74x12
Well-Known Member
Well it is a very optimistic goal. I would have to think about it. I kind of think it's impossible but I don't know.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How I'd like U.S. Socialism to be soon implemented
- Thread starter Suave
- Start date
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Let me know when you do. I think its good to be skeptical of government powers. But even if someone where to put forward a plan for the mutual benefit of people there is always the looming argument that it is somehow a secret plot. And what is worse is that it has actually developed that way in some instances in the past. It doesn't mean its impossible though. It also might mean that genuine good will and malevolent power struggles in the name of prosperity might be indistinguishable when not looking at it from hindsight.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your respectful post. And, I get it ... there are a lot of silly conspiracy theories but where there is smoke there is often fire. Just because many conspiracy theories may be wrong and often are ... that doesn't mean something isn't really going on.
No....I love the British system. I mean keeping the universal single-payer healthcareYou mean privatise it by stealth?
Last edited:
Not at all -- unless you're an American, in which case you are most likely to be muddled on the differences between the two due to decades of Cold War propaganda. Americans are kind like creationists when it comes to socialism and communism. You can tell them the truth all you want, but they're going to believe the propaganda they've heard all their lives. Now, to be fair Karl Marx himself kicked off the confusion by being intellectually sloppy when it came to consistently distinguishing between the two systems -- so you cannot entirely blame Americans.
At any rate, the first thing to know is there are many types of socialism and many types of communism, so when speaking of differences, you will always have specific exceptions and lots and lots of footnotes -- if you really get deeply into it. But we ain't getting deeply into it! So breathe easier now.
That said, there's more than one way to present the differences. I'm going to offer you a gloss -- a very superficial account of them -- but an account that is still a dozen times more accurate than you are likely to get from most people. I'll leave out more than I include to make it as easy as possible to absorb quickly.
First, we need to realize that capitalism, socialism, and communism are all economic systems and that their core, essential, and fundamental purpose is to determine 'who gets what' in any given society. That is, who gets the food, and who decides they get it? Who gets the clothing and who decides they get it? Who gets the medicine and who decides they get it? And on and on for every good or service a society has to offer.
Under socialism, those questions are decided according to the principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." Translation: You are compensated for your work according to the value of your contributions to society. So, if you are doing something that has a relatively large, positive impact on the community -- such as being a doctor -- you are better compensated for your work than if you are doing something that has a relatively smaller, less positive impact on the community -- such as washing dishes. That is socialism in a nutshell. But you won't see that definition of it on the nightly news any time soon.
Under communism, the same questions are decided according to the principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." 'Need', not 'contribution'. Translation: You are compensated for your work according to how much you need in order to live, etc. So, it does not matter whether you are a dishwasher or a doctor -- if your needs are the same, your compensation is the same. That is communism in a nutshell. And that is what most Americans think socialism is, but I hope you can see a difference between the two now.
By the way, one difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism allows people to be 'compensated' by what economists call 'rents'. That's a technical term in economics, and it means unearned income, such as you would get from the interest someone paid you on a loan you made to them, or get from the profits you made on money you used to buy a factory, etc. etc. etc. Put differently, a capitalist gets the money their capital earns; a socialist gets the money their labor earns; and a communist gets the money their community earns -- gets that portion of it that they themselves need. That's more or less it.
There's tons and tons of other stuff I could go into, but I fear it would be 'too much information too fast'. I hope this helps. If it doesn't, I blame @Jayhawker Soule for not helping me out here -- most likely, he knows more about this stuff than anyone else on the Forum.
Taxes go up when a State does not have a public law National Bank.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Do you still have Reds under the bed?
Do you still have Reds under the bed?
Pretty much -- they just don't always use the same old phrases when they hammer you with their BS.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
No....I love the British system. I mean keeping the universal single-payer healthcare
Well the British love it too, but it is being sliced off salami-style. Contracts go to private companies (eg Virgin):
Virgin awarded almost £2bn of NHS contracts in the past five years
and it is underfunded - forcing those who can afford it to go to a private company.
To be clear, it is the Conservative party that is doing this (of course, because it fits their ideology and they have been in government for a decade). As @Sunstone alluded to (imo) the party of capitalism is the true enemy of the people, but the people don't realise it because of the success of the propaganda. And as more and more people become unable to access the healthcare they need the rightwing media will explain why and tell them who to blame (rather like the upcoming ****show of brexit will be the fault of the EU, or of foreigners, or remain voters, or the elites...)
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Hang on, are you a godless unpatriotic pinko?
Indeed, progressive socialism as in the Progressive Utilisation Theory (PROUT) is very different from communism, yet workers have a very large say in the running of their companies (cooperatives) and may earn much of the stocks in their company too. Only very tiny companies such as bars and restaurants and corner shops are more in the hands of the owners. And only the companies that are connected to the essential infrastructure such as communications, banks, inurances etc. have an extra (central) control by the state.
PROUT is not just interested in fair distribution of goods but also in maximizing the use of all of people's talents as well as maximizing the use of extra-human sources (capitalism will plunder the sources rather than maximizing their best use).
Then there is also the Doughnut System of Kate Raworth which resembles PROUT somewhat in its control of how natural resources are used and recycled but I'm not sure if her ideas also deal with democratising the economy as is the case in PROUT (PROUT also deals with intelectual and spiritual sources/wealth and is not primarily interested in material wealth like communism and capitalism are).
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Thank you, I've heard of neither PROUT nor Doughnut. (The latter looks particularly interesting. It may well be next on my reading list).
Suave
Simulated character
I love this thread.
Me likes you lovin' this thread!
Suave
Simulated character
Government run health insurance pools everybody into the same risk pool, this is most cost effective. Also, this gets rid of sales and marketing costs. When the masses see how well government run health insurance works, they well ultimately demand government owned hospitals and publicly owned health clinics.
Suave
Simulated character
State owned enterprise is needed in order to provide essential services to consumers in a natural monopoly where private business would not allow for free-market competition. Comrade, please join us in our socialist revolution!
Alas, I'm prohibited from that DIR.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
With all due respect to the OP:
(1) This doesn’t sound like socialism it sounds like a lot of taxation and spending on a welfare state.
(2) That’s a lot of numbers. Did you come up with all these yourself? Or is there a way to verify that the math actually adds up?
(1) This doesn’t sound like socialism it sounds like a lot of taxation and spending on a welfare state.
(2) That’s a lot of numbers. Did you come up with all these yourself? Or is there a way to verify that the math actually adds up?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Revised and adjusted socialism for the modern era.
You own it, they control and tell you what to do with it.
They'd just take ownership without calling it that.
Suave
Simulated character
My proposed Medicare-for-Al universal health insurance plan is a scaled down version at 60 percent the tax payer funded cost of Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-All plan estimated to cost $3.5 trillion by 2024. My simplified personal income tax proposal assumes a per capita average individual income of $68,000 by 2024. (( $8,000 * .29) + ($40,000 * .18 )) * 250 million adult American residents, less ( $2,000 *340 million Americans ) would equal around $1.9 trillion of personal income taxes collected by the federal government in year 2024. A 10 percent V.A.T. as done in Australia would generate revenue around 4.4 percent of national G.D.P., assuming the U.S. G.D.P. is $24 trillion in 2024, this would result in approximately $1.05 trillion of tax revenue, this less tax rebates of $2,160 per 250 million legal adult American residents, would generate nearly $550 billion. The Wiki truth regarding spending levels of U.S. federal agencies along with tax revenue projections for U.S. corporate taxes, excise taxes, tarriffs, and estate taxes are widely available online.