The Case for Socialism

YES, he definitely is. But he doesn't seem to know it. Can you speculate why?

 

The concept of socialism ONLY benefits those who are willing to live off others. That's parasitic. Yes there are guarantees. Among them- the guarantee that the system will steal money others have worked to produce to cover your ass. Thu the basic idea of socialism supports a kind of legalized theft, that encourages people to be dependent- and thereby controlled and obligated to support the system they can't do without. It is pretty much the opposite of freedom. And while it starts out on a small scale and seems like a good idea- as people become more dependent, they press government for more benefits, and elect the politicians that promise more benefits. It becomes an addiction to living off the productivity of "somebody else" except in the end, there is no "somebody else", we discover it was always only us.

Nations build slowly, and they deteriorate slowly. Only foresight, high values and a full acceptance of personal responsibility can alter that.

A professor a couple hundred years ago explained the process...

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to apathy;
From apathy to dependence; ***(ie; socialsism...)
From dependence back into bondage.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

But that's because it is being run from within a capitalist economy and system. You cannot estimate how it would work in a socialist economy by looking at its implementation in a capitalist economy.

No. Absolutely incorrect. See my previous comment.

LOL!!!! There as a HELL OF A LOT more going on there than that!

LOL!!!!! Yup ...... in a system that is designed to extract more and more of YOUR dollars to go the the pockets of the very, very rich who keep demanding MORE MORE MORE.

You can't see the writing on the wall and in your bank account?

 

Could I speculate why? Ehh...I guess I could but I really have no clear idea why, but I bet you do.

 

I have to disagree with you. It does exist in the form of business partnerships. I was a partner in a business once. You share in both the profit and the debt. I don't recommend it, but it does exist as an option.

 

The computer did that. I guess technology isn't as smart as you think.

Oh, it's spelled correctly, BTW...lol

 

LOL!!! A CAPITALIST business partnership???? LOL!!!!!

Ok, so you have no idea what socialism is. Got it.

Socialism is not capitalism.
Socialism is not a system for the few to profit.
Socialism is not a system having employees.
Socialism is not private ownership of business.

Socialism is the END of capitalism.
Socialism is WORKERS taking over.
Socialism is worker ownership and workers' collective democratic control of businesses.
The goal of socialism is not profits.
Socialism is the end of exploitation.
Socialism is "the dictatorship of the proletariat".

 

Well, that explains it.

 

No, socialism can't be allowed to happen!

Besides, I don't want to own the means of production.

Yeah, no. Yeah, NO!

No kidding!

I'm sheltered from the system due to being low-income, the unfortunate emergence of a disability, and the generous support from family, my dad.

 

You don't have to do anything but be present in the world. You don't have to perform in any way as an "owner" of the MoP. It will all be done FOR you. You are part of the working class, and therefore a system to serve the working class and run by the working class will automatically serve you. No need to worry.

 

Hello Yang,

Agree. The general level of reality based knowledge in the US is abysmal. Some get it, but they’re a rare breed. It’s buying into partisan politics that produces it. Indoctrination not quite on the scale I witnessed in North Korea, but seriously, not far off. I recommend listening to someone like Chris Hedges on YouTube as a beginners guide to reality.

 

Funneling tax dollars to those that help re-elect politicians is not socialism, its corruption. Paying people not to work if they’re fit also isn’t socialism. Californian politics is far removed from that of the UK. Here, Californian politics would be seen as extreme far left and would have no chance of being voted in. Being allowed to own guns has nothing to do with socialism.

 

Socialism is the method used by a social welfare state. Socialism is nothing more than the state ownership of essential services for the benefit of the people, not individual businesses.

Previously, the UK had a nationalized transport system. Then it was privatized. The result is that the tax payer now funds the infrastructure of roads and rail networks and the transport companies run the trains and buses for their own profit. Unsurprisingly, public transport prices are now sky high.

I support the nationalization of essential public services and keep them separate from unrestrained capitalists.

 

thanks for bringing some sanity to this thread, the op meamt well, but a century of anti worker/ anti union/ anri socialist/ and anti communist propaganda combined with evangelical manicheism makes this topic impossible for americans to discuss intelligently.

there are shades of capitalism as well. there are free markets for all kinds of things in cuba, nicaragua, and venezuela. i hired the phillipine new peoples army to do a job once and they were obviously familiar with the concepts of negotiation and contracts (fine points of capitalism often forgotten by american tycoons) .

this neoliberal unregulated capitalism leads only to the most dysfunctional dystopia (as seen under any elevated section of highway in america) and can not be allowed to exist, i would nor replace it with totalitarian communism but a bit more regulation and a functional safety net do not seem like unreasonable goals.

 

I'm not talking about Lenin's vocabulary. I'm talking about the standard definition of socialism, pal.

 

Cuba has been communist with a socialist economy since 1956. I was lucky to get out of the place when that happened. I'm not interested in arguing semantics.

 

And will never work anywhere because it goes against human nature. Humans are self interested and want to get ahead. That is not possible under a socialist economy. I read Marx more than a half century ago and wondered why he didn't see that.

 

No we just have a resurgence of interest in socialism. The major socialist countries - Russia and China - have already turned to capitalism. A few of the dumber ones are still trying to make it work. It won't work. It defies human nature. Sorry you have fallen for the socialist propaganda.

 

They are both. But thanks, Mr. Dictionary.

 

Did nobody explain to you that communism is a political system and socialism is an economic system? They can both exist together.

 

The things you mention are not part of a socialism system. Socialism never works well or for long and self destructs unless taken over by a totalitarian government.

 

Socialism = State owned and operated means of production.

Communism = State owned and operated means of production + abolition of private property.

 

This is communism. It rules out the rôle of the state.
Socialism puts the state at the centre of the redistribution of revenue. That is why the right SAY they want à smaller state . Even if in fact they want the state to interfère more in private lives.

Most économies are mixed. They also rely heavily on investment, both inwardcand outwardly and they cannot survive without borrowing short and long term and paying an interest rate...capitalist principles.
The UK is an interesting example of two isms operating at the same time. During the 80's the publically owned rail system was sold off to private companies. Since then billions of ponds of ticket money which has gone up every year and is often part of à wage pocket, have been pumped into the rail network. It has barely kept afloat but the rail unions have kept à strong hold on pay, working conditions and terms of employment.
Then one after the other the private franchises' licenced by the government for legal reasons have come up for renewal and the government has quietly bought them back using TAXPAYERS money. They arecslowly being renationalised into the state controlled (socialist) system.
Why? Because the private companies failed to attract inward investment . The capitalist theory of regeneration through profits failed.
And it failed because no large entreprise can support itself via merely recycling profits. Itcdemands people putting money into it via buying shares, gilts and bonds with the promise of profit at the end. This is the global capitalism we all expérience.
Now the state can also borrow from Banks ans raise money by issuing bonds and gilts to invest in spending for the people at large. This is using capitalism to practise what some would call socialism. The UK uses these investment to pay for universal healrh, éducation, pensions and the social service systems, the police and fire services, state security (MI5 and MI6) and the road infrastructure. There are no tolls on UK freeways yet oddly there are in what is generally understood to be Socialist France. It would be impossible to support all this through taxation alone.
So the terms socialism and capitalism rest on your opinion about how much redistribution the state does.
The USA also has some socialist elements...state éducation, roads, social services for example. You cannot make these capitalist because they dont make a profit. So they are paid for by everyone chipping into a central pot and taking out of it what they need. Textbook communism. From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.
National economics is always à mix of systems. Some run more through state redistribution, some on less. The former we call left/Socialist. The latter is right/capitalist.
Just à matter of degree. NONE of them threaten the downfall of à state for heavens saké. Let's not be dramatic.

 

Socialism does not mean owning the means of production within general society. Only those that are nationalized. Communism, which is what I suspect you'rte referring to owns the means and modes of production throughout society.

 

Yes, it does mean that

In a socialist economy, the means of production is nationalized. That was my point. Western European countries are not socialist, because they have free market economies. They do have taxpayer funded welfare systems, but that does not make them socialist. People like Bernie Sanders in the left and most RW politicians should learn the difference because they come across either dishonest or ignorant while talking about the matter.

Yes, AND the state also owns your house and everything else aka it abolishes private property. That is the difference between socialism and communism.