Vote
30 Total Votes
1

Yes

16 votes
2 comments
2

No

14 votes
5 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
RagoNemesisDie says2016-06-17T18:35:01.1857794Z
Liberalism is a sub-section of socialism, so to say that socialism is out of date is saying that liberalism is out of date, when it's the opposite; people are opening their eyes and republicanism is becoming out of date.
micycle says2016-06-17T23:18:34.2378768Z
Social liberalism could be considered a sub-section of socialism. I would say classical liberalism endorses individual liberty and freedom to greater extent. The ideals of social liberalism rarely come to fruition. Most if not all socialist states had or have devolved into authoritarianism and eventual collapse. Venezuela and Brazil are likely to follow.
enlightened7 says2016-06-17T23:39:35.5497778Z
Marxist Socialism and Free market Capitalism are both too idealistic and don't take into account many factors of reality. Corporate fascism on the other hand works much better.
Ameliamk1 says2016-06-17T23:58:46.9252550Z
Mercantilism in the 16th century falsely held that since wealth is finite, the goal should be to accrue as much as possible, thus preventing others from having more than you. Socialism operates on the exact same fallacy, contending that as long as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and more money for the wealthy means less for everyone else. Capitalism, while a simple concept, is so profound because it realized that wealth is produced, not taken, and that if people are left to pursue their own self-interest, enough wealth will be produced that even if it is unevenly distributed, there will still be enough for almost everyone to live comfortably. Socialism stunts wealth production in the punishment of success, the stifling of innovation, and the suppression of self-interest (or simply ignores the reality that wealth is produced). So when Thatcher said Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money, she means that quite literally; when the costs of the state overrun the amount of wealth produced, as it inevitably does in a Socialist state, the choices are either total collapse or total despotism. History bears this out.
Ameliamk1 says2016-06-17T23:59:27.0487122Z
Mercantilism in the 16th century falsely held that since wealth is finite, the goal should be to accrue as much as possible, thus preventing others from having more than you. Socialism operates on the exact same fallacy, contending that as long as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and more money for the wealthy means less for everyone else. Capitalism, while a simple concept, is so profound because it realized that wealth is produced, not taken, and that if people are left to pursue their own self-interest, enough wealth will be produced that even if it is unevenly distributed, there will still be enough for almost everyone to live comfortably. Socialism stunts wealth production in the punishment of success, the stifling of innovation, and the suppression of self-interest (or simply ignores the reality that wealth is produced). So when Thatcher said Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money, she means that quite literally; when the costs of the state overrun the amount of wealth produced, as it inevitably does in a Socialist state, the choices are either total collapse or total despotism. History bears this out.
TechnologicalSingularity says2016-06-20T07:08:31.6564328Z
I can say this with hubris, I can't dismiss the fact that people are born in incorrigible conditions, Americans are so against socialism, but when their tax dollars are being spent on Israel's iron dome, nobody raises a eyebrow. Republicans in America actually have the track record that supports the fact that they are for higher taxes for most people, and now due to ineffectual governing, corporations are going over seas, because of "tax burdens", it sickens me when I read news like this, then I see the Panama Papers, too bad, fine go overseas, we have something called tariffs. I think capitalism is great! But I am confused when people like enlightened7 go the Mussolini route, corporatism is what we live in today! Both parties contribute to the same donors, suiting special interests, because lo and behold more money = more freedom of speech thanks to Super PACs. You can argue all day long about socialism and capitalism, but doesn't it hurt you as a American that your democracy is theater? Unless of course you have money that is backed off of a nonrenewable resource, no longer gold, that maybe your gold standard is rubbish to the eyes of millions of angry dissatisfied working poor, that once reinvigorated can't stop. Venezuela economy is in shambles to which it looks like to me that they poorly diversified it, all oil exports, oil glut from Iran etc, geopolitics not really socialism itself. Oh speaking of OPEC and oil, hell those cats run politics now, probably all the way down to the municipality and dog catcher. Now yippee frack the earth and inject it with carcinogens and waste pure water, frontier ethic guys! CAPITALISM PURE like the potable water we drench the earth to find pollutants, while we should invest in molten salt reactors. Recession is coming and let's see if the taxpayer's money will go to bail out the banks again, cause in America we SOCIALIZE the losses, who cares about issues when you have reelection? AND WADS OF CASH. It's unbelievable at this point how the conversation drags on, we need to focus on what is good for everyone, not extrapolate our fears based on the negative connation of the scary word socialism, when the real boogey man is people like enlightened 7 who would love to self assign what they think is ideal and realistic. As for social liberalism, what micycle brought up, I think it was nearly successful in Ukraine in the 1910s, a type of anarcho-communism they call it, however the one plus of dictators and the Bolsheviks is their military power against decentralized states so....
bamiller43 says2016-06-21T21:50:15.4334009Z
Socialism is, at its most basic definition, a different type of social contract than the capitalism we idolize. With capitalism, we relinquish very little power in exchange for government protection, meaning our government is overall less able (or willing) to protect our rights. Ex: If we were to eliminate food regulation programs (FDA, USDA, etc.) we would take away the governments powers to protect our health from potentially hazardous foods. In Socialism, the people give up some of their power in order to have the government protect their rights to a greater extent. This is often seen as the middle ground between capitalism and communism (the latter being a giving of all power to government in exchange for total protection of rights). And considering that Socialism is flourishing in countries like Sweden and Switzerland (who are themselves doing very well) i don't see it making an exit any time soon.
maslow says2016-06-21T22:25:54.7493408Z
@truthandjustice: I suggest you learn what your subject matter is before you make such grossly inept comments.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.