<p>^ Agree. Socialism/communism for me doesn’t have that “oh commies will take over us, halp” connotation.</p>
<p>^^ You are right and wrong. Right, in that the definition of Socialism doesn’t include the loss of rights, other than property rights. However, in history Socialism has shown a marked tendancy towards those kinds of abuses. The reasons for that are up for debate, but until they are identified and dealt with I’ll be very reluctant to support any move towards Socialism here in the US.</p>
<p>I know nothing about the economy. My mother majored and my sister majors in economics, and when they try to explain it to me, I fall asleep. But I thought that Communist nations had command economies, which suggests to me that communism goes outside of the economic sphere. Since most modern socialist nations have capitalist economies, overall, does socialism not stretch in the selfsame manner?</p>
<p>^ Not really China and the like are actually best described as “fascist” rather than communist or socialist…</p>
<p>^ I think that’s right. Fascism = the government does whatever it feel is good for the country, rights, principles, etc. be blowed. It’s great as long as benevolent superhuman alien entities are running it…</p>
<p>In histories or well countries that have “adopted” socialist or communist agendas, which I assume are to be like North Korea/China/Soviet Russia, do have marked tendencies towards those kinds of abuses. But I put “adopted” in quotations because what they have adopted isn’t communism or socialists at all. The people in those countries, mainly the working class, are still oppressed by an upper elite. For instance in Soviet Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin was a middle class man who argued that the proletariats (working class) aren’t ready for a revolution and the middle class must do it for them. This pretty much was a philosophy that led people with money to replace people with money. It wasn’t a class struggle in Russia, it was just a monarch being replaced by a totalitarian party. (My Russian history is horrible to be honest)</p>
<p>Nonetheless, today, Russia and China are the most capitalistic country, providing for almost complete laissez-faire economy and preventing worker discontent/uprising through constant growth and censorship (in the case of China). Meanwhile, some would argue that America is very socialist in the fact that we provide public healthcare (in the form of Medicaid/Medicare), public education system (K-university), a welfare system, social security, etc. </p>
<p>Personally, I’m for a regulated capitalism with a bit of socialism thrown in there. Control of business from forming rampant monopolies and government providing aid to those who are disabled/etc. Also, I have not read the healthcare bill yet since I’m studying overseas at the moment (so I don’t know it’s bad as people make it out to be) since I’m in a country (South Korea) that provides “socialized healthcare.” (Honestly, it’s amazing. I can come in anytime I want, barely any waiting, pay around 10$(?) for a check up, get my prescription, and pay like 5$ for bags of medicine for the flu/cold. Yes, it’s so that every time I get a cold, I go to the doctor :P) But from what I have read on NYT (<a href=“How the Health Care Overhaul Could Affect You - Graphic - NYTimes.com”>How the Health Care Overhaul Could Affect You - Graphic - NYTimes.com), this bill seems to regulate the healthcare industry by preventing horrible practices such as denying people for pre-existing conditions, etc.</p>
<p>*As for communism, I’m completely against the idea since (honestly) I’m satisfied with being a middle class American.</p>
<p>^^^ Agreed as well. Modern China is in no way communist anymore. They were when my dad was a kid, but it’s changed a lot since. Primarily, the fascism reins down on any issues involving the government.</p>
<p>^^ Ok, so Soviet Russia/North Korea/China are bad examples. What is a good example? Cuba? I don’t think the “ideal” Socialist state is possible. Not that capitalism is all roses either. The problem is that some people are just plain bad, and most don’t care.</p>
<p>The “ideal” as was envisioned by its proponents does not, has not, and cannot exist on a large scale.</p>
<p>I like how everyone here focused on only contemporary nations. </p>
<p>If you go and look back in history, almost every small society had a “socialism” or “communism” society. It is only in more modern history that socialism has been labeled “evil”. Native American tribes, African tribes, and indigenous peoples all over the world have routinely (and still do) practice communism/socialism in one form or another. </p>
<p>The problem is that most socialist/communist nations have totalitarian governments and they only used promise of social and economic equality to rise to power. In reality, almost none of the so-called communist or socialist nations are actually communist or socialist. They just have that label. </p>
<p>Now, can we look at some nations that are thriving with many, MANY socialist programs. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc are all de facto socialist nations (even though they haven’t declared it) and are some of the top ranked places in the world. But nobody mentions those places when they talk about “OMGZ SOCIALISM! RUNNNNNN!” now do they? ;)</p>
<p>^That is a good point. Socialism works much better when it is slowly voted into being while still being disguised as capitalism. As for the Native Americans and other peoples, weren’t most of them more a paternalistic system, ruled by clans and families? And regardless, that is an entirely differnt kind of socialism, ie socialism enforced by a code of honor and mutual consent, rather than one enforced by a massive government. Whether it worked well or not can be argued, but it’s really irrelevant due to it’s current impossibility.</p>
<p>^ Well there you go again, confusing governing styles with economic systems. First off- First Nations peoples still exist and practice nearly the same economic principles as they did millenia again- ie still socialism (and it’s still working out splendidly for some of them). Secondly, it doesn’t matter WHY it was socialist, it just was. Third, it greatly varied but no- most First Nations peoples were governed by councils. They more closely resembled theologies or were ruled by elders. They were also ruled by women more often that not :).</p>
<p>^ I’m not confusing the government with the economic system, I’m arguing that there is a link between the two. It seems to me that, once you get above the level of small tribes, socialism can’t be maintained without a totalitarian government. It’s one thing to share the common resaurces with the other members of a tribe among tribes, but it’s quite different when you’re talking about millions of people.</p>
<p>^ And yet again, it is done in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc. </p>
<p>Oh and there were many, many very large Native American bands in pre-colonial times. Millions? Ok, not quite, but tens of thousands? Absolutely.</p>
<p>In my opinion, I wouldn’t necessarily say that those European countries you mentioned are pure socialist. They still are relatively free-market countries simply with many more socialist programs. I think it’s known as the Scandinavian model…
Furthermore, I feel that socialism is much more difficult and less successful in a larger and economically more complex nation (hence why we’ve only seen it in small nations/tribes).
Just my .02</p>
<p>^I agree. But really, I’m not going to get stuck defending the capitalism against socialism. My own views are pretty much that all power will eventually be abused, so you should be very careful when giveing the government any kind of power.</p>
<p>In socialism the people are supposed to have more power and because everyone is involved in government then the government has more power.</p>
<p>Usually it doesn’t work and a dictator takes control and takes away civil liberties.</p>
<p>Gotta love how the people that were perfectly fine with phone tapping and all the other parts of the PATRIOT Act are upset about the possibility of dictatorship based on health care insurance reform.</p>
<p>^ I agree.</p>
<p>There are so many misconceptions in this thread that it is impossible to count all of them. I’ll reply again a bit later but for one, while at the grassroots level some First Nations/Native communities may apply socialist principles, it is impossible to say that these are “socialist communities” because capitalist property relationships are omnipresent and the determining factor basically everywhere in the world. </p>
<p>Socialism is NOT large government programs. That is sometimes a component, but not all socialists agree on using the state to advance working class interests. Socialism is worker’s control and breaking down capitalist property relations. Another thing to consider is that some leftists draw a distinction between socialism and communism, arguing that socialism is a precursor to communism as the working class seizes power and transforms society (i.e., the working class uses the state to defeat capitalism), but Marx did not make this distinction. Communism is a stateless, classless society, and its not about “dreamy-eyed idealism” or “going against human nature.”</p>