An Alternative to Socialism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by christianyouth, Oct 26, 2008.

  1. christianyouth

    christianyouth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    Socialism is good in that it provides a safety net for the financially unstable. The arguments against this are many, IE, that socialism hurts the economy and so only provides a temporary safety net while breeding dependency upon the safety net. There may be some truth to this. But from examining the economic situation in countries that provide universal health care, cheap public university and free vocational training, such as France, the Netherlands, and Germany, it seems that their economy is thriving and it is breeding healthy, wealthy citizens.

    Why is it necessary to have a safety net? Because of the modern, western individualistic spirit that manifests itself in our family relationships. In Ethiopia, it's a common practice when you marry into a family... you marry INTO a family. The Father, head of the family, would clear off a plot of land, and you would go into the backyard of your parents and start building your home.

    There are obvious financial benefits to this if you live in an unstable economy. Given this interdependent view of family, with 'distant' families not being distant but actually inhabiting the same village, there is a certain social and financial security. When one member of the family becomes disabled, it is common practice for the other family members to make sacrifices in order for the disabled individual to be properly cared for. The elderly, when no longer able to work, would take up their position as wise counsellors and instructors of the young, while being supported by the family.

    So with the inflationary crises that is coming due to the ridiculous amount of debt we owe(nationally), an Eastern, interdependent view of family may be the key to survival.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hey guys, any thoughts on this?
     
  2. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    I don't this is possible in an urban society. It would only work in an agrarian culture.
     
  3. christianyouth

    christianyouth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmm ok.. Yeah I didn't know how realistic it was. I know that the taxes in those other countries are much lower as well. The family is taxed so high here it may not be possible. Thanks for the response though!
     
  4. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    My thoughts...

    1. If you think socialism is "good", then you don't know what socialism is.

    Socialism is a political system were there are limited or non-existent private property rights.

    The government owns and runs businesses. The government owns and runs farms. The government owns and runs energy companies. The government owns and runs hospitals, nursing homes, clinics etc.. The government owns and runs your grocery store and the apartments/houses you occupy.

    It doesn't breed "healthy, wealthy citizens", just the opposite. The government owns all the wealth. Health care is rationed. Individual initiative and motivation is stifled. People are totally dependant on the government for every aspect of their lives.

    Look at the old Soviet Union (if you are old enough to remember). Women waited in bread lines for 4 hours everyday. The shelves of the stores were empty. There was a thriving black market for anything American. People died waiting for medical care. Alcoholism was rampant as workers sought to drown their miserable plight. There was no hope. That is why the old Soviet Union collasped.

    Any wealth generated in France, Germany, etc. comes from capitalism. And, BTW, I don't know why you think the taxes are lower in those countries because they are not.

    As far as the safty net is concerned...there was a time when people depended on their neighbors and churches for support. More and more people are looking the government to fulfill those needs.

    As the government takes on the responsibilities, they also take away your freedoms.

    Socialism is not good. Not by a long shot.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  5. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Apparently you are unaware of just how poorly those economies are doing.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
     
    #7 poncho, Oct 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 26, 2008
  8. christianyouth

    christianyouth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hmm... I'm not sure if you actually read the post.

    When I sad that the taxes are lower in 'those countries' I was referring to countries that are more traditional and don't have a government orchestrated safety net, not to socialist ran countries.

    I made comments that can be backed by data, and I'd love to examine the economic situation for the average Joe in these countries that are sociliast leaning. I'm just recognizing that while socialism WOULD be an alternative to insure health care for many people and bring about an efficient safety net, there may actually be a different way to go about it, IE, allowing the family to be the safety net.


    And to Rev. Mitchell, when I refer to the economy, I may have made a mistake. Maybe it would have been better for me to refer to their citizens. Again, I'm gonna have to hunt up some statistics on average incomes etc for people in these socialist leaning states.

    The reason for the post is just to give an alternative to socialism, that in ideal conditions, would work just as well. The problem is, with the high rate of taxation that we have here in the US, it would be almost impossible for many families to exist without this government safety net.

    I don't like the idea of a government safety net. But we can argue Austrian free market economics vs neo-classical vs Keynseian all day, but for me the concern is can I survive in a country that is a pseudo-Capitalist country like the US, while also pseudo-Socialist? My mom doesn't have health care. If we were strict capitalist, we could have lower taxes and a chance to save and buy our own insurance plan. If we were strict socialist, we would not be slipping through the cracks of this notorious inefficient safety net of the US government. Simply put, we need to be one or the other. We either need to be capitalist enough so that lower middle class families can save(lower taxes due to less government programs)and raise themselves from the mire of poverty or we need to be socialist enough so that the lower-middle class family can not worry about huge payments for healthcare and college, and thus raise itself from the mire of poverty through diligence.

    But this mixture of the two is destroying the lower-middle class. I know it, I'm seeing it all around me. Families that can't put their kids through Uni because of the high taxes and the need for medical care. Yet in a strict capitalistic society, they would have lower taxes and lower priced medical insurance, and would be able to work toward prosperity. But likewise, in a more socialist society(like France or Germany), they would receive health care aid and significant aid toward university. So I'm against socialism, but I'm even more against this pseudo-capitalism of the US that allows millions to slip through the cracks of it's famed 'safety net'.
     
  9. Analgesic

    Analgesic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one in this thread is using the term "socialism" correctly. For a quick and dirty polisci lesson:

    "Communism" means that the notion of private property has been done away with. There is no centralized governmental planning; in fact, there is no government whatsoever.

    "Socialism" means that the workers own the means of production. Government is not involved in centralized planning. Private property continues to exist.

    "Social Democracy" is what is largely practiced (to varying extents) in Europe today. This includes the idea of a strong social safety net operated by the government which is funded through relatively high tax rates. The economy is marked-based, not centrally planned. The Czech Republic is an example of one of the milder implementations of social democracy in Europe, and Canada is a similarly light non-European example.
     

Share This Page

Loading...