CDZ What is socialism?

[Militants]

Socialism are Communist spiece and not funny for American people. Maybe Hillary and Bernie are like Löven socialdemocrat. Communism in Democracy ???? Better than hole Cuba and Soviet but I like Russia more than Soviet. Communism in Democracy in Russia or is they like 60/70 precent of U.S. normalthinking in Russia same in precents of normalthinking ???? Communism in Democracy is it in Sweden badly by all Christ in Sweden how must vote on Capitalist portion's och Nationalists how are second and third spiece in Sweden. I like Capitalism more than redgreen alliance. Left Party are real communism in Sweden. In redgreen leadership in Sweden this moment. Americans don't like Communism or what happening with great country America how have Communism as enemy in 44 year ....

 

[Militants]

Socialism is bigger in Europe than USA ....

 

[DonaldFG]

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

I absolutely agree with you, given that government (however organized) must function to help provide the needs of the many. However, no person's needs should be ignored - ever. So, government should function for everyone, and some need more help than others because we are not all equal in ability. There is strength in numbers though. When everyone does well, we all do better as a whole.

You cannot run a government that is all things to all people ever. No government can ever deliver a system that does well for all. Socialism is the power of nations in decline.

Do you mind explaining why you believe that?

 

[DonaldFG]

Human nature ... 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?

This all has to do with our educational system. Human nature is NOT hard wired, but is permeable. My meaning there is that we can absorb other (better) world views if the educational system nurtures our children properly.

 

[Polly]

I'm an ex-Maoist and the general definition of socialism we used in Maoist circles included two basic traits:

1) The political system must be run by laboring people (workers and farmers) to qualify. AND...
2) The economy must be primarily public property.

When you had those two things together -- a system of social ownership managed politically by laboring people -- you had socialism. Now of the goal was communism, which was a scenario in which THE WHOLE economy would be public property, which in turn was a situation that would abolish class distinctions and thus render the concept of the proletarian dictatorship irrelevant, along with yielding the kind of social peace that makes it possible to abolish the state (police, courts, military, and prisons).

That said, the prevailing global definition of socialism is purely economic in nature and hence excludes the first of the two "requisite traits" listed above because this makes it possible to have properly democratic forms of socialism and perhaps even to achieve those through electoral politics rather than through revolution. No longer being a Maoist, I tend to go with the prevailing definition anymore, which is as I've just described it.

Concerning the ethos of socialism, Marx defined it as a situation wherein property is mostly distributed proportionally to labor performed, where under full-fledged communism property would instead be distributed according to human needs.

These things said, I consider myself a radical communitarian these days, which isn't necessarily the same thing as being a socialist since I'm not actually proposing a general system of public ownership, but rather simply the abolition of commerce.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What you describe is an idealised vision of what capitalism should be. Unfortunately the greed factor always leads to Shkreli.

Its the logical outcome of the free market.

Capitalism without restraint is the jungle and people need to be protected from its excesses.

No, I described capitalism as it exists today. I understand you have to ignore that in order for socialism to make more sense. Capitalism is restrained, so it begs the question why are you pursuing MORE controls?

Off the top of my head I think that corporate donations to politicians and parties should be banned completely. I also belive that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. That might be a UK thing rather than a US issue.

 

[saveliberty]

What you describe is an idealised vision of what capitalism should be. Unfortunately the greed factor always leads to Shkreli.

Its the logical outcome of the free market.

Capitalism without restraint is the jungle and people need to be protected from its excesses.

No, I described capitalism as it exists today. I understand you have to ignore that in order for socialism to make more sense. Capitalism is restrained, so it begs the question why are you pursuing MORE controls?

Off the top of my head I think that corporate donations to politicians and parties should be banned completely. I also belive that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. That might be a UK thing rather than a US issue.

Those are reasonable requests, although I think unions should be excluded from political and party donations as well. This puts me at odds with our Supreme Court though. Hey, we agreed on something.

 

[320 Years of History]

...

These things said, I consider myself a radical communitarian these days, which isn't necessarily the same thing as being a socialist since I'm not actually proposing a general system of public ownership, but rather simply the abolition of commerce.

It's been quite a long while since I've heard anyone advocate for the barter system. FWIW, there is at least one web accessible rigorous study that discusses the application of barter and countertrade in the U.S. economy. You perhaps may find reading it informative.

Personally, I see barter as tool within an economic system, not as a viable economic system in its own right. It could at one time have been, but we so mired in capitalism and command economies now that trying to shift to barter as an economic system has, IMO, about the same probability of happening as God appearing before huge masses of people and demonstrating that he is who and what the Torah, Bible and Quran say he is. I'd sooner wager on politicians uttering unequivocal statements.

 

[Polly]

It's been quite a long while since I've heard anyone advocate for the barter system. FWIW, there is at least one web accessible rigorous study that discusses the application of barter and countertrade in the U.S. economy. You perhaps may find reading it informative.

Personally, I see barter as tool within an economic system, not as a viable economic system in its own right. It could at one time have been, but we so mired in capitalism and command economies now that trying to shift to barter as an economic system has, IMO, about the same probability of happening as God appearing before huge masses of people and demonstrating that he is who and what the Torah, Bible and Quran say he is. I'd sooner wager on politicians uttering unequivocal statements.

You may be misunderstanding. I'm actually in favor of production for use, not exchange. When I say that I think we should abolish commerce, that means the whole profit system. In other words, I think we should have a public sector and a private, non-profit sector, but no commercial sector. I'm advocating something like a gift economy here.

 

[Holos]

I'm an ex-Maoist and the general definition of socialism we used in Maoist circles included two basic traits:

1) The political system must be run by laboring people (workers and farmers) to qualify. AND...
2) The economy must be primarily public property.

When you had those two things together -- a system of social ownership managed politically by laboring people -- you had socialism. Now of the goal was communism, which was a scenario in which THE WHOLE economy would be public property, which in turn was a situation that would abolish class distinctions and thus render the concept of the proletarian dictatorship irrelevant, along with yielding the kind of social peace that makes it possible to abolish the state (police, courts, military, and prisons).

That said, the prevailing global definition of socialism is purely economic in nature and hence excludes the first of the two "requisite traits" listed above because this makes it possible to have properly democratic forms of socialism and perhaps even to achieve those through electoral politics rather than through revolution. No longer being a Maoist, I tend to go with the prevailing definition anymore, which is as I've just described it.

Concerning the ethos of socialism, Marx defined it as a situation wherein property is mostly distributed proportionally to labor performed, where under full-fledged communism property would instead be distributed according to human needs.

These things said, I consider myself a radical communitarian these days, which isn't necessarily the same thing as being a socialist since I'm not actually proposing a general system of public ownership, but rather simply the abolition of commerce.

Thank you for exposing and sharing your views, Polly. Your rhetoric is excellent from my perspective, and I was truly able to learn with it although I feel I could not really retain anything at the end except by the knowledge and confirmation that communism is indeed a natural progression from accomplished socialism. I did not have that understanding so clear prior to your post.

Would you like, anyhow, to expound on your conception of commercial abolition or otherwise abolition of commerce?

Being already sympathetic to your radical communitarianism and therefore by all practical means also a partisan thereof, I would like to know how the said abolition of commerce would improve the exchange of our relations already completely exempt from state burdens.

If it would help to guide your answer, I am more greatly sympathetic to true anarchism than to true capitalism, although I would not by any means decline any true form of political organization. I see how we can get past socialism, according to your review of socialism and communism. Can you do the same impressive job to show me how we could also get past the economy (perhaps better rendered commerce at this point)?

Thank you. I appreciate this kind of exchange.

 

[Militants]

Mao were Communist leader for 40-50 and 60 year back step.

 

[sakinago]

When have we ever seen capitalism in it's purist form? Is there a difference between capitalism and cronyism ?

And so you believe fair based on outcomes?

Red:
There are quite a few years from which one can choose. Prior the Gilded Age's early excesses and injustices , laissez faire capitalism had a free hand, and capitalists pursued profits with impunity -- controlling markets, exploiting workers, and just generally holding everyone and anyone they could under their thumb, profits serving as both the means and the end of their doing so.

• The 2nd Industrial Revolution, the Gilded Age, Laissez-Faire Capitalism & Social Darwinism
  
• The Dark Side of the Gilded Age

It's true that governments regulated businesses prior to the Gilded Age, but much of that regulation was more "window dressing" and/or the result of one or a few big firms obtaining offical nihil obstat and imprimatur from the government against a competitor than were they acts to constrain businesses' (and their owners') efforts to impose their will on, well, everything and anything they wanted to. It wasn't until between 1876 and 1890 that we saw the imposition of substantive regulatory constraints on the hand of capitalism.

• 1876 -- Munn v. Illinois -- SCOTUS determines that states can regulate private interests if doing so avails the public good.
• 1886 -- Wabash -- Declared that it was unconstitutional for states to regulate interstate commerce. Showed need for Federal regulation of interstate commerce.
• 1877 -- Interstate Commerce Commission -- Congress grants the federal and state governments express authority to regulate commerce.
• 1890 -- Sherman Antitrust Act -- Prohibits monopolies

Those are just a few examples. Obviously there are more. The point I'm making is that regardless of whether there ever was an era of 100% laissez faire capitalism, there does not need to have been one, for we can see the consequences of unbridled capitalism's by looking at times when the reigns on it were extant but but marginally so.

Blue:
Of course there is. One may often find the two in unison, but they certainly can exist apart. Consider the USSR or the PRC. Surely you don't think their political leaders rejected cronyism as a means for building and solidifying their authority? Yes, one can implement cronyism in selecting a firm's board members, but it can also be implemented to shore up one's political power.

Again not calling for unbridled capitalism. The guilded age was wrought with cronyism. And you can point out all the bad you want when looking at our transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, there was a lot of bad in hind sight, don't get me wrong. But there was a lot of good. Especially when considering we were transitioning from agrarian, where you and your entire family (kids as soon as able) worked from dawn to dusk, 6 days a week farming. Farms then slowly shifted to factory jobs (for a reason, bc there was money to be made), where you worked dusk till dawn, 6 days a week. Let's not forget that there wasn't much of a middle class until capitalism came into the picture. Not only did it bring a larger middle class but it brought affordable luxuries from the upper class to the middle class. In other words it raised the standard of living. There are so many tangible and intangible positives that the industrial era brought, and the proof is in the population explosion around the world and the increase standard of living for the majority of people.

If you want more socialism in this country like there is in Europe, ok, but you have to take in account the standard of living. Most in Europe are living in 900 sq ft apartments. As a worker your giving on average 2.5 days pay to the government (obviously depending on the country, some less, some more). At the end of the month, w near half your paycheck gone, you can only afford so much (which is why you rent a 900 sq ft apartment). I love my single family, 1.6 k sq ft, 200 year old farmhouse on 1.1 acres. As a nurse, the only reason I can comfortably afford to OWN that and all the repairs it needs (in the north east mind you), is thanks to capitalism, and the constant competition it brings.

If you want to look to country to learn lessons from...China is probably the last one to look at. Not only are they on the verge of collapse, their standard of living is chicken sh*t compared to ours. China is the prime example of modern day slavery. One country to look up too however, a country we're largely based off of, is probably the longest standing government in existence, consistently has the highest standard of living, overall citizen happiness, highest education scores, extremely safe place, and tops probably any other category you can think of... Is Switzerland. They've obviously been doing something right over there, and have kept it up for the past 500 years. All thanks to William Tell shooting the apple off his sons head, and no thanks to socialism since comparatively they are the least socialistic Western European country. You'll probably try to attribute their success on them holding everybody's gold...but we have held the oil backed USD standard of currency for some time, and we're not doing too hot. And also I should point out, not everyone in Switzerland is a rich banker, so to say it's because they charge everyone for holding their gold, isn't the total truth.

This is a strange take on the development of society.

Houses in Europe are smaller as a rule because there is less land. It has nothing to do with socialism. As America filled up you just headed west and killed a few more of the locals.
In Europe the majority of land ownership was held by Princes and other trash who operated a feudal society.We had nowhere to move to.

Socialism helped many to move out of this state as Unions helped people fight for better pay and conditions.

Pensions,health,education and housing were all fought for against strong opposition from the capitalists who told us we could not afford a decent standard of living.

There would still be infants going up chimneys if capitalism was not checked.

I've been to Europe twice. It's not one big city, there is plenty of land...you just can't afford it.

I understand the lure of socialism. You have to put out minimal effort to gain basic goods and services. You have protection under the authority of others. As a scared rabbit you can trade opportunity for safety. It helps you feel more intelligent, because real measurements of success are removed. Participation yields rewards. As a weak member of society you appear strong. That is why under capitalism you are a low wage earner, unskilled and powerless.

I dont understand any of this. Are you saying that people dont have to work as hard under socialism as they do under capitalism ?

I think this is what they were saying.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

 

[sakinago]

Socialism are Communist spiece and not funny for American people. Maybe Hillary and Bernie are like Löven socialdemocrat. Communism in Democracy ???? Better than hole Cuba and Soviet but I like Russia more than Soviet. Communism in Democracy in Russia or is they like 60/70 precent of U.S. normalthinking in Russia same in precents of normalthinking ???? Communism in Democracy is it in Sweden badly by all Christ in Sweden how must vote on Capitalist portion's och Nationalists how are second and third spiece in Sweden. I like Capitalism more than redgreen alliance. Left Party are real communism in Sweden. In redgreen leadership in Sweden this moment. Americans don't like Communism or what happening with great country America how have Communism as enemy in 44 year ....

Your post are un-readable. I have not clue what you are saying?

 

[sakinago]

What you describe is an idealised vision of what capitalism should be. Unfortunately the greed factor always leads to Shkreli.

Its the logical outcome of the free market.

Capitalism without restraint is the jungle and people need to be protected from its excesses.

No, I described capitalism as it exists today. I understand you have to ignore that in order for socialism to make more sense. Capitalism is restrained, so it begs the question why are you pursuing MORE controls?

Off the top of my head I think that corporate donations to politicians and parties should be banned completely. I also belive that corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. That might be a UK thing rather than a US issue.

Agreed on 86ing corporate donations. Fair share...some do some have ways of getting around it. Which is why it's necessary to simplify the tax code. Throw it out completely, it's a relic of what was suppose to remain strictly a war time tax and never went away

 

[saveliberty]

Socialism are Communist spiece and not funny for American people. Maybe Hillary and Bernie are like Löven socialdemocrat. Communism in Democracy ???? Better than hole Cuba and Soviet but I like Russia more than Soviet. Communism in Democracy in Russia or is they like 60/70 precent of U.S. normalthinking in Russia same in precents of normalthinking ???? Communism in Democracy is it in Sweden badly by all Christ in Sweden how must vote on Capitalist portion's och Nationalists how are second and third spiece in Sweden. I like Capitalism more than redgreen alliance. Left Party are real communism in Sweden. In redgreen leadership in Sweden this moment. Americans don't like Communism or what happening with great country America how have Communism as enemy in 44 year ....

Your post are un-readable. I have not clue what you are saying?

I would be worried if you did understand.

 

[Militants]

Communism in Democracy is okey for manny of American ???? So in Sweden and Russia and in United States ???? I never know Communism in U.S. or is it socialdemocrat in America or what's up anyone ????

 

[320 Years of History]

I've been to Europe twice. It's not one big city, there is plenty of land...you just can't afford it.

ROTFL !!! (because the quip is truly humorous)

Many places are pricey over there, especially in the major cities. That said, it's not prohibitively so, indeed more than a few European cities have costs of living comparable to their U.S. rough equivalents -- NYC, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston, for example, but not cities like L.A., Atlanta or Dallas which are more like concentrated suburbs overall, even though they do have one or two "central" areas, than they are like major European cities.

 

[sakinago]

I've been to Europe twice. It's not one big city, there is plenty of land...you just can't afford it.

ROTFL !!! (because the quip is truly humorous)

Many places are pricey over there, especially in the major cities. That said, it's not prohibitively so, indeed more than a few European cities have costs of living comparable to their U.S. rough equivalents -- NYC, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston, for example, but not cities like L.A., Atlanta or Dallas which are more like concentrated suburbs overall, even though they do have one or two "central" areas, than they are like major European cities.

Your quite the contrarian. My point was it is incorrect to state that there isn't any land available. Does the us have a ton of land available especially the more west you go, yes. We both know that. Are European CITIES short on land from thousands of years of inhabitants, yes. But there is plenty of countryside in Europe. And every single person on this planet could have their own home with their own yard, within an area the size of Texas. Europe's population growth has also been stagnant. And how do you afford a house, as a lower middle class person, when 2.5 days a a week of your paycheck goes to the government? You don't

 

[320 Years of History]

I've been to Europe twice. It's not one big city, there is plenty of land...you just can't afford it.

ROTFL !!! (because the quip is truly humorous)

Many places are pricey over there, especially in the major cities. That said, it's not prohibitively so, indeed more than a few European cities have costs of living comparable to their U.S. rough equivalents -- NYC, D.C., San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston, for example, but not cities like L.A., Atlanta or Dallas which are more like concentrated suburbs overall, even though they do have one or two "central" areas, than they are like major European cities.

Your quite the contrarian. My point was it is incorrect to state that there isn't any land available. Does the us have a ton of land available especially the more west you go, yes. We both know that. Are European CITIES short on land from thousands of years of inhabitants, yes. But there is plenty of countryside in Europe. And every single person on this planet could have their own home with their own yard, within an area the size of Texas. Europe's population growth has also been stagnant. And how do you afford a house, as a lower middle class person, when 2.5 days a a week of your paycheck goes to the government? You don't

Red:
I didn't realize that was the point you were making. I agree that there is ample land available.

 

[alpine]

Socialism and capitalism are the human reaction against the nature itself.

Socialism is a philosophical reaction
Capitalism is a reactionary reaction

Socialism is theoretical, it requires philosophers and thinkers to come up with solutions
Capitalism on the other hand, because of its reactionary nature, dont require such, comes up with solutions on the fly, as a reaction to the situation throughout history

They both have their strengths and weaknesses

Two of these understandings come together as "social democracy" in most european countries.
The free market approach of capitalism coming together with social government approach of socialism accepted to be the most profound way of governing in modern countries of the 21st century.