What is 'socialism'?

[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."

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!!!!!!!

The question is not what you think, it is what Marx thought. The quote was evidence, and evidence is usually not original thought. Marx did not believe in socialism except his scientific socialism and that's the bottom line. Do some homework on Marx and with evidence in hand try again.

 

[Clementine]

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.

Taxation is not in contradiction with ownership. We own what we own - be that cash, property, shares or assets - and no capitalist government is going to take that away. What ALL capitalist societies do is levy various forms of tax on new income (as opposed to net wealth).

I have no idea at all what you mean by Obama tearing down a system and rebuilding it. I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

To my mind the US has never had socialist leadership, and likely never will Socialism simply isn't compatible with US's culture of entrepreneurialism and DIY. Obama could be called a Social Democrat, but is in no way a socialist.

I have to disagree because we have to pay property taxes each year or risk losing our homes and land. Property taxes continue to rise and when people can't keep up, they lose property that they may have owned their entire lives. If you can lose something or have it confiscated by government, such as for non-payment of federal taxes, then you don't really own it in the sense that it is yours no matter what.

When we have to keep paying increasing amounts each year to retain ownership, it's not fair. I can see putting a lien on property when you owe government, but no one should be able to kick you out of your home once you've paid it off. Yet, that happens. Many people lose their homes to tax sales. Even those late night infomercials tout tax sales as a great way to obtain property for pennies on the dollar. Even though the owners are given 2 years to pay back the taxes, with interest, if they can't come up with the money, they lose the home.

Government can sell your tax bill and when someone pays it, you are obligated to them and have a limited time to repay with interest. Government doesn't care as long as they get their money. If people couldn't afford the original tax bill, they likely can't afford to pay it back to someone with interest, not to mention the new tax bill that will come the next year. It's insane, but it is done. If you are still paying on your mortgage, you're still obligated to repay the loan to the bank even if you are ultimately evicted and lose the property. I just think that is one thing that needs to change.

Sure, we own our clothing and personal items, but your house is never completely paid for as long as rising taxes come due each year and are required to be paid if you want to keep that property.

 

[Saigon]

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.

People who support government run healthcare and welfare are not conservatives.

And once again, here you are making up history and twisting the meaning of words.

The Democrats are patently NOT Socialists, because they support small business and entprepreneurialism, and are capitalists. I can name a dozen examples of conservatives supporting universal healthcare - you can not because you are unaware of any political system outside your own country. Once again, the fact that you do not like someone does not mean they are not 'conservative'. YOUR bias is of no relevence here.

If you wish to respond, please do so coherently and without re-writing history.

 

[Saigon]

Has any nation on this planet ever reached Marxian communism?

Certainly a dozen consider that they had reached it and called themselves communist.

On what basis was the USSR NOT communist, for gods sake?

Insisting that the USSR was not communist because it was not successful in achieving anything "pure", means that no country in the world could be called 'democratic', and very few 'capitalist'.

 

[Saigon]

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.

I don't agree with this at all.

THEORETICALLY, we all know socialism was considered a step along the path from capitalism and democracy to a "purer" communism, but in practice there was very little difference between Yugoslavia, Albania, Mozambique, USSR, East Germany, Cuba or China.

None were democratic, and although I would agree some included some remnants of capitalism in small-scale trade, I would hardly call Cuba's economy "well" regulated.

 

[Saigon]

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.

ALL socialism is based on Marx to some extent.

What separates out the experiences of Albania, East Germany, Cuba, Angola and China is not as much the variation of socialism envisaged, but local culture and history. For instance, Catholicism had a major impact on the nature of Cuban socialism, whereas Chinese history and culture had a much greater impact on the style in which Chinese communism evolved.

Class is inherent in ALL political systems, btw. No analysis of any political system is possible without reference to class.

 

[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!!!!!!!

The question is not what you think, it is what Marx thought. The quote was evidence, and evidence is usually not original thought. Marx did not believe in socialism except his scientific socialism and that's the bottom line. Do some homework on Marx and with evidence in hand try again.

Actually that was the question, what you think socialism is, not what Marx thought.
wait so you wanted Marx's thoughts but at the same time my original thoughts, I hope that sound stupid to you because it is.

So you want me to say what Marx thought without quoting him.....are you dumb?
And you have had no original thought, sorry man...you keep saying scientific socialism, I owned you......I showed you the stages according to Marx and where the USSR was and it didnt make stage 6 or do you think they did?

And what is level 6? how does it differ from utopian socialism...when you turn in your homework, please do it in APA format, ok.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat:

This is simply nonsense. Either you did not read this thread, or you are not posting honestly.

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

This is what I posted:

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

By all means show me these excuses - you won't find one.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

You are most likely wasting your time, because as you say, the cons in this forum think being even a little left of Atilla the Hun makes you a socialist.

 

[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.

You are most likely wasting your time, because as you say, the cons in this forum think being even a little left of Atilla the Hun makes you a socialist.

And the lefties have to pretend to be former republicans.......I know executing criminals is sooo far right, we should let them out on good behavior and allow them to continue raping and killing....good call

 

[Saigon]

You are most likely wasting your time, because as you say, the cons in this forum think being even a little left of Atilla the Hun makes you a socialist.

You could be right, but in which case there isn't much point posting at all!

I don't know if anyone ever changes their thinking from what they read on a thread, but either way, I still enjoy the debate most of the time. There are only a couple of posters who are simply so extreme and cloed minded that no real debate is possible at all.

 

[S.J.]

You are most likely wasting your time, because as you say, the cons in this forum think being even a little left of Atilla the Hun makes you a socialist.

You could be right, but in which case there isn't much point posting at all!

I don't know if anyone ever changes their thinking from what they read on a thread, but either way, I still enjoy the debate most of the time. There are only a couple of posters who are simply so extreme and cloed minded that no real debate is possible at all.

Who are they, Saigon?