Socialism vs Capitalism

#53
#53
volinbham said:
SIAP but some clarification points:

1. Healthcare is not already socialized. Health insurance (paying for HC) is partially socialized. Even single payer is not the same as socialized HC. However, it is highly regulated (both HC and HI).

2. Retirement is somewhat socialized - each person (almost all) pay directly into the system. Payouts are not one-to-one but it's more akin to subsidized retirement for some and under paid retirement for others.

3. K-12 education is probably the most socialistic thing we do. (All contribute, government employees design and deliver).

A key aspect for me is the view of people as individual actors vs a collective. We still have a capitalism base with a view of a person as an individual and strong property rights. We've added some socialistic safety net provisions (which makes sense to me). To the point of the OP are we on an inevitable march towards socialism? We've certainly added more socialistic programs.

A final note on the Euro experience - one reason it may be more popular there is the homogeneity of the country populations. As you add more diversity and have less shared values as a society the resentment of social programs grows. We are seeing this now as Europe went for diversity through immigration without demands for assimilation. I predict you'll see increasing questioning of the social programs there.
Click to expand...

There’s a reason Europe was basically at war nonstop until 1945. Even in recent history there have been flare ups in the balkans, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, etc. The continent has largely segregated itself by ethnic and religious lines. I agree that the introduction of socialistic policies is a much easier pill to swallow when you believe it’s helping the “right people” aka your people. And that the recent flood of immigration from populations diametrically opposite the majority has caused many in those countries to question the aplication and use of those programs now.
 
#54
#54
VolFaninFla said:
I know that...just messing with you, hence the smiley face.
It is actually very refreshing to read a good discussion with a civil exchange of ideas.



Originally Posted by VolFaninFla View Post
I was reading this thread and was happily amazed that posters had responded to each other without derision or name calling. There was actual dialogue.
Then I read your response.
Click to expand...
I misunderstood the smiley face. I thought it had its tongue out, and was giving me the raspberries. Sorry.
 
#55
#55
volinbham said:
SIAP but some clarification points:

1. Healthcare is not already socialized. Health insurance (paying for HC) is partially socialized. Even single payer is not the same as socialized HC. However, it is highly regulated (both HC and HI).

2. Retirement is somewhat socialized - each person (almost all) pay directly into the system. Payouts are not one-to-one but it's more akin to subsidized retirement for some and under paid retirement for others.

3. K-12 education is probably the most socialistic thing we do. (All contribute, government employees design and deliver).

A key aspect for me is the view of people as individual actors vs a collective. We still have a capitalism base with a view of a person as an individual and strong property rights. We've added some socialistic safety net provisions (which makes sense to me). To the point of the OP are we on an inevitable march towards socialism? We've certainly added more socialistic programs.

A final note on the Euro experience - one reason it may be more popular there is the homogeneity of the country populations. As you add more diversity and have less shared values as a society the resentment of social programs grows. We are seeing this now as Europe went for diversity through immigration without demands for assimilation. I predict you'll see increasing questioning of the social programs there.
Click to expand...

1. Good point, what we are seeing now is just HI not HC in general. but now that they are involved it won't be too much longer until HC is actually socialized. It will save people money, you will keep your doctor, and people will no longer die in the streets.

2. I would argue the age requirements do push it more to socialized than subsidized. I know you can retire early and hit up SS for less than the total. but the government has set the requirements, both in how much you put in, and take out; but also when you can take it out. I don't know of a true socialized retirement as an example to compare but we seem to be leaning more that way than not.
 
#56
#56
My point on retirement (SS) is that it is different than a guaranteed income that simply comes from the general revenue of the government. In theory, people contribute directly to their own SS but the payout is normalized. It's like a pension.

I would think of true socialized retirement as not have a FICA equivalent but it's a small point in the larger picture.
 
#57
#57
volinbham said:
My point on retirement (SS) is that it is different than a guaranteed income that simply comes from the general revenue of the government. In theory, people contribute directly to their own SS but the payout is normalized. It's like a pension.

I would think of true socialized retirement as not have a FICA equivalent but it's a small point in the larger picture.
Click to expand...

I would say SS is heavily socialized. You average $100k in earnings, I average $20k in earnings, and we both get a similar payout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
DancingOutlaw said:
I would say SS is heavily socialized. You average $100k in earnings, I average $20k in earnings, and we both get a similar payout.
Click to expand...

It's worse. He probably has other retirement income that triggers the limit, and he has to pay income tax on his SS payout. So he subsidized yours and then gets taxed on top of it.
 
#59
#59
Social security is the worst program imaginable. Only a liberal could be dumb enough to support a regressive tax rate.
 
#61
#61
Wafflestomper said:
Someone who pays 10x more taxes than me also benefits from the military the same as I do. Is the military heavily socialized too?
Click to expand...

Chances are he's got more in the way of assets to protect. Could be his hide is worth more to an enemy. Could be he is invested in companies selling to the military and sees more return on his investment. Two people may benefit in significantly different ways and to significantly different degrees.
 
#62
#62
AM64 said:
Chances are he's got more in the way of assets to protect. Could be his hide is worth more to an enemy. Could be he is invested in companies selling to the military and sees more return on his investment. Two people may benefit in significantly different ways and to significantly different degrees.
Click to expand...

Does the government take all of this into account when they tax you, or do they still charge you the same no matter how much you value the service they provide?
 
#63
#63
Wafflestomper said:
Does the government take all of this into account when they tax you, or do they still charge you the same no matter how much you value the service they provide?
Click to expand...

Nope, it's an income tax and not a usage tax. If you want to say people can benefit unequally, that's fine. But perhaps someone else owns or is invested in a ship passing through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden to use the Suez Canal. The military cost to benefit ratio may well be more in his favor than yours.

If you want to call it "socialized" that's fine, but I'll go with "simplified" because I'd really hate to see how much government it would take to assess usage fees and tax us accordingly.
 
#64
#64
AM64 said:
Nope, it's an income tax and not a usage tax. If you want to say people can benefit unequally, that's fine. But perhaps someone else owns or is invested in a ship passing through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden to use the Suez Canal. The military cost to benefit ratio may well be more in his favor than yours.

If you want to call it "socialized" that's fine, but I'll go with "simplified" because I'd really hate to see how much government it would take to assess usage fees and tax us accordingly.
Click to expand...

"Simplified" healthcare. Sounds good, comrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
MT LeConte said:
It's not a matter of Socialism vs. Capitalism. It's a matter of how much Socialism and how much Capitalism. Unbridled Capitalism always ends up like a game of monopoly and fails all but a few. Unbridled Socialism fails because it stifles incentive and eliminates competition.

Neither systems works exclusively.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between public/private partnerships and socialism. Govt and our taxes should provide the pathway for infrastructure, common defense, etc.. That's not socialism by definition. We have accelerated into Soviet style socialism in other areas with "guaranteeing" everyone's "needs" be met via a confiscatory tax policy, hyper regulation and behemoth social programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
LouderVol said:
simplified without the government. Health insurance was an industry that existed outside the government for the longest of times. The military? not so much.
Click to expand...

The point is that "socialized healthcare" (to use the parlance of our times) is quite analogous to the military in a number of ways, yet the military is not considered a socialist program. Appealing to the historicity of the military as a government-run program doesn't address this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
Wafflestomper said:
The point is that "socialized healthcare" (to use the parlance of our times) is quite analogous to the military in a number of ways, yet the military is not considered a socialist program. Appealing to the historicity of the military as a government-run program doesn't address this.
Click to expand...

you have it backwards. My argument was that the military is THE socialist program, while health care(insurance) doesn't need to be. and it depends on how you are taking the word "socialism" is it just the pure definition, or are we talking the ideology here. I would say it makes a big difference in the two.

what are the analogies between the two? besides the government ran/provided aspect I don't see a connection.
 
#69
#69
LouderVol said:
you have it backwards. My argument was that the military is THE socialist program, while health care(insurance) doesn't need to be. and it depends on how you are taking the word "socialism" is it just the pure definition, or are we talking the ideology here. I would say it makes a big difference in the two.

what are the analogies between the two? besides the government ran/provided aspect I don't see a connection.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.

It's hard to pin down the most common usage of the word "socialism" today because it's quite overused. Most people complaining about "socialized healthcare" seem to have a problem with subsidizing someone else's healthcare. This is similar to feelings about other social programs (e.g. welfare, food stamps) where many people receive more than they contribute.

That's one way it's similar to the military (some people make practically no contribution, yet they benefit the same as most others), although you could make a decent argument that very few people actually benefit from most military operations.

I would say, given a traditional view of socialism, that neither the military nor a single-payer-type healthcare system are truly socialist. The military weapons are not really produced by government entities; similarly, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are not government-run.
 
#70
#70
Vol737 said:
There's a difference between public/private partnerships and socialism. Govt and our taxes should provide the pathway for infrastructure, common defense, etc.. That's not socialism by definition. We have accelerated into Soviet style socialism in other areas with "guaranteeing" everyone's "needs" be met via a confiscatory tax policy, hyper regulation and behemoth social programs.
Click to expand...


Confiscatory tax policy? American taxes as a percentage of GDP are the 4th lowest of the 34 OECD countries. So this notion that we are taxed oppressively is the usual right-wing nonsense from neanderthals who think we can have a cohesive, well-functioning country without taxes.

Hyper-regulation? More nonsense. Right-wingers complain about taxes and regulation--that is their schtick; it's what they've talked about in every election for the last 50 years. Regulations serve important purposes. We suffered through a 7-year recession because of a lack of regulation in the financial industry, so spare us the claptrap about regulations. Big business does not like regulation because it interferes--ever so slightly--with the ability of corporate executives to stuff big bonuses in their bank accounts. Notice how rich businessmen, running behemoth companies, complain about regulation. If our regulations were really onerous, their companies/industries wouldn't be so successful in the first place. And notice how we never hear anything specific about a regulation hurting the economy--because they don't. Regulations and taxes are just rote blather from conservatives.

As for social programs, they support the poor and the elderly--yes, how terrible! I want you, when you get old, if you are not old now, to pay for all your health care treatment yourself--no Medicare. Enjoy. Without our social programs, the country would be very unstable--a fact lost on conservatives. If right-wingers had their way, America would turn into a Latin American country where the wealthy live in walled compounds with armed guards to keep the angry masses at bay. In short, conservatives are always complaining about nothing, really. It's like conservatives like to burble about the government encroaching on their "freedoms"--except that they can't ever identify what those encroachments are, because they don't exist. Taxes and regulations are what separate well-functioning, advanced societies from chaotic, badly functioning countries. Fact. But of course, a lot of conservatives just want to live in the woods in rural America, in their $20K houses with four cars in the front yard, and not have to deal with society. Tough luck.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
LouderVol said:
what you are missing is that these countries were doing just fine before they became socialist democracies. Its also funny that you only mention the rich socialist democracies and none of the poor ones that have failed. Behind your rose tinted glasses you are also ignoring how socialism has been used negatively. WWII.

the Nazis were National Socialists, Fascism just defines how the government operated their socialist programs. Mussolini's government also falls under this umbrella. If capitalism is responsible for slavery socialism has to take the Nazis.
Click to expand...


Socialism is a leftist philosophy. Fascism is a far-right wing philosophy. There has long been talk of a "third way"--a hybrid of socialism and capitalism, which is what, effectively, as lot of European countries have, or close to it. The notion that business and the free-market will promote the well-being of all Americans has been proved to be a massive fallacy. The vast majority of business owners/executives want to pay workers as little as possible so they can stuff as much money as possible into their own bank accounts. Greed is the defining motif of capitalism--and it involves screwing most of the people who do most of the work. That is why unions were needed and created in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#72
#72
armchair said:
Confiscatory tax policy? American taxes as a percentage of GDP are the 4th lowest of the 34 OECD countries. So this notion that we are taxed oppressively is the usual right-wing nonsense from neanderthals who think we can have a cohesive, well-functioning country without taxes.

Hyper-regulation? More nonsense. Right-wingers complain about taxes and regulation--that is their schtick; it's what they've talked about in every election for the last 50 years. Regulations serve important purposes. We suffered through a 7-year recession because of a lack of regulation in the financial industry, so spare us the claptrap about regulations. Big business does not like regulation because it interferes--ever so slightly--with the ability of corporate executives to stuff big bonuses in their bank accounts. Notice how rich businessmen, running behemoth companies, complain about regulation. If our regulations were really onerous, their companies/industries wouldn't be so successful in the first place. And notice how we never hear anything specific about a regulation hurting the economy--because they don't. Regulations and taxes are just rote blather from conservatives.

As for social programs, they support the poor and the elderly--yes, how terrible! I want you, when you get old, if you are not old now, to pay for all your health care treatment yourself--no Medicare. Enjoy. Without our social programs, the country would be very unstable--a fact lost on conservatives. If right-wingers had their way, America would turn into a Latin American country where the wealthy live in walled compounds with armed guards to keep the angry masses at bay. In short, conservatives are always complaining about nothing, really. It's like conservatives like to burble about the government encroaching on their "freedoms"--except that they can't ever identify what those encroachments are, because they don't exist. Taxes and regulations are what separate well-functioning, advanced societies from chaotic, badly functioning countries. Fact. But of course, a lot of conservatives just want to live in the woods in rural America, in their $20K houses with four cars in the front yard, and not have to deal with society. Tough luck.
Click to expand...

Curious what you do for employment. It’s certainly nothing involving a business more complicated than a lemonade stand.

And it’s sad you think Americans need the government for retirement and healthcare. Some of us are doing just fine thanks.
 
#73
#73
armchair said:
Socialism is a leftist philosophy. Fascism is a far-right wing philosophy. There has long been talk of a "third way"--a hybrid of socialism and capitalism, which is what, effectively, as lot of European countries have, or close to it. The notion that business and the free-market will promote the well-being of all Americans has been proved to be a massive fallacy. The vast majority of business owners/executives want to pay workers as little as possible so they can stuff as much money as possible into their own bank accounts. Greed is the defining motif of capitalism--and it involves screwing most of the people who do most of the work. That is why unions were needed and created in the first place.
Click to expand...
How are you able to armchair QB during Saturdays with that absolutely wrong and mentally deficient thought process?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
DancingOutlaw said:
Curious what you do for employment. It’s certainly nothing involving a business more complicated than a lemonade stand.

And it’s sad you think Americans need the government for retirement and healthcare. Some of us are doing just fine thanks.
Click to expand...

100 pesos he is on disability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
armchair said:
Socialism is a leftist philosophy. Fascism is a far-right wing philosophy. There has long been talk of a "third way"--a hybrid of socialism and capitalism, which is what, effectively, as lot of European countries have, or close to it. The notion that business and the free-market will promote the well-being of all Americans has been proved to be a massive fallacy. The vast majority of business owners/executives want to pay workers as little as possible so they can stuff as much money as possible into their own bank accounts. Greed is the defining motif of capitalism--and it involves screwing most of the people who do most of the work. That is why unions were needed and created in the first place.
Click to expand...

thats what I am talking about with Wafflestomper. there are socialized programs which may fall in the middle. but socialism as far as the government taking over industries and the such is leftist. Might want to look into Volkswagen, even just the name "people's car" is an example of how socialized the Nazis were. Health care came vastly under government control, how else would they have gotten ahold of all the undesirables?

Volkswagen is founded - May 28, 1937 - HISTORY.com
On this day in 1937, the government of Germany–then under the control of Adolf Hitler of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party–forms a new state-owned automobile company, then known as Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des Deutschen Volkswagens mbH. Later that year, it was renamed simply Volkswagenwerk, or “The People’s Car Company.”
Click to expand...

if you want more examples of how close the Nazis and Soviets were look at Spain, there was a whole civil war after those two pushed out the old central government. really the only difference between the two was how the governments came to power and what they based their power on. Fascism was more tied to an idea, socialism is supposed to be tied to the people. but it rarely works out that way.

Socialism just puts more power into fewer hands. hardly sounds ideal to me, and it never works out for the people, how could it?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top