/debate/ - Is Socialism Ever Viable or a Beneficial System?

>>133712163
I still can't believe the Seahawks didn't run the ball.

>>133712163

There are no pure economic systems. Socalist things like providing free education and healthcare can actually make sense on the longer run if seen as an investment into the workforce and more beneficial on the long run than a pure capitalist short term cashgrab.

>>133712890
> Socalist things like providing free education and healthcare can actually make sense on the longer run
This only make sense in an already stable society imo with low unemployment rate to keep the machine going and improve the standards of living
The nordic model was working fine before the recent events

>>133713462
I'm not sure I'm a fan of free education as an idea, but for me personally, it's pretty sweet. As long as you're in college, you're allowed to take loans of €1000 every month for up to 8 years, and the interest rate on that loan is only about 0.2-0.5%. But I can imagine that it's pretty damn expensive for the tax budget.

File: 1497357446461.jpg (2MB, 4714x2636px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4714x2636px

ok heres my opinion
socialism is beneficial once a working economy has already been established. in many sectors of the economy it can provide better services than a private counterpart. Capitalism relies on the principle of profit maximization, while state services ideally rely on only the principle of how to best serve the people.
this means things like for example healthcare and insurance, are more effectively provided by the state. ie if an insurance company is not looking to make money it will ensure that all funds paid into the system get paid back out again, rather than taking a cut as profit.
Healthcare and health research, when provided by the state, no longer have the condition that medications must be profitable. if an unprofitable new medication that can completely eradicate a disease is discovered, a private corporation will have no reason to eradicate it, profits-wise. the state, however, would economically benefit from the eradication of a disease.
>bottom line is basically government can do things better than private companies because they dont need to make profits.

another aspect, regulation of private companies, can be greatly beneficial.
when a company has accrued enough capital, it has the freedom to exploit the people of a nation, and the environment, and generally make more profits for themselves at the detriment of the nation as a whole. Regulation would prevent this detriment to the general public. here i will address the elephant in the room and talk about consumer culture.
Culture is a very important aspect of a nation, it affects social cohesion, work ethic, the arts, and a vast swath of other factors, together greatly affecting general wellbeing. Current capitalistic systems have created profit motives to remove cultural aspects of a nation (ie the destruction of culture in the west) and replace it with a consumer culture which fosters more buying and more profits for the private company. CONT.

>>133714535
They do this through psychological marketing campaigns (edward bernays), which have been occurring since the 19th century, eventually leading us down the path we have gone today: left with very little cultural connection. Capitalism is inherently materialistic, which fosters a materialistic culture, atheism and degeneracy. On top of this, once a corporation has grown in enough power to become a multinational corporation, it becomes ideal to 'homogenize' the world economically and culturally (and ethnically), ie modern globalism.
>overall, regulation of the private company is common sense when you understand the detriment to the nation that comes from concentrated power in the hands of the materialistic, the one who has no national ties, the one who cares for the wellbeing of no one but themselves, the kind of person that thrives in free capitalistic states.

and not to mention the disaster that private currency control has been. In terms of currency i would take it a step further and demand that currency is controlled directly by the government by members voted into the positions. when currency is issued for the benefit of the people then a large portion of the negatives of capitalism are eliminated, including (but not limited to) the banks stranglehold on the economy through debt. nationalization of the banks is a socialistic policy i think we can all get behind.

>>133714116

Its an investment. I'd much rather pay some dumb fucks fucks free electrician or plumber or whatever training than his unemployment pension and support for his 1D6 kids for 30+ years.

Even the most worthless fuck can be trained to be atleast a little worthwhile to society. It would also foster a culture of self-improvement more than screaming "WHY DONT YOU GET A JOB!!" at hoodrat gangbangers

>>133714116
When it comes to tertiary education, it becomes a scam in the hands of private companies, sort of like clickbait, where you have people going to this university not for the education it provides, but the prestige of a degree from there. The motive is no longer to teach, but to get people enrolled. When government handles this, its only motive is to teach. Im all for an overhaul in both private and government tertiary education though, the current system doesnt work and abolishing university altogether is a serious option at this point.

in my mind, primary education is one of those things that isnt handled well by either the government OR private companies, education to me is best handled by either family or local organizations. If handled by government or private companies there is too much opportunity for ideological brainwashing, this is especially important to consider in primary schooling due to the young age.
For secondary schools its a bit more complicated, a lot of the time students arent catered for properly in government schools, and private schools hardly do a better job. homeschooling by this point (high school) takes excessive time and effort, and social interaction would be much easier in a school, especially at a time where it becomes more important. In the government vs private though, government still wins because the same principle with tertiary education comes into play

come on where are all the ancaps in this thread?
or are they too dumb to understand their own opinions.

polite bump in case anyone is in this thread writing out a long essay

final life-support bump

>>133712163
There isn't a debate. Socialism has been proven to be about as beneficial and viable as capitalism. In the same way capitalism has fatal flaw memes like "INFINITE GROWTH MEANS WE NEED TO IMPORT SHITSKINS TO DRIVE DOWN LIVING STANDARDS TO GROW THE ECONOMY" socialism has its own retarded flaws that everyone should generally be aware of.

I should remind everyone of one of the funniest instances of socialism and capitalism failing at the same time in the modern West in countries like Sweden where in order to prop up their socialist system (according to the government) they need mass immigration to expand the labor pool as in capitalism. Sweden is effectively a moronic hodgepodge of social-capitalism that is smothering the country in a hilarious way.

>>133723679
>socialism has its own retarded flaws
if you wouldnt mind could you name some of these?

>>133726123
the abolishment of the free market would be one.

>>133726201
socialism isnt as black and white as this. you can have some public services while still retaining a mostly-free market. you can also have state competition to the private sector which is as free a market as any.
and also i have made the argument that the free market's principle of profit maximization does not always end well for the general population of a country, what is your response to this?