What is 'socialism'?

[Saigon]

I have noticed on this board that some posters seem to label anything left of Attila the Hun as being 'socialist'.

This makes no sense to me at all, and leads me to suspect that some people are confused by what the word 'socialism' actually means.

Hence I thought it might be interesting if we all gave our own take on what it actually means in theory or in practice.

To me 'socialism' is quite extreme, and is in no way at all the same thing as Social Democrats or the British Labour Party promote. It is also quite rare, in that no major political party in the western world is now entirely socialist in nature.

Here is my definition:

Socialism is based on collective ownership. Socialists oppose private ownership, oppose small businesses, oppose private investment and capitalism. Socialists believe all people in society should essentially earn the same amount of money, and that everyone should have similar access to services without having to pay for those services (because payment would always favour the wealthy).

Tony Blair, Obama, Clinton and the Labour Parties of Australia & the UK, and the Social Democrats of Europe are NOT socialist because they all support private ownership and small businesses, and all back payment for (most) services. All of these people and parties may be described as Social Democrats - but not socialist.

 

[S.J.]

You're right, except for the fact that socialism cannot exist unless there is capitalism nearby to pay for it. Hence, you need to have a certain amount of private ownership and CAPITALISM in order to make socialism work. Otherwise, you have North Korea.

 

[Saigon]

You're right, except for the fact that socialism cannot exist unless there is capitalism nearby to pay for it. Hence, you need to have a certain amount of private ownership and CAPITALISM in order to make socialism work. Otherwise, you have North Korea.

I do think socialism is terribly inefficient, because it removes the motive for people to work hard and succeed.

I'm researchin the Chernobyl accident right now and it is clear that one of the problems is that engineers had no motive to work hard and get everything right. They just went through the motions of building the plant properly.

But let's keep in mind that China and Viet Nam are still going (albeit now largely as capitalist societies) and that the USSR ran half of the world for 50 years.

 

[Pete7469]

I have noticed on this board that some posters seem to label anything left of Attila the Hun as being 'socialist'.

This makes no sense to me at all, and leads me to suspect that some people are confused by what the word 'socialism' actually means.

Hence I thought it might be interesting if we all gave our own take on what it actually means in theory or in practice.

To me 'socialism' is quite extreme, and is in no way at all the same thing as Social Democrats or the British Labour Party promote. It is also quite rare, in that no major political party in the western world is now entirely socialist in nature.

Here is my definition:

Socialism is based on collective ownership. Socialists oppose private ownership, oppose small businesses, oppose private investment and capitalism. Socialists believe all people in society should essentially earn the same amount of money, and that everyone should have similar access to services without having to pay for those services (because payment would always favour the wealthy).

Tony Blair, Obama, Clinton and the Labour Parties of Australia & the UK, and the Social Democrats of Europe are NOT socialist because they all support private ownership and small businesses, and all back payment for (most) services. All of these people and parties may be described as Social Democrats - but not socialist.

Your definition doesn't mean shit. Until you take credit from Noah Webster and authorize your own dictionary socialism will continue to be:

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


See socialism defined for English-language learners »


See socialism defined for kids »


Examples of SOCIALISM

She is quite right, for example, to stress that Thatcher's crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, “it was that socialism itself—in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied—was morally corrupting.” —Stephen Pollard, New York Times Book Review, 18 Jan. 2009

 

[Saigon]

Pete -

I completely agree with your dictionary definition.

 

[S.J.]

You're right, except for the fact that socialism cannot exist unless there is capitalism nearby to pay for it. Hence, you need to have a certain amount of private ownership and CAPITALISM in order to make socialism work. Otherwise, you have North Korea.

I do think socialism is terribly inefficient, because it removes the motive for people to work hard and succeed.

I'm researchin the Chernobyl accident right now and it is clear that one of the problems is that engineers had no motive to work hard and get everything right. They just went through the motions of building the plant properly.

But let's keep in mind that China and Viet Nam are still going (albeit now largely as capitalist societies) and that the USSR ran half of the world for 50 years.

Of course, that's communism, a bit more radical than socialism, but they lasted 50 years because they kept invading other countries, stealing their wealth and resources. Then they came up against Ronald Reagan, and well, you know the rest.

 

[tooAlive]

Government control over markets & industries and no private property.

And according to Marx, It was also intended to be the stepping stone from capitalism into communism, where the state and currency system would supposedly wither away.

"Supposedly."

 

[Black_Label]

Socialism sounds scary, so does marxists and communists, so I'm going to call Obama and the lefties that because Glenn Beck told me to - Signed, the GOP sheep.

 

[Lakhota]

What is 'socialism'?

Socialism isn't one-size-fits-all. Wouldn't families be considered a form of socialism?

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

 

[S.J.]

What is 'socialism'?

Socialism isn't one-size-fits-all. Wouldn't families be considered a form of socialism?

Um, no.

 

[Clementine]

I have noticed on this board that some posters seem to label anything left of Attila the Hun as being 'socialist'.

This makes no sense to me at all, and leads me to suspect that some people are confused by what the word 'socialism' actually means.

Hence I thought it might be interesting if we all gave our own take on what it actually means in theory or in practice.

To me 'socialism' is quite extreme, and is in no way at all the same thing as Social Democrats or the British Labour Party promote. It is also quite rare, in that no major political party in the western world is now entirely socialist in nature.

Here is my definition:

Socialism is based on collective ownership. Socialists oppose private ownership, oppose small businesses, oppose private investment and capitalism. Socialists believe all people in society should essentially earn the same amount of money, and that everyone should have similar access to services without having to pay for those services (because payment would always favour the wealthy).
Tony Blair, Obama, Clinton and the Labour Parties of Australia & the UK, and the Social Democrats of Europe are NOT socialist because they all support private ownership and small businesses, and all back payment for (most) services. All of these people and parties may be described as Social Democrats - but not socialist.

Do any of us really own anything? We have our homes and property, which we can lose in a heartbeat if we are unable to pay our taxes. The government decided in 1913 to start confiscating part of our income, then threatened us with fines, confiscation of property and jail if we don't pay up. There are other reasons the government can take our property. So, the government potentially owns everything and people don't really own private property because we have to come up with more and more money for federal, state and property taxes if we want to keep it. If you pay an increasing price forever to keep something, you don't own it. It would seem that government opposes private ownership, so they keep changing the rules and make it harder to keep property.

Obamacare certainly isn't friendly to small businesses and they are continually disappearing. Government is also limiting the number of small business loans banks can make. Seems they oppose small businesses.

We've heard some liberals come out and say that capitalism has failed. We've heard this country will be fundamentally transformed by Obama. Not merely changed, but fundamentally changed and rebuilt from the bottom up. Can't do that until the current one is torn down. That seems well underway.

There are 29 new taxes in Obamacare, which will hit small businesses, investors and most middle class people.

There are a record number of people who pay for nothing. They get housing, food and money from government. Obamacare is supposedly paying for medical care for all those who can't. Women aren't expected to pay for abortions. It seems the liberals feel that people shouldn't have to pay for medical or anything else. The wealthy are under attack constantly. Another big complaint is the disparity in earnings and Obama has talked about social justice. Seems to me the talk of wealth redistribution is to ensure that people have more equal outcomes.

Considering what you define as socialism, I guess Obama is the closest thing we've had to a real socialist.

 

[Lakhota]

What is 'socialism'?

Socialism isn't one-size-fits-all. Wouldn't families be considered a form of socialism?

Um, no.

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

 

[S.J.]

Socialism isn't one-size-fits-all. Wouldn't families be considered a form of socialism?

Um, no.

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

You're gonna have to do better than that.

 

[Clementine]

Socialism isn't one-size-fits-all. Wouldn't families be considered a form of socialism?

Um, no.

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

Except that government doesn't give birth to us and raise us to be independent. As families, we take care of our own, but we don't expect the baby to pull his own weight, do we? Totally different scenario and you can't compare government to parents. I think some are trying to act like the parents to us and it's a bad idea. I would compare our current government to dysfunctional foster parents.

 

[Lakhota]

Um, no.

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Google this: "Family is an inherently Socialist Concept"

 

[S.J.]

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Google this: "Family is an inherently Socialist Concept"

You google it.

 

[Clementine]

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Google this: "Family is an inherently Socialist Concept"

Fuck Google.

There is one way for reasonable people to raise their children and that is to live together and teach their children as they take care of them. I wouldn't have trusted anyone else to raise my kids. They also earned money when they were old enough and I didn't redistribute to keep it all even, nor did I take a cut for taxes.

Comparing a family to a country as some sort of argument for socialism is lame.

Deciding to have children and taking responsibility for raising them is not socialism. And it's insane to try and make socialist dictators seem like loving, caring parents. They aren't.

 

[Lakhota]

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Google this: "Family is an inherently Socialist Concept"

You google it.

I did, but I can't link it because it's to another message board (Rules).

 

[TemplarKormac]

I disagree. I say the traditional functional and healthy family unit is socialist. Think about it...

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Google this: "Family is an inherently Socialist Concept"

That is until you dig a little deeper. My mom and pop told me to go out and succeed, earn as much money as I wanted to, and that my success was my own and nobody else's. That isn't socialist you moron.

 

[Lakhota]

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Google this: "Family is an inherently Socialist Concept"

That is until you dig a little deeper. My mom and pop told me to go out and succeed, earn as much money as I wanted to, and that my success was my own and nobody else's. That isn't socialist you moron.

So, you raised yourself?