Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

So i will ask you is there a socialist government in the uk and how does it compare to your views on socialism and your historic views on communist russia or china...???????Do you think the american administration has a socialist agenda?

The state taking the money of some, and investing it in the greater good of society, I call socialism.

So the state should not attempt to do the best for society?

I think the role of government should be protecting the rights and freedom of those in society who are marginalized and suffer at the expense of others who have economic and political capital at their disposal. If the state's role is to protect freedom, then guarding the freedom of the most marginalized individual should be their goal. Therefore, socialism is the only way to protect the marginalized in society. The markets will never work in these people's favor, and thus, are not sufficient for protecting freedom. Some socialism is necessary to allow everyone to have at least a minimum of access to resources granted to a population in order to protect the ideals of freedom and justice.

I dont mind people stating they dont approve of socialism but i cant stand it being misrepresented.The Grapes of wrath gives a reason why we should all be socially responsible for our fellow man.I find it the height of elitist snobbery when by education, intelligence or by just luck of birth certain citizens have found security, they then can not see the benefit of helping the less capable or the unfortunate.Governments do or should shoulder that responsibility with reason and understanding.If it goes beyond this remit it should be called into question.Socialism does not stop the individual from creating wealth , that's communism.It should make sure by legislation that the work force is not abused by those who seek wealth and ensure everyone by their labour gets the reward they are entitled to.Its not taxing the rich for some classic class war, its the redistribution of wealth by fair means.By the laws of common sense the doctor and lawyer will always fair better than the refuse man, for them both to have the same income that would be communism.I am unashamedly a socialist by nature.

You continue to misrepresent socialism, when does it restrict responsibility, productivity or effort?

How does the tax system in a social government differ to your republican ideology?

are you really saying a millionaire should pay the same as a cleaner?

I cant think of any socialist that would take money from an individual just because he was educated or he had inherited his income.

The difference between left and right governments tax laws in the 21c are hardly noticeable.

Your living in some twilight world of exaggeration.

Remember you instigated this debate by complaining about and refusing to read anymore because of the socialist attitudes displayed in the Grapes of wrath.

I come from a generation that new hunger and what it felt like to be disadvantaged.My father fought in ww2 and came back penniless with no work and sick, did he deserve the taxes of the rich who stayed at home and grew rich through war?Remember when injustice stays rebellion follows.

Taking at a higher rate from someone, for making more money is punishing responsibility, productivity or effort. And what you punish, you get less of.

You can't take money from "the rich" with out punishing education and effort.

Of course not. At the same rate, the millionaire pays more because he makes more.
I'm fine with a somewhat progressive tax rate, and that only above a certain income.

You entirely defend socialism with it's fictional ideal. - Taking money from the crooked super-rich to give it to the hard worker, who fell on a hard time. The reality is that the income of the middle class is redistributed to the undeserving.
I'm not denying the good effects of socialism, I'm just saying that they are small part of it.

That is because the middle class is not represented in government because the representatives are bought off by the rich. If more of the tax burden was placed on the people that it should be placed on, then there wouldn't be a need to punish the middle class. But in reality, the middle class is disappearing because the rich have tanked the economy, and with an effort to reduce costs as much as possible, many jobs pay unfair low wages. In order for capitalism to work, the working class needs to have disposable income. Without wealth redistribution, capitalism ends up undermining itself.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

I don't think that taking a higher rate of taxes from someone punishes responsibility, productivity, or effort. Take CEOs for example. There is no reason why they deserve to have such ridiculously high wages. Taxing them at a higher rate helps close the gap of radically uneven income distribution.


Taking from the rich does not punish education or effort. Take college professors for example. They are some of the most educated people that put in enormous effort, but they are not compensated nearly what should be fair, because the tax system punishes the less fortunate. If anything, the rich should be take on more of a tax burden in order to promote education and effort by raising the wages of educators.

But the millionaire has many loopholes in the tax laws to exploit that the less well off do not have available. Sure the millionaire may pay more, but it typically ends up being a smaller portion of income due to these loop holes that the middle class. A true progressive tax without the loop holes would be fair, and not difficult to put into place.

That is because the middle class is not represented in government because the representatives are bought off by the rich. If more of the tax burden was placed on the people that it should be placed on, then there wouldn't be a need to punish the middle class. But in reality, the middle class is disappearing because the rich have tanked the economy, and with an effort to reduce costs as much as possible, many jobs pay unfair low wages. In order for capitalism to work, the working class needs to have disposable income. Without wealth redistribution, capitalism ends up undermining itself.

Sir, I am open to your view, if you would explain your definition of socialism and communism, I am willing to read it.
I do hold the belief that the nazis and soviets were a brand of socialist. I do not intend that as an insult.
If this boils down to whether one holds the belief that socialism is a good I idea, we can only agree to disagree, as I recommended before.
Yet if one of us has an incorrect view of socialism, there is benefit in clearing that up.
I ask you to explain me the difference between my assessment and actual socialism in your eyes.

Higher tax rates at higher levels of income provide disincentive against satisfying the wants of others and punish higher levels of production.

Now we can argue whether this is truly a bad thing, and we can argue over market failings, externalities, transaction costs, and inequitable negotiations,

You keep repeating a fallacy. He has, at no point, said that progressive taxation punishes all productive members of society or that it rewards all unproductive members of society.

The basic argument is thus:

Under a market system of free trade, income is generated either by producing for oneself, or by producing goods that have utility to others and selling them. Therefore, the profit motive gives incentive to satisfy the wants of others. Higher tax rates at higher levels of income provide disincentive against satisfying the wants of others and punish higher levels of production.

Now we can argue whether this is truly a bad thing, and we can argue over market failings, externalities, transaction costs, and inequitable negotiations, but his argument is correct: You cannot have graduated taxation, or any taxation at all without providing a disincentive to production.



Are you a tax attorney or legislator?



I have not quite come to an understanding as how you can rectify your two opinions that the rich are controlling the government and that we we need the government to act to help the poor.

That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

And the market doesn't undermine itself, it corrects itself. The state capitalism that you are coming dangerously close to endorsing can and is presently undermining itself.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------



xris believes that the watered-down European social democracies represent the one true socialism, just like he apparently thinks that, if you support free market economies you are a republican.

The nazis and soviets were a brand of socialism, just like Pinochet's Junta was capitalistic. Both types of political economic structure can be benevolent or malicious at any one point in time.

It is quite telling, however, that all major socialistic movements have fostered totalitarian governments, and in one instance, Chile, a totalitarian government was largely undermined by capitalism.

For the sake of my own education, I like to know what arguments there are against my - I admit somewhat simplified - rejection of socialism.
I see the benefit of some degree of government redistribution of wealth - I'm not a anarchist.

i now have people putting my opinions on posts, well i can tell you that the american opinion on socialism is outdated by about fifty years.

The labour party in the uk has turned totalitarian , im amazed i did not notice.

I will give you one instance where business does not act in a manner benefiting the community it relies on.Medicine in the US is three times more expensive than europe, why is that when its tax burden is so much lower than it is in europe, surely with the attitude and opinions expressed here it should be the reverse.Living in cuckoo land, get real people..

Its not simple its ignorant, its bigoted and verges on a paranoia i only see expressed by americans bred on the blinkered republican dreams of world domination.

Socialism is a doctrine like many others it has many faces.In you opinion when it is extreme like communism, it is, when it is moderate like the uk, it is not and you say im ranting....The uk has a social housing , a benefit system to catch the unfortunate and a health system ,free to all.Now tell me that is not a socialists ideology in operation.

Explain why the Americans ,the great upholder of the free economy denies free access to its market place? It appears to me free means on my terms...
I am not criticising all Americans just those whose opinions encourage military and financial interference in democratic neighbours affairs, many americans share my opinion.
So the pharmaceutical industry is not a fair example of the how the open economy works, why is that is it too uncomfortable for you?.Can you give a good example?the motor industry? the steel industry? or how the agricultural system is not controlled by food industry.There is no such thing as a free open economy its all about power and political corruption.

That is an interesting side of the discussion.
For the sake of my own education, I like to ask what arguments there are against my - I admit somewhat simplified - rejection of socialism.
I see the benefit of some degree of government redistribution of wealth - I'm not a anarchist.