Socialist life

[bits4books]

Well, let's take apart the parts you wrote.
1) are you Willing to pay so MUCH taxes that would have been socialism?
2) do you Understand that any socialism is totally pandering to all sorts of social parasites who want nothing in life dentate and believe that they all should go for nothing?
3) do you Understand that such is the vaunted socialism creates even wider gap between public authorities and citizens?
4) do you understand in the end that it is impossible to build such a balance (as you have written) 50/50?
No one wants to live under socialism / communism because the memory of the 20th century is still alive and everyone remembers perfectly about Germany and the wall in the middle of Berlin through which thousands of people fled.
Other remarkable socialist experiments are also remembered.
The left-wing order has quite successfully shown its unfitness for life - but no, let's try again. Everything is OK?

Well, let's figure out what you wrote here.
1. SO much is how much? It's hard to believe in this (propaganda, I understand), but under socialism, tax oppression was hardly noticeable. In addition, with all this, medicine of any complexity became absolutely free, as did education (even higher education, yeah).
2. Nonsense. Socialism is a regime that does not accept parasites, because they interfere with the functioning of it.
3. Social lift. I suggest to google what this concept means. The gap cannot be large, because people are in power and there are people from the people.
4. As for the balance, it is definitely impossible to achieve it. I agree 100%

An experiment of the 20th century? Do you know exactly what you are talking about? Was the Neolithic an experiment too? Slave system, feudalism, capitalism? Do you think this is an experiment too? These are the stages through which mankind passed in a natural way, due to the fact that the economic basis came into conflict with the superstructure. They stopped working together.

Any power is a dictatorship (the ability to impose its own political line) of the ruling class.

Capitalism is the dictatorship of a modest number of people who own immodest capital.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the working class, for it is the absolute majority of the population.

And now I'll blow everyone's brain. Look: demos (Greek) - people, kratos (Greek) - power. Suddenly, we get that the real democracy is socialism.
After all, this will be a regime in which the people have real power (and not the opportunity to put a cross in the ballot and change one talking head to another as president)

I do not impose anything on anyone. Love what you like (especially if it's legal). But let's still respect history and get to know it a little before making loud statements.

Well let's look again at what you wrote here!

1) I, too, understand that propaganda. If there were "not so many taxes", then where did all this "free medicine" or "free education"come from? Now you pay for them out of your own pocket and are free to choose the level of services you need. At the socialism time you paid before you saw your money (indirect taxes hello) and you had no choice in the service
2. so hundreds of thousands of people living on benefits are not parasites? Or do you propose to introduce criminal terms/forced employment of those who do not want to work?
3. Social Elevator under socialism-a good attempt! I know very well the lists for the best University in a already non-existent country where there was a prestigious education. The vast majority are children of people from the government, while all the rest studied in their" common " universities. A normal Elevator, I'm sure.

By experiment I mean that they tried to build socialism but the attempts were as unsuccessful as possible and led to very bad consequences.

What prevents you from earning your capital? Personally Bezos who takes your salary?

Yes, all power to people and councils! All the land to the peasants, and the factories to the workers. Slogans are good, but they are just slogans.

Again, no. Socialism is a legendary "non-functioning democracy" because if we assume (as it should be) that under socialism we must take into account the needs of everyone, then just imagine this bureaucratic machine that eats up tens of tons of paper and ink a year just so that the whole structure would somehow function. How will the market work under socialism? What to do with those who are more successful than others? What to do with those who don't want to work? What about the outflow of successful people who will (quite reasonably) run away from such a device?

Even what we can call socialism now, in our 2021 year, arouses dislike rather than any interest. There are too many different "buts" and too few adequate answers and working solutions other than the words "let us try again, the plane also did not take off in the first time".

[Upgrade00]

Governments have full control when it comes to manipulation in the economy that's why most of the politicians are suddenly becomes rich due to corruption.

The ability of the government to carry out corrupt practices is not an indicator of socialism.
Using my country as a case study; social amenities such as electricity, tourism/hospitality has been privatized, with major sellouts still happening in various sectors indicating a shift from socialism. Corruption however is still widespread as they still have influence over financial structures like; budget allocation, contract awarding etc, so corrupt gov'ts can still effectively embezzle public funds.

[Cnut237]

The ability of the government to carry out corrupt practices is not an indicator of socialism.
Using my country as a case study; social amenities such as electricity, tourism/hospitality has been privatized, with major sellouts still happening in various sectors indicating a shift from socialism. Corruption however is still widespread as they still have influence over financial structures like; budget allocation, contract awarding etc, so corrupt gov'ts can still effectively embezzle public funds.

Yes. The reason that capitalism triumphed over "communism" in the late 20th century is simply that capitalism is (slightly) less easy to exploit. I use inverted commas because "communism" as practised in the USSR was not real communism. From the other side, it is supposed that most of us live in "capitalist democracies", which is clearly an oxymoron. Capitalist systems are plutocratic, not democratic. There is less corruption in capitalist countries, but this is merely a difference of degree - the corruption is still huge.

The truth really is that both capitalism and our experience of communism are anti-democratic. The closest we have to real democracies are the capitalist countries that are run by left-leaning parties. Perhaps this is the best and most egalitarian compromise that we can achieve.

[davis196]

The ability of the government to carry out corrupt practices is not an indicator of socialism.
Using my country as a case study; social amenities such as electricity, tourism/hospitality has been privatized, with major sellouts still happening in various sectors indicating a shift from socialism. Corruption however is still widespread as they still have influence over financial structures like; budget allocation, contract awarding etc, so corrupt gov'ts can still effectively embezzle public funds.

Yes. The reason that capitalism triumphed over "communism" in the late 20th century is simply that capitalism is (slightly) less easy to exploit. I use inverted commas because "communism" as practised in the USSR was not real communism. From the other side, it is supposed that most of us live in "capitalist democracies", which is clearly an oxymoron. Capitalist systems are plutocratic, not democratic. There is less corruption in capitalist countries, but this is merely a difference of degree - the corruption is still huge.

The truth really is that both capitalism and our experience of communism are anti-democratic. The closest we have to real democracies are the capitalist countries that are run by left-leaning parties. Perhaps this is the best and most egalitarian compromise that we can achieve.

This is exactly what all socialists/communists have been saying after communism failed-"The communism in USSR wasn't the REAL communism"   Then what is the real communism?Is it come fantasy/utopia that can't be implemented in real life?There's no fair distribution of resources.Nothing is "fair" in our life.
The ideal communist utopian society looks something like "everything is owned by everyone,all the people are equal and there's no government,no rich elite and no poverty" .Sounds too good to be true.
This nonsense can't exist in the real world.
Anyway,I guess that OP is joking about the "50/50" socialism.That's not how socialism works.

[palle11]

World Going to socialist regime
So 50% will provide services and production for other 50%

I Don't mind this what you think?

I don't understand what you mean by 50%. For socialism, I don't think is about the 50/50 thing. The government regulate the economy indices and does the production mostly to ensure there is a set roles for all.

[Cnut237]

This is exactly what all socialists/communists have been saying after communism failed-"The communism in USSR wasn't the REAL communism"   Then what is the real communism?Is it come fantasy/utopia that can't be implemented in real life?

Yes, exactly that. History suggests that real communism can't be implemented in real life, because it is too easy to corrupt.

Also, I wouldn't describe 'real' communism as a utopia. Forced absolute equality sounds extremely dull, and doesn't reward effort or talent. People would have nothing to strive for, and no incentive to try. I'm not sure what utopia might look like, but the best form of society that I can see ('best' in a moral sense) out of those that exist at the moment (and have existed previously) would be a left-leaning democracy where the excesses of capitalism are kept in check, and where there is true equality of opportunity irrespective of whether or not you are born rich. A capitalism that is carefully controlled rather than laissez faire.

[Kakmakr]

I honestly don't understand your whole point.

Anyway, one of the basic principles of socialism is that the means of production is owned by the state. From this alone, I cannot imagine our present world going to that direction.

From where I am speaking, I am seeing more and more privatizations happening everyday. Even the most basic social services involving the most basic of needs such as water, education, health care, and so on are now passed to the hands of private companies.

Yes, this might be true to some extent, but who governs the private sector? We have seen how governments dictated specific trade and import agreements between countries, during the trade wars between the USA and China. (The two most powerful economies in the world)

We have also seen how sanctions was enforced on countries that was hostile towards the USA and China and how the government stopped the import and export of specific goods and items. (Example : Huawei routers & mobile phones)

In a FREE market, government should not force specific political agendas on private business. (trade restrictions)

Also, a very large percentage of the world is unemployed ...so the majority of the tax income is going toward social grants and the middle class (also a large percentage of the employed workers) are footing the bill for that. (This is also a kind of socialist design) 

[alani123]

Currently the U.S. is too distopian with its wealth inequality. The less fortunate, those born with disabilities or in an impoverished or torn apart family have very little chance to rise out of poverty and live a comfortable life. Basic amends like water are too expensive and even that alone can put someone in debt. Property taxes put a burden on poorer families even if they have zero income in most cases. Health care and medical expenses are the worst in the whole world. And moreover, the only credit line poor people can have is predatory loans. The U.S. has huge wealth inequality, with a lot of money accumulation at the very top, while big parts of the population suffer from a housing and health crisis.

Now even republican leaders are starting to notice the need for welfare. Past the failure of Trump's "corporate welfare" measures, even he himself enacted regulations on that spectrum, allowing the national debt to go way up. U.S. too, one of the last bastions among countries actively avoiding social policies, is also going down the one way road of socialized programs. Even they are realizing that this is the only way to level the playing field and help the vast majority of the population benefit.

[aiguy]

Socialist is an always do better economic and political system based on public ownership  Its include all machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. The main purpose of the socialist is to help others.

[Darker45]

I honestly don't understand your whole point.

Anyway, one of the basic principles of socialism is that the means of production is owned by the state. From this alone, I cannot imagine our present world going to that direction.

From where I am speaking, I am seeing more and more privatizations happening everyday. Even the most basic social services involving the most basic of needs such as water, education, health care, and so on are now passed to the hands of private companies.

Yes, this might be true to some extent, but who governs the private sector? We have seen how governments dictated specific trade and import agreements between countries, during the trade wars between the USA and China. (The two most powerful economies in the world)

We have also seen how sanctions was enforced on countries that was hostile towards the USA and China and how the government stopped the import and export of specific goods and items. (Example : Huawei routers & mobile phones)

In a FREE market, government should not force specific political agendas on private business. (trade restrictions)

Also, a very large percentage of the world is unemployed ...so the majority of the tax income is going toward social grants and the middle class (also a large percentage of the employed workers) are footing the bill for that. (This is also a kind of socialist design) 

That's what we can see on the surface. Perhaps it is even more interesting to ask "Who governs the government?" than "Who governs the private sector?" Because I am almost sure that at the top of the food chain are the untouchable elites who not only own the large corporations which are somehow acting as the backbone of a country's economy but also the government itself.

When a government implements this and that, bans this and that, and so on and so forth, the primordial consideration will always be the preference of these elites.

When a government appears strongly decisive to go against a certain company, don't expect that it is acting alone in the name of its being a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It is probably acting on behalf of a much bigger fish.

[ChiBitCTy]

As in terms of economics, and trying to avoid tying in this reply in to politics, because this is not the political section but I would agree that a 50/50 split between so called "socialism" and "conservatism" or some sort of a mix between to the two makes for a good balance.  Going too far either which way provides more economic issues than not.  Look at all the economies around the world, if it were proven that one way or the other would result in a better stronger economy, everyone would do it..but that's simply not the case.  Plain and simple. I think as in everything in life, a good balance is key.

[zeingrind777]

A socialist regime is an oppression in the name of social. The socialist state has failed and even bring about slavery, poverty and totalitarianism. Communities living in socialist countries, such as the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.

[Cnut237]

Venezuela in their heyday

the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.

Yes, all of these countries had a leadership that was entrenched and unaccountable. They serve as examples of how communism does not work in practice, and why democracy is so important. But it doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are bad, and that utterly unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the holy grail.

It's not black and white, it's not either/or. There are degrees of socialism. A democratic socialism may be the best approach to create greater equality of opportunity and reduce corruption at the top.

[wiss19]

The way I see it is that everyone will be contributing, and not 50% working and feeding the remaining 50%, that won’t work. Seriously, human beings will never do that, if 50% are asked to work and feed the other 50%, they would be like ‘why should I be working and feeding other people why they are relaxing and doing nothing?’, even you yourself would have the same reaction.

Nobody wants to be working while the other people are doing nothing, it will be seen as cheating. Apart from that, I think this kind of life will be very difficult to work out, people will still prefer the current system of them getting paid for their work.

[beerlover]

Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks? Socialism is when you get healthcare for free, you get cops for free, you get firefighters for free, why not get doctors for free? Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, why is community college or state college is almost free but Harvard isn't?

I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it? Basically socialism is not giving away free stuff, it is giving away stuff to people who deserve it, a huge difference.

[odolvlobo]

Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks?

I think that people worry that they would end up paying for those that do nothing because that is the result of communism and communism is a form of socialism.

Socialism is when you get healthcare for free, you get cops for free, you get firefighters for free, why not get doctors for free? Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, ...

A socialist country controls a lot more than just the healthcare, police, and fire. A socialist country owns all of the capital and means of production. In other words, the country owns all of the land, all of the natural resources, and all of the businesses. It has nothing to do with student debt, though since the country owns all of the universities, it could make them free to everyone.

Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, why is community college or state college is almost free but Harvard isn't?

I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it?

Harvard costs a lot of money because it is not subsidized by any government. The money to run it has to come from somewhere. Also, Harvard is bad example for your point. According to Harvard, 20% of the people that go there pay nothing, and Harvard does not admit based on wealth or income. Read this: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability

[Cnut237]

Harvard costs a lot of money because it is not subsidized by any government. The money to run it has to come from somewhere.

The money comes from returns on existing wealth. The system is set up so that the rich get richer. The richer you are, the greater the benefit.

Income from wealth is probably even more concentrated than wealth itself because, as Piketty notes, large blocks of wealth tend to earn a higher return than small ones. Some of this advantage comes from economies of scale, but more may come from the fact that very big investors have access to a wider range of investment opportunities than smaller investors.

_{https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed}

The current system is unfair because it rewards the already-rich disproportionately to any talent or effort. A wealth tax might be the answer to reducing inequality.

[tyz]

The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.

[zeingrind777]

Venezuela in their heyday

the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.

Yes, all of these countries had a leadership that was entrenched and unaccountable. They serve as examples of how communism does not work in practice, and why democracy is so important. But it doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are bad, and that utterly unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the holy grail.

It's not black and white, it's not either/or. There are degrees of socialism. A democratic socialism may be the best approach to create greater equality of opportunity and reduce corruption at the top.

Democratic socialists may draw closer to equality, but they do not make economies of society equal. Here I am not in favour of capitalism. it's just that, I assume that equality will be achieved if society adheres to egalitarianism and mutualism. I mean is. The breakdown of hierarchies and entire institutions will give birth to a classless society. and I think that is true equality.

[abhiseshakana]

The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.

Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.

Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.