Socialism

[pirtybirdy]

I suppose Socialism itself isn't as simple as being explained in a sentence, but from my point of view.......I've always thought of socialism as government involvement/control of social issues.

[luke]

I wonder whether socialism would be a cure all or whether greed and selfishness is just part of human nature and not a product of capitalist living.

as gandhi said, earth provides enough for every mans needs, but not every mans greed ...

[Colston]

I wonder whether socialism would be a cure all or whether greed and selfishness is just part of human nature and not a product of capitalist living.

as gandhi said, earth provides enough for every mans needs, but not every mans greed ...

That's a wonderful quote. Thank you Luke.

[Sheffman]

I wonder whether socialism would be a cure all or whether greed and selfishness is just part of human nature and not a product of capitalist living.

... education is the key. I believe social determinism shapes our behaviour/culture, not biological determinism, if we are raised in a vicious, greedy, 'don't give a toss' society we will behave accordingly. I often hear the human nature argument used as an excuse for greed. We are not born greedy or selfish but under the present political system some see this as the way to behave if we are to survive. ... we have other choices.

[nekokate]

I think greed has to be to some extent part of human nature, which is why I'm skeptical about the more extreme forms of Socialism. Most people are basically good, but if you offered £1,000 to some random people, how many would accept it and hand it out equally to everyone in the vicinity, and how many would head out shopping for goodies? That's a fairly flippant example, but it sounded good when it was in my head...

Is there such a thing as Capitalist Socialism, where all the best aspects of Socialism exist in a structure where people can also start their own businesses and make a lot of money if they are successful?

[mickyv]

"Is there such a thing as Capitalist Socialism, where all the best aspects of Socialism exist in a structure where people can also start their own businesses and make a lot of money if they are successful?"

Yes, it's called a "mixed economy", which is what we supposedly have now;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

[Mandy]

Unfortunately, we live in a world where the policies of at least Bush, Blair, Israel is "Might is Right" which is a form of "anarchy", and not Capitalism.

[Sheffman]

Is there such a thing as Capitalist Socialism, where all the best aspects of Socialism exist in a structure where people can also start their own businesses and make a lot of money if they are successful?

... yeah, it's called 'National Socialism', apparently Hitler used it quite successfully.

[major.tom]

When I think of socialism, I think of a quote I heard once (but can't recall where it's from):

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

I think greed has to be to some extent part of human nature, which is why I'm skeptical about the more extreme forms of Socialism. Most people are basically good, but if you offered £1,000 to some random people, how many would accept it and hand it out equally to everyone in the vicinity, and how many would head out shopping for goodies?

If they knew (and cared about) someone who was in desperate need (say for food, medicine, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if they would share their unexpected windfall. True, greed is, for some, an end in itself. But despite my own petty cynicisms, I still believe people are (or can be) kind and generous.

Socialism is not so much flicking on a light switch as a gradual process of demonstrating the wisdom of caring about the well-being of others.

[Colston]

... we have other choices.

Absolutely...

[DavidGig]

I've always thought of these political questions as a tug-of-war between three conflicting priorities -- equality, freedom, and efficiency.

Everyone wants to see at least some of all three in the social mix, but there's a lot of disagreement over the proper proportions. And if you want more of one you have to sacrifice some others.

Those on the "socialist/old labor/U.S. liberal" side of the spectrum tend to prioritize equality as a social value. They're more willing to use taxation to take from one and give to another who has less. Those on the "conservative/libertarian" side see freedom as a principal value. Every choice that politicans make on their behalf is one less choice they can make for themselves. Meanwhile both camps have to worry about questions of efficiency. Is the size of the pie growing or are we arguing over shares of a shrinking whole?

David

[popinjay]

Those on the "conservative/libertarian" side see freedom as a principal value.

Civil liberties are more of a left-wing trait than a right-wing one. The only freedom that the right offer that the left doesn't, is the freedom to retain your own tax money and let the less rich die.

[DavidGig]

... and let the less rich die.

I think we should always choose to confront the best of our opponents' arguments, not the worst. Otherwise we're just fighting strawmen.