How do you define Socialism?

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
tell that to those preaching reaganomics still.
Reaganomics was more or less Keysnesian spending to heat the economy up again after the inflation problem had been resolved. That and of course the tax breaks for the rich. Debt levels rose quite a lot under Reagan. Not coincidentally, the income gap did too. As in any fiat system those who receive money first than those who receive it last due to the effects of inflation, especially since the people receiving the money first are always the wealthiest and most able to influence markets.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
MellowFarmer said:
Inequality is exactly what Socialism strives to fix. How can the Free Market more fair and equitable than Socialism?
Because not everyone is created equally or contributes equally. Where they should be considered equals is in the rule of law, but socialism throws that idea out the window (inherently).

I use this term socialism in the sense of an authoritarian leaning government enforcing laws to pay Paul with Peters money, not in any other sense as I believe social cooperation is necessary for a healthy society, I just don't believe in coercing it with the use of force.

And the inherent problem with centralizing power in any form is that 99 times out of 100 the people running these systems are sociopaths with no feelings who do everything in their own self interest.
 

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
[h=2]Published on Sunday, May 24, 2009 by The News Journal (Delaware) [/h]


[h=2]Capitalism Produces Rich Bankers, but Socialism Produces Happiness[/h]
by Phillip Bannowsky

Socialism is better than capitalism. So say 20 percent of Americans, and another 27 percent say they can't say which is better, according to an April 9 Rasmussen poll.
There's hope.
When you consider that virtually no newspaper, broadcaster, well-funded think tank, teacher, or anybody's boss or commander ever said something nice about socialism, it's remarkable that only 53 percent of us still favor rule by the moneyed class. Perhaps folks are learning how capitalism sacrifices happiness for individual gain.
As Billy Bragg exhorts us in his update of the socialist anthem "The Internationale": "Stand up, all victims of oppression/for tyrants fear your might/Don't cling so hard to your possessions/For you have nothing if you have no rights."
No less a "capitalist tool" than Forbes Magazine let a red cat out of the bag with a report this month that the happiest countries tend to be Scandinavian socialist democracies. High per-capita GDP certainly plays a role in their felicity, but even social democratic New Zealand, with per-capita GDP only 64 percent of the United States', ranks with the 10 democracies above us in the happiness index. They pay high taxes in these pinkotopias, but folks enjoy entitlements like free college, extensive elder care, and 52-week paid maternity leave.
The 2005 poll measured personal reports of enjoyment, pride in achievement and learning, being respected, among other things. Forbes suggests that such happiness derives from family, social and community networks, and a decent work-life balance, noting that the average workweek in Scandinavia is 37 hours.
Nice dream, but how do we get there? Most of these countries dumped capitalist exploitation long ago and instituted mixed economies with socialist ideals. More contemporary models are the 11 Latin America countries pursuing "Socialism in the 21st Century." They too reject top-down Leninism for a system based on participatory democracy and solidarity.
In Ecuador, a land I have studied and worked in, a broad coalition of indigenous, environmentalists, trade unions, professional organizations, feminists, gay activists, left parties, and students laid the groundwork for transformation. They just re-elected Rafael Correa, their leftist standard-bearer, as president. They fought racism, oligarchs, oil companies, and corrupt politicians for decades.
The economies of Latin America's red eleven are improving, although none of them has instituted a socialist utopia. They are still subject to the slings and arrows of egotism, error, and internecine conflict. But they have overcome the greatest impediments to their advancement, including the U.S.-based bankers who are draining our treasury now. And the civil society they created in the struggle is the guarantor of their democracy.
Before finding the path of progress, many of these countries had lurched from violent paroxysm to confusion and resignation, not unlike what the U.S. currently endures.
For example, our Auto Industry Task Force just bankrupted GM and Chrysler, fired tens of thousands of employees, extorted immense sacrifices from active and retired autoworkers, and is dominated by the investment bankers who absorbed trillions in national wealth to keep themselves rich after destroying the economy.
Instead of seizing plants as our Canadian comrades are doing, or adding "bossnapping" to plant occupations as the French have done, we shake our heads as the union negotiates the terms of surrender.
What could we do with socialism? Well, take banks for starters: take them, so instead of private scams that go broke gambling with money they don't own, they'd become public utilities that finance production, infrastructure, and homes. And treat aging industries like autos: instead of dumping, we'd transform them according to a national plan for green jobs and a healthy environment.
Solidarity is the path as well as the destination of socialism. Solidarity grieves when a worker loses his job or sees her pension slashed. Solidarity cheers when a union wins middle-class pay. Solidarity rejects the greed of insurers as the distributor of healthcare and demands single payer for all.
Solidarity smells the rat who divides white from black, black from gay, native from newcomer, or America from the rest of humanity.
"So come brothers and sisters/For the struggle carries on/The Internationale/Unites the world in Song.
"So comrades come rally/For this is the time and place/The international ideal/Unites the human race."
© 2009 The News Journal
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how that article addresses my points as I haven't read it yet, but any such article suggesting that we live in a capitalist society currently really is mixing up definitions. We live in a corporatist and fascist society and have for a while. One where the most important market (money) isn't free at all and is actually controlled by a small group of people for their own benefit. It's quite difficult to criticize the present and blame capitalism, when it isn't capitalism in the first place.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how that article addresses my points as I haven't read it yet, but any such article suggesting that we live in a capitalist society currently really is mixing up definitions. We live in a corporatist and fascist society and have for a while. One where the most important market (money) isn't free at all and is actually controlled by a small group of people for their own benefit. It's quite difficult to criticize the present and blame capitalism, when it isn't capitalism in the first place.
to be fair, we have small amounts of socialism sprinkled into the capitalist/corporatist/fascist structure of ours.
 

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
Once Again:

A Closer Look: Definition of Socialism

Many people don’t understand the true meaning of socialism. Some assume that it applies to both economic and political systems. However, according to the definition of socialism, the true doctrine is only concerned with economic systems.

Socialism is a system whereby the ownership of capital, resources and production capability reside with and are controlled by the citizens. In theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.This form of economic control claims to have the benefit of allocating resources, services and compensation equitably among the population. In other words, the system purports to be fair to everyone and to provide everyone with an equal piece-of-the-pie.

http://reference.yourdictionary.com/word-definitions/definition-of-socialism.html
 

InCognition

Active Member
awww, baby is having a temper tantrum, how cute.

sorry you don't like the ultimate law of the land. you can always try to get it changed to fit your ayn rand laden worldview. should be easy, right? i mean, after all, who likes taxes? this should be a slam dunk, right?

get at it, kiddo.
Telling me I don't like the law of the land... too funny, when you're apparently the one who doesn't like the law of the land. Some of your views completely contradict constitutional law. On the other hand, the taxes/views I speak of (not income tax) do not contradict constitutional law, they violate it.

You can always try to drink some sane-syrup to get your unrealistically-fair-laden worldview cleaned up. Should be easy, right? I mean, after all, who likes constitutional law?

Get at it, wacko.
 

InCognition

Active Member
Inequality is exactly what Socialism strives to fix. How can the Free Market more fair and equitable than Socialism?
This theory is the epitome of why socialism is a fallacy.


Life is not fair. Period.

Beyond that, I'm not going to explain why that comment is wrong, in so many more ways than one, because if one truly believes in that quoted comment, they have walked off the cliff of insanity, and thus explaining sane-rationale to them is an absolute lost cause.

So, lets clear that up again. If you think life is fair, in any way, shape, or form, you've fallen off your rocker.
 

InCognition

Active Member
to be fair, we have small amounts of socialism sprinkled into the capitalist/corporatist/fascist structure of ours.
This is true.

It's most typically the result of whining bitches who have nothing to do but complain and lobby about how life should be fair, and that if it's not fair, it's someone else's fault. In other words, typically cowards.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Most people think that the income tax is on ALL income you receive from whatever source. That is not correct! The confusion arises from the wrong interpretation of the 16th Amendment (1913). Let's look at it again. It says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This looks like it is making an exemption and is putting income taxes in the category of direct taxes, to be collected without apportionment. But it isn't. Remember, they tried this once before in 1894, and it was found unconstitutional! Notice that this amendment doesn't say whether the tax is to be collected as a direct or indirect tax. It just says that it is collected on 'incomes without apportionment.' Can indirect excise taxes be collected without apportionment? Yes. It has always been that way. As we learned previously, the income tax is an excise tax on corporate profits. The only difference is that before the 16th Amendment, corporations did NOT have to pay tax on their property income. The 16th Amendment was passed so that corporate property income could NOW be taxed with an excise tax, IF the property income was connected to a corporate activity.
Change the order of the amendment around a little and it reads; The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, from whatever source derived, among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. On incomes, without tax apportionment. What incomes can be taxed without apportionment? Income from corporate privilege can be taxed without apportionment because the tax is an excise tax. Or to make it simpler yet, have the amendment read -power to lay and collect excise taxes on corporate incomes. That is really what it is saying.The 16th amendment is worded to deceive people into thinking that the Constitution was changed. But the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 16th amendment changed nothing!
A tax on the income from an inalienable right, can only be taxed with a direct tax, and therefore this income would be taxed WITH apportionment.
The 16th Amendment only applies to a tax on corporate incomes not requiring apportionment! If a tax on your income requires apportionment, then it it not subject to the 16th Amendment tax.

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap5.html
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
You forget that the dictator can easily be replaced by the citizens in deciding what is good for the citizens.

A free market society only works as you defined if everyone plays by the rules and if those rules are not made up, manipulated and enforced by the few powerful and wealthy of said society. This is not so presently and is why there are so many problems. The examples of Socialism you mention are not in fact practicing true socialism and that is why there are so many problems.
Well, we are not practicing true capitalism, either. It's the government that allows the corporations to eliminate competition and "rule the roost".
The function of government is force. If someone doesn't want to play by the rules, then it is government's job to enforce the rules. It is NOT government's job to ALLOW people or corporations to dominate the market through legislation. Some people will ALWAYS try to circumvent the system, ergo, we will always need some form of government, I don't think anybody here is advocating anarchy. The question is "how much government" do we need, want or afford.
Look throughout history. Every empire has fallen under it's own weight. It got too big and too expensive. Do you think that America is different?
 

1Shot1Kill

Active Member
Imo socialism, communism, and other various names with the same plan are successfully taking over our world with great speed. The music industry is conditioning the sheeple to accept socialism by indoctrinating certain socialist phrases while the two faced politicians of the world are slowly putting the Stateless Communism puzzle pieces together.

It's funny how the supporters make socialism sound so good like nothing can go wrong lmfao. Just wait there is no stopping it now, people are ignorant... One cant do an honest poll on peoples opinions of socialism because they don't even know what it is.. I don't even have a full grasp on it yet. So many different forms of socialism and different ways of using/incorporating it into the society.. How does one know what the final outcome will be?

Once we realize were living in socialism/communism it will be too late. Then the communist will take overr. Wouldn't Socialism in the United States turn it into a Communist state in the end?
 

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
Because not everyone is created equally or contributes equally. Where they should be considered equals is in the rule of law, but socialism throws that idea out the window (inherently).I use this term socialism in the sense of an authoritarian leaning government enforcing laws to pay Paul with Peters money, not in any other sense as I believe social cooperation is necessary for a healthy society, I just don't believe in coercing it with the use of force.And the inherent problem with centralizing power in any form is that 99 times out of 100 the people running these systems are sociopaths with no feelings who do everything in their own self interest.
WOW show your true colors much? You have little if any compassion for others not born as fortunate as you were and wouldn't help a child starving in the street during a blizzard if you were not promised to benefit from lending relief are you not?I bet you agree with how Katrina was handled? Except maybe more paid gunman and don't even open the Super Dome?A person born to a wealthy family who is a lazy sloth that cannot even bathe himself deserves more than the single mother waitress you tipped 9 cents today, am I right?When you enter a public bath, are you not happy it is clean?The socks you're wearing that 5 year old in China stitched up, comfy enough?The worker who saftey checked your cars brakes?How can you put a number value of one person's work relative to another's work of a different sort. Dr's can and some have saved lives, none alive have gotten around to curing shit but a Dr on paper may seem more valuable until you realize that person is only sick because the Sanitation worker didn't think his job important enough to do correctly.Everyone who participates in the society should be taken care of by the society. It seems so clear when you don't always see red.
 

dontexist21

Well-Known Member
Like the government fixing your roads, that's a form of socialism
Like the idea of public education, that's a form of socialism
Like government cleaning your water, that's a form of socialism
Like the government investing in medicine, that's a form of socialism.

Get over it socialism has been in our system, and every other prospering 21st government. Capitalism purely WILL NOT WORK. It does not take care of everything. If you want a society where its members are able to be up word mobile you need certain social programs to allow for this. Would you rather have a child born to poor parents no fault of their own be able to study work hard and gain their piece of the American pie, or rob you and YOU will pay for them to go to jail and give no benefit to society. Taxes are not stealing from you, you are paying the government so that they can do things such as fix infrastructure and take up the slack where private enterprise does not work. Get over it. It does not work all of the time, but guess what people do not vote, so politician do what they want. Everyone points the finger at the politician, yet it is the people who let them get away with it.

And the clarify, my family has owned their own business and I am working to start my very own, so I believe in Capitalism, just know it is not the answer for everything.
 

1Shot1Kill

Active Member
Here is a simple 2 minute test to see how much you are like the Machiavellian president of the United States. I think he got a 100 (:

It's called the MACH-IV Test in case you want to find your own. Don't worry it's not a rick roll..
http://personality-testing.info/tests/MACH-IV.php

I got a 55 which makes me unacceptable in Niccolò Machiavelli's eyes. Shucks...
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Like the government fixing your roads, that's a form of socialism
Like the idea of public education, that's a form of socialism
Like government cleaning your water, that's a form of socialism
Like the government investing in medicine, that's a form of socialism.

Get over it socialism has been in our system, and every other prospering 21st government. Capitalism purely WILL NOT WORK. It does not take care of everything. If you want a society where its members are able to be up word mobile you need certain social programs to allow for this. Would you rather have a child born to poor parents no fault of their own be able to study work hard and gain their piece of the American pie, or rob you and YOU will pay for them to go to jail and give no benefit to society. Taxes are not stealing from you, you are paying the government so that they can do things such as fix infrastructure and take up the slack where private enterprise does not work. Get over it. It does not work all of the time, but guess what people do not vote, so politician do what they want. Everyone points the finger at the politician, yet it is the people who let them get away with it.

And the clarify, my family has owned their own business and I am working to start my very own, so I believe in Capitalism, just know it is not the answer for everything.
I have heard that same specious reasoning from so many people lately, i gotta wonder who is printing out the leaflets.

Road construction and maintenance and all the rest of your list is not socialism. It's society. I cannot build a road from my house to the farmer's market all by my onesy. But everybody in my area can build a road that goes by all our places, without too much trouble. Thats how roads got built in history. There were roads before Karl Marx, before the national highway fund, before there were kings, and before there were even cities. Socialism is about government ownership of the land, goods and people of a country. Government owns them all, controls them all and directs the use of them all. Especially the people. Socialism is a monarchy of the Politburo, or the Dear Leader, rather than the king or queen. The people are either apparatchiks or serfs, with nothing in between. If you read your Marx you will see that socialism was intended to be a necessary but unavoidable middle ground to establish the ideals of communist thought in the minds and hearts of the proletarians before the eventual advancement into communist utopia. Never happens. Trying to sell socialism these days is trying to sell a dead mule to an urban apartment dweller. He doesnt want it, doesnt need it and has no place to keep the rotting stinking corpse anyway.

Whats most puzzling to me, socialists used to sell socialism as entry level communism, your first step in the world communist evolution towards the worker's paradise. Now socialists are selling socialism as entry level democracy, leading to the paradise of cuba. WTF? Even haitians arent fleeing haiti for cuba. shit cubans still try to sneak into haiti. cuba is a seething hellish pit of despair where people will swim through shark infested waters to get to america, just so they can sell oranges on an overpass in miami. Man socialism sounds like fun.

Quick language note for you youngsters who might be confused:

Socialism: state control of all property, the society owns everything and shares it out equally (ha ha ha ha ha ha!!)

Communism: there is NO ownership of anything. all property land and goods are "held in common" and every body shares. it's not YOUR weed, man, it's everbody's weed... cuz were all like, you know... all connected man...

there used to be these cats called socialites (think Paris Hilton, but classy) who pretty much just went to parties and operas and plays and stuff all the time. they were the people we call the evil 1% these days. all those buildings with names on em, like rockerfeller center, carnegie hall, stanford university etc... they were originally endowments to a foundation, by rich fat cats as part of their perceived social obligation, as socialites. When socialism started cropping up in the USSR and cuba etc... nobody wanted to call it socialism, because it sounds too much like socialites, so they called it communism for convenience and branding purposes.

And leftist demagogues, socialists and communists have been exploiting the confusion ever since.
 

dontexist21

Well-Known Member
I have heard that same specious reasoning from so many people lately, i gotta wonder who is printing out the leaflets.

Road construction and maintenance and all the rest of your list is not socialism. It's society. I cannot build a road from my house to the farmer's market all by my onesy. But everybody in my area can build a road that goes by all our places, without too much trouble. Thats how roads got built in history. There were roads before Karl Marx, before the national highway fund, before there were kings, and before there were even cities. Socialism is about government ownership of the land, goods and people of a country. Government owns them all, controls them all and directs the use of them all. Especially the people. Socialism is a monarchy of the Politburo, or the Dear Leader, rather than the king or queen. The people are either apparatchiks or serfs, with nothing in between. If you read your Marx you will see that socialism was intended to be a necessary but unavoidable middle ground to establish the ideals of communist thought in the minds and hearts of the proletarians before the eventual advancement into communist utopia. Never happens. Trying to sell socialism these days is trying to sell a dead mule to an urban apartment dweller. He doesnt want it, doesnt need it and has no place to keep the rotting stinking corpse anyway.

Whats most puzzling to me, socialists used to sell socialism as entry level communism, your first step in the world communist evolution towards the worker's paradise. Now socialists are selling socialism as entry level democracy, leading to the paradise of cuba. WTF? Even haitians arent fleeing haiti for cuba. shit cubans still try to sneak into haiti. cuba is a seething hellish pit of despair where people will swim through shark infested waters to get to america, just so they can sell oranges on an overpass in miami. Man socialism sounds like fun.

Quick language note for you youngsters who might be confused:

Socialism: state control of all property, the society owns everything and shares it out equally (ha ha ha ha ha ha!!)

Communism: there is NO ownership of anything. all property land and goods are "held in common" and every body shares. it's not YOUR weed, man, it's everbody's weed... cuz were all like, you know... all connected man...

there used to be these cats called socialites (think Paris Hilton, but classy) who pretty much just went to parties and operas and plays and stuff all the time. they were the people we call the evil 1% these days. all those buildings with names on em, like rockerfeller center, carnegie hall, stanford university etc... they were originally endowments to a foundation, by rich fat cats as part of their perceived social obligation, as socialites. When socialism started cropping up in the USSR and cuba etc... nobody wanted to call it socialism, because it sounds too much like socialites, so they called it communism for convenience and branding purposes.

And leftist demagogues, socialists and communists have been exploiting the confusion ever since.
Yes the SOCIETY builds and OWNS it, that is socialism. Here is the definition from definition.com:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The society builds the roads with tax dollars, so the soceity as a whole owns the roads. How is this not socialism? Again you must have missed the part where I said I believe in capatilism and my family has owned their own businesses and I am trying to start my own. I have nothing against the rich, I think they are a testament to what you can become in this Country. You have a very small view of socialism which starts and ends with USSR and Cuba, and you missed the point that socialism and communism ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Tell me how public education is anything but a social program, or hurts a country by allowing the less fortunate to get and education to better themselves. Capitalism sure as hell does not do this. I guess countries such as Finland and Sweden are such a horrible place with their horrible social programs.

Again, you must have a combination of Capitalism and Socialist policies to run a proper government. Because while Capitalism is a good system, it does not answer many problems, so you need social programs to provide where it fails. How is that a crazy leftist policy?
 
Top