re: What is your definition of socialism? And why or why not is it an effective system?

Whenever political labels are discussed, everyone turns to examples from the past to describe their enemy. Conservatives talk about revolutionary socialism, which began dying out after WWII and hardly exists anymore. Liberals talk about capitalism as if it were all of the laizze faire variety, despite that it was discredited after WWI.

The truth is that most governments today have a mixed economy and use a little of both. The differences are in how much of each is used and how they use it. So talking points about economic labels aren't worth a hill of beans.

I’m just trying to have a discussion about it my guy and learn other people’s opinions. I don’t mean to imply socialism is the answer to all problems. Why I made this topic then? Because I’m bored and like discussing political theory. Take a break from the internet. Make some warm tea and relax on the sofa.

Its pretty simple to understand. I'll use your physician example. If I go to school for 12-15 years and the government decides that as a MD 1 party member I make a capped amount of x and can not make any more than that why would I want to go through that if I can't compete in the free market to make as much as I possibly can based on my skill.

quote:

---

So I ask, can checks and balances being installed in a capitalist society without being socialist in nature?

---

Yes, they can. The problem is that we wrongly associate checks and balances with socialism, which we've determined here is wrong. Our leaders even claim to be adherents to models of capitalism that are partly defined by checks and balances, but they ignore them because it benefits the deep state.

Taking money from others to pay for those who won't work. Not just those who CAN'T work. It's disguised to the uninformed as being a charitable system that looks out for the "little people". "Wealth redistribution" is the myth.

Companies are forced to pay higher minimum wages, which means they can't employ as many people. The "wealthy" pay higher taxes to help pay for all of the welfare programs, ultimately knocking them back into middle class. Welfare programs, themselves, disincentivize people from working, meaning less taxes being paid into the system, as well broken homes brought on by the lack of motivation to make something of one's self that welfare creates. How do I know that last statement is true? Just look at black families, who welfare programs particularly target, along with affirmative action.

When you come to expect things to just be given to you, you get really lazy. And then, when you hit rock bottom (because welfare only provides the barest of minimums) you start blaming society for not looking out for you. Sound familiar?

Those are just some of my thoughts.

quote:

---

The push for socialism has resulted in the suffering and pain of millions historically, no doubt. But is there any economic/political system that hasn’t? I don’t think that is a good critique.

---

You’re new here......I would probably delete my account and start over.....lol!

I pay 25% of income to taxes, then another 10% to Health Insurance and don't get much under US system. I would take 40% Scandinavian system, with free health care, education and no ugly rednecks any day.

The concept of givers and takers.

Socialism fails/societies fall when there are more net takers than givers. We are dangerously close here in the US and will tip over the precipice with progressive policies.

Lol I am, but I made this account to strictly ask questions and hear the conservative take. I have a separate account strictly for talking Alabama football. The downvotes are alot, but I’m not trying to troll.