Lets Define "Socialism" - Once and For All!

[PMZ]

I would like someone to name a current country that does not employ both private and publicly owned means of production.

Privately owned means work well only through regulation to insure and maintain competition, and keep business operating consistent with the will of the people. For goods and services that aren't produced for that kind of market, publically owned means are necessary.

 

[regent]

There are a number of types of socialism and Marx disliked most types, except for one, his own, "scientific socialism." Marx believed people could not just move from capitalism into communism without a learning period, this period Marx called scientific socialism. This label has given conservatives the argument that socialism leads to communism and so they label anything they don't like socialism and we all know that leads to communism. Yet some nations have introduced social programs just to take the allure from communism, Bismarck of Germany did just that with his medical program in the 1890's. In America Social Security was touted by Republicans as leading to communism.
Today most nations practice a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The debate is only how much of each is the best.
If Republicans lose their socialism leads to communism battle cry, and no nation has practiced Marx, they will have lost one of their big scare weapons.

 

[bripat9643]

I would like someone to name a current country that does not employ both private and publicly owned means of production.

Privately owned means work well only through regulation to insure and maintain competition, and keep business operating consistent with the will of the people. For goods and services that aren't produced for that kind of market, publically owned means are necessary.

Actually, government regulation is designed to eliminate competition, not maintain it. Big corporations love regulation because it makes entry into their markets more difficult for new competitors.

Also, the fact that governments all try to horn in on the function of the market economy doesn't prove that such interference is a good thing. experience has show universally that it's a bad thing. government products are always inferior and for more expensive.

 

[regent]

I would like someone to name a current country that does not employ both private and publicly owned means of production.

Privately owned means work well only through regulation to insure and maintain competition, and keep business operating consistent with the will of the people. For goods and services that aren't produced for that kind of market, publically owned means are necessary.

Actually, government regulation is designed to eliminate competition, not maintain it. Big corporations love regulation because it makes entry into their markets more difficult for new competitors.

Also, the fact that governments all try to horn in on the function of the market economy doesn't prove that such interference is a good thing. experience has show universally that it's a bad thing. government products are always inferior and for more expensive.

When government gets into the economy it is usually not to make money but to perform a service, and that requires political compromise. America could have created a much better Social Security program but with one part of the political process fighting the idea it was watered down and finally passed. Since then Social Security has been changed a number of times all with the idea of improvements. Undoubtedly the same will happen with Obama- care. At this time Obama-care may not be the best program America could come up with but as many agree it's a start. Be interesting to see Obama-care looks like 100 years from now.

 

[tooAlive]

There are a number of types of socialism and Marx disliked most types, except for one, his own, "scientific socialism." Marx believed people could not just move from capitalism into communism without a learning period, this period Marx called scientific socialism. This label has given conservatives the argument that socialism leads to communism and so they label anything they don't like socialism and we all know that leads to communism. Yet some nations have introduced social programs just to take the allure from communism, Bismarck of Germany did just that with his medical program in the 1890's. In America Social Security was touted by Republicans as leading to communism.
Today most nations practice a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The debate is only how much of each is the best.
If Republicans lose their socialism leads to communism battle cry, and no nation has practiced Marx, they will have lost one of their big scare weapons.

Scientific socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although Marx denounced "utopian socialism", he never referred to his own ideas as "scientific socialism". Similar methods for analyzing social and economic trends and involving socialism as a product of socioeconomic evolution have also been used by non-Marxist theoreticians, such as Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen.

And as a conservative, I don't believe that socialism leads to communism. Marx may have envisioned it that way, but he was naive to believe that once "the time was right," the elected government officials would voluntarily step down from power so that the country could transition into the state-less, class-less, money-less "communist stage."

 

[JQPublic1]

I think the idea is not people saying we live in a fully communist or socialist country but rather that many aspects of our society have shifted in that direction by way of actual law and policy. Some of the most damaging areas of our economy and society are due to the growth on Socialism and Communism like Governing.

Many of us understand that we have a mix, but we also understand that the more we have shifted in the direction of Socialism the worse things have become, as predicted. Socialism simply does not work, there is the idea and then there is reality, we are living the reality, just like any country that has or will ever try socialism.
.

The move towards hard right conservatism during the past 3 decades has done far more damage to this nation than all of the "socialism" programs combined. The failed dogma of deregulated free markets have caused massive economic turmoil and wiped out the life savings of millions of hard working Americans.

HUH?

Why do you associate right wing " conservatives with deregulation?

What/When did the "right wing " conservatives deregulate?

.

.

You don't even know your own sordid "conservative" history do you? Do you remember the Savings and loan scandals that occurred after Reagan deregulated them. Charles Keating does... He went to prison for bilking the life savings of granmas and granpas who trusted him!

The push of the Reagan administration for deregulation made it harder to detect such fraud. This had two effects: it meant that the fraud continued longer and substantially increased the economic losses involved, and it attracted "opportunistic" control frauds who were looking for businesses they could subvert into Ponzi schemes.[3] For example, Charles Keating paid $51 million from Michael Milken's junk bond operation for Lincoln Savings and Loan, which at the time had a negative net worth exceeding $100 million.[4]

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PMZ]

It seems that nobody can name a current country that does not employ both privately and publically owned means of production. I've never been able to find one.

Quoted from above: "Actually, government regulation is designed to eliminate competition, not maintain it. Big corporations love regulation because it makes entry into their markets more difficult for new competitors."

This is another thing that I hope that someone can supply some specifics on. Given that publicly owned means are generally used for goods and services in market's that don't lend themselves to competition, the quote above would imply that government acts in restraint of trade in competitive privately owned means capitalist markets. What's an example?