they are going to put in place but I figure since they need money so bad, it's going to be pretty bad. I'm sure they're working on the loopholes as we speak, seeing that all the members of congress are rich, I'm sure the level will be right at the level of the wealth of the person needed for the last vote to pass it. It was 2 million, which is reasonable. My guess is, it will go up. No matter to me. My parents don't have that kind of dough.

[jack sommerset]

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production. Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned en y (potentially through the use of force).

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

Nice post

[rjv]

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production. Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned en y (potentially through the use of force).

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

i don't think it is a mistrust of a capitalist system. it is a mistrust of the policies (and the 2 guilty parties who have shaped them) that have helped to create inequitable power for corporate en ies that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public.

what we have allowed is for oligopolistic compe ion and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces, to condition today's compe ive advantage.

this is statism at it's worst.

[rjv]

Also important to note that congressional democrats overwhelmingly supported the repeals.

I know Volcker has been pushing to get Glass Steagel put back in place. Hopefully Obama and the dems listen to him.

i have no reason to think he will. had he been willing to he would have already regulated the banks immediately after the stimulus bill passed.

[in2deep]

It's been instilled in white american kids since the 1950s that socialism is 'the devil's work' it's because of the cold war. Now the decrepit white baby boomers and their offsprings have it in their subvoncious that it is "evil".

[admiralsnackbar]

i don't think it is a mistrust of a capitalist system. it is a mistrust of the policies (and the 2 guilty parties who have shaped them) that have helped to create inequitable power for corporate en ies that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public.

what we have allowed is for oligopolistic compe ion and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces, to condition today's compe ive advantage.

this is statism at it's worst.

This.

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

Fair enough Geezer. I'll respond cogently.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think it was a he, but I could be wrong. I assumed it was an Ann Althouse piece, and I'm not a big fan of hers, hence my quick dismissal.

But writing things like this:

Socialists despise compe ion – they find virtue in the idea that everyone deserves everything, and benevolent leaders have a responsibility to provide it. Compe ion doesn’t disappear under socialist control – that’s another childish fantasy. Instead, socialism replaces compe ion between individuals with compe ion between groups. The former is energetic and constructive, while the latter is bitter, and almost inevitably violent.

Well, let's break it down. First is an assumption: does the author speak for all socialists? How does our trusty narrator know that socialists despise compe ion?

Who is arguing that compe ion disappears in a socialist society? Is anyone? It seems a strawman to me.

What proof is given that compe ion between individuals is inherently wondrously good, while compe ion between groups is evil and destructive? The author just assumes it, ipso facto, prima facie. No evidence is given.

There are just some of the sections where Doctor Zero does that. Others:

No one should have to die because they can’t afford health insurnce.” A slogan like that does not allow for argument, or even picky questions. You either support socialized medicine, or you want people who can’t afford health insurance to die.

Uhm.. actually, a slogan like that does somewhat allow for argument. It says "should"... that's not an imperative statement. And the logical implication that only socialists come up with these arguments is ridiculous.

When everything you have is provided by the State, you will easily come to hate anyone whose demands take priority over yours. They are not your compe ors. They are your enemies.

Has the author suddenly become omniscient?

There is only one reliable way to hold those bands together over the long term, only one predictable response to the diminishing returns gained by each sacrifice of liberty… and only one emotion the leaders of each collective en y can easily encourage, to maintain their own power: hatred.

The tactic of using hatred to misdirect, though, is certainly not limited to socialist regimes. Do all socialist regimes use hatred? That might be an interesting point to use, but the author doesn't convey the point strongly enough, in my mind.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production.

I don't think many believe greed will just disappear, but that social regimes will provide a means to curb excesses.

Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned en y (potentially through the use of force).

I think you'll find many lefties believe the government is corrupt too. Anywho, what of the bankers? Supposedly a free market system, and yet taxpayers bailed them out. Didn't they essentially force the taxpayer to do business with them?

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

No argument there, though I don't have any facts to counter/agree.

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

True, 100% socialism yes. But some aspects of socialist-type thinking CAN work... I think welfare, social security, and the like are good ideas when implemented effectively.

[word]

Socialism is great, they say, till you run out of other peoples money.

[admiralsnackbar]

Socialism is great, they say, till you run out of other peoples money.

While I do believe in the legitimacy of social programs for overall economic health, I also agree with you that over-expansion of en lements is a sure recipe for bankruptcy. See: California, where fanatically socialistic Democrats approved program after program while fanatically conservative Republicans cut tax after tax. One can only hope Washington understood what happened there and begins toning down the partisan extremism to enact sustainable legislation. I won't hold my breath.

[word]

I wouldn't either. One day, we shall hang them all. And it might be sooner than we think.

I'll also say, that if the US Government bails out California, look out. The floodgates will open and that will be the end of us.

[Yonivore]

Because Socialism is one of the core tenants of the Christian Bible and the people who cry loudest about socialism are definitely NOT Christian.

Really? In which passage of the Bible will I find it saying that those who produce should give the fruits of their labor to the government so it can be redistributed to those who don't?

At best, Christ taught communism -- that a band of people should take care of one another, a practice best realized in small to moderate sized civilizations. However, I don't recall Him ever teaching that government should be responsible for this.

In fact, I'd say the old Communist slogan, popularized by Karl Marx, would have been adopted by Christ -- without the insinuation of government control of course; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I don't see anything wrong with voluntarily associating with a group of people that chooses to live by this credo. In fact, I'd say it's honorable...so long as there is enough ability to offset need and everyone is okay with it. I just don't see where government fits in to this. Every time it's tried, it turns into an oppressive, fascist nightmare.

But, again, I'm open to whatever scripture you'd like to offer.

[Geezerballer]

Fair enough Geezer. I'll respond cogently.

Much better effort but I don’t think you’ve thought your arguments all the way through so in the immortal words of Jules Winnfield, “allow me to retort:”

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: Who is arguing that compe ion disappears in a socialist society? Is anyone? It seems a strawman to me.

If the definition of socialism is “system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the State”, then tell me, who is going to compete w/ the State?

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: What proof is given that compe ion between individuals is inherently wondrously good, while compe ion between groups is evil and destructive?

Are you really challenging this? The group iden y politics that pits one race against the other, sexes against each other, promotes class warfare, and encourages base bigotry is pretty tough to defend.

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: I don't think many believe greed will just disappear, but that social regimes will provide a means to curb excesses.

So you believe that a greedy industrialist who becomes a greedy politician will have less influence? Even in a more expansive and totalitarian government that has the means to use force to accomplish his goals? Seriously?


Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: I think you'll find many lefties believe the government is corrupt too.

And yet you’d favor granting ever more power and control to an ins ution that is not only corrupt but has the power to use force to implement its will.

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: Anywho, what of the bankers? Supposedly a free market system, and yet taxpayers bailed them out. Didn't they essentially force the taxpayer to do business with them?

Think about this carefully. Who is it that can force the taxpayer? The cozy relationship between corporate American and our government is NOT an indictment of capitalism. It is precisely because we have allowed government to become so omnipotent that corporations use it as their tool to stymie compe ion.

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: But some aspects of socialist-type thinking CAN work... I think welfare, social security, and the like are good ideas when implemented effectively.

Several TRILLION $ have been confiscated since Johnston’s “Great Society” to what effect? Do you think that idea was implemented effectively?

I don’t know how old you are but I suspect you’re younger than me yet I know I’ll never benefit from the social security money that has been confiscated from my wages for the last 30 yrs. It was a ponzi scheme from the start. Was that idea implemented effectively?

I strongly encourage you to read Friedrich A. von Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom http://72.167.56.43/content.php?id=1...enu_item_id=82 for a much more articulate critique of socialism if you are truly interested in this subject.

[word]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

That's a sort of 'system' neutral statement. It's more like Christs two most important instructions. Love god and your neighbor as you would yourself. And of course, we all can argue over the word 'need'. The house across the street from me is a section 8 house. They have 6 kids, the dude is always out working on his lincoln with the big rims and booming sound system. What they 'need' is to stop ing and putting their money into worthless .

What so often happens is that 'your money' is used for their 'needs'. A home and food. And THEIR money is used for their toys. It has nothing to do with 'needs'. That's what 'socialism' is, in front of my face, every day.

AND mind you, when he needs help to start his car because his stereo has run his battery down while he works on it, he comes to me to borrow jumper cables, which I give to him, because he can't even buy that. Or should I say, 'won't'.

[Yonivore]

That's a sort of 'system' neutral statement. It's more like Christs two most important instructions. Love god and your neighbor as you would yourself. And of course, we all can argue over the word 'need'. The house across the street from me is a section 8 house. They have 6 kids, the dude is always out working on his lincoln with the big rims and booming sound system. What they 'need' is to stop ing and putting their money into worthless .

What so often happens is that 'your money' is used for their 'needs'. A home and food. And THEIR money is used for their toys. It has nothing to do with 'needs'. That's what 'socialism' is, in front of my face, every day.

AND mind you, when he needs help to start his car because his stereo has run his battery down while he works on it, he comes to me to borrow jumper cables, which I give to him, because he can't even buy that. Or should I say, 'won't'.

Exactly my point, word. When government is introduced, personal responsibility is the first thing to go.

If those in "need" were forced to personally face those from whom the money is taken to meet those "needs," maybe they'd be a bit more responsible with the "wants" they buy.

[word]

I have no problem with helping people out. I DO have a problem with people on welfare ..... that is 'chronically' on welfare....reproducing. After two, their kids need to be state raised. After all, they are our kids and we should be able to dictate what is done with them.

And hence, the danger of socialism ....

[SierraHotel]

I think its funnier that the left calls themselves "progressives" even though that term was about as dirty a word as you could call yourself, it basically did mean you were calling yourself a communist, during the early part of the 20th century.

It's funny when the right calls themselves Christians.

[Winehole23]

I'm with Kierkegaard: there have been very few Christians since the time of the disciples. Presumably you single out the hypocrisy of the right because you oppose it. But yeah, the conceit is galling.

[spursncowboys]

It's funny when the right calls themselves Christians.

why?

[Nbadan]

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America.

What world do you live in? There are countries with better 'standard of living' indexes than the U.S...