A government is socialist if it takes taxes. Cops, military forces, teachers, all paid by everyone, not (really) paid by anyone. Absolute capitalism will not force you to pay anything, while absolute communism will force you to pay for everything, but you don't have to buy anything.

Edited 2/13/2016 03:55:56

A government is socialist if it takes taxes.

So when did the US government become socialist? After the passage of the 16th Amendment? Or was it always socialist by your argument?

Whenever taxes became mandatory law. America, like all modern governments, is kind of socialist.

Edited 2/13/2016 05:36:16

So... can anyone tell me, from an economic point of view, whats the difference between a socialist and a so-called democratic socialist?

Edited 2/13/2016 13:20:53

Well, just saying, Жұқтыру, you have said a lot of crap now, but I won't correct you, there's answers for what you said in this topic.


@Pulsey:

A (real) socialist defends the idea of an omnipotent government where every mean of production (agriculture, mining, industries,...) is controlled by the gvt. Therefore the government will have a huge control over the economy.
-Good points on this: less economic disparity, the prices of products is lower as there's no benefits to be made, everyone has equal chances to get a top job as schools are public and well funded by the state, healthcare is free,...
-The problem with socialism is mostly the lack of free market and competition it implies, therefore, as the state has the monopoly and the companies don't target benefits, they will lose in innovation and productivity and gain in bureaucracy. Also, to implement socialism, the government must impose the change to the society, it may lead to violent repression of any resistence to nationalizations, the final consequence of this might be the rise in power of dictators and a very repressive government, aka USSR of Stalin.


Democratic socialism is way better then socialism, it keeps some of the socialist aspects, but avoid liberties been lost and rise of a dictatorship
-Good points: free healthcare of quality, a lot of spend in public education, small inequalities, a strong regulation on the free market and government ownership of actions in companies (we'll see public-private companies),... there's also still private schools and hospitals, and there's sectors of the economy with no government ownership, which is not likely to happen in socialism. There's also a strict respect of human rights and liberties, as well as the respect of competition: if a public company isn't as good as a private one, the private will get the project...
-Bad points: there's still a small ammount of productivity being lost and state owned companies will often have hard times to compete against private ones for equal jobs (even if it's not a big problem). The hardest thing for democratic socialist countries is the concurrence with other countries with less "socialist" societies. As an exemple, France gives a lot of benefits for its workers and citizens, which is great, but loses in competitivity to Germany, who gives almost nothing to it's citizens. The globalized world is a problem to democratic socialist countries as their citizens have a high acquisitive power, but companies prefer to go to china rather then pay these workers the "right price".


So as a resumee, I'll give you a quote of Churchill, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

I'll say democratic socialism is the system who favorizes the equal share of blessings.

Socialist countries: USSR, Cuba (a few years ago), North Korea,...
Democratic socialist countries: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Canada, France,...

Well, just saying, Жұқтыру, you have said a lot of crap now, but I won't correct you, there's answers for what you said in this topic.

Way to be nice.

I was using the broadest meaning of socialism - any country that somehow respreads the money, most often in the form of services (school, military forces, so on). The narrow and more used meaning is where you pay 50% income taxes, but have loads and loads of thing given to you as public respreading (food, taxicabs, so on).

I actually with Жұқтыру to a certain extent, although I'm going to try to refine his definition of socialism. I don't think we can call services that are non-class or racial specific, socialist policies. For example, infrastructure such as highways cut across economic lines and can be considered a public good. I think socialism is truly socialism when money is taken from some to help some (i.e. welfare for the poor or affirmative action for minority students).

No.

That would mean feudalism is a sort of socialism.

How so?

my Lord Genghis has sent me with one question for all of you "What is this cancer?"

Unrelated note to the top at hand:

Higher teaching has become very corrupted from its true origins. You used to go to university if you really wanted to learn, if you really loved to learn, and innovate. Now, there are marks in higher schools? And it's practically a requirement for some jobs (it's not as if you can self-teach y'rself, y'know). Everyone who goes to university should only go to university only if they want or practically need to know something, not as requirement for anything.

If you don't want to go to higher school, don't go (ideally).

"Why socialism and capitalism don't mix"

Take a look at Scandinavia. Then, go to bed, close your eyes, and keep dreaming.

Take into account I said Scandinavia, but it applies, in any degree, in the whole Europe, and most of Occident. USA is still the weird one. I am not socialist (I'm progressive liberal) but USA needs urgent Socialism. Seriously. Stop fearing it, democratic socialists, as un most countries un the world, are not China or Venezuela. Democratic socialism is almost the same as progressive liberalism, nowadays.

Yes, send your countries into a deep hole of ruin from which it is hard to get out of. America is already too left.

Edited 2/14/2016 21:34:34

Yes, send your countries into a deep hole of ruin from which it is hard to get out of. America is already too left.

Yes, send your countries into a deep hole of ruin from which it is hard to get out of. America is already too left.
Can I just say Scandinavia?
Also, the US is too far left? wtf, man the US is the furthest right of any of the post-industrial nations, by your definition, being post-industrialized is a bad thing then.
Ok, you can enjoy your tribal villages.

Eh South Korea is pretty Conservative when you consider the Saenuri Party and the New Right, the latter being neoconservative. Also Israel is highly conservative when you consider parties such as Likud, Shas, The Jewish Home, Kulanu, and United Torah Judaism. Conservatism is not a distinctly American flavor, but its wrong I think to characterize America as the "most far-right" since its hard to quantify that.

Edited 2/15/2016 02:29:15

Valid point taken, but Israel and South Korea sort of happen to be in places where there is a constant threat of war, and generally speaking, the right prefers to fund the military, it is probably easy to convince them that they need more soldiers. But outside of those two, the US probably takes the Prize without discussion.

Tribal people don't have to worry about nuclear annhillation and world wars.

I'm not talking about foreign interventionism and militarism. The conservatism of Israel and South Korea is also socially conservative as well, especially the latter (although that is a cultural byproduct of being an East Asian country).

If you think Scandinavia is doing well, go look up all the issues there having.

If you really look into it, there hardly a nice place to be, unless, of course, your rich.