Lets Define "Socialism" - Once and For All!

[tooAlive]

HUH?

Why do you associate right wing " conservatives with deregulation?

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

.

.

Were you not paying attention when Gingrich was pushing his Contract On America and the subsequent Enron/Arthur Anderson corruption scandals? How about the deregulation of Glass-Steagall? How about the angry screams from the conservative right about "my money" when it come to the Bush era taxcuts? Are you blaming all of those on "liberals" instead?

You need to do some of your own research and stop listening to the information that people give you and taking it as gospel.

Do some research on the expansion of regulations in the United States and you will find that not once in over 100 years, has any administration reduced regulations on business or the people.

In fact, the shelf size of the current US regulation codes are over 19 feet in length and are added to on a daily basis.

Which tells us that conservative ideals have been, and continue to be misrepresented by those elected into office.

 

[auditor0007]

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.
.

Take away unemployment insurance, workman's comp, food stamps, and other welfare programs, and we would work about as well as India with their massive slum cities. I suppose if you think that is better than what we have, then by all means let's work for that type of society.

 

[Political Junky]

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.
.

Take away unemployment insurance, workman's comp, food stamps, and other welfare programs, and we would work about as well as India with their massive slum cities. I suppose if you think that is better than what we have, then by all means let's work for that type of society.

It would sure give cheap labor to the likes of Romney. He won't have to buy razor wire surrounded factories in China.

 

[Agit8r]

I prefer to use precise terms like planned economy, mixed economy, or spontaneous economy to describe the differences. Socialism has become something of a weasel word.

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. An extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies - these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity."
-- Friedrich August Von Hayek; from 'Road to Serfdom'

I would agree with that.

But since people will inevitably use the word socialism, I thought it'd be a good idea to set the definition straight.

But again, you're right. Those terms would be much much more accurate to describe economic systems.

I'm just noting that a lot of people would call the above quote socialistic, even though to say such a thing would be moronic

 

[editec]

Having been screaming that WORDS HAVE MEANINGS for a couple years now, I am happy to see this thread got some reaction.

It is impossible to have meaningful discussion unless the players understand the conceptual meanings behind the words they use.

Which is EXACTLY why propagandists seem to set out to destroy the language.

Socialism is defined as government owning means of production.

That is what it means, nothing else.

Welfare is NOT socialism. Having a military is not socialism

Socialism is an economic description where the government OWNS industry.

 

[Sallow]

Correct.

And that can be accomplished directly via socialism or indirectly via fascism.

Under fascism government controls the means of production via licensing and massive regulation.

They are able to disguise their control by allowing the entrepreneurs to retain "ownership".

.

Fascism is quite different from Socialism.

Well duh, that 's what I said.

Socialism gives the government some power over private industry.

There is NO PRIVATE INDUSTRY UNDER SOCIALISM.

Fascism give the private industry power over the government.

Fascism/corporatism allows corrupt businessmen and bureaucrats to join forces.

There really is no "private" industry under any system of government. Which is something you folks don't seem to understand.

 

[Sallow]

Simple: Government control of the means of production.

What we have here in the USA is worse. Government controls business producers unless it is a big multi-national business, then they control the government. It is like an Oligarchy

Sorta...yeah.

 

[tooAlive]

Having been screaming that WORDS HAVE MEANINGS for a couple years now, I am happy to see this thread got some reaction.

It is impossible to have meaningful discussion unless the players understand the conceptual meanings behind the words they use.

Which is EXACTLY why propagandists seem to set out to destroy the language.

Socialism is defined as government owning means of production.

That is what it means, nothing else.

Welfare is NOT socialism. Having a military is not socialism

Socialism is an economic description where the government OWNS industry.

You're absolutely right.

It seems as though modern liberals today have redefined the word socialism and given it a completely different meaning. Which makes it very hard to have a serious discussion when everyone's talking about something totally different.

 

[g5000]

I would like to know where the incredibly stupid idea that only left wing governments can be totalitarian came from.

Anyone?

 

[g5000]

Zeroing in on only the word "socialism" in the words "National Socialism" to somehow "prove" that Nazis are left wing is about as retarded as it gets.

It reminds me of that guy in This Is Spinal Tap whose favorite amplifier is the one that has a volume control that goes to 11. It's like the brains of those who think Nazis are left wing are stuck. I'd like to know who did that to them.

I'm pretty sure it was Glenn Beck.

You have to scoop about seven pounds of brain matter out of your head to believe these are extreme left wingers:

 

[g5000]

Defining "Socialism" once and for all does not define NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

Wake. Up.

 

[Erand7899]

I've seen a lot of misinformation regarding socialism and communism lately, as everyone seems to have a different idea of what those two words mean. Some people think that countries like the USSR, Cuba, or North Korea were/are communist. That's actually not the case.

Others say that socialism is what they have in many modern-day European countries, and that even America is socialist because we have social security, welfare programs, police and fire departments, ect.. That's also not quite true.

So lets go ahead and properly define these words once and for all, and hopefully end the confusion. Lets start out by looking at a simple definition of socialism by a non-partisan source, Merriam Webster.

so·cial·ism - \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. a) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

In a nutshell, this refers to the government having control over all corporations/productive forces. They get to decide who runs the corporations, what the corporations produce, how much they charge, what wages are paid to employees what hours they will work, ect..

Countries around the world that have portrayed or still use this aspect in their economies include the USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany, and Cuba. Just to name a few.

2. a) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2. b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Under socialism, all private property would be confiscated and belong to the state. The state (government) would then decide what to do with said properties. Theoretically, all private property would then be equally redistributed among the people.

Once again, the USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Cuba, ect.. are all countries with little to no private property rights. Nazi Germany however is one that brings up a lot of controversy, as Hitler is known to have said he defended private property rights and is typically associated with right-wing Fascism; not socialism.

This of course is contradicted by the fact that the Nazis confiscated private property at a whim. People were only allowed to own private property only if it "didn't interfere with the state.." So in reality, they didn't have private property either; again placing them in the category of socialism. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it." - Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Marx's ultimate goal was a classless, stateless, moneyless society. In the beginning, he and Engels originally referred to socialism and communism interchangeably. But since they couldn't just reach their "dream world" in one swing, socialism became their "transitional phase" from capitalism into communism. Which again, is their fantastical ultimate goal of a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

So if we go back to the origin of these words, we'd notice that socialism and communism go hand in hand. One is just a vehicle to reach the other. At least that's how Karl Marx had envisioned it.

By these definitions, there has never been a truly communist country, as no country has ever gotten to that point. So it'd be incorrect to call Cuba, North Korea, or The USSR communists; considering that none of them ever got to the point of being classless, stateless, and moneyless.

And by moneyless I'm referring to having no monetary system. As Marx saw it, socialism would once reach a point where currency would no longer be needed and that trading would come down to simple mutual exchanges. That's when the transition over to communism would become effective.

So looking back at history, all those countries are in fact socialist, or stuck in the "socialism phase;" in that they never completed the transition over to communism.

Lets finish off with a bit more of a historical insight into the origin of this ideology, and how the founders had envisioned it. From WorldSocialism.org:

The word “communism” has different meanings to different people. To Marx, communism and socialism were interchangeable. Lenin distinguished these words, but not in the way we would today. By socialism he meant a society where everybody would be an employee of the state, which would own all the means of production. This should properly be called state capitalism. By communism he meant what up to then had been called socialism, a classless, moneyless, wageless society with common ownership and democratic control. So Lenin’s “communism” is what we normally refer to as “socialism” and what Lenin called “socialism” is what most of the world thinks of as “communism” and what we like to call state capitalism. Lenin’s socialism was not the goal of Lenin or the Bolsheviks, but the goal was communism or “true” socialism.

So why was this goal never achieved? Why does every communist country in the world have state capitalism? One of the many important ways Lenin disagreed with current socialism is in believing that to achieve this classless moneyless state, a country must go through a transitional phase, where most of the productive property is owned in common by the state, but where class differences remain. This is what Marx and Engels referred to as the “first phase” of communism. This belief in a transitional phase aided in the communists undoing; they remained permanently stuck in transition. Stalin pronounced that “socialism” had been achieved in 1936 and believed that Russia was headed for communism, as did Khrushchev. But Gorbachev, when he became leader in 1985, put off the establishment of communism indefinitely — virtually abandoning it as a goal.

The state capitalism of the Soviet Union and other “communist” countries differs from what we call socialism in so many ways that they have almost nothing in common. Socialism must have democracy in every aspect of life. But in the Soviet Union, it has never had a majority support. This stemed from a differnce in beliefs. Marx believed that the working class must free itself, while Lenin believed that freedom must come from somewhere outside of the working class. Democracy and the self-determination of the working class have never been strong points in the Soviet Union. Instead there was a belief in strong leaders, which lead to a succession of totalitarian states. Socialists, on the other hand, believe in a leaderless society; a primary tenant of socialism is to bring about a classless society in which we can generally regard each other as equals. In addion to not eliminating classes, neither were money, wages, or profits eliminated from Soviet life. Freedom was not achieved and the self-emancipation of the working class, as advocated by Marx, remains a goal.

It was not surprising that communism fell in the Soviet Union. It was locked in a permanent state of transition without true democracy or popular support. In 1990, the Socialist Standard wrote:

“We welcome the fall in these countries of the dictatorial regimes that have dragged the names of socialism and Marx through the mud by wrongly associating them with one-party rule, a police regime, food shortages and regimentation and indoctrination from the cradle to the grave.

“As Socialists who have always held, like Marx, that socialism and democracy are inseparable and who denounced Lenin’s distortion of Marxism right from 1917, we vehemently deny that it is socialism that has failed in Eastern Europe. What has failed there is totalitarian state capitalism falsely masquerading as socialism.”

"Communism"

And here's another reference to communism being a classless, stateless, moneyless society:

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies).

I hope this sheds some light on what these words really mean, and where their origin comes from.

As your dictionary definition explains, socialism consists of any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It does not progress into the fact that there are many degrees of socialism, and many methods of collecitve control of the means of production. In addition, a country can maintain socialistic systems without going all of the way into socialism, and a country can have socialistic systems of wealth redistribution without becoming a collective.

Books have been written on the many forms and degrees of socialism. Socialism cannot be pegged down to a very generic dictionary definition.

The form of socialism being commonly discussed today, is the Europeon style of quasi socialism of wealth redistribution, and cradle to grave government social services. The same form of socialistic systems that liberal/socialists wish to inflict on Americans.

BTW, government can and does exert control over many of our means of production through tax policy and regulatory overreach, and the regulatory process never ends.

 

[regent]

One of the first uses of socialism in the United States was not in the economic sphere but in politics. The GOP found some pay-dirt in the thirties when they began calling the Social Security legislation, socialism. Since that time socialism has been a bread and butter issue for the Republican party, all aid to people being socialism and all aid to corporations being capitalism.
But then the GOP found a new nugget when it was discovered that Marx had named one of his programs, Scientific Socialism, as a first step to communism. Marx had given the Republicans their basic political issue for many years. Even a senator from Wisconsin could scare the bejabbers out of America with his accusations. The fear of communism became one of America's number one fears with socialism a close second. How effective is the fear today?
We now know that no country has ever practiced Marxian communism, and most economies of the world are a mixture of socialism and capitalism, and perhaps some feudalism, some mercantilism, some fascism and some who knows what?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Today socialism has come to mean government growing and growing, doing more and more, regulating more and more, etc. thus reducing the individual's role/responsibility for themselves.

 

[tooAlive]

Defining "Socialism" once and for all does not define NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

Wake. Up.

Throughout history, every country that has had the word socialism in their name or identified with socialism have done the same exact things and ultimately ended up the same.

 

[bripat9643]

There really is no "private" industry under any system of government. Which is something you folks don't seem to understand.

That has to be the most idiotic claim posted to this forum in the last month.

Apparently you believe there is no such thing as capitalism or private property.

 

[tooAlive]

I noticed a lot of misinformation about socialism and communism being thrown around today so I thought it'd be a good time to bump this thread.

 

[Pete7469]

With moonbats NOTHING is ever "defined, once and for all".

The left has to twist words, they have to redefine things in order to fool people.

Take "progressive" for instance. In reference to political philosophy, people eventually realized "progressive" was anything but, unless you endeavored to be worked to death on a collective farm.

The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" certainly sounds better than the "Despotic Slave State of Militaristic Korea".

"Liberals" used to advocate political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in a free market. "Liberal" means the EXACT OPPOSITE now.

It's truly Orwellian... I wonder how long it will be before 1984 is regarded as a nursery Rhyme, rather than a warning from a socialist, about what socialists can be capable of.

 

[Pete7469]

There really is no "private" industry under any system of government. Which is something you folks don't seem to understand.

That has to be the most idiotic claim posted to this forum in the last month.

Apparently you believe there is no such thing as capitalism or private property.

Well consider the source, you're talking to a guy who believes obozo is a competent executive who's in charge of a nation on the verge of incredible prosperity thanks to his insightful leadership.

 

[tooAlive]

With moonbats NOTHING is ever "defined, once and for all".

The left has to twist words, they have to redefine things in order to fool people.

Take "progressive" for instance. In reference to political philosophy, people eventually realized "progressive" was anything but, unless you endeavored to be worked to death on a collective farm.

The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" certainly sounds better than the "Despotic Slave State of Militaristic Korea".

"Liberals" used to advocate political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in a free market. "Liberal" means the EXACT OPPOSITE now.

It's truly Orwellian... I wonder how long it will be before 1984 is regarded as a nursery Rhyme, rather than a warning from a socialist, about what socialists can be capable of.