Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Ah, now I understand. You don't know what Collectivism is. That's too bad.
I'd provide a link but I don't believe you'd use it.

Oh, heck. Here's a link. https://mises.org/library/fallacy-collectivism

N. Korea is a Collectivist Totalitarian country.

BS. You were responding to my post. That's a very irresponsible response.
It's obvious that you believe that Liberty and Freedom are the same.
You're wrong, again.

At any rate, Collectivism and Liberty cannot exist together because they don't
agree in any way, shape or form. Do some research and find out the difference
between Liberty and Freedom. You'll learn something.

Not true. You are confused. Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, etc...
are all forms of Collectivism.

You honestly don't know what Collectivism is That's obvious. Do some research
then try to discuss this with me.

 

Sure, the society in N. Korea has collectivist ideals, but the government is not collectivist, I'm still not sure what your point is. Saying N. Korea or any country which has "collectivist" ideals in no way proves that collectivism always leads to totalitarian governments. It is an argument from correlation. I could say the same thing about individualist countries, whatever that means. Democratic, decentralized collective communities have been proven to not fail (if they stay that way), because individualism is still on safe ground. I agree, too much centralization and it will fail, because the population at large must listen to a very small group of people as the voice of the collective, and there is little "social cooperation", or say in actual matters.

No, I don't, and wrong about what? What BS, I was just being honest. Good grief. I was reading another's post who used the word freedom (multitasking), yes I was responding to your post, but in this case I could have replaced freedom with liberty, and the point stays the same. "If by liberty, you mean the liberty to exploit workers, I'll have no part in it." I know the difference. Liberty just means all freedoms, besides the freedoms to infringe on another, to stay as concise as possible.

Why? Total individualism and liberty cannot exist together by that notion, in any shape or form, because you may infringe on others liberty. Collectivism only puts the group or greater good above the individual. It does not completely disregard the individual. You seem to be stating it does, which is why I am at a loss as to your understanding.

-On collectivism:
"Collectivism and individualism
Collectivism is often portrayed as the polar opposite of individualism, which is usually characterized as the economic, political, social or cultural autonomy of the individual within society; but given the different interpretations of individualism, from egocentric perspectives to more integrative ones, this apparent opposition is not necessarily true. For example, worker cooperatives operate on a collective basis but require the direct input of each individual member. While the ideas of holism posit that a sum is greater than its parts, this does not necessarily imply that a collectivity is greater or more powerful than the individuals that make it up, but instead that the collective energies of all individuals involved produce something that goes beyond each person (whereas, in authoritarian collectivities, power accrues to a person or group who is supposed to embody the collective). Theoretically, collectivism goes beyond considering the individual as the prime mover of society, but instead considers the numerous associations individuals voluntarily form as society's basis. In doing so it recognizes society as a collection of individuals and so remains with the understanding that any collective organization is fundamentally composed of individuals.

Depending on how conscious a collectivity is of this reality determines how genuinely it maintains respect for individuality. On the other hand, individualism which encourages individuality at the expense of others cannot be considered collectivist, nor even individualist, since individualism is not the same as egotism."

Totalitarianism: No, this is a form of government.
Socialism: Yes, collectivist economy, fundamentally without a state, but pragmatically libertarian
Communism: Yes, stateless, classless, cannot by definition be totalitarian

Yes, I do. Totalitarianism is not a form of collectivism. You are still conflating forms of government with the way in which a society interacts. Once you stop, then maybe we can finally just agree to disagree.

 

Frontline recently did an episode about antibiotics you should look at if you are interested in such things. The basics are the reason we are falling behind in developing antibiotics is because a company that spends a billion getting a drug to market are better served by getting drugs to market that you will need to take for years to treat chronic conditions as opposed to ten days. It would require government intervention to fund the research to develop the antibiotics for these corporations to sell if we want to even stay somewhere near pace with these super bugs developing. I also read an article a month or thereabouts ago which I forget the source of now, that indicated that septic infections are increasingly becoming the most expensive illness in the US to treat and they are rising in great frequency. We have both a financial and moral interest in developing these new drugs, and that is what socialism is about--saving and improving lives. Yes it would require a restriction on your freedom to die from your guts rotting inside out, but I will go with socialism over that any day of the week.

 

The best system is one in which each person's property rights (both in his body and in the things he owns) are legally protected and in which people are free to act in whatever manner they wish, as long as they don't violate the property rights of others. If, when you use the word "exploit", you mean that one person is violating the property rights of another, then such an act would be prohibited. On the other hand, if, when you use the word "exploit", you mean "employ and give money to", then I can't see how such an act would be prohibited.

 

The tax rates in 2012, when Romney made his statement, were fundamentally the same as they'd been since 2003 with the last of the (temporary) tax cuts imposed under the Bush Adminstration.

It should be noted that the self-employed can often deduct expenditures reducing their net income that a worker cannot deduct (e.g. the self-employed can "write off" transportation expenditures related to work but an employee typically cannot). The comparison between the self-employed and the employed worker is fundamentally invalid when it comes to determining "low income" status.

An interestind side note on Mitt Romney and taxation. Romney published his 2011 tax return and paid a total federal tax of about 14% on over $22 million in income. That same year I paid a tax rate of about 28% on a net income of slightly more than $100,000. Why was I paying double the tax rate of someone earning over 200-times what I earned for the year? It can also be noted that the top 400 income households in the United States, all with incomes in excess of $250 million/yr, pay an average tax rate of about 17% which is roughly the same as someone with a gross income of $90,000. The wealthy are under-taxed in the United States based upon all criteria.

The current eligibility criteria for SNAP was established in 2003 so apparently you're saying that former President Bush wanted more people to vote for Democrats and that really doesn't make a lot of sense.

No, capitalism with less government interventionism only benefits the very wealthy and comes at the expense of the nation and the world as a whole. Let us merely remember that the mortgage crisis of 2008 was due to a lack of government regulation and oversight of the mortgage lending practices and securities based upon mortgages. The massive devastation of the Dan River by Duke Energy was due to a lack of government regulation and oversight. Acid rain that continues to destroy the forests, streams, and wildlife of the Eastern United States is due to a lack of regulation and oversight of the coal industry. The depletion of the world's ocean by over 60% of the fishing stocks used for food is due to a lack of international regulation and oversight.

Poverty for working Americans is due to a lack of regulation and oversight by government.

It should be noted that it's "state socialism" that should be condemned but not voluntary private socialism. Private socialism (i.e. ownership of the means of production by the workers) exists throughout the United States. Winco Foods, a West Coast grocery chain, is solely owned by the employees for example.

 

Because his income is from investments. Look at the pro athletes or movie stars making $22 million in salary and they pay a higher percentage. Romney put $100s of millions at risk of loss, to earn that $22 million.

 

Totalitarianism is a form of Collectivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

 

Do you not think my cpa does this for me?
Good grief

Not true. Low income status is a low income status.

 

Im sure Cuba or China would be more than willing to sell us all the antibiotics their socialism is developing.

 

Since China uses antibiotics at ten times the rate of Americans, perhaps they will. It is just a matter of whether or not theirs will be for the things we need them for. Nice strawman though. Very Wizard of Oz like

 

Sounds like made up irrelevancy to me.

 

The fact that a person doesn't know how to exploit the tax provisions for their personal gain is not my problem but I'll provide an example of how I do.

I've been riding motorcycles for virtually my entire lifetime and often attended motorcycle shows and events. Because this was a "personal" expense it was not tax deductable. Two years ago I formed a company with a partner to produce after-market parts for Harley-Davidson motorcycles and now attending motorcycle shows and events is a part of our marketing plan. Because attending these shows and events is a legitimate purpose of the enterprise now the expenditures are tax deductable. Same dollars being spent but what was once not tax deductable is now tax deductable. I'm also able to purchase new Harley-Davidson motorcycles for product development purposes. This makes the purchase of the motorcycle a legitimate business expense and the money is tax deductable. Even test riding the motorcycles to check our our products and the insurance is tax deductable because these are all legitimate business expenditures related to the enterprise.

The tax deductions determining net taxable income are completely different for the business owner and the employee and we cannot compare them. It's an apple and oranges comparison. For example an employee with a gross personal income $10,150 if single or $20,300 if married filing jointly has no tax obligation according the form 1040EZ and they are a " very low income" worker in the United States. If you have a gross income above this amount then you would no longer be in this category unless you had additional tax deductions (i.e. additional voluntary expenditures that happen to be deductable under the tax codes).

The fact that you might voluntarily "spend yourself" into a low income status isn't quite the same as not having the income at all.

 

It doesn't matter anymore, although it's not. Yes, when a country is totalitarian, it must be collectivist, but they are not the same thing and one is not a form of the other. They describe entirely different things.

You fail to realize the differences between the two types of collectivism. Vertical (state control, hierarchy) and horizontal ( decentralized, democratic, recognizes individual liberties). Individualism and collectivism are not polar opposites. Democratic societies recognize that a society is a collection of individuals who through cooperation can be collectivist. One could also argue that even a free market capitalist society is on the greater scale a collective of free acting private businesses. Also fascist totalitarian regimes actually rose in opposition to libertarianism, marxism(socialism), and liberalism. One cannot say that socialism leads to totalitarianism when socialism advocates more decentralization and less big centralized governments. You must first understand the words you hate so much are actually in opposition to top down authority. The leader of Korea would despise socialism, because workers would then need to be given rights.

 

This is an assumption about me of which you know nothing.

Once again you're hypothesizing in order to hopefully make your point.
Of course you're wrong. Dead wrong.

How do I know? Because I know where I stand and you don't. I'm a
very, very poor person. Oh, this is by choice because I refuse to be
put into a box. The hard lined left-winged extremist knee-jerk
reactionary liberals would love to have me on their side. Unfortunately
for them I'm highly educated and I don't subscribe to Collectivism.

 

... Yes it does. I know you don't realize it but you've finally realized that you're wrong.
I know that you're wrong and appreciate you're attempt to bow out gracefully.

N. Korea is totally Collectivist.

Why?

Because N. Korea is Totalitarian.

Totalitarianism is totally Collectivist.

Why can't you accept that absolute fact? And yes, it's an absolute fact. I'm not
putting you down, I'm simply putting your view where it belongs.

Look, it all looks good on paper but it ends there. As long as people can think for
themselves Socialism will continue to die the same way that Totalitarianism dies.

Thinking people reject any form of Collectivism.

 

Absolute BS. Why can't I accept that absolute fact? Because it's not one. They are two different words for a reason and you still continue to simplify them to the point of nonsense. Still after all this time you still have no idea what socialism is and continue to conflate it with planned economy government. It really is sad.

 

It takes away the incentive to produce and take risks....just look at Cuba, a darling of the socialists....they like Fidel more than, say, GW Bush.

 

According to Forbes, socialism (i.e. Social Democracies) are the happiest places on the planet. But don't tell that load over there screaming 'USA! USA! USA!' while wearing his Don't Tread On Me t-shirt and drinking a Bud.


World's Happiest Places

Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?

According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.

 

Yes there is.

Yes, they are two different words but Totalitarianism is Collectivism. You should
do some research.

Incorrect. After all this time YOU have no idea what Socialism is and am trying to make
it what you want it to be. Reality doesn't work that way.

Please, do some research.

 

Whatever works best, is what a society will gravitate toward. And truly, some 'socialist' ideas/ways are just fine.

 

How so? Socialism is social ownership of the means of production and there is something called a mixed economy which the US has. The economy can be pulled in either direction democratically, either towards capitalism (capitalist takes the profit of production for themselves and pays wages) or towards socialism (the workers all take a share of the profit). You keep conflating collectivism, communism, and socialism with forms of government. The US has socialist policies which makes sure workers get paid for what they produced. Other western countries have even more of this. It also has private businesses which are socialist where the workers actually own the company.These are facts. I used words as they are supposed to be used. You use them as your obvious bias wants to use them, and it's impossible to respond to nonsense.

 

In every conceivable way.

Deal with it.

 

North Korea hates socialists. Instead of capitalist individuals owning private business, the state is the capitalist and runs everything. Totalitarian governments were against all forms of socialism, groups cooperating together against the government, and having to give workers rights. They hated groups organizing for better pay. They hated cooperation outside authority. They hated democratizing the production workforce (social ownership). They hated democracy in general, of which socialism (cooperation) inherently requires. All of that totalitarian governments are completely against. There are two forms of collectivism (cooperation and hierarchy) and socialism has to do with the former. Totalitarian societies have the latter. The two are completely different.

North Korea has a state capitalist planned economy. It isn't communist. It isn't socialist. It has a vertical collectivist societal structure.

Totalitarianism is not collectivist.
Totalitarianism has a vertical collectivist structure.
There is a difference.

Do some research.

I'm sure you'll learn something.

 

Every conceivable way but unfortunately you can't name any ? Inability to support ones claim does not lend much credibility to that claim.

 

I do not speculate about individuals but instead make generalized statements. Of course a person that chooses to be poor is completely different than a person that is forced into poverty by the market forces of capitalism.