What does the word "socialism" mean to you?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

To me a capitalistic society with no redistribution of wealth will fail. The revolt will come from the poor masses. So the real question is how much wealth has to be re-distributed to keep the masses placated? To much and you are a socialist country, not enough and you end up with a revolt.

Maybe those poor masses should spend the time they're crying and begging for handouts WORKING and EDUCATING themselves so they can be something other than the poor masses. Sorry, but I have no time or interest in those people who will not DO FOR THEMSELVES. The deserve nothing more than squalor, starvation, and disease. It's their reward for failing to get off their lazy asses and do something to better themselves.

[PokerPacker]

Socialism - end of individual responsiblity, ambition, innovation, progress.

:1stplace:

[GibbsFactor]

:1stplace:

:bow:

[HOF44]

Maybe those poor masses should spend the time they're crying and begging for handouts WORKING and EDUCATING themselves so they can be something other than the poor masses. Sorry, but I have no time or interest in those people who will not DO FOR THEMSELVES. The deserve nothing more than squalor, starvation, and disease. It's their reward for failing to get off their lazy asses and do something to better themselves.

They eventually do. They ban together rise up and kill the tiny fraction of very wealthy people.

In a true capitalistic society with no controls or restraints the few in power make it impossible for the masses to rise out of their squaler even through hard work. That's why Gov. regulation in the US was used to alter capitalism to try to make it possible for upward mobility.

It has to a great extent worked, but I think we are currently going through a period where the regulation has lessened and it's swinging back to a more unstable situation.

[GoSkins561]

Maybe those poor masses should spend the time they're crying and begging for handouts WORKING and EDUCATING themselves so they can be something other than the poor masses. Sorry, but I have no time or interest in those people who will not DO FOR THEMSELVES. The deserve nothing more than squalor, starvation, and disease. It's their reward for failing to get off their lazy asses and do something to better themselves.

:applause:

Exactly, if you are tired of mowing grass and getting paid a minimum wage for mowing grass, save up and purcahse your own mower and weed whacker. Walk door to door, provide competitive pricing and your off on your own.

In the United States no one is stopping you, I would imagine in China there are tons of government loop holes to even be considered for such a thing.

[GibbsFactor]

They eventually do. They ban together rise up and kill the tiny fraction of very wealthy people.

In a true capitalistic society with no controls or restraints the few in power make it impossible for the masses to rise out of their squaler even through hard work. That's why Gov. regulation in the US was used to alter capitalism to try to make it possible for upward mobility.

It has to a great extent worked, but I think we are currently going through a period where the regulation has lessened and it's swinging back to a more unstable situation.

Or... we have backed away from our original intent. So now, we add regulation and management to help the less fortunate. The less fortunate then stop continuing to aspire upwards and cry that life is unfair, resulting in more regulation, management and oversight.

The richest men in the world are self made from capitalism. :2cents:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

They eventually do. They ban together rise up and kill the tiny fraction of very wealthy people.

Only if the wealthy people are stupid enough to allow weapons to be available at prices that the poor people can afford.

In a true capitalistic society with no controls or restraints the few in power make it impossible for the masses to rise out of their squaler even through hard work. That's why Gov. regulation in the US was used to alter capitalism to try to make it possible for upward mobility.

Not impossible. Very difficult, yes; but not impossible. The problem is that most people nowadays are L-A-Z-Y. They don't want to actually have to put in the time and the sweat to make something work or to get ahead in the world. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter with a "Will that be all, Sir?" from the butler.

It has to a great extent worked, but I think we are currently going through a period where the regulation has lessened and it's swinging back to a more unstable situation.

Personally, I'm for even LESS regulation of businesses by the Government so we're probably not going to find much common ground to continue this discussion.

[Baculus]

Obviously China is a nation is trying to have their cake and eat it too. And they have embraced many elements of capitalism, while having their centralized planning communist government. After all, if they want to join the 21st century and have an improved economy, they HAD to change their economic policies, something that was realized by their leadership. A market economy mixed with some centralized planning is the direction they are moving. A strange mixture, but it seems to be working to a degree for the Chinese.

That doesn't mean that they are going to become a Westernized democracy or republic, though.

I think we have to be careful with our definition of socialism, though.

For example, it was stated that socialism "is a philosophy where the interests of the group are put before the interests of the individual," a definition in which many will agree. But, doesn't our society have many instances where putting the "needs of the many" before the "needs of the few" or the individual is both favored and championed? Isn't that one reason why many would praise a soldier, fireman, or police officer, when they put their lives before their own survival?

The fact is, mankind, or this nation, never would have survived if we didn't have many instances where the needs or interests of the community or society were more important then the individual. That is often the argument made for taxation or other government functions where the individual has to surrender some rights in order to have protection from the State

And it is common in the United States where the individual is subjugated to the needs of the State, even in the capitalist system.

There are European governments that obviously have socialistic tendencies, but also have a Western-liberal tradition of individual rights. Of course, this is partially the difference between Western labor parties and communists, which was an actual break that occurred in the early 20th century when Russians and Eastern Europeans wanted to champion communism, while labor socialists in the West wanted to have elements of socialism while maintaining democratic systems of government.

They definitely are not one and the same, though socialism, according to Marx, was a point along the path to communism.

[HOF44]

Or... we have backed away from our original intent. So now, we add regulation and management to help the less fortunate. The less fortunate then stop continuing to aspire upwards and cry that life is unfair, resulting in more regulation, management and oversight.

The richest men in the world are self made from capitalism. :2cents:

Would you say creating monopolies was our "original intent"? Thats what happens with unfettered capitalism. Then let someone try to become a "self made man".

[DGreenistheBest]

Obviously China is a nation is trying to have their cake and eat it too. And they have embraced many elements of capitalism, while having their centralized planning communist government. After all, if they want to join the 21st century and have an improved economy, they HAD to change their economic policies, something that was realized by their leadership. A market economy mixed with some centralized planning is the direction they are moving. A strange mixture, but it seems to be working to a degree for the Chinese.

That doesn't mean that they are going to become a Westernized democracy or republic, though.

I think we have to be careful with our definition of socialism, though.

For example, it was stated that socialism "is a philosophy where the interests of the group are put before the interests of the individual," a definition in which many will agree. But, doesn't our society have many instances where putting the "needs of the many" before the "needs of the few" or the individual is both favored and championed? Isn't that one reason why many would praise a soldier, fireman, or police officer, when they put their lives before their own survival?

The fact is, mankind, or this nation, never would have survived if we didn't have many instances where the needs or interests of the community or society were more important then the individual. That is often the argument made for taxation or other government functions where the individual has to surrender some rights in order to have protection from the State

And it is common in the United States where the individual is subjugated to the needs of the State, even in the capitalist system.

There are European governments that obviously have socialistic tendencies, but also have a Western-liberal tradition of individual rights. Of course, this is partially the difference between Western labor parties and communists, which was an actual break that occurred in the early 20th century when Russians and Eastern Europeans wanted to champion communism, while labor socialists in the West wanted to have elements of socialism while maintaining democratic systems of government.

They definitely are not one and the same, though socialism, according to Marx, was a point along the path to communism.

You must be one of those "book smart" people portsizzle is trying so hard to avoid.

[HOF44]

Only if the wealthy people are stupid enough to allow weapons to be available at prices that the poor people can afford.

Mass proposing gun control! Never thought I'd see the day.

Not impossible. Very difficult, yes; but not impossible. The problem is that most people nowadays are L-A-Z-Y. They don't want to actually have to put in the time and the sweat to make something work or to get ahead in the world. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter with a "Will that be all, Sir?" from the butler.

I would tend to agree with you here, as it applies to todays society. I am just making the argument to those that believe capitalism with zero controls is an upwardly moblie system. It's not. But in our system today that is not the case.

Personally, I'm for even LESS regulation of businesses by the Government so we're probably not going to find much common ground to continue this discussion.

I think at this point in time the regulation on business is a checkerboard. In some indutries they are over regulated. In others that are saavy enough to minipulate our political system through huge amounts of cash there is no regulation where there should be some.

[GoSkins561]

You must be one of those "book smart" people portsizzle is trying so hard to avoid.

Baculus also pointed out that socialism is a step in the direction of communism.

[JosephGibbs]

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

Democratic socialism advocates socialism as a basis for the economy and democracy as a governing principle. This indicates that the means of production are owned by the entire population and that political power would be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic as a post-state form of self-government.

In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through peaceful democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection. This can sometimes include social democracy.

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the traditional sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely; instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices purportedly inflicted by the capitalist market system. The term itself is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation.

This thread should have been over after this post. Very nice progression and summaries of your thought on the issue.

[Baculus]

As far as what socialism means to me, it is in reference to an economy controlled by the group, community, or State as a whole.

I think we have to keep in mind that the intent of socialism was to 1) make work more efficient, with worker's councils having more say in the organization and management of their work, and 2) by making work more efficient, you have more leisure and individual time.

The purpose of socialism wasn't originally to simply have social programs, which is the definition of socialism commonly used, but to organize labor and to nationalize resources.

I think some elements of socialism, in particular anarcho-syndicalism is interesting. Syndicalists support a framework of democracy within the workforce, with self-management of the work space, as opposed to an appointed manager.

[DGreenistheBest]

Baculus also pointed out that socialism is a step in the direction of communism.

He pointed out that Marx stated that assuming the economic system of socialism would be the first step towards reaching the political system of communism, but they clearly aren't codependent since China is, as he also stated, both communist and capitalist.

[DGreenistheBest]

This thread should have been over after this post. Very nice progression and summaries of your thought on the issue.

Thank you, but I couldn't have done it without wikipedia.

[portisizzle]

Baculus also pointed out that socialism is a step in the direction of communism.

DGreen still did not read the article.

Cliff notes green.

1) CHina has backed away from true communism.

2) China has adopted some (and much of the worst) elements of capitalism.

So, NO, Green. Capitalism can not exist alongside Communism.

[Baculus]

DGreen still did not read the article.

Cliff notes green.

1) CHina has backed away from true communism.

2) China has adopted some (and much of the worst) elements of capitalism.

So, NO, Green. Capitalism can not exist alongside Communism.

They have what's called a "mixed economy." It isn't quite communism nor true capitalism, but has elements of both systems. This is typical of the evolution of an economic system. After all, the free market system and capitalism has evolved since the days of Adam Smith as well (who, oddly enough, was actually a socialism, which most folks do now realize).

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass proposing gun control! Never thought I'd see the day.

Not gun control. Just a little economics. Besides, even in an armed revolt the wealthy group would have a significant advantage.... ever read how many Civil War casualties ended up dying from lack of proper medical treatment even though they survived the initial wound? Now imagine a revolt where the revolters have no access to proper medical care because they can't afford it.

I would tend to agree with you here, as it applies to todays society. I am just making the argument to those that believe capitalism with zero controls is an upwardly moblie system. It's not. But in our system today that is not the case.

It can be an upwardly mobile system... IF you're willing to work for it. Unfortunately in our modern societies there is no longer any work ethic so people are basically locked into their social strata by their own unwillingness to actually WORK.

I think at this point in time the regulation on business is a checkerboard. In some indutries they are over regulated. In others that are saavy enough to minipulate our political system through huge amounts of cash there is no regulation where there should be some.

While I agree it's a checkerboard system, I think that MOST industries are too highly regulated as it stands now.

[GoSkins561]

China is, as he also stated, both communist and capitalist.

:laugh:.

[mardi gras skin]

At the level of the nation state, it sounds like state sanctioned thievery. It takes the choice out of sharing.

[portisizzle]

They have what's called a "mixed economy." It isn't quite communism nor true capitalism, but has elements of both systems. This is typical of the evolution of an economic system. After all, the free market system and capitalism has evolved since the days of Adam Smith as well (who, oddly enough, was actually a socialism, which most folks do now realize).

Is it an evolution or illusion?

[portisizzle]

At the level of the nation state, it sounds like state sanctioned thievery. .

No. That would be the toll booths running in and around Philadelphia and New York.

[Baculus]

Is it an evolution or illusion?

Well, that is a good question, isn't it? I keep expecting China and Russia to go "fooled ya!" and then launch a preemptive strike.

[DGreenistheBest]

DGreen still did not read the article.

Cliff notes green.

1) CHina has backed away from true communism.

2) China has adopted some (and much of the worst) elements of capitalism.

So, NO, Green. Capitalism can not exist alongside Communism.

Characteristics of Communism: operates under a one-party system derived ultimately from marxism-leninism. The one party is granted constitutional dominance in government. Government is authoritarian.

By your own admission, China also meets the definition of capitalism.

So, if China isn't communist, what system of politics does it practice?