Quantcast
Is Socialism Anti-American?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is Socialism Anti-American?

Is it?

Yes 85 28.72%
 
NO 183 61.82%
 
Opinion below 8 2.70%
 
other 13 4.39%
 
Total:289

"Because of the potential to harm others?"

That's it in a nutshell. Society determines which are public goods and public bads, and activities that have shown a tendency to create public bads ought to be regulated. There can be no absolute which says that non-aggression alone absolves individuals of their responsibility to society, because unintended consequences are abundant, and if society can head off these unintended consequences before they occur, so much the better.

Absolute liberty (even keeping the non-aggression principle in place) does not lead to absolute happiness, and finding the balance between individual good and public good is an eternally ongoing process, but one that we should not shirk in the name of absolutes.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:

In addendum, look at what the various socialist policies have done in America and Western Europe. They have checked the excesses of robber-baron style capitalism by helping to enforce minimum living standards across the board. How much has social unrest diminished in America since the New Deal, or how much more stable have Western European societies become since the early 20th century? The "consequentialist" evils of the 20th century were a reaction to the rapaciousness of 19th-century liberalism: the Marxists were those who had always been poor and merely saw the serf-lord replaced by the mill owner as the master of their fate. The Fascists were those small producers who had had some measure of success in the old system, crushed by an unfeeling marketplace against which they could not hope to compete.

Is it these policies or was it natural economic growth and the reduction of scarcity which has reduced civil unrest? Could it be that the United States and Western Europe became so productive after the Great Depression that the populations were never destitute? I don't credit the stability to legislation, but to human innovation and ingenuity reducing prices of necessities. If anything, this progress has existed despite the New Deal, not because of it. Of course, in the short term, the New Deal benefited those it chose to benefit, and repressed any socialist revolution, but in the long-term the story is different. 

Question: Why doesn't there exist rober-baron capitalism in the free-markets of Hong Kong and Singapore? Shouldn't they be riddled with this social unrest and destitution among the poor? 



Mr Khan said:
"Because of the potential to harm others?"

That's it in a nutshell. Society determines which are public goods and public bads, and activities that have shown a tendency to create public bads ought to be regulated. There can be no absolute which says that non-aggression alone absolves individuals of their responsibility to society, because unintended consequences are abundant, and if society can head off these unintended consequences before they occur, so much the better.

Absolute liberty (even keeping the non-aggression principle in place) does not lead to absolute happiness, and finding the balance between individual good and public good is an eternally ongoing process, but one that we should not shirk in the name of absolutes.

And the potential good that might arise from that freedom? Is that irrelevant? What about the positive externalities? How does society calculate what is good and bad? I think this balance is found by spontaneous order, not by central democratic planning. 

I don't believe in "absolute happiness", there will always be other emotions. That is human nature. 



sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:

In addendum, look at what the various socialist policies have done in America and Western Europe. They have checked the excesses of robber-baron style capitalism by helping to enforce minimum living standards across the board. How much has social unrest diminished in America since the New Deal, or how much more stable have Western European societies become since the early 20th century? The "consequentialist" evils of the 20th century were a reaction to the rapaciousness of 19th-century liberalism: the Marxists were those who had always been poor and merely saw the serf-lord replaced by the mill owner as the master of their fate. The Fascists were those small producers who had had some measure of success in the old system, crushed by an unfeeling marketplace against which they could not hope to compete.

Is it these policies or was it natural economic growth and the reduction of scarcity which has reduced civil unrest? Could it be that the United States and Western Europe became so productive after the Great Depression that the populations were never destitute? I don't credit the stability to legislation, but to human innovation and ingenuity reducing prices of necessities. If anything, this progress has existed despite the New Deal, not because of it. Of course, in the short term, the New Deal benefited those it chose to benefit, and repressed any socialist revolution, but in the long-term the story is different. 

Question: Why doesn't there exist rober-baron capitalism in the free-markets of Hong Kong and Singapore? Shouldn't they be riddled with this social unrest and destitution among the poor? 

Because they are small enough societies that they can externalize these public bads in many cases. Hong Kong companies take advantage of cheap Chinese labor, off-loading the dark side of capitalism into their suzerain.

Singapore, meanwhile, sees 60% of GDP generated by a government owned corporation, Tamasek Holdings.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
You wrongly judge freedom and happiness is based on how much material possessions people own. It is ironic that people living in wealthy countries have higher rates of depression, suicide rates regardless of how much wealth or material possessions they own in comparison to third world developing island nations. So what is wrong with third world nations and primitive cultures working together as a community instead of being all against each other in a mindless competition for more wealth and more possessions?

I never said anything about material possessions. I've spoken only of productivity. That includes: food, clothing, housing, health-care, science, art, buildings, and material possessions like you know - video games. But if we are to follow the logic presented in this thread, why should you have a right to spend your money on video games when a child in Africa is starving to death? Why not redistribute your wealth and material possessions? 



Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
'Merica!


Please. In my threads only post fully realized thought processes that add up to at least a paragraph or more. I would like detailed Abdllah oblongata thesis's on why you think America can never be a Socialist state.

That would be 'medulla oblongata.'



Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:

In addendum, look at what the various socialist policies have done in America and Western Europe. They have checked the excesses of robber-baron style capitalism by helping to enforce minimum living standards across the board. How much has social unrest diminished in America since the New Deal, or how much more stable have Western European societies become since the early 20th century? The "consequentialist" evils of the 20th century were a reaction to the rapaciousness of 19th-century liberalism: the Marxists were those who had always been poor and merely saw the serf-lord replaced by the mill owner as the master of their fate. The Fascists were those small producers who had had some measure of success in the old system, crushed by an unfeeling marketplace against which they could not hope to compete.

Is it these policies or was it natural economic growth and the reduction of scarcity which has reduced civil unrest? Could it be that the United States and Western Europe became so productive after the Great Depression that the populations were never destitute? I don't credit the stability to legislation, but to human innovation and ingenuity reducing prices of necessities. If anything, this progress has existed despite the New Deal, not because of it. Of course, in the short term, the New Deal benefited those it chose to benefit, and repressed any socialist revolution, but in the long-term the story is different. 

Question: Why doesn't there exist rober-baron capitalism in the free-markets of Hong Kong and Singapore? Shouldn't they be riddled with this social unrest and destitution among the poor? 

Because they are small enough societies that they can externalize these public bads in many cases. Hong Kong companies take advantage of cheap Chinese labor, off-loading the dark side of capitalism into their suzerain.

Singapore, meanwhile, sees 60% of GDP generated by a government owned corporation, Tamasek Holdings.

If Hong Kong were a European country it would rank 22 in population. That's more than half of Europe's countries.  Why does China have these same issues that are supposedly brough by capitalism (child labor, economic disparity, sweat shops) when its economy is more democratically regulated than other market-economies? Shouldn't that greater democratic control lead to more egalitarianism? 



sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:

In addendum, look at what the various socialist policies have done in America and Western Europe. They have checked the excesses of robber-baron style capitalism by helping to enforce minimum living standards across the board. How much has social unrest diminished in America since the New Deal, or how much more stable have Western European societies become since the early 20th century? The "consequentialist" evils of the 20th century were a reaction to the rapaciousness of 19th-century liberalism: the Marxists were those who had always been poor and merely saw the serf-lord replaced by the mill owner as the master of their fate. The Fascists were those small producers who had had some measure of success in the old system, crushed by an unfeeling marketplace against which they could not hope to compete.

Is it these policies or was it natural economic growth and the reduction of scarcity which has reduced civil unrest? Could it be that the United States and Western Europe became so productive after the Great Depression that the populations were never destitute? I don't credit the stability to legislation, but to human innovation and ingenuity reducing prices of necessities. If anything, this progress has existed despite the New Deal, not because of it. Of course, in the short term, the New Deal benefited those it chose to benefit, and repressed any socialist revolution, but in the long-term the story is different. 

Question: Why doesn't there exist rober-baron capitalism in the free-markets of Hong Kong and Singapore? Shouldn't they be riddled with this social unrest and destitution among the poor? 

Because they are small enough societies that they can externalize these public bads in many cases. Hong Kong companies take advantage of cheap Chinese labor, off-loading the dark side of capitalism into their suzerain.

Singapore, meanwhile, sees 60% of GDP generated by a government owned corporation, Tamasek Holdings.

If Hong Kong were a European country it would rank 22 in population. That's more than half of Europe's countries.  Why does China have these same issues that are supposedly brough by capitalism (child labor, economic disparity, sweat shops) when its economy is more democratically regulated than other market-economies? Shouldn't that greater democratic control lead to more egalitarianism? 

It is far from democratically regulated. Do not conflate elected power with single-party dictatorships.

You also seem to have ignored the Singapore point. They are very state-controlled, just in a very different way (through state participation in markets rather than state regulation of markets. Arguably more socialist in that the state controls the means of production for 60% of the economy)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

VitroBahllee said:
spurgeonryan said:


Please. In my threads only post fully realized thought processes that add up to at least a paragraph or more. I would like detailed Abdllah oblongata thesis's on why you think America can never be a Socialist state.

That would be 'medulla oblongata.'

You are correcting a word I spelled wrong, when the rest of the sentence was entirely pulled out of my Arse?



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

If you start calling USA as America, you can't expect me to give you an answer.
Because I'm American too, as I live in Brazil, and I don't think our continent is only your country, as it really isn't.
Cuba is part of America too and until some time ago was a socialistic country, and you can't call an American country anti-American.
But even if you are only talking about USA, no, people are free do have their own ideals, and USA is supposed to be a free country, so anti-USA would be judge people for what they believe and try to impose what they have to be.