How do you define Socialism?

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
MellowFarmer said:
I am curious about the amount of negative connotations using Socialism as if it were Red Communism; how would you define Socialism and how does it differ from Red Communism in your view?
Click to expand...
how any particular individual defines socialism is irrelevant and simply clouds the issue.

what is important is how the economic theory of socialism is defined by it's own ideology.

Essentially socialism is defined by the nationalization of industries, real property (land), wealth (money) and goods (cars, refrigerators, etc) Under a true Socialist system, all property, industry, and even objects belong to the government, (the society) which then apportions these things out to those it deems fit to receive these boons. Not to put too fine a point on it, but true socialism (north Korea for example) is simply a monarchy, where every person place and thing inside the borders of the country belong to His Royal Majesty, The Dear Leader, or the Politburo. The Sovereign (however they style themselves) maintain absolute control and ownership of these persons, places and things, and allow those deemed worthy to use them as they wish (this permission is revokable at any time). Those in the favour of Himself, live the good life, while those not quite so well connected live in serfdom, servitude or gulag. Socialists will of course disagree, but they are lying to us and possibly even to themselves. Case in point, the USSR under Stalin: apparatchiks lived in swank apartments in moscow spending their winters in luxurious dachas on the black sea, or traveling the world. the workers of the proletariat stood in bread lines, the lumpen proletariat stood in apartment/work/warm clothing lines, and dissenters stood in waist deep snow in siberia's gulags. The state decided where you live, where you go to school, what car you drive (if any) what job you do, how much you get paid for it, and how you spend your free (hah!) time. If you perchance wished to move to a new city, you had to get relocation papers. if you wanted to leave the USSR, you were counter-revolutionary, and got to visit siberia, or just disappeared. This is an extreme example, but not unique. Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela and many other socialist dictatorships operate this way to one degree or another.

In contrast, a free market society is predicated on the idea that the individual owns himself, and can own property and goods. In free market societies, the primary property you own is yourself. you may live in whatever town you choose, strive towards education as you wish, and seek whatever job you desire. you can even decide to be a vagrant, a drifter, a bum, or the president of the USA. Sucess and failure are decided by your innate aptitude (smart or dumb, driven or slacker, good looking or ugly) the support system created (or not) by your parents, grandparents and distant progenitors, a sizable dose of luck (good or bad) and, sad but true, whether or not you are a minority or not. the odds may be long for a lazy stupid ugly child born under a bad sign, to dirt poor parents of african ancestry, (Barack overcame these challenges and did pretty good for himself) but it's still better odds than being born into one of the top tier families in china, north korea cuba or vietnam, and in a fee country the bottom is not quite as far as it is in a dictatorship.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
how any particular individual defines socialism is irrelevant and simply clouds the issue.

what is important is how the economic theory of socialism is defined by it's own ideology.

Essentially socialism is defined by the nationalization of industries, real property (land), wealth (money) and goods (cars, refrigerators, etc) Under a true Socialist system, all property, industry, and even objects belong to the government, (the society) which then apportions these things out to those it deems fit to receive these boons. Not to put too fine a point on it, but true socialism (north Korea for example) is simply a monarchy, where every person place and thing inside the borders of the country belong to His Royal Majesty, The Dear Leader, or the Politburo. The Sovereign (however they style themselves) maintain absolute control and ownership of these persons, places and things, and allow those deemed worthy to use them as they wish (this permission is revokable at any time). Those in the favour of Himself, live the good life, while those not quite so well connected live in serfdom, servitude or gulag. Socialists will of course disagree, but they are lying to us and possibly even to themselves. Case in point, the USSR under Stalin: apparatchiks lived in swank apartments in moscow spending their winters in luxurious dachas on the black sea, or traveling the world. the workers of the proletariat stood in bread lines, the lumpen proletariat stood in apartment/work/warm clothing lines, and dissenters stood in waist deep snow in siberia's gulags. The state decided where you live, where you go to school, what car you drive (if any) what job you do, how much you get paid for it, and how you spend your free (hah!) time. If you perchance wished to move to a new city, you had to get relocation papers. if you wanted to leave the USSR, you were counter-revolutionary, and got to visit siberia, or just disappeared. This is an extreme example, but not unique. Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela and many other socialist dictatorships operate this way to one degree or another.

In contrast, a free market society is predicated on the idea that the individual owns himself, and can own property and goods. In free market societies, the primary property you own is yourself. you may live in whatever town you choose, strive towards education as you wish, and seek whatever job you desire. you can even decide to be a vagrant, a drifter, a bum, or the president of the USA. Sucess and failure are decided by your innate aptitude (smart or dumb, driven or slacker, good looking or ugly) the support system created (or not) by your parents, grandparents and distant progenitors, a sizable dose of luck (good or bad) and, sad but true, whether or not you are a minority or not. the odds may be long for a lazy stupid ugly child born under a bad sign, to dirt poor parents of african ancestry, (Barack overcame these challenges and did pretty good for himself) but it's still better odds than being born into one of the top tier families in china, north korea cuba or vietnam, and in a fee country the bottom is not quite as far as it is in a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
+rep... well said.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
Socialism: Cowardice and ignorance propagated by those who think it's fair in obligating the have's, to give to contribute to the have-nots.

Those who are so ignorant as to believe life should be "fair" because someone else has "more" than them.

Those who believe violating human rights is a null issue, if the intended purpose is to benefit the "masses".
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
Socialism: Cowardice and ignorance propagated by those who think it's fair in obligating the have's, to give to contribute to the have-nots.

Those who are so ignorant as to believe life should be "fair" because someone else has "more" than them.

Those who believe violating human rights is a null issue, if the intended purpose is to benefit the "masses".
Click to expand...
We dont really need to engage in name calling bro. I understand your anger, but let the progressives shout scream and froth at the mouth. thats what they do best, and it's been working for us (up until Tiger Woods ran for president) the bloom is off socialism's rose, and it's really starting to stink. anyone who pushes for marxism stalinism maoism or mussolini's "third way socialism" these days, just winds up making our case for us.

for those who dont know, "Third Way Socialism" is what Benito Mussolini called corporate socialism back in 1910. Later he re-branded it as Fascism, and Hitler (Godwin's Law not invoked, as i am talking about fascism specifically, keep your Fiddy Hiddies in the box) re-framed it in the context of his weird Wagner inspired German Nationalist Socialist Aryans are descended from Atlantis Thule Society craziness. Sorry pinkos, thats history. you can read Mien Kampf, and Mussolini's manifesto (this one is more obscure so heres a link http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism/0865274630/) to see what they were talking about in their own words. They both read more like Obama's Dreams From my Father than Plato's Republic. Again, really sorry to all you new-age socialists but as my grandpappy used to say: them's facts, and facts can be a hard saddle to sit.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
Dr Kynes said:
We dont really need to engage in name calling bro. I understand your anger, but let the progressives shout scream and froth at the mouth. thats what they do best, and it's been working for us (up until Tiger Woods ran for president) the bloom is off socialism's rose, and it's really starting to stink. anyone who pushes for marxism stalinism maoism or mussolini's "third way socialism" these days, just winds up making our case for us.

for those who dont know, "Third Way Socialism" is what Benito Mussolini called corporate socialism back in 1910. Later he re-branded it as Fascism, and Hitler (Godwin's Law not invoked, as i am talking about fascism specifically, keep your Fiddy Hiddies in the box) re-framed it in the context of his weird Wagner inspired German Nationalist Socialist Aryans are descended from Atlantis Thule Society craziness. Sorry pinkos, thats history. you can read Mien Kampf, and Mussolini's manifesto (this one is more obscure so heres a link http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism/0865274630/) to see what they were talking about in their own words. They both read more like Obama's Dreams From my Father than Plato's Republic. Again, really sorry to all you new-age socialists but as my grandpappy used to say: them's facts, and facts can be a hard saddle to sit.
Click to expand...
I'm not name calling. It is what it is.

If I were name calling, then it would have been possible for someone to logically justify socialism. But socialism can't be justified, because there ultimately is no logical way to justify taking from one, and giving to another by means of force, either physically, financially, or both. Anyone who does justify such actions is not capable of sane logic.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
...because there ultimately is no logical way to justify taking from one...by means of force, either physically, financially, or both.
Click to expand...
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

don't like it? petition the government for a redress of grievances, contact your representatives, vote, run for office, or do whatever you feel you need to do to reverse it given the process that was used to establish it in the first place.

until then, quit bitching about the constitution and saying you're a constitutionalist.
 
MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
how any particular individual defines socialism is irrelevant and simply clouds the issue.

what is important is how the economic theory of socialism is defined by it's own ideology.

Essentially socialism is defined by the nationalization of industries, real property (land), wealth (money) and goods (cars, refrigerators, etc) Under a true Socialist system, all property, industry, and even objects belong to the government, (the society) which then apportions these things out to those it deems fit to receive these boons. Not to put too fine a point on it, but true socialism (north Korea for example) is simply a monarchy, where every person place and thing inside the borders of the country belong to His Royal Majesty, The Dear Leader, or the Politburo. The Sovereign (however they style themselves) maintain absolute control and ownership of these persons, places and things, and allow those deemed worthy to use them as they wish (this permission is revokable at any time). Those in the favour of Himself, live the good life, while those not quite so well connected live in serfdom, servitude or gulag. Socialists will of course disagree, but they are lying to us and possibly even to themselves. Case in point, the USSR under Stalin: apparatchiks lived in swank apartments in moscow spending their winters in luxurious dachas on the black sea, or traveling the world. the workers of the proletariat stood in bread lines, the lumpen proletariat stood in apartment/work/warm clothing lines, and dissenters stood in waist deep snow in siberia's gulags. The state decided where you live, where you go to school, what car you drive (if any) what job you do, how much you get paid for it, and how you spend your free (hah!) time. If you perchance wished to move to a new city, you had to get relocation papers. if you wanted to leave the USSR, you were counter-revolutionary, and got to visit siberia, or just disappeared. This is an extreme example, but not unique. Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Venezuela and many other socialist dictatorships operate this way to one degree or another.

In contrast, a free market society is predicated on the idea that the individual owns himself, and can own property and goods. In free market societies, the primary property you own is yourself. you may live in whatever town you choose, strive towards education as you wish, and seek whatever job you desire. you can even decide to be a vagrant, a drifter, a bum, or the president of the USA. Sucess and failure are decided by your innate aptitude (smart or dumb, driven or slacker, good looking or ugly) the support system created (or not) by your parents, grandparents and distant progenitors, a sizable dose of luck (good or bad) and, sad but true, whether or not you are a minority or not. the odds may be long for a lazy stupid ugly child born under a bad sign, to dirt poor parents of african ancestry, (Barack overcame these challenges and did pretty good for himself) but it's still better odds than being born into one of the top tier families in china, north korea cuba or vietnam, and in a fee country the bottom is not quite as far as it is in a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
You forget that the dictator can easily be replaced by the citizens in deciding what is good for the citizens.

A free market society only works as you defined if everyone plays by the rules and if those rules are not made up, manipulated and enforced by the few powerful and wealthy of said society. This is not so presently and is why there are so many problems. The examples of Socialism you mention are not in fact practicing true socialism and that is why there are so many problems.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
MellowFarmer said:
You forget that the dictator can easily be replaced by the citizens in deciding what is good for the citizens.

A free market society only works as you defined if everyone plays by the rules and if those rules are not made up, manipulated and enforced by the few powerful and wealthy of said society. This is not so presently and is why there are so many problems. The examples of Socialism you mention are not in fact practicing true socialism and that is why there are so many problems.
Click to expand...
The key to a strongman dictatorship is the repression. The only way to remove a dictator is violent overthrow, sadly this is usually done by a military junta, which then installs a different but generally compatible dictator, as the wheels keep grinding on.

Free market societies are DEFINED by inequality. Ever since the first caveman bashed the first wooly mammoth over the head with a comically large club, those who control the means of production (makers of gigantic cartoony clubs) have always done better than the average schlub. This is true in monarchical, socialist, communist, free market, egalitarian, theocratic democratic and tribal societies. In every society, except monarchical communist and socialist states, the individual could better himself by some means. From developing a new way to chip a flint chert into a spear head or knife, to creating newer and better ways to refine and recapture hydrocarbons in a cracking tower (how the Koch Brother's daddy made his fortune) innovation, education and hard work can make your life, and the lives of your progeny better. That's a free market. They are rarely fair, and never equitable, but they are more fair and more equitable than any other form of society out there.

As to the No True Scotsman fallacy of North Korea, China, the USSR, Cuba and Vietnam not being "Real" socialists... Karl Marx described socialism as the necessary but unpleasant middle stage of the world socialist revolution, wherein the proletariat were dragged kicking and screaming into the light of socialist thinking as a middle ground on the way to true communism. Marx Heinkle Trotsky Stalin Lenin etc.. all know whats best for you, and with a little faith and perseverance, the proletarians would pass through the dark forest of socialism, and emerge cleansed on the other side, where they would all bask in the glow of a communist utopia. Every example of "true socialism" as defined by Marx has resulted in the same thing. Once the apparatchiks discover how nice it is to be on top, they throw Marx's little red book in the trash, set the cruise control and ride that socialism merry-go-round till the bottom drops out. So yes, you are TECHNICALLY correct, they were not "true" socialists, but when an experiment keeps coming up with the same negative results, no matter how you change the parameters, you must eventually accept that your theory is just wrong.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
Just because Reaganomics didn't have the long term effect he hoped for, that doesn't mean Communism any less flawed.
Click to expand...
you'll have to point out where i said it wasn't.

all i said was that reaganomics is a demonstrable failure that has bankrupted our nation and paved the way for a plutocracy.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

don't like it? petition the government for a redress of grievances, contact your representatives, vote, run for office, or do whatever you feel you need to do to reverse it given the process that was used to establish it in the first place.

until then, quit bitching about the constitution and saying you're a constitutionalist.
Click to expand...
I never believe I stated that I was a constitutionalist. I have however said that I'm a firm believer in the constitution, but that the constitution is not an end-all-be-all answer to everything. Slightly different.

And now you can tell me the constitution hasn't been modified before to allow the agenda of the politicians/government, to be followed through on. Do you know anything about income tax in regards to the constitution and what I just said? Apparently not, or you wouldn't of made that comment.

Just because a piece of paper "says so" doesn't mean it's ethical, nor is it logical to justify an unethical rule, just because it's on paper.


Beyond that, you're bringing up the broad topic of income tax, which has little to do with my point. Obviously taxes are needed to run the country. What isn't needed, nor ethical, is to tax me more, just because billy bob decided to take a month off work, and all the sudden can't feed his family of 5. It's more ethical to leave billy bob on his own, resulting in any natural repercussion, than it is to take a cent from me or others, in aiding bill bob, especially when it's against others free will.

That's billy bob's obligation to fix that little problem and no one else's. So to argue that it's someone else's duty to help someone in a comparative situation, via obligating others with financial or physical force, is not a logical justification.

In regards to what I stated above, I'm still waiting for a logical justification in taking from one by means of force, either physically, financially, or both. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not waiting on that... I'm just waiting for others to make themselves look mentally handicapped in attempting to justify that. And yes, we all know income tax is needed to run the country. Any more smart asses who want to make that comment?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
I never believe I stated that I was a constitutionalist. I have however said that I'm a firm believer in the constitution, but that the constitution is not an end-all-be-all answer to everything. Slightly different.

And now you can tell me the constitution hasn't been modified before to allow the agenda of the politicians/government, to be followed through on. Do you know anything about income tax in regards to the constitution and what I just said? Apparently not, or you wouldn't of made that comment.

Just because a piece of paper "says so" doesn't mean it's ethical, nor is it logical to justify an unethical rule, just because it's on paper.


Beyond that, you're bringing up the broad topic of income tax, which has little to do with my point. Obviously taxes are needed to run the country. What isn't needed, nor ethical, is to tax me more, just because billy bob decided to take a month off work, and all the sudden can't feed his family of 5. It's more ethical to leave billy bob on his own, resulting in any natural repercussion, than it is to take a cent from me or others, in aiding bill bob, especially when it's against others free will.

That's billy bob's obligation to fix that little problem and no one else's. So to argue that it's someone else's duty to help someone in a comparative situation, via obligating others with financial or physical force, is not a logical justification.

In regards to what I stated above, I'm still waiting for a logical justification in taking from one by means of force, either physically, financially, or both. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not waiting on that... I'm just waiting for others to make themselves look mentally handicapped in attempting to justify that. And yes, we all know income tax is needed to run the country. Any more smart asses who want to make that comment?
Click to expand...
awww, baby is having a temper tantrum, how cute.

sorry you don't like the ultimate law of the land. you can always try to get it changed to fit your ayn rand laden worldview. should be easy, right? i mean, after all, who likes taxes? this should be a slam dunk, right?

get at it, kiddo.
 
MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
The key to a strongman dictatorship is the repression. The only way to remove a dictator is violent overthrow, sadly this is usually done by a military junta, which then installs a different but generally compatible dictator, as the wheels keep grinding on.
Click to expand...
Please explain this further, I fail to understand what it has to do with Socialism. A Dictators claim to have a socialist state does not make it so.

Dr Kynes said:
Free market societies are DEFINED by inequality. Ever since the first caveman bashed the first wooly mammoth over the head with a comically large club, those who control the means of production (makers of gigantic cartoony clubs) have always done better than the average schlub. This is true in monarchical, socialist, communist, free market, egalitarian, theocratic democratic and tribal societies. In every society, except monarchical communist and socialist states, the individual could better himself by some means. From developing a new way to chip a flint chert into a spear head or knife, to creating newer and better ways to refine and recapture hydrocarbons in a cracking tower (how the Koch Brother's daddy made his fortune) innovation, education and hard work can make your life, and the lives of your progeny better. That's a free market. They are rarely fair, and never equitable, but they are more fair and more equitable than any other form of society out there.
Click to expand...
Inequality is exactly what Socialism strives to fix. How can the Free Market more fair and equitable than Socialism?

Dr Kynes said:
As to the No True Scotsman fallacy of North Korea, China, the USSR, Cuba and Vietnam not being "Real" socialists... Karl Marx described socialism as the necessary but unpleasant middle stage of the world socialist revolution, wherein the proletariat were dragged kicking and screaming into the light of socialist thinking as a middle ground on the way to true communism. Marx Heinkle Trotsky Stalin Lenin etc.. all know whats best for you, and with a little faith and perseverance, the proletarians would pass through the dark forest of socialism, and emerge cleansed on the other side, where they would all bask in the glow of a communist utopia. Every example of "true socialism" as defined by Marx has resulted in the same thing. Once the apparatchiks discover how nice it is to be on top, they throw Marx's little red book in the trash, set the cruise control and ride that socialism merry-go-round till the bottom drops out. So yes, you are TECHNICALLY correct, they were not "true" socialists, but when an experiment keeps coming up with the same negative results, no matter how you change the parameters, you must eventually accept that your theory is just wrong.
Click to expand...
You are saying yourself it isn't Socialism that is failing but those at the top failing the rest of their society. You make an interesting point. If it is the necessary but unpleasant middle stage of the world socialist revolution, wherein the proletariat were dragged kicking and screaming into the light of socialist thinking as a middle ground on the way to true communism then percieved negative results may actually be what is necessary for a future true Communist society as imagined by Marx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top