**official Vote Socialism Thread**

[SilentSnow 1]

For whatever reason, Socialism has a really bad reputation in the United States. However, most of the reasonable data shows that Socialism is a better form of government than Capitalism, and way better than Libertarianism. Remember, Socialism is not Communism where price controls and other economic manipulations are attempted. Under Socialism, the economy is free to do what it wants; but then a significant portion of the GDP is used for social programs, business regulation, and environmental controls. Lets ignore for now that Libertarianism is a completely unworkable political fantasy and has never existed in one country ever. We'll assume that the governments that are most capitalistic represent libertarian ideals, and the govts with the highest tax bases represent socialistic ideals. To compare I found the most reliable indicator of Socialism that I can think of- Government tax receipts as a percent of GDP. Then I found the most reliable happiness study I could; a meta-analysis of over 100 other happiness studies. Here are the results. For those of you who dont know, the OECD is almost all of the worlds richest countries, with a couple slightly poorer ones thrown in. The first column is tax receipts as percent of GDP. The second is the countries rank in the happiness index studies.Sweden _____ 50.2 ____ 7Denmark ____ 48.5 ____ 1Belgium _____ 46.4 ___ 28Finland ______ 45.9 ____ 6Austria ______ 44.0 ____ 3France ______ 44.0 ___ 62Norway _____ 43.5 ___ 19Italy ________ 42.6 ___ 50Luxembourg _ 41.8 ___ 12Czech Rep. __ 39.3 ___ 77Netherlands__ 39.2 ___ 15Hungary ____ 38.3 ___ 107Iceland _____ 38.1 ____ 4Germany ____ 36.0 ___ 35Greece ______ 35.9 ___ 84United K. ____ 35.8 ___ 41Spain _______ 35.6 ___ 46New Zeal. ___ 34.9 ___ 18Canada _____ 33.9 ___ 10Portugal _____ 33.9 ___ 92Slovakia _____ 33.1 ___ 129Poland ______ 32.6 ___ 99Australia ____ 31.5 ___ 26Turkey ______ 31.1 ___ 133Switzerland __ 30.3 ____ 2Ireland ______ 28.4 ___ 11USA ________ 26.4 ___ 23Japan _______ 25.8 ___ 90South Korea __ 24.4 ___ 102Mexico _______ 18.1 ___51A few other countries of interest-Brazil 81China 82Costa Rica 13Cuba 83 - one of the last communistic countries leftHong Kong 63- the libertarian championIndia 125Indonesia 64Nigeria 120Russia 167 - one of the lowest tax rates in the world- almost pure capitalismVenezuela 25- fairly poor but much more socialistic than averageSo if we define above 40 percent as definitely socialistic and below 30 as definitely capitalistic we get a happiness average of 21 for socialism and 49 for capitalism. Capitalism gets slaughtered. And the data looks even worse if you use the poorer countries. They rarely have a very high percent of government receipts. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TF...amp;Topic2id=95http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2279.aspxhttp://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-...7-28.2448323827

[RodReynolds 87]

I anticipate that there will be no disagreement.

[ShakeZuma 585]

they must be really happy in Denmark

[SilentSnow 1]

I anticipate that there will be no disagreement.

Of course not. Any reasonable person can see that once per capita GDP exceeds 10-12k, thenmoderate Socialism is the best form of government.I just made this post for those few remaining crazies who still support capitalism, to help them see the light.

[GWCGWC 83]

Socialist Democrats are fucking wacko's. Just stating the obvious folks. carry on

[wilheldp 0]

Hey, about 99.9% of the US voted Socialist last election...we still try to hide it by calling it a representational Democracy, or Republic, if you will.

[Suited_Up 2]

How about this?They all fucking suck!!!

[hblask 1]

One slight, little minor problem, with socialisim, maybe we just overlook it, it is just such a small problem.... anywhere socialism has been tried in the world throughout history, the government has ended up slaughtering millions of it's citizens. Just a small problem though, one I'm sure we can overlook.

[GWCGWC 83]

One slight, little minor problem, with socialisim, maybe we just overlook it, it is just such a small problem.... anywhere socialism has been tried in the world throughout history, the government has ended up slaughtering millions of it's citizens. Just a small problem though, one I'm sure we can overlook.

I have no problem with this as long as I get to decide who gets slaughtered.

[SilentSnow 1]

One slight, little minor problem, with socialisim, maybe we just overlook it, it is just such a small problem.... anywhere socialism has been tried in the world throughout history, the government has ended up slaughtering millions of it's citizens. Just a small problem though, one I'm sure we can overlook.

That is historical totalitarian communism, currently only practiced in North Korea, and to a much lesser degree in China and Cuba. The socialism of today is farther from communism than capitalism is from fascism. With the latest adventures of the good old US of A, I think you might want to downplay that whole "slaughtering" thing.But as an act of generosity, I will admit that today's Republicans are not as bad as Hitler if you will concede that today's Sweden is not as bad as Stalin.I realize that my definition of Socialism is different than most. With respect to social issues, I would be almost libertarian. Economically, I would be libertarian unless it was in the environmental, anti-monopolistic, or long term economic interest of the country not to be. The socialism would be primarily limited to redistributive taxes since capitalism has always resulted in a fundamentally unjust economic distribution.If there is a name for my political views I dont know what it is. It seems to be some sort of cross between libertarianism and socialism.

[KDawgCometh 2]

One slight, little minor problem, with socialisim, maybe we just overlook it, it is just such a small problem.... anywhere socialism has been tried in the world throughout history, the government has ended up slaughtering millions of it's citizens. Just a small problem though, one I'm sure we can overlook.

do u actually have a clue, or do u like talking out of your ass. Communism is not communism. If you have studied political science at all then you'd know what I'm talking about, but juding by your post here you definetly don't and are just reguritating regan era propaganda without actually doing reading for yourself. Most of the western european nations practice socialism as their main form of politics and I don't exactly see Jaques Chirac murdering french citizens by the thousands and I don't see the ruling parties in germany, sweden, Denmark, or england killing their citizens. Its not hard to think before pressing the submit post button, try it the next time u talk about politics

[princeof56k 0]

Remember, Socialism is not Communism where price controls and other economic manipulations are attempted. Under Socialism, the economy is free to do what it wants; but then a significant portion of the GDP is used for social programs, business regulation, and environmental controls.

Are you sure about this? It looks like there's a contradiction there. IMO, social programs and business regulation are forms of price controls/economic manipulation. I also tried to look up the definition of Socialism and came across a lot of meanings, but I think the Wikipedia had the had the definition I saw the most:Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social controlIf your going to control property and wealth distribution, I think your going to have to do some ecomonic manipulation some where. I could be wrong though. I'm not a government major.BTW, I'm not for totally wild capitalism either. I think a gorvernment needs both capitalistic and socialistic methods to be successful.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

One slight, little minor problem, with socialisim, maybe we just overlook it, it is just such a small problem.... anywhere socialism has been tried in the world throughout history, the government has ended up slaughtering millions of it's citizens. Just a small problem though, one I'm sure we can overlook.

Yeah, Sweden’s really big on slaughtering its citizens.Seriously, your post was a bit ludicrous.

[SilentSnow 1]

Are you sure about this? It looks like there's a contradiction there. IMO, social programs and business regulation are forms of price controls/economic manipulation. I also tried to look up the definition of Socialism and came across a lot of meanings, but I think the Wikipedia had the had the definition I saw the most:Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social controlIf your going to control property and wealth distribution, I think your going to have to do some ecomonic manipulation some where. I could be wrong though. I'm not a government major.BTW, I'm not for totally wild capitalism either. I think a gorvernment needs both capitalistic and socialistic methods to be successful.

Well every government action influences the market to some degree. Even minimal police protection would change the mix of goods and services somewhat. But I would not advocate price controls or tell people what they had to produce. Admittedly, my government would manipulate the market to provide more basic health care for the poor, and somewhat fewer yachts. Another big change from capitalism is that in cases where the market appears to be blatantly ignoring the long term, I would provide incentives to value the future.I dont know if there is a definition of Socialism that everyone accepts, but I think what I propose could theoretically be called some sort of mild Socialism.I guess the reason I bothered to make this thread in the first place is that it bothers me sometimes when Libertarians, Conservatives, and Economists keep claiming that "Socialism" has been tried and failed. It hasnt. Communism has failed. Socialism is actually the majority form of government among the wealthy nations today. There are good reasons why it should be. I think that pure Capitalism has actually been more discredited by history than moderate Socialism.

[socalpoker_j 1]

Anarchy mo-fos, anarchy!

[wilheldp 0]

Nazi = National Socialist Worker's Party

[hblask 1]

That is historical totalitarian communism, currently only practiced in North Korea, and to a much lesser degree in China and Cuba. The socialism of today is farther from communism than capitalism is from fascism. With the latest adventures of the good old US of A, I think you might want to downplay that whole "slaughtering" thing.But as an act of generosity, I will admit that today's Republicans are not as bad as Hitler if you will concede that today's Sweden is not as bad as Stalin.I realize that my definition of Socialism is different than most. With respect to social issues, I would be almost libertarian. Economically, I would be libertarian unless it was in the environmental, anti-monopolistic, or long term economic interest of the country not to be. The socialism would be primarily limited to redistributive taxes since capitalism has always resulted in a fundamentally unjust economic distribution.If there is a name for my political views I dont know what it is. It seems to be some sort of cross between libertarianism and socialism.

Whew, for a second there, I thought you were going down the "oh, but that's just cuz they did socialism wrong" tack, which is always good for a laugh.I can't exactly tell if you are a socialist or what. It sounds more like a Democrat or a Republican: "I believe in freedom except where I don't". That's not a philosophy, thats just conceit -- that you, personally, can pick the correct set of freedoms that will optimize life for 260,000,000 people.

do u actually have a clue, or do u like talking out of your ass. Communism is not communism. If you have studied political science at all then you'd know what I'm talking about, but juding by your post here you definetly don't and are just reguritating regan era propaganda without actually doing reading for yourself. Most of the western european nations practice socialism as their main form of politics and I don't exactly see Jaques Chirac murdering french citizens by the thousands and I don't see the ruling parties in germany, sweden, Denmark, or england killing their citizens. Its not hard to think before pressing the submit post button, try it the next time u talk about politics

My, someone is cranky today. Countries like Sweden and Germany, etc, have many social welfare programs, but they are not Socialist or Communist. They have reasonable respect for private property and rule of law. Socialism/communism is when the government controls/owns the means of production and does not allow private enterprise or free trade. Anyone who attaches the word "socialism" or "socialist" to their agenda now has a serious hole in their understanding of history, as the horrors implemented in the name of "the common good" exceed most others throughout history.

Yeah, Sweden’s really big on slaughtering its citizens.Seriously, your post was a bit ludicrous.

Sweden is not socialist. They just have an active welfare state. They support free enterprise, capitalism, rule of law, and property rights. That is the opposite of socialism.

Admittedly, my government would manipulate the market to provide more basic health care for the poor, and somewhat fewer yachts. Another big change from capitalism is that in cases where the market appears to be blatantly ignoring the long term, I would provide incentives to value the future.

So you feel qualified to make decisions on the appropriate way to make the ideal choices for 260,000,000 people? Wow, you must have a brain the size of a planet.

I dont know if there is a definition of Socialism that everyone accepts, but I think what I propose could theoretically be called some sort of mild Socialism.I guess the reason I bothered to make this thread in the first place is that it bothers me sometimes when Libertarians, Conservatives, and Economists keep claiming that "Socialism" has been tried and failed. It hasnt. Communism has failed. Socialism is actually the majority form of government among the wealthy nations today. There are good reasons why it should be. I think that pure Capitalism has actually been more discredited by history than moderate Socialism.

Ah, here we go with the "when they killed all those people that wasn't socialism" argument. Also known as the "Even though every other socialist goverment was an unmitigated disaster, mine will work perfectly" argument.The difference between socialism and communism is neglible, about like the difference between republicans and democrats in the US. The label is the only thing that is different.You seem to be proposing a free market capitalist system with an active welfare state to support the causes you think are important. In the US that is called a Democrat.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Nazi = National Socialist Worker's Party

Right, and I'm sure that the People's Republic of China is a "Republic." Way to know nothing about history.

[DonkSlayer 1]

My, someone is cranky today.

See what happens when you start talking about soccer. I wouldn't talk to this guy in real life unless he had just won the lottery and had 3 cups of coffee in him. (sw)I think you have an interesting political/economic/social philosophy, Silent. I don't think that we should really discuss it on the level of "definitions" because obviously we all have a different set of criteria for "socialism", "capitalism", etc. I do think one problem with your argument is the same problem we may be having in Iraq...you advocate imposing a system on a particular culture that has never had it, doesn't want it, and likely never will. The United States was built on capitalism, freedom...and turning it into a strong socialist state would be impossible without creating a new Constitution, turning our politics around, and years, years, years of political/social reconditioning of the general populace. I think you can make a strong philisophical/historical argument for intellectual development of a society being driven by a free market economy more strongly than a nation with a notable degree of socialist functions. Money/success motivates more than some sort of pride. Plus, most of the countries in your index to not have the ethnic diversity of the US....the amount of political parties that would spring into a socialist-style government in the US would be obscene...you think our Congress bogs down now?

[wilheldp 0]

Right, and I'm sure that the People's Republic of China is a "Republic." Way to know nothing about history.

Uh, the Third Reich WAS socialist. In fact, a number of good things came out of that regime...most notably, the Autobahn intrastate system. Hitler and Germany could have a world powerhouse to equal or exceed the United States if it hadn't been for the whole invasion of other countries and mass genocide of the Jews.Anyway, there isn't anybody running for public office in America on a outwardly Socialist ticket. That being said, the more time that the Democrats and Republicans spend in power, the more Socialistic our society becomes. They continue to start new programs that supposedly help the populace, and have to collect more in taxes to implement the programs. The complete lack of personal responsibility in this nation is allowing it to happen. I, for one, like to decide how I get to spend the money that I make. I certainly don't need slimy bastards in Washington deciding for me.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Uh, the Third Reich WAS socialist.

They may have been extremely nationalistic, but their who genocide thing got in the way of that agenda a bit.My real point was that you can't judge the content of a group by the name they give to themselves.

[wilheldp 0]

My real point was that you can't judge the content of a group by the name they give to themselves.

That may be true in general, but specifically, the Nazis called themselves Socialists and they were Socialists.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That may be true in general, but specifically, the Nazis called themselves Socialists and they were Socialists.

Let's see what Hitler had to say on it, "The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words 'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people. "-Mein KampfAnd yes, I understand the irony of making fun of you for accrediting to a people what they call themselves and then bringing up how Hitler described himself, so let's ignore that point, okay?

[wilheldp 0]

And yes, I understand the irony of making fun of you for accrediting to a people what they call themselves and then bringing up how Hitler described himself, so let's ignore that point, okay?

Nah, I don't want to ignore it. Hitler was one of the single greatest propagandists of the 20th Century. Using his own description of anything that happened during the time period of the Third Reich as proof of any point other than his propaganda skills is ridiculous. If you look at the [non-military and non-genocidal] actions of his government, then you will realize that they were Socialist.