Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

I don't really know how you get rid of tax holes for the rich, but I do support a consumption tax (not a flat tax, I actually prefer a progressive graduated tax if we are dealing with income taxes). The way I look at it, income is appropriately observed as the amount of economic wealth one is contributing to the economy, while consumption is the amount taken out of the economy.

Essentially, when you have income, you are getting paid for creating value for someone else, that's how it works. When you pay to consume, you are purchasing the right to both exclude everyone else from using a good and the right to destroy some good.

Assuming we must tax at all, I cannot imagine anyone having a particular issue with taxing the latter rather than the former.

EDIT: The current status quo, unfortunately, is the complete opposite. Consumption is praised and and encouraged beyond any reasonable and sustainable level, yet production is taxed harshly even on those who can barely produce enough to sustain themselves.



I am simply asking whether you believe the wealthy generally use a lesser percentage of their income on consumption, and if so how are they particularly greedy (at least greedy in a way that only benefits themselves) and what happens to the rest of their money. I am not really interested in what their motives are or what "greed" is. I just don't understand how you can say that the rich are devilish and greedy and detrimental, and then pose the opinion that they consume a smaller proportion of their income than others.

I want to understand your viewpoint, and I said I don't want to debate because I am not going to counter and ask you to defend yourself.

When ever we discuss the "take" part of socialism you respond with an argument for the "give" part.
I do not disagree with you that this is a good thing. Lets just assume that part as agreed upon.
Now the question is where the money for that should come from. Are you saying the need for socialism is a wildcard for any taxation?

---------- Post added at 11:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 PM ----------

xris, do you like the idea of a consumption tax?

Often go along, sure. But also recall that collectivism and socialism are not synonyms. My point was this: the idea that opposition to a strong military and giving support to socialism are not directly related.



How is there room in the social contract for these forms of taxation and not room in the social contract for a progressive tax?

I agree.



I'm surprised you ask that. Of course the social contract should attempt to be as fair to everyone as possible.
Why not just throw a dice to decide each individuals tax rate, tax some people 100% and others not at all?

It is important to note that we have a graduated progressive tax. All people are taxed at the same rate for the first x amount of dollars that they earn, then all people are taxed at the same rate for the next bracket.

So if person A makes 50,000 and person B makes 30,000 and taxation occurs at a 5% rate to 30,000 and a 10% rate from 30-60k, both A and B will pay $1500 on the first $30,000 they earn. Person A will just pay 10% on all dollars he or she makes between 30 and 60K or $2000.

You can argue that it is punishment for increased earnings but I think it can qualify as even, at least between two individuals (although it might screw both individuals).

Thanks, interesting.
Making the tax burden less progressive would still be in the interest of productivity.

Why is the current tax system so complicated? - What is it, like 16.000 pages in the US.
Couldn't it be summed up pretty much as quick as you just did?

I agree that the tax system should attempt to be as fair as possible. But what makes a flat tax or the so-called Fair Tax any more fair than a progressive tax?

The reason why we would not just cast a die to decide an individual's level of taxation is because such a practice would ignore the amount a person is able to pay.

With a flat tax of, let's just say, 10% a person making $10,000 each year would pay $1,000 dollars of tax leaving said individual with $9,000. A person making $1,000,000 each year would pay $100,000 dollars, leaving this individual with $900,000 dollars to spend. For the person making 10,000 each year that 1,000 in tax is much more difficult to part with than the 100,000 dollars the person making 1,000,000 each year has to part with.

When we talk about a social contract, that is some agreement between the people about the way a government operates: that the people give up certain rights for the sake of social order or public good. In the case of a flat tax, there is no social good: the poor are left with a greater personal burden than the wealthy. It is much easier to live off 900,000 each year than 9,000. If the wealthy person in our scenario had to pay 101,000 in taxes so that the person making 10,000 could keep his entire income, the wealthy person's living standard would not be adversely effected while the poor person's living standard would be in somewhat better shape. There rests the social good: the poor are given a bit of help, and they could use it.

I think the major misconception with socialism is the idea that it is diametrically opposed to anarchism. Socialism can work very effectively at a local level, but at the national level it tends to be a bloated bureaucratic nightmare that imposes things upon regions that have no use for them. Localized socialism puts power into hands of citizens to improve their communities. By focusing on local initiatives, it removes the federal government as a mediator in doling out funds, and it is less likely that tax dollars are diverted to wasteful and destructive socialist practices like subsidizing roads, highways, and farm subsidies.

This also touches on taxes as well. Too much money flows out of communities and into the federal government, where dirty hands sift of funds for pork projects. Keeping more money in communities would boost the incentive for using funds wisely for things that communities need. For one example, environmental measures dictated at the federal level are often not practical for many communities, or are not as tough as some communities would like so they end up wasting tax dollars. By shifting the implementation of these things to a local responsibility, practical things like tree planting and maintaining initiatives could be enacted, whereas the federal government may ignore this very beneficial practice that not only improves community and neighborhood spatial levels, but also contributes has positive effects at higher spatial levels.

I agree, and thats why its called the United States. Unfortunately it's just too easy for the federal government to take over government objectives from the state.
Keep in mind, that for some administration purposes, a centralized government is just more effective these times.

But I like call you out on your first sentence. Socialism is always a brake sliding on the wheel of the economy. It is a disincentive to progress. The question is how much of that can be justified.
Why is socialism not diametrically opposed to anarchism?

Most anarchists associate their opinions with socialism and consider capitalism to be diametrically opposed to anarchism.

There is a long strain of American individualist anarchists who sort of bridge the gap between capitalism and socialism. Probably the foremost, Benjamin Tucker, wrote this in his essay "State Socialism and Anarchism" and I hope it clears up some misconception:

"I should not undertake to summarize this altogether too summary exposition of Socialism from the standpoint of Anarchism, did I not find the task already accomplished for me by a brilliant French journalist and historian, Ernest Lesigne, in the form of a series of crisp antithesis; by reading which to you as a conclusion of this lecture I hope to deepen the impression which it has been my endeavor to make.

'There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: 'Do as the government wishes.'
The second says: 'Do as you wish yourself.'
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.'"

You are right, I agree. My whole point in this thread was that socialism is different from being social.
xris was always defending them as one.
I would say anarchism is opposed to socialism. Capitalism is closer to anarchism, socialism is at the other end at the spectrum.

I don't agree, but it depends on many things.

Why do you believe that last sentence?

Here is how I have come to see it lately. Please correct me. (I can't figure out how to make the picture bigger, you might have to save it.)


I see a spectrum of how ownership is distributed between state, individual and common ownership. Note that all transitions are flowing and a matter of degree, and not stark.
On the left there is state ownership (yellow), on the right private ownership (blue), and even further right we have common ownership (red).
If we start all the way left, there is complete state ownership. Which I would define as the communism we have seen in history.
As we move towards right, more ownership is by individuals, until we come to a point where all ownership is private. I would call that point capitalism.
Now we move even further to the right, we again have less private ownership and instead more and more common ownership. I would call that anarchism or "true" communism.

I think what we usually discuss in western politics is in which direction we should move. I am advocating moving towards the right. We are moving towards the left.
The optimum to me is a point with maximum private ownership, yet somewhat state ownership. On that picture somewhat to the right of where I put the united states.
The question is, as always, finding the right middle ground. The extreme on the left is untenable (how did it work out for soviet russia), and the extreme to the right is a utopian fantasy, that can ever happen.

The social contract is a interaction between the state and every individual. Rights and obligations are not given groups.
What does someone elses income matter, when calculating your tax rate?

I appreciate many here are more educated and better at forming their response but i still claim the high ground on this subject morally.We have a situation developing now where pure capitalism has had a devastating effect on all our lives.
Due to Americas history African Americans have not fully developed a middle class structure of riches to riches.Like my working class background, aspirations of life are not always improved by your parents and it is only the reasonably rare individual that breaks the chain of working class expectations.
With this economic climate the first to suffer in large numbers are those who have not built this structure and we see certain sections receiving charitable hand outs.Charity is fine but in my opinion a hindrance to social improvements.I have no problem with those receiving unemployment benefit doing social duties as long as it does not develop into cheap labour.As a socialist it means we all have responsibilities, not just the rich giving more in taxes.My socialism is, we all need to be aware of our neighbours need but no one gets a free meal ticket.

I largely agree with your last post. And I think that this sentence is a really important.
You do have the moral high ground if you are the one advocating to help others, but the 'giving' part does always require a 'taking' part, and some say that the ends don't always justify the means. Few can deny that giving is a good thing or that there is a need for it. But you got to remember that this requires telling someone: We know what you should earn, better than you, and we take the rest. Until some point it creates order and equality of opportunity, but what I see happening is just giving stuff to people for votes, and often it doesn't even help anyone. We should limit that.

And all morality aside, I just think what works best is... well... you gotta be tough to be kind. Just giving stuff to people, like affirmative action does, makes them soft and keeps them down. I think giving blacks an excuse for lacking achievement has way worse effects than racism.

Again back on the taxes topic. Take a look at this: The taxes, the Rich, the Poor and fairness | Arohan's investing life

Does it require a reply? How you decide to tax certain citizens is not my concern as long as the outcome benefits the taxation.
I dont like certain tax, it hisses me off and i hate the waste and the way my so called socialist government runs this country.
My core beliefs are that we protect the vulnerable and the very poorest.not scroungers, of our society.
We institute a national health system paid for by everyone by a common standard payment method,free at the point of use.
Certain parts of societies needs stay in government possession but not necessarily run by them.

The ideal of socialism differs greatly from the practice. No, I don't mean that in the sense that all ideals fall short in an imperfect world. I mean that, while you may be fed visions of a 'worker's paradise,' that is not what the most influential supporters of socialism have in mind. The greatest friends of socialism and communism have always been the financiers, bankers, and international corporations. Why? J.P Morgan once said, "competition is a sin." The free market is good for everyone and all businesses on average, but a monopoly via central planning is best for whichever companies control the monopoly. For example, the Russian revolution from funded by western banks at the same time that the governments of western europe and U.S. were publicly denouncing Bolsheviks. Without subsequent decades of lending to the Soviet Union, it would have collapsed much sooner. Are you familiar with the various 19th century societies in which workers lived in a planned town built, owned and operated by their employers? The workers would earn wages just like any others, but they spent their money in the company store, or on company housing, or at the company theatre, or the company hospital. In effect, this is a feudal system, under which workers do not really sell their labour, but work the lord's land or factory in exhange for the neccessities of life. This is what the people behind the socialist movement, who funded and financed it apparently against their own interests, had in mind. To understand the socialism/capitalism dichotomy you really have to take a long historical view. Before the rise of free market capitlism, there was a more or less feudal system, a system of authoritarian control in one manner or the other, far back into time. In the 18th century, via the free market, the common man for the first time was free and truly controlled his own destiny. Free-market capitalism developed in tanden, naturally, with democracy in various forms. These changes were anathema to the ruling class, which, like any ruling class at any point in history, wants primarily to maintain its power. However, they could do nothing about it directly; the power of the free market and democracy is too great to be reversed by the order of some king or noble. Collectivism, in whatever form, is the solution; it is a means by which the rights of individuals can be abolished in the name of serving the common good. Of course, the rulers determine what best serves the common good. Socialism is not progress toward some ideal, but regression toward feudalism, directed by the ruling class. Think about it.

A very informative post.

But I see benefit in a little degree of the state helping the downtrodden.

Also, socialism is the method, stealthy Marxists use to disorder the functioning of capitalism,
seeking to abolish it, to implement their fictitious utopia.

I'm not neccessarily opposed to some moderate form of state assistance for the poor, the handicapped, etc. However, in the U.S., that can only be done by the states or local governments, not the federal government. The federal government has no such authority. That is one of the advantages of a federation. If some state, let's say California, implements very expensive welfare programs and has to raise taxes, cut other services, go into debt, etc, the people can vote with their feet and those policies will either be changed or the whole state will be marginalized. Competition is a beautiful thing.