Define socialism?

It's when the elitist psychopaths on the flip side of the same old, dirty coin seize their opportunity to wrestle control over the people they view as beneath them from the incumbent elitist psychopaths after they so foolishly pushed their end too far and exposed themselves.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Just doesn't sound right though....

Starving people will not refuse to work for what can provide...

Again... lets not use history to define the word

Socialism relies upon a basic premise - the entire collective will have morals, ethics and a sense of community such that every capable individual will undertake work for the common good of the collective economy so as to increase everyones standard of living so that everyone has ample basics such as food, water, shelter, clean breathable air & sleep.

Until humans gain collective morals and ethics, socialism will never work - never has.

originally posted by: sooth
It's when the elitist psychopaths on the flip side of the same old, dirty coin seize their opportunity to wrestle control over the people they view as beneath them from the incumbent elitist psychopaths after they so foolishly pushed their end too far and exposed themselves.

ok... again

lets not define it from history

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Just doesn't sound right though....

Starving people will not refuse to work for what can provide...

Again... lets not use history to define the word

Socialism relies upon a basic premise - the entire collective will have morals, ethics and a sense of community such that every capable individual will undertake work for the common good of the collective economy so as to increase everyones standard of living so that everyone has ample basics such as food, water, shelter, clean breathable air & sleep.

Until humans gain collective morals and ethics, socialism will never work - never has.

yes but that is because of those that lead...

Not the system or the ideals involved....

History shows that the Money goes to the top...

Said funds should return to the community in my OP...

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: sooth
It's when the elitist psychopaths on the flip side of the same old, dirty coin seize their opportunity to wrestle control over the people they view as beneath them from the incumbent elitist psychopaths after they so foolishly pushed their end too far and exposed themselves.

ok... again

lets not define it from history

You can't ask for a definition and then add stipulations to it.

That's called loading the question.

If you don't like how history has defined it, tough mcnuggets for you!

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Isn't that what i did though?

This isn't a court, its a discussion forum...

Why use a precedence when its unnecessary

a reply to: Akragon

Capitalism and socialism can be friends, that's something nobody wants to admit. Cooperatives take the power from the 1% and give it to the 99%. That's why it's surpressed.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean the ones marginalised by society get money, it means that nobody has to worry about basic needs like a save place to sleep. food, medicine, information/education. Once you take the survival pressure out of capitalism you'll find that people get braver in trying to find their share of success.

a reply to: Peeple

Capitalism and socialism can be friends, that's something nobody wants to admit. Cooperatives take the power from the 1% and give it to the 99%. That's why it's surpressed.

Except that isn't something that will ever happen... Capitalism does not "provide" for the underling

it takes for itself... by any means necessary

It seems very Anti-socialist... providing for only what the governing body requires to sustain its hierarchy

There is nothing for those without food, shelter, water or clothing... but what they can provide from scrounging, stealing... or begging for it... sometimes even resorting for violence and felony

I don't understand how one can believe such a system "provides" for its people...

a reply to: Akragon

Well one could argue that just as "real socialism" "real capitalism" hasn't ever been done yet, because the way we live capitalism there's way too much dead capital. If it would be implemented correctly money would never stand still and continously flow.

That would mean a lot of what's wrong with capitalism now would correct itself.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Akragon

What say you?

Socialism doesn't have a very good track record.

The fire department seems to do all right in these parts.
Roads are fine. No privately held toll road between here and anywhere I need to go.
Public library has lots of programs for kids and adults.
I like getting mail. And no, Trump selling the USPS would be a disaster.

a reply to: Peeple

Well one could argue that just as "real socialism" "real capitalism" hasn't ever been done yet, because the way we live capitalism there's way too much dead capital.

We do Capitalist oligarchy... ism

Which has nothing to do with socialism

except in the past...

er present?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Akragon

Well one could argue that just as "real socialism" "real capitalism" hasn't ever been done yet, because the way we live capitalism there's way too much dead capital. If it would be implemented correctly money would never stand still and continously flow.

That would mean a lot of what's wrong with capitalism now would correct itself.

Implemented correctly.

Socialism has an implemented correctly as well.

Go on,

Keep arguing. It's fun to watch.

Yes sorry if I keep arguing this topic than only with people who understand what I write.
Bye

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Peeple

Capitalism and socialism can be friends, that's something nobody wants to admit. Cooperatives take the power from the 1% and give it to the 99%. That's why it's surpressed.

Except that isn't something that will ever happen... Capitalism does not "provide" for the underling

it takes for itself... by any means necessary

It seems very Anti-socialist... providing for only what the governing body requires to sustain its hierarchy

There is nothing for those without food, shelter, water or clothing... but what they can provide from scrounging, stealing... or begging for it... sometimes even resorting for violence and felony

I don't understand how one can believe such a system "provides" for its people...

But is it the "system's" responsibility to provide for "it's" people?

What about the "people's" responsibility to provide for themselves?

Thing is, the "system" as you put it, IS the people, yes?

I think you are implying some type of disparity which really doesn't exist in the real world.

In a capitalist system, it's actually possible to improve on yourself, at least from an economic standpoint, sometimes even to the extent that you can actually BECOME part of the 1%.

Is that possible in a socialist system?

a reply to: MteWamp

In a capitalist system, it's actually possible to improve on yourself, at least from an economic standpoint, sometimes even to the extent that you can actually BECOME part of the 1%.

Is that possible in a socialist system?

Well i would imagine there should not be a 1% First off...

I don't see why one would not be able to improve his/her situation... considering you have education... Food/shelter/water... all the basics obviously... given to you because you are a part of said "community"

For the record, I am NOT a socialist or communists

There are different forms of "socialism" traditionally, "socialism" was the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism, the "transitional state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" while the infrastructure was being built towards communism and the state withered away, now, what happened was these "socialist states" became dictatorships, essentially consolidating power with promise of abolishing the State etc. instead, invoking dictatorship and becoming "state socialism"

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

there is 'libertarian-socialism" "democratic-socialism" "state-socialism" "national-socialism" each having different ideologies

It is common rightist and Americanised propaganda to say "socialism is when people take your stuff" which is false and part of the Red scare

a reply to: XAnarchistX

The word sounds like share...

I don't know where anyone can understand "take" in it...

Except from the past...

History can define...

But should it always?

According to a book called ‘None Dare Call it a Conspiracy” by Gary Allen, Socialism will be what the elite use to take over the world.

PDF


——

Whether it is Socialism or Capitalism, the quality of the government will be determined by those who run it.

a reply to: Akragon

Once upon a time a socialist... got a little bit of power in my country We ended up with Free Health care...

If you go back further and look into the Treaty's signed with 1st Nations you will see that they (the capitalists) offered a medicine cabinet in the deal . Beware of those bearing gifts ...just saying I think socialism ,to a degree can work on smaller scales but but it takes a different kind of mindset for the leaders . Comparing the Chiefs of today from the ones of yester years you see how the Potlash differed greatly and probably why it was banned back then . It takes time to change minds even if its for the worst .

"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life."


Bill Shankly


Pretty fair definition I would say