Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[Khethil]

NOTE: Posts moved from Book Reviews: Grapes of Wrath to here as a better place to continue the discussion. Have at it, guys

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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?

Yes, the United Kingdom, and the rest of western Europe are to a large extent socialist. The US is heading that way.
Communist Russia and China were communist.
The state taking the money of some, and investing it in the greater good of society, I call socialism.
Once state intervention reaches a certain level it is communism.
The question remains what exactly you define socialism as, as you dismiss my statements on socialism as referring to communist ideology.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

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?

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Exactly. It should not. The only objective of the state is guarding individual freedom.

And even if the state should attempt to do what's best for society, that does not imply that the state can just
take the money of some, that it deems not having the right to their own money.

And I defined socialism. I did not express what the state shouldn't attempt.

[Theaetetus]

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.

[xris]

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.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

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 agree. But what we actually do under the banner of helping the marginalized in society, is taking money from the middle class and spending it on largely useless feel-good programs, that politicians are for because they can gain power and the majority is for because it sounds good and they don't have to pay for it.

What you defend is the ideal of socialism, not the reality of it.

Originally Posted by xris

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.

I agree except for these objections.
1. When did I misrepresent socialism? Socialism is not the same as social thinking.
2. Your differentiation between socialism and communism is incorrect. I asked you a few times to elaborate. I refer to socialism, not communism.
3. What's wrong with keeping what you earned because of education, intelligence, effort or luck of birth? Should the state decide who deserves how much?
4. We can all help the unfortunate equally, can't we? Why tax some more?
5. We take the earnings of some because they are a minority and so we can. Taking an individuals money does absolutely stops them from creating wealth.
6. Does the government have the right to restrict elitist snobbery?
7. And socialism doesn't work. As it penalizes productivity, effort and responsibility.

[xris]

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.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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

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 repeat that my view is incorrect, yet you refuse to elaborate on what is correct.
Feel free to enlighten me, as I might be wrong.

Originally Posted by xris

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

It does not tax as progressively and it does not waste the money.

Originally Posted by xris

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

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.

Originally Posted by xris

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

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

Originally Posted by xris

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

Yes, it is easier for politicians to be populists, so everybody does it.

Originally Posted by xris

Your living in some twilight world of exaggeration.

I do some exaggerating to make the point clear, yes.
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.

Originally Posted by xris

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 made a comment on the book review. I expressed that I disliked the book turning into a political message. That's not only why I stopped reading. I didn't complain and I wasn't offended.

Originally Posted by xris

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.

I do agree with that. But this is rarely what happens in the political reality. Where the money should go, it doesn't go.
Where it should be taken from, it does not.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by NoEmperorNero

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.