reply to post by robhines
Wow, really?... Since WHEN the ABOLITION of private property means the workers own and control the means of production?...
Under socialism the state decides where you should live, and they can take away the home that was built by your grandfather, or father by hand if they
deem it "too big for your small family and a bigger family, normally a die hard socialist will get YOUR property...
And again, socialists, and leftists in general have been working hard on trying to change the meaning of socialism, when not too long ago it was
widely known that under socialism:
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay
according to work done
BTW, before you even start that "collective control of the means of production means all the workers control it, you must be out of touch with
reality. In fact "collective control means a group of people claiming to represent the people are the ones owning and controlling the means of
It has been happening in every form of socialist government around the world.
Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh last post, I don't like being like that. It's just that the last time I got into one of these threads, I was going
around in circular arguments for longer than I've ever done before in an ATS thread, and I thought it was starting up again.
Anyway, with your arguments : I can see why you have this problem. To try to put it as simply as possible : the idea of the workers owning the means
of production must send shivers around the halls of corrupt power, because they know that it would mean the end of the upper classes and their
manipulation, greed, "perks", and so on. We'd have to be equal.
So what seems to have been the agenda for a long time now is to bring out corrupt forms of government and label them "socialism". If you watched that
Chomsky clip I linked he goes into this and explains why he thinks it's an agenda by not only Washington, but Moscow and many other power bases too.
One side labels it socialism so that they get support of the masses, the other
side labels it socialism to try to make people such as yourself
associate the idea with all of the negative things the first side does.
The simple fact is that we've never really had socialism. Stalin's fascist crap wasn't socialism, but on the same token Lenin didn't bring in
socialism either because he took away the workers power and tried to centralize it in a form of corrupt state
socialism. "Communist" China
isn't communist at all, it's fascism, all you have to do is look at their oppression. I mean communism is the final goal of socialism, a
society. That's clearly not going on anywhere, and you don't simply get that if you've never had real socialism,
because it's a stage that you have to go through first to get there.
The other point is that you can never really have true
socialism in one country either, because the world is so connected now. A country can't
try to have socialism when it has to deal with so many economic and trade issues with other countries at the same time, it means that the resources
aren't being used properly, so for it to truly work, each country would have to implement it too. So no, we don't have socialism anywhere, and the
people that do and associate it with this and that bad thing are doing it for two main reasons. Either they're bought and paid for and just pushing
the same agenda that's been going on for a long time : to make socialism look like a bad idea, because they're defending their power. They're
defending the rule of the upper class over everyone else, an "upper" class that clearly have the resources to try to make sure that most people who
haven't researched the idea properly loathe
the idea of it. Or, they've not researched the different types of socialism in enough detail, and
think of socialism as corrupt state socialism, and try to warn people that that's the agenda being pushed by most socialists.
So I think I can see what you're getting at. You're talking about corrupt state socialism, and on that note, I'm totally with you. I don't want that
crap either and it could be even worse than what we have now. But on the other hand, I do want genuine
socialism, where workers own the means
of production, a decentralized form of government is ran by elected members from different areas of the working class, (basically each member is
temporary, and voted into power via votes from members of their working sector.) instead of corporate puppets, and the class system is destroyed. A
class system breeds inequality and I'd love to see it gone.
So if you want to carry on saying socialism is bad, fair enough. The mistake you're making though is in not researching the different types
socialism, and seeing that yes, there's a lot of people with decent intentions who want what's for the best of us all, and many of them do have ideas
for a form of it that could actually help.
Edit : just checked that Merriam Webster page too and am gobsmacked. It's simply wrong because it just describes one type, the worst type by the looks
of it, and the bias is incredible. Would love to know who wrote that page and whether or not they did it out of ignorance or on purpose. There's no
wonder so many people attack even the idea of it from the off, when you have people creating entries like that on major websites that so many accept
without checking elsewhere.
Typical that that's the first dictionary that turns up in Google too. 2nd and 3rd results have a more balanced definition (as will most dictionaries I
guess, because they'll explain that there's more than one type.) :
Just to finish, if anyone's interested in researching further, a few links :
Russia was never socialist—and why … what we said over the years
Libertarian Socialism - Wikipedia
People power: 3 of the world’s most
successful employee-owned businesses
edit on 14-1-2014 by robhines because: longer post than intended and just got out of bed, several