So many of the Right are trying to scare the American people with the term of Socialism. "It is akin to communism", and all the old McCarthy rhetoric of the post war times and the 1950's! Well, it is not.
Here is the definition (as from Wiki) of the precepts of Socialism. this is a good premise and can be moderated to any society without fear of Marxist communism.
Most of Europe is run on Socialist principles and as you can check, France (#1 in healthcare, in the world, and Britain, not far behind.) Likewise the entire European Union is running just fine, with the people being taken care of. So, when you are trying to figure out how you got left behind by your government when you are trying to heat your homes this winter, wouldn't we all be better off with just a touch of this system?
Socialism
 |
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]
Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.
Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of modern socialist theory, and Utopian socialist Henri di Saint Simon advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism.[4][5] This would allow for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.
Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), the first individual to coin the term socialisme, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[7] The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organisation, and many contemporary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favour an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.
So, before you jump on the FOX bandwagon with lies and deceit for their own agendas, think about it!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 486 ( 1 removed by Georgiana S. )
We as a nation created a government to serve our needs that are about
social/physical/legal infrastructure because these underlying services allow us
all and each to have a secure and useful structure in which to order our lives
in our each individual own direction. It was something we did, quite consciously
back after the Revolution to make our lives easier and allow for greater
productivity. Thus, government services are not our enemies, unless we leave
their control to our enemies. Aha! We see our civil servants as our enemies. We
probably see everybody who isn't us (or maybe as in Pogo: "We have seen the
enemy and he is us!") as "the enemy" whom we must defend against at all cost.
Well, the cost is the lose/lose/lose situation we make of all of our lives.
Folks have their widgets up their yayas over a theory -- not even as good as
Evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory with years of research as yet
keeping it alive. Socialism is merely an economic theory, a theory about a
theory. It is a bunch of words/ideas that have been thrown about.
Economic theories are about the creation and distribution of desired goods and
services for society. Different strategies of motivation include:
capitalism - profit
socialism - enlightened self-interest
communism - morality
Thanks for proving Georgiana's point.
Visionaerie B. Oct 11, 2009, 10:46pm EDT
Actually the global banking elites engineered socialism and sold it as being good for the working class it actually helped to suppress! If you want the best demolition of the system, check out Ludwig von Mises' masterful 'Socialism' -- which you can read for free at Mises.org. I remember being at a restaurant in Dubuque back in the '80's, overhearing some lamebrained economists laughing about Mises and his theory -- that economic calculation is impossible under socialism. Well guess what -- he was right on, and the Berlin Wall AND communism toppled! But to be honest, we already have a lot of the points of the Communist Manifesto implemented -- like the so-called progressive income tax. If you really want to judge the success of socialism vs. free market capitalism -- just look around the world. The most successful and process places are the ones with the most freedom. And that's the real issue. Why else was America founded? We're still the only place on earth that enshrines individual liberty as the highest ideal. Now if you want to live in your own voluntary socialist community, that's fine. But don't use government to steal my money (or anyone else's) for your goals -- instead choose freedom and voluntary cooperation to make the world a better place! Socialism does produce one good though: universal misery (that is, except for the elites imposing it). Thanks for posting this!
It is the corporate, Capitalistic structure America is headed in, immersed in, that is ruining this country. The elitist white state quo of bankers and parma and insurance is killing its citizens instead of providing for them! Stupid people, I don't know!
Socalism is a failed system which requires the productivity of capitalism to survive.
Communism toppled? You mean China changed its political system? Wow, I must have missed that news.
Oh, excuse me for ignoring the hall monitor, here, who seems to have retreated to carping about spelling. You go spell check the rest of Gather, dimwit, and come back and give us a full report.
The final stage in communism is the "withering away of the state." It's essentially a libertarian idea.
But, I am only trying to make one simple point to these "name callers" who are your allies. Socialism cannot succeed on its own because it produces nothing. That requires free enterprize.
Is it a mixed economy? Maybe so. Mixed economies are all we have anyway. An economy is about allocation of resources.
Take it easy Georgiana. I understood. I simply disagree.
blind, blind. blind.
I could say the same about you; but won't. Yet, I allow you your opinion. You, on the other hand call me names. +shrug+
Stupid people, I don't know
+sigh+ You merely have a different perspective and belief from me. It doesn't make you stupid as far as I can tell at this moment in time. And neither does my differing opinion make me stupid. Hmm ... ?
Georgiana S. Oct 11, 2009, 11:56pm EDT
It is just the opposite, Lee! Did you not understand anything about the definition, or the experience with living in a socialistic country that I tld of? blind, blind. blind.
It is the corporate, Capitalistic structure America is headed in, immersed in, that is ruining this country. The elitist white state quo of bankers and parma and insurance is killing its citizens instead of providing for them! Stupid people, I don't know
Sure, socialism might be able to distribute production more fairly but I am talking about PRODUCTION!!
It takes a greedy, selfish SOB to drill a wild cat well with OPM.
YOu have to have a physical address to receive benefits, and Who can afford houses these days? Open your eyes!
Oh, Jericho, so sorry yu don't understand British English, the Queen's English. We spell how it should be pronounced not your dialect! And typos are of no matter in comments, I, have arthritis and sometimes the keys just do not cooperate any longer!
You don't look old enough to have thrived under Wilson's government of 64 to 70 and nobody thrived under the 1974 -79 Labour government. Many of us thrived under Thatcher of course but it was more to do with being in the right place at the right time than the Iron Handbagger's economic skills.
I see you mentioned Robert Owen but not Titus Salt, Samuel Courtauld and the Cadburys Rowntrees or Frys as examples of enlightened capitalism. The later three were all Quakers and all chocolate manufacturers - a bit more than coincidence.
As I mention in a longer comment way down the thread non conformist religion played a bigger part than most people, especially the religious right, care to acknowledge in the development of socialism.
Take no notice of Jericho, he thinks The Queen's English is a slang spoken in the gay community.
Next I dare you to try to explain that they guys who wrote the American Constitution were socialists. That one always goes down well. The Commonwealth of Virginia? If you know what I mean. LOL
You are in England Ian, should have known, you know how to speak (write).
Thanks for the age compliment, I was born 27th December 1949!
All sorts are coming out of the woodwork, glad I found another Brit. Seems some here can't deal with the truth as to how britain has been so successful in military ventures as well as social services and keeping the Religious Right out of the country, I hope they are still not there! I haven't been back since mum died in 05!
The late 1940s were good vintage years for laying down. I'm a 1948 red and yet often get taken as being syill in my late forties. A lot of that is because my hair is still dark thanks to my genes. 2000 of them are Grecian.
As for the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, can't remember which, right near the top it states "All men are created equal." What could be more socialist than that?
But if we go way back before the term socialism was coined, communal living and mutual support were a necessity, a question of survival rather than political theory.
Jeremy Thorpe BTW is no relation but when he was leader he wrecked my embryonic political career. I'd knock on people's doors and say "I'm your Liberal Party candidate, my name's Ian Thorpe" and they would just run away to hide their dogs.
And, Ian, I understand the Queen's English very well unless you mumble, which Brits, at least to my ear, tend to do. But, I think that if Georgie is going to live here and suck the goodies out of both the American system and the British, she should take the time and exert the effort to learn the language...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977678672
> '80's, overhearing some lamebrained economists laughing
> about Mises and his theory -- that economic calculation
> is impossible under socialism. Well guess what -- he was
> right on, and the Berlin Wall AND communism toppled!
What a totally irrelevant comment.
Socialism is not communism for one.
Studies show that the main factors in prosperous
societies are infrastructure and the rule of law.
All giant states have a lot of the same issues and the
USSR fell because the people just lost faith in it.
The same thing is happening to the US in many
ways, and coincidentally we are trying the same
thing in Afghanistan as the USSR.
Trying to say the USSR is the model of socialism
ls like saying the USA is the model of fascism, it is
just a statement that has no bearing on any arguments
at all.
Not to mention that these meaningless abstract arguments
about socialism and capitalism are just as way for the
society to say they do not care about the people who
are disenfranchised because none of them make any
decisions that affect the society.
We have a problem, health care, among others that
lends itself to a socialistic solution, I say, let's just do it,
get it done.
Further, the numbers are our, the profits of the
insurance industry is about 250 billion a year.
That means, just looking at the profits, about 30%
or intake, we spend in 10 years to pay people who do
not bring medical care to all Americans ... 2.5 trillion
dollars.
That is Obama's health care plan at least twice over, and
it is just on the profits of a few negligent companies who
do not get the job done.
If it costs a trillion dollar in 10 years for health care in
the US, and we are spending 8+ trillion ... then there
is something dysfunctional in our brand of capitalism,
just like the communism the USSR sold to its people
was corrupt.
How is it that capitalism has brought us so much
corruption if there is competition and a free market.
The answer is that we do not have capitalism in the
US, we have a system that is a corrupt joke.
Oh, and it works, where AIG's own greed caused the collapse of the financial insurance casino.
It is.
I don't have a problem with that, except for that
we all have problems in American with the folks
that are too stupid to seem to understand the facts
when explained to them.
Maybe they ate too many lead paint flakes as kids, but
what matters is results, and the performance of the
"ruling class" in the US is abysmal.
Whatever they call themselves is irrelevant, they
do not know how to do their jobs, and they have brought
incompetence to the US for the last 30 years that seems
to be morphing into disaster.
They don't seem to give a damn because they have walled
themselves off from the world and things look still OK
from behind their walled developments.
They are supposed to be working for all Americans.
killing some truths
Now with disinvestment and world of dynamic make over we faulter at any ism but to glorify one's own.
Actually now a days politics is being run by only one ism: "selfishism"
No such word? Okay. But it is true.
killing some truths
i wanted to point out to some that the word is not an evil connotation. That "pinko" fear should have subsided by now, with the end of the Societ regime anyway.
Can you perhaps explain your point without the bumper stickers? I'm beginning to feel this is a bit of Tamarianism, without the meaning.
Perhaps what is really needed is Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Biological evolution is value free. It's about adaptation to current conditions. It's not about perfection. If anything it's more like erosion. What's left after the wind and/or water is what's left.
Social Darwinism arose in the 19th century as a justification of monopolies.
I'm not interested in your fascist proposal, regardless how "mere" it is.
Why? Because you prefer the original? Well, gee, Jericho, sometimes the world doesn't bend to your will just because you want them to. Sometimes you have to go to the right source, not the source you want to be right.
That's a lesson. Bet you don't learn it and instead will come back with another bumper sticker.
Social darwinism is a construct of fascist thinking and a bastardization of evolutionary theory. Airheaded misapplication of scientific theory has become such a vogue of the right that medical professors can't even teach immunology because no one knows what "natural selection" really means anymore, and the concept of "genetic mutation" contradicts quasi-religious conservative doctrine.
"Sometimes you have to go to the right source, not the source you want to be right."
That IS an actual bumper sticker. I saw it on a '73 Volvo just the other day.
As for you, Guy K. when you prove to me that you know what the word "fascist" means, I may respond further.
Actually, you just made that up. Seems to be a trend.
Another trend is the propensity for you to avoid actually addressing any point being made. Interesting.
Would you like to expand on this bit of wisdom? I mean, provide an explanation of what point you are attempting to make. I don't mean another bumper sticker, I mean an actual explanation in which you use real sentences and support for your opinions.
Another bumper sticker.
So everyone who has a job in the US right now is a capitalist and everyone who does not have a job right now is what, a socialist? But they were capitalists when they worked for Bear Stearns?
Seriously. Why should we not laugh at that concept?
Capitalism is designed for businesses to start, grow, get big, get old and die. General Motors and the banks got "too big to fail" through government intervention. In true capitalism, inefficient businesses should fail and new ones take up the industry. In America, BIG BUSINESS always reaches out to the government for protection and favortism to keep running after they should have either become more productive or failed. This latest crisis was a failure of REGULATION, not capitalism. Where was the SEC when the Ponzi schemes and derivitive investment vehicles were hatched?? The US Government has been protecting the US auto industry since DAY ONE with import tariffs and direct and indirect subsidies; likewise, Insurance, Banking, Oil, etc.
Only the fog of dittohead "thinking" continues to deny reality.
De-regulation supposes regulation to begin with.
Yes, of course.
Regulation disrupts the natural market forces.
Bumper sticker. Natural market forces don't exist, nor ever did. The market is an artificial entity created by those with wealth and power to advantage themselves. Think "robber barons." Markets are driven not only by supply and demand, but by manipulation of supply and demand and government incentives. The government protects domestic business by imposing tariffs, gives incentives to develop new products by tax breaks, pennies on the dollar leases of resources on public properties, and corporate welfare.
Regulation becomes cumbersome and impossible.
Actually, this isn't true. Regulations may sometimes need to be changed as the market changes and as innovation opens up new opportunties that we want to encourage. But mostly regulations get changed because political control changes. When President Bush was in office, the lobbyists pushed to get additional financial incentives and bailouts for big corporations in the hopes that it would "trickle down" to the workers. With the current administration, there is a recognition that "trickle down" doesn't work as theorized and never has. Instead, the CEOs and Boards simply bank the extra cash and continue to ship manufacturing overseas because labor is cheaper.
The regulators then, as a last ditch attempt to salvage and distance themselves from the situation, "DE-REGULATE" which, of course, is not de-regulation at all because the regulators are still regulating only in a different way.
The first part of this is absolute spin with no basis in fact. You've introduced a value judgment based on your personal and political biases. As I said in my other comment, we have to be honest about the facts before any honest discussion of opinion can take place. You're not there yet. The last part is correct, at least partially, because more times than not the deregulation is more of a change in regulations. That's because there is a need for regulation but the conditions are changing so the regulations need to be changed. That's a good thing. But it's not completely true because there is quite a bit of actual de-regulation where the regulations are either repealed, minimized to the point of not meeting their original goals, or simply not enforced. In those situations the de-regulated industry is allowed to proceed largely unfettered. Such is the case with the recent economic meltdown. Investment firms were allowed to come up with very risky ways of increasing the chances of their own value, and the value of the wealthiest of investors, but did so in large part with other people's money while contractually ensuring minimal downside loss on their own. That's why we had to bail out AIG (to keep the rest of the market from crashing alongside it, which would severely affect you and me) AND still had to pay millions in bonuses to the very people who were rolling the dice on our ante.
To use an analogy, it is like taking control of a perfectly trimmed airplane designed to want to fly and flying it into the ground through incompetent piloting. You bail out at the last minute and claim the crash was caused by "de-regulation" when it was actually your lousy flying that caused the problem.
This is the longest bumper sticker that I have ever seen. It doesn't even make sense logically, which is the basis of all analogies. Try again.
Capitalism is designed for businesses to start, grow, get big, get old and die.
You think people start businesses to rake in the cash then bail before they go under? Seriously?
General Motors and the banks got "too big to fail" through government intervention.
How exactly did governments help GM and banks get too big?
In true capitalism, inefficient businesses should fail and new ones take up the industry.
We've already established that there is no such thing as "true capitalism" and never was. But you seem to forget that this wasn't about "inefficient" businesses failing (that's just another bumper sticker), this was about businesses playing roulette with other people's money. Many failures are the result of someone else suddenly pulling the rug out from under you and not anything you are doing wrong. How many businesses laid off workers or failed simply because the investment bank one day decided to hoard its cash rather than lend it to you for payroll? The answer - a lot.
This latest crisis was a failure of REGULATION, not capitalism.
I agree. And isn't this the whole point of this discussion. The lack of adequate regulation to keep investment banks honest led to the downfall of those banks and the domino effect on the economy, both here and abroad. Keep in mind that no one wants to stifle innovation and growth. But business has shown time after time that it looks to maximize its own benefit and isn't responsible for the downsides to others. In fact, stockholders demand it. But the fact is the failure of business does impact every single one of us, and none of it is anything we can control. Basically we're at the whim of the big guys, who as you suggest, are hoping to feather their own nests and then fly away to some tropical island (where they store their money tax free) and not care if the nest crashes to the ground and takes the forest with it.
The US Government has been protecting the US auto industry since DAY ONE with import tariffs and direct and indirect subsidies; likewise, Insurance, Banking, Oil, etc.
Absolutely. Congratulations. Now, what does that mean? It means that we would not have an auto industry, insurance industry, banking, oil or pretty much anything other than locally-tied businesses like plumbers and garden supply without all of it. Which is why those business all lobbied Congress hard to get all these subsidies. It's why we all get mortgage interest deductions on our homes. It's why we can get small business loans to open up new and innovative businesses so we can be self sufficient.
The alternative was what we had earlier in the 20th Century, with only a few huge "too big to fail" companies that controlled everything related to their business lines, made people (including children) work long days with low pay and unhealthy conditions, polluted the environment to the point rivers caught fire and the air was so thick there were killer fogs, and a handful of people were incredibly wealthy, in large part due to their power and ability to exploit others. Again, see "robber barons."
Nice chatting with you.
Much like a marriage.
Centrists, like myself, defend the marriage.
Bumper sticker. Short, no meaning, distraction from the lack of intelligent response.
Glad you liked it despite your obsequious criticism of it.
Now explain how agreement with my points doesn't invalidate completely your point.
I did nothing inadvertently. You simply assumed that because I criticized your use of meaningless bumper sticker throw aways that I had a position you could label liberal or socialist or some other such misconception. And that's the problem, you and others spend so much time creating alternate realities in your minds that you assume the rest of us are doing the same.
Not everyone is delusional.
Oh, I'm sorry, was that just another bumper sticker?
I think that's exactly Georgiana's point. They don't call themselves "dittoheads" for nothing. They can't resist parroting every buzzword that crosses their path.
"socialism"
"czars"
"death panels"
...and they have the cognitive dissonance to imagine themselves as some kind of brave non-conformists. No collective more collectivist than fascism. But don't let me deflate you, you cowboys thought this all up on your own, individually. Sure you did.
Marxism had a powerful intellectual appeal in the 19th and early 20th centuries when intellectuals were fascinated with science and formal systems.
No, actually excellent post. Thank you.
Of course, your specialty throughout has been giving the false impression that you knew something about . . . anything.
Oh, but hey. Spotting misspellings is huge.
Oh, I get it, it wasn't a non sequitur, it was a koan!!!! Oh, wait, they are the same thing. Or are they?????
They have oranges in Socalism.
most of the european nations have GREATER DEBT than the USA.....
yes, it's true, and their brand of communism lite is falling apart around them.....
Go back up where you left your long actual comment (with only a few minor bumper stickers) and see my long response.
BTW - Do you even know what the word "liberal" means? You seem to think it means "someone who thinks."
And, BTW, your "long actual comment" is a consession of my point so--Thanks.
Secondly, you did exactly what I so often see here on Gather. You post some semi-authoritative definition of something, then you completely ignore it and list a bunch of ideologically tainted reinterpretations of the opposite ideology. You did so to make the points you wanted to make, not the points that the information supported.
It's just like your comment on referencing the original Star Trek. You needed to find some way to massage your ego and ridicule the conceptual lesson that was intended to be conveyed. You wanted things your way, so any other way is by your definition insufficient. You prefer to find information you think makes your point rather than make the point the information supports.
Sadly, rather than address the point, you deflect from it so as not to have to take responsibility for understanding the meaning and providing an intelligent and/or insightful response either in agreement or disagreement. In short, you preferred the bumper sticker approach.
And, BTW, your "long actual comment" is a consession of my point so--Thanks.
Actually, as I explained above, it isn't. You merely read into it what you wanted to because you have defined me and others in terms you prefer. Just like everything else based on your comments. You define what you think is opposition because that way you don't really have to defend your position other than calling someone a "liberal" or some other such bumper sticker.
Re the rest, be specific or be quiet.
B. I was thanking Georgianna for a great article, whether she wrote it or provided it. People complaining about socialism etc need to know what it is and what it's not. Link channel had a speaker who explained the differences between the various health care models around the world. T.R. Reid wrote The Healing of America. I would suggest this book to anyone who needs to learn about health care systems, what's working and what's not.
Jane, thank you, this Jericho guy seems the chauvinist type, doesn't give his wife a shirt and makes her have babies! (LOL)
oh, and if the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour I think Europe could have wound that pesky WWII up on their own! You come into a war that has been going on for three years and finally have to drop the bomb on the country you mainly opposed! Get real!
She wrote the parts she wrote, which included selecting the appropriate sections of the Wiki article to support her opinion. Which is exactly what your article did. The commenter was commenting on the entirety of the article, not just the Wiki part that you focused in on. So for whatever reason you were really just being petty in your comments to the other commenter.
Re the rest, be specific or be quiet.
Again you deem to limit the first amendment rights of others. Not sure how you rationalize that, but hey, that's a hypocrisy that is for you to reconcile.
As for being specific, I was very specific in my comment. Feel free to read it again if that helps.
Georgie- Guess you didn't read any of my posts. I am not talking about anything but this post which is (mostly) a long quote from wiki. Your contribution to THIS POST is minimal. That was my only point.
OTP- No, your first amendment rights allow you to blather on all you want. Have at it.