Confused about socialism...

Hello my fellow ATS brother/sister, my question tolday is dealing with Socialism.

I'm pretty sure this was probably asked previously but I still do not undersand this. What exactly is socialim in simplistic terms? Does it have to do with constant government regulating and providing for it's people?

Let's say we take the military for example. Everything in the military is sponsored by the government, correct? Your clothes come from the gov't, food comes from the gov't, shelter is provided by the gov't... would that be considered a system under socialism?

If anyone can explain this concept please do and I will immesely appreciate it.

People confuse socialism with communism. Socialism is an economic philosophy. Capitalism is an economic philosophy. Communism is a type of government. A Constitutional Republic is a type of government.

Socialism in it's raw form is not bad. Socialism is akin to Libertarianism. Socialism gets distorted the same as Capitalism when greedy people start making the rules to benefit themselves.

The United States Constitution has a limited socialistic approach. The Federal government was erected as a social check on the states. The Federal government was designed to look after the general welfare of the citizens and provide for common defense of Freedom and pursuit of happiness. Somewhere along the lines corporations became more powerful than the people, and money became the driving force to sustain the power structure.

There is nothing unconstitutional with the government making sure the citizens it represents are able to eat, have shelter, be clothed, and have reasonable medical care. The method in which this is carried out always seems to benefit corporations or government first. This I would argue is unconstitutional.

reply to post by ReAlIzAtIoN

Let's say we take the military for example. Everything in the military is sponsored by the government, correct? Your clothes come from the gov't, food comes from the gov't, shelter is provided by the gov't... would that be considered a system under socialism?

Some say socialism is is such a society where the government controls the means of production. It is, actually, public ownership of the means of production.

Compare this to laissez-faire capitalism in that the means of production are private.

The underlying problem with socialism is that people feel the need to force others into being socialist. This is why it has failed in the past. Only the power of government can force people into being socialist, and the very existence of government makes such a system totalitarian, and not socialist at all.

Socialism can, and has, existed in the past with great success. This is if and only if the socialist interaction is voluntary, and people can opt out of such a system if they so choose.

The military is an example of a sector of our market (National Defense) that has been completely taken over by government in the fashion of Totalitarianism.

in simple terms;

socialism is a system of government that primarily concerns itself with the welfare of the society.

capitalism is a system of government that primarily concerns itself with the welfare of the economy.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
People confuse socialism with communism. Socialism is an economic philosophy. Capitalism is an economic philosophy. Communism is a type of government. A Constitutional Republic is a type of government.

Socialism in it's raw form is not bad. Socialism is akin to Libertarianism. Socialism gets distorted the same as Capitalism when greedy people start making the rules to benefit themselves.

The United States Constitution has a limited socialistic approach. The Federal government was erected as a social check on the states. The Federal government was designed to look after the general welfare of the citizens and provide for common defense of Freedom and pursuit of happiness. Somewhere along the lines corporations became more powerful than the people, and money became the driving force to sustain the power structure.

There is nothing unconstitutional with the government making sure the citizens it represents are able to eat, have shelter, be clothed, and have reasonable medical care. The method in which this is carried out always seems to benefit corporations or government first. This I would argue is unconstitutional.

What the hell are you talking about.

Socialism and Libertarianism are diametrically opposed.

The federal government was created to provide:

1. a unified currency facilitating trade

2. to resolve trade disputes between states

3. to provide a unified defense

Then they threw in a few token things like the post office and some general science funding

That's it.

Socialism is a system of total economic totalitarian control where property rights do not exist. Where the state owns all means of production. Where prices and wages are determined by the state. Where the state determines what is to be produced and how much is to be produced.

In short, socialism is total tyranny.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


What the hell are you talking about.

Socialism and Libertarianism are diametrically opposed.

Actually, Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are diametrically opposed.





Socialism is an economic system and really has nothing to do with either.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Socialism is a system of total economic totalitarian control where property rights do not exist. Where the state owns all means of production. Where prices and wages are determined by the state. Where the state determines what is to be produced and how much is to be produced.

In short, socialism is total tyranny.

Wow.

That was actually really funny. It's also a bit scary to know that somebody with the mental faculties necessary to operate a personal computer and a keyboard could come up with something so ridiculous.

Nice try, though.


To the OP: Hey, I starred and flagged your thread. At least you are trying to learn something about Socialism, instead of simply pretending you know what it is, like so many tend to do.

To ask questions and seek knowledge is the opposite of ignorance.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by drwizardphd]

reply to post by ReAlIzAtIoN


Basically, socialism is a form of economic policy that is more concerned with the well being of the people than lining the pockets of people. The opposite is capitalism. [Both are equally desirable, I believe. The trick is finding the right balance of the two.]

I think that some of the people in America that are totally against socialism don't understand what socialism really is. Often, as was stated before, mixing it up with or combining it with communism.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Socialism is a system of total economic totalitarian control where property rights do not exist. Where the state owns all means of production. Where prices and wages are determined by the state. Where the state determines what is to be produced and how much is to be produced.

In short, socialism is total tyranny

That's not true. For instance, Germany is socialist (technically). The government doesn't control the prices of things, deny people the right to property, or dictate how much of something can be produced. The people definitely own there stuff and the supply-demand principle dictates how much and what is made. Over here it's called Sozialmarktwirtschaft. (Social market-economy).

reply to post by drwizardphd


That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life.

Libertarianism:
en.wikipedia.org...

Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action[1][2][3] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[4][5]

Socialism:
en.wikipedia.org...

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]

(.ie, the state owns the means of production and allocates resources)

Originally posted by drwizardphd
To ask questions and seek knowledge is the opposite of ignorance.

and to answer a question is the only way to dispel ignorance, so now you've told people what socialism is not, care to put forward a view about what socialism is.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Socialism is a system of total economic totalitarian control where property rights do not exist. Where the state owns all means of production. Where prices and wages are determined by the state. Where the state determines what is to be produced and how much is to be produced.

This is a misrepresentation of socialism. Socialism itself is not oppressive. When people try to enact socialism through violence (a government) it then becomes Tyranny, and hardly socialism at all.

Socialism can only exist as a voluntary contract between consenting people. What is interesting about public ownership over the means of production in such a manor is that it can only exist in a system devoid of coercion.

I am not a fan of socialism, but I know where it came from. Marx merely took ideas from early anarchists and turned them into another type of feudalism. Socialism, like State-Capitalism, has become a useful tool to further the enslavement of humanity. My biggest issue is with the philosophic idea of egalitarianism altogether.

I will go as far to say this. Socialism only works in a system of voluntary exchange and production, or in other terms, a Free Market.

reply to post by mnemeth1

(.ie, the state owns the means of production and allocates resources)

Go back and read your Wiki quote. Not all forms of socialism have government involvement.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen in my life.

You must not have seen much in your life then.

Anyway, Libertarianism and Socialism are not opposites of each other. One's a political philosophy. The other an economic one. So, it's entirely possible to be social-libertarians.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Yes, socialism is oppressive.

Socialism requires the use of force.

You can not have a socialist state without the use of guns.

If guns did not exist, socialism would be impossible.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Socialism:
en.wikipedia.org...

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]

(.ie, the state owns the means of production and allocates resources)

Well, if you're going to apply your own misinterpretations as to what you think certain words mean, then it's not really surprising why you believe what you do.



[edit on 19-3-2010 by drwizardphd]

reply to post by drwizardphd


misrepresentation?

what do you think the word "public" means in that quoted phrase?

Do you think they are talking about the stock market?

reply to post by mnemeth1

Yes, socialism is oppressive.

I must've missed that memo. Maybe I got it when I couldn't read German that well.

Duly noted though. I'll start feeling really sad and oppressed tomorrow, after I go to the store and buy a steak for lunch.

You can not have a socialist state without the use of guns. If guns did not exist, socialism would be impossible.

Someone should tell the Europeans that their society doesn't exist!

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If guns did not exist, socialism would be impossible.

even using the worst definition of socialism, most tribal societies practice socialism, the shared ownership of resources administered thorough a centrally controlled governance, no guns involved.

reply to post by mnemeth1

You can not have a socialist state without the use of guns.

Who said anything about state? You assume a state must exist for free people to band together in a socialist system. Reread my post and if you still feel like making such an argument, reread it again.

edit: Socialism does not exist in European states, octotom. It's resembles what people mistake as socialism, but it is not socialism. It is egalitarian state exploitation of the means of production that exists. Feudalism 2.0

[edit on 19-3-2010 by DINSTAAR]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If guns did not exist, socialism would be impossible.

even using the worst definition of socialism, most tribal societies practice socialism, the shared ownership of resources administered thorough a centrally controlled governance, no guns involved.

socialism as an economic system is not voluntary and does not respect property rights at all.

Thus, force is required.

Voluntary groupings of individuals are called corporations or "firms". Socialism advocates state authority over property. They do not advocate voluntary cooperation through mutual respect of private property.

If you have something, the state has the right to take it from you.

Originally posted by pieman

and to answer a question is the only way to dispel ignorance, so now you've told people what socialism is not, care to put forward a view about what socialism is.

I believe the question in the OP was fairly comprehensively answered by the first few posts in this thread. Including yours.

Is further elaboration really necessary?

Originally posted by mnemeth1


socialism as an economic system is not voluntary and does not respect property rights at all.

Thus, force is required.

Voluntary groupings of individuals are called corporations or "firms". Socialism advocates state authority over property. They do not advocate voluntary cooperation through mutual respect of private property.

If you have something, the state has the right to take it from you.

What are you talking about?

Believe it or not, Canadians and Europeans are allowed to own property.

I think somebody has been watching a bit too much Fox News.