MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
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?
How do you define Socialism?
- Thread starter MellowFarmer
- Start date
TheNaturalist
Active Member
I dont know if there is a solid definition of pure socialism as much as it is just one end of a sliding scale. All modern governments are a little socialist, they are all just on a different part of a sliding scale between capitalism and socialism. Anytime any politician suggests we slide the scale in the direction of socialism they are a "socialist" even though what they are usually suggesting is still quite communist and isnt some kind of red communism idea, its just less capitalistic then where we are at now...
"Socialist" is a easy word for Fox News to throw at people without much real backing and then people go online and regurgitate that bullshit in the forums. Idk I dont think that working in the better interest of the people should have a bad connotation associated with it
"Socialist" is a easy word for Fox News to throw at people without much real backing and then people go online and regurgitate that bullshit in the forums. Idk I dont think that working in the better interest of the people should have a bad connotation associated with it
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
I think it's a wonderful idea if there were a way to keep it completely governed by the people with no curruption... Capitalism would be a much better idea if the same applied
I disagree that a Politician is Socialist for steering towards it, Socialism is the government or collective controlling all means of production and distribution of resources. An all or nothing sort of thing.
I disagree that a Politician is Socialist for steering towards it, Socialism is the government or collective controlling all means of production and distribution of resources. An all or nothing sort of thing.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Pure socialism: stealing, theft, robbery.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my conception of socialism is far from yours. when i hear socialism, i think "means of production shared more strongly among the producers". i don't think of government having the means of production, which is more how i imagine communism. and i can see communistic systems working to some extent, just not the 'everyone wears a grey shirt' kind of communism that was practiced in the USSR.
no one way of government is ever going to be best, the idea is to swallow some pills, not the whole bottle. doses of socialism mixed in with capitalism, which is about what we have now, seems rather desirable.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
So the collective steals from itself?
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
I agree the best possible system would be a blend of the best of different ideologies.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
With pure capitalism you look like this guy.
I thought we established I'm far from a Paulist, and even further from Rand? I afterall didn't name one of my kids Rand.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Yes, the self is stolen and doesn't exist.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
Fine, then Capitalism = the rich stealing from the poor
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
[h=1]A Closer Look: Definition of Socialism[/h]Many people don’t understand the true meaning of socialism. Some assume that it applies to both economic and political systems. However, according to the definition of socialism, the true doctrine is only concerned with economic systems.
Socialism is a system whereby the ownership of capital, resources and production capability reside with and are controlled by the citizens. In theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.This form of economic control claims to have the benefit of allocating resources, services and compensation equitably among the population. In other words, the system purports to be fair to everyone and to provide everyone with an equal piece-of-the-pie.
http://reference.yourdictionary.com/word-definitions/definition-of-socialism.html
Socialism is a system whereby the ownership of capital, resources and production capability reside with and are controlled by the citizens. In theory, citizens have equal access to the products and resources and are compensated based on the amount of work performed.This form of economic control claims to have the benefit of allocating resources, services and compensation equitably among the population. In other words, the system purports to be fair to everyone and to provide everyone with an equal piece-of-the-pie.
http://reference.yourdictionary.com/word-definitions/definition-of-socialism.html
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Not quite. Pure capitalism means everything's for sale. That's a poor way to live
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
touche
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I do however agree with the socialist notion of removing Wordz's size command privileges.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's unrealistic and exactly why you would need some form of capitalism or other ism to make it realistic.
if i want to eat carrots, i have no problem having my share of carrots rationed in accordance with the amount of work i perform in producing those carrots or giving resources for the carrots to be grown or providing land on which the carrots are grown. but if i want to drive a fancy car, i have no ability to produce, provide resources for, or provide capital for such a thing, so i would have to have my carrot growing worthiness evaluated against the worthiness of the fancy car producer in theory (according to the definition you posted).
when i think of "socialism", i tend to think of it as far as it meeting the most very basic needs of a population, rather than the whims and fancies of it.
in other words, everyone is entitled to basic dignities as a condition of being born a human: food, clothing, shelter, and going further, even health care, education and a path to upward mobility if so desired. whether you want to attain more and how much more is entirely up to the individual, and at that point requires a capitalistic model to succeed.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you want everyone to type in the same drab font/size/color as everyone else. that is the limitation of personal expression and freedom that lead to the revolt against USSR style communism.
you want everyone to wear a grey shirt, don't you? commie.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
Uncle Buck, I agree with you but for enlightenment purposes, the definition I posted is THE definition, not an opinion...
This is FDR's proposed 2nd Bill of Rights minus the right to employment
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
gainful employment, or the ability to provide more than just sustenance for oneself is covered by 'path to upward mobility' in my narrow definition. there are plenty of people out there that are willing to take free labor from an aspiring [x] in return for OTJ experience and a path forward to becoming a future [x].
the question of this thread asked how I defined socialism, not what the merriam-webster definition is, or the yourdictionary.com definition is.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
You caught me
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good thread, am looking forward to what other people think "socialism" is.You caught me