Socialism - what it is and what it is not

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#1
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thought I'd start a new thread rather than hijack pro2a's gas price thread.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From the Socialist Labor Party's website http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that![/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time. [/FONT]​
 
D

drs10

Guest
#2
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thought I'd start a new thread rather than hijack pro2a's gas price thread.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From the Socialist Labor Party's website http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that![/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time. [/FONT]​
Sadly, you are horribly mistaken when it comes to socialism. Of course a member of the American Socialist Party is going to paint a rosie-picture of something that is ALL about government and has NOTHING to do with the will of the people. Socialism is often referred to as the preceding step to communism, which is very true. Socialism is all about making government as big as a factor in your life as possible, controlling your every decision and movement. Under socialism, the wealth of all people, no matter how hard they work for their money, is taken away and redistributed to the unemployed bums in the slums of a major city. In essence, everyone becomes equally poor under socialism. Also, there is nothing fair about socialism, and personal freedoms as simple as owning a gun and owning property are out of the question. Furthermore, the government will seek to take away your kids and indoctrinate them to be blind followers of their "incredible superiors" in the government. Also, you become dependent on the government for everything, including your healthcare. While supporters of universal healthcare may say that the people get the treatment they need for free, that could not be farther from the truth. Under the socialist healthcare system, you pay a huge amount of taxes not to just provide for your own care, but for an irresposible drug-addict's treatment as well. So the benefits of universal healthcare,(if there are any) are far outnumbered by the negatives of state-run healthcare. Also, the quality of treatment and the convience of treatment is wretched. Without the competiveness that capitalism provides in medicine, doctors don't need to provide outstanding professional treatment or be in line with their patient's needs because there is no incentive to do so. I could go on and on about how horrible socialist government is, but I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself and do some much needed research on your part.
 
K

Khaddar7

Guest
#3
*smack*

I can't believe you just told someone to go research this.

Yes, socialism was placed in Marx's theory of social progression as the step immediately preceding communism, and immediately following democracy. Marx OBVIOUSLY did not think that communism was bad, and the theory in his works has nothing to do with the forms of communism famous under Mao and Stalin. Communism, as described by Marx, is about making the people into the government. Socialism is about representing the people extensively through domestic policies. Although Healthcare systems in Canada for primary care (not specialist/surgery) may have their problems, this does nothing for an argument against socialism. Canada isn't rich. Take a look at Germany or France instead. Two extremely rich countries. Although they do not have healthcare like Canada's, they have programs to help subsidize healthcare. They also have extremely good, rigorous school systems, public vocational training for students who fail to meet standards, and highly specialized universities. Yeah, your money will go to helping reform a criminal, and it will also go to help the family down the street. Gun control isn't really a factor of socialism, but a liberal attitude in the countries: it's a matter of what's included in the constitution. People are not fully dependent on the government in socialist countries.


People seem to make ridiculous arguments against socialism all the time that are obviously based on false views that all socialism is bad. People need to take into account the immense success of countries in Western Europe that are socialist or have successfully incorporated Socialist policies.
 
#4
Just because he didn't THINK it was bad, doesn't mean that it isn't bad. America already has a system of for and by the people, it's called a capitolist democratic republic. If you want socialism, move to a socialist nation.
 
E

enjoy

Guest
#5
Regardless of whatever which way Daniel de Leon would like to define socialism, it's simply an ideology that envisions the socioeconomic structures - property, wealth distribution - to be under the control of 'the community.' The community can be deceptive though, as often enough this leads down the road of state socialism, which lies only one block off fascism.

Any reading of Orwell will show you exactly why and where the shit hits the fan with state socialism. There's nothing inherently right or wrong in it. It just happens to be horribly inefficient if not well-planned in advance and remains just as opportunistically violent as any other sort of state.

As far as libertarian socialism is concerned, well, I don't have any real qualms against it. Personally I find it to be regressive in nature, but to each his own. I do see libertarian socialist communities living side-by-side with market anarchist communities in the far future, but that's as far off as humanity wants it to be.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#6
drs I think you are the one who needs to do some research.

True socialism is still an ideal at this point. It has never existed.

Most people who live in countries with socialized medicine, while they do have some complaints about it, would not trade it for the American health care system.
 
D

drs10

Guest
#7
*smack*

I can't believe you just told someone to go research this.

Yes, socialism was placed in Marx's theory of social progression as the step immediately preceding communism, and immediately following democracy. Marx OBVIOUSLY did not think that communism was bad, and the theory in his works has nothing to do with the forms of communism famous under Mao and Stalin. Communism, as described by Marx, is about making the people into the government. Socialism is about representing the people extensively through domestic policies. Although Healthcare systems in Canada for primary care (not specialist/surgery) may have their problems, this does nothing for an argument against socialism. Canada isn't rich. Take a look at Germany or France instead. Two extremely rich countries. Although they do not have healthcare like Canada's, they have programs to help subsidize healthcare. They also have extremely good, rigorous school systems, public vocational training for students who fail to meet standards, and highly specialized universities. Yeah, your money will go to helping reform a criminal, and it will also go to help the family down the street. Gun control isn't really a factor of socialism, but a liberal attitude in the countries: it's a matter of what's included in the constitution. People are not fully dependent on the government in socialist countries.


People seem to make ridiculous arguments against socialism all the time that are obviously based on false views that all socialism is bad. People need to take into account the immense success of countries in Western Europe that are socialist or have successfully incorporated Socialist policies.
"Canada isn't rich."

But they're certainly a first-world country.

"Take a look at Germany or France instead. Two extremely rich countries."

And also countries in need of desperate reform for a more capitalist society. When you add up all their wealth, yes, France and Germany are rich. However, when you look at the family by family wealth, it is quite shocking to see how low the level of wealth they have is. The net worth of a family's property is very low. (Such as car and land ownership, or anything they have bought.) GDP doesn't matter when the government taxes every last dollar out of your family.

"They also have extremely good, rigorous school systems, public vocational training for students who fail to meet standards, and highly specialized universities."

They also brainwash the students into believing that government is good and spread the propaganda of socialism. Students are encouraged to turn on their parents if they see them step out line; even if it is something as little as a traffic violation. Vocational training and highly specialized universities are more common sites in capitalist America than in socialist France. Why do you think so many foreign exchange students come to the US? Because our "evil" capitalist society allows for us to have the best universities in the world because of something as simple as market competition.

"People are not fully dependent on the government in socialist countries."

Ouch, just put your foot in your mouth. Govenment, government, and more government is all socialism is about, not the citizens.

"People seem to make ridiculous arguments against socialism all the time that are obviously based on false views that all socialism is bad. People need to take into account the immense success of countries in Western Europe that are socialist or have successfully incorporated Socialist policies."

I would hardly call my arguements against big government control, heavy taxes, and lack of freedom ridiculous. Immense success of Western European countries? LOL! Keep in mind that France has a 12% unemployment rate and capitalist America has a measely 4.5% unemployment rate. Remember the riots in France? That's what happens when you have a bunch of unemployed people. All France, Great Britain, and Germany are is socialist welfare nanny states. Everyone is dependent on govenment hand-outs without any incentive to work hard because the more sucessful you are, the more taxes you pay to keep you dirt poor. You can't raise a child any way you want; you can't even discipline them or it will be called child abuse, at which that point the government procedes to take your child away for no reason. Socialism takes your country nowhere. There is only changes for the worse in socialism, unless some reforms take place. Why do you think the French recently elected a pro-America, pro-capitalist conservative for their president? Because they are sick and tired of being tools of the government.

Socialism is a failed system just like communism, so don't try to defend it.
What's wrong with capitalism? Why can't the people of the world just look at capitalist America and try to be like us? We are so sucessful that the combined socialist economies of Europe compacted into the EU's currency, the Euro, can just barely beat the USD in terms of buying power. (US dollar is still the most used currency in the world today, however.)

Just think about the US as the superpower we are today.
And guess what? We didn't use socialism to become the most powerful country in this country; we used capitalism.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#8
Socialism is a failed system just like communism, so don't try to defend it.
something can't have failed if it's never truly been tried. I'm wondering where you're getting your opinions/facts on socialism. it's not about the government being in charge.
 
D

drs10

Guest
#9
something can't have failed if it's never truly been tried. I'm wondering where you're getting your opinions/facts on socialism. it's not about the government being in charge.
Truly tried? Then what is France? Please don't say they're a republc.

Socialistic policies are widespread across the world; all you need to do is live in GB for a week to understand that socialism is all about government and has nothing to do with the people.
The people are mere tools and toys under socialism. It's the next step on the way to communism.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#10
The French Republic is a democracy. The UK is a constitutional monarchy.

socialized health care does not equal socialism.

Funny, my friends who live in the UK and France don't consider themselves "tools and toys" under socialism.