What's the deal with socialism?

[psionl0]

If you define capitalism/socialism/communism by the extent with which the government is involved in the economy then socialism falls somewhere between capitalism and communism but leaning more towards the communistic ideal.

Socialist experiments in the early 20th century tended to be unsuccessful in that public servants were no match for wily businessmen working in their own interests. Government run businesses usually needed a legislative stick to survive. However, the biggest turn off from socialism was the Soviet Union after World War II. Stories of the oppressive tactics of the Soviet government were legendary during that time.

Regardless of their posturings, most politicians are at heart socialists since they want to run an all powerful government.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Regardless of their posturings, most politicians are at heart socialists since they want to run an all powerful government.

No they don't. Most politicians want the power to be theirs, personally, and with their party, not shared out among the entire government.

 

[Craig B]

I think most capitalists expect to pay reasonable taxes.

I wish they not merely expected it, but didn't spend much of their time trying to avoid it. Even large respected corporations are in that game.

 

[Beerina]

So are you saying that you are willing and able to amass your own private security force to protect America's interests (or at least your own) against thieves and invaders? Like, without government use of anyone else's redistributed wealth? Because the way we do it currently, isn't that a socialism success story?

ETA: That sounded overly troll-ish. I'm really just trying to understand what people think of and don't think of as socialism.

Well, let me start by saying I categorically reject the default position that some take that, if government does it, yey socialism chalks one up for it's side!

Freedom-based capitalism, and anything along the lines of classical liberalism or libertarianism, presumes a government with sufficient power to protect your rights to life, liberty, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness.

This thus includes things like police and armies, and perhaps even some regulatory agencies to address pollution (though I think all regulations should be directly voted on by elected officials -- if you can go to jail for words out of some guy's mouth, it had better be a bunch of elected officials, not a "wonk" in an office somewhere.)

In a less libertarian sensibility, additional things like roads and a safety net might additionally be paid for via government.

The silliness comes in when people like Obama, or, most recently, Hillary, yabber on that these things are the dog wagging the tail of capitalism, the "you didn't build that" attitude, when in fact, it's the other way around -- this magnificent wealth engine demands certain services (say) that help it run better. The services are the servants of it, not the masters of it.

The idea that, because you hire police to protect your factories and farms from looters so you can develop and sell your products for the benefit of all, therefore this is all somehow a product of the police force, AKA the Obama-Hillary Thesis, is just asinine.

 

[psionl0]

No they don't. Most politicians want the power to be theirs, personally, and with their party, not shared out among the entire government.

That doesn't contradict me as much as you think it does.

" .................... they want to run an all powerful government".

 

[Francesca R]

The idea that, because you hire police to protect your factories and farms from looters so you can develop and sell your products for the benefit of all, therefore this is all somehow a product of the police force, AKA the Obama-Hillary Thesis, is just asinine.

I haven't actually heard that out of the mouths of Obama or Clinton, except via trumped-up would-be gaffes that opponents have used to rattle the formers' fan base. I have seen members of this forum utter such silliness though, presumably self-catapulted into such a position in their rush to defend something unnecessarily. It leads to a lovely notion that everything that exists is the providence of the state and all that remains is for one to be grateful that she can keep some of it. (Not in this thread though. Yet)

 

[Francesca R]

I wish they not merely expected it, but didn't spend much of their time trying to avoid it. Even large respected corporations are in that game.

Another way to see this is that US tax rules are so opaque and complex that it is almost always worthwhile paying somebody to make sure you don't overpay tax. IOW even after forking over professional fees that are for nothing more than negotiating the code, you still come out ahead by saving more than it costs.

In a country where this is standard experience for many individuals it would hardly be surprising if it was for most businesses.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Another way to see this is that US tax rules are so opaque and complex that it is almost always worthwhile paying somebody to make sure you don't overpay tax. IOW even after forking over professional fees that are for nothing more than negotiating the code, you still come out ahead by saving more than it costs.

In a country where this is standard experience for many individuals it would hardly be surprising if it was for most businesses.

There is perhaps a small bit of difference between "negotiating complex and opaque code" and "transferring all US profits to a subsidiary company headquartered in Ireland, then to another company that's Irish-owned but located in Bermuda, then back to the US."

 

[Francesca R]

Not legally. The restraining force on business doing that is the financial risk associated with reputational impact (public shaming).

 

[anglolawyer]

I would have said that using Greece (or Detroit) as an example is at least misleading. The problem with Greece appears to be overwhelming corruption more than anything else. Was Greece's social security system any bigger than, say, Finland's?

According to what I read, Greece used the availability of free money pre-'08 to hugely overpay its public servants while not bothering to collect taxes. I am not sure it was corrupt so much as culturally decadent.

In what sense is Detroit's decline said to be attributable to socialism? Isn't it a car town that just went bust due to competition? That's pure, free market capitalism at work, surely.

 

[MikeG]

.........Freedom-based capitalism, and anything along the lines of classical liberalism or libertarianism, presumes a government with sufficient power to protect your rights to life, liberty, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness................

Be a little careful not to make this generality too US-centric.