How do you define Socialism?

I dont know if there is a solid definition of pure socialism as much as it is just one end of a sliding scale. All modern governments are a little socialist, they are all just on a different part of a sliding scale between capitalism and socialism. Anytime any politician suggests we slide the scale in the direction of socialism they are a "socialist" even though what they are usually suggesting is still quite communist and isnt some kind of red communism idea, its just less capitalistic then where we are at now...

"Socialist" is a easy word for Fox News to throw at people without much real backing and then people go online and regurgitate that bullshit in the forums. Idk I dont think that working in the better interest of the people should have a bad connotation associated with it

I think it's a wonderful idea if there were a way to keep it completely governed by the people with no curruption... Capitalism would be a much better idea if the same applied

I disagree that a Politician is Socialist for steering towards it, Socialism is the government or collective controlling all means of production and distribution of resources. An all or nothing sort of thing.

Pure socialism: stealing, theft, robbery.

Originally Posted by Canna Sylvan

Pure socialism: stealing, theft, robbery.

my conception of socialism is far from yours. when i hear socialism, i think "means of production shared more strongly among the producers". i don't think of government having the means of production, which is more how i imagine communism. and i can see communistic systems working to some extent, just not the 'everyone wears a grey shirt' kind of communism that was practiced in the USSR.

no one way of government is ever going to be best, the idea is to swallow some pills, not the whole bottle. doses of socialism mixed in with capitalism, which is about what we have now, seems rather desirable.

Originally Posted by Canna Sylvan

Pure socialism: stealing, theft, robbery.

So the collective steals from itself?

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

my conception of socialism is far from yours. when i hear socialism, i think "means of production shared more strongly among the producers". i don't think of government having the means of production, which is more how i imagine communism. and i can see communistic systems working to some extent, just not the 'everyone wears a grey shirt' kind of communism that was practiced in the USSR.

no one way of government is ever going to be best, the idea is to swallow some pills, not the whole bottle. doses of socialism mixed in with capitalism, which is about what we have now, seems rather desirable.

I agree the best possible system would be a blend of the best of different ideologies.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

my conception of socialism is far from yours. when i hear socialism, i think "means of production shared more strongly among the producers". i don't think of government having the means of production, which is more how i imagine communism. and i can see communistic systems working to some extent, just not the 'everyone wears a grey shirt' kind of communism that was practiced in the USSR.

no one way of government is ever going to be best, the idea is to swallow some pills, not the whole bottle. doses of socialism mixed in with capitalism, which is about what we have now, seems rather desirable.

With pure capitalism you look like this guy.



I thought we established I'm far from a Paulist, and even further from Rand? I afterall didn't name one of my kids Rand.

Originally Posted by MellowFarmer

So the collective steals from itself?

Yes, the self is stolen and doesn't exist.