Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

In 2 words, government control.

There are many nice things about socialism, but they are not worth the price of the Government being all up everybody's business and the insanely high taxes.

We can have some of the better bits of Socialism but only if we are very careful it doesn't lead to other things. That is why anything being proposed that involves more government oversight needs to be thoroughly examined, and most of the time its not going to be worth it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My point is that a mix of socialism and capitalism works just fine.

You mean like what we already have?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

In 2 words, government control.

There are many nice things about socialism, but they are not worth the price of the Government being all up everybody's business and the insanely high taxes.

We can have some of the better bits of Socialism but only if we are very careful it doesn't lead to other things. That is why anything being proposed that involves more government oversight needs to be thoroughly examined, and most of the time its not going to be worth it.

Real Socialism does not involve stupid amounts of GOVT control like many think. IT mostly involves government programs to help people suceed, where the need of high txes come in. And socialism mostly involves cooperative control of wealth and capital. Or is capitilism better where those on top squash the little guys?

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My point is that a mix of socialism and capitalism works just fine.

You mean like what we already have?

You... you get out of here with your common sense! This is a thread where we take any flimsy pretense we can to mention how awful Obama is!' For example, the President is going to meet with the Pope in March - why is he excluding Israel yet again? Why is he so deeply anti-semitic?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Real Socialism does not involve stupid amounts of GOVT control like many think.

Are you here all week?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Real Socialism does not involve stupid amounts of GOVT control like many think. IT mostly involves government programs to help people suceed, where the need of high txes come in. And socialism mostly involves cooperative control of wealth and capital. Or is capitilism better where those on top squash the little guys?

The 2 bolded statements are contradictory.

You cannot have control of wealth and capital without "stupid amounts of government control".

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

Go to the DMV. You'll understand.

Yes, when the populace itself is given control of it. And lets say it does. What is wrng with government controlling wealth to help people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

Go to the DMV. You'll understand.

I like the DMV, it gives me time to read and poke fun at other people

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

Go to the DMV. You'll understand.

So ITT, Frazzled clearly doesn't like socialism in principle - yes? But also wants to see government controlled healthcare; if not the NHS than something close to it. See, I agree with that latter bit, but I'm not seeing how those two concepts reconcile for you.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

Go to the DMV. You'll understand.

So ITT, Frazzled clearly doesn't like socialism in principle - yes? But also wants to see government controlled healthcare; if not the NHS than something close to it. See, I agree with that latter bit, but I'm not seeing how those two concepts reconcile for you.

First... let's define Socialism.

Apparently it has different meaning to different people.

I've always stated that the angst and acrimony of socialism is over by HOW MUCH socialsm we want to have.

Yes, which is why it's kinda dumb to always be talking about how socialism is bad in these fora. It's like saying water is bad because if you drink enough of it, you die.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

Go to the DMV. You'll understand.

So ITT, Frazzled clearly doesn't like socialism in principle - yes? But also wants to see government controlled healthcare; if not the NHS than something close to it. See, I agree with that latter bit, but I'm not seeing how those two concepts reconcile for you.

"My hopocrisy knows no bounds."
-Doc Holliday.

 whembly wrote:

First... let's define Socialism.

Apparently it has different meaning to different people.

Yeah, even within the academy nailing down an all encompassing definition of the term is basically impossible (at least outside the field of economics). Though, in contemporary discourse, its basically synonymous with any government program which benefits the impoverished, or places a greater burden on the wealthy.

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My point is that a mix of socialism and capitalism works just fine.

You mean like what we already have?

Yes, exactly. We are more capitalist than most European countries, and European countries are more socialist. I just was responding to the statement that socialism was bad.

Back to the OP*:
‘I wouldn’t let my son be an ambassador under you.’

*bam... Bengahzi'ed, it's been Zimmerman'ed already... what's next?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Tell that to most of Europe.

Um, I don't think there's been a any socialist nation in Europe since 1992, just because something is more left leaning than the US does not automatically make it socialism that be like saying any right ring policy is fascist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

First... let's define Socialism.

Apparently it has different meaning to different people.

Yeah, even within the academy nailing down an all encompassing definition of the term is basically impossible (at least outside the field of economics). Though, in contemporary discourse, its basically synonymous with any government program which benefits the impoverished, or places a greater burden on the wealthy.

I think a lot of the problem that comes from people not knowing the difference between social democracy (Scandinavia, NDP, Labour Party, etc) and socialism (at least under the Marxist definition).

I don't see how Obama making a statement about not letting his imaginary boy play football is bad? American football is fantastic, but it's been proven to damage the brain and even leads to an increase it the chance of players committing suicide.

Then again I'm not from America so it's probably why my eyes aren't clouded with hate over your current president Just remember, that no matter how bad your president may seem, at least yours didn't leave his 8 year old daughter in a pub....

Just remember, that no matter how bad your president may seem, at least yours didn't leave his 8 year old daughter in a pub....

Que?

"Call me Dave"-id Cameron went to his local pub for Sunday lunch and having filled up on roast beef and beer went home leaving his daughter behind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18391663

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18401335 Even got a video interview for you!

Edited, sniped

OK then. Thats different.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Tell that to most of Europe.

Um, I don't think there's been a any socialist nation in Europe since 1992, just because something is more left leaning than the US does not automatically make it socialism that be like saying any right ring policy is fascist.

They are not completely socialist, but a capitalist-socialist mix. I said that in my later comments. I'm not saying that anything vaguely left wing is socialist, it's just that most European nations are more socialist, and less capitalist, than america. They have stuff like universal healthcare, college, ect. which america does not.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Tell that to most of Europe.

Um, I don't think there's been a any socialist nation in Europe since 1992, just because something is more left leaning than the US does not automatically make it socialism that be like saying any right ring policy is fascist.

They are not completely socialist, but a capitalist-socialist mix. I said that in my later comments. I'm not saying that anything vaguely left wing is socialist, it's just that most European nations are more socialist, and less capitalist, than america. They have stuff like universal healthcare, college, ect. which america does not.

OK that makes more sense, but those are qualities you could use to describe Social Democracy (maybe even some interpretations of Liberalism) they aren't ideas that are just exclusive to Socialism.

 whembly wrote:
So?

Must we emulate the Europeans all the time?

You don't, and that's a good thing. But when people talk about how socialism is such an awful thing... and there's a bunch of countries that make up most of Europe having a very nice time of it with systems of government with strong socialist elements, it makes those claims about how socialism is so bad to look pretty silly. Much like if someone was carrying on about how capitalism produced a horrible wasteland, and you'd reply 'actually here in the US its working pretty decently.'

As you said later, it's a spectrum between socialism and capitalism. I'd add to that that each country ought to find it's own preferred balance between the two elements, and decide that balance based on actual real world policy decisions 'should we ensure free high quality education for all children?', 'should we reduce the tax burden by scaling back welfare benefits?'... those kinds of questions. Just lumping stuff in to hopelessly vague concepts like capitalism and socialism quickly reaches a point where it simply isn't useful anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I hear alot about socialism being bad, but what may I ask is bad about it?

Basically it's just a case of people using the very loose definitions of politics to try and score political points. Thing is, the USSR was a socialist state, says it right there in the name United Soviet Socialist Republic, and that was a terrible socialist system. But there's also lots of things that are also socialist that are nothing like Socialist Russia - the US is in fact a socialist system, albeit one with a heavy emphasis on capitalism.

But lots of people don't really like recognising the nuances of the real world, they like villifying something and then attacking it whether it makes sense to do so or not. So they deliberately group all possible kinds of socialism together and then pretend they're all as horrible as Soviet Russia.