Facts About Socialism

reply to post by eboyd


But the workers as members of the society who receive equal benefits as everyone else ARE owners of the NHS as is every other citizen regardless of their input.
That is the very essence of a nationalised operation.

Unfortunately 'nationalised' has become a demonised word since Thatcher and as has been pointed out 'profit' has become the primary mover and concern.
Any profit from a nationalised business should be recycled back into the business to improve the service provided or subsidise a less profitable, but equally important, nationalised operation to the benefit of society.

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time studying the NHS, it's history, it's original intent and what it could be because it is a perfect example of how a socialist approach can and does work at times.

Political theories are wonderful but practical implementation is far more important.

reply to post by eboyd

The USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., are not, were not, and never will be true examples of socialism.

Sorry but those countries are true examples of that ideology put into practice. Period.

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by eboyd

 

I like distributism so far, sounds pretty good at first glance, I am planning on researching more about it, what do you think of it?

i'm a fan of it. i feel that it is the true synthesis of socialism and capitalism. but it is not my absolute favorite ideology that has been proposed.

reply to post by eboyd


Okie dokie, what is your favorite Ideology and of course why?

And thanks again for putting up with my simplistic understanding of this topic, you have been kind enough to show patience with my questions and I am grateful for that.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

reply to post by Mijamija


Or is that discussion better left to a separate thread?

Originally posted by rom12345Would you propose suspending property rights, for a private company

i am opposed to corporate personhood, and in that sense i would propose suspending property rights for a private company, but i do not propose legally suspending property rights to private individuals for the purpose of running a business, though i would like to see workers attain control of the means of production.

and if so how could anyone own the means of production, except perhaps the state. In the case of public company, workers should get shares as part of their renumeration, this in effect would allow them to truly own something. It also promotes accountability.
It is fundamentally important to protect the right to own property.

edit on 9-2-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

when referring to worker cooperatives i am referring to a specific business model where the people are fully aware upon entering the business that every worker-owner is entering on equal footing in the business. my vision of a socialist economy starts with these types of businesses becoming the standard business model.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by eboyd

 

But the workers as members of the society who receive equal benefits as everyone else ARE owners of the NHS as is every other citizen regardless of their input.
That is the very essence of a nationalised operation.

Unfortunately 'nationalised' has become a demonised word since Thatcher and as has been pointed out 'profit' has become the primary mover and concern.
Any profit from a nationalised business should be recycled back into the business to improve the service provided or subsidise a less profitable, but equally important, nationalised operation to the benefit of society.

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time studying the NHS, it's history, it's original intent and what it could be because it is a perfect example of how a socialist approach can and does work at times.

Political theories are wonderful but practical implementation is far more important.

i'm not saying that i oppose it, once again. admittedly i am not completely familiar with the NHS so i will definitely look it up and try to fully understand its operation before i pass judgment. it just seemed as though you were again speaking of something that involved equating high taxation/government programs to socialism as a lot of neo-liberals in the U.S. (like Bernie Sanders) who think of themselves as socialists try to equate it to.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by eboyd

 

The USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., are not, were not, and never will be true examples of socialism.

Sorry but those countries are true examples of that ideology put into practice. Period.

edit on 9-2-2012 by type0civ because: (no reason given)

is that really all you got out of the initial post?? sad...

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by eboyd

 

Okie dokie, what is your favorite Ideology and of course why?

And thanks again for putting up with my simplistic understanding of this topic, you have been kind enough to show patience with my questions and I am grateful for that.

i completely understand as i was once in your shoes myself. i was raised a republican (my dad still feels like Bush Jr. was one of our best modern presidents to this day!) so i can understand coming from a completely different perspective and then actually learning a bit about a political philosophy that seems completely backwards to what i've grown up with. i always thought, "well, i believe in the government being as limited as possible and as much freedom as possible, so i must be a republican", but when you gain a true understanding of things you find that is far from the case.

as for my favorite ideology, i am personally devising my own economic theories but i haven't gotten where i want with them yet. basically my idea is one that i feel would revolutionize the monetary and value systems of the world but there are still a lot of kinks to work out. suffice it to say of the currently existing models it most closely resembles mutualism while showing sympathies to some aspects of communism.

Originally posted by rom12345
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

is your purpose on being on this forum to read and learn new things about politics and new perspectives, or are you just here to close your ears and throw out empty insults without any specific arguments against anything i have to say (as Churchill himself was guilty of when it came to socialism)?

Originally posted by eboyd
the health care system in the UK is NOT socialistic. if it were, that would mean that the people who work at the hospitals and other medical centers would be equal owners of them and would have equal business decision making power.

Which doesn't sound better in my point of view.
Health and education should never have been capitalized anywhere IMO.

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by eboyd
the health care system in the UK is NOT socialistic. if it were, that would mean that the people who work at the hospitals and other medical centers would be equal owners of them and would have equal business decision making power.

Which doesn't sound better in my point of view.
Health and education should never have been capitalized anywhere IMO.

i didn't say it was better, i was just stating facts. i personally am in favor of some form of universal health care system, but i also do want health care workers, just as all other workers in my ideal society, to have an equal stake in decision making power in their workplace. what i would like to see, in terms of health care, is some form of communist model, though i haven't fully thought through how i would want it to look.

Originally posted by colin42
I see your point but as per the OP. If the ditch digger received and saw he recieved an equal share and saw fairness the likely outcome would be he would be the best ditch digger he could be.

If he was a very poor ditch digger I would make him a manager (joking. Probably)

That's probably what I would do too.
That person being bad "at the lowest ending of the chain" doesn't mean in anyway that he would also be bad for management.

It may sound simplistic, but like in a video game, you don't put your weak magicians in front of the battle. You put them in the back because that's where they serve the team the best.

Originally posted by colin42
I think the point is ALL workers need to play their part so why should they not share equally in the profit of that work?

After all. the three roles in this example are ALL workers. This also shows we dont need owners.

Well in a sense, every worker are owners. So you do need owners heh but I know what you mean.
I guess what happens if you start working in a coop either you buy your share first hand or you spend a % of your salary to buy your share.

reply to post by eboyd


Great response, I'm thinking exactly in the same lines

I call dibs on a seat on the Central Planning Board, comrades!

I'm a whiz at ignoring the principle of individual freedom while trying to improve the lot of mankind through some pet formula of my own.

Originally posted by METACOMET
I call dibs on a seat on the Central Planning Board, comrades!

I'm a whiz at ignoring the principle of individual freedom while trying to improve the lot of mankind through some pet formula of my own.

this thread has really opened my eyes to why so many people have no clue what socialism is. it is not improper education, but rather a lot of people don't like reading more than a paragraph and so they skip the explanation and just throw out insults like a chimpanzee throwing its own feces at people at a zoo.

Hi Boyd,
I'm a latecomer to this thread.

I'm having to rewrite this post unfortunately, as I just lost the last copy I
was working on, but I had a look at the links you posted on examples of working
Socialist economies or societies. Christiania is apparently the only one of
them left, which is not currently defunct.

I have recently tried to learn more about historical attempts at starting
societies based on Socialist theory. I have noticed several characteristics
shared by most of such that I have found.

a] They are nearly always small. The Spanish revolution (and the contemporary
co-ops) was an exception to this rule; but most of the time, you're looking at
either a commune or individual town, and usually no more than 1,000 or so
people.

b] Of those which existed during the time of Stalinist Russia, most of the
time, in terms of societies that genuinely tried to be decentralised and
egalitarian, rather than hierarchical, the greatest threat to them was actually
Stalin himself. The Russian Communist Party only economically supported the
regimes of those countries who were willing to toe Stalin's line. Those which
wanted to be genuinely decentralised in nature, either found themselves being
cut off from previous aid, (as in Spain) or otherwise targetted.

I think it is very important for people to understand, that Marx and the
Bolsheviks actually betrayed pretty much anyone and everyone who wanted a truly
decentralised, distributed, egalitarian society. The Russian system was the
direct opposite of this, in all three respects, and that was by deliberate
design. The goal has been to associate socialist theory with its' direct
opposite in practice, and also to associate it with genocidal dictatorships, in
the minds of anyone who might otherwise be willing to investigate it. This
campaign has also been very effective.

The Illuminati have been working towards their current goal for thousands of
years; and both Communist Russia and Nazi Germany need to be looked at from this
long term perspective. The goal with both of these regimes (and with Mao, Pol
Pot, etc) was to establish a scenario in the minds of the public, where it was
reflexively assumed that Friedmanite Capitalism was the only
viable social or economic system in existence, and that anything else would
automatically lead to genocide; so therefore, people should not even consider
the idea that anything else could viably be attempted.

c] There have been a few examples of such a social model being attempted, which
has faced opposition from Western governments or saboteurs, as well; although
aside from the covert, large scale military actions such as Vietnam, these have
generally been relatively few. The cabal have generally preferred opposition to
real socialism to come from the Stalinist strawman, and during the time that
Stalin was in power, that was usually what happened.

However, there are a couple of small examples that I would draw people's
attention to. The first was a colony called Freeland, which occupied an island
in Washington State, the barn of which was burned to the ground by unknown
parties in 1906. The second was the Universal Workers'
Association, which started in Oakland, California, in 1932, three years
after the crash of '29. It was initially accused of being a Communist cell, at
which point an attempt was made to shut it down; it survived that, but its'
members were later seduced away by the Workers' Progress Association, which
offered a bait and switch program in 1935, under Roosevelt's New Deal.

Based on this, my conclusion is that attempts to create societies based around
egalitarian, decentralised, and mutual aid related models, do not fail because
the theory is false or incapable of supporting them. They fail primarily for
three reasons:-

a] Attack from external influences. These can be Capitalist, but they usually
are not, at least overtly. The cabal prefer that if a socialist community is
going to be shut down, it appear to be done by other socialists; because that
way Capitalist advocates end up drawing the conclusion that internecine conflict
is one of the main reasons why such communities can't work.

b] Lack of integrity and personal responsibility on the part of members. One
of the primary ways in which either Capitalists or governments will try and
attack these societies, will be by offering them money, or enticements related
to the mainstream consumer culture. I can remember reading online last year,
one case where somebody decided that one of the Amish settlements in
Pennsylvania needed to be relieved of their wealth; so the week after that,
every household within said community received a mobile phone and a credit card
in the mail.

(Part 2)

Members of said communities usually do not have either the integrity or good
sense, to be able to recognise the cabal's mobile phones, credit cards, or cash
as the long term sociological poison that they are, and so they accept them;
with the destruction of their livelihoods and societies being the result.

c] The acceptance of the Stalinist/Maoist stawman/false dichotomy, by the
mainstream Western public. This is a major problem, and one that really needs
to be addressed.

Genocidal, stratified dictatorship is not Socialism. This is the
bottom line. If you don't like Socialist theory, that's fine; but please at
least have the intellectual integrity to know what it is that you're actually
objecting to. Contrary to what most people might think, in my own opinion at
least, that means throwing Marx in particular in the rubbish bin where he
rightfully belongs. The man was an Illuminati troll who has given leftist
thinking as much damage in his own way, as Rand and demoniacs like Friedman have
done to Capitalist thinking in theirs.

Truthfully, I advocate throwing out the Russian usual suspects entirely, as a
group of authors which people might rely on this regard. I think Kropotkin's
writing about mutual aid is potentially valuable, but the majority of the rest
of it involves people who were led down the garden path themselves, and have
only really served to likewise deceive their ideological descendants.

The one principle which I consider of most value here, is Christ's Golden Rule;
which is to only treat other people the way you'd like to be treated yourself.
ANOK might argue that that doesn't have anything to do with workers owning the
means of production; but then again, I don't claim to completely agree with
him/her anyway. I think the Golden Rule is applicable there, though. If you
want to own your own capital, then it makes sense, that if you're not a
psychopath, you'd be able to see why someone else is likely to want to own
theirs.

fantastic posts! i do not personally believe the whole Illuminati/Freemasonry rule the world line though i am well aware that the Freemasonry exists and contains a lot of powerful members and has a structure that i am not fond of. i am also aware that the Illuminati at least at one point in time existed and its structure was based on Freemasonry but it was a freethinkers society. they were a secret society because they were basically atheists at a time of extreme religiosity and they at one point had planned to overthrow the Bavarian government which was trying to shut them down. but this is completely off-topic so i digress. even though i do not believe in this idea, i am well aware that there are people who run the world and disregard dissenting opinion from the bottom. the difference between me and you is that i don't look to shadowy organizations, i look directly to the extremely rich and powerful, as has always been the problem, even since feudalism. overall, however, fantastic post. i really enjoyed reading it.