What is 'socialism'?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

And anyone who refers to them as such only exhibits his partisan ignorance.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Correct.

And anyone who refers to them as such only exhibits his partisan ignorance.

Really? So what is the diffrence bewteen socialist/communist/facist? I'd love to hear it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

And anyone who refers to them as such only exhibits his partisan ignorance.

Really? So what is the diffrence bewteen socialist/communist/facist? I'd love to hear it.

And another from the ignorant partisan right chimes in.

If you want to learn the difference among the three so much feel free to do a search.

You’ll find the fact remains that the persons/parties noted in the OP are indeed not ‘socialist.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“I guess Obama is the closest thing we've had to a real socialist.”

 

[kiwiman127]

Personally I think despite all the crying of "socialism", plutocracy seems to have more steam in America.
I'll use the state of healthcare in America as an example.
Americans pay about 60% more per capita for healthcare than the next most expense country. The cost of healthcare is eating up more and of our countries GDP and consumer's expendable income. Other countries work to keep the cost down by negotiating with providers/phrama manufacturers. Where as in the US the healthcare industry has a very heavy influence on government polices and no one holds the healthcare industry responsible for their high costs. They are content to let the US act a tool to let the healthcare industry. to make up their lower profits loss with the rest of the world's countries. It's no competition, the US rolls over to healthcare at every turn while the rest of the world stands firm. It's because of all the money that is poured onto the Washington establishment. Money is over-ridding the concept of "general welfare of the people. In other words, plutocracy in action.

Well one reason our healthcare costs are so high is most of the R&D is done here and that is a VERY expensive step, especially concerning the regulation you have to go through. Another thing is what is the wait, what are people being treated for in other countries? What is the survival rate. You cant rate a healthcare system on cost alone, but one of the major areas of fraud and abuse is medicare. People take advantage of it and medicare also screws over doctors....so they screw each other and it's a mess.

The alleged "wait" isn't as great as the myth.
A few years ago I had to have required surgery for a compressed spine, otherwise I would become paraplegic from the neck down. Before I got to the stage of finally getting the surgery, I had to jump through all kinds of hoops with my insurance company just to get an MRI to prove that it wasn't carpal tunnel . After nearly six months, with the help of an attorney I finally got the MRI I knew I needed. After the doctors and insurance company saw the results, they finally referred me to a specialist who immediately scheduled surgery. What normally would have been a two hour surgery was stretched to six hours because of the advanced stages of the compression on the central nerve system running down my spine. They had to use a procedure developed in Japan to save me from becoming paraplegic . The specialist told me I was just a very few weeks away from being in an inoperative stage. If I had the surgery as little as a couple weeks later, I may have been a lost cause.
So the "wait". happens in America too. I lived it and it damn near cost me having a normal life.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism is "supposed" to be a classless society. It's not, but that's how they label it.

Absolutely. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice....not so great.

That's according to Marxist theory. However, only morons believe that Marxian socialism is the only kind.

Furthermore, the concept of "class" is meaningless except on feudalism.

 

[bripat9643]

“I guess Obama is the closest thing we've had to a real socialist.”

Obama is a real socialist. In fact he's a Marxist. So is just about every democrat in Congress. Anyone who uses the phrase "paying their fair share" is a socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

Absolutely. It's one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but in practice....not so great.

You're starting to sound like a conservative. Next you'll be calling global warming a hoax.

Globally, almost all Conservatives understand that human activity plays some role in climate change. It is only in the US that the debate has become so politicised that people start denying the actual science. The problem with this seems to be less a left/right divide, than a moderate/extremist one.

Your definition of "conservative" is anything to the right of pure Stalinism. It's utterly meaningless. People who support government run healthcare and welfare are not conservatives.

But because I'm a Centrist by nature,

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

You just proved my point. You're about as "Centrist" as Pol Pot. You spew absudrities like that and then expect anyone to accept your views on the political spectrum?

I embrace as many right wing causes as I do left wing ones, and opposition to Socialism is one of those. Finland, after all, lived plenty close to the USSR to see what it did to people.

I haven't noted any opposition to socialism from your direction. You keep making excuses for it.

 

[bripat9643]

Classless society? It's those damn founders approving the the words, "all men are created equal."
Since then we have joined all the other industrial powers of the world and and created an economy of both socialism and capitalism, a mixed economy.
It was Marx that saved Republicanism when he searched for a name that would label a capitalist nation trying to make the transition to communism, the label-Scientific Socialism. Republicans have been silently praising Marx for that term ever since. Every thing Republicans hate, even dirty diapers, they labeled socialist and we all know that leads to communism cause Marx said. The USSR dumped scientific socialism a few years after their revolution saying it smelled like dirty diapers but Republicans kept the concept alive and have used it ever since, even to saying that Social Security was the beginning of communism in America.

No Republican uses the term "scientific socialism." Your post is total bullshit. Of course, Democrats are never going to admit they are socialists because they have learned that road is the path to electoral defeat.

 

[regent]

Classless society? It's those damn founders approving the the words, "all men are created equal."
Since then we have joined all the other industrial powers of the world and and created an economy of both socialism and capitalism, a mixed economy.
It was Marx that saved Republicanism when he searched for a name that would label a capitalist nation trying to make the transition to communism, the label-Scientific Socialism. Republicans have been silently praising Marx for that term ever since. Every thing Republicans hate, even dirty diapers, they labeled socialist and we all know that leads to communism cause Marx said. The USSR dumped scientific socialism a few years after their revolution saying it smelled like dirty diapers but Republicans kept the concept alive and have used it ever since, even to saying that Social Security was the beginning of communism in America.

No Republican uses the term "scientific socialism." Your post is total bullshit. Of course, Democrats are never going to admit they are socialists because they have learned that road is the path to electoral defeat.

Of course, Republicans don't use the term scientific socialism, they just socialism, but Republicans often use the term as did Marx, next step after socialism is communism.
So the question to Republicans: does socialism lead to communism?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Classless society? It's those damn founders approving the the words, "all men are created equal."
Since then we have joined all the other industrial powers of the world and and created an economy of both socialism and capitalism, a mixed economy.
It was Marx that saved Republicanism when he searched for a name that would label a capitalist nation trying to make the transition to communism, the label-Scientific Socialism. Republicans have been silently praising Marx for that term ever since. Every thing Republicans hate, even dirty diapers, they labeled socialist and we all know that leads to communism cause Marx said. The USSR dumped scientific socialism a few years after their revolution saying it smelled like dirty diapers but Republicans kept the concept alive and have used it ever since, even to saying that Social Security was the beginning of communism in America.

No Republican uses the term "scientific socialism." Your post is total bullshit. Of course, Democrats are never going to admit they are socialists because they have learned that road is the path to electoral defeat.

Of course, Republicans don't use the term scientific socialism, they just socialism, but Republicans often use the term as did Marx, next step after socialism is communism.
So the question to Republicans: does socialism lead to communism?

it can, but most people figure it out and start rolling it back....we'll get there one day.

 

[regent]

No Republican uses the term "scientific socialism." Your post is total bullshit. Of course, Democrats are never going to admit they are socialists because they have learned that road is the path to electoral defeat.

Of course, Republicans don't use the term scientific socialism, they just socialism, but Republicans often use the term as did Marx, next step after socialism is communism.
So the question to Republicans: does socialism lead to communism?

it can, but most people figure it out and start rolling it back....we'll get there one day.

Has any nation on this planet ever reached Marxian communism?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Of course, Republicans don't use the term scientific socialism, they just socialism, but Republicans often use the term as did Marx, next step after socialism is communism.
So the question to Republicans: does socialism lead to communism?

it can, but most people figure it out and start rolling it back....we'll get there one day.

Has any nation on this planet ever reached Marxian communism?

Oh great another one of those......you mean Utopian Socialism....dont you? So what is your definition of communism?

 

[regent]

it can, but most people figure it out and start rolling it back....we'll get there one day.

Has any nation on this planet ever reached Marxian communism?

Oh great another one of those......you mean Utopian Socialism....dont you? So what is your definition of communism?

The economic/political guidelines that Marx advocated to me is communism. What is communism to you?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Has any nation on this planet ever reached Marxian communism?

Oh great another one of those......you mean Utopian Socialism....dont you? So what is your definition of communism?

The economic/political guidelines that Marx advocated to me is communism. What is communism to you?

That's copout...look communism is state ownership of the economy, and in turn of the people. Marx believed in Utopian Socialism and it's simply not possible to achieve...and if it were, more impossible to maintain.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Sorry, only ignorant Americans don't know the now well known difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is always democratic and includes LOTS of capitalism, only some nationalizations in necessary industy, a good safety net, and a well regulated economy.

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM after O-care passed.

 

[regent]

Oh great another one of those......you mean Utopian Socialism....dont you? So what is your definition of communism?

The economic/political guidelines that Marx advocated to me is communism. What is communism to you?

That's copout...look communism is state ownership of the economy, and in turn of the people. Marx believed in Utopian Socialism and it's simply not possible to achieve...and if it were, more impossible to maintain.

In Marxian communism there is no state, and Marx did not believe in utopian socialism nor any socialism but scientific socialism.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The economic/political guidelines that Marx advocated to me is communism. What is communism to you?

That's copout...look communism is state ownership of the economy, and in turn of the people. Marx believed in Utopian Socialism and it's simply not possible to achieve...and if it were, more impossible to maintain.

In Marxian communism there is no state, and Marx did not believe in utopian socialism nor any socialism but scientific socialism.

ok so Marx wanted a classless and stateless world? And this differs from utopian socialism how?

I dont care about the academic subtext. Lets get to practical implementation. How are the two different?

 

[regent]

It does not matter how they differ what does matter is that Marx did not want utopian socialism, he wanted scientific socialism as the first step to communism and when the populace was ready, then communism. Robert Freedman in his book, "The Marxist System" devotes some pages to Marx, Engels and their views on the utopian socialists and one Freedman quote: "Marx bitterly and sarcastically attacked the extant forms of socialism referring to them as feudal, petty bourgeois,...and finally as utopian."

 

[buckeye45_73]

It does not matter how they differ what does matter is that Marx did not want utopian socialism, he wanted scientific socialism as the first step to communism and when the populace was ready, then communism. Robert Freedman in his book, "The Marxist System" devotes some pages to Marx, Engels and their views on the utopian socialists and one Freedman quote: "Marx bitterly and sarcastically attacked the extant forms of socialism referring to them as feudal, petty bourgeois,...and finally as utopian."

Sure it does, if your making nuanced distinctions....my premise is they arent...do you even understand what is being said? You quote documents, but have no original thoughts.

Here is MArx's basic thoughts

Marx considered that these socio-economic conflicts have historically manifested themselves as distinct stages (one transitional) of development in Western Europe.[14]

1. Primitive Communism: as in co-operative tribal societies.
2. Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state; aristocracy is born.
3. Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into capitalists.
4. Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the proletariat.
5. Socialism: workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian revolution depose the capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, replacing it in turn with dictatorship of the proletariat through which the socialization of the means of production can be realized.
6. Communism: a classless and stateless society.

See the soviet union was number 5...you get that right? The problem is it was failure and never made it to 6.
And if you have no classes and no states...what do you have? Utopian Socialism....voila!!!!!!!