What is 'socialism'?

[Lakhota]

You google it.

I did, but I can't link it because it's to another message board (Rules).

Oh yeah, that would have been a real credible source to prove your point.

I didn't need it to prove my point. The traditional family unit is based on socialism.

Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Family structure in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

Do any of us really own anything? We have our homes and property, which we can lose in a heartbeat if we are unable to pay our taxes. The government decided in 1913 to start confiscating part of our income, then threatened us with fines, confiscation of property and jail if we don't pay up. There are other reasons the government can take our property. So, the government potentially owns everything and people don't really own private property because we have to come up with more and more money for federal, state and property taxes if we want to keep it. If you pay an increasing price forever to keep something, you don't own it. It would seem that government opposes private ownership, so they keep changing the rules and make it harder to keep property.

Obamacare certainly isn't friendly to small businesses and they are continually disappearing. Government is also limiting the number of small business loans banks can make. Seems they oppose small businesses.

We've heard some liberals come out and say that capitalism has failed. We've heard this country will be fundamentally transformed by Obama. Not merely changed, but fundamentally changed and rebuilt from the bottom up. Can't do that until the current one is torn down. That seems well underway.

There are 29 new taxes in Obamacare, which will hit small businesses, investors and most middle class people.

There are a record number of people who pay for nothing. They get housing, food and money from government. Obamacare is supposedly paying for medical care for all those who can't. Women aren't expected to pay for abortions. It seems the liberals feel that people shouldn't have to pay for medical or anything else. The wealthy are under attack constantly. Another big complaint is the disparity in earnings and Obama has talked about social justice. Seems to me the talk of wealth redistribution is to ensure that people have more equal outcomes.

Considering what you define as socialism, I guess Obama is the closest thing we've had to a real socialist.

Taxation is not in contradiction with ownership. We own what we own - be that cash, property, shares or assets - and no capitalist government is going to take that away. What ALL capitalist societies do is levy various forms of tax on new income (as opposed to net wealth).

I have no idea at all what you mean by Obama tearing down a system and rebuilding it. I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

To my mind the US has never had socialist leadership, and likely never will Socialism simply isn't compatible with US's culture of entrepreneurialism and DIY. Obama could be called a Social Democrat, but is in no way a socialist.

 

[Lakhota]

Knowledge is your friend...

Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

Socialism means ONE THING although it can come in various guises.

The ONE THING that makes an economy socialist is that the government OWNS the means of production.

Compare that economic system to capitalism (which can also come in many guises)

In a capitalist system PRIVATE CITIZENS own the means of production.

That is the single difference to describe those two systems.

WELFARE has nothing to do with it.

Both capitalist systems and socialist systems may or may not provide social services.

Both capitalist systems and socialist systems may or may not authoritarian, oppressive, nasty or nice.

Of the two different systems I think capitalism can be more efficient and provide a better quality of life for its people.

Note that I said CAN BE, not WILL BE.

BOTH economic systems can work in a democratic society, oligarchial or a tyrannical society as HISTORY has shown us so often in BOTH CASES.

 

[S.J.]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

 

[Saigon]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

Absolutely. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice....not so great.

 

[S.J.]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

Absolutely. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice....not so great.

You're starting to sound like a conservative. Next you'll be calling global warming a hoax.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

Absolutely. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice....not so great.

You're starting to sound like a conservative. Next you'll be calling global warming a hoax.

 

[Saigon]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

Absolutely. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice....not so great.

You're starting to sound like a conservative. Next you'll be calling global warming a hoax.

Globally, almost all Conservatives understand that human activity plays some role in climate change. It is only in the US that the debate has become so politicised that people start denying the actual science. The problem with this seems to be less a left/right divide, than a moderate/extremist one.

But because I'm a Centrist by nature, I embrace as many right wing causes as I do left wing ones, and opposition to Socialism is one of those. Finland, after all, lived plenty close to the USSR to see what it did to people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, you raised yourself?

What kind of idiotic reply is that? Did you just type something and post it all for shits and giggles?

Knowledge is your friend...

Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry, reality is not your friend.

Family is defined in Merriam Webster's dictionary as

"a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: the traditional family"

Nowhere does it say it is based off of the concept of socialism. Nobody in a family shares equal burdens or equal material wealth.

Keep trying, you'll be right. Once in a blue moon.

 

[Mac1958]

I have noticed on this board that some posters seem to label anything left of Attila the Hun as being 'socialist'.

This makes no sense to me at all, and leads me to suspect that some people are confused by what the word 'socialism' actually means.

Hence I thought it might be interesting if we all gave our own take on what it actually means in theory or in practice.

To me 'socialism' is quite extreme, and is in no way at all the same thing as Social Democrats or the British Labour Party promote. It is also quite rare, in that no major political party in the western world is now entirely socialist in nature.

Here is my definition:

Socialism is based on collective ownership. Socialists oppose private ownership, oppose small businesses, oppose private investment and capitalism. Socialists believe all people in society should essentially earn the same amount of money, and that everyone should have similar access to services without having to pay for those services (because payment would always favour the wealthy).

Tony Blair, Obama, Clinton and the Labour Parties of Australia & the UK, and the Social Democrats of Europe are NOT socialist because they all support private ownership and small businesses, and all back payment for (most) services. All of these people and parties may be described as Social Democrats - but not socialist.

I do think socialism is terribly inefficient, because it removes the motive for people to work hard and succeed.

I'm researchin the Chernobyl accident right now and it is clear that one of the problems is that engineers had no motive to work hard and get everything right. They just went through the motions of building the plant properly.

But let's keep in mind that China and Viet Nam are still going (albeit now largely as capitalist societies) and that the USSR ran half of the world for 50 years.

Two thoughtful, reasonable posts.

I think the best description for this ideology is "social democrat" too. Of course, in this climate of silly hyper-hyperbole, the right-wingers immediately and instinctively take it over the top and start throwing around terms like "Marxism" and "communism" to scare each other, like children at a sleepover frightening each other with ghost stories.

The lefties have done it too, when they've compared conservatives to nazis, but I get the feeling they haven't actually talked themselves into it like the righties have.

"Social democrat" is the most reasonable description, but we're not really into being reasonable right now.

.

 

[editec]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

AS long as some people are in charge and others taking orders the idea of a "CLASSLESS" society is preposterous.

No society on earth is without class distinctions.

Of course there are varying degrees of CLASSISM, but that's a different issue.

 

[Saigon]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

AS long as some people are in charge and others taking orders the idea of a "CLASSLESS" society is preposterous.

No society on earth is without class distinctions.

Of course there are varying degrees of CLASSISM, but that's a different issue.

Indeed...that's it in a nutshell.

The idea of a classless society is very attractive - but it would mean that those giving orders did not feel they were due any perks or compensation for the extra hours, responsibility and effort they put in, and that is hardly human nature.

 

[editec]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

AS long as some people are in charge and others taking orders the idea of a "CLASSLESS" society is preposterous.

No society on earth is without class distinctions.

Of course there are varying degrees of CLASSISM, but that's a different issue.

Indeed...that's it in a nutshell.

The idea of a classless society is very attractive - but it would mean that those giving orders did not feel they were due any perks or compensation for the extra hours, responsibility and effort they put in, and that is hardly human nature.

Even if they got no perqs, the very fact that it is they who command and others who obey that makes a CLASSLESS society impossible.

AT very minimum every society has two classes..leaders and followers.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I did, but I can't link it because it's to another message board (Rules).

Oh yeah, that would have been a real credible source to prove your point.

I didn't need it to prove my point. The traditional family unit is based on socialism.

Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Family structure in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki isn't a very good reference. However, the family unit is mostly individualistic as good parents teach their children how to survive in a dangerous world. I'm sure generational welfare dependent parents preach good socialism though.

 

[regent]

Classless society? It's those damn founders approving the the words, "all men are created equal."
Since then we have joined all the other industrial powers of the world and and created an economy of both socialism and capitalism, a mixed economy.
It was Marx that saved Republicanism when he searched for a name that would label a capitalist nation trying to make the transition to communism, the label-Scientific Socialism. Republicans have been silently praising Marx for that term ever since. Every thing Republicans hate, even dirty diapers, they labeled socialist and we all know that leads to communism cause Marx said. The USSR dumped scientific socialism a few years after their revolution saying it smelled like dirty diapers but Republicans kept the concept alive and have used it ever since, even to saying that Social Security was the beginning of communism in America.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I have noticed on this board that some posters seem to label anything left of Attila the Hun as being 'socialist'.

This makes no sense to me at all, and leads me to suspect that some people are confused by what the word 'socialism' actually means.

Hence I thought it might be interesting if we all gave our own take on what it actually means in theory or in practice.

To me 'socialism' is quite extreme, and is in no way at all the same thing as Social Democrats or the British Labour Party promote. It is also quite rare, in that no major political party in the western world is now entirely socialist in nature.

Here is my definition:

Socialism is based on collective ownership. Socialists oppose private ownership, oppose small businesses, oppose private investment and capitalism. Socialists believe all people in society should essentially earn the same amount of money, and that everyone should have similar access to services without having to pay for those services (because payment would always favour the wealthy).

Tony Blair, Obama, Clinton and the Labour Parties of Australia & the UK, and the Social Democrats of Europe are NOT socialist because they all support private ownership and small businesses, and all back payment for (most) services. All of these people and parties may be described as Social Democrats - but not socialist.

I agree, it's just a step as Marx said to communism. Facism and communism are the same, the only difference is that facism allows private property while communism doesnt and in facism your private property can be used by the king/dictator at will, so it's technically private property but in reality it still belongs to the state. Commies and Facists both are headed by dictators and the government controls all actions, there is no freedom. now socialism is just the bridge to commies/facists by still allowing some private property and some elective body, but they will soon be disolved and be replaced by commies/facists/monarchs or other dictators.

 

[kiwiman127]

Personally I think despite all the crying of "socialism", plutocracy seems to have more steam in America.
I'll use the state of healthcare in America as an example.
Americans pay about 60% more per capita for healthcare than the next most expense country. The cost of healthcare is eating up more and of our countries GDP and consumer's expendable income. Other countries work to keep the cost down by negotiating with providers/phrama manufacturers. Where as in the US the healthcare industry has a very heavy influence on government polices and no one holds the healthcare industry responsible for their high costs. They are content to let the US act a tool to let the healthcare industry. to make up their lower profits loss with the rest of the world's countries. It's no competition, the US rolls over to healthcare at every turn while the rest of the world stands firm. It's because of all the money that is poured onto the Washington establishment. Money is over-ridding the concept of "general welfare of the people. In other words, plutocracy in action.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Personally I think despite all the crying of "socialism", plutocracy seems to have more steam in America.
I'll use the state of healthcare in America as an example.
Americans pay about 60% more per capita for healthcare than the next most expense country. The cost of healthcare is eating up more and of our countries GDP and consumer's expendable income. Other countries work to keep the cost down by negotiating with providers/phrama manufacturers. Where as in the US the healthcare industry has a very heavy influence on government polices and no one holds the healthcare industry responsible for their high costs. They are content to let the US act a tool to let the healthcare industry. to make up their lower profits loss with the rest of the world's countries. It's no competition, the US rolls over to healthcare at every turn while the rest of the world stands firm. It's because of all the money that is poured onto the Washington establishment. Money is over-ridding the concept of "general welfare of the people. In other words, plutocracy in action.

Well one reason our healthcare costs are so high is most of the R&D is done here and that is a VERY expensive step, especially concerning the regulation you have to go through. Another thing is what is the wait, what are people being treated for in other countries? What is the survival rate. You cant rate a healthcare system on cost alone, but one of the major areas of fraud and abuse is medicare. People take advantage of it and medicare also screws over doctors....so they screw each other and it's a mess.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Personally I think despite all the crying of "socialism", plutocracy seems to have more steam in America.
I'll use the state of healthcare in America as an example.
Americans pay about 60% more per capita for healthcare than the next most expense country. The cost of healthcare is eating up more and of our countries GDP and consumer's expendable income. Other countries work to keep the cost down by negotiating with providers/phrama manufacturers. Where as in the US the healthcare industry has a very heavy influence on government polices and no one holds the healthcare industry responsible for their high costs. They are content to let the US act a tool to let the healthcare industry. to make up their lower profits loss with the rest of the world's countries. It's no competition, the US rolls over to healthcare at every turn while the rest of the world stands firm. It's because of all the money that is poured onto the Washington establishment. Money is over-ridding the concept of "general welfare of the people. In other words, plutocracy in action.

all part of the "fundamental transformation" toward global socialism.......there is the 'plutonomy' and then there is the rest of us...