TheHeretic
Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
i favour a mixed economy. Infrastructure socialised, all other industry not socialised but regulated to stop the worst excesses of rampant capitalism.
i've said it before but it hasn't stopped me being called a socialist.
There are certain aspects to a modern economy that benefit society universally. Transport infrastructure, health services, military, power, water, the post office, law enforcement etc. These i believe ought to be run, not for maximum profit, but for maximum efficiency. The free market doesn't always provide this. The UK experience of privatisation of the rail network is a good example. Operating costs went up, efficiency went down, costs to consumers went up, safety issues became more of a problem......oh, but the food got a bit better.
However, the converse is also true.....there are elements of society (large elements) that need to remain in private hands. Competition is good in some areas, bad in others.
There are ideologues from both camps on these fora. Some have no problem with total nationalisation, some have no problem with total privatisation. Me, i'm in the middle.....and arguably that makes me a real socialist. Not someone who wants to move on to communism, not someone who wants to bring down Western society......but someone who wants society to work as efficiently as possible.
Now, i've heard Obama referred to, disparagingly, on these fora as a socialist. i don't see too much in what he plans that is blatantly socialist, nevertheless the label is thrown around willy nilly. It's an attempt to demonise his motives, his vision of how a society works best. This word needs to be reclaimed by the middle ground, which it most accurately describes. Socialists....not monsters.
Ok. Long day, mostly over. Thanks for your patience, Phil.
First off, it isn't really your hair. Mine has been longer (fucking militant hippie, in my case  . Now I just wear Jerry Garcia ties).
I think you get tagged with the 'socialist' label because of the way you express your views on the subject, and the glimpses we get of the fundamental worldview you have. In the past, you've spoken of allowing competition and limiting socialism, as if socialism is the normal, natural order of things. We could come to a place of complete agreement on how freedom and order should be balanced, and I would be viewing it as how we limit competition, and allow socialism. "Socialist' and 'Capitalist' have come to be cheap, easy, hypersimplified labels for the conflicting paradigms. Am I a capitalist? Not really. Am I stuck with the label? Yep. When we see a problem, we default differently on how best to address it.
You said something above I'd like to look at a bit more closely. Transport infrastructure, health services, military, power, water, the post office, law enforcement etc. These i believe ought to be run, not for maximum profit, but for maximum efficiency. Almost all of this list, I consider to be the perfectly legitimate functions of government. (I imagine we'd find more to disagree about if we plunged into the etc.). They are the very reasons our species started civilization in the first place.
Let's talk about water, where I am all in favor of allowing a very heavy socialist tilt in the balance. I get the water to my house from a community services district. An elected board runs it. They own the wells, and are legally entitled to share in the water that flows down the CA aqueduct. I like them, and if I don't pay my bill, I get cut off the next month. Socialism at its finest. Small, local, accountable. They serve about 10,000 people. Nobody is making a profit off it. There are some issues right now, though.
New standards have come down from the feds, about how high the traces of arsenic can be in drinking water, and we are over the line. If they have to deliver a seperate supply of drinking water, socialism stops being the preferred method to pour water into my coffee maker. You spoke of doing it as efficiently as possible. Efficiently for whom? Being home for delivery or risk having it stolen? A single point of distribution is great for the people hauling it in, and a tremendous pain in the ass for everyone who has to go stand in line to get it. Far easier for me to simply hit Costco on my lunch hour a time or two per week. For others there would be no impact at all. They don't like the way the tapwater tastes, and already have the Sparkletts (or whichever) delivered. For some, there would need to be 'community well' of some sort, but the fewer people it has to serve, the better it can serve them. Not competition, but a diversity of options, according to individual need. The most INefficient method possible for a single provider.
When it comes to solving problems, I prefer to look first at what individuals and private enterprise can come up with, and government to pick up the slack, not the other way around
_____________________________
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.
|
RE: socialism, what is it? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread