The Case for Socialism

Your "standard definition of socialism" is a concoction by capitalists who are very, very interested in confusing you, misleading you away from socialism, and who certainly DO NOT want to allow for any thought that socialism may be an answer to anything. So they persuade you that it isn't.

 

What Marxist, leftist, or socialist party have you found to say that socialism is a form of capitalism?

You're referring to "socialized" public policy as "socialism" while referring to the economic system as "capitalism", all in the same country all at once!

 

LOL!! So your defense against the truth is to call it "semantics"!!

If Cuba is socialist, why does their leadership say in clear and direct language that they are "creating socialism" and that transitioning to worker co-ops is a "significant step in the process of creating socialism"? Why do they say it has been a long road to establish socialism and there is much more to be done? Why did Lenin specifically say state ownership and management is a form of capitalism?

And BTW, anyone who ran for the USA and away from Cuba instead of pitching in and helping is an advocate of capitalism. No wonder you throw around false statements and misleading BS about Cuba. It's not at all surprising.

 

I am definitely a capitalist. I despise everything in which you believe.

 

That is great testimony to your thorough advocacy of capitalism and unreasoned rejection of socialism. Someday you will learn what it is. Maybe.

 

If it's propaganda, it's a lie. And that shows it is actually YOU who has fallen for propaganda along with anyone else who refuses to examine their own indoctrination.

 

Whatever makes you sleep better. Goodbye.

 

What kind of economic system do you think they have?

Its pretty much a textbook example of socialism and since practically all private property was confiscated by the state, it means they took it one step further (to communism). Only recently have they taken some steps away from total communism and are allowing private property and direct investment, but people are still leaving the place in quick pace.

 

? I never said socialism is a form of capitalism.

 

Here’s a post I just started. Have a read and see what individualistic dog-eat-dog societies produce.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/undestanding-the-society-we-live-in.601719/

 

"What" is communism? There is no classless, stateless, moneyless advanced nation on earth.

I strive for the clearest and most accurate expression of my thoughts. I would never say "most economies are mixed" without a thorough explanation saying that I DO NOT mean that capitalism with some socialism is possible. Economies are "mixed" in that every type of economic system, whether feudalism, capitalism, or predictably socialism contain some forms and structures characteristic of other economic systems while retaining their fundamental feudal, capitalist, or socialist identity and nature.

For example, there were markets in feudalism, capitalism, and there will be markets in socialism. But the presence of markets in socialism would not make the system capitalist. Also, there are "socially-beneficial" programs in ALL capitalist countries, like Social Security, Medicare, federal post office, public education, etc. but those programs do not make the system "socialist". The system remains dominated by private ownership of the MoP for private profit.

You're saying, actually, that capitalism (a system dominated by private ownership of production for private profit) was "softened" and rendered more "palatable" by taking the profiteering out of some troubled sectors and putting the burden on the backs of taxpayers. That is what I mentioned above: socialized programs to shore up a troubled capitalist system so it can live for another day.

It gets so "bad" that some people even try to assert the foolishness that "socializing" some costs for corporations by paying for their damage with tax dollars represents "socialism" for business. Of course that is some of the worst confused, insane bullshit propaganda any capitalist system has ever produced. It's just another way propagandists work to sow opposition to "socialism" even if falsely.

NO, it's not "a matter of degree"! That allows capitalists to successfully tell you that their capitalism is socialism. CAPITALISM IS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTION FOR PRIVATE PROFIT. If you have a system that is dominated by such conditions, it is capitalism. It may include a few programs that are presented as being "beneficial to the people" but it is still capitalism.

 

No you haven't, but that is the MEANING of what you said and I proved it.

 

Bingo! "Being allowed" is not something we need more of. Socialism can be a safety net, or a hammock. The US needs to reduce socialism to a minimum in spite of what random Europeans on the internet believe.

 

Wrong. Socialism is advocated in all cases as the "liberation of the working class from exploitation". That necessarily means an end to the capitalist relationship of employer to employee. It means the employee becomes the employer under collective, democratic control by the workers. .....--a change in relationship!

In "state owned and operated means of production" the capitalist relation ship of employer to employee is retained. The employee/worker does not realize "liberation". That is why Lenin called such an arrangement "state capitalism".

Communist society is known as a theoretical and very distant future classless, stateless, moneyless society. You apparently don't know this or you would not refer to communist society as "state owned and operated".

 

Most of your post is a recycling of what I wrote.
We call these hybrid économies "mixed".
And I nodded to identifying them by the feature which dominate the system. As in my last paragraph.
I do not hold with textbooks définitions. They are not reflected in reality as iir is lived.
And I hold that the economy of any country relies heavily on the availability of external stimulus, from investment to trade. For example à poor country with neither investment or trade will have to practise à different attitude to profit...because there won't be much either to reinvest or distribute. (illegal activités excluded. I am describing overt state behaviour).
In this case I can make à moral argument for full blown communism to ensure that the maximum number of people eat and not just those who own more land and stuff.
Like any philosophical description, it rarely exists in its pure form. The reality is a question of degree.
Ré your last paragraph, I am perfectlycaware ofcthe extended nirvana suggested by pure communism. Communities have tried it, especially in the 60's and 70's and by some religious cults. They dont exist because human beings are not perfect. So it seems pointless to discuss them.

 

Yes, I know that. And that completely discredits everything you say about my words. Speak of what you believe in.... you cannot speak reliably about that which you oppose when it originates from a deep bias as you have admitted to.

 

Great! I stand corrected on what I said.

BTW, here's a little tidbit for people to chew on: communist society cannot be imposed by force. Can you see why?

 

Its pretty much the opposite of liberation.

There is difference between how something is advocated, and what something actually is.

It means you are forced to become the employee of the state, and they reward you with whatever they think you need to survive, but not more.

 

But you are allowed to own guns, it might be a right but it's a political one. The US has already reduced socialism to near zero and you got Obama and Biden. Those have not people numbers are mounting.

 

Then it isn't socialism!

If it isn't as advocated, then it isn't what was advocated.

No. I've refuted that BS enough times just in this thread. You're just resistant.

 

one of castro's first projects was agrarian reform. returning the land that battista had taken from the peons and given to the american plantations. he did not seize this property from anyone, but pad the values listed on the tax roles. (which is a good idea to encourage everyone to value their property fairly.

another misconception is guns. the bay of pigs was not defended by an organized military, but by the local peons using their own guns.

 

Oh yes he did. Homes, ranches, farms, vehicles, cattle and horses were stolen by the government.

Now that things are slowly changing, people are talking about possibly being able to reclaim the property stolen by the communists, and we're talking about billions of dollars worth of property.

 

It's interesting that while I have clarified and detailed and justified and specified what socialism is and what it is not, those who hold a false, capitalist and confused view mostly continue to cling to their nonsense and refuse to address my points and comments to prove them incorrect. Instead they just continue to restate their flawed propaganda without questioning it at all. Repeat, repeat, repeat, as though if said enough times it will become true.

 

Nonsense.

 

Your government steals your tax dollars and gives them to rich corporations in the form of perks, favors, tax breaks, subsidies, and cost of cleaning up their messes, and you love your system. Why is that hypocrisy ok?