This forum is mainly for social democrats and socialists to argue
Social Democracy or socialism
Posts
Total:
32
-->
@drlebronski
What about democratic socialism?
Just joking.
Seriously though.
There are two socio-political systems.
1. Hierarchical democracy.
2. Hierarchical dictatorship.
How these two systems variously sub-divide, is largely irrelevant.
True socialism is the impossible utopia of philosophical dreamers.
All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others....As it were.
-->
@drlebronski
What is the difference between social democrats and socialists?
-->
@TheUnderdog
A social democrat is someone who wants to establish certain social and economic rights though typically to keep capitalism as a framework for economics - typically through redistribution of wealth
Socialism is an economic framework which says that the means, distribution, and exchange of production should be owned by the community as a whole.
-->
@drlebronski
I don't think there are really any socialists here to argue with - personally progressive - socially democratic - so yeah - haven't seen any bonafide socialist here, at least not ones that talk about it regularly.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So a social democrat is someone who moderately wants to redistribute wealth and a socialist is someone who wants to completely redistribute wealth so everyone's wealth is the same?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Kinda But social democrats usually also Wants to establish various Social welfare programs One example is bernie sanders who calls himself a democratic socialist but fits more into the category of social democrat.
-->
@drlebronski
If being a social democrat is a moderate socialist, how do they want to make America more left wing? They want:
1) UHC, which I don't approve of as it is people that take care of themselves being forced to pay for fat lazy bums.
2) Free college, which I don't approve of as there are 2 types of college degrees. They are:
a) Degrees you can pay off
b) Degrees you can't pay off
The former doesn't require free college and the ladder does not deserve free college since the person shouldn't have gotten that degree.
3) Higher taxes on rich Americans to fund the government.
To understand why I don't approve of this, lets say you make $100,000 a year and you only need $30,000 of it to survive. You made $70,000 a year more than you have too. The rich paying for the poor through the government taking their money to conservatives and libetarians sounds a lot like the government taking the $70,000 extra you made (or half of it) and giving it to people in Africa to save their lives.
Almost any person that makes $100,000 does not want to pay for other people to live in Africa. If they were fine with the government taking 50% of their excess income, they would have donated directly to Africa. Similarly, wealthy people don't want to pay for other people as well. Everyone is selfish with their own money and this is fine. While a poor person in Africa or America doesn't understand how someone would want to keep their money, if they were to become rich, they would do the same thing.
In other words, if you support higher taxes on the rich, your plenty rich by international standards. Should we tax you more to pay for people in 3rd world countries? If you say yes, you are free to donate to other countries directly. But most people don't want to donate their excess funds to help others unless those others are their kids. This is human nature and the government should respect that.
Another reason why I don't support increased taxes on high incomes is because under my tax policy, I don't see the point in it. Under my tax policy, the entire country is already funded by a 14% sales tax on necessities, a 20% sales tax on luxuries, and a 17% capitol gains tax. This combined with international freedom of movement would fund the government enough to pay off the debt in a few years while cutting taxes for all Americans, rich, middle class, or poor. By the time I plan on running for president, the taxes can be much lower than this due to the stock market increasing during that time.
4) Affirmative action, which I don't support as it harms minorities and whites.
My political compass test is below(the standard test that everyone is fine with I think has many problems with it):
I'm all for democratically electing an elite cabal of Oligarchs to centrally plan socialism as they see fit.
Nothing can go wrong with this.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So you think that because you can't pay for a degree you neccessarily don't deserve it? Are you an idiot?? Seriously what the hell is it that your spewing? There are poor people, a lot of 'em, and not all of them get scholarships. Furthermore, what?? There are thousands of families in the US who have two working parents that can't afford health insurance and can't afford surgeries because they don't make enough - you empirically speaking - don't know what your talking about.
Also... what the heck? No - I don't care if reach people want to be rich - that's like saying: You shouldn't pay murderers, thats just human nature and you should respect that. You realize how unsound your arguments are right??
-->
@TheUnderdog
how does affirmative action harm white people? I don't necessarily think affirmative action should be given to black people i think huge reparations for slavery and segregation and then affirmative action wont be necessary.
if reparations never happen affirmative action is the least we can do
-->
@drlebronski
Lets say there is a college that can have 1000 students. Lets say this college is in a town where half the kids are white and the other half are black. Lets say that due to various lurking variables (less single motherhood, less poverty) white students tend to go to college more than the black students because they are more able too go since they were raised better.
Affirmative action sets it up so blacks and whites have to be equally likely to go to this college. Since whites are more likely to have higher grades than blacks due to them being raised better, this means that there are 2 standards for college; one for black students, and another for white students.
Had Affirmative action not existed, the standards would be the same. But because of Affirmative action, whites have higher standards to get into college and blacks have lower standards.
This harms 2 groups of people. First, it harms white students. They have higher standards to get into college, so less of them will get in.
Affirmative action also harms the black students. If they go to a college they aren't ready for, they end up droping out of school, they don't go to ANY college, and while they would have thrived at a community college, them dropping out of a relatively prestigious school means they won't go to ANY college.
While there should be things to be done to increase black grades (like ending single motherhood within the black community and all communities so black youth get more HW help), lowering the standards for entrance into a school does not help anybody, white or black.
Reperations is a terrible idea because giving free money to blacks will get this country deeper into debt and never help black people as people are fiscally stupid with money they don't earn. This is why lottery winners often go broke; they got free money for winning the lottery, they didn't earn it, they spent it on useless stuff, and they are now in a worse position. Giving black people free money will cause blacks to do the same thing lottery winners do as people are stupid with recourses they don't earn.
If you want to help black youth out, punishing their deadbeat dads is an effective way to reduce single motherhood. Until this happens, black people will be in a worse position relative to whites.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you think that because you can't pay for a degree you neccessarily don't deserve it?
I'm saying if the degree you get is a degree you can't pay back when you get a job with that degree, you shouldn't get the degree. Not everyone should go to college.
Are you an idiot?? Seriously what the hell is it that your spewing?
Ad homein attacks.
Furthermore, what?? There are thousands of families in the US who have two working parents that can't afford health insurance and can't afford surgeries because they don't make enough
There are also some families in Africa that can't afford food. If you think they should get food, your free to send money over there but taxes and foreign aid makes this a requirement since non consenting strangers foot the bill. It should not be a requirement to give to poor people, whether those poor people are in America or Africa.
I don't care if reach people want to be rich
Your family is probably pretty rich by international standards; your free to give some of your excess money to poor people if you want. But if your unwilling to do it, I fail to see why other people should do it. I don't want to do it.
You shouldn't pay murderers, thats just human nature and you should respect that.
Well, I don't believe we should reward murderers with money; they should get the death penalty as that is the most effective way to reduce the US prison population; killing the really bad prisoners (the murderers and rapists). Lets repeal Kennedy V Louisiana and Coker V Georgia.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You see -as someone who lives in the US you have a requirement to the social contract, and that also means you owe them enough to survive - furthermore - you actually DO give your money to people in Africa, a lot of foreign funding is taken straight from your taxes - so yes - you do do that. To get back from that aside - in exchange of someone living and maintaining their buisness, lives, etc, in America, they owe the government money so that the government can continue to make infrastructure and give people the rights they need to live -social contract- you see - one of those rights are life - and that includes right to be able to have that life safeguarded. It's pretty basic shit.
Wrong about the degree stuff too - the fact that you can't make money with a degree that you paid for is not the same as saying that that person is some how inept, a lot of times it means that the job market is extremely selective, and in a lot of cases disrciminatory - take the creative writing field - for a long time women couldn't make any money selling books - because they were heavily disrciminated against when it came to publishing books - that doesn't mean that they were bad writers it meant that the society was selective to an unfair degree. That is how society is - for you to not understand that is why I call you a moron.
Also - because inflation is different in different places how much you make isn't the only factor you equate when talking about poverty - do you think that making 15,000 a year is "rich", because we make a lot less than that - percisely speaking - we make around 8,500 anaully, we live mostly off of governmental stuff - and this is considering that both of my parents work - weird right? We're actually poor even interanationally - and even someone who were to make say - 20,000 wouldn't have the excess funds for others - because you need that money in America just to get by - you don't at all consider living wage - which is - again - 40,000. You only ever look at things at the surface level, skin deep, superficial.
And again I ask you - are you actually stupid?? When I said we should pay murderers I was making a direct correlation to your argument - someone doing something shitty isn't excusable because it's their "nature", that literally doesn't matter. How do you not see these things?
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are also some families in Africa that can't afford food. If you think they should get food, your free to send money over there but taxes and foreign aid makes this a requirement since non consenting strangers foot the bill. It should not be a requirement to give to poor people, whether those poor people are in America or Africa.
You seem to miss the concept of being part of a society. Like it or not, all of our fortunes are intertwined with each other, so when someone else donates to the poor you are indirectly benefiting from that transaction. And if we agree that there should be some kind of help for people in need then every selfish asshole effectively has an advantage for being a selfish asshole since only the kind and generous people would pay into it. Not exactly what I would call an optimal system.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You see -as someone who lives in the US you have a requirement to the social contract
Social contract; I didn't sign SHIT.
and that also means you owe them enough to survive
9 million 3rd world people die a year from starvation. I'm not forced to take care of any of them.
for a long time women couldn't make any money selling books - because they were heavily disrciminated against when it came to publishing books
If I read an article on the internet (or a book, but I rarely read) I don't care who wrote it. Often I don't even know.
do you think that making 15,000 a year is "rich", because we make a lot less than that
If you work a minimum wage job and earn $7.25 an hour, work 40 hours a week, and 50 weeks a year, this amounts to $14,500 a year. Your parents should get off of welfare (corporations should too).
Your claim about murderers I don't understand.
-->
@Double_R
so when someone else donates to the poor you are indirectly benefiting from that transaction.
If I donate to the poor, I do not benefit. I lose money.
But if you want welfare to increase for poor people, your free to donate to poor people. I don't feel like it though.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you have a response to any of the points I actually made?
-->
@Double_R
I thought I addressed your points.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I just explained why it doesn’t work to claim that only those who wish to donate should, and your response was that I’m free to donate if I wish.
-->
@Double_R
You seem to miss the concept of being part of a society. Like it or not, all of our fortunes are intertwined with each other, so when someone else donates to the poor you are indirectly benefiting from that transaction. And if we agree that there should be some kind of help for people in need then every selfish asshole effectively has an advantage for being a selfish asshole since only the kind and generous people would pay into it. Not exactly what I would call an optimal system.
I disagree with the notion that all of our fortunes are intertwined with one another. My fortune has been made with relation to a specific subset of society, comprised of individuals. I don't disagree that there should be some sort of help for people in need, and yet, I don't really agree either. I feel absolutely no sense of entitlement to anyone's help. Instead, I tend to feel gratitude. I acknowledge that at times I may not receive any help for what I aim, whether I need it or not.
-->
@Conway
It's a generalization. I'm not suggesting that giving to a family in Oregon will make your life better, but to hold that our fortunes are not intertwined would be absurd. We may be individuals but we don't live our lives in a vacuum, everything we do and every decision we make will have some impact on someone else. The society you live in is nothing more than the collective result of everyone's actions and decisions.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes you did - whenever you were born in this nation and partook in public education - you signed it - not literally - jesus. And seriously? Cool dude, I'm talking about publishers, they are highly selective and considered both race and gender, so yeah, not talking about you. The fact that you didn't understand the example with the murderers proves my point - not holding people accountable for being assholes isn't something you can justify with "it's their nature", else we'd let murderers off free. That's my point.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't think there are really any socialists here to argue with - personally progressive - socially democratic - so yeah - haven't seen any bonafide socialist here, at least not ones that talk about it regularly.
There really aren’t any socialists anywhere. The right wing just pretends they’re everywhere to keep scaring their base, and it works beautifully.
-->
@Double_R
true i think i'm the only one on this site that would advocate for socialism right-wingers just say anything left to the center is COMMUNISM!!!!!!! but then again there are quite a few people on the left who say anything right to them is fascism.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm a social democrat/democratic socialist, just for the sake of mentioning, haha.
I wanted to drop this video called "The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs&t=0s . It was the first video that I can remember seeing on the topic, and I think it's helpful to actually have a framework of what these words mean in relation to each other as well as on their own.
I'm a social democrat/democratic socialist (the actual label doesn't matter), and I would say that position is fairly easy to justify based on what I personally consider to be the 'goal' of a nation in the first place. I like to think of the Nordic countries as a great example of social democracy, and their GDP, quality of life, education, healthcare, etc... all show to be highly effective, in some cases greatly more effective than any other nation on Earth.
I refuse to venture further than the label of democratic socialist because I think that, while the cause of creating the most equitable society possible and preventing completely ridiculous accumulation of wealth are necessary pursuits, if that pursuit requires removing the will of the people, the government will inevitably cease to serve the people.
However, I think the post itself is poorly worded. Social democrats are technically socialists, though socialists aren't social democrats inherently. A much better prompt would be social democrats vs Marxists/Capitalism/Communism or anything like that.
"I'm a social democrat/democratic socialist" which one? they have different meanings?
-->
@drlebronski
There's a large amount of overlap and the definitions are very vague (if I had to take a guess, since that's the case usually when it comes to political labels). A person like Bernie Sanders who describes himself as a democratic socialist still has a policy agenda you'd see in a social democratic country. The distinction is largely irrelevant.