Ok, the idea of socialism is NOT a state control.  The idea of socialism is the control of the results of labor by workers.  The end results of socialism and capitalism are very different.  With socialism, the average wage will be much lower than with capitalism, BUT the median wage will be much higher.  All countries with totalitarian governments are potentially unstable, so neither Nazi Germany nor Stalin's USSR tell the real story about capitalism and socialism.  Socialism is inherently more stable, statistically, if you like.  The role of the government of a socialistic country is NOT to control production, but it is to ensure that workers have equal access to the results of their labor with company owners.  One can do it through production control, taxes, or a combination of both. 

Absolutely.  Production control is not the goal it is a tool, just one of many possible tools.

Big government is NOT equal to socialism. 

Please understand, government does very little with capitalism or socialism.  They are the systems of relationships between companies and workers.

I can't disagree with you more. Socialism=state control of the economy. The USSR was socialist. The government (to the greatest extent that it could) controlled the economy. That is what socialism is.

If you want to talk about purity of socialism in the context of modern states, then many so-called 'socialist' countries are technically mixed-market. But if the government is intrusive enough in their economy and they have a large welfare system, then the word 'socialist' is used to describe them.

What is with socialists trying to deny that socialism is state control of the economy?

"Oh no, it's not about the government. It's about workers getting to control their own labor and about things being made for use rather than profit."

That seems to be the standard socialist lie that I see on the interweb. Stop playing this game, socialists. Just admit that socialism entails intrusive government control of industry. Stop propagating this state-free fantasy of workers calling the shots without capitalists or a government making economic decisions for them. That is a fantasy that bears no relation to reality. I understand that in your conception of utopia, that's how things would be. But in the real world, socialist nations have intrusive governments that rob people of economic choice.

Hence why I pointed out that STATE socialism and STATE capitalism are large intrusive governments and therefore bad in my opinion. Although I do struggle with the idea that you could have nationwide socialism without substantial government interference. Despite what most people seem to believe, socialism and capitalism on the basic level are not mutually exclusive. See my conversation with Skyzersdad in the other post. There are socialist style companies in the US which is predominately a capitalist system. I even saw a news story yesterday about people having a "time bank" http://www.timebanks.org/ which is a concept Marx would be very proud of. I have no problem with any socialist organization people want to be part of at their own free will. My problem is when socialist governments use taxes and controls to force me to participate in their system.

I am not discussing the moral conduct of capitalists and socialists in democratic societies. Whether socialists are morally better than capitalist is a worthy discussion but not what I am asking. And you cannot deny that historically both capitalist and socialist societies have committed crimes against its citizenry. Humans have acted selfishly in both. And speaking of Gandhi, as an Indian I have some knowledge of this man. He certainly did not hesitate to rely on western capitalist medicine for his own health as he callously denied this for his wife. He did a 180 degree reversal as he aptly probably thought "capitalism is based on my needs." Ultimately he was a good man but not a saint. There is truly no such thing as a saint in my book. It is a theistic term that props individuals onto pedestals with the masses pathetically grovelling at their feet. Gandhi was a flawed and at times a selfish man. His compatriot Jawarhlal Nehru, India's first PM, adopted massive socialist policies toward industrialzing the nation while he got his shirts laundered in capitalist Britain. And we can tally up the abuses of power among different socalist and capitalist ideologues but none of this is the point of my discussion. I am not asking a moral question about capitalism or socialism.

Let us take an ideal society wherein every citizen is a robot each of whom has been programmed to never exploit a fellow robot and they are ultimately interdependant. That is, a robot is least likely to survive when it tries to go it alone for its needs. The only necessity is a fuel that has to be periodically manufactured from a vital mineral deposit. Various subgroups of hyperintelligent robots have devised unique algorithms to optimally mine the mineral and manufacture the fuel to each citizen. What is the price? Each robot has to give up a portion of its electrical power in order for a particular subgroup to carry out the algorithm. Now the robot citizens have one of two options. They can elect a subgroup who possibly have the best algorithm and all the citizens then channel their energy towards them so that they can get the job done and the service of obtaining the fuel gets rendered. And if that subgroup fails, a different subgroup gets elected to do the job and so on until the ideal subgroup with the best algorithm is elected (ie. give the job to the state). Or each of the robots can personally choose to give their energy to whichever subgroup each wants. Ultimately in this scenerio, each robot would gravitate to the most successful subgroup and give up their energy (ie. give the job to an individual corporation). In either scenerio, the end result is the same in that the robot citizenry get the fuel. In the former, the common good of electing a subgroup in the end serves the interest of the individual and in the latter the individual chooses the subgroup which ultimately ends up satisfying the common good. The only argument that a socialist or a capitalist would pose for my fictional society is that one option is more efficient and with the least energy expenditure. That being said, in an ideal world wherein we are all warm and fuzzy towards each other, the end result of socialism and corporate capitalism IMO would be the same.

I changed my mind about propaganda: both sides of the aisle use plenty of it. (Yourself in particular)

Which, of course, inherently requires a gigantic, governmental agency of some sort to ensure that such circumstances remain intact.

Also, given your example of Sweden, it most certainly does appear true that socialism is "anti-rich" in philosophy, in addition to being against private ownership of commerce.

err....  outperformed??? what are you talking about?  STABILITY is not about WINNING a race.  Please try to train you capitalistic mind to be more flexible.

Yeah, switch to Beck, Rush has given up on his career and just isn't what he used to be.

Yes, and no. When you allow people to voluntarily choose the set up of their companies the two can coexist. When you enforce nationwide socialism through massive taxes, production controls etc it is another issue entirely. 

Not really. Most of the extremely wealthy I know, by which I mean people who have enough disposable income to invest in a multitude of businesses, absolutely LOVE what they do and have no intention of retiring until the tip over dead. At the end of the day it is generally really hard work to become really rich and if you hate what you do you will probably not apply yourself enough. Which, by the way, is St. Rush's philosophy as he has stated multiple times on his show. I will never be super rich because I am way too lazy.

Actually, I want the doctor who becomes the best in his particular field I don't really care about their motivations or even if they are enjoying life. I presume your point is that the super-productive doctor is going to be tired and make mistakes....well any good capitalist can tell you that would be a bad move in a capitalist system because the doctor that kills patients isn't likely to get more since patients can always go somewhere else. So if people want to work 16 hours a day go ahead. I choose not to because I am lazy, and money isn't really that important. I really value my ability to make that choice.  

I don't listen to him OR Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck's politics is for sale to the highest bidder. When he was with CNN, (4+ years ago, iirc) his politics were on the left, for damn sure. I'm also not interested in what DarthJosh has to say on the subject, because of his fondness for using red herring -I use red herring sometimes, but not in any conscious way I can think of. I guess one could argue he is justified in the sense that his family responsibilities consume too much of his time to make a REAL argument in defense of socialism.

You, on the other hand, merely amuse me.

B199ER made a particularly salient point in my original thread when he said state-run socialism is an abject failure of an ideology. The Euroweenies are paying the price for this because in a number of decades, most of their demographics are going to register "Arabic". That's what you get for allowing "unrestricted immigration", welfare benefits, and unlimited family size" in governmental policy.  (As EXC so astutely pointed out in an unrelated thread.)

My original point was that atheism is so heavily over-run with the left -Robj even made an attempt to demonstrate that the two overlap, by asking DJ if political left had more atheists than political right. To me, it is unfortunately true, in part, because of the problem with atheism is that it has QUITE a few bleeding heart humanists that treat the human species as sacred. I, on the hand, do not.

As I pointed out in Rich Woods' "Unlearn! The radio show" thread, conservatism has a HUGE problem with public image and nonsecular governance. That, alone, is the primary reason there aren't a lot of atheists on our side of the aisle, in politics.

The problem with B199ER's "Mutual aid" ideology, is that the human species is inherently hierarchic and stratified. It's also very political in nature. No culture or group is going to give up centralized authority (however fucked up governments around the world are ), primarily because the human species is leadership-oriented.

Oh, there is so much right-winger ammunition in that confused example of a post. I feel a twinge of guilt because of how easy it is to knock these lame duck arguments of yours down!

In America, a person is rewarded based on what their work is worth economically. An unskilled laborer (graduated from high school but didn't attend trade school or college) isn't worth much -they're a dime-a-dozen, more or less. These people usually end up in service professions -landscaping, waiting tables, flipping burgers, flight attending, banking registers, best buy/walmart employees, customer support, cubicle drones, etc.

A carpenter is worth more, because they have an actual skillset -as are construction crews, timber workers, auto mechanics, glass plant workers, and so forth. Coal miners are especially well paid on the basis that their job incurs TREMENDOUS risk to personal health - aka black lung. The people that operate or use heavy machinery are paid even MORE, because they often have to train and have to have a license to operate said machinery. Think a person operates a crane without proper credentials, think again. The Crane Man IS better paid than his less-qualified jackhammer using assistants. So in blue-collar jobs risk and physical labor-intensive employment means higher rewards (pay).

Then there is the subject of university majors. Some of them pay better than others, obviously, topping off with MBAs and the uniquely high salaries they get for it. Most of the highly publicized multidozen million dollar salaries come to those with decades-long experience as CEOs and their ability to impress the board of directors. (Hence the term "overpaid yesmen with MBAs&quot

There are other ways graduate into amazingly high-paying jobs fresh out of campus. Surgery is an obvious one, with brain surgeons making a FUCK TON of mullah, and rightly so- their job has tremendous responsibilities and if they screw up and damage someone's brain, they can look forward to having their license to practice being stripped from them. Only the medical universities and megahospitals can afford to employ them. The philanthropists of this group will sometimes join up with the WHO and practice at no expense to the patients, because their are a TON of 3rd worlders who need brain surgery but don't have a snowball's chance in hell in being to pay for it anytime soon.

The next example being the Network Administrator. For a giant corporation, this means several hundreds of thousands of dollars for such an IT worker. Bad news: it requires a masters in computer science. Lots of math involved, and students studying this course will feel their 'brains melting' because of the ridiculously tough classes involved. Many people drop out of computer science majors. But those that can beat the bell curve, it is more than worth it.

Butter battle may or may not know more about being a network admin.

Hard work is rewarded in my ideology, and the same is true for much of the world. Americans want prosperity, not equity. There are more incentives for hard work where I live, not 'equity'. You are paid what you are worth to society here. (And I'm damned grateful for it, too)

What type of living area is usually up to the person, not society as a whole. Frankly, I feel it is preferable to live in apartment complexes or townhouse communities for this very reason.

As for working conditions of medical doctors, it is either 1) private practice (doesn't pay well, or so I'm told), or 2) megahospital, which means ridiculous work shifts while enjoying the upper-middle classed life style. For the better-paid (senior?) MDs, it's all about the multihundred-thousand salaries with mortgage and student loan being (more or less) lifetime expenses.

Being a doctor requires quite a bit of studiousness (and brains), and it is an intense profession.

"Communists make the best capitalists"

I think you meant "Cooperation is not mutually exclusive with competition" (or words to that effect.)

Not the same thing, not even close. 

The nation I live in, people are paid what they are worth to society as a whole.

Frankly, I would not have it any other way. European residents may thumb their nose at us and the "lowest common denominators" amongst our cultures (read: dumbass shitkickers; common to the culture I live next to, unfortunately ), but generally, we Americans are still doing a helluva lot better than they are, in the current recession.

Y'know, if Sweden has such a great set-up, why not move over there instead???

The first line doesn't seem to match up with the second or third. If the USSR was socialist and Sweden is mixed-market leaning towards socialist, then socialism=overbearing government. I mean: "The government controls the relationships between companies and workers."?! How is that not state control like you were denying in that first quote? It's good that you like the social democracy of Sweden over the command economy of the USSR. But that happy, friendly Swedish social democracy had its government spending 60%+ of the Swedish GDP in the 1990's. They've backed off of their big-government insanity a bit, but they still have a massive and bloated government compared to the US. Like I said: socialism=big, controlling government. I don't get why socialists lie and pretend that isn't the case.

Well, but does transportation necessarily mean big oil, for example???

Also, Swedish government spending is at ~58% of GDP, Germany ~48%, USA ~44%.  Not so huge difference in fact. 

That is about it.  And removing a doctor's license to practice doesn't happen near often enough.  They just go practice in another state with a brand new license.  Some states do background checks, but that costs taxpayer dollars.  And we always want to reduce taxes, don't we?  One of the first budget items to get cut is always auditing and controls right after employee training.

Ok, so you are a Bush man. I have been a listener of Beck since his show went national and his politics haven't changed that much. He WAS highly critical of the Bush administration but so was any honest libertarian. Beck is a libertarian not a conservative. So your view of his being "left" is probably because of his less than conservative views on social issues. (Which is really rare among bible thumpers of which he is one) The only issue I can think of him really changing his mind on is the Patriot Act which he supported while he was on CNN (even though it was never supported by CNN viewers) and has since reformed and come over to the right side.  So stop making stuff up just because it sounds good. Of course, since you admittedly don't listen to the show or I presume watch his tv show how would you know his views?

Except for all those people who make a ton of money from their business ideas despite never attending college or sometimes dropping out of high school. One of the beauties of capitalism is that anyone can make a ton of money even with poor social status. I started my first business before graduating high school and started making decent money. Then I got lazy.

Except under capitalism the difficulty of your job or even the danger of it is not the primary factor in determining how much it pays. The primary factor is supply and demand. If demand is high and supply is low then the price is high and vice versa. True, dangerous jobs or jobs that require special training have a tendency to reduce the number of people willing to work them and thereby reduces the supply of potential workers forcing employers to pay more but it is more related to the relative size of the workforce compared to the number of jobs available that affects the price. Check out  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2010-3#no-15-grounds-maintenance-workers-1 many dangerous jobs don't necessarily pay that well.

Again I have to point out that in capitalism it is perfectly possible to work very hard and make relatively little money while working smart and making a ton of money. The amount of money you earn in capitalism is directly related to how much you can convince people to pay you (whether that is an employer or your customers).

No I meant exactly what I said. When you have freedom people will set up their businesses however they see fit. Some people might decide to set up a business that is equally owned by everyone who works for it and everyone is paid the same wage which by definition is socialist. There are businesses like that in America. Because the beautiful thing about America isn't that the government says we MUST be a capitalist system it is that our government protects individual freedom (at least we used to, we are losing that battle fast). When individuals are given economic freedom, capitalism tends to be the dominate result.

The problem with socialism is that it does not occur naturally on a massive scale. If you want a socialist country you have to use the government to force it and thus take away freedom.

It seems that many in this discussion are conflating socialism with social programs and state socialism with socialism.

Socialism- is an economic structure in which all workers in a given corporation share equally in the ownership and profits of said corporation. If someone wants to own or work for a company like that I don't have a problem with it. Shared ownership can also extend to the customers as in the case of a co-op.

Social programs- are when the government uses force to take money and redistribute it to those it determines need the money or services more. These are always immoral and are generally what most people refer to as socialism in political arguments but are not directly related to the economic system other than the effect taxes have on the economy, which can range from minor to taxes large enough to force a semi-socialist economy i.e. the "rich" are taxed so much they stop trying to become rich.

State socialism- is the USSR, or at least what it attempted to be. The government becomes the defacto owner of all business and theoretically attempts to force Marxist economics by controlling everything in the economy. An tyrannical, corrupt and ultimately futile effort.

State Capitalism- The result when the government buys (or steals) controlling interest in otherwise capitalist corporations. The state uses big business to control the economy through intimidation and outright ownership, historically this has been used in an attempt to reach a socialist result.

Capitalism- an economic structure where the investor(s) are the owners of a given company. Employees are compensated based on a mutually reached agreement with the owner/investor. All profits go to the investor(s). 

I agree with you 100% I just didn't structure my argument properly because I am too lazy. Hard work does not directly = monetary success. Price is mostly based on supply and demand in a capitalist system. Although it does require a certain persistence. I won't be rich because when I make enough money I quit my job and go spend it. Also if you love what you do you have a chance to find a way to make money doing it by finding or creating demand.

Also, you have to keep in mind that many american college students often come from schools where A's are pretty easy to get so their idea of "hard work" is not really that hard. 

No, I'm not -nor was I ever. (A fact I discretely hide from other RW'ers because so many of them are dead-set loyal Republicans. /facepalm)

I am in favor of "privatizing" social security, because the baby boomers have finally bogged down that system to the point it is no longer "in the black", as the saying goes. The same goes for medicaid -a medicaid patient, on average, takes five times out of the system than what they put into it.

In terms of being fiscally responsible (and thus realistic), it is anything BUT. But hey... who needs a fiscally responsible government when you can always count on Chinese Debt...

As it turns, out, you are dead-on regarding 'hard work' not always being rewarded equally. There are merely more incentives for it, and.... mmmm less of an attempt to subsidize the weaker ends of the gene pool. (The vermin, as I like to call them)

I must have missed that part. Apologies... I was referring to what you said in Ken G's thread. (And confusing that with 100%'s assertion. )

Again... the crux of my argument the. entire. time I. have. been. discussing. socialism. (It requires government enforcement!? Never would have guessed, personally...)

True, but (by your own admission) socialism does not work without force of government. So... catch 22? Conflation is inevitable?

Sigh.  Rolls eyes.  Look, licensing was implemented years - years - before the internet.  Before my grandmother's day.  When you couldn't just "look them up".  There was no other way to tell that this person had the degree they claimed to have.  Unless you had lots of money and could afford the long distance call.  Do you remember long distance charges?  Do you remember comparatively LARGE long distance charges?  You do remember before the internet, don't you?

If you should happen to read a little medical history, you would find out that before doctors were licensed, anyone could hang up a shingle and call themselves a doctor.  There were very few university programs and what programs there were did not have a lot of information to impart to their students.  Since I am thinking of about the Civil War era, there weren't telephones to call the university - let alone long distance charges.  States started requiring licenses about the time universities actually had real information on the human body they could pass on to their students.  And then it was mainly a push from the doctors and the very young AMA to implement licensing.  Because this way, they could say their degree meant something and charge more and be considered professionals.  Sort of like having your CCNE from Cisco today.

So it is probably about time to start looking at changing how doctors - and other professionals - are licensed to practice.  Maybe it all should go away.  I don't think that will happen for a number of reasons.  The doctors are justifiably proud of their hard work and professional certifications.  There are a lot of people who have some vested interests - I don't know - maybe one of the family members is a doctor, maybe they work for the AMA or affiliates, lots of reasons.  And then there is the tendency for people to keep doing the same thing over and over whether or not it makes sense.  It isn't just the government, it is every business I have ever worked for, large or small.  People don't like change.

You have said you are lazy, so you are probably to lazy to try to change it, so don't gripe to me.

I said "Medicaid", I meant medicare. D'oh!  (Supposedly medicaid recipients have been studied for what they have paid into the system, and what they have gotten out of it)

What want is "you get what you pay for" -i.e. the ONLY type of sustainable society. "Ugliest socialism" not withstanding.

Of course, a bankrupt U.S. government would also be an interesting possibility no doubt leading to "ugliest socialism".

I'm going to bed now. Sleepy.

Freedom... how about a month of paid vacation every year? how about free childcare from birth till school, and free school of course?  how about free college education? 

... freedom.

ha.

I wish to reply in general, not to specifics.

My apologies.  I was not thinking of changing the entire credentialing process for physicians.  Just the final step when you are licensed to practice medicine in a particular state.  Because all of the information is now available on line, which it hasn't been until very recently, perhaps a physician's license could be for all states.  This way, it would be much easier for those who live at or near state lines.  It may make it easier for a physician moves to another state.  And it will make it easier to identify the bad actors.  Which we all want.

Being IT, I was thinking of national databases of credentialed physicians available on line for everyone to view.  So there is only one database to search and not one for each state.  It may not be feasible, it may be "making yet another useless f^cking federal government bureaucracy", but I was just kicking an idea out.

I'm with you on this one.  You may be barraged with posts from the other side for all the reasons someone just has to have a weapon right now, but I'll support you.

Edit:  For a great example of how to reduce malpractice insurance, may I refer you to the University of Michigan Health System.  The relevant web site is http://www.med.umich.edu/news/newsroom/mm.htm

I kind of wish I lived closer to the UMHS in some ways.  But it is the mid west - maybe not.

Nobody is forcing you to live here, 100%

And yeah, (as many leftists have pointed out already...) Norway and Denmark have a better cultural setup in that the median quality of life is far more improved there than here. So, yeah... the social protections and 'social justice' is more efficiently/strongly enforced over there, but that doesn't mean they have more freedoms.

 Ragdish, I get your point, but why is it necessary for the GOVERNMENT to license a doctor? I am sure when you walk into a hospital or medical practice to apply for a job they don't hire you just because you are licensed. The hospital/medical practice has a reputation to uphold and are the ones on the hook if you are incompetent. So they are going to screen you before hiring and probably do just as good a job if, not better, as any government goob.

Now I'm sure you would argue about someone unqualified setting up their own practice. Well that is where you have to be an intelligent consumer. However, there are many cases where I don't need a doctor with that much experience. For example, I am highly susceptible to pneumonia and I get it every two to three years. I know what if feels like, I know the symptoms and I know I need Amoxicillin I paid a lot of money to a very fancy hospital to learn these things. So why couldn't someone who isn't exactly a doctor by todays definition, say an experienced RN treat me? Why do I have to pay $100 to go see a doctor to be told what I already know to get a $12 prescription? Now I wouldn't have to RN doing surgery on me but most of the time when I go to the doctor I don't need surgery. When I have a common everyday problem like my pneumonia, ear infection or need some minor stitching, I would go to the cheaper medical office. If I have something wrong and I don't know what it is or know it is serious then I will reach for the big bucks and pay for an expert.

Anyway, sorry to have gotten this thread off topic.

@ 100%- None of that stuff is "free". When you get something from the government, someone is paying for it. I have an ethical problem with stealing money from someone solely to make my life more comfortable. Free = getting goodies on someone else pays for. I prefer freedom to succeed or fail on my own without taking from others or having anything taken from me involuntarily.    

One has already been done at least as far as economics.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

The US is not as free as most Americans like to pretend. Especially with our governments addiction to spending. While we are still more free than much of the world it should be an absolute embarrassment to Americans that a country based on freedom is so willing to give it up for a few benefits. 

Even our property rights are disappearing, see Kelo v New London where the Supreme Court upheld the idea that a city could condemn private land and give it to a corporation because the corporation would pay more property taxes. Somehow the black robed thieves weren't thrown into the Potomac. Pfizer never even built the plant on the land that they STOLE with the assistance of the government. People were thrown out of their homes because our country no longer has the balls to protect individual rights. 

I could go on forever ranting about the freedoms Americans have been throwing away left and right. Our country was designed to be free, used to be free but is no longer free. The sad part is that if you ask most Americans they will brag about how free we are, the schmucks don't even know the true meaning of the word.

What does it mean to have "economic choice", exactly, Jormangunder?