Can you explain what Socialism is? What are the pros and cons?
>Plz no memes
>>74965965
State regulated economy
Take from productive people to give to unproductive people and then tell the productive people to be grateful for getting robbed
>>74965965
Less-aggressive Communism. Everyone is provided equal necessities without working for it. Think welfare on a national scale.
It fuels laziness, entitlement, and no reason to better yourself. Look at all the kids supporting Bernie.
>free college!
>more money!
>more rights
>>74965965
The government tells you what goods you get to consume, as opposed to yourself. Everyone gets the same goods. The system is so fragile that if someone tries to deviate, they risk breaking the whole system, so dissenters must be lined up against a wall and executed.
>>74965965
It's a meme word so it's hard to talk about without memes. Mostly it seems to mean a massive welfare state.
>>74966300
When has socialism ever ended up with more people having more rights?
>>74966376
I don't know, ask them. They think Bernie will somehow make them more accepted.
>gay rights
>women's rights
>minority rights
He even says so in his speeches.
It's the idea that a bunch of bureaucrats with little real world experience in business or creating anything of value, and without having their compensation tied to their performance... can run an economy.
>>74966567
>gay rights
>women's rights
>minority rights
Can you give me one example of one right that the average person has that any one of these groups does not?
>>74966706
Gay marriage is the only thing I can think of. I guess abortion would be a woman's right. Can't think of anything for minorities except citizenship and no deportation for illegals.
>>74966706
>B-but men get paid more than women
Simplified the biggest difference to a capitalist or a social market economy society is that the industry and the service sector arent controlled by private persons but the state/the people. (Giving the factories to the workers)
How this should be archived is the most controversial part of socialism.
Also a socialist society gives much to its people (Healthcare, free housing, free education) but also demands much from the people (long lasting military service, support when it comes to disaster relief,....)
It's the economic system where toilet paper is really cheap, but always sold out.
>>74966870
>Gay marriage is the only thing I can think of.
Gay marriage is legal.
If it weren't, the same rules apply universally to everyone. It isn't discrimination.
>>74967265
Some states are still actively against it. Supreme Court ruling doesn't really mean shit.
>>74967265
Extension:
Say someone's sexuality is to kill people, whatever. They have a murder fetish, I guess. Are they being denied a human right due to the fact that murder is illegal? Obviously it's an extreme case and i'm not trying to analogize gay people with murderers, but you should be able to see why I don't think it's discrimination.
>>74965965
Pros:
A way to increase utility of society by taking more money from people who don't need it and giving it to those who do.
Cons:
Makes society as a whole less productive. Unproductive people do their best to abuse the system.
The solution is only policies that have minimal waste & increase society's utility greatly. Unfortunately, there are too many special interest and lobbying groups to find any kind of empirical solutions.
>>74965965
It's a system where the government micromanages the economy.
It means the government can staight up ORDER car factories to only make electric cars, and oil companies can't say shit.
It also tends to turn into a clusterfuck of bureaucracy.
>>74965965
Multipart post, so bear with me. It might be a bit shit, cause I typed it out fast, so you'll have to forgive me.
People have ideas about how they want to run things. However, not all people share the same ideas about how things should be run. This leaves you with one of two groups:
>Group 1
Group 1 recognizes that there are certain essential things that must be enshrined in law, but other than that, people should be left alone to live as they want. This means that people should have the right to decide how they want to live, how they want to use their money/property/resources, how they want to associate with others (including having the right to disassociate from others they do not care for), and other things.
To effect all of this, Group 1 goes about ensuring that people have the right of conscience and property, because any compulsion or coercion towards any other end would be anathema.
>Group 2
Group 2 is much like Group 1 in its basic premise, but there is a fundamental difference. Group 2 believes that there are certain essential things that should be enshrined in law (like Group 1), however, this group does not believe people should be left alone.
You see, unlike Group 1, Group 2 has a pseudo-religious belief about what constitutes a legitimate utopia. They are absolutely certain that they know not only what a true utopia should look like, but they also believe they know what means should be employed to build it......
>>74968606
It is then that the problem starts. See, members of Group 2 run into a wall when they meet members of Group 1. Remember, Group 1 is all about leaving people alone to pursue those ends which constitute happiness for themselves. Naturally, such a philosophy balks at any notion of a law that would compel or coerce one to action or would take property from people by force to fund and support end which they think are morally reprehensible. This constitutes a nightmare for Group 2, because no matter how much they try to compromise with Group 1 to cajole them into helping them build their utopia, Group 1 just keeps standing against them and blocking their efforts.
Now, the problem is laid bare and the difference is fully expressed. Group 2 is become incensed by Group 1. Not only will Group 1 not even compromise with them, but they actively oppose their efforts politically! The horror! Can not Group 1 see that Group 2 desires to bring in a UTOPIA?! How can they not share this glorious vision?! Certainly this utopia is what constitutes the “good life,” and therefore, any measure which will help it come to fruition is therefore RIGHTEOUS, right? Does this not now mean that any effort to resist Group 2's efforts are therefore evil? Does it not also mean that Group 2, being the righteous arbiters of the forthcoming utopia, must use any ends or means to usher in said utopia?
>>74968717
Filled with righteous indignation, the members of Group 2 realize that they will never gain Group 1's cooperation or resources (both of which are necessary to build the utopia), and so Group 2 beings to undertake efforts to overpower Group 1. These efforts take the form of laws designed to take property, money, and other resources from Group 1 by force so that they can redistributed and repurposed to aid in the construction of the utopia. Then, other laws are passed that strip members of Group 1 of their right of conscience, that is, the right to live how they please, the right to associate how they please, and the right to determine what they can do with their own things.
Group 2 then smooths over any objections to their increasingly totalitarian society by telling everyone that all of their efforts are for the “greater good” and all.
If you haven't figured it out by now, Group 2 is socialism. Self-righteous and narcissistic moral busy-bodies think they know how best to use the time, money, and resources of others to effect their own vision of what constitutes utopia. Since they cannot win the cooperation of dissenters that is necessary to usher in this utopia, they must used means of coercion through the power of the state by effectively putting a gun to the head of every dissenter so that cooperation can be ensured.
This is what socialism does, it ushers in a totalitarian society where the power of the state is used to destroy dissent and ensure cooperation with those is power.
Socialism is a fucking nightmare.
>>74965965
Where the state takes control of the economy for the "common good".
IE All factories, retailers, distributors, etc. are owned by the government. Prices, production, employment, wages etc. is all allocated by the state to balance out the interests of everyone.
This, of course, is impossible to decide centrally, and one group always gets favoured over another.
>>74965965
My God. It is absurd that no one has actually given an accurate definition yet. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are not privately owned. That's the definition. Do with it what you will. Also anyone in this thread could have easily Googled it.
If the means of production are not privately owned then they are (e.g.):
- owned directly by their workers,
- effectively not owned by anyone,
- owned by the state,
- etc.
Note that this definition rules out Nordic-style social democracy, which is the definition most people in this thread have given. Under social democracy, the means of production are still privately controlled (at least mostly), no matter what welfare programs are in place. On the other hand, anarchism, communism, free-market socialism, and many other economic/social systems do fall under the definition of socialism.
>pros
nothing
>cons
everything
>>74965965
Everything is free until you bailout the entire country.
>>74969586
And now that I've actually given an intelligent response, everyone disappears.
>>74970659
Yours only touches on the economic aspect, whilst also ignoring the fact that socialism spreads beyond the economic once the precedent of state coercion has been legitimized for righteousness' sake.
>>74971044
Anarchism is a (rather popular) form of socialism. Socialism doesn't need to have anything to do with the state.
>>74971044
In fact you're just spreading a ridiculous and naive misconception right now (the conflation of socialism with state welfare programs and interference with markets). You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
>>74971360
>Anarchism is a (rather popular) form of socialism.
1. Socialism requires government compulsion.
2. Anarchism is the abandonment of that principle.
You cannot be a married bachelor. Certainly you must be using some form of leftist-speak.
>I am an agnostic atheist!
Wut.
>>74971360
anarchy ain't a form of socialism. anarchy is a political movement which wants the society of free individuals. anarchists believe power over another human being is horrible, toxic.
>>74971832
Of course socialism doesn't require government compulsion. In fact, private property as it exists in our society (in the form of factories, large tracts of land, patents, copyrights, etc.) only exists because of the government mandate to honor those forms of property. Sure, there are visions of anarcho-capitalism in which property is enforced via contracts and mutual consent. But if a large segment of our society were to agree not to consent to the ownership of things we don't think people should own (factories, land, copyrights, patents) then those forms of property would cease to exist as such. No government intervention necessary.
If this is the first time you're hearing about this, then you clearly haven't spent much time studying anarchism.
>>74972273
>Of course socialism doesn't require government compulsion.
I am looking at the dictionary and then reading the first part of your posts.
You must be a special form of retarded.
>>74971989
"anarchists believe power over another human being is horrible, toxic."
Which is why anarchists don't believe in private property. The situation of individuals controlling the means of production and receiving profits simply because of their ownership clearly gives those individuals power over many, many human beings. Those without property are forced to sell their labor to those who own property. There is no alternative under capitalism.
>>74972433
You're a fucking moron. You don't go to the dictionary to get a definition of a complex political/economic system. You don't go to the dictionary to get the definition of a technical term. Period. The same goes whether the term comes from politics, economics, mathematics, chemistry, etc.
>>74972709
>You don't read the meanings of words to see what they mean!
Ok, I'm done with you.
>>74972433
If you want an actual definition, just read the first paragraph of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism.
>>74965965
In Socialism, "workers" control the means of production. What is the means of production? You. You are the means of production. Ore does not mine itself. And who are the "workers"? Who can say they represent all "workers"? They are the guild or government. Thus, your individual liberty is abolished such that a central authority, be it guild or government, controls you.
