I'm tired of hearing socialism being used as a dirty word. It's being demonized the same way that liberalism is being demonized. And the sad part about it, some liberals are participating in the demonization of the word socialism.
Here's the wikipedia article on Socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
We can all read; so if there is anything not covered by the main article or the criticisms of socialism article, let's use this thread to discuss it. That includes expanding on but not just echoing what was said in the article. If you are going to echo part of the article, put it in quotes. But please don't re-post the entire article.
The article is well sourced too, so any wikipedia skeptics can check the sources.
Full Version: Socialism
The thing is the GOP is using it to frighten. Back to the 50's McCarthy today would be a Republican.
from the web. So on line definitions approach with caution
The Definition of Socialism; How to Define Socialism
This page discusses the definition of socialism and the problems inherent in its ideals.
www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-socialism
So I went to Websters dictionary
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
from the web. So on line definitions approach with caution
The Definition of Socialism; How to Define Socialism
This page discusses the definition of socialism and the problems inherent in its ideals.
www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-socialism
So I went to Websters dictionary
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
QUOTE(cutecat @ Mar 1 2009, 05:26 PM) 
www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-socialism
The correct link http://www.conservative-resources.com/defi...-socialism.htmlQUOTE(cutecat @ Mar 1 2009, 05:26 PM)
So I went to Websters dictionary
Function:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I couldn't find a definition that states "no private property" in the online version that cites Websters http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/SocialismFunction:
noun
Date:
1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
It seems to me that every western government has a degree of both socialism and capitalism included in it.
http://www.conservative-resources.com/defi...-socialism.html From the link:
Arguments against socialism are just arguments against regulation in disguise.
QUOTE
14] Recall that "fairness" is crucial to the definition of socialism and note that this term is defined through a societal lens. From a socialist perspective, it is unfair that you own the factory in the first place and your authority over your employees is seen as "exploitation," regardless of how well you pay them or how kindly you treat them. Socialists are only willing to allow you to maintain ownership because they balk at the prospects of workers mortgaging their homes for working capital or a dictatorship of the proletariat assuming direct control of the factory.
I don't know how the author arrives at this conclusion. QUOTE
[16] Of course, if the car is manufactured and no one buys it, you will personally absorb all losses. Nor will you reap any substantial reward from its success. You are essentially expected to produce wealth for everyone's benefit except your own, and far from receiving any thanks, to endure abuse and scorn in return. Would you manufacture cars under these conditions
I don't see that any form of socialism outlaws earning monetary profit. Just because regulations may cut into profits, doesn't mean there's no money to be made in providing quality products that satisfy the regulations.QUOTE
[17] Not many people would, and therein lies the problem with the definition of socialism; it provides no incentive for production, and it sacrifices individual economic freedoms for a vaguely defined "social good." Economic freedom is little loved by most people when corporate interests are concerned, but the same restrictions imposed on wealthy factory owners affect the single mother running a small catering business out of her kitchen.
Freedom to endanger lives? And who says the social good is or always will be vaguely defined? Isn't it possible for legislation to define the goals of the social good?QUOTE
18] The definition of socialism necessarily implies a large government bureaucracy because it is simply impractical to hold a national referendum every time a business decision must be made. As such, government bureaucrats must be appointed to represent the "social good" by approving or disapproving business initiatives.
[19] Ironically, a tyranny of the many over the few is virtually identical to a tyranny of the few over the many, in so far as power becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite group of unelected officials.
[20] Like libertarianism, socialism produces a transitory tyranny. Eventually, a tyranny of the many over the few ends when the few either buckle under the weight of the burden they are asked to bear for society, or simply give up. Given the similarities between the definition of socialism and the definition of communism, it is hardly surprising that what takes the place of the tyranny of the many over the few is the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the tyranny of all over one.
This is what happens anyway under any system. The most powerful get the most say. It's either those with the most money under capitalism or those with the most influential speech under socialism. Which would you rather be ruled by, the well-spoken or the well financed. It's either political parties or profiteering bankers.[19] Ironically, a tyranny of the many over the few is virtually identical to a tyranny of the few over the many, in so far as power becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite group of unelected officials.
[20] Like libertarianism, socialism produces a transitory tyranny. Eventually, a tyranny of the many over the few ends when the few either buckle under the weight of the burden they are asked to bear for society, or simply give up. Given the similarities between the definition of socialism and the definition of communism, it is hardly surprising that what takes the place of the tyranny of the many over the few is the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the tyranny of all over one.
Arguments against socialism are just arguments against regulation in disguise.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 1 2009, 02:36 PM)
I'm tired of hearing socialism being used as a dirty word. It's being demonized the same way that liberalism is being demonized. And the sad part about it, some liberals are participating in the demonization of the word socialism.
Here's the wikipedia article on Socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
We can all read; so if there is anything not covered by the main article or the criticisms of socialism article, let's use this thread to discuss it. That includes expanding on but not just echoing what was said in the article. If you are going to echo part of the article, put it in quotes. But please don't re-post the entire article.
The article is well sourced too, so any wikipedia skeptics can check the sources.
Here's the wikipedia article on Socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
We can all read; so if there is anything not covered by the main article or the criticisms of socialism article, let's use this thread to discuss it. That includes expanding on but not just echoing what was said in the article. If you are going to echo part of the article, put it in quotes. But please don't re-post the entire article.
The article is well sourced too, so any wikipedia skeptics can check the sources.
...and the students said,"Say What?"
...and then they said, "You M-F...TRAIN US, DON'T BLAME US!
...if this was your last lecture, Bill, what would tell us about Socialism?
QUOTE(rla @ Mar 1 2009, 07:05 PM)
if this was your last lecture, Bill, what would tell us about Socialism?
"Government by the people, for the people" = Socialism.
I have to disagree, government by the people, for the people, is some form of anarcho-sydicalism, collective or mutualist in nature, based on labor, and participatory economics and politics. There is no such thing as a government that uses concentrated power for the good of the people, just as there is no such thing as large business concentration of power being for the good of the people. We have just as much evidence that the State will misuse power as we do that corporations will, so we need decentralized but mutualist governance.
But, since that is quite unlikely to happen unless the whole world comes apart, then I would have to agree that there is merit to a social democracy, that is, that there are some industries where nationalizaiton makes sense, and that business should be stronly regulated...Where workers have a fair advantage no matter what industry they belong to, and where a strong safety net is in place to protect the unemployed, aged, veteran, and child.
But, since that is quite unlikely to happen unless the whole world comes apart, then I would have to agree that there is merit to a social democracy, that is, that there are some industries where nationalizaiton makes sense, and that business should be stronly regulated...Where workers have a fair advantage no matter what industry they belong to, and where a strong safety net is in place to protect the unemployed, aged, veteran, and child.
QUOTE(heart @ Mar 2 2009, 01:22 AM)
I have to disagree, government by the people, for the people, is some form of anarcho-sydicalism, collective or mutualist in nature, based on labor, and participatory economics and politics. There is no such thing as a government that uses concentrated power for the good of the people, just as there is no such thing as large business concentration of power being for the good of the people. We have just as much evidence that the State will misuse power as we do that corporations will, so we need decentralized but mutualist governance.
But, since that is quite unlikely to happen unless the whole world comes apart, then I would have to agree that there is merit to a social democracy, that is, that there are some industries where nationalizaiton makes sense, and that business should be stronly regulated...Where workers have a fair advantage no matter what industry they belong to, and where a strong safety net is in place to protect the unemployed, aged, veteran, and child.
Government by the people, for the people is a statement of a goal, not a methodology. Considering there are an infinite number of methods for socialism and that they all are a balance between capitalism and communism, I'd say that socialism (in general) is nothing more than a goal as well. But, since that is quite unlikely to happen unless the whole world comes apart, then I would have to agree that there is merit to a social democracy, that is, that there are some industries where nationalizaiton makes sense, and that business should be stronly regulated...Where workers have a fair advantage no matter what industry they belong to, and where a strong safety net is in place to protect the unemployed, aged, veteran, and child.
If anarcho-syndicalism is based on any rules, then it would be a form of government. If it is made up of people, then it's "by the workers, for the workers." What do you do about the people who can't work? Also, getting workers to compete with each other is another way to divide and conquer to exploit labor. how can workers overcome exploitation of labor if most of their energy is devoted towards competing with other workers.
As usual, Winston Churchill had some brilliant comment on it:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Mar 2 2009, 08:34 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Mar 2 2009, 01:22 AM)
I have to disagree, government by the people, for the people, is some form of anarcho-sydicalism, collective or mutualist in nature, based on labor, and participatory economics and politics. There is no such thing as a government that uses concentrated power for the good of the people, just as there is no such thing as large business concentration of power being for the good of the people. We have just as much evidence that the State will misuse power as we do that corporations will, so we need decentralized but mutualist governance.
But, since that is quite unlikely to happen unless the whole world comes apart, then I would have to agree that there is merit to a social democracy, that is, that there are some industries where nationalizaiton makes sense, and that business should be stronly regulated...Where workers have a fair advantage no matter what industry they belong to, and where a strong safety net is in place to protect the unemployed, aged, veteran, and child.
Government by the people, for the people is a statement of a goal, not a methodology. Considering there are an infinite number of methods for socialism and that they all are a balance between capitalism and communism, I'd say that socialism (in general) is nothing more than a goal as well. But, since that is quite unlikely to happen unless the whole world comes apart, then I would have to agree that there is merit to a social democracy, that is, that there are some industries where nationalizaiton makes sense, and that business should be stronly regulated...Where workers have a fair advantage no matter what industry they belong to, and where a strong safety net is in place to protect the unemployed, aged, veteran, and child.
If anarcho-syndicalism is based on any rules, then it would be a form of government. If it is made up of people, then it's "by the workers, for the workers." What do you do about the people who can't work? Also, getting workers to compete with each other is another way to divide and conquer to exploit labor. how can workers overcome exploitation of labor if most of their energy is devoted towards competing with other workers.
I appreciate your discussion of Socialism, but I simply could not say that it was a system of "government by the people, for the people" because it is no such thing, except its goal, but that is supposed to be the goal of our system too yet it has never been that way.
I am trying to point out that there is a form of government that more closely aligns with the idea of 'government by the people, for the people", and that is the system called anarcho-syndicalism. The goal must involve decentralized power because centralized or consolidation of power systems are the antithesis of the goal. The methodology for getting to the goal is to change the algorithm (something you are always spot on about) and doing that requires a starting architecture to begin...but how could we find that architecture? I would say that unions are something to use as a start, but not the old industrial type unions, a newer form of guilds, or councils based on the union model. This would not eliminate the need for the state entirely, but it would take the power away from the Corporation and the State. It would then rest in self organizing bodies based on worker self-management and worker participation in politics (remember, worker here does not mean a factory worker, it means any guild formed). The primary reason to focus here first, is that there must be an economy (output, trade etc...) before any other needs of the society could be met.
The one thing that would really have to change is participation in the polity would be like the jury duty of old (where people did not try to get out of it as so many do now), because without this participation it is impossible for the individual or the council to have a fairly equal voice. This kind of society would not need as many full time representatives, which should always be at a minimum, and the individual serving in a political capacity should spend half time working and half time representing and be compensated accordingly.
As for property though, there should only be minimum property, things that you have like your clothing, personal items, and household items. Land should belong to all, and homes should belong to the community and maintained by all. Those who do not work are not excluded, they are given the same things that everyone in the decentralized community has, and valued for other contributions they make. Property, as we currently understand it, is not involved in this methodology. Competition is not eliminated, but it is not the focus either. Trips abroad for example, can be awarded for merit points, and those who do not work could be given more latitude in visiting other communities to find their best practices and bring them back home to their own locations. Moving from one community to another would also be possible on a lottery type system for more desirable locations.
If I hadn't seen this work in the Israel Kibbutz system, the Southern Argentinian modern system, the Spanish way of doing things, the Basque way of doing things, and several locations in India and Southern Mexico then I wouldn't be advocating it.
The truth is, I don't expect this to happen here because it would take a collapse of the system to reform it this way. I would like to see a social democracy system that can vie with the anarcho-syndicalist system that our society might be able to form....something similiar to Vermont's town halls. If only Americans would get up the cojones to cut the chains on some of these closed down factories, refuse to leave, and turn the machines back on and start manufacturing things themselves (as they have done in Argentina) we might be able to get a government "by the people, for the people".
QUOTE(heart @ Mar 4 2009, 05:00 PM)
If only Americans would get up the cojones to cut the chains on some of these closed down factories, refuse to leave, and turn the machines back on and start manufacturing things themselves (as they have done in Argentina) we might be able to get a government "by the people, for the people".
I saw a women on 60 Minutes say that she refused to train her oversees replacement. Maybe that's a start.This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.