Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
That is the American definition, hence the "social safety net"
And while you may not use it, I don't use it, and many others don't, the American people as a whole won't see people go hungry, homeless, or without medical care if they are working. And when government supplies those things to the people, that is socialism, as they are controlling the production and distribution of goods.
And its been going on since the 30's, under Republican and Democratic administrations and congresses.
Not wrong, you simply don't like the truth of the matter.
Something that is missing in defining and discussing Socialism is the WHY. Why do things in a collective manner, why reign in destructive competition and why promote the alturistic impulses. The reason is the belief that this is a superior way to get what a society wants and is consistent with the idea that nature evolves from the simple to more complex systems . That nature shows that caring and sharing are what distinguishes us from the animals that mindlessly follow Darwin's maxim of the Survuval of the Fitest. It is no coincidence that Socialism was born at the same time as new thinking was sweeping the Natural Philosophies ideas like Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species or the development of Thermodynamics in Physics and Chemistry. People started to explore the application of these natural mechanisms to economics, governance and society. Socialism was the response that we could move human affairs to a higher plane by deliberate action that we didn't have to leave things to chance or relie on the pain and suffering of the Law of the Jungle. Other philosophers disagreed and these Social Darwinists believed that unfettered competition and the struggle of competing individuals would winnow out the weak or incomplete and result in a society as strong as steel. This viewpoint was tailor made for the Americans who celebrate the Individual and the American Way was obviously Nature's Way. Actions like those advocated by the Socialists was actually a crime against nature.
Well now you must be a union member since you think that some capitalist should pay for a business and then the workers own it and get the profits from it. I thought that most workers got paid for their work but you want them to own the business. Yep, you are a prog.
Man +31,500 posts and 3091 rep. That's not a flattering ratio, perhaps you should consider your ideas and views aren't in touch with reality.
Well, hell, you could at least take a chance at reading that link and you are too cowardly to take a chance. What happens if just one of you progs reads something like that?
This is the only thing you ever have to say whenever you are confronted with logical argument.
I looked at the link. There is absolutely nothing in there that invalidates the point I just made.
If one understands the situation correctly, the various interpretations and definitions of so called socialism and communism and capitalism and fascism become altogether meaningless, as they are all just different entrees' on an otherwise exclusively Italian menu. Lasagna, Spaghetti, Fettuccine, Parmigiana ... all define the same cuisine, just as the aforementioned political ideologies define different variations of the same system.
The reality is, all of these ideologically seperate and apparently competing political ideological forces are illusory constructs designed to control those to whom these various constructs appeal to, providing a "team" to which each individual can consider himself a member. At the end of the day, it's all the same system, under various disguises.
It's been a wildly successful illusion, as very few actually understand the nature of this deception, and will automatically reject any evidence presented that would turn their illusory world paradigm on it's ear. The truth is, Dallas Cowboy fans will never agree to cheer the Washington Redskins, or vice versa ... and neither team's fans will ever contemplate the idea that it matters not which team wins the competition, as the ultimate beneficiaries ... the NFL and it's owners always win either way.
And the NFL is a great analogy to define what I'm talking about here ... as this is the overriding entity that controls all NFL team operations and profits, no matter how distinctly independent each team might appear to be on the surface.
The Green Bay Packers can be considered the "Socialist or Communist" team, since they are the only NFL team that is "Publicly Owned". All other teams are privately owned ... yet the Packers are subject to the same control mechanisms imposed by the "League" as all other teams. At the end of the day, whether you are talking about a team that is owned by one individual "Fat Cat" tycoon, or a team that is owned by the public, both are subject to the rules imposed by the league known as the NFL
Applying that same basic structure to the world, we find for example, the US (Capitalist System) competing with the arch enemy Russia (Communist Regime) as nothing more that a Cowboy-Redskin rivalry, with the ultimate beneficiaries being the Financial Oligarchs which dictate the rules to each, via their control of global finance through the various central banks around the world ... be it the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the IMF, the BIS, the Bank of England, etc. Who really benefited from the "Cold War" ? Why was it so necessary for each side to develop enough nuclear weapons and armaments to destroy the entire planet 10 times over? Would not once be sufficient? These are the questions never asked, yet the answer is, the financiers of all this activity are the true beneficiaries .. certainly not the public, and certainly not the soldiers who fight the wars and the conflicts instigated by these "political forces" competing with each other.
So ask yourself ... what is the real difference between "Communism" and "Capitalism" and "Fascism"? Communism describes a political system where the State owns and controls all land and production ... Capitalism defines a system where land and production is privately owned with varying degrees of State oversight and regulation ... and Fascism defines a merger between the State and the Private Corporations that exercise joint control. You notice one thing in common between all three .... the operative goal is control ... and that control is implemented in one of those forms ... there are also military dictatorships ... Monarchical forms of government, etc. All of them define a mechanism of "Control".
Defining the differences between these political constructs is pure semantics .... what difference is there between the "State" controlling everything (Communism) and Corporations controlling everything (Capitalism) or joint State-Corporate control of everything (Fascism)? Nothing except the color of one's jersey and whether you identify as a Cowboy or a Redskin or a Packer.
The NFL controls all of these teams under it's subject rule, just as the consortium of financial oligarchs control all of their "globalist" teams who fight wars rather than play football games.
Socialism is simply another term defining control, which has often been described as "Communism" with a pretty face. But just as the case with all of the other political ideologies, the real question should be "What constitutes the term Public". Here in the US, the Government or "State" represents the "Public" ... but does it really?
Our government is supposed to be "of the people", but the reality is, it defines those "wealthy interests" who control it ... just as it is with the British Parliament, just as in the Kremlin in Russia, or the King of Jordan or Saudi Arabia .. or the Knesset in Israel.
The common people don't control squat regardless of political system... therefore the differences between these various systems is purely academic, and nothing more than an illusion, as well as the false foundation for endless political conflict, and profits.
"What stands in the way? Capitali$m - an economic and political system that puts profits before people"
Pre 1990 Russia wasn't the USCR it was the USSR.
Life was simply wonderful in socialist Russia with the state guaranteeing everything such as a job, housing, free medical, free education etc through the Russian Constitution.
I know when the basics of life; food, shelter and medical care, are guaranteed the first thing I am going to do is quit work because if everything gets the same gimmedats then why work?
"Twenty-first century science and technology make it possible for all the world's people to have good food, good health, good education, a good job and a fulfilling life."
".
If thats your definition of socialism..I'm all for it..
Socialism= Europe + Canada + Australia + Latin America.
In theory the U.S. is also a Socialist country since we have a Social security System, the only thing is that the money we collect in taxes is used to Finance our hugemongous army so we do not get the benefits of a Social System such as Universal healthcare and other Social programs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
