Socialism

[frigidweirdo]

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.

I think there are three words.

1) Socialism
2) socialism
3) socialized.

1) When the state is in charge of all (or most) of the means of production.
2) When a state has private means of production but lots of state run things, like healthcare, infrastructure (Denmark, Sweden etc etc)
3) When something is in charge of the state (Amtrack, US armed forces, infrastructure)

socialism and socialized being more or less the same thing, could be debatable.

 

[Senter]

I think there are three words.

1) Socialism
2) socialism
3) socialized.

1) When the state is in charge of all (or most) of the means of production.
2) When a state has private means of production but lots of state run things, like healthcare, infrastructure (Denmark, Sweden etc etc)
3) When something is in charge of the state (Amtrack, US armed forces, infrastructure)

socialism and socialized being more or less the same thing, could be debatable.

Hmmm, but mostly incorrect. See this post.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hmmm, but mostly incorrect. See this post.

No, I won't "see this post", either present your argument or just don't bother replying.

 

[Senter]

No, I won't "see this post", either present your argument or just don't bother replying.

Oh how convenient for you! There is a forum rule against cross-posting, and you're saying you won't discuss it unless I break the rule and cross-post. Aren't you special.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh how convenient for you! There is a forum rule against cross-posting, and you're saying you won't discuss it unless I break the rule and cross-post. Aren't you special.

Bye then

 

[Senter]

Bye then

Ya know, since it is all within this thread, maybe it would be ok to post it again.

.....
"The difference between socialism and every other major system the world has seen is that all the others have a system of boss and worker. The worker produces more than he alone needs or can use, and the boss keeps the rest to do with as he chooses.

This has been the relationship in all slave societies (slaves vs master), feudal societies (lord vs serfs), and capitalist societies (employer vs employees). Once capitalism took hold, employees began considering, studying, and planning for a society in which there is no such relationship; a society in which workers produce and own and manage their work and production for the good of all society.

So the line that divides capitalist society from socialist society is the employer/employee relationship. In capitalism it exists; in socialist society there is no such relationship. So a system in which workers are employed by, directed by, managed by THE STATE is not socialism.

Far too many people today seem to be lacking some essential element of humanity. They object that they don't want to pay for others who don't work. Fact is that every society through history without exception had/has a section of the population that works and a section that doesn't, in addition to a sizable section who works but doesn't produce anything for use by anyone. But just think of the US population. The working population totals about 157 million people. But the entire population is 330 million. That 157 million who work provide for the rest of us, the total being TWICE as many as those who produce. And they include children, the elderly, the disabled, firefighters, police, the military, and many, many more who do not produce anything for any market or for use by others.

Socialism is no different in providing for those who don't work. But what it does..... ––I should say "what it would do" since it doesn't exist and hasn't existed ..... ––is that it would provide a structure, a means, of those who produce to democratically and collectively decide what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. It could do this because it would create the first society ever... ––since the communal societies of American Indians.... ––in which the relationship of boss and worker is gone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ya know, since it is all within this thread, maybe it would be ok to post it again.

.....
"The difference between socialism and every other major system the world has seen is that all the others have a system of boss and worker. The worker produces more than he alone needs or can use, and the boss keeps the rest to do with as he chooses.

This has been the relationship in all slave societies (slaves vs master), feudal societies (lord vs serfs), and capitalist societies (employer vs employees). Once capitalism took hold, employees began considering, studying, and planning for a society in which there is no such relationship; a society in which workers produce and own and manage their work and production for the good of all society.

So the line that divides capitalist society from socialist society is the employer/employee relationship. In capitalism it exists; in socialist society there is no such relationship. So a system in which workers are employed by, directed by, managed by THE STATE is not socialism.

Far too many people today seem to be lacking some essential element of humanity. They object that they don't want to pay for others who don't work. Fact is that every society through history without exception had/has a section of the population that works and a section that doesn't, in addition to a sizable section who works but doesn't produce anything for use by anyone. But just think of the US population. The working population totals about 157 million people. But the entire population is 330 million. That 157 million who work provide for the rest of us, the total being TWICE as many as those who produce. And they include children, the elderly, the disabled, firefighters, police, the military, and many, many more who do not produce anything for any market or for use by others.

Socialism is no different in providing for those who don't work. But what it does..... ––I should say "what it would do" since it doesn't exist and hasn't existed ..... ––is that it would provide a structure, a means, of those who produce to democratically and collectively decide what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. It could do this because it would create the first society ever... ––since the communal societies of American Indians.... ––in which the relationship of boss and worker is gone.

Which goes against the actual definition of Socialism.

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8] as opposed to private ownership"

Definition of SOCIALISM

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

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

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.lexico.com

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

Socialism as a definition is the means of production in the hands of the "state", "government", whatever body is at the top.

It's that simple. The article you provided claims it's all about the relationship between bosses and workers. Bull, there's no such definition anywhere.

 

[Senter]

Which goes against the actual definition of Socialism.

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8] as opposed to private ownership"

Definition of SOCIALISM

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

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

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.lexico.com

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

Socialism as a definition is the means of production in the hands of the "state", "government", whatever body is at the top.

It's that simple. The article you provided claims it's all about the relationship between bosses and workers. Bull, there's no such definition anywhere.

Amazing. I explain capitalist propaganda designed to confuse and then I quote "The Source" (Marx) and you hold up a list of capitalist definitions you find published by capitalist publishers as your preference while rejecting the real original source. Your biases are clear!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Amazing. I explain capitalist propaganda designed to confuse and then I quote "The Source" (Marx) and you hold up a list of capitalist definitions you find published by capitalist publishers as your preference while rejecting the real original source. Your biases are clear!

Jeez. Are you one of these people that "explain something" and then DEMAND people bow down to your explanation?

I think we're done here then.

 

[Senter]

Jeez. Are you one of these people that "explain something" and then DEMAND people bow down to your explanation?

No. Not at all. I just ask people you use their BRAIN, and their RESEARCH.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. Not at all. I just ask people you use their BRAIN, and their RESEARCH.

See, I used my brain, did my research and you just ignored it all. Dismissed it, demanded that I accept what you say WITHOUT USING MY BRAIN.

Try going back, and using YOUR brain and discuss, whether you agree or not, with what I've said.

ONLY by doing such a thing can you, or I, get a deeper understanding of the issue. You don't get a deeper understanding by demanding that people accept what you say without thinking.

 

[Senter]

See, I used my brain, did my research and you just ignored it all. Dismissed it, demanded that I accept what you say WITHOUT USING MY BRAIN.

Try going back, and using YOUR brain and discuss, whether you agree or not, with what I've said.

ONLY by doing such a thing can you, or I, get a deeper understanding of the issue. You don't get a deeper understanding by demanding that people accept what you say without thinking.

I didn't demand anything. I explained things that people don't usually see an explanation for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't demand anything. I explained things that people don't usually see an explanation for.

Well, again, if that's how you feel, then I feel we're not compatible for having a conversation as we keep hitting these walls where there's not conversation.

 

[Senter]

Well, again, if that's how you feel, then I feel we're not compatible for having a conversation as we keep hitting these walls where there's not conversation.

So explanations of facts either have no place here, or you find such things objectionable. Let me guess.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So explanations of facts either have no place here, or you find such things objectionable. Let me guess.

When the "facts" aren't facts at all..... well.....

You can guess all you like, but this conversation is boring me. I'm out.

 

[dblack]

Amazing. I explain capitalist propaganda designed to confuse and then I quote "The Source" (Marx) and you hold up a list of capitalist definitions you find published by capitalist publishers as your preference while rejecting the real original source. Your biases are clear!

Whoa. The Source!