just a thought.

[color=Navy]okay so im new here, as you can all tell. but i have a question. something i've been wondering about for a while. the socialist party of america. i wonder if there is a large number of people that have registered to vote as socialist. i know its a dumb question, but im just curious. [/color]

I wouldn't think there would be many mate. in my experience the poorest of Americans see themselves as millionaires on hard times, so the idea of socialism never really appeals to very many of them.

as for hard numbers, sorry I have none

Socialism shouldn't appeal to anyone. Well, the reality of socialism, not the popular paper version which looks great. If socialism's reality does appeal to you, then seek professional help! Sorry all of you socialists, but I have to tell it like it is.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Sight2reality]

Sight2reality, on what basis do you come across these ideas?

Would you rather everyone held the same norms, values and mores as you do in Society? Wouldn't that be a boring world?

What about the aspects of Socialism, such as a Police Force - would you like those removed as well?

As for the Socialist Party of the United States of America, they roughly have 10,000 members give or take a few. In 2004 - Walter F. Brown gained 10,834 votes and in fact, their membership has been on the increase since 1996 however this trend tends to follow whenever the Democrats do badly [or are going to] and their is a Republican Government in control.

No, it wouldn't be a boring world. It would be a safer one, without war...... Societal views including religion and politics are what causes the majority of pain and suffering on this planet. So, if everyone agreed, then they would all be happier.

Socialism is as close as you can get to communism without going the full way. It is intended in my opinion to be some sort of hybrid between capitolism and communism. With this being said, a social program can be integrated into capitolism, without the capitolist society becoming socialist (in some cases). Social programs can be successful when competition is introduced. Local police forces are a necessary part of society. Social welfare, healthcare, schools, ect. can and should be eliminated, or at least exposed to the free market.

Public schooling ( a social program) is failing in this country. The education level in MOST cases is far below the level of private schools. Why bother doing what it actually takes to make your school better when you get paid regardless. Make those same schools open in the free market by allowing people to decide where their school tax money is spent, and they have to improve, or they just close. Private schools, who by the way do not spend half as much money per capita as public schools, would be more than happy to expand to make room for the influx of students whose parents care enough to get them a real education.

Public healthcare. What a joke this is. Also a social program, it gives recipients the ability to go to doctors, specialists, and obtain prescriptions with no copay. No deductable. That cost, which can be a deterrent for those who really arent all that sick or injured, is passed onto the rest of us.

All social programs will fail if they are not exposed to the free market. If they somehow escape failure, they will be substandard. When you take away comeptition, there is no drive to be the best, or even to succeed.

Individual programs can be subjected to the free market. They can be improved upon. However, if this society even gets to a stage where it could truly be called socialist. Competition would be largely eliminated. This would allow for an eventual evolution into communism (if society made it far enough without collapsing.). We all know where socialism, and communism get us by looking around the world and at history.

Which is one of the basic ideas of any census theory, Communism, Socialism, Functionalism, Nazism and so on and so fourth. Your idea of bliss is not someone else’s, your idea of what is right and what is wrong is not someone else’s.



How is that?

Socialism, Capitalism and Communism are all individual theories that can be intertwined but should stand alone and should be evaluated on their own. Socialism, was never intended to be a hybrid between Capitalism and Communism primarily because what you thinking of as Communism was completely different when Adam Smith wrote his works as was Capitalism.

Like any theory, they are products of their time and need to be looked at in their context but by Communism do you mean basic communal living such as what St. Thomas More, wrote in the 16th Century or works later than that, such as Karl Marx in the 19th Century. This is part of the problem, which theory are you talking about?

The classless society model, or the one with the removal of ascribed status? One of them doesn’t remove achieved status, thus there is still competition.




How would that work? Let me put it like this… if I pay, £200 insurance a year for holidays or the Government takes £200 of my wages and places it into hospitals what’s the difference? The money is the same - the problem is, Social-Welfare Systems, especially in Europe were deliberately miss-managed so they could make the argument they do not work. It is clear, that they do work because Sweden has a fantastic system going.

If you can afford to go private, you are able to but the majority of people can’t and thus are easily allowed access which has caused no level of debt [something like 66billion] compared to Nation’s such as the U.S or the U.K.



The reason public schools fail, is due to Government investment. The U.S. and U.K. spend per-head, less than 40 other Nation’s do in their education system and this is why they are slipping. If you open them up on the basis of a free-market, the “Under Class” will never be able to afford an education and it will result in more levels of crime.



Who are not really ill? Is that not a problem of the system? Even in a Capitalist Society, they abuse it - prescription medicine is sold on a “Black Market” and they pass on those costs to the insurance company, which hikes your premium and the same problem occurs. It is because the Doctor’s and the Medicare industry, is attempting to make a mint.



Why is there no competition? That’s because they do not bother to insert such a thing, it is fully possible to run a Government agency to make money. The problem is, they do not do this…



Actually, that is just Marx’s view and a few other theorists…many of them, including me do not see the evolution into Communism from Socialism and are able to see the large difference between the two.



The nearest society we had to a “Socialist” one, was “communal” living such as existed in the United State’s during the early period of colonisation or by Native American’s - people had a job, there was elected leaders and so on and so fourth but as society changed, the process by which people were socialised was also changed.

Entities such as the Catholic Church wanted to control people and we are now beginning to leave that and in the end, people will begin to be treated on their merit and their worth to society that is the basic ideology behind socialist thinking. No longer should people be treated on the basis their family own this business, or the fact they are related to the Queen but what they themselves have done and while we do not do that we cause such harm to individuals.

If everyone agreed on religion and politics, the vast majority of the planets problems as we know them today would be gone. Whether they actually agree with my ideas or not as it stands now is completely irrelevant in this conversation. Likewise, whether my ideas are right or wrong is completely irrelevant in this conversation. I will however point out that I am right.

I gather that you are advocating socialism. I do this because you attacked Europes "intentional mismanagement" (wherever you got that) of social programs. I guess the Soviet Union intentionally mismanaged communism and socialism as well....

You see, you don't deserve the fruits of my labor. I don't care if you don't have anything to eat, or any clothes. If you starve or freeze, then you didn't work hard enough. You can not decide whats best for my $200 dollars. I know where my $200 dollars should go. I worked for it.

As a liberal at heart, you "clearly" feel as if things should be given to you even though you did not work for them. I'll be you when you are alone.

"I didn't want to work as hard as you did so give me your food, and your healthcare. Give me your money. I need it more!"

You education statement. The 40% less thing. Explain to me how I came out of a private school, in which my parents spent half as much AT MOST of what the government puts in per capita to public education, and my level of education was far beyond any of the childrens in public schools. I went to catholic school until I was in 8th grade. I switched then to public education. In catholic school, I was nothing special. However, when I went to public schools, I saw a lot of my old classmates in advanced level classes. Advanced classes where I excelled. Not because of my awesomely powerful intellect (which I do have), but because I learned the crap years before in catholic school. FOR HALF THE MONEY!

And for the love of god, if I worked for, and opened my own business, you best be damned sure I would be giving it to my son or daughter. You didnt put the time and effort into it. So you are not entitled to its reward. God are people like you lazy!

Ok, so anyway, lets get to why you are wrong.

Prove to me that these prescription drugs are being sold on a "black market". The, when you prove it to me, explain how this effects our costs.

Prove to me that other countries spend 40% more on education per child.

Right now society evolves as we speak. As more and more people feel that they are entitled to the fruits of other's labor such as yourself. We progress towards socialism. When we get there, progression will not just stop.


I would like to point out that when I went to catholic school, I was educated far beyond those in public school in spite of the fact that it was a religious institution. That, is pathetic.

You have voted Sight2reality for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

You spelled it out and your 100% correct.....Odium, Sight2 is correct, Socialism is "Communism-Lite" and its clearly based on the big government that becomes your Momma, Papa, Uncle and baby-sitter.

Socialism has failed on so many levels and your answer seems to be "not enough money"...well throwing tax-payers money at a problem (like Inner-city schools) won't solve the problem...it makes it worse.

Anyhow Odium Im not flaming you, but I see alot of holes in your arguement. Everything Socialism touches fails, from Medical-care, to schools, to punishment for criminals.

Maximu§

How are you right? You are calling for the complete removal of freedom, to create a society on your thoughts on what you desire - this is basic level tyranny. If people desire to worship a God, why should they not? Oh because other people who worship that God have caused harm? Other capitalists have caused harm - we should remove that system as well?




Ironic…since the U.S.S.R. was neither Socialist or Communist. In fact, it was Stalinist…



Good, I would rather pay a minor amount of money and help someone else it really is no problem for me to pay 40% tax in the U.K. although, I would rather it was a bit lower in line with what Sweden would do but I can afford everything I desire.



Liberal? What does New Left Realism have to do with this?

The fact we are talking about economic policy, not social policy nor crime and deviance the idea that I am a Liberal is entirely misused and is there on the basis you desire to label me. Howard Becker would be impressed.



Really?

The Tom Sefton report found that roughly the Government spends £2,500 per-child in the United Kingdom in State based education.

When compared against Buckingham which is £3,125 per-term at three terms a year there is a shocking difference in the amount going in to Private and Public based education.



Who says you can’t? Again you are adding things to Socialism which are not there until later theorists. Can you quote a book where they said property should be removed? Or are we again moving onto collectivist societies which are primarily the works of Marxists…



You do understand the basics of Capitalism?

Now, firstly you desire to see that there is a black market in legal medicine? No problem: Bad medicine: New York's black market in AIDS drugs published in City Limits, on July 1, 2005

Or this one: flatrock.org.nz... Another article about Black Market drugs.

Now, when drugs are stolen to sell off on the streets that means less are in circulation driving up the price of the drugs. I am sure, that’s simple enough for you to understand? Since you claim to have such an “awesomely powerful intellect “. So, if the price goes up it costs the insurance company more and that runs up the premium which again gets handed down to everyone.



Where did I say percent?



Depends on whose theory you follow - it is a very functionalist [Read: Durkheim] argument that society will forever evolve and change.



Why is it? Lots of people in the United Kingdom go to “faith” schools for their primary education/socialisation.

Actually, if Socialism was implemented like was intended [by Smith, et al] than you would have a lot more smaller based businesses the problem was these people in charge of the U.S.S.R, P.R.C, and so on and so fourth noticed a chance to make a lot of money quickly by being the “owners” of these corporations - which is why you see the Chinese Government now accepting Capitalism.

They will for a long time, own those larger corporations and then pass them down onto their family so when a “democracy” is in place they will still have the money and the population will be just as screwed over.



Actually, my argument is that the money was misused in these Nation’s and it is heavily unfair to claim that entities such as the U.S.S.R. were socialist, when clearly they were dictatorships - hiding behind the ideology of socialism. In the attempt to hoax people into believing eventually they would end up in that Marxist Utopia.



Which area of Socialism? This is the main problem with so many peoples arguments, when they are confronted with a Nation such as Sweden where it works they over-look at and move back to instances of it not working. If people stopped at the first hurdle, we would never have had a car, the plane and so on and so fourth.

It has been shown it can effectively work and have a lower level of taxation that many other Nation’s - including the U.S.A. it is about time people accept this.

Ok, Im gonna tone it down a bit.

Faith based schools in my opinion are far to biased away from the sciences and mathematics. Though I lean towards conservatism, I am not religious, and not even sure if there is a god. Mathematics, physics, and reality govern my thoughts. But you know what? I could care less who you worship as long as you don't blow people up because of it.

You stated before that capitolism is the complete removal of freedom. So, a small limited government that does not control you or your money is not free? Having the ability to put your money in the hands of whom-ever you wish is not free. To invest it whereever you wish.

How in the world is capitolism equal to being captive to society? Is it because you have to work for what you want and need? Is that your logic? Communism and socialism provide free stuff for those who "cannot provide for themselves". Is this the "free"dom you speak of? Free stuff? I can't even comprehend what you are getting at when you say that.

Where did I say Capitalism is the complete removal of freedom?



I never mention Capitalism in that sentence, in fact I make no reference to Capitalism and Freedom in that instance but rather the fact people have caused harm in relation to Capitalism.

If you are talking about my article, “Will Capitalism lead us into a Dictatorship?” I wasn’t saying that Capitalism will remove peoples freedoms but rather what-happens when one group of people are able to gain enough power that they control Governments and Social Policy. That is directly what happened in the U.S.S.R. and is happening now in Russia.

When a group of people are allowed to gain so much control over imports, exports, what is shown on television and so on and so fourth you have lost freedom. Although you might be able to decide what you watch on television people still decide what is shown and that is controlled by a very small group.

The media, transport, manufacture of goods, and so on and so fourth is increasingly gaining control by a small population and eventually they will begin to buy each other off until even few remain. Now think the control that gives over the Government and the population. Remember what OPEC did in 1973?

Now imagine not just Oil, but Television, Food transportation, etc all being cut off because One Person does not agree with what the Government does - think of the impact that could have on society and although it might not be in your generation that people gain this power if you have children it will be there’s if something isn’t done soon.

Throwing money at a problem doesn't make it better, it makes it worse, and it makes people think that they don't have to work to survive.

Look at Africa, look at public schools here in America, it's probably similar elsewhere as well.
Health care doesn't work the way people demand it should, when it comes to modern technologies and waiting lists.

If you don't privatize these things, the level of care decreases and people don't get taken care of the way they THOUGHT they would, because they were promised great things by their government.

Pathetic.

So clearly, those systems which work we should just deny?

Roger, roger!

I don't mind at all paying tax so that other people can get medical help, free education, adequate pensions and such.
It's basic solidarity, something all people should feel with others from birth. I don't know, maybe I'm weird because I think that it's in societies best interest to look out for it's own people.
The alternative is horrifying to be honest. Poor people not having enough money to send their kids to school? 65 years olds retiring without having any money to live off of? If I was in that situation I would be grateful if society could give me the means to either get into school so I can have a good education and later give back to society what it once gave to me. Or on the autumn of my life have a nice and quiet ending to a productive life instead of being a financial burden to my children.

To me it's the most natural of things to pay for other people's safety-net. Selflessness is one of the greatest virtues. If you don't like it, take some of the money you planned to spend on private schooling, retiring and that brain-surgery you so desperately needed and move to a place where everyone takes care of themselves and never think of other people's plights and difficulties.

And yes, of course there will always be people taking advantage of the system. But I'm willing to pay for that person if it means I can also help 2 others. I mean, if you work really hard you'll have enough money to spend on yourself anyway right?

Make the world a better place!