3 ms·

It isn't really socialism as such though. Doesn't even the US already have these type of programs at least for certain groups? (you would probably need to expan

by hoaw 8y ago

It isn't really socialism as such though. Doesn't even the US already have these type of programs at least for certain groups? (you would probably need to expand them of course).

nickthemagicman 8y ago
Yeah exactly. Calling it Socialism is inaccurate. Socialism is a giant umbrella of political philosophy. More accurate term would be 'regulated calitalism' or a subtype of socialism called 'democratic socialism'. Both of which coexist alongside of capitalism just fine. It's always extremes with people on both sides because most people from either side don't understand what they're talking about.
- roenxi 8y ago
  The reason socialism is scary is that there are a lot of great-sounding ideas that, taken to extremes, turn out to lead to everyone starving and the political system becoming vulnerable to dictators. Now, you say '[democratic socialism can] ... coexist alongside of capitalism just fine'. It seems much more likely that it is actually normal socialism with the names of things changed. The issue with socialism is that it vests decision making power with government (topically, the thing that is shut down in America at the moment, showing how reliable governments are). Decision making power can really only be vested with one person. That person might be a capitalist, a politician, a bureaucrat, a worker or a customer. The only system we know reliably works is a capitalist/customer hybrid where major decisions are split between the two (capitalist gets the how, customers the what), with very mild influence from the rest (eg, safety and environmental regulation, wage negotiations with workers). When the government starts making and enforcing allocation decisions like 'everyone must be paid this', 'everyone gets a house' or 'everyone should get medical attention', it doesn't matter what you call it - wealth will be destroyed. If the wealth destruction exceeds the ability of the economy to create wealth, there will be mass suffering. It doesn't matter what it is called.
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    'The only system we know reliably works' Nothing you said is a fact. Everything you said is 100% opinion. Everyone's entitled to their opinions.
fgandiya 8y ago
They do ish. There's Medicare which is state sponsored health insurance, Social Security which provides a stipend every month in retirement and a bunch of NGOs they fund to provide meals and other stuff. Nothing much for housing besides the general housing assistance schemes.
- hoaw 8y ago
  There is also the VA, so I guess they just have to start the department of elderly affairs.

by hoaw 8y ago

It isn't really socialism as such though. Doesn't even the US already have these type of programs at least for certain groups? (you would probably need to expand them of course).

nickthemagicman 8y ago

Yeah exactly. Calling it Socialism is inaccurate. Socialism is a giant umbrella of political philosophy. More accurate term would be 'regulated calitalism' or a subtype of socialism called 'democratic socialism'. Both of which coexist alongside of capitalism just fine. It's always extremes with people on both sides because most people from either side don't understand what they're talking about.

roenxi 8y ago
The reason socialism is scary is that there are a lot of great-sounding ideas that, taken to extremes, turn out to lead to everyone starving and the political system becoming vulnerable to dictators. Now, you say '[democratic socialism can] ... coexist alongside of capitalism just fine'. It seems much more likely that it is actually normal socialism with the names of things changed. The issue with socialism is that it vests decision making power with government (topically, the thing that is shut down in America at the moment, showing how reliable governments are). Decision making power can really only be vested with one person. That person might be a capitalist, a politician, a bureaucrat, a worker or a customer. The only system we know reliably works is a capitalist/customer hybrid where major decisions are split between the two (capitalist gets the how, customers the what), with very mild influence from the rest (eg, safety and environmental regulation, wage negotiations with workers). When the government starts making and enforcing allocation decisions like 'everyone must be paid this', 'everyone gets a house' or 'everyone should get medical attention', it doesn't matter what you call it - wealth will be destroyed. If the wealth destruction exceeds the ability of the economy to create wealth, there will be mass suffering. It doesn't matter what it is called.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  'The only system we know reliably works' Nothing you said is a fact. Everything you said is 100% opinion. Everyone's entitled to their opinions.

fgandiya 8y ago

They do ish. There's Medicare which is state sponsored health insurance, Social Security which provides a stipend every month in retirement and a bunch of NGOs they fund to provide meals and other stuff. Nothing much for housing besides the general housing assistance schemes.

hoaw 8y ago
There is also the VA, so I guess they just have to start the department of elderly affairs.