Socialism...What Does it Really Mean?
I read on Blight's blog the following:
It's funny that "socialism" is often thought of as a dirty word.
Personally I would like the disparity between classes to be minimal. As a human being, what entitles one person to consume thousands of times (if not greater than that) more natural resources than another person?
I went on to comment about my life story and how I got to where I am financially and basically said that I don't think because I am doing good for myself(although you'd never know it by my bank account) that I should lower my expectations and goals because someone else hasn't/doesn't take the initiative to get ahead.
But then I thought...was that really the jist of what he means by socialism? And then I thought, what is really meant when someone is socialist? Does that mean to take from the rich and give to the poor? To me that just retards initiative. People need to strive to do better otherwise, what is the point of working hard when someone is going to bring you down because someone else isn't doing so good.
So...it's education time. When you are a socialist, what does that really mean to you? Am I looking at socialism the wrong way or just one facet of it? Educate me.
4 comments:
I don't want to define socialism, but in my mind, a socialist government should put the welfare of the public first. Of course, this can go too far, and like you said earlier, remove incentives for ambition.
I think you have a valid point, but might be missing a couple of issues, so I want to acknowledge your point and then move on:
1. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't mean taking from you and me - average working middle class guys who've worked hard to get where they are. But do you really think it'd hurt Donald Trump to have one less Learjet to feed and clothe some poor kids? I have no problem at all with rich people being rich, but just how much incentive do they need? 250 million instead of 280 million is not going to make them suddenly give up and stop working!
2. Your discussion of working hard for what you have is right, but you and me had a pretty decent start: by no means rich, but with decent parents who were able to feed, clothe and educate us. That is, we worked for what we have, but we were given opportunities some kids never get. Think of the child of a crack-addicted single mother - or even just a quite normal girl who got pregnant in high school and left at 20 - and who just can't give her kids the opportunities we had. It's not the kids' fault, even if the mother made bad choices, so socialism would mean helping out those people: but a well designed socialism would be about giving them opportunities to start working, not paying them to stay idle. Mind you, what about a kid who is disabled? Or a person who is mentally ill? Some people will need help all their lives, through no fault of their own.
3. What a lot of people on the right don't see is that governments haven't just stopped helping people, they've virtually started to actually harm them. The cost of living - gas, food, taxes, housing etc - keeps going up but minimum wage stays the same for decades, and more and more people are pushed into part time and temporary work. Our standards of living just keep dropping, and it's much, much harder for young people these days to get a house and an education on the meager help they get. Rich parents can afford to help their kids, but we're really going to struggle with paying for the kind of university education that was free when Sue and I studied.
It's always about balance, of course: any extreme is a bad thing. But a pinch of socialism actually makes it *more* likely, not less, that the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society can become productive contributors. And that's both the right thing morally and the right thing practically to help us all.
Bravus - I totally agree with you on point #1. When I heard on CBC that 90% of Canada's wealth is held by 10% of it's population, I sure don't think I'm part of that lucky 10%.
People could be motivitated to work hard up to, say, $1 million a year. Is there a reason that people should realistically require more than that?
I don't know about you, but it bothers me that the people that have the time and money to go into politics and rise to the top are often part of that elite 10%. I'm partially talking out my ass here because I don't have stats to back that up, but it is definitely true in Mr. Martin's case.
Obviously the socialist policies of the USSR failed miserably. No one wants that. We'd all end up poor.
I think that in Canada we are taxed ENOUGH to support a much more socialist system than we have now. It is just being spent in very irresponsible ways.
I think we are taxed enough too. If it was just used where it can help people I am sure we would have enough. But as we can see by the current government, our money is better spent to help a few people, not the average citizen.
Post a Comment