The myth of socialism and America

originally posted by: dasman888

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Lumenari

Let's define it simply.

Socialism: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

That's the actual definition. Period.

In theory, a benevolent state owns the industries and provides jobs for the citizenry.

In reality, it becomes a tyrannical government that eventually bankrupts said state and the citizenry are just the first victims.

An actual definition:

Dictionary Enter a word, e.g. "pie" so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. synonyms: leftism, welfarism;

More (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Read the 'community as a whole' part of this.

You go on to say it lead to tyranny, as it can. If largely decentralized - not so much.

Capitalism leads to tyranny as well and it owns the government (bypassing 'the community') and is commonly called fascism.


Heres the Webster definition:

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 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

3 : 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

Much the same with more emphasis on the 'administration' of the means and distribution of goods.

Neither speaks about resources. Much the resources can be held (not own) by the collective or by Capital.

The very definition you speak of ASSUMES Capitalism.

I like Webster's definition better because it does present the concept of 'no private property'.

Here is the best contemporary definition, I've found ... a real definition of "production for use not for profit" which is key to 21st century socialism:

Socialism Socialism is both an economic system and an ideology (in the non-pejorative sense of that term).

A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production.

It also typically organizes economic activity through planning rather than market forces, and gears production towards needs satisfaction rather than profit accumulation.

Socialist ideology asserts the moral and economic superiority of an economy with these features, especially as compared with capitalism.

More specifically, socialists typically argue that capitalism undermines democracy, facilitates exploitation, distributes opportunities and resources unfairly, and vitiates community, stunting self-realization and human development.

Socialism, by democratizing, humanizing, and rationalizing economic relations, largely eliminates these problems.

www.iep.utm.edu...

Socialism has a much broader scope then the definition presented.

In order to find capitalism, it's best to find the mom and pop shops or other small businesses, where people took their own money, and started a business. We DO have that... but it's not something media want's to articulate with any clarity. If they did, the "jig would be up".

Ironic considering all the regulation progressives push for disproportionately hurt small businesses.

The reality? The ultimate destination of every government is always tyranny. The more benevolent it starts out, the longer it will take for the citizens to notice when the tyranny slowly starts creeping in.

It's a fundamental law of consciousness. Government is a necessary evil but it is still an evil. The only thing you can do is be ever vigilant and call a spade a spade as soon as it appears. Just be aware that trying to sound the alarm bells will always piss people off. And frankly, it's probably best that you don't try.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: FyreByrd

So to debate the point you cherry-pick the definition to fit your argument.

Saul Alynski... is that you?

I'd like you to point out my cherry-picking please?

Shall I point to yours?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Because she had the "popular" vote.

Fair enough but if personalities would have been left out of the equation and policies had been the decider, I don't think she'd have a running.

I personally think Sanders policies would be more popular than hers.

He was so close to her vote in the Primaries, I really don't know why he pulled out. I think that if he had stayed, he would have bypassed Clinton's popularity easily once the 'fame factor' had worn off.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Because she had the "popular" vote.

Fair enough but if personalities would have been left out of the equation and policies had been the decider, I don't think she'd have a running.

I personally think Sanders policies would be more popular than hers.

He was so close to her vote in the Primaries, I really don't know why he pulled out. I think that if he had stayed, he would have bypassed Clinton's popularity easily once the 'fame factor' had worn off.

But the DNC chose Hillary and they aren't beholding to voters.

The DNC can chose whomever regardless of the vote or popular support.

That's how Hillary beat Bernie.


And if we went socialist, these are the types of people that would be in power.


It may not scare you, but it scares the sh#t out of me.

These are the same people that want taxes raised, the 2nd Amendment gone, limits on free speech.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: FyreByrd

So to debate the point you cherry-pick the definition to fit your argument.

Saul Alynski... is that you?

I'd like you to point out my cherry-picking please?

Shall I point to yours?

You went to whatever source you could find to redefine socialism to fit your narrative.

Which is pretty easy to do, as the word keeps getting redefined whenever it fails to live up to it's promises.

I gave you the real and simple definition of socialism, as defined by the people who made the word.

Feel free to pick apart my OP. That's why I posted it, for debate.

originally posted by: Lumenari

The reality, of course, is that the theory breaks down when you add actual human beings to it. It invariably turns into something different.

I keep saying this...all these political theories break down once those pesky humans are added to the mix. What I think is the best is a blend of Government and capitalism that balances each other out. When one or the other gain superiority then things get bad.

The countries with the highest quality of life in the world have balanced economies.

'Progressive ' policies do not have the same end goal as communist ones. The development of modem social democratic and welfare state economies was to prevent the slide into communism caused by poverty resulting from capitalism.

a reply to: CB328

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

Clearly not.

You want to enforce slavery to foot the bill for your existence.

Pretty much what we fought a civil war over.

a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you, Lumenari for a most intelligent, logical and well prepared OP and thread. You have better command of the English language than most of us that were born speaking it. I just posted on another thread the difference between an ideology and the reality are starkly different. You were so wise to point out California with actual examples.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The countries with the highest quality of life in the world have balanced economies.

'Progressive ' policies do not have the same end goal as communist ones. The development of modem social democratic and welfare state economies was to prevent the slide into communism caused by poverty resulting from capitalism.

Do you really believe what you said about the development of the Welfare state? Where did you get that information, from the liberal University you attended? Why would the government promote a dependence on the government if they were advocating capitalism which is the antithesis of the welfare state?

As a nurse I began to see that the government has so many mechanisms in place to promote dependence on the government and discourage independence. I could create a thread with examples. There is an agenda within elements of the government that wants us to depend on them so that they can continue to exist. This was never about avoiding a slide into communism, even if that was the cover story.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: FyreByrd

So to debate the point you cherry-pick the definition to fit your argument.

Saul Alynski... is that you?

That's exactly what you did.

In fact, you narrow the definition down to a fine point and leave no room for discussion on it, as you say 'this is the definition...period'. Purely cherry-picked.

Which poses the biggest problem with issues such as this. People such as yourself do not want discussions on the matter. You want to present the OP in a manner that only invites confirmation bias and positive reinforcement for your preconceived beliefs.

Even the slightest disagreement with that leads to idiotic comments such as the one I am responding to.

"Saul Alynski... is that you?"

How sad that you are so dishonest as to present something in such a narrow-minded manner and then when someone engages you on the specifics, which is why you created the OP, you pull crap like that.

Very ignorant and dishonest.

Why don't those seeking socialisam just move to say ....Venezuela


At least you have your principle there ....go fix em and be the Socialist hero ..... oh yeah they wouldn't let you

a reply to: MetalThunder

Because democratic socialism is very undemocratic.

They want forced subjugation.

a reply to: Lumenari

You truly cannot understand how ignorant you sound to someone who understands Marx. I have posted quotes from Marx in direct replies to you that refute everything you just said.

Acording to Marx niether Socialism nor Communism is government owned anything. Both are ownership by the people for the people.

I don't give a damm about the elitists twisted definitions of Socialism and Communism. I don't chose to follow their intentionally manipulated definitions which only suit their facist ideologies

Why is it wrong for me to want the words Communism and Socialism to adhere to their original meaning defined by Marx?

The real question is why has the word come to mean something that never meant when it was first coined? You are being manipulated by people who don't want the 99% to have the power to believe Marx was talking about anything but the 99% taking control away from the 1% elitists Facisists. And you accept your manipulation and fear Marx even though you have absolutely no idea what he was talking about.

What you describe is not Socialism but a Command Economy being run by Facisist. This argument is so stupid. I am tired of the ignorance on this site when it comes to the word Socialism.

What you all are against is a Command Economy. As Socialism is nothing more than what Unions were supposed to accomplish. Ownership by the people for the people, according to Marx's definition.

originally posted by: pointessa

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The countries with the highest quality of life in the world have balanced economies.

'Progressive ' policies do not have the same end goal as communist ones. The development of modem social democratic and welfare state economies was to prevent the slide into communism caused by poverty resulting from capitalism.

Do you really believe what you said about the development of the Welfare state? Where did you get that information, from the liberal University you attended? Why would the government promote a dependence on the government if they were advocating capitalism which is the antithesis of the welfare state?

As a nurse I began to see that the government has so many mechanisms in place to promote dependence on the government and discourage independence. I could create a thread with examples. There is an agenda within elements of the government that wants us to depend on them so that they can continue to exist. This was never about avoiding a slide into communism, even if that was the cover story.

Yes it's what learned during my combined BA in gender studies and basket weaving at Che Guevara polytechnic.

Or alternatively its well established history of the early to mid 20th century.

Welfare state isn't the antithesis of capitalism. Political and economic systems aren't a boolean choice.

If you want to go through life with the view that government is the enemy and trying to control you then you are of course entirely entitled to so.

Reality on the other hand shows us that some times free markets work best and sometimes government should intervene. The best balance between them is subject for sensible debate, the fallacy that the choice is capitalism or communism not so much.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: pointessa

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The countries with the highest quality of life in the world have balanced economies.

'Progressive ' policies do not have the same end goal as communist ones. The development of modem social democratic and welfare state economies was to prevent the slide into communism caused by poverty resulting from capitalism.

Do you really believe what you said about the development of the Welfare state? Where did you get that information, from the liberal University you attended? Why would the government promote a dependence on the government if they were advocating capitalism which is the antithesis of the welfare state?

As a nurse I began to see that the government has so many mechanisms in place to promote dependence on the government and discourage independence. I could create a thread with examples. There is an agenda within elements of the government that wants us to depend on them so that they can continue to exist. This was never about avoiding a slide into communism, even if that was the cover story.

Yes it's what learned during my combined BA in gender studies and basket weaving at Che Guevara polytechnic.

Or alternatively its well established history of the early to mid 20th century.

Welfare state isn't the antithesis of capitalism. Political and economic systems aren't a boolean choice.

If you want to go through life with the view that government is the enemy and trying to control you then you are of course entirely entitled to so.

Reality on the other hand shows us that some times free markets work best and sometimes government should intervene. The best balance between them is subject for sensible debate, the fallacy that the choice is capitalism or communism not so much.

I do believe that in many respects an over reaching and corrupted government is the enemy of the working class, I also understand this is not occurring at every level. Humans are innovative and resourceful, we do not need the government in every aspect of our lives. I do agree with you, however ,that a there is a valid need for free markets and government regulation. Thank you for a thoughtful and humorous post.

A nice line out of a song comes to mind. Freedom is another word for nothing else to lose.
Let me remind you of a rallying cry that started the USA on the path that it is today "no taxation without representation".
Now sit and digest what that means. You have a "house of representatives" which is the biggest lie that was ever perpetrated on the populace.
As in the UK your government DOES NOT represent you (like it should do) they represent their party line and the public be damned and until they toe that line the majority of the population HAVE to toe their line.
Don't ask me the answer it could only be achieved by force of arms and their gang is bigger and better equipped than yours.