Define Socialism... IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

Actually, it has.

Haven't you ever heard of employee ownership? Employees are shareholders. Things are that one share = one vote. Employees have about as much as you or I do toward who our individual representatives are, and many complain they have no say now.

Who decides what the voted on options for boss pay will be, for example?What if you don't like any of the options and think they are all too high? How long does the process of deciding these things take? Who works in the meantime? Who decides what the day to day operations will be while all of this deciding and voting by every employee is done?

Sports is the best example of Socialism through unionization. Athletes are properly represented and feel that they are recieving an adequate portion of the revenue. The Athletes and Owners negotiate until both sides feel fairly compensated for the effort they put in. And the athletes refuse to work if they feel treated unfairly, at which point no one is making money.

This model could work in any industry.

The problem is most of us don't possess an irreplaceable skill set like the world's best athletes. The owners take advantage of this fact to keep wages low. Knowing that as long as there is unemployment they will be able to employ someone at a low wage.

If Microsoft was the NBA everyone working for Microsoft would be a millionaire. Bill Gates would still be a very rich man with plenty of incentive to grow his business. He just wouldn't be worth the absurd amount of money he is worth now.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Actually, there are plenty of labor unions, but the reality of business is such that labor can only cost so much before it makes the business uncompetitive.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

Actually, there are plenty of labor unions, but the reality of business is such that labor can only cost so much before it makes the business uncompetitive.

It's my opinion that 90% of labor unions no longer represent the workers. They have become bureaucratic institutions with only the best interest of bureaucrats in mind. Labor unions have become corrupted much like most of society.

We don't see this in sports because the bureaucracy is made up of former and current players who represent only the players. Instead of having some other form of legal representation they personally select and change legal representation whenever they decide it is best for the players and not a bloated bureaucracy. .

a reply to: bastion

If it was one of the worst famines in history, surely there should be some historical record of it.

a reply to: intrepid

It's a system of dependence on government that has no rewards for those who are productive, as it rewards both success and failure the same. It's a system that leads to a two class system of elite and the kept class by it's nature. It leads to a middle class being replaced by class of government sycophants that replaces it, to keep the privileged class in power.

It's a system that has never existed or worked out when tried. It's a carrot on the end of stick with the elite on the other end.

Socialism gives the state the right to regulate that which people produce from their own efforts.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: bastion

Interesting stuff!

What you described is all about imperialism, not a specific political or economic system, though.

Good point, the overall/overarching goal/cause was to be the number one superpower/defend by proxy. May be missing the wood for the trees.

There's an incredible documentary on the Afghanistan subject by BBC legend Adam Curtis. Kabul was called MEGA CITY ONE in the project - it was to be the worlds first society based on science. The science claimed it would create a perfectly stable society and the construvction of Buckballs etc.. relied on co-operation and relocation of the Afghani people so they would opt for a stronger society society more resilient to the outside influence of the encroaching Soviet State.

It's crazy to see how the most perfect plan can collapse in the most disastrous way.

Trailer:


Full 2 hour plus BBC doc: www.youtube.com... ETA: Shows dead bodies in places, not gratuitous but gives basic impression of what death from gunshot looks like for a minute or two - more than happy to remove if not within T&C.

'Increasingly we live in a world where nothing makes any sense. Events come and go like waves of a feve, leaving us confused and uncertain. Those in power tell us stories to help us make sense of the complexity of reality. But those stories are increasingly unconvincing and hollow....

This is a film about why those stories have stopped making any sense, and why it had led us is in the West to become a dangerous and destructive force in the world.

It is told through the prism of a country at the centre of the world; Afghanistan.'

a reply to: ScepticScot

Your right is our left.

Socialism: Big government, power to the government, everything run and dictated by the government because its in the peoples best interest...

I have another one

I totally ignorant ideology where people sacrifice their free will for comfort, total garbage

Benjamin Franklin:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: ScepticScot

Your right is our left.

Would at least partly agree with that.

I would say that of terms of the UK the Conservative Party (main stream right wing party) probably has more overlap with the right wing of the Democrats than it does with the Republicans.

Does vary quite a bit issue to issue and by individual politicans. We do have a few who make the Tea Party Movement seem like pinko commies.

Socialism is generally used as an ideal term, that is to say, by some it is used to represent "the ultimate evil" whatever that is considered to be, by others, the greatest good.

Given this, and believing neither of those two things, I can better explain socialism by saying what it is not:

It is not totalitarianism.

It is not the welfare state or the various social safety nets.

Is is not practised to any great degree in the United States.

It is not an overreliance on government programs.

It is not in and of itself evil.

The closest thing I see in the United States to socialism would be company profit-sharing plans or providing stock as a benefit or incentive for productive work.

Socialism is an infiltration tactic. Socialism is a threat to free people and a sovereign nation. There will be the elite benefiting on labor of the little guy. This violent uprising is ultimately lead to martial law. Try not to get too polarized. This country will never be under the dictatorship of a Socialist foreign power. Unless you like the cages, I suggest you see through manufactured conflicts and astroturf movements. They're playing the song, but we don't need to dance to the tune.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Socialism is generally used as an ideal term, that is to say, by some it is used to represent "the ultimate evil" whatever that is considered to be, by others, the greatest good.

Because it is.

Not matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.

It's still a pig.

A pig you raise, and someone else gets to eat for free.

a reply to: neo96

Thanks for bringing the point home, Neo-licious.

The Abolition of class, the means of production in the hands of all the people, not government or a few billionaires, health and social care for all, no private schools breeding elitism and all round level playing field for everyone to share and help each other, rather than compete against each other. I do feel many people confuse Socialism, with Social Democracy.

Great discussion here folks. Thanks. I'm actually surprised at the amount of folks here that have such a good grasp on socialism. I underestimated the collective.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: intrepid

Shouldnt YOU have to also define "socialism" IN YOUR OWN WORDS?

Well seeing as I was asked.

Basically to me it boils down to a redistribution of money. The basics we see every day. In fact the garbage truck just picked up the recycling. On roads paid by the collective. As some have already stated you need socialism to function. That's the basics.

Further redistribution gives us healthcare, pensions and the like. Money is pooled. Most pay into them and then receive services when needed. The government is the means by which these services are administered. This is where we have a problem. The government isn't known for handling money well. Waste and fraud happens. Capitalistic tenancies creep into socialism and prices of services are exorbitant. Especially in healthcare. Money over coverage. Let's not even get into the military.

Socialism is a take care of all system. Some see other governments as socialistic or communistic but they are dictatorships. Not socialism as it takes from the masses and gives little back. That's no different than capitalism raping the consumer.

Bottom line is that we need both capitalism and socialism to just function. There's a flux going on between the two today. As more social thinking and programs are needed or perceived there's going to be growing pains as the two systems at their core are mutually exclusive. A balance will need to be found.

I have to go back to our Constitution and Article I, Section 8 tells us all we need to know.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Taxation provides the revenue that enables the United States to fulfill its directives (mostly of providing security and infrastructural support) under our republican form of government (specifics found in the remainder of Article 1 Section 8).

Taxation is not, except in the most technical sense, wealth redistribution.

The only proper use of taxes is for the public good, and that, of course, is the actual locus of debate.

"What is the public good?"

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Socialism is generally used as an ideal term, that is to say, by some it is used to represent "the ultimate evil" whatever that is considered to be, by others, the greatest good.

Given this, and believing neither of those two things, I can better explain socialism by saying what it is not:

It is not totalitarianism.

It is not the welfare state or the various social safety nets.

Is is not practised to any great degree in the United States.

It is not an overreliance on government programs.

It is not in and of itself evil.

The closest thing I see in the United States to socialism would be company profit-sharing plans or providing stock as a benefit or incentive for productive work.

Hitler was a self described socialist.

The word "Nazi" is an abbreviation for the word "Nationalsozialist".

The full name of the political party was the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

You cannot define socialism by what has not existed. Even the Scandinavian countries were and are capitalist, only now with an emphasis on a social safety net.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Hitler's "socialism" was German nationalism, and he (and Goebbels) specficially stated that sozialismus was not in any way Marxist repeatedly.

Your statement of routine misunderstanding has little to do with my post toward the topic.

I just did define socialism by what it isn't and gave a comparison in American culture that comes closest in my opinion. I took that approach because of the blatant and intentional misrepresentations of socialism by many on this site as I responded to OPs request.

I am not a socialist btw.