CDZ What is socialism?

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

No, socialism is where the means of production, distribution and exchange are held in common cause, usually through the agency of the state.

Yes but who decides common cause and what is it based on?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Freedom comes from self reliance not government dependence.

I recommend the socialists find a country where socialism is successful and move there..good luck finding one but it's fairly obvious that America is headed over the financial cliff as these "Socialized Programs" bankrupt the country.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

20+ Trillion National Debt by the end of the year, Oh Yeah, good times a coming...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Government services that have been around for the past 8,000 years at least as a part of civilization. The debt wasn't caused by infrastructure, science, r&d and education. I'd go as far as too say that something is fishy and someone probably should go to prison for this kind of mismanagement of our tax dollars...But, don't blame basic government services as the cause.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Government services that have been around for the past 8,000 years at least as a part of civilization. The debt wasn't caused by infrastructure, science, r&d and education. I'd go as far as too say that something is fishy and someone probably should go to prison for this kind of mismanagement of our tax dollars...But, don't blame basic government services as the cause.

"infrastructure, science, r&d and education", who's against those if they're accomplished properly and people are held responsible but sadly there are (ever growing) other priorities.

 

[Fishlore]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

In today's heated, partisan climate where political discussion has degenerated at the highest level to vulgar invective about genital size etc. and where so many folks are ignorant of the history and meaning of terms like "socialism," "democracy" "conservatism" or "liberalism" save as terms of abuse, there is almost no point in participating in a discussion such as this thread proposes save as an opportunity to vent one's anger towards those whith whom one disagrees. Ever the optimist, I shall monitor this thread from time to time in order to see if my usual experiences when trying to discuss the issue of socialism have been bettered. I do thank you for having the courage to suggest this topic.

 

[sakinago]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

In today's heated, partisan climate where political discussion has degenerated at the highest level to vulgar invective about genital size etc. and where so many folks are ignorant of the history and meaning of terms like "socialism," "democracy" "conservatism" or "liberalism" save as terms of abuse, there is almost no point in participating in a discussion such as this thread proposes save as an opportunity to vent one's anger towards those whith whom one disagrees. Ever the optimist, I shall monitor this thread from time to time in order to see if my usual experiences when trying to discuss the issue of socialism have been bettered. I do thank you for having the courage to suggest this topic.

It is sad, which is why I've turned to the CDZ, in hopes that there can be some fruitful discussion.

 

[oldsoul]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

 

[Fishlore]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

I don't accept this answer. I don't accept deferring your thoughts to those of "higher learning", or to those considered "experts". I don't accept quoting someone and not expanding on what and why you agree with the quote. It's in human nature to defer out thoughts and beliefs to those we consider authorities...which is why we keep falling into systems like socialism. So you seem to be aiding the system, and similar systems you claim to dislike.

Please read below old soul, and actually everyone else it's dynamite stuff.

Kant. What is Enlightenment

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

I don't accept this answer. I don't accept deferring your thoughts to those of "higher learning", or to those considered "experts". I don't accept quoting someone and not expanding on what and why you agree with the quote. It's in human nature to defer out thoughts and beliefs to those we consider authorities...which is why we keep falling into systems like socialism. So you seem to be aiding the system, and similar systems you claim to dislike.

Please read below old soul, and actually everyone else it's dynamite stuff.

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Red:
Excuse me?!? How do those two remarks end up in near succession in one paragraph written by one individual and with not a damn thing in sight to explain the incongruity and non-sequitur nature found in their doing so? And you asked me why I didn't care to engage you in a discussion on this topic? I hope you now understand why.

 

[oldsoul]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

I don't accept this answer. I don't accept deferring your thoughts to those of "higher learning", or to those considered "experts". I don't accept quoting someone and not expanding on what and why you agree with the quote. It's in human nature to defer out thoughts and beliefs to those we consider authorities...which is why we keep falling into systems like socialism. So you seem to be aiding the system, and similar systems you claim to dislike.

Please read below old soul, and actually everyone else it's dynamite stuff.

Kant. What is Enlightenment

I didn't ask you to accept it, I really don't care if you do or don't. I put it fourth for consideration, if you don't consider it, that's on you. I'll provide you with another quote: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana.
I do not have the time nor the inclination to facilitate your education. If you want to understand a subject as complex as economic theory, you have to do your homework. I refuse to spoon feed it to someone unwilling to at least try to get it themselves.
As to your link, I have neither the time nor the inclination to read such a paper.

 

[Fishlore]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

I don't accept this answer. I don't accept deferring your thoughts to those of "higher learning", or to those considered "experts". I don't accept quoting someone and not expanding on what and why you agree with the quote. It's in human nature to defer out thoughts and beliefs to those we consider authorities...which is why we keep falling into systems like socialism. So you seem to be aiding the system, and similar systems you claim to dislike.

Please read below old soul, and actually everyone else it's dynamite stuff.

Kant. What is Enlightenment

I didn't ask you to accept it, I really don't care if you do or don't. I put it fourth for consideration, if you don't consider it, that's on you. I'll provide you with another quote: "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana.
I do not have the time nor the inclination to facilitate your education. If you want to understand a subject as complex as economic theory, you have to do your homework. I refuse to spoon feed it to someone unwilling to at least try to get it themselves.
As to your link, I have neither the time nor the inclination to read such a paper.

Well I'm the OP and what I was asking was not what you gave. What you gave was a cop out, and yea what this guy said in this short quote. And for someone who wants to know history, it's odd to not want to read an historical piece from someone who agrees with you

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

It doesn't sum up socialism, it merely calls it names. Churchill, born in Blenheim Palace and raised to a life of alcoholic privilege in and out of various political parties with Trump-like frequency, was never a student of economics, and his social policies were restricted to ordering the army to fire upon striking coal miners. I wouldn't go to him to learn about socialism.

Sometimes, one can gain insight into a term by examining its opposite. The opposite of "socialism" is "individualism". The "social" in "socialism" means "society." The opposite of the society is the individual. The various economic policies and political arrangements employed to implement socialism are many, varied and complex. As you point out, so general a topic is beyond the scope of this thread.

I would suggest that pretty much everyone agrees to the general idea that humans are social animals, that each of us exists in the context of a family and our family with the context of a society, at least for most of our individual lives.

Where to draw the line between the individual and the larger society tends to be a key distinguishing feature of issues in socialism.

Best answer yet, thank you. But there is a variable that I think you are missing. That variable is human nature. Human nature that makes us want to defer authority to other humans with the same flaws we have. Humans that want to control, and stamp out what we don't like. Humans overall are good to each other, but if we've learned anything from milgrams experiments on submission to authority, most of us obey orders that are morally wrong. Humans will also do things morally wrong, crazy, and questionable just to fit in with what we perceive is the social norm. How do we then protect ourselves from these moral blind spots we've seen time and time again throughout history?

The classic answer comes from Plato, "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."

The Enlightenment answer was democracy with a faith not unlike Adam Smith's faith in the Invisible Hand of the Market, that an invisible hand of the people, what Rousseau called the General Will, would create a social consensus based on the common understanding of the good.

When the Industrial Revolution seemed to show that democracy by itself wasn't up to the job, Marx and Engels added the requirment of economic equality to political democracy and modern socialism as a political philosophy was born.

If we have learned anything since Marx it is that government is an essential incredient. The state cannot "wither away" under the beneficent glare of equality as Marx and his disciples thought, it must remain central and activist in maintaining both equality and democracy. The socialism which dominates political economic thought in advanced democracies is one which constantly adjusts laws of all sorts in order to sustain and advance democracy and social justice.

This constant adjustment and tinkering is now accepted as the best system we can get in this imperfect world and the original vision of a climactic revolution that would bring about permanently stable social institutions seems now as naive as the faith of those Millerites who stood clad in white garments on hillsides of America in the 1840s, confidently expecting the end of the world at dawn

Plato's solution was platos republic. And while the idea of a beneficent philosopher king, or a beneficent philosopher oligarchy is nice...how long will they remain beneficent? Is there something to the saying of absolute power corrupted absolutely? I find it strange that there are those who view our current system as an oligarchy of the powerful businessmen, want to shift to an oligarchy of powerful politicians and expect better results. How much does the centralized power care about those who live on the ends of the "social bell curve".

And there is a significant difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. And what Kant was referring to was not democracy. Nor was democracy the main subject matter in his piece in what is enlightenment. But the bad in the industrial revolution was not the result of capitalism run amok, much of it was the result of cronyism, which is the stifling out of alternatives usually with the aid of government or others in power positions, banks and etc. That being said it's still undeniable that much of our technical progress today can be attributed to the industrial revolution. Yes there were many things wrong with the industrial revolution, but many of those problems were addressed by offering better alternatives, and not all with the help of government. Don't confuse that as me saying that there's no room for regulation, but that regulations should be judged by a set of principles as opposed to whatever the current interests are at the time.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

If done right, there's no need for socialism.

and really, that's the most ignorant definition of it I have ever seen.

b/c that strictly means you take others people labor from them and give them to someone that doesn't work to feed himself b/c he needs to eat as well.


wait


that's the best definition ever

 

[sakinago]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

I don't accept this answer. I don't accept deferring your thoughts to those of "higher learning", or to those considered "experts". I don't accept quoting someone and not expanding on what and why you agree with the quote. It's in human nature to defer out thoughts and beliefs to those we consider authorities...which is why we keep falling into systems like socialism. So you seem to be aiding the system, and similar systems you claim to dislike.

Please read below old soul, and actually everyone else it's dynamite stuff.

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Red:
Excuse me?!? How do those two remarks end up in near succession in one paragraph written by one individual and with not a damn thing in sight to explain the incongruity and non-sequitur nature found in their doing so? And you asked me why I didn't care to engage you in a discussion on this topic? I hope you now understand why.

Fish lore gave a sufficient explanation to why it wasn't a good answer, and I addressed it myself afterwards, and my post on Kant and what is enlightenment was to back that up.

 

[shintao]

View attachment 65862

Socialists can't make bread?

 

[shintao]

If done right, socialism, in few words, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

If you disagree, please state why. If you agree with the statement, please state your thoughts on why you prefer or disapprove on socialism

If done right, there's no need for socialism.

and really, that's the most ignorant definition of it I have ever seen.

b/c that strictly means you take others people labor from them and give them to someone that doesn't work to feed himself b/c he needs to eat as well.


wait


that's the best definition ever

Is the Stock Market Socialist when a stockholder takes a workers profits? Is a right to work scab, socialist when he takes from Union Workers?

BTW, you can't do Capitalism right, it always fails.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with Tony, describing socialism, or any economic system, is complicated at best, and would take far more time than any of us have in this venue. So, if one wanted to obtain a good understanding, visit your local library, or take a few college courses. However, I think that Winston Churchill was a pretty smart guy (I would hope most people would agree) and here is one thing he had to say on the topic:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
I don't know about anyone else, but I think that sums it up as well as anyone has.

I don't accept this answer. I don't accept deferring your thoughts to those of "higher learning", or to those considered "experts". I don't accept quoting someone and not expanding on what and why you agree with the quote. It's in human nature to defer out thoughts and beliefs to those we consider authorities...which is why we keep falling into systems like socialism. So you seem to be aiding the system, and similar systems you claim to dislike.

Please read below old soul, and actually everyone else it's dynamite stuff.

Kant. What is Enlightenment

Red:
Excuse me?!? How do those two remarks end up in near succession in one paragraph written by one individual and with not a damn thing in sight to explain the incongruity and non-sequitur nature found in their doing so? And you asked me why I didn't care to engage you in a discussion on this topic? I hope you now understand why.

Fish lore gave a sufficient explanation to why it wasn't a good answer, and I addressed it myself afterwards, and my post on Kant and what is enlightenment was to back that up.

Okay.