The Beginning of Socialism

The Beginning of Socialism

At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate. Prices were declining for everything. The laws were few and court actions were all jury decisions. Money stuffed in a mattress increased in buying power every year, no bank accounts or money managers needed. Travel to any country on the globe required only local money, which was directly convertible to gold, no passports or visas required. Technology was making every necessity of life easier, quicker, and cheaper.

Then the controllers started the con. They sold niceness for restriction, and Otto von Bismarck was the first.

Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

The state has a claim to dealing with other states, that is the only legitimate function of the national government. Anything else is, at best intention, the slippery slope.

Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."

Another example of the "Right" in popular discourse really being the Left.

In the sense of the individual versus collectivism, where the individual is the Right (for lack of a better opposite) 1 and collectivism is the Left, all of the official histories and political parties have been on the Left since the late 1800's.

The German system provided contributory retirement benefits and disability benefits as well. Participation was mandatory and contributions were taken from the employee, the employer and the government. Coupled with the workers' compensation program established in 1884 and the "sickness" insurance enacted the year before, this gave the Germans a comprehensive system of income security based on social insurance principles. (They would add unemployment insurance in 1927, making their system complete.)
www.ssa.gov...

The government has since that time claimed all human activity as its own, to be allowed or confiscated at will.

Those who trade freedom for security will get neither. WW1 and WW2 were consequences of collectivism, for example.




1 The political terms Left and Right describe the seating arrangements, or turf, of the two most powerful coalitions in the National Assembly following the French Revolution. Somehow the term Right has been associated with individuality in the West, and in that sense, the Right would be Thomas Jefferson, Richard Cobden, Lysander Spooner, Herbert Spencer, Albert Jay Nock, Ayn Rand, Isabella Patterson, Murray Rothbard and Lugwig von Mises, to name a few.

a reply to: Semicollegiate man, I was hoping this would be a post on ancient Sparta, the original socialist government. Star and flag, though, still.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: Semicollegiate man, I was hoping this would be a post on ancient Sparta, the original socialist government. Star and flag, though, still.

Interesting analogy.

Technically, Sparta wasn't a nation, it was a city State and Socialism requires industrial capital.

Individuality is new. It requires a market economy complex enough to supply everything needed in an impartial manner. The individual has to decide and abide the consequences of his decisions. Typically after being raised and self cultivated such as to get the benefit of his unique combination of skills and talents and interests.

In Ancient Greece, and the ancient world in general, many things depended on the city and its fortunes, so individuality for everyone was probably not possible. Droughts and barbarian invasions were beyond most individuals abilities to remedy by personal action. Rome was the first nation in the West that could beat a famine by redistribution of food and keep all of the barbarians outside the borders.

Where did you get the crazy idea that the 1800's were great? That was the time when the Robber Barons controlled us and most people lived in poverty, worked every day and died by 60.

originally posted by: CB328
Where did you get the crazy idea that the 1800's were great? That was the time when the Robber Barons controlled us and most people lived in poverty, worked every day and died by 60.

Life was improving like never before in the late 1800's.

People had always worked all day before then, but most work-a-day people were working less and getting more food and conveniences by the late 1800's.

In the late 1800's life was getting better, especially for urban dwellers.

The Robber Barons that were robbers were proto socialist crony capitalists anyway.

The "Robber Barons" that were not robbers made new products and old products cheaper and more available than ever before. These entrepreneurs reduced the price and increased the quality of everything from diet and construction to entertainment and communication. They made the standard of living we have today, which compared to the time before the late 1800's is miraculous.

Government had nothing positive to do with the quality of life we have today.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

A man called Cheik Anta Diop had a two cradle theory on the development of socialism and capitalism based on harshness of environment, the oldest is the socialist or collectivism where each member of society is responsible for the other, the aged is taken care of,females are important enough to be goddess and community leaders, the adage it takes a village to raise a child. come into mind , disposition is usually sunny or cheerful, another adage from the ancient Kemites Eat Drink And Be Merry For Tomorrow We Die attitude philoxenos or welcoming of strangers, cities generally lacking defensive walls.
Now the above seemed pretty ideal until extreme collectivism becomes suffocating and one can be easily be reduced by priest kings to a state akin to slavery, a caste system of labor generally develops which is not necessarily bad but can easily be manipulated into hierarchy based on labor,locked into from birth till death.

The capitalist cradle, born out of harshness of environment, tendency is to be nomadic ie the image of the cowboy riding off into the sunset ,robbing and trading goes hand in hand, youth is exalted above all, the weak must fend for themselves By The Sweat Of Thy Brow Thu Shalt Earn Thy Bread., trust in strangers is not easily obtained, Xenophobia is the norm, fiercely independent a man's home is his castle. private property is almost sacred and he is always armed ..a warrior should die with sword in hand or he cannot enter Valhalla. disposition generally gloomy. city defense walls a must.
At the extreme this mode of living is parasitic and very destructive to others, the good part personal freedom and rights is emphasized.

Off course as the two mode of living come into contact they learn from each other both good and bad.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A man called Cheik Anta Diop had a two cradle theory on the development of socialism and capitalism based on harshness of environment, the oldest is the socialist or collectivism where each member of society is responsible for the other, the aged is taken care of,females are important enough to be goddess and community leaders, the adage it takes a village to raise a child. come into mind , disposition is usually sunny or cheerful, another adage from the ancient Kemites Eat Drink And Be Merry For Tomorrow We Die attitude philoxenos or welcoming of strangers, cities generally lacking defensive walls.
Now the above seemed pretty ideal until extreme collectivism becomes suffocating and one can be easily be reduced by priest kings to a state akin to slavery, a caste system of labor generally develops which is not necessarily bad but can easily be manipulated into hierarchy based on labor,locked into from birth till death.

This looks like equating socialism with affection for friends and family. Affection fro loved ones is neither socialist or capitalist, affection is one of the motivations that move people to action.

Socialism is law. Socialism is a set of laws from the distant mega government that tells the village exactly how to conduct its affairs, because the village doesn't do it correctly, by definition.

The capitalist cradle, born out of harshness of environment, tendency is to be nomadic ie the image of the cowboy riding off into the sunset ,robbing and trading goes hand in hand, youth is exalted above all, the weak must fend for themselves By The Sweat Of Thy Brow Thu Shalt Earn Thy Bread., trust in strangers is not easily obtained, Xenophobia is the norm, fiercely independent a man's home is his castle. private property is almost sacred and he is always armed ..a warrior should die with sword in hand or he cannot enter Valhalla. disposition generally gloomy. city defense walls a must.
At the extreme this mode of living is parasitic and very destructive to others, the good part personal freedom and rights is emphasized.

Capitalism is a term from socialism that addresses industrial machines and output. Trade does not require capitalism, although capitalism, which has made everything easier to get, makes trade easier and farer (most impartial) for everyone.

Travel is an option for free people to choose.

Off course as the two mode of living come into contact they learn from each other both good and bad.

Capitalism and socialism are apples and oranges. Capitalism is not political, except in self defense, and is voluntary. Socialism must be political because it makes rules that must be enforced as its first principle.

All voluntary communitarianism is allowed, if not encouraged by sentiment, in a capitalistic society.

Less bad is possible as evolution runs its course.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

This looks like equating socialism with affection for friends and family. Affection fro loved ones is neither socialist or capitalist, affection is one of the motivations that move people to action.

Socialism is law. Socialism is a set of laws from the distant mega government that tells the village exactly how to conduct its affairs, because the village doesn't do it correctly, by definition.

Not necessarily for friends and family only but the community as a whole , the "communal" mindset implies sharing of resources and was simply a strategy of living, socialism as we now know it is a set of rules or laws, as settled farmers becomes nations and then empires.
The Nomadic origins of capitalism in especially harsh environments requires a different set of strategies they too developed into empires and spread their core mode of life..ie Romans and pirates .

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Beginning of Socialism

At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate.

few.

At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate.

A very big statement to make???

I wonder what evidence exists to prove that no people of low IQ, people who were 'fringe people' people who for so long as they had their family around them they are OK but left alone in the world, they would not be able to fend for themselves.

Might it be based on "because I did'nt know about it, therefore it didin't exist' type thinking.


Perhaps its just a convienient truth.

Im not sure what drives this 'welfare for individuals is bad' but if people who are anti welfare for individuals only knew that if banks can create money out of thin air so can goverment and create all the money required in the economy, including incomes for all, just by reserving for the people of the nation, through themselves, the power to create credit outa thin air just like the banks do.

I often wonder if people who are anti welfare for individuals are just as anti corporate welfare, that is, even if they are aware of its existence which I doubt because the man and the lady on the TV dont talk about corporate welfare do they?

I'm not extremely familiar with socialism, but wasn't Napoleon's France a socialist government?

a reply to: Semicollegiate
The late 1800's was a time of plenty? The long depression just didn't happen then?

originally posted by: Vector99
I'm not extremely familiar with socialism, but wasn't Napoleon's France a socialist government?

Actually, France attempted a representative republic. It was quashed by the rest of Europe, iirc.

Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights originated in France...

a reply to: CB328 seems to have totally missed out the industrial revolution in Britain the squalid working conditions, child labourers the mills where no one had any rights, no retirement. The work houses of Oliver Twist. The satanic mills that make today's sweat shops seem like luxury. A very rosy view of the 1800s indeed.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Beginning of Socialism

At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate. Prices were declining for everything. The laws were few and court actions were all jury decisions. Money stuffed in a mattress increased in buying power every year, no bank accounts or money managers needed. Travel to any country on the globe required only local money, which was directly convertible to gold, no passports or visas required. Technology was making every necessity of life easier, quicker, and cheaper.

Then the controllers started the con. They sold niceness for restriction, and Otto von Bismarck was the first.

Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

The state has a claim to dealing with other states, that is the only legitimate function of the national government. Anything else is, at best intention, the slippery slope.

Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."

Another example of the "Right" in popular discourse really being the Left.

In the sense of the individual versus collectivism, where the individual is the Right (for lack of a better opposite) 1 and collectivism is the Left, all of the official histories and political parties have been on the Left since the late 1800's.

The German system provided contributory retirement benefits and disability benefits as well. Participation was mandatory and contributions were taken from the employee, the employer and the government. Coupled with the workers' compensation program established in 1884 and the "sickness" insurance enacted the year before, this gave the Germans a comprehensive system of income security based on social insurance principles. (They would add unemployment insurance in 1927, making their system complete.)
www.ssa.gov...

The government has since that time claimed all human activity as its own, to be allowed or confiscated at will.

Those who trade freedom for security will get neither. WW1 and WW2 were consequences of collectivism, for example.




1 The political terms Left and Right describe the seating arrangements, or turf, of the two most powerful coalitions in the National Assembly following the French Revolution. Somehow the term Right has been associated with individuality in the West, and in that sense, the Right would be Thomas Jefferson, Richard Cobden, Lysander Spooner, Herbert Spencer, Albert Jay Nock, Ayn Rand, Isabella Patterson, Murray Rothbard and Lugwig von Mises, to name a few.

Let face it, honest social responsibility has been subverted as has Capitalism. Both messed up. Both have too big a reach, super, international Corporations and huge centralized gov'ts pushing enforced programs to a point of merger between the two with the WTO, NAFTA and now TPP.

I believe it was Heinlein who said it best, paraphrased, "When a society demands ID of it's citizens, it's time to move to other locals". In his case, other planets..

I would buy a ticket in advance....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Vector99
I'm not extremely familiar with socialism, but wasn't Napoleon's France a socialist government?

Actually, France attempted a representative republic. It was quashed by the rest of Europe, iirc.

Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights originated in France...

Is this accurate? I'm genuinely asking. It does sound more like socialism to me

As First Consul, Napoleon moved rapidly to institute order in France. He put down rebellions in the French provinces. He created a secret police, led by Fouche. He centralized the government of the various French departments under a system of prefects.

Napoleon also set about improving and modernizing French government. He wanted government power to apply to everyone equally, legal class differences and hereditary government offices to be abolished, and salaries to be given to his bureaucrats, who were to be selected based on talent, not birth.

In 1802, having brought prestige, power, and a sense of patriotism to France, Napoleon was elected "Consul for Life". Monarchy was returning to France. In 1804, Napoleon did away with niceties and started calling himself what he had already been in reality for some time: the French Emperor.

After the various governments of the Revolution, French law was a complete mess. Lawyers, not to mention the people, hardly knew what was legal and illegal anymore, since there were so many confusing and conflicting laws on the books. The Napoleonic Code created a single, streamlined system of law, which enshrined the basic tenants of the Revolution, such as the legal equality of all citizens.

source

a reply to: Azureblue
Governments can and of course do create money, they just cant always do it without consequence. The reason Governments tax and borrow is not to raise revenue but to control demand.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights originated in France...

Actually wrong.

Most of it orginated here in the English Bill of rights in 1689 even your right to bear arms.
The problem in 1776 was the British were just not following it!

originally posted by: crazyewok


The problem in 1776 was the British were just not following it!

That comment seems to remind me of something relevant in modern times. Got any idea of a new land we can sail to and start anew ^_^

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: crazyewok


The problem in 1776 was the British were just not following it!

That comment seems to remind me of something relevant in modern times. Got any idea of a new land we can sail to and start anew ^_^

The moon ?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Azureblue
Governments can and of course do create money, they just cant always do it without consequence. The reason Governments tax and borrow is not to raise revenue but to control demand.

Good point, yes, govt do create money. They print banknotes and coins but this amounts to only about 5-10% of the money supply in the country. The rest is created by banks through their 'power to create money out thin air capability."

Interestingly, there are no limits on how much or how little, credit (money) banks can create. Think in terms of booms and busts here.

Because governments, when giving away the right to create money to the banks, they sold the people out by not retaining the same rights for themselves, we all now have to pay the interest on the money the govt borrows from the private banks. To cover this egregious act up, they call the interest - tax.