Criticism is different to demonizing.
If you extol the virtues of capitalism while making out socialism to be the worse idea ever, then you aren't being objective & that lack of objectivity comes from somewhere bad.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
What's your stance on socialism?
- Thread starter Taleweaver
- Start date
- Views 5,831
- Replies 67
- Likes 2
Criticism is different to demonizing.
If you extol the virtues of capitalism while making out socialism to be the worse idea ever, then you aren't being objective & that lack of objectivity comes from somewhere bad.
Aye, but it's the language used as a reason to support the other guy. I'd prefer something more specific, but "common sense" seems to translate best with some folks.
If you look at the United States almost everyone supports Socialism through our Social Programs. That would be most peoples stance in the States. The are a few conservatives that want to get rid of all these programs completely. But almost everyone even quite a few conservatives believe some social help is welcomed. The Difference is how much and how far should we go, which can vary even in Conservatives.
The better question would be how far should we go with Socialism.
The better question would be how far should we go with Socialism.
Last edited by SG854,
@Eredhel: I understand your concerns. Unfortunately, socialism can be corrupted in just as many ways (and perhaps more, though it's hard to say) as other political systems.
@0x3000027E : sorry: that's communism you're describing there.
I got to agree that for the most part, Obama was centrist/right (to European norms...just because there's someone further on the right doesn't mean "center" means left).
Lemme elaborate with your example: yes, at the time a video game is created, it is owned by capcom. Well...all capcom employees to the degree they worked on it, but you get the point. If copies are then sold, they change owner just like normal. The exception is the very strict, dystopian version that I dubbed "fox news socialism": there whatever is created is owned by everyone, not just capcom. It's the sort of situation Richard Stallman is trying to achieve: the idea that once software is written, it should be public property and the source code released. But again: not many pursue that political style.
The confusion is probably because of the description of capitalism. In theory, you could say that if you make something, you own it. But capitalism (to an extreme degree, but all the examples are clichés) assumes that everything has a price, and therefore is owned by the person wanting to pay the most for it.
If a company wishes to maintain ownership of their software, that's mostly a liberal decision. It would have been a socialist idea if the game was still owned by the company (e.g. like free to play games) AND the decision to alter things were shared by every employee that work on the game.
@0x3000027E : sorry: that's communism you're describing there.
To be fair, Obamacare is a socialist idea. It is, however, just one idea. I can't say under which president firefighters became a public service rather than privatized unit(s), but that act in itself didn't make the president a socialist.
I got to agree that for the most part, Obama was centrist/right (to European norms...just because there's someone further on the right doesn't mean "center" means left).
Okay...I can see why you're confused, but I thank you not to take your own interpretation as truth, let alone something I say.
Lemme elaborate with your example: yes, at the time a video game is created, it is owned by capcom. Well...all capcom employees to the degree they worked on it, but you get the point. If copies are then sold, they change owner just like normal. The exception is the very strict, dystopian version that I dubbed "fox news socialism": there whatever is created is owned by everyone, not just capcom. It's the sort of situation Richard Stallman is trying to achieve: the idea that once software is written, it should be public property and the source code released. But again: not many pursue that political style.
The confusion is probably because of the description of capitalism. In theory, you could say that if you make something, you own it. But capitalism (to an extreme degree, but all the examples are clichés) assumes that everything has a price, and therefore is owned by the person wanting to pay the most for it.
Again: you're totally wrong. Okay, okay: it's probably the same thinking mistake you made earlier, but it's still wrong. Software is just that: a good. How and when it is purchased and who owns it depends on the system, yes, but you're totally missing the analogy.
If a company wishes to maintain ownership of their software, that's mostly a liberal decision. It would have been a socialist idea if the game was still owned by the company (e.g. like free to play games) AND the decision to alter things were shared by every employee that work on the game.
Sorry, no, and I'm not going to get into some bullshit debate about it. Thanks for your comment though.
many things we do *could* be considered socialist. Military and its funding. Social Security. Medicare. But a line needs to be drawn. The constitution itself GUARANTEES A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Please, actually READ the constitution.
History shows that no completely socialist government/nation has survived. EVER. Just doesn't work. Look at our own welfare program. Many users DO NOT WANT A JOB. They will never do their share. They calculate that they will lose income by earning their own way, so "why"?
Trump has made it incredibly easy to get a job. pick your job searching site. Thousands of listings at all times now. You can hate the person but you are simply blinded by that hate if you can't see how much good he's done for the country. Stop hating him just because the liberal media tells you to, and grow a damn brain.
And by the way, MANY regimes that started of with socialist ideals, end up being communist. Perhaps not all. But all fail.
History shows that no completely socialist government/nation has survived. EVER. Just doesn't work. Look at our own welfare program. Many users DO NOT WANT A JOB. They will never do their share. They calculate that they will lose income by earning their own way, so "why"?
Trump has made it incredibly easy to get a job. pick your job searching site. Thousands of listings at all times now. You can hate the person but you are simply blinded by that hate if you can't see how much good he's done for the country. Stop hating him just because the liberal media tells you to, and grow a damn brain.
And by the way, MANY regimes that started of with socialist ideals, end up being communist. Perhaps not all. But all fail.
Last edited by urherenow,
Well, I would argue that it was the so-called impeachment trial that really got the economy moving. When congress is preoccupied with such matters (in this case, for over a year), they are not imposing further regulations/legislation, or granting trusts/monopolies, both of which slow the economy tremendously. Instead, as the impeachment trial wore on, the US consumer was beginning to get a taste of true free market practices. Companies were uninhibited. Investors became more willing to invest without the usual cloud of uncertainty, and competition was fair in the marketplace, (as there was no threatening legislation).
The same thing happened during the Clinton Impeachment trials: congress preoccupied with impeachment --> economy booms. It started to happen with Nixon impeachment, however it was short-lived.
Socialism is just "legal theft". All it does is give the government and politicians sole power over wealth by stealing from those that have (you must realize that politicians are excluded from this) and gives to the have-nots that refuse to earn their own way of means. That's why we have such a massive tax burden on our social services now such as welfare, social security, etc. We have a bunch of freeloaders sucking off the teets of hard working citizens and the democrats just want to add to that burden with illegal immigration.
For example, just look at Bernie's idea of paying off college debt. Everybody who was irresponsible enough to get student loans they were unable to pay, unwilling to work to pay them off, and are stuck with massive debt will be let off the hook by those that were smart about borrowing, worked hard to pay off their own debts, and did what was right.
Paying for medicare for all is just going to take a massive chunk of your money that could be spent on other things like food, clothes, etc. Instead, you will be forced to work more just to pay the tax burden for "free" healthcare that you would barely get to use due to the long waits and even crappier service. I would rather be in medical debt, healthy, and alive then to have "free" health and die waiting for an operation months after I was diagnosed with something.
If you are for socialism, then I would ask you to go out and get a real job where you have to work for what you have and then let people come off the street and take your stuff and money. Then come back and tell me how great socialism is.
For example, just look at Bernie's idea of paying off college debt. Everybody who was irresponsible enough to get student loans they were unable to pay, unwilling to work to pay them off, and are stuck with massive debt will be let off the hook by those that were smart about borrowing, worked hard to pay off their own debts, and did what was right.
Paying for medicare for all is just going to take a massive chunk of your money that could be spent on other things like food, clothes, etc. Instead, you will be forced to work more just to pay the tax burden for "free" healthcare that you would barely get to use due to the long waits and even crappier service. I would rather be in medical debt, healthy, and alive then to have "free" health and die waiting for an operation months after I was diagnosed with something.
If you are for socialism, then I would ask you to go out and get a real job where you have to work for what you have and then let people come off the street and take your stuff and money. Then come back and tell me how great socialism is.
Why is it whenever redistribution of wealth is discussed, welfare and social programs always get mentioned, yet no one mentions the ridiculous amount of money that goes into paying the bloated salaries of the bureaucratic administrations that politicians surround themselves with? Everytime you see a politician give a speech, look behind them; Bureaucrats and lobbyists that each make well beyond 6-figures for doing absolutely nothing.
The issue shouldn't be "Where can we get more tax money?" (usual slogan from the Sanders camp). Instead, the public should demand why more money is necessary to begin with. I think most would be surprised at how the tax money is actually distributed, and who collects the dividends.
It's the same reason why gang violence is never brought up with gun control debates. Politicians screwing over the tax payers is a given.
This is another reason socialism is bad. Our social services need to privatized and taken away from the government bureaucrats as politicians are the last people we should trust with money.
- Some things work better socially. These are things where profit should not be the driving force, but humanitarian or social need.
- Some things work better capitalistically. These are things where profit should be the main motivator, to ensure as many corners are cut as possible (with regulation making sure only the not-needed corners are cut, and the cuts don't infringe on humanitarian or social need).
- Some things work best as a mix of the two, with capitalism providing the force, and socialism providing the heart and oversight
To put it more generally, all decisions must be human-driven first and foremost if we're wanting to have a society that's worth anything. Maximize civil liberties and quality of life, and minimize outside control and effort required. This should be done with an eye toward ensuring what resources available to us are used as wisely as possible and with the least amount of destructive impact or collateral damage. Capitalism is great for ensuring minimal resources for a needed task, but as its goal is profit and not humanitarian, it has its drawbacks in its impact on the other things I just mentioned. it's important to see capitalism as a tool to accomplish our goals. It is not, in-fact, the goal. So first and foremost, you've got to be able to explain what goal you, and we, want for a society and why. Then, understand the how and why capitalism helps with that goal, as well as -and I can't stress this enough- discuss what other tools may be needed to accomplish that goal.
who in the world is wanting a completely socialism-based government?
Also, the issue with welfare at the moment is as soon as you get a job, you're kicked off welfare. You work 40 hour weeks and bring home less money than when you were on welfare. This is why they say welfare is a trap. Why work 40 hours a week killing yourself when you're just going to be penalized for working hard and lose everything? We need a better system, like the UBI, where any effort you put in adds to your bank, rather than penalize you for it. Saves money and promotes people getting jobs and being productive members of society. Seriously, if you want people to get jobs, then the UBI is a good system to look at (look at Kurzgesagt's video)
The US healthcare system is private. it's one of the worst in the world (except for the social-program based one, which is excellent). Our politicians currently work for the private sector in reality, though they're not suppose to. That's literally the problem which needs fixing.
Last edited by osaka35,
Where did you get this info? From Wikipedia? Just to let you know, in case you didn't, you are 100% wrong.
We have people from these socialized healthcare countries coming here for medical procedures because we have the best doctors and they don't have to wait years to have the procedures done.
Super rich people. You have super rich people coming here for medical procedures. We're talking about needing a system which needs to support everyone, not just super wealthy people.
Again, this is profit-driven thinking and not human-driven thinking, which also contributes greatly to corruption among other things.
Last edited by osaka35,
. Poor people in the US already get free or very cheap healthcare. They can either go to an emergency room or to health clinics for minor issues. Both will help them a lot faster than socialized healthcare countries.
If Canada's healthcare is so great, why don't you hear stories of middle class/poor people going over there for health care? Because they don't want to wait to be helped just to be cared for by an underpaid doctor. The only reason anybody would go to Canada is for cheaper prescriptions which is what some elderly people do, but they'll be damned if they would go there for healthcare.
...why do you think health clinics or emergency room visits are cheap or free? Why do you believe they get free or cheap healthcare? Where did you get this information?
American's don't participate in the canadian healthcare system because...they're not canadian. you have to be a canadian citizien/resident (they check your healthcard) or have some other arrangement, otherwise you pay the entirety of the bill.
I lived there for a while. And they complain about the waiting, for sure...but when you explain how the american system works, they get really wide eyes and don't believe you that a system could be that moronic and anti-consumer. The reason they complain because they think there are ways to improve things, not because they think it's inferior to any other system. Seriously, bother asking and talking with a canadian about their healthcare system, and THEN ask them how they think it compares to the american system. Ask any informed canadian, they will tell you all the merits of their system, which far overshadows the annoyances (minus the specialist referrals, which is another ball of wax).
I didn't get that info from Wikipedia, that's how you should know I'm informed.
If you're homeless, you can go to the emergency room or clinic and get free healthcare. They have to assist you but can't charge you if you don't have any way to pay. If you're poor, you get government assistance which subsidizes your care. This is common knowledge.
. If you are an illegal immigrant, you can do the same as homeless people to get free healthcare in the US. Are you saying that Canada won't allow the same for visitors? Hmmm, that shouldn't sound better than our healthcare to any leftist or democrat.
. While you lived there, did you not go to the hospital? If you did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
. I watched the Louder with Crowder episode where he discussed Canadian healthcare. Since he is from Canada, that qualifies as getting info from an informed Canadian.
This is false. It might be true in a few, small, scenarios, like free clinics, probably locally based or hospital based. But not federally, and generally, this information isn't accurate for the majority of people. They will happily bill you if they know who you are. And just because you're poor, you are not automatically subsidized. You have to jump through an insane amount of hoops and hurdles, and that's only if you're not a student or not a lot of other things. Otherwise we wouldn't have homeless folks or struggling students.
...no. this is false. Who is lying to you like this? If I were you, I'd be pretty pissed at them for being so misleading and lying so blatantly.
I was not able to go to the hospital, no. But I accompanied my canadian friends to the ER many times. I've been to the ER in the states as well. Generally, wait times come down to need, and those with the larger need (gunshot wound vs the flu) will be admitted ahead of you. Which is hard to avoid, unless you prefer first-come-first-serve and let the gunshot wound person die while the flu person is seen first. And who the heck would choose options 2, even if option 1 causes annoying wait times?
Louder with Crowder is your source of information? well, that explains why you've got nearly everything backwards and wrong then.
Last edited by osaka35,
The military is basically a huge well-fare program because it operates at state expenses.
Sanders wants to massively cut back on it which is why the elites are so afraid of him.
The American people have to ask themselves what they got out of the Iraq war and why they go into it. A knife needs something to cut. A military stationed everywhere around the world needs something to shoot. The US defence spending has nothing to do with defence.
Sanders wants to massively cut back on it which is why the elites are so afraid of him.
The American people have to ask themselves what they got out of the Iraq war and why they go into it. A knife needs something to cut. A military stationed everywhere around the world needs something to shoot. The US defence spending has nothing to do with defence.
I support socialism, or to be more specific, a moderate approach to capitalism where the whole social well-being is a shared responsibility.
I would like to support this idea out of my pocket. I know that, as it is, I am in a position of privilege, and if I were a stingy bastard I would probably be crying against it, but I consider that improving the social well-being improves my life quality more than holding up to my last cent.
I would like to support this idea out of my pocket. I know that, as it is, I am in a position of privilege, and if I were a stingy bastard I would probably be crying against it, but I consider that improving the social well-being improves my life quality more than holding up to my last cent.
Similar threads
-
The Real Jdbye
*is birb* -
Veho
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
realtimesave:
Nintendo needs to release a new console, switch is getting such shitty little games lately lol it's pathetic -
-
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
well actually
a new console won't do anything right now, because the games are still in development, that's why there are few games being released -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
