NationStates Jolt Archive

I became more or less a liberal after I read in my history books about the Industrial Revolution, and the Great Depression, after I found out how the people who worked in the factories were underpaid and overworked and basically exploited. However, I think the reason why I became a socialist is after reading The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. In that book, he details how a young, strong immigrant from Lithuania, called Yurgis, comes to America willing to work hard and be a productive member of society. Then he's ripped off at every turn, whether it's finding a place to live, food, clothing, etc. Also, after nearly working him to death, the factory managers throw him out on the street, and he almost dies. I don't want to give the rest away, but it really is a good book, and I think it should be mandatory school reading, but I digress. Anyway, stories like these instilled sympathy in me for the working class and the people who don't have a voice. What's your story?

I became more or less a liberal after I read in my history books about the Industrial Revolution, and the Great Depression, after I found out how the people who worked in the factories were underpaid and overworked and basically exploited. However, I think the reason why I became a socialist is after reading The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. In that book, he details how a young, strong immigrant from Lithuania, called Yurgis, comes to America willing to work hard and be a productive member of society. Then he's ripped off at every turn, whether it's finding a place to live, food, clothing, etc. Also, after nearly working him to death, the factory managers throw him out on the street, and he almost dies. I don't want to give the rest away, but it really is a good book, and I think it should be mandatory school reading, but I digress. Anyway, stories like these instilled sympathy in me for the working class and the people who don't have a voice. What's your story?
Well, obivously your bodily fluids have been corrupted by the evil communist fluoridation conspiracy.

Why I became a socialist
I became more or less a liberal

Socialism is a left-wing ideology. Liberalism is a right-wing (mostly economic) philosophy. So, "socialist liberal" makes no sense.

Socialism is a left-wing ideology. Liberalism is a right-wing (mostly economic) philosophy. So, "socialist liberal" makes no sense.
Yeah, I know, but in America, "liberal" implies government control of the economy, and "conservative" is the opposite.

Socialism is a left-wing ideology. Liberalism is a right-wing (mostly economic) philosophy. So, "socialist liberal" makes no sense.
Whatever they're called, they're responsible for the communist conspiracy to sap and impurify our bodily fluids.

Socialism is a left-wing ideology. Liberalism is a right-wing (mostly economic) philosophy. So, "socialist liberal" makes no sense.
Social liberalism is a left-wing style of government, where the state takes quite a lot of money from industry, but lets its citizens do pretty much as they please.

to sap and impurify our bodily fluids.

You say that like t'were a bad thing.

Yeah, I know, but in America, "liberal" implies government control of the economy, and "conservative" is the opposite.

"America," by which I shall suppose you mean the United States of, is wrong.

You may gasp now.

But capitalism has evolved a lot since the industrial revolution and the great despression..

where the state takes quite a lot of money from industry, but lets its citizens do pretty much as they please.
Unless industry is no longer made up of people, that phrase is an oxymoron.

Social liberalism is a left-wing style of government,

Not really, no. There is nothing inherently right- or left-wing about social liberalism, even though the left-wing has tended to be more so in the West.

where the state takes quite a lot of money from industry, but lets its citizens do pretty much as they please.

"Social liberalism" has nothing to do with economical principles. "Socialism" and "liberalism" do. It can be a bit confusing, I know, but it's nothing a history course won't manage to explain.

But capitalism has evolved a lot since the industrial revolution and the great despression..
What's to evolve? Nations have evolved. Not economic theories, at least not the way you're talking.

Socialism is better than anything else i must say its not about exploiting your people but enable them to have many things for granted like medical treatment, education at all levels, energy bills subsidized it gives them right to choose eventhough they werent born as rich people to enable them everything they want.

"America," by which I shall suppose you mean the United States of, is wrong.

You may gasp now.
*gasps*

But capitalism has evolved a lot since the industrial revolution and the great despression..
No, we now have a little thing called a social safety net, which they didn't have UNTIL the great depression.

Me, I did it for the babes.

;) and i think i a peaceful way no ruling dictator, country based on socialism is foundation for true prosperity, invest in your people, don't violate their privacy.
Believe it would work

"America," by which I shall suppose you mean the United States of, is wrong.

You may gasp now.
How blasphemous of you. I am shocked. You must hate Jesus and freedom, and are probably a terrorist.

You must hate Jesus

Check.

and freedom,

Check.

and are probably a terrorist.

Oh, I'm probably on a list, so, check. Cheers!

Check.



Check.



Oh, I'm probably on a list, so, check. Cheers!
Why do you hate Jesus, he is your holy savior who died for your sins. He guides my noble president, George W Bush, who commands our holy armed forces. Repent your sins, accept Jesus, and drive a SUV, or suffer eternally in the fires of hell.

Well, obivously your bodily fluids have been corrupted by the evil communist fluoridation conspiracy.

Dr. Strangelove referrence for the win! xD

Dude111, congratulations!:D

Not really, no. There is nothing inherently right- or left-wing about social liberalism, even though the left-wing has tended to be more so in the West.

"Social liberalism" has nothing to do with economical principles. "Socialism" and "liberalism" do. It can be a bit confusing, I know, but it's nothing a history course won't manage to explain.
Bah! If only I knew what I was talking about!

Dude111, congratulations!:D
*pats self on back*

*pats self on back*
Pride comes before a fall!

*stumbles off of the white cliffs of Dover after that shockingly smug comment*

Aiee!

Pride comes before a fall!

*stumbles off of the white cliffs of Dover after that shockingly smug comment*

Aiee!
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about over here.

Why do you hate Jesus, he is your holy savior who died for your sins.

I liked my sins, and that goody-two-shoes just couldn't leave well-enough alone, could he?

He guides my noble president, George W Bush, who commands our holy armed forces.

They are sanctimonious, I'll grant you that.

Repent your sins, accept Jesus, and drive a SUV, or suffer eternally in the fires of hell.

Now, if you'd said Kansas or Alabama...

.

Now, if you'd said Kansas or Alabama...
I've actually lived in Kansas for a year. It's not the bible-thumping desert you may imagine. At least not from my point of view.

I liked my sins, and that goody-two-shoes just couldn't leave well-enough alone, could he?

They are sanctimonious, I'll grant you that.

Now, if you'd said Kansas or Alabama...
As in "suffer eternally in the fires of Alabama"?

You're right, that is scary...

I've actually lived in Kansas for a year. It's not the bible-thumping desert you may imagine. At least not from my point of view.

Sure. Topeka is a veritable cosmopolis.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about over here.
No worries at all.

Sure. Topeka is a veritable cosmopolis.
I never said it was the cultural capital of the world, but it's not all Jesus freaks either.

I became more or less a liberal after I read in my history books about the Industrial Revolution, and the Great Depression, after I found out how the people who worked in the factories were underpaid and overworked and basically exploited. However, I think the reason why I became a socialist is after reading The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. In that book, he details how a young, strong immigrant from Lithuania, called Yurgis, comes to America willing to work hard and be a productive member of society. Then he's ripped off at every turn, whether it's finding a place to live, food, clothing, etc. Also, after nearly working him to death, the factory managers throw him out on the street, and he almost dies. I don't want to give the rest away, but it really is a good book, and I think it should be mandatory school reading, but I digress. Anyway, stories like these instilled sympathy in me for the working class and the people who don't have a voice. What's your story?

So you're saying you want the government to take wealth out of the economy and generally discourage job creation just so everyone can be equally poor?

Have fun with your socialism.

I've actually lived in Kansas for a year. It's not the bible-thumping desert you may imagine. At least not from my point of view.
I guess Reverend Phelps and the IDiots just give it that reputation. I'm sure not all Kansans are as bad.

I never said it was the cultural capital of the world, but it's not all Jesus freaks either.

No, it's just the way they comport themselves and the image they project.

Socialism is a left-wing ideology. Liberalism is a right-wing (mostly economic) philosophy. So, "socialist liberal" makes no sense.

Negative.

Liberal does not = conservative.


A conservative is a person without a heart
A liberal/socialist/commie is a person without a brain


:D

I guess Reverend Phelps and the IDiots just give it that reputation. I'm sure not all Kansans are as bad.

Phelps is an idiot, so you are correct.

Liberal does not = conservative.

Which I never claimed. Liberalism is a right-wing economic philosophy encompassing free markets, invisible hands, capitalism and so on.

So you're saying you want the government to take wealth out of the economy and generally discourage job creation just so everyone can be equally poor?

Have fun with your socialism.

I'd rather everyone be equally poor, honestly. If -everyone- is poor, it's not so poor.

I'd rather everyone be equally poor, honestly. If -everyone- is poor, it's not so poor.

Yeah, 'cause if nobody can afford food, it doesn't matter as much.

Rule #1 - The only measure of poverty that matters is absolute poverty. If you have food, clothing, and shelter, you're not poor.

I'd rather everyone be equally poor, honestly. If -everyone- is poor, it's not so poor.
"Misery needs company." Something I never have nor will I ever abide by.

Its interesting, my first political thoughts were quite left wing and were developed from studying history. We were looking at all these different borders and how they repeatedly changed position and I realised that all borders and subsequently all nations were bogus.

I was violated by the invisible hand!

I was violated by the invisible hand!

Suits you for supplying what it demanded. Bourgeois slut.

I was violated by the invisible hand!
Hah. You win the thread.

The basic precept sounds good, but is not realistic.

The only way anything is created, developed, and produced is by an individual or group with an idea taking risks. They will do so if they think the potential reward is worth the risk. Socialism removes nearly all of the potential reward, thereby ensuring that few who are capable of the above take the necessary risks.

People rarely take risks themselves for the good of society. It is against human nature. Also, most people would not take risks based on the rationale that it benefits them through society as a whole. Why should they when society will not be sharing in the risk?

The only way to get around this problem is compulsion. People must be forced to create, develop, and/or produce to the extent of their ability, in the absence of potential reward. I'd rather bust my hump and never be rich than to be a slave. With both capitalism or socialism, if you do nothing, you are unlikely to get anything. At least with capitalism, if you can meet the needs of others that are not currently being met in the best way possible, you can reap huge rewards as others benefit from their needs being met. That is the power of the free market.

Socialism ignores the role of incentives in human behavior, which is why it is a flawed system. No socialist government has ever matched the standard of living, even of the lower middle classes, of a capitalist one. Not without significant capitalism mixed in their system.

There are other problems, but this post is long enough as it is.

The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. A phenomenal book, this is. It should be required reading in high schools, with less of that Shakespeare crap.

I was violated by the invisible hand!Ooh, good metaphor. I'm going to steal it now.

at first i was far left, democrat by U.S. political parties, but after reading a lot of material i became a socialist (but kept my democracy spirit); communist if you must. what really did me in is this line from "The Book of Merlyn" (its a king arthur/merlyn book, but it is so damn philisophical):

"In a proper communist world there would be no war, because the whole world would be a union. You must not forget that communism has not been properly achived untill all the nations in the world are communistic, and fused together..."

anyone read this, or the predecesors to it?

So you're saying you want the government to take wealth out of the economy and generally discourage job creation just so everyone can be equally poor?

Have fun with your socialism.
1. No, I'm saying that everyone should have healthcare, affordable commodities like energy and housing, and an affordable college education. People who are willing to work hard in, say, business will still get ahead, and rightly so. But the little guys won't be left so far behind either. That's all.
2. Thank you, I will.

A phenomenal book, this is. It should be required reading in high schools, with less of that Shakespeare crap.
I stated that before, but anyway, I'm glad that we agree on this.

The basic precept sounds good, but is not realistic.

The only way anything is created, developed, and produced is by an individual or group with an idea taking risks. They will do so if they think the potential reward is worth the risk. Socialism removes nearly all of the potential reward, thereby ensuring that few who are capable of the above take the necessary risks.

People rarely take risks themselves for the good of society. It is against human nature. Also, most people would not take risks based on the rationale that it benefits them through society as a whole. Why should they when society will not be sharing in the risk?

The only way to get around this problem is compulsion. People must be forced to create, develop, and/or produce to the extent of their ability, in the absence of potential reward. I'd rather bust my hump and never be rich than to be a slave. With both capitalism or socialism, if you do nothing, you are unlikely to get anything. At least with capitalism, if you can meet the needs of others that are not currently being met in the best way possible, you can reap huge rewards as others benefit from their needs being met. That is the power of the free market.

Socialism ignores the role of incentives in human behavior, which is why it is a flawed system. No socialist government has ever matched the standard of living, even of the lower middle classes, of a capitalist one. Not without significant capitalism mixed in their system.

There are other problems, but this post is long enough as it is.
Well, nations like Britain and France are wealthy compared to the rest of the world, and they have universal healthcare, 5 weeks of paid vacation, and a virtually free college education.

Well, nations like Britain and France are wealthy compared to the rest of the world, and they have universal healthcare, 5 weeks of paid vacation, and a virtually free college education.
Britain maybe (NHS sucks though, and the education system needs an overhaul). France? It has a high unemployment, immense social problems and a loss of entrepreneurial spirit. France's wealth is the legacy of its former kingdoms and governments, and perhaps its former freer market.

Britain maybe (NHS sucks though, and the education system needs an overhaul). France? It has a high unemployment, immense social problems and a loss of entrepreneurial spirit. France's wealth is the legacy of its former kingdoms and governments, and perhaps its former freer market.
I never said these countries don't have their problems, but it seems to me that universal healthcare is as essential to a civilized society as is universal education. That's my main point. The other things are nice too, although they come with a heavy price.

I never said these countries don't have their problems, but it seems to me that universal healthcare is as essential to a civilized society as is universal education. That's my main point. The other things are nice too, although they come with a heavy price.
If handled efficiently, yes. Personally, I would encourage the free market economy to provide as fully as possible for these, and then let the government cover any deficiencies, as they arise.

If handled efficiently, yes. Personally, I would encourage the free market economy to provide as fully as possible for these, and then let the government cover any deficiencies, as they arise.
But wouldn't you agree that everyone deserves to have it, and with the best quality that's possible for the population as a whole?

But wouldn't you agree that everyone deserves to have it, and with the best quality that's possible for the population as a whole?
Essentially what I just said.

Essentially what I just said.
I hate to be redundant, but I felt compelled to clarify that.

I hate to be redundant, but I felt compelled to clarify that.
Very well. Mainly I believe in milking the private sector for every drop it can offer, and then letting the government fill in the gaps where it has to.

Very well. Mainly I believe in milking the private sector for every drop it can offer, and then letting the government fill in the gaps where it has to.
Of course, how much the government would have to fill in would probably widely differ in the opinions of people...

Very well. Mainly I believe in milking the private sector for every drop it can offer, and then letting the government fill in the gaps where it has to.Would you suggest that healthcare vouchers would be a way of accomplishing this?

Of course, how much the government would have to fill in would probably widely differ in the opinions of people...
I'd prefer seeing what was necessary rather than what people think is.

Would you suggest that healthcare vouchers would be a way of accomplishing this?
How do they work exactly?

Well, obivously your bodily fluids have been corrupted by the evil communist fluoridation conspiracy.

I think you're right.

Here's my story:
A friend of mine read the junle. Said it changed his outlook on life. I shot him.

I'd prefer seeing what was necessary rather than what people think is.
But the government is the only organisation that can decide and effectively carry it out, so it would be up to the people, depending how strongly they demand socialism.

But the government is the only organisation that can decide and effectively carry it out, so it would be up to the people, depending how strongly they demand socialism.
Assuming a majority-rule democracy. I would prefer people who actually know how to run the country doing so.

Assuming a majority-rule democracy. I would prefer people who actually know how to run the country doing so.
So how would you choose these people?

How do they work exactly?Well, I would assume that what would happen is:

The government would determine which healthcare services are necessary, and determine what level of quality is sufficient for them to be provided.
Then, it would research which healthcare provider provides these services at the sufficient level most cheaply. The voucher people receive would be equal to this cost.
Each individual would choose their own healthcare plan, but if they want a better one than what the government says, they would have to pay more.

So how would you choose these people?
Based on intelligence and actual ability to solve problems. Most politicians nowadays win by charisma and deception. They are useless louts.

Well, I would assume that what would happen is:

The government would determine which healthcare services are necessary, and determine what level of quality is sufficient for them to be provided.
Then, it would research which healthcare provider provides these services at the sufficient level most cheaply. The voucher people receive would be equal to this cost.
Each individual would choose their own healthcare plan, but if they want a better one than what the government says, they would have to pay more.
Hmm, not necessarily...I'd prefer that kind of a system to be left to the private sector. I disagree with the government covering for those who have (or could have) the ability to look after themselves, but in certain cases it has to step in. A more efficient use of private charity could also help though. Not sure.

Hmm, not necessarily...I'd prefer that kind of a system to be left to the private sector.The system is pretty much left to the private sector, the people choose which private healthcare system they want. The government fills in the gaps with the vouchers, except that everyone gets vouchers so that no one is favored. Would you rather only the needy get the vouchers?

The system is pretty much left to the private sector, the people choose which private healthcare system they want. The government fills in the gaps with the vouchers, except that everyone gets vouchers so that no one is favored. Would you rather only the needy get the vouchers?
Has such a system been proven to work? It sounds good, on a theoretical level. It fulfils the requirement that it incorporates the private sector to the maximum possible effect. The way it sounded though was that it would deprive those too poor to afford it of essential treatment, which kind of defeats its purpose.

Has such a system been proven to work? No, it's just the least repugnant non-socialized healthcare system proposed. I heard it from one or two capitalists on here.

It sounds good, on a theoretical level. It fulfils the requirement that it incorporates the private sector to the maximum possible effect.The way it sounded though was that it would deprive those too poor to afford it of essential treatment, which kind of defeats its purpose.That's why the government would determine which treatment is essential, so that poor people get essential treatment but not unessential treatment. I suppose one could doubt the government's ability to do so, though.

No, it's just the least repugnant non-socialized healthcare system proposed. I heard it from one or two capitalists on here.
It sounds good to me, but then it'd have to stand the test of reality to see if it could work. Essentially a matter of qui vivra, verra.

That's why the government would determine which treatment is essential, so that poor people get essential treatment but not unessential treatment. I suppose one could doubt the government's ability to do so, though.
Reforms to improve governmental efficiency would be necessary then I presume. I will look into this system.

FICTION

not FACT

1. No, I'm saying that everyone should have healthcare, affordable commodities like energy and housing, and an affordable college education. People who are willing to work hard in, say, business will still get ahead, and rightly so. But the little guys won't be left so far behind either. That's all.

But there will be fewer of those people. If they can't benefit as much from their efforts, there's less incentive for them to do it. Plus, if you can still get by without any effort, more people will do that. Which will increase the costs of your social programs. Which will further discourage production. Which will create more demand for you social programs. Which will increase the costs.

It's a cycle of dependency, and the only way to break it is to let people fail.

Not everyone succeeds. Accept it.

But there will be fewer of those people. If they can't benefit as much from their efforts, there's less incentive for them to do it. Plus, if you can still get by without any effort, more people will do that. Which will increase the costs of your social programs. Which will further discourage production. Which will create more demand for you social programs. Which will increase the costs.

It's a cycle of dependency, and the only way to break it is to let people fail.

Not everyone succeeds. Accept it.
This system has worked and stil works in many European countries, and although they do have their problems, it's stil a darn good system.
Ok, how about someone who has a chronic health condition and can't work because of it. Should their kids have to go hungry because of it? I think not. So, you see, while I agree that personal responsibility has something to do with it, some people are just unlucky.

Based on intelligence and actual ability to solve problems. Most politicians nowadays win by charisma and deception. They are useless louts.
True that, but I don't see any way to choose the ones who can actually do a good job. Other than voting, and the masses are so easily fooled unfortunately...

True that, but I don't see any way to choose the ones who can actually do a good job. Other than voting, and the masses are so easily fooled unfortunately...
I need to do some reading on alternative forms of government, particularly elective monarchies, to see how else governments can be formed. For now, democracy will do, but just barely.