Socialism could work in the US

[ChaosFoot]

Now hear me out here, the socialist system CAN work in the US, cuz socialism is simply democracy, but the gov't owns business, think of it, we still vote for our officials, we still have all freedoms, but also, business abuses are at a minimum cuz industry is regulated, taxes are lower since the gov't makes money from business, and there are no special interests for elected officials to appeal to, lowerin the corruption in gov't. whaddya think? suggestions? gripes? death threats?

[Stresskillingme]

We Canadian do a split system, you should try.

[subpar]

I think taxes are HIGHER in socialist countries, actually, but there are benefits.

[SIG-1]

Not sure on this one........ come back in a few day's

[ChaosFoot]

At 9/15/04 06:09 PM, ShadowFox10 wrote: Not sure on this one........ come back in a few day's

and whaddya mean by that? are you sayin im banned? whats goin on? plz answer me im afraid! but whaddya mean?

[FatherVenom]

Currently too many people associate socialism with communism. Public opinion would currently kill socialism in this country.

[Demosthenez]

Dude, true socialism would never work in the US. It goes against everything capatilism stands for. You think business corruption would lessen? Yeah thats true because there would be no businesses, only the goverment. Thats why socialism controls all aspects of the country.

If you were making the case for a Canadian or British like system, that would be different, but this is absolutley retarted. You cant have free enterprise and complete goverment control in the same kind of system.

And maybe Im wrong, but doesnt democracy only have elected officals? Wouldnt true socialism have everyone ruling together and no single group or person in charge?

[ChaosFoot]

im not sayin its true socialism, im sayin its kind of a split, there would be limited free enterprise, as in businesses would have non-gov't employees all the way up until the executive management (the CEO's would be gov't endorsed and employed), but all profit from said corporations and businesses would go to the gov't, but they would be self sufficient in that they would use revenue to cover there own expenses, but give all profit to gov't, this gov't revenue would help lower taxes, there would still be public property and more civil liberties for the people (limited drug legality) and religion would be the only major change, as in religion doesnt have tax breaks like it does now, if a church wants to keep going on existing, it must pay taxes and be recognized by the gov't, but by no means endorsed, there would still be elections and the democratic process, so in summary THIS IS NOT TRUE SOCIALISM, it is a kind of hybrid

[RedSkunk]

I don't see why churches would need to pay taxes all of a sudden.

[SIG-1]

At 9/15/04 06:12 PM, ChaosFoot wrote: and whaddya mean by that? are you sayin im banned? whats goin on? plz answer me im afraid! but whaddya mean?

no i just don't know so slow down, ur not being banned

[ChaosFoot]

At 9/15/04 06:29 PM, red_skunk wrote: I don't see why churches would need to pay taxes all of a sudden.

because this would be a truly secular gov't the current gov't gives special consideration to the church and all other religions by keepin them out of taxes, here churches are recognized as the same types of entities as any other groups (unions, businesses, councils), therefore equality by all groups

[AapoJoki]

Best. Idea. Ever.

Not only could socialism work in USA, but there is definately need for it too in a country like USA, where there are a lot of poor people, but also people with billions of dollars property. Too bad neither of the two big parties are very left-winged. I think Democrats qualify as a "centrist" party.

[Demosthenez]

Churches and sunagogues and mosques do a lot of good work in the world, probably more than the rest of the charities combined, so I can see how the tax breaks make sense and are good. Plus they build morals, which almost all Americans lack entirely, which is sad in itself.

Why would business want to try hard if all profits go to the goverment? They get paid, so no reason ot try hard. It also would destroy free enterprise, because the goverment would decide what business would do what job, eliminating bidding wars and lower prices for goods. If the CEO's were held more accountable for their business practices tho, like shipping jobs overseas and tax evasion, that would be a better idea. I think the idea is not to recreate the system, but only to reform and make the businesses more accountable from everything that they pollute to the taxes they dodge, to the huge sums of money they are guaranteed even if the company tanks.

The reason socialism wont work in a sentence: People dont work for other people, only themselves and their family. Sad as it is, its human nature and how I would feel if what I may do was limited by the goverment.

[Elfer]

At 9/15/04 06:13 PM, FatherVenom wrote: Currently too many people associate socialism with communism. Public opinion would currently kill socialism in this country.

Socialism and communism are pretty much the same thing.

Too many people associate communism with fascism.

[MoralLibertarian]

No. Regulating business and economy is a bad idea. I think the larger the government gets, the more inefficient and problematic it gets, and the more control it has over you. Socialism as an ideology is completely against the AMerican philosophy of "equality of opportunity, not results."

[AapoJoki]

At 9/15/04 07:03 PM, Rooster349 wrote: No. Regulating business and economy is a bad idea. I think the larger the government gets, the more inefficient and problematic it gets

The larger the corporations get, the more the world will revolve around money and people will have to get their everyday needs from huge corporations, who don't care about their wellfare unless they get their money.

And governments that control businesses and other services function perfectly. Take any Scandinavian country, for instance. Each of them has a government that provides citizens all the services they need - not only healthcare and education - but the mass transit systems, children's daycare and lots of other services too. And the system really works. However, the problem is in Finland, for example, that a lot of these services are being privatized and people with limited resources could have some trouble getting the services they need in the future.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/15/04 07:14 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote:

At 9/15/04 07:03 PM, Rooster349 wrote: No. Regulating business and economy is a bad idea. I think the larger the government gets, the more inefficient and problematic it gets

The larger the corporations get, the more the world will revolve around money and people will have to get their everyday needs from huge corporations, who don't care about their wellfare unless they get their money.

And governments that control businesses and other services function perfectly. Take any Scandinavian country, for instance. Each of them has a government that provides citizens all the services they need - not only healthcare and education - but the mass transit systems, children's daycare and lots of other services too. And the system really works. However, the problem is in Finland, for example, that a lot of these services are being privatized and people with limited resources could have some trouble getting the services they need in the future.

Yeah, and thats why everyone is trying to emigrate to Norway... And they are SUCH superpowers in the world its ridiculous. If you ever want your country to be a bitch and 2nd class to every other country, great idea. I mean, Syria could roll through Scandnavia and take it over. What are they gonna do anyway, beat them back with their ski polls?

[Elfer]

Actually, if I remember correctly, a while back Norway was rated the best country IN THE WORLD to live in.

I think Bangladesh came last.

What's more important, being a superpower, or having happy citizens who live well?

[Kilrathi827]

Ok. Lets look here. All the "socialist" countries on the face of the planet today are also among the smaller countries in the American/European bloc. Scandinavia, England, (hell for that matter, MOST of Europe could probably be classified as socialist to some degree or another....) all have populations that come no where NEAR the population of the United States. Yes, in a smaller system, socialism can work. But in the United States no chance. There are simply too many people for it to work, without it costing exorbitant sums of money. And Im sorry, the government already takes way too much of my paycheck, I sure as hell don't want to give any more of it away.

And oh, by the way, there is a really good reason that in the minds of most Americans socialism is equated with Communism. It was called the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Nothing big, just a giant superpower who just happend to be the worlds premier experiment in COMMUNISM for over 50 years and ultimately failed. And, oh yeah, our mortal enemy for those 50 years.

[RedSkunk]

I don't know about that. India has exhibited more socialist tendencies throughout the years...

[MrNaPaLm32]

just to let you people know.

Due to the fact that communism just a more radical form of socialism. communism never worked because the system depends on human trust of the currency(im not 100% sure of this but im pretty sure. History Class.) so to keep colonies alive you have to just funnel money to keep the colonises socialist. so if September 11th happened when if we were a socialist country we wud be screwed.

PS: Most americans hate taxes for some apparent reason i dont understand cuz they are low right now. so there is another reason.

[XcakerX]

after seeing what happens when industry and goverment get in bed with eachother durring the enron scandal, do we really want them legally merged???

Do we really want the goverment running everything. Now think about it for a second. the countries largest buerocracy running basic things, making them horrible innefffiant, and costing twice if not three times what they should due to waste.

Socialism could work in America could work, just like it could work anywhere else. It just couldn't work well.

Instead of trying to be some idealist hippie shit-head, I try to think of things that will really help real people who actuall try. Socialism in all practicaly will help no one.

[XcakerX]

At 9/15/04 06:14 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Dude, true socialism would never work in the US. It goes against everything capatilism stands for.

dude, I think he is seriously advocating the demise of capitalism.

[fli]

Our mixed-Capitalism economy is the reason why where at this level.

Socialist government, which tries to equalize people, contradicts with how work as an economy, which naturally puts people into income classes (lower class, middle class, higher class) because inorder for Capitalism to work-- somebody has to be top, somebody has to be bottom...

What I believe in is to lower the taxes on the lower and middle class, and have the higher class pay more taxes. Right now, it's vise versa, and very unfair.

[Hedonist-Hammurabi]

I think that the main reason that socialism won't work in the United States is because of culture. Americans have the most capitalist culture on Earth. The lower-classes in the USA may suffer a lot, but at the same time, they still accept capitalism and condemn socialism. Sadly, it's part of our culture. Free enterprise! Many Americans accept corporate oppression and are even proud of it.

One of the crucial reasons for the acceptance of corporate oppression in the USA is that the lower-classes are indoctrinated with the view that THEY someday might become rich. Thus, Americans accept capitalism because there are no legal restrictions on how much they can profit at the expense of others (unlike a socialist system). But what the majority of Americans fail to realize is that the chances of them becoming rich is extremely small. People who try to become rich will most likely become poorer in the process.

But it's nearly impossible change the backbone of a nation's culture in any significant way. In fact, it is likely that if our government decided to become socialist, not even the lower-classes (that is, the classes that would benefit most from a socialist system) would accept it. Capitalism and free enterprise are simply too ingrained in our culture to permit a socialist government to work.

[PoptartKing]

At 9/15/04 06:14 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And maybe Im wrong, but doesnt democracy only have elected officals? Wouldnt true socialism have everyone ruling together and no single group or person in charge?

Huh//
Dude, socialism is an economic system. Whether it is a dictatorship or a representative democracy or a pure democracy is entirely disconnected. I'm a social democrat, advocating buisiness reform and surgical removal of corruption in out elected officials.

[Demosthenez]

Hey, my bad. Thats why I said I wasnt sure. But I still think economic systems and political systems walk hand in hand and you cant have one without the other.

Yah, and maybe Norway is the highest rated country to live in, but by who? That would be enlightening. And I would still much rather live in America. And the reason its nice to be a powerful country, is so you dont get rolled over by everyone else. And life=competition. So what are the Norwegians living?

And just like someone else pointed out, larger the system, the more things tend towards disorder. If it could work tho, I still would despise it.