Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Socialism allows private ownership of business but keeps everything important to society as public property, run by the government for the people.
.......
It is easy to have an illusionary democracy and an illusionary republic with capitalism but true socialism and communism are harder to enforce because people have a tendency to hog resources for themselves. It takes force to deal with criminals!

Since 1980 people in power have wanted to privatize govt functions. Perhaps this is why there is such a maligned use of socialism put out there, especially by the party now out of power.

The taking over of the govt functions by business did not necessarily mean that taxes would be cut; it meant that corporations would continue to receive the taxes to run their corporation that has taken over govt function. And for corporations that would not be funded directly, there began to be "user fees" for the middle class to now pay in lieu of taxes for their formerly govt function.

The meaning of the popular phrase about not abolishing government but making it small enough to drown it in the bathtub really was meant to get rid of social programs put in place by liberals in power. (FDR ex) However, no corporation who is receiving govt tax money really wants to see their govt program cut. Big pharma now depends on govt subsidies through Medicare D.

For ex. if the privatized military depended on less tax dollars, how many citizens would contribute to keep it running? Would the "small people" donate money to all the corporations involved in war/imperialism; I think not.

If the current issue, education, were "privatized", corporations would continue to depend on the tax dollars given them for everything currently involved in education except teacher salaries. Text books, library books, schools buildings, infrastructure, maintenance, etc. Private schools want tax dollars, also.

Yes, illusion. One of Ronald Reagan's campaign managers said democracy was just an "illusion". Yes, they certainly manipulated voters by treating democracy as an illusion.

And American voters thought there would be more money in their wallets with "lower taxes". As the other old saying goes, you can't get something for nothing.

Can waste and fraud in govt functions be fought, as a way to reduce expenditure? Yes, but try telling that to a corporation who doesn't care about waste or fraud, as long as they get their "fair share" of the pie.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Well hitler claimed to be a national socialist, his words not mine. Yes he was a bigot and yes he was an imperialist but he was also a socialist.

Oh dear, no he wasn't a socialist.

Hitler was a FASCIST based on the fascism of Mussolini. Calling his party socialist doesn't make it so. He also used the term Nationalist in the title, so why don't you call him a nationalist?

Socialism and Nationalism do not go together, so his whole party name is a contradiction. He certainly was a nationalist, as that is part of fascism, he was also a supporter of capitalism.

You need to learn some history. What were the Nazi's doing fighting the socialists and anarchists in Spain if he was one of them?

Hitler hated the communists, he hated socialists. He put both of them in the concentration camps as political dissidents.

To think Hitler was socialists is to really completely misunderstand history, AND socialism.

You probably think China and Russia are socialist also eh? What about when a politician says they're Christian? Would you believe me if I said I was God?

Look at what his party did, not what it called itself.

[edit on 7/3/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Well hitler claimed to be a national socialist, his words not mine. Yes he was a bigot and yes he was an imperialist but he was also a socialist.

Oh dear, no he wasn't a socialist.

Hitler was a FASCIST based on the fascism of Mussolini. Calling his party socialist doesn't make it so. He also used the term Nationalist in the title, so why don't you call him a nationalist?

I thought a national socialist, by definition, is a brand of socialism?

Its obvious to most people except you. I guess we should call black as white and white as black just to make you happy..........

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism and Nationalism do not go together, so his whole party name is a contradiction. He certainly was a nationalist, as that is part of fascism, he was also a supporter of capitalism.

No its not a contradiction.

He was a socialist AND a nationalist at the same time!

The economy was socialistic and the term nationalism is synonymous with the term imperialism. Stalin was an imperialistic(or perhaps a war opportunist would be more appropriate in this case) communist. Bush jr and Bush sr were imperialistic capitalists despite all the wmd and freedom bs.

Originally posted by ANOK
You need to learn some history. What were the Nazi's doing fighting the socialists and anarchists in Spain if he was one of them?

I don't know much about spanish history but it seems your confusing anarchy with socialism. Anarchy means no government and socialism means big government.

Originally posted by ANOK
Hitler hated the communists, he hated socialists. He put both of them in the concentration camps as political dissidents.

Hitler hated communists, jews and gypsies. He did NOT hate socialists because he belonged to a socialist party himself. Nothing secret about any of this unless your trying to re-write history yourself....

Originally posted by ANOK
To think Hitler was socialists is to really completely misunderstand history, AND socialism.

Socialism, like capitalism, comes in many flavors. It primarily represents ECONOMIC SYSTEMS as you correctly stated in your previous post!

You can have a socialist democracy, a socialist republic, a socialist dictatorship. More often than not, real socialism comes in a dictatorship because people cannot agree to make everyday complex decisions AND because the wealthy elite can only be subjugated by force.

European "socialism" is nothing short of a farce. Do I have to explain why? Its called private central banking(a feature of covert capitalism) which drains resources and is proving extremely inefficient. If we had socialism national debt would not exist because countries would not borrow from other countries, banks or private investors in the form of government bonds.

Originally posted by ANOK
You probably think China and Russia are socialist also eh? What about when a politician says they're Christian? Would you believe me if I said I was God?

Look at what his party did, not what it called itself.

[edit on 7/3/2010 by ANOK]

The *Peoples Republic of China* was and still is officially communist but now it is only communist in name. China has unofficially switched from authoritarian communism to authoritarian capitalism. The only aspect that remains the same is authoritarianism, aka dictatorship.

The same is/was true about the *Union of Soviet "Socialists" Republic* but now its called russia because the union has dissolved.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
WITH COMUNISM EVERYONE WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING IS PUBLIC PROPERTY!

Rubbish you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually it is you that does not know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism and communism are simular not the same thing.

They are NEITHER similar, NOR the same thing! I have explained how many times?

Originally posted by ANOK
Neither require government to exist, unlike capitalism. They are systems of the people, ran by the people, an alternative to the bureaucratic capitalist government system we have.

You are confusing EVERYTHING with anarchy! Only with anarchy there is no government! It is extreme right-wing politics and the opposite of communism.

Originally posted by ANOK
Russia was never communist, the socialist revolution didn't work, in less than 20 years Trotsky was calling it a failure. It became a capitalist dictatorship.

Wow!!!! Talk about re-writting history. You FLOORED me..........

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You are confusing EVERYTHING with anarchy! Only with anarchy there is no government! It is extreme right-wing politics and the opposite of communism.

Nope sorry I'm not.

Please show me ANYWHERE that socialism REQUIRES government.

Socialism is simply the workers/public ownership of the means of production and distribution. It does NOT require government, or 'the state'.

Didn't you know that traditional Anarchism IS socialist.

Ever heard of Libertarian Socialism? It's another term for Anarchism.

Maybe you need to do some more reading...

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability...

Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)....

You see no one group can claim socialism has to be ran this way or that and by whom. You can not claim it requires government when it is quit possible, and practical, to not have a central government.

Did you read about Spain, I would guess not because you would have read about real socialism in practice, without government or state.

Anarchism is not a economic system, it is simply any system that is ran without coercive authority, it can be communists or socialist.
Anarchism by itself without a form of system of organization would be simply chaos. No intelligent anarchist simply wants 'no government' that would be ridiculous.

Communism is an extension of socialism, so they ARE similar but not the same. Socialism is an economic system, communism is both economic and political. Socialism can have markets and make profits, shared by the workers who do the producing. Communism does away with markets and all resources become communal, and no one can make money from those resources. Communism was Marx's ultimate goal but not necessarily the goal of all socialists.

Why do you think 'public' means government, you are the public not the government. I would guess you don't really know what that means anyway, I'll guess you make an assumption whatever that is? Nationalism is when government runs and owns everything, not socialism. See how the terms contradict each other?

[edit on 7/4/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Please show me ANYWHERE that socialism REQUIRES government.

Without government chaos will eventually ensue.

Laws exist for a reason. Some are "good" while others are "bad" and it is primarily an issue of perception. It is not possible for everyone to agree on everything due to conflicting issues/interests.

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is simply the workers/public ownership of the means of production and distribution. It does NOT require government, or 'the state'.

I call that utopian communism, aka fictional communism!

Your argument is flawed on so many levels I would have to write a book to explain it all to you. Basically utopian communism boils down to anarchy because NO ONE makes decisions and EVERYONE does as they please.

Originally posted by ANOK
Didn't you know that traditional Anarchism IS socialist.

Ever heard of Libertarian Socialism? It's another term for Anarchism.

Maybe you need to do some more reading...

Maybe you need to accept reality instead of living in a dream world!

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you think 'public' means government, you are the public not the government. I would guess you don't really know what that means anyway, I'll guess you make an assumption whatever that is?

A government GOVERNS! It is WHY it exists! It can represent the people or anything else it wants. It is up to the people to make sure they are properly represented and that they get the best "deals" possible.

In zombie nations where people drink lots of KOOL-AID and demand little or nothing, then the people WILL DESERVE little or nothing AND GET little or nothing. Government is run by people and people are not perfect.

Originally posted by ANOK
Nationalism is when government runs and owns everything, not socialism. See how the terms contradict each other?

Nationalism is a term that denotes strong national identity, aka patriotism. It is one step before imperialism, whereas imperialism directly denotes foreign conquests.

Nothing about *national socialism* contradicts each other. You can have a socialist economy with a nationalistic attitude. That was exactly the case with nazi germany and fascist italy.

As for the spanish civil war, the republicans you mentioned were communist sympathisers and that is why they were supported by russia yet hated by nazi germany.

You need to get your facts straight!

Originally posted by ANOK
Anarchists believe in setting up VOLUNTARY committees/associations to take care of government duties. Leaders are needed in any society, the difference is they will not have the ultimate power to coerce.

Anarchism is not people just doing whatever they want.

Voluntary committees/associations without executive powers means they cannot effectively rule society. Its like a police officer without a badge and a gun. Who the hell would take him/her seriously?

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh yeah and that really happens. If you really think we have a say in government affairs then you are the one living in a dream world.

The government does not run things, they are told how to run things.

Only because people have allowed such behavior through ignorance and indifference. Unless a baby cries the mother may never understand her baby needs milk and/or food. Likewise people need to keep checks and balances on any government because theoretically they should represent us just as much as they represent business, religion, etc.

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL government is ran by capitalist interests not the people. THAT is reality.

I agree and that is why we need socialism.

Originally posted by ANOK

All had changed through the miracle of "nationalism." In Bellamy's world the solution was government ownership of all means of production, transportation, housing, and basic utilities.

Government ownership is a misnomer in most cases. The government supposedly represents the people therefore they are running industry for us, THE PUBLIC!

Government represents the management of those PUBLIC ASSETS much like the board of directors representing the shareholders of any private firm.

Originally posted by ANOK
Communists sympathizers lol, a lot of them WERE communists, what is your point again? I thought you said Hitler was a lefty, so why would he hate communists sympathizers?

Hitler was an economic centrist. That is what socialism is all about, NOT LEFTY OR RIGHTY! I could NOT care less about marxism or leninism because THEY WERE FRAUDS! Socialism has NOTHING to do with communism or anarchism.

TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!

Obama is certainly no socialist, although he adopts, as has been discussed, a mainstream social democracy, which is effectively another 'better' more human name for state capitalism. I would call him Bush with a 'human face'

In a nutshell, I'd have to agree with those Democratic Socialists...

Obama is more of a Corporate Facist. There IS a distinction between Capitalism & Corporatism: In Corporatism, the corporations that have the most direct influence in how oppressively the government treats the people is in direct relationship to which coporations are actually absorbed or controlled by the government itself. In Capitalism, the coprorations that have the most influence in government are those with money to bribe...er, uh...LOBBY the lawmakers but are much more "independant" from direct control by the government. In capitalism, the corps still run under the auspices of the Free Market Economy, whereas America hasn't had a "free market" for more than two generations of Americans...The government has been increasingly over-regulating the free market out of existence for at least that long.

Corporate Facism, by the way, Hitler's own view of the government's role in ruling OVER society...He "nationalized" much of Germany's industry to gear up for war.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]