Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Isurrender73


But we should not have to relinquish our rights to provide our own services and institutions right alongside public institutions, such as public and private schools, public and private law enforcement/security, etc. Neither as individuals nor as states.

We can do better, but not until we put people (and the fair distribution/access of the nation and earth's resources) before profit. The principles the nation were founded upon are sound, but they've been so twisted and distorted we no longer see the value of our organic law.

I agree, we should allow people to continue to use private programs alongside of public ones. If you want your children to attend a private school then the private school should receive whatever funding would go to the public school for your child. And you should be allowed to pay the difference for an education that you agree with.

This allows for a good separation of church and state and provides a competitive environment to guage the effectiveness of public education.

And the system is definitely twisted.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: beezzer

Socialism has been hear since Roosevelt.

Ugh

Socialist since Abraham LIncoln ( the Union is the absolute authority over everything), Theodore Roosevelt ( extended governmental control over business), Woodrow Wilson ( took over the entire economy to fight WW1) , or Herbert Hoover ( a Fascist who told industry what to make and what to pay ) or FDR.

Before Abraham Lincoln, the only socialistic program was the tariff. The tariff was propagandized as a tax for infrastructure. Actually the tariff kept prices of manufactured goods high for the Northern Business interests and promoted the building of canals, which became obsolete from the railroads before the canals were completed.

One of the first sucking sounds socialists have given us.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: beezzer

It's inevitable.

What are you going to do when machines make everything?

What system do you recommend to distribute these goods with?

Machines are practically making everything already.

Machines can't make everything, there is always something to want that is scarce.

Something tailored to each individual for instance.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: beezzer

Obamacare is not a socialist program. Obamacare is a forced capitalist program that will only benefit capitalist insurance companies. And the Canadian firm that has an ex-classmate of Michelle's. Although we have been told this was not nepotism.

A single payer system where we the people have the right to rein in the exorbitant cost of medical procedures is a socialist system. Which is why the cost per person for medical procedures is lower in every other industrial nation.

Why do so many people look at socialism for it's past mistakes without ever acknowledging the positive side of infrastructure building. We wouldn't have the roads to get to the doctor in the first place, without socialist programs.

One of the biggest problems with socialism in this country, is there is nothing social about it. Most of our social programs cost what they do because of nepotism, personal favors, and future employment opportunities.

Reign in the problems of elected officials profiting off over paying their buddies who run social programs and the costs will come down.

The problem is not socialism it is corruption. You can not blame socialism for corruption. There are plenty of corrupt capitalist. And a true socialist would not be looking to profit off corruption.

Without socialism there would be no other opportunity for Obamacare. There would be no centralization of insurance companies. There would be no tax money to pay for it. There would be no legal authority to make ACA mandatory.
etc.

Actually the excused State is socialism, every time.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
That state hav(ing) control over some part of society do(es) not mean they are automatically doing a bad job and are inefficient ,compared to risk capitalists doing the same thing.

That was worth copying and posting again. That is an excellent point. The way I see that though is that people think the Government here would be controlling things simply for the sake of having control. This is why I think the average citizen balks at the idea.

On a side note, when you Europeans say state, you mean your Government, right?. Here......I believe the states, like Iowa, Maine, etc.....should have more control and the Federal Government (which you call "state" across the pond), should have far less.

In Sweden it was government owned companies that owned telephone system, power production (water power and nuclear power plants) and water supplies.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Without socialism there wouldn't be a lot of things.

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally" -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

Fire
Paramedics
Police
Garbage Pickup
Street Cleaning
Snow Removal
Public Tree Pruning
Public Grass Mowing
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Streets
Sidewalks
Streetlights
Street Repair
Infrastructure Building and Maintenance
Local Parks
National Parks
Public Garbage Cans
Public Water Drinking Fountains
Community Centres
Community Gardens
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Public Museums

...and so on and so forth. Each and every one publicly funded via pooling taxpayers' monies.

What is your point?

Add - I don't remember the ATS member I borrowed this from. But thank you again.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: mOjOm

Hitler was "elected", wasn't he?

There's your democratic fascism.

I don't even understand what point you're making with that comment.

Fascism is control by a single dictator over everything.

Really, how is that even possible. One man controls everything. absurd.

Always a group of people share control of power. Centralization, a prerequisite of socialism, makes control by a few people politically possible.

Socialism is control by the state.

The state is made of individuals who want to keep whatever they can for themselves. Natural law.

Socialism operates to benefit the people and the state over the individual. Fascism operates to benefit the individual who controls it.

Fascism is similar to having a King. Socialism is similar to having a Bureaucracy.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Fascism and Socialism both need and produce centralization, centralization which will always be abused given enough time.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Fascism is the opposite of capitalism.

Capitalism has no draft or central bank to fuel and fund the wars between Fascism and Social Democracy.

Fascism and Social Democracy are alike except in the style of the propaganda. The fascist corporations were controlled by coercion and influence just as directly as socialistic corporations are controlled by law. At the level of the citizen, Fascism and Socialism are the same.

Fascism and Capitalism are alike in that they concentrate the power in to lesser and lesser hands. Fascism is the far Right end of Capital being in the hands of only one person. Corporate Power having all the capital is just a few steps down from having it all in one. This can also be attributed to corrupt capitalism though too which isn't the same as true capitalism.

Socialism results in the same outcome when the State becomes corrupt and results in almost the same outcome.

At the level of the citizen Fascism and Socialism aren't the same since Socialism still has private property as well as public. Corrupt Socialism might seem the same however but once you corrupt the idea of any "ism" it starts looking the same as the others when they go bad too.

Like I said earlier, they all are dealing with Power and Control. Who has it, who doesn't, who uses it and who doesn't. They all corrupt with the same end. Concentrated power and tyranny of the few over the many. They all, in original form, act against that outcome but just try to do it from different angles.

originally posted by: mOjOm


Socialism results in the same outcome when the State becomes corrupt and results in almost the same outcome.

At the level of the citizen Fascism and Socialism aren't the same since Socialism still has private property as well as public. Corrupt Socialism might seem the same however but once you corrupt the idea of any "ism" it starts looking the same as the others when they go bad too.

Like I said earlier, they all are dealing with Power and Control. Who has it, who doesn't, who uses it and who doesn't. They all corrupt with the same end. Concentrated power and tyranny of the few over the many. They all, in original form, act against that outcome but just try to do it from different angles.

Well said. We never have truly tried any "ism" except maybe facisim. And fascism can rear it's face through the corruption of any other "ism".

Even communism has never been tried apart from fascism. Of course I think human psychology rules out communism as a viable "ism".

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Without socialism there wouldn't be a lot of things.

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally" -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

Fire
Paramedics
Police
Garbage Pickup
Street Cleaning
Snow Removal
Public Tree Pruning
Public Grass Mowing
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Streets
Sidewalks
Streetlights
Street Repair
Infrastructure Building and Maintenance
Local Parks
National Parks
Public Garbage Cans
Public Water Drinking Fountains
Community Centres
Community Gardens
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Public Museums

...and so on and so forth. Each and every one publicly funded via pooling taxpayers' monies.

What is your point?

If people wanted to pay for those things, they would still be there and more of them because they are cheaper if funded directly.

What's your point?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Really, how is that even possible. One man controls everything. absurd.

Always a group of people share control of power. Centralization, a prerequisite of socialism, makes control by a few people politically possible.

I don't mean just one single person. Obviously there is a structure of people. Think Dictatorship, or Kingship even. It's centralized control and power.

The state is made of individuals who want to keep whatever they can for themselves. Natural law.

Not everyone always wants to keep everything for themselves. Some people do actually understand the benefits of working together, giving to others in need, sharing the wealth, etc.

You may not understand it or you may think individual greed is what determines everyone's actions, but not everyone sees it that way.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Fascism and Socialism both need and produce centralization, centralization which will always be abused given enough time.

All "isms" fail because of that same corrupt principle. It's not just centralization but that can be part of it. It's the concentration of power with that centralized source becoming greedy and abusive for all power without it being distributed back out or being used to benefit the whole. Centralization or Organizing the Power alone doesn't do it. It takes greed and selfishness of that power as well.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Even communism has never been tried apart from fascism. Of course I think human psychology rules out communism as a viable "ism".

I agree. Communism might seem like a great idea and in small numbers could work just fine. But it's major flaw is that it's dependent upon everyone being a willing participant of it. The more people you have the more likely that some will want to do their own thing. At that point in order to keep communism going you have to force them to comply and it is no longer communism and has started on it's way to failure.

It's just one of those things that sounds good on paper but doesn't actually work in reality because people aren't always on the same page. We are social creatures and do better when we join forces but without our individualism included and allowed to be free we fail to achieve to the best of our ability.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Show me the society that has directly funded these things. Since there is not one maybe you should create a thread on how you think this will work.

Personally I think greed gets in the way. And without socialist concepts everything would revert to fascism or despotism. Since some people are willing to kill to get to the top.

You have no faith in government which is run by people, yet you have faith in humanity.

Please explain this concept in a new thread. As this debate will further derail this one. And your ideology is so profound I would love to read how you suggest this system of non-government will work.

Add - Just because our democracy is bought and paid for, which makes it no longer a democracy, doesn't mean democracy will always end in fascism.

a reply to: mOjOm

Mao found that communism worked best in populations between 15,000 and 25,000 people.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mOjOm

Mao found that communism worked best in populations between 15,000 and 25,000 people.

Whatever the number, the important part is that communism is only communism when every member chooses it. Forced Communism isn't Communism at all.

It's like a school of fish where they are all independent yet all choose to act as a group.

originally posted by: introvert

Mao found that communism worked best in populations between 15,000 and 25,000 people.

After he killed everyone who disagreed with him, of course.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Without socialism there wouldn't be a lot of things.

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally" -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

Fire
Paramedics
Police
Garbage Pickup
Street Cleaning
Snow Removal
Public Tree Pruning
Public Grass Mowing
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Streets
Sidewalks
Streetlights
Street Repair
Infrastructure Building and Maintenance
Local Parks
National Parks
Public Garbage Cans
Public Water Drinking Fountains
Community Centres
Community Gardens
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Public Museums

...and so on and so forth. Each and every one publicly funded via pooling taxpayers' monies.

What is your point?

Add - I don't remember the ATS member I borrowed this from. But thank you again.

With the exception of National Parks everything in that list is little 's' socialism on the local level. And as a society, we have agreed to pay in some money to a city or locality in exchange for others to perform specific labors or services for us. And if we do not like those labors or services, we can complain to the local government or move elsewhere.

It is much different from big 'S' Socialism where a central planning government thinks it can control supply and demand of marketed services and products, determine the value of anyone's labor, decide what products are good or bad for the citizens, etc.

The big difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is national, communism attempts to be global. In either case they fail every time they are tried.

Bonus round: fascism is not an extreme of conservatism. Fascism requires a large government with intimidating military as well as control of social expression over the populace. Conservatism* advocates smaller government and freedom of expression. Progressiveness has the socially fascistic side down pat with political correctness and hate speech accusations. If anything, Anarchy is the extreme outcome of Conservatism.

*American Conservatism does, anyway (also known as Classical Liberalism). European Conservatism is close to the right-wing tyrannies I keep seeing used as examples, where the traditions of those nations would regress back to tyrannical rule by small parties of elites.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The state is made of individuals who want to keep whatever they can for themselves. Natural law.

Natural law? Kinda sorta I guess; but for governing purposes and in terms of natural rights, people have a right to the fruits of their labor to sustain and nurture and enjoy themselves. But no one has the right to take/keep so much of the earth's bounty and resources that others are left in want and misery, much less to hoard. As a protector of property rights, both real and otherwise, government has a responsibility to ensure the fairest and most equitable means of distribution.

The free market serves this purpose by creating opportunities for free trade by the people, encouraging competition, and thus allowing the consumers -- us -- to determine how and how much our resources and end products are distributed and produced. It's crony capitalism that has skewed and skewered our free markets.

For example, the people have demanded clean and untainted fruits... Big Ag has given us frankenfoods. If the people are allowed to make an informed choice, they overwhelmingly choose the former... so crony capitalism is doing its damnedest to keep that knowledge from us because Monsanto pays them more than we do.

Another example, Big Pharma takes our tax dollars for research and development, then uses patent laws to charge us an arm and a leg for the product we made possible, and prevents anyone else from producing and offering the same.

a reply to: Isurrender73



"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

-Murray N. Rothbard

a reply to: Isurrender73

In order for people to pay for those, it is necessary for those people to make money.

It could be those things are actually for the advancement and protection of commerce.