Socialism- negative or positive?

Nothing is usually totally good or totally bad. Socialism has some interesting ideas, but his comments illuminate it’s biggest flaw. There’s no reason to excel and bust your butt to improve your standard of living. If everyone shares no one gets a bigger piece. It kind of stifles the ambitions of it’s superstars.

I think America has a nice blend of democracy and socialism. If we could just fix our healthcare and immigration issues, we’d be damn near perfect.

Where do people get this idea that socialism = everybody gets an absolutely equal share of everything?

Because that’s the definition of pure socialism @Darth_Algar/

Socialism is bad idea and a has disincentive effect on productivity and innovation. Just look at the millions more who are on welfare and now free health care. I talked to a lady a few months back who was on unemployment insurance and asked what she did to supplement their income. And her reply was “why work?? I have 2½ months left of unemployment benefits coming”

I agree that standing out does bring rewards to the risk takers like me.

@Cruiser A purely socialistic society would fail. It’s not like unemployment goes on for the rest of their lives.
And I don’t see what “free” healthcare has anything to do with it.

Socialism theoretically limits the influence of greed as an engine of economic growth. Competition takes a back seat to cooperation and collective action. Philosophically, this fits right in with how I would like things to be.

In practice, though, greed is too powerful a force to be wished away, and concern for the common good seems neither universal enough nor robust enough to found a governing system on. It seems more realistic to formally acknowledge greed and give it a place at the table, while making damned sure that it can’t gobble up more than its fair share of the food. If completely demonized or denied, greed just goes underground.

There has to be a balance that accepts the dynamic tension between individual and public good as a reality, and manages that tension. We’re not a society of altruistic saints, and we never will be, so there’s no point in crafting a government that’s contingent on sainthood. That said, it’s also disingenuous to pretend that greed is a virtue, and disastrous to organize your society around it.

@Dutchess_III

Did you even bother to read that article? Like any of it? Even the first paragraph?

Socialism is the shared public ownership and democratic administration of the means of production and distribution.
It is the ultimate form of Democracy.

@Dutchess_III Free anything especially for the able-bodied as I said serves as a disincentive effect on productivity both for the worker and also businesses. Once you give something away for free it is very difficult to re-train the mind of that person to get up and work hard to pay for it and support themselves. All I know is my family raised us without a free anything from anyone. I do remember hand-me-downs till I was in High School, I did not have anything new until then either. We drove one beat up paid for station wagon and did just fine and were happy. Nothing is more disturbing to me to see people using food stamps for booze and steaks. The whole entitlement mentality has destroyed the work ethic of our country.

What flavor of socialism?

To a certain extent that’s true, but being on food stamps didn’t diminish my personal work ethic. I just wanted the hell out of of poverty. I wanted to be able to buy my kids new clothes for school and I didn’t want socks to be a luxury any more.

But I agree. There are some who are born and die on the welfare state, but what do we do? I think most people use it the way it’s intended, for temporary assistance. So what do we do?

@Dutchess_III
Kill all the poor. Start pumping gas into Lidl.

I found this quote on This blogsite and I think it is appropriate:

“Socialism is a philosophy of hope and possibility. We know humans aren’t perfect by any means, but as inherently social beings we have the capability of building a world that recognizes the right of every human on Earth to adequate food, clothing, and shelter, the right to health care and education, the right to a clean environment, and the right to lead a productive life. All we need to do is decide to build it. Even the normally acerbic Uncle Whiskers, in a lighter moment, dreamed of a communist society…

’…where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.’

Or in the beautiful words of the beautiful Arundhati Roy, ‘Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.’.”

No one buys booze with food stamps.

Around here they use to buy booze with food stamps before the cards. They’d use the lowest domination of stamp and take the balance in cash on a small purchase. Go to three or four stores and do that and foods stamps buy booze.

But you can’t buy it directly with food stamps.
I used to do the same thing to get cigarettes. :( sry

I question why socialism is always equated with “free” or “welfare”. I have never considered these to be exclusives in the socialistic domain. It is possible to have a social society where everyone has a more even shot at a decent life and still maintain a “you work, you eat” system.

As to the claim that socialism kills incentive I again point out that a “you work, you eat” system does offer incentive to an active, participating member of the society. What about ambition? Are you telling me that an ambitious person would do nothing if they did not get a reward? What of their personal drive? What is it in them that makes them ambitious? Is it only, as has been drummed into us, the need for more money and the subsequent excesses that can be had? Would this same drive not exist if the rewards of a different, more spiritual nature or the even simply the knowledge that they have made the world they live in a better place or existence easier for themselves and others? I would like to point out that mankind has spent more time as members of a socialistic society than under the auspices of a warlord, dictator, monarchy or capitalist one.

I would also like to point out that having a capitalist society does not mean you will always be rewarded. Take a look at @Cruiser s post four up. The society that he grew up in was a capitalist one (Ok, I am making an assumption here, one that, if incorrect I am sure will be pointed out quickly) yet his family suffered under the system. His folks probably worked all their life yet were unable to provide anything more than the basics needed to get by. Why?

Part of accepting the reality of greed is understanding that when you set up a program like food stamps, some people will see how much they can milk it for. You can, of course, get all shocked about this and point to it as a reason you can’t have social relief programs. But then, do you get all shocked when a corporation sees how much it can milk the system for, and point to that as a reason capitalism doesn’t work?

Loosely and broadly, socialism is about abolishing the owner class, so that workers have direct control over what they produce without it being immediately appropriated by an owner class. It makes people’s work environments democratic, and the decisions made for production are planned rationally by people themselves directly for their needs.

Nothing to do with food stamps, or welfare, or taxing the rich (there would be no “rich”).

In terms of giving incentives for productivity, it outstrips anything capitalism can muster. What can be a greater motivator than controlling what one produces? It returns workers to the status of the artisan who took pride in his creations—and not as we have in capitalism, where the worker is merely a cog in a machine, a mechanistic and de-individualised input to be streamlined and minimised to save on costs and maximise profits.

The effects of socialist forms of production are apparent when looking at various examples of worker managed businesses. The anarchists during the Spanish Civil War attained levels of efficiency and productivity far higher than when they were managed and controlled by capitalist bosses—no market system, no price system, and in some cases without even money.

What many of you imagine socialism to be, is a parody of socialism. A feeble reform of capitalism that does little to nothing to address class division, ecological sustainability, poverty, and the drudgery and disdain that most people feel when they’re working for a boss in what is essentially a private tyranny—alienated from the products of their own labour and with no say or control over their working lives.

The arguments which pit socialism against capitalism rage on, but perhaps a handy way of judging, would be to seek out the models which best illustrate the advantages of either system. The Scandinavian countries are the choice of socialists to bludgeon capitalists, but capitalists are pretty much forced to turn to the U.S. as their champion, with the stipulation that it is only extensive social programs in the country which hobble their champ.

Frankly, my big question is: Why is it such a struggle for so large a proportion of the poplulation to get by in a nation with the wealth and resources of the United States? If a college education is required for success, how do we as a nation benefit when a 22 year old emerges with a bachelor’s degree and $60,000 in debt. If women with children are required to work, why isn’t universal child care the standard for the country? The scandalous expenses regarding medicine and pharmaceuticals in our country have crossed the line from bordering on criminality to downright extortion. Why?

Now the above paragraph might be viewed as vexing questions with insoluble riddles were it not for one other fact, and that is that in the midst of the tug of war to just get by, THE RICH GET RICHER, and their enrichment proceeds and accelerates in direct proportion to the impoverishment of the rest of us. THIS is the reason why the degree I obtained found me with a certificate and free of debt, while my nephew with scholarships obtained the same degree from the same school and now owes the banks in excess of $60,000.

@Darth_Algar My salesman’s wife works at a large grocer in our town and confirms people do buy booze with food stamps and LOTS of it. She also said where prior to New Years one lucky shopper bought 20 lobster tails with food stamps.

The grocer must be scamming the system in some way because you can’t scan the item (booze) and then scan your food stamp card. The computer won’t accept it. I mean, you go to the store, they scan all the stuff through, and at the end you have two charges, one for food which goes on the stamp, and the other is carried as non-food stuff which you pay cash for. The computer does it automatically.

If he has the “money” on his food stamp card, why not buy 20 lobster tails? When I had food stamps I bought crab legs and cuts of meat I can’t afford to buy now.

Oh, @Dutchess_III… don’t you know that poor people are supposed to spend all day, every day, suffering the shame of being poor? They’re not allowed to enjoy any part of life. No lobster for them.

I know @glacial! Just using the stamps got me nasty looks, although I was obviously dressed for work. Although I have to tell you I was floored at the hundreds of dollars a month I received for me and the kids. I always had $200 or more left over at the end of the month, at least. I didn’t splurge very much although we never lacked for food. I didn’t feel splurging was right since it wasn’t my money. Although there is a “use it or lose” thing with food stamps. I always wondered what happened to the money I didn’t use and felt guilty about that, like I had wasted something.
But I can sure understand why some people wouldn’t hesitate.

@Kropotkin: some of the best capitalists in America are literally its unions. They have rigid hierarchies that make entry and advancement difficult, while extracting rent from their monopoly on productive work.

Also, food stamps, hurr. High taxes. Hurr!

@Dutchess_III

April 19, 2011

On a straight party-line vote California lawmakers gave the green light for welfare recipients to purchase alcohol and tobacco products using taxpayer money.

@Cruiser. Do you ever drive down a non-toll road or step onto a sidewalk? Did you attend public schools? If you have a fire in your house, will you (a) organize a bucket-brigade of your neighbors or (b) call the fire department? If someone you love goes into cardiac arrest, will you say, “Gee, kid, tough beans” or will you dial 9–1-1 for rescue?

All of these situations are examples of socialism. I happen to believe that they’re very good socialism.

Thanks for all the good answers, trying to soak it all in!!!

@Cruiser You link just sent me back to the top of this thread.

Nordic Model

@Cruiser: why should they not be allowed to buy alcohol and tobacco, legal substances, when they can buy other harmful items like sugary snacks or gasoline with welfare? Welfare is by definition income assistance. The idea is people can spend it on whatever they want so they can have a dignified life.

For that matter, why are alcohol and tobacco even in the same category? Alcohol is a perfectly healthy thing in reasonable doses. Tobacco, despite some incidental health benefits, is generally not.

@Dutchess_III: here (the war on good browser design rears its ugly head, it’s not his fault).

If that is true, then I personally think that’s wrong. It has the potential for serious abuse. Being poor is stressful. Alcohol can give you the impression that you’re relieving that that stress even if for a moment.
Hell, not only that, they’d have a hell of a market for resale on booze and cigarettes! Buy $1000 worth of booze, sell it for $500 and you got your rent!
They shouldn’t be allowed to buy any thing except food. If it was me, I’d probably take chips and candy and pop off the list too, but it was nice to be able to buy “junk” for the kids for their stockings at Christmas and Easter. That’s just about ALL they got from me then. Except for socks. Which they got in their stockings every year. New socks.

@Dutchess_III: that makes no sense. This is welfare we’re talking about. It’s cash assistance. They can pay their rent with it already. I can understand that food stamps should be restricted to food, though it’s a bit hypocritical to allow using food stamps for Coke and Pepsi but not for alcohol. But this is about welfare, not food stamps.

I still don’t like the nanny state thing. Let people enjoy themselves a little bit, and if purchasing a dime novel or beer or cigar or hotdog pack brings them some joy. Not being able to enjoy the occasional vice others are allowed to have is a form of poverty too.

@Cruiser “My salesman’s wife works at a large grocer in our town and confirms people do buy booze with food stamps and LOTS of it.”

Ether your salesman’s wife is feeding you a line of bullshit or her employer has, somehow, rigged their system. You cannot purchase alcohol with food stamp cards. The system simply will not allow the purchase.

No, our recent conversation was whether or not you can use food stamps to buy alcohol. It started here

There is no comparison between alcohol and pop. Pop doesn’t cause you to get drunk and scream at your kids and abuse them.

You’re talking about section 8 housing where your rent is paid for you. They don’t hand you the money to pay your own rent because too many people wouldn’t pay the rent. They’d spend it.

I received cash assistance for a total of 2 months (not consecutive) . It was $500 a month, and they withheld the $150 I got (for 4 kids) in child support from my ex. So what I really got was $350 for each month. Hell, my rent was $450 (I wasn’t on section 8 housing) I don’t know of anyone who receives enough cash to actually live on.

Saw the link that @bolwerk fixed.

Ah, so than the issue is with cash assistance, not food stamps.

Well, the overall issue is with Welfare/Socialism in general. It just turned specifically to food stamps above.

No one has discussed cash assistance. I’d be interested to hear from someone who actually has received it, and what their experience is.

@Dutchess_III

I was specifically referring to @Cruiser‘s claim that people are buying booze with food stamps and the talk of cash assistance comes from the link that he tried to post, which @bolwerk corrected.

I see. Yes, I needed to have read the article a little further. They weren’t buying the stuff with the food stamps portion of the card, but with the cash assistance portion of the card. But, you know, before the EBT/ATM card the recipients just got a check for cash assistance. There was no way to track what they were spending it on. I guess with the advent of the card, which they could track, it was a shock to find out they were spending it on cigarettes and booze. That kind of blows my mind. The method of cash assistance payment changed, but I doubt the amount did. How could any one afford to take “vacations to Hawaii, Las Vegas and strip clubs” on the little bit that is provided? As I said, I got all of $500 a month. But, I guess, if your rent is paid too (mine wasn’t) that would be enough to party on, while your kids went without decent clothing and other essentials.

@Dutchess_III Welfare is not socialism.

@Dutchess_III: The link @Cruiser tried to point to was about welfare, or at least purported to be; welfare is about cash assistance. Section 8 != Cash Assistance != Food Stamps. These are all separate.

Alcohol doesn’t cause you to get drunk and scream at your kids either. That condition is called “being an asshole,” which is sometimes and sometimes not covariant with alcohol abuse. Meanwhile, moderate pop consumption is not associated with better longevity. Alcohol is.

Yes, Cash assistance, Section 8, Food stamps are all facets of welfare, but they are three separate entities. However, now cash assistance and food stamps can be accessed via one Visa card that the recipient has and is “refilled’ every month.
The original claim was that people were able to buy alcohol with food stamps. However, the link he provided explains that they were paying for it with the cash assistance portion of their Visa card, not the food stamp portion.

@Dutchess_III: I agree categorically, but usually when I hear people talk about welfare, they seem to usually mean cash assistance. That may be because food stamps are very prevalent (a lot of people use them, probably many who identify as middle class), while cash assistance is somewhat rare. So is Section 8, outside big cities, I guess.

The best part is I’ve heard food stamp users sneer about the cash assistance people.
* cough * hierarchy * cough * @Kropotkin

@Kropotkin is correct, Welfare is a capitalist construct, not a socialist one.

State enforced socialism eventually makes everybody a slave to the Political Class. Apparently not an unpleasant prospect to many in the tide pool.

@sorrry about that Dutchess

@bolwerk I don’t have that big a problem with food stamps, welfare checks, SNAP, electronics benefit card what ever you want to call them. I have a problem when people take advantage of these benefits to game the system and do little to nothing to better there own situation until the benefits run out and sitting on your ass smoking and drinking on taxpayers dime does not sit well with me and I am sorry if my opinion does not sit well with you. I have a ‘friend” who constantly brags how well his daughter is doing with her foods stamps, state child support, Obama phone, and her new 60” big screen TV she bought with the cash non-taxed money she earns as a Tattoo artist WHILE living single with the father of this child who makes over $60,000 a year. I have 3 dozen other scum stories like this I could share here but I won’t waste my time here…I have to go to work.

There’s an Obama phone now?

Cool @Cruiser. Working through the red tape.

I once described socialism to my daughter. She said, “Well, that doesn’t make any sense. People would just take advantage.” Out of the mouths of babes…

What do you mean by socialism? You mention Denmark, which isn’t a socialist country. Examples of real socialism are North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, etc.

In a socialis country there is no private business. Everyone works for the government.

@Rarebear Another lesson you ought to give her is about verifying people’s opinions, especially those of supposedly trusted authority figures—like fathers.

If there’s one system which is about taking advantage of others—it is capitalism.

It is the socialists who recognise the role of institutions and how they define social relations and establish differences in social power. It is the socialists who understand that capitalism is the economic institution which allows for and facilitates staggering differences in social power, whereby a small class of owners are given the privilege of monopolising the Earth’s resources and making workers dependent on them for their survival.

Whatever you told your daughter was likely the sort of horse shit you’ve been illusioned by by your liberal and conservative media, united in their pro-capitalist ideology.

Well, @Rarebear, They’re all nice things, and I don’t know how you couldn’t convince your daughter of their merit, but they’re not definitive of socialism. The rest of this isn’t really directed at you.

Social programs and welfare, where it exists, is still mostly within capitalist economies. Historically, these policies were introduced to undermine radical unions and to alleviate the egregious effects of capitalism on the poor and working class—the motive being to maintain capitalism itself by appeasing enough people to dissuade them from radical ideologies that would do away with capitalism completely.

Social democrats were the milquetoast reformists of the socialist movement—if one can call them socialists at all. Their idea was to gradually reform capitalism with social policies and regulations, through the established mechanisms of representative democracy. The end goal to replace capitalism with socialism. They failed, and have abandoned all pretence of even trying to establish socialism.

Modern liberals mistakenly think they’re socialists. In countries like the US, it’s probably because there isn’t a socialist movement any more, and the radical left was all but suppressed and destroyed in the 50s, and hadn’t been that much of a force at all after the New Deal.

Liberals and progressives now occupy the “left” wing. The right-wing are all too happy to frame liberals as the new flag-bearers of socialism, because of its negative connotations in the American psyche. And Liberals bashfully and awkwardly claim to like “some socialism” and a “mix of socialism and capitalism”—without ever fully understanding what the word even means.

I was on food stamps on the west coast and there was no way you could buy booze on them. No way. It was a card, you bought the food, and the balance went onto your card. You could maybe go to the little bodega and sell them for 50 cents on the dollar and get cigarettes and booze that way, but just no way could you do it at a regular grocery store. I now live in Australia, and I very recently was on welfare. Thank god for it and I wasn’t being a dole bludger. Also I would be very upset if I had to spend even one dollar on health care. That’s what I hated about America, like if you were on food stamps and buying steak and lobster at Whole Foods, well, you didn’t deserve to eat fresh, good food because you were poor and it was all your fault. Same with healthcare, well if you couldn’t find a good enough job to have insurance then you were just a lowlife. And truthfully, the only real difference I see is that you drive on the other side of the road, so I never got why ‘socialism’ is a bad word there.

@glacial “There’s an Obama phone now?”

Yeah. It’s a Republican buzzword for a program that began under Bush.

@Cruiser

So if you know all these “scum” who are gaming the system why not report them?

Socialism is just another power framework for corruption to grow. In reality it does not empower the average individual it limits them. The people with all the power still control everything they just do it under the guise of ” public good.” It is a good idea in theory but pure socialism cannot be realized in reality. A constitutional republic with some socialist sprinkles is probably the sweet spot. Especially if the public has enough teeth to knock down invasive power structures as they start to grow.

@Darth_Algar I am not a tattle tail but I do write my sentors and congressmen over their wastefullness in Congress. Food stamp abused is pocket change abuse compared to the other $hit happening there. I will not begrudge the losers that want to live in a rut their whole lives and I will always support welfare programs for those who truly need it. I know a young mother in Idaho who hand spits logs all fall and into the winter and sells cords of wood so they have spending cash they will need for the winter and not have to take welfare handouts. People like her are obvious exceptions.

More positive than negative. We’re getting nowhere now and Socialism is the next logical, inevitable step, IMHO.

LOLLL @Rarebear!!

I find it very odd that people are freaking out that some people who receive cash assistance are spending some of it on beer and cigarettes, maybe even manicures and batteries and stuff, like this is some stupendous revelation.

@kritiper I do not agree that we’re getting no where.

@Cruiser “I am not a tattle tail”

Then you have no room to complain.

I think “tale…” Me thinks.

@Dutchess_III FACT: ALL democracies throughout history have only lasted 200 years before evolving into something else. FACT: The US democracy is over 200 years old.
We ARE going somewhere!

@Darth_Algar You miss the point of everything I say here for the sole sake of hearing yourself complain about conservatives with nothing constructive to add on how to fix the problem.

Yes I pick on the easy targets of those obvious abuses entitlements and if you follow me I dig in on corporate abuses as well. My complaint(s) rest solely in the lap of legislators and regulators who allow this crap to go on. You could carry similar complaints to the 1%‘rs like me and large corporations who get all sorts of tax breaks through loopholes. It all is politics at it’s finest and only has one goal behind the genesis of these types of legislation….VOTES. Entitlements get Dems the vote they seek to be re-elected and tax breaks get the campaign donations they need to get re-elected.

The sad part is most people are not smart enough or do not take the time to do the research to see the net effect of what these tax breaks and entitlements do to the bottom line of our deficit, debt, job growth (or job loss) for both the short term and long term.

People are only interested in what’s in it for them and that is merely human nature.

@Cruiser I agree with you and applaud the fact that you take action in writing your political leaders. There is absolutely no point in turning in people for welfare fraud when fifteen more are signed up the same day, it’s absolutely a waste of time until the broken system is fixed.

@Dutchess_III By “getting nowhere” I meant that we were not going in the same direction that we were originally, democracy-wise.

Hey, why don’t we see some objective data on welfare fraud in the USA? You know, instead of hearsay from y’all’s friends of friends with big screen TVs and Cadillacs.

Socialism has been proven to be a failure in other socialist countries. If socialism is so great why does everyone want to come here?

@bolwerk We’ve done all that before. <sigh> Sounds like you’re kind of calling me a liar there bud, not cool.
Just so you know I’ve been asked to give people cash in exchange for using their food stamp card many times. I’ve been invited to dinner by friends with three kids who really did eat better than my husband and I who both work full-time with no kids. When you hang out with poor people, you hear things, maybe you need to go slumming.

Wiki-
The executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid in 1977 claimed that Linda Taylor of Chicago, U.S., used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps. He claimed that she went from district to district with many disguises, using more than 100 aliases.[1] She is believed to form the basis of U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen”, and was sentenced for two to six years.[2]
Dorothy Woods, of the U.S., who claimed 38 non-existent children.[3] She was sentenced to eight years’ jail.[2]
Esther Johnson, of California, U.S., who was sentenced to four years in state prison when accused of “collecting $240,000 for more than 60 fictitious children”.[4]
Arlene Otis was indicted in Cook County, Illinois for “613 counts of illegally receiving $150,839 in welfare funds between July 1972 and February 1978.”[5] She was sentenced to four years’ jail.[2]

The US Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program.[8] The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that twenty-four percent of new welfare applications in San Diego County contain some form of fraud. However, this statistic was misreported and the actual figure is probably considerably lower.[9]

According to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics website, based on the 2012 IPIA 3-Year average data report, fraud was prevalent in 2.67% of cases. [10] XML and XLS Unemployment Insurance data sheets released yearly available at: www.dol.gov/dol/maps/Data.htm

“in Denmark it is not good to stand out, people look down on you for it.” Eh, what exactly does this man mean with this quote? I am a Dane living in Denmark and I don’t think standing out in Denmark is looked down upon more than in other countries.

@gorillapaws “What do you mean by socialism? You mention Denmark, which isn’t a socialist country. Examples of real socialism are North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, etc” Socialism and communism are not the same thing. The countries you are referring to are not socialist but communist. Socialism is an ideology just like liberalism and they both require democracy, communism is not democracy.

I think socialism is a good thing, but it must co-exist with personal freedom and sometimes this can be difficult, but not impossible.

The world’s 85 richest people own the same amount of money as the poorest half of the population – this means more than 3 billion people. Is this fair? If you ask me, no. And why is the world like this? Capitalism is one of the reasons.

Socialism is humane and I don’t think it’s an utopia. It is not communism. Please don’t confuse these two things – they are different.

A new enterprising chef said it on a program the other night.

@KNOWITALL: the actual statistics you list (“1.9%”, “2.67%”) seem pretty at odds with anecdotes/fantasies about massive lines at the welfare office or the apparent belief of massive growth in public assistance in general. I didn’t use the term “liar,” but that discrepancy between the picture even you painted and the outcome seems rather chasmic.

This doesn’t say anything about fraud, but it does give you an idea of the magnitude of people on different public assistance programs. Not exactly stratospheric. (Source is supposedly at least in part the Cato Institute.)

@bolwerk Fantasies, guess Obama’s got the same one’s I do then. This is one program, I don’t have time to research it all today for you.

With more Americans relying on the program, the Obama administration on Tuesday plans to announce new steps to crack down on SNAP fraud amid estimates suggesting as much as $753 million in federal food aid is spent fraudulently each year.
....
In other cases, beneficiaries who receive monthly deposits of food aid on to plastic cards similar to bank cards intentionally use SNAP benefits to purchase water or other beverages with bottle deposits, dump the liquid and then obtain cash for bottle deposits. Others attempt to sell SNAP benefits in exchange for cash on Craigslist and social media sites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-administration-targeting-food-stamp-fraud-as-program-reaches-record-highs/2011/12/05/gIQAfdM3XO_blog.html

@gorillapaws “What do you mean by socialism? You mention Denmark, which isn’t a socialist country. Examples of real socialism are North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, etc.

In a socialis country there is no private business. Everyone works for the government.”

Examples of real capitalism are Indonesia, Haiti, Mongolia, Somalia . . . .

What do YOU mean by socialism? Because the Bolsheviks in the USSR opposed, suppressed and murdered the socialist opposition—so it can’t be that. North Korea’s Juche ideology has its heritage in Bolshevism—so that can’t be it.

And Cuba? Maybe the most generous example, since they’re currently the only country on the planet deemed to be both ecologically sustainable and with a decent quality of life for its citizenry—and even they’re nominally socialist and better described as state capitalist.

@tups “The countries you are referring to are not socialist but communist.”

As a communist (specifically an anarcho-communist), I am irked by self-professed socialists who repeat right-wing and Bolshevik propaganda that the USSR et al, are examples of communism. Talk about poisoning the well and historical revisionism. Communism is also a subset of socialism—all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

@BeenThereSaidThat There are more than 20 different styles of Socialism. Seems like everyone who tries it, tries it their own way. Maybe we can make it work if we develop the right style.
But here’s an idea: If the US is evolving into something else, what is that something else, if not Socialism??

@KNOWITALL: I didn’t say there was no fraud. But the $753M you cite? That’s like .02% of the federal budget.

@kritiper I think that’s a more interesting question. Capitalism is going to send our civilisation off a cliff. We’re amidst an ecological catastrophe—an unprecedented loss in biodiversity, unsustainable resource and energy consumption, land degradation, depletion of aquifers, pollution, staggering inequality in wealth and power with a tiny elite dominating, and the potentially disastrous effects of looming climate change and sea level rise on top of it all.

There is going to have to be a radical shift in how humanity does its politics and economics in the coming decades, or our species is not going to have a happy time.

@bolwerk That’s what I’m saying B, I know a lot of poor people and people who work at non-profits, and I try to help and talk about thing’s that don’t work. I’m not saying there’s fraud to hurt anyone, but in order to help those who really need it. I’m really not an evil Republican, but I know there are babies not getting fed so daddy can get his drugs or booze or mama get her pills. It’s reality and it sucks. It’s not just people in trailer parks either, it’s suburbia, etc..

People at our local shelters beg just for an address from anyone, because without an address you can’t get mail or any assistance at all.

@KNOWITALL: Going by Florida’s comical experience with drug testing, there would seem to be more of those babies in the general population than there are in the welfare population.

@tups Socialism is an ideology just like liberalism and they both require democracy, communism is not democracy.

I think socialism is a good thing, but it must co-exist with personal freedom…

Socialism is humane and I don’t think it’s an utopia.

Nice to here the perspective of someone who lives in and experiences a more socialistic environment.

And, to answer your question, no, it is not fair but no-one ever claimed that capitalism is all about fairness. Greed and fairness are mutually exclusive in my book.

@Cruiser

You’re not picking on easy targets, you’re impotently whining about it to a bunch of strangers. And yeah, I get what you’re saying. I just find it funny (in an almost pathetic way) that welfare fraud is suppose to be the huge problem that costs the American taxpayers million (billions?) of dollars per year, and that everyone claims to personally know many people who are defrauding or otherwise abusing the system, yet no one seems to be willing to actually do anything about it.

And, just saying, I am not an uneducated person, I have a doctorate. How can a homeless person pay for malpractice and licensure fees? I got foodstamps on the west coast and I have not heard these arguments before. If you need it, you need it. The only people I ever saw ‘defrauding’ the system were perhaps women with kids (that’s the only way you get cash) and maybe having a side gig. I’ve seen the weaves, suburbans with rims, nails, Iphones. I don’t know what the answer is. I always figured they lived many people to an apartment and saved up for these things.

@Darth_Algar You apparently did not read my comments above where I both acknowledged fraud is a drop in the bucket to other form of fiscal mishandling by our government and I did point out that I am not in the business of policing fraud by ordinary and in many cases struggling folks but I regularly voice my opinion(s) on these and other matters to all my State officials including our idiot governor. Funny part is I only wrote one letter prior to Obama taking office and that was to protest Bush’s weapons of mass destruction BS but since Obama came on board I am writing letters about once a month.

@Cruiser What exactly do you propose that the state officials do about the ~2% benefit fraud. The “drop in the bucket” of “fiscal mishandling”?

Have you considered the possibility that going after that 2% might make life more difficult for the other 98%? Or that it would cost as much if not more to stop that 2% of fraud than the cost of the fraud?

And even if a few cases are exceptionally egregious, most cases are probably quite minor, and the claimants are likely poor anyway (as you seem to recognise). If they spend their meagre amounts on big screen TVs and other minor luxuries and vices—it still increases aggregate demand, and is a form of economic stimulus.

And if you think some people aren’t following you here—maybe you’ve not been clear or consistent, despite your protestations to the contrary. You claim you have a problem with benefit fraud, and cite anecdotal hearsay in support, and yet it’s “pocket change” and you “won’t begrudge them”. You think it’s enough of an issue to write about to legislators, yet it’s also a “drop in the bucket”.

“The sad part is most people are not smart enough or do not take the time to do the research to see the net effect of what these tax breaks and entitlements do to the bottom line of our deficit, debt, job growth (or job loss) for both the short term and long term.”

Oh. Do regale us with the research you’ve accumulated. I always look forward to self-professed smarter than average person educating the masses with what they’ve learned. You have a captive audience!

@Kropotkin ‘as much as $753 million in federal food aid is spent fraudulently each year.’

Meanwhile shelters and other budgets are being cut across the nation, that’s kind of a big deal when you have no food and no home. I can’t believe the sarcasem by you and @Darth_Algar about this subject.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20140205/NEWS01/302050134/Budget-cut-at-The-Kitchen-but-no-plans-to-close-Missouri-Hotel?odyssey=nav%7Chead

@Kropotkin My beefs I have addressed about welfare fraud has been directed towards the directors operators of the welfare programs who do little to nothing to police and better manage these programs to lessen or mitigate the blatant fraud that goes on. Why do they allow this to happen and even encourage it to happen??? It’s all to garner and protect the votes they get.

I have seen news clip after news clip of facilitators who openly tell applicants how to game the system. When the system itself is encouraging fraud, then I have a big problem with that and I let the powers that be know my opinions on the matter and how it affects my vote next election.

And about my research….I based my comments (not exclusively as there are other sources) on a blog that has an extensive illustration of the impact of welfare on our economy with quite a few pages dedicated to welfare fraud but I will cite this one that has a good analysis of the real cost of welfare fraud. I sincerely doubt you or any of the other jellies who take issue with my “opinions” on this matter will read the 25 blog pages dedicate to the welfare issue let alone the one page I cited.

__“Let’s run some numbers to find out. According to the 2010 US Census Bureau findings, there are 114.8 Million families in the US. With 34.2% of US families “on welfare” (see related article: An Expansion of the Welfare State), this means that approximately 39.3 Million homes receive monthly welfare benefits. The Federal government expects to spend $451.9 Billion in 2012 on welfare expenditures. This averages out to roughly $11,500 annually per family or $958 per family per month.__

__If the fraud rate is only 2%-3%, how much money could it really be costing us? Well…these low rates would mean that roughly 785,000 to 1.2 Million families are illegally receiving welfare benefits. At the average rate of $11,500 per year, this is costing the tax payers between $9.0 – $13.5 Billion dollars every year. This is as much or more than the cost of teen pregnancy. (see related article: Homes Built on Sand) While the percentage may be small, the cost is still quite high. It isn’t enough to make up the $1.5 Trillion Federal budget deficit; but, it is still significant.“__

@Cruiser

Maybe they “do nothing” because people don’t bother reporting cases of welfare fraud. If you know of cases of ongoing fraud then report it. Otherwise by your complacency you’re just as guilty of “allowing it to happen”.

@Darth_Algar You again are missing the point! Thanks to undercover reporters “They” are well aware of the problem and do little to nothing about it because there is no pressure from above to fix the problem.

If the intention for welfare is to provide relief to struggling families to help them regain their footing, then the execution of the program should be working to strengthen and facilitate those homes toward no longer needing assistance. The goal would then be to provide the tools, knowledge and skills to sustain themselves rather than simply to prop up and support them through public provision. I believe that this should be the intention of welfare programs. I would like to see welfare to live up to the intention by which it was sold to the America public: reduction of poverty. It is in the best interest of everyone that poverty is reduced and home sustainability is increased.

Half will argue that those receiving welfare aren’t paying taxes and the other half will argue that the “super rich” aren’t paying taxes either. This mentality will only serve to further polarize the parties towards ever reaching real solutions to the welfare problem in our country.

Let’s go back to the original premise of this question. Socialism promises to make us all equal: equally poor, equally dependent, equally restricted. While the promise of “equality” sounds good on the surface, Socialism delivers on this promise by placing our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the very alienable rule of government. One’s right to life is no longer a given condition of existence; it is a legislated determination. One’s right to live free extends only so far as the rulers permit. One’s right to freely pursue happiness is only permissible if it has benefit for the collective.

One aspect that Socialism has in common with Capitalism, however, is the idea of benefit to society. This, I believe, is a key concept that can help us to find reforms to welfare. Our objectives should not solely be directed toward those who are enrolled to receive assistance. We should also consider those who provide the resources. The providers are not politicians or government institutions. It is “We the People”.

There are a number of ways that we can begin to create welfare reforms that provide a return on the investment that we make in the poorest members of our society. This is the key concept of welfare: it is an investment that we make in those who struggle to improve their situation in order to help them accomplish those ends.

The goal then is not to eliminate poverty but to increase base value of those who are at the lower end of the earning spectrum. We need to provide better access to programs that provide access to educations and job opportunities that will enable the people on welfare to become self sufficient. As I said above, providing and extending more benefits disincentives a person from having to work.

I’m not missing anything, trust me. I fully get your point, it’s just a terribly inconsistent point.

@Cruiser The article you linked cited absolutely no sources. I appreciate that Dinesh D’Souza probably thinks that he doesn’t need to cite his sources properly, since his usual audience trusts his every word and considers him a credible authority. I do not.

I got through 3 pages somehow, but trying to verify every claim and statistic took more time than reading the bloody thing. It didn’t even answer the question I posed to you—“What exactly do you propose that the state officials do about the ~2% benefit fraud?”

The recently indicted fraudster and vulgar propagandist for the right-wing, Dinesh D’Souza, to whose article you linked, does not answer this question. He simply asserts that the estimated $9 to $13.5 billion in fraud—using his unverifiable methodology—is “significant”. Why is it? That’s just a mystery. I’m just meant to be outraged by the figure for some nebulous emotive reason.

Dinesh and you also repeat the economic myth of the deficit as some pressing issue. One of the most pernicious and prevalent myths in popular discourse. The dishonest right-wing meme and pretext for austerity policies and cuts in social services.

@KNOWITALL Seems to notice the cuts:

“Meanwhile shelters and other budgets are being cut across the nation, that’s kind of a big deal when you have no food and no home”

Now to address the rest of your rhetoric, @Cruiser.

“Let’s go back to the original premise of this question. Socialism promises to make us all equal: equally poor, equally dependent, equally restricted.”

I realise that anti-socialism is something of a state religion in the USA, but could you come up with some slurs that are a bit more original? You’re like one of those silly 1950’s Disney propaganda cartoons. Better yet—learn what socialism is before spouting such drivel.

“One’s right to life is no longer a given condition of existence; it is a legislated determination. One’s right to live free extends only so far as the rulers permit. One’s right to freely pursue happiness is only permissible if it has benefit for the collective.”

More poetic rhetoric that smacks of prejudicial and biased views of what socialism is. Some of this could easily, and probably more accurately, be placed on capitalism. I’ll have a go at it:

One’s right to life is determined by the capitalist class who monopolise the means to life. One’s right to live free extends only as far the capitalist permits, for he lords over all property. One’s right to pursue happiness is only permissible if it is profitable to the capitalist class.

So easy to invert your silly rhetoric.

“There are a number of ways that we can begin to create welfare reforms that provide a return on the investment that we make in the poorest members of our society”

Applying the concept of ROI to people? Do you even notice the language you use?

“The goal then is not to eliminate poverty but to increase base value of those who are at the lower end of the earning spectrum.”

Well, this is frank. You’ve no interest in eliminating poverty. I presume with wanting a better ROI and increasing the “value” of the poor, in such capitalistic terms, you want them to be more profitable! Like those workers in China, they have a good ROI, and they’re so productive too!

”. . . that will enable the people on welfare to become self sufficient”

What is this nonsense? How does one become self-sufficient in a capitalist system? One needs capital and land to be self-sufficient. Self-sufficient means not working for a boss. And capitalists aren’t “self-sufficient”, since you’re parasitising the labour of the productive class—workers.

” As I said above, providing and extending more benefits disincentives a person from having to work.”

And here we have it. Make people desperate enough so they’ll work for their capitalist overlords for less. Hey. If you hate generous welfare provisions so much, why not move to somewhere like Indonesia, Haiti, or Mongolia?! Oh wait, capitalists do exploit the workers there!

Meanwhile in reality, and supported by masses of historical and contemporary evidence, the least dysfunctional capitalist economies, and also the ones with the least poverty and most productivity (Denmark, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Australia. etc) have the most generous and extensive systems of welfare.

@Kropotkin
We were in Jamaica several years ago and noticed that in every store we went in there were obvious Jamaican sales personnel and usually someone in charge who appeared and sounded as though they were from either the Middle or Far East and these people were constantly browbeating and verbally abusing their employees/staff.
During our stay, we asked several locals about this and they all said basically the same thing. That, yes, most of the stores were foreign owned because, except for the elite few, there was very little locally owned capital available for the small or start up business and the banks only like to lend to those with money or other assets.
They indicated that the overwhelming majority of the employees were locals and they were usually underpaid, over worked and subject to constant verbal and sometimes physical abuse. The workers had only two choices; accept it or quit. The owners did not care, their attitude was if you don’t like it, leave otherwise you will take the abuse and the measly pay. But then again, they had the upper hand because with the rampant poverty and unemployment the workers had no where else to go; for every person working there were four unemployed ready to step in and take the place of anyone who quit.
I don’t know if the four to one figure is correct but from what I could observe on the island, It has to be close. And, this was about ten years ago so I do not know if it has gotten any better.

Is this what we have to look forward to in the US?

@Kropotkin He most certainly does…if you read the articles he will mention his sources and also provide links (those words in blue) that you can go to and read his supporting information.

All your comments in your reply to me are purely argumentative and bear no purpose other than to create drama and I have no desire to engage you further in this type discussion.

@rojo I think there’s a definite push toward that model—thanks to neoliberalism and globalisation.

The USA is starting from quite a privileged and wealthy position, so it’s going to be a while before their working class are all as desperate and poor as those in Jamaica.

Jamaica and much of the world has no influential organised labour movement. We’re living in more depoliticised times. The popular narratives are dominated by the wealthy elites (liberal and conservative) and repugnant propagandists like Dinesh D’Souza. Trade union membership is lower than ever, and radical unions are all but extinct. As the economic crisis bites, many people are being swayed by right-wing populism. It’s really not looking good.

@Cruiser No he doesn’t. The blue links just link back to other unsourced pages from the same blog. I couldn’t find any external links to the source data or proper citations.

Even assuming the accuracy of the data, none of it answered my question or addressed any point I made anyway!

Purely argumentative? I suppose I should be flattered, since you’re acknowledging that I’m actually presenting arguments. It’s just a pity that you’re not able to address any of them at all. Not even the first simple question I asked.

Perhaps you’re not used to being countered this way or having your rhetoric dissected—in which case I sympathise with your cognitive dissonance.

Holy crap!

Just for some more analysis of @Cruiser‘s parting rhetoric.

“All your comments in your reply to me are purely argumentative”

I suppose it’s a subtle distinction that my comments are being called argumentative, rather than me, but it’s essentially calling me argumentative. It’s clear that this is in a pejorative sense. Is this a personal attack? I think it could be argued that it is. It’s at least the beginning of what looks like an ad hominem fallacy.

“and bear no purpose other than to create drama”

Now we get to the crux of the ad hominem. I am again dismissed for pejorative reasons. My motive isn’t just questioned—it is boldly asserted. He knows my comments are to “create drama”—to cause strife, contention, disharmony! (That’s what leftists do, according to Disney cartoons!) The rhetorical justification for dismissing me is complete.

“and I have no desire to engage you further in this type discussion.”

The parting flourish before he tucks his tail away to run. I’m “argumentative” and he knows what my motive is, because he said so! He can now breathe a sigh of relief and not have to address anything put to him. The cynicism is further reinforced with the term “this type”—again with a negative connotation. The implication is clear: he projects himself as being too reasonable and too civil for this “type” of discussion.

oh my

The most ‘socialist’ European nations actually have social market economies, a mixture of free market profits and high government intervention. America has a social market economy in my opinion too, though on a much lower level.

Unless one is a true libertarian, I had never understood the concept of the faux ‘individualism’ that mainstream American conservatism has championed. Conservatives and right wing ideologues are usually the first ones to force their watered down version of communitarianism on others from my experiences with them. Life isn’t just about economics, and I don’t buy the typical conservative mantra of being the true ‘individualists’ here.

Personally, and to answer the question I’m a fan of the social market model. My reasons are obvious, in that we all share this planet together, so it is our responsibility to look out for the welfare of our enviroment. I also believe that nobody gets wealthy on their own, and definitely without luck. A foundation has been put in place so people can get wealthy, and without it there would be no wealth gap to begin with. Why should there be rules for our private lives, but not how we conduct business? Also, in my opinion many educational programs that help people end up paying themselves off because these people in turn make more money, which in turn ends up being more tax revenue for the government.

While I’m not anti-tax, I’m not a fan of certain taxes however, such as property taxes, since this means you never really paid your loan off (similar concept that is), and it means you never really own your property that you likely already overpaid several times the amount for due to the lenders need to make an enormous profit. I’m not a fan of government seizures of property too for simple drug offenses. The fact remains that both progressives and conservatives are guilty of distortion. I’ll just call myself a liberal and be done with it. The fact remains that any economic or political system will fall apart without true respect for the individual and a lack of morality.

@Paradox25 Just one observation, since probably few people are left paying attention to the thread, and I don’t feel like writing any more essays.

You say you support the social market model because we all share in this planet together, and it’s our responsibility to look out for the welfare of our environment.

It’s just that there’s not much evidence (if any) that a social market model achieves this noble aim. Germany’s* per capita CO2 emissions are higher than that of Japan and the UK, and much higher than that of France.

German corporations are also more than happy to take advantage of the neoliberal model in emerging and developing markets, where they don’t have the same environmental regulations and trade union power.

*I’m using Germany as it’s the definitive example of what I understand the social market model to be.

@Kropotkin France has a social market economy, and so does the UK.

@Paradox25 Define “social market economy”, because it seems we’re talking past each other if you have a completely different conception of what it means.

I was involved in another thread a couple of weeks ago where a German was specifically advocating the social market economy. It was and is my understanding that this is a uniquely German model, where there’s a modest degree of state intervention in the economy, a significant labour union influence in the decision making and management of private companies—even to the extent of worker representatives being in board rooms, and a large degree of collaboration and cooperation between national corporations.

This is absolutely nothing like the UK model of capitalism.

@Kropotkin I had always thought that a social market economy was a mixture of free market profits, taxtation, social programs and government intervention in the market (without complete control). I’m sure different countries have different levels of it. i had always thought social market capitalism was a hybrid between socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, with some countries gearing more towards one side vs the other.

Socialism is what the old Soviet model was, and I have not seen even the most socialist leaning European nation go that far. The Soviet government completely did away with free market profit incentives with a state controlled market. The Soviet government was authoritarian too, though I believe any type of economic system can be ruled by authoritarians. Some historians call the old Soviet model left-wing conservatism. I don’t want to get too deep with political systems here.

The soviet model was state capitalism and had nary a thing to do with socialism.

@Paradox25 What I’ll say is that common usage of terminology is often at odds with the academic usage, or used in less well-defined ways. Then there’s the use of terms for their propagandistic effect: like “socialism” being a dirty word for people who hold capitalist values.

“I had always thought that a social market economy was a mixture of free market profits, taxtation, social programs and government intervention in the market (without complete control). I’m sure different countries have different levels of it.”

You’re describing what’s called a mixed economy. It’s not laissez-faire and it’s not entirely centrally planned. It’s some mix of planning, regulation and intervention when required. Of course, there’s plenty of variation in what that exact mix is or should be.

You’re also describing welfare capitalism, which is ubiquitous in modern developed capitalist economies. The welfare being the social programs and public services. As you point out, countries have different levels of it (and is a never ending source of contention between liberals and conservatives.)

” i had always thought social market capitalism was a hybrid between socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, with some countries gearing more towards one side vs the other.”

Capitalism is a property system defined as a class of individuals who get to own the means to produce commodities which society consumes. The commodities are produced by workers in return for a wage and sold by the owner/boss/capitalist on the market for a profit. The profits are then invested into more capital, shared between investors, used to bribe governments, buy yachts, etc.

Socialism is completely at odds with the capitalist model, because it asserts that there shouldn’t be a class of owners monopolising the means of production, and that workers should control the output of their labour directly—producing directly for social use, rather than mediated through markets for profit (there’s an exception with market socialism, but I won’t go into that.)

I’m stating this, because there’s no such thing as a “mix of capitalism and socialism”. They are mutually exclusive concepts, and the only time this “hybrid” or “mix” phrasing is used, is when socialism is treated as being synonymous with welfare or with central planning. Which is just wrong, and often a deliberate obfuscation from right-wing sources.

“Socialism is what the old Soviet model was”

Dubious. Perhaps a specific type of socialism, only possible through an authoritarian state. I don’t think it fits the definition of socialism. The Bolsheviks also had no qualms about suppressing and murdering various other socialist and anarchist factions.

@Paradox25 Regardless of which flavour of capitalism you prefer, none of them are ecologically sustainable nor any good for the environment. Climate and ecological catastrophe is seen as a potential new opportunity from which to profit.

Superior German capitalism is the best capitalism.

@ragingloli I had always thought that state capitalism was the definition of socialism. What’s really the difference between the two systems then? Free market capitalism would oppose government control over profits and regulations.

@Paradox25

“I had always thought that state capitalism was the definition of socialism.”

Capitalism has wage labour, socialism has not. Did you read my earlier reply?

“Free market capitalism would oppose government control over profits and regulations.”

Yes, but the only countries approaching “free market” capitalism are third world shit-holes. All developed first-world countries are mixed economies. Capitalism can be completely laissez-faire, it can be “mixed”, or it can be state controlled. Did you read my earlier reply?

I’ve read your many posts on this thread. Your definition of socialism is the same as communism, where the workers own everything they produce instead of the state or private sector. Communism is just a fragment of socialism, since socialism is divided into several ideologies from what I had read about it. Even anarchy is considered to be a version of socialism, but so is state capitalism. What you’re in support of is outright communism.

The problem is that every time communism is introduced to the people as being anti-statist, it always ends up turning authoritarian anyways. Even Marx concluded that authoritarianism may have to be implemented in order to achieve its anti-statist goals. Convince me that a communist system can be achieved without utilizing authoritarianism. Even the most socialist leaning governments in Europe are not communist in practice. Heavily regulated free markets still are the norm even in those countries.

@Paradox25

Socialism is not the same as communism. While yes, communism is a form of socialism not all socialism is communism.

@Paradox25 No. Just, no . . . .

“Your definition of socialism is the same as communism, where the workers own everything they produce instead of the state or private sector.”

No. I defined socialism. Yes, communism is a subset of socialism. Communism is a moneyless and stateless system where the distribution of goods is based on need, and the production and effort of individuals is based on ability, with no remuneration to quantify anyone’s input into the economy (since there’s no money).

Did I mention those things when summarising socialism? No, I did not. Now you also have a summary of communism.

Please note that this is a summary in my own words. If you want a more scholarly and academic understanding of communism, you will need to learn about it—preferably from actual communists.

“Even anarchy is considered to be a version of socialism, but so is state capitalism”

Anarchism is not just “even” a version of socialism, it is a major theoretical contributor to the broader historical socialist movement. Anarchism is split into various schools of thought and is also part of a larger subset called libertarian socialism, which itself includes variations of Marxist political thought, like Luxemburgism and council communism.

State capitalism isn’t socialism. The clue is in the word “capitalism”.

“What you’re in support of is outright communism.”

I’ve actually talked very little about what I advocate.

“The problem is that every time communism is introduced to the people as being anti-statist, it always ends up turning authoritarian anyways.”

Maybe when introduced by doctrinaire Marxists, but not always: Ukraine Catalonia

“Even Marx concluded that authoritarianism may have to be implemented in order to achieve its anti-statist goals.”

Marx was wrong. As the anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin argued:

“They maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.”

“Convince me that a communist system can be achieved without utilizing authoritarianism.”

I’m not interested in convincing you of anything. Whether you want to be a liberal, a conservative, a social democrat, or even a fascist—it is entirely up to you. The only thing I’d appreciate is that you and everyone else actually understand what it is they’re opposing or advocating. There is a greater richness and depth of socialist thought, and political philosophy in general, than most people are aware of.

“Even the most socialist leaning governments in Europe are not communist in practice. Heavily regulated free markets still are the norm even in those countries.”

The “socialist leaning” governments are just welfare capitalists who advocate a bit more state intervention in the economy. They slightly oppose economic liberalism, and put more resources toward welfare. They’re only nominally socialist at best, and not at all socialist in practice.

In fact, I think socialism is impossible to implement through representative democracy—a system which was devised by the upper middle-classes to challenge and undermine the authority of monarchs, and to maintain their own wealth and privilege.