I was indeed on it.
(Presidents & Scots are natural enemies.)
But he relented, & cancelled the draft in order to vacate my moving to Canuckistan.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Socialism: evil impact
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
(Presidents & Scots are natural enemies.)
But he relented, & cancelled the draft in order to vacate my moving to Canuckistan.
Even our health care problems are "first world".
Consider how much worse it is in countries that
don't even have refrigeration for vaccines.
We still have it much better.
Exchemist proposed "social market economy".
Best so far.
"Social capitalism" seems better (shorter) but no one else likes it.
I'm a natural....no work at all.
Yeah....like they are friends of democracy, capitalism, or good social services.
But they are gifted with a high opinion of themselves.
I assume you're referring to China or the USSR, but, while socialist inspired, they were/are not particularly socialist in practice. When the proletariat is controlled by a dominant, rich, powerful class, it's not socialist.
Unfortunately, there are always authoritarians, social dominants, and an owner-class eager to claw their way to power, wealth, and control; and reluctant to share.
Don't be taken in by constitutions, declarations, titles and claims. America was influenced by enlightenment values, and fancied itself democratic -- but only if you were a white, male landowner.
Socialism is democratic, egalitarian, compassionate, non-exploitative -- and without a ruling class.
Consider at the mainstream definition I cited....
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and
control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the
community as a whole, usually through a centralized government."
Domination of the proletariat is included in the definition.
Moreover, a powerful central government is necessary for socialism
because it's a system which must necessarily repress the natural
tendency people have for free economic association.
You claimed....
"Socialism is democratic, egalitarian, compassionate, non-exploitative -- and without a ruling class."
None of those traits are in the definition of "socialism".
It's your personal definition.
I suppose I could claim that "socialism" defined as....
A powerful authoritarian central government run by elites, &
characterized by oppression, famine, inefficiency, & poverty.
But I don't see the usefulness of insisting that this personal
definition should be used by all.
Last edited:
"The people, by their government?" What does that mean. It's practically a slave state.
Huh?
But aren't 'democracy' and 'socialism' practically synonyms? N. Korea is a totalitarian monarchy. The People are not in control.
There is nothing in the definitions of either "socialism" or
"communism" that precludes the state being so authoritarian.
Neither of which is what anyone is advocating. You're attacking a straw man.
But practically everyone is against authoritarianism.
Authoritarian socialism is practically an oxymoron.
When a definition differs from all dictionary definitions,
this points to a personal definition gussied up with
charts, lists & a web site.
By your personal definition, yes.
But not by dictionary definitions.
Once again, socialism is inherently authoritarian because
of the necessity to prevent free economic association.
Without such oppression, people would start forming
economic relationships, eg, buying, selling, hiring
outside of the government run system.
Contrast this with capitalism, wherein all are free to
form voluntary socialist & communist relationships.
This is no threat to capitalism.
Audie
Veteran Member
I've read American history so that is generally familiar.
The commies were no joke, iron curtain, China,
Korea. The rapid spread and hideous nature of
the plague was not something to take lightly.
The extensive and highly successful espionage
right in Los Alamos and elsewhere provoked a hysterical and generally misdirected reaction.
That, crisis fatigue, end of cold war have led to
a feeling that it was all kind of dumb, is passe, etc. And of course much has changed, more it changes the more it stays the same.
Russia China and N Korea are still what they were.
I was tho mostly reacting to your post from the pov of someone who sees the menace from communists every day of my life, up close.
It depends on what dictionary one uses and whether they consider the entire definition (as well as observations of common usage, which is also part of the dictionary's purpose) rather than just certain convenient parts of it.
Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: 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
Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Democracy
Communism, socialism, capitalism, and democracy are all among our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest that this is because they are complex, abstract terms often used in opaque ways. They're frequently compared and contrasted, with communism sometimes equated with socialism, and democracy and capitalism frequently linked.
Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose in the mid-19th century, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the elimination of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people; in this use, it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers.
The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers use communism to talk about the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society; societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production; and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controlled a society’s economic and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories. Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. (The term is also often used in the phrase democratic socialism, which is discussed here.)
Communism and socialism are both frequently contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which a society’s means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market. As an economic system, it can be contrasted with the economic system of communism, though as we have noted, the word communism is used of both political and economic systems. Democracy refers not to an economic system but to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. (For discussion about whether the United States is accurately described as a democracy or as a republic, see the article here.)
Readers should consult the individual entries for a full treatment of the various ways in which each of these four words is used.
---
You can see that based on the usage of "communism" to describe something revolutionary (while "socialism" does not require that condition), my comparison of "socialism" and "communism" comes closer to the dictionary definition than yours does.
There ya go!
(I was already aware of the Merriam Webster definition,
having previously surveyed a range of dictionaries.)
But again, you're attacking a straw man. This is not the "socialism" that anyone's advocating.
Authoritarianism is right-wing, socialism, left.
Authoritarian states are born of right wing movements like Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism and the Republican party. Socialism -- as popularly defined -- produces Scandinavian style societies.
But the fact remains that the classical definition is a straw man used by the right to preserve their lucrative control of the commons.
True, it was no joke, but considering the circumstances at the end of WW2 and the subsequent onset of the Cold War, many of their actions are/were explainable and can be interpreted as defensive in nature. The common justifications for anti-communism were rooted in the belief that the communists represented a direct threat to the United States, but nothing could be further from the truth. They were more afraid of us than we were of them.
We've done similar things to both Russia and China in the past, including sending US troops over to those countries to intervene and interfere in their internal affairs. I'm sure they never forgot that.
If we're talking about geopolitics, that may be so. If we're talking about communism as an abstract ideology, then anti-communism would be passe. Different countries vying and competing for power and position in the world - that's a common theme throughout human history, regardless of whatever ideology or religion they believed in at the time.
And is America still what we were? Some might think so. Some apparently think that America is still what it was back in the Antebellum period. But is it not possible for nations and their governments to change over generations?
Russia is definitely not what they were. For one thing, they're significantly smaller in size than they were during the time of the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire, which peaked in size during the 19th century.
But are they even actual communists? They do have capitalistic elements in China, and they do business with Western corporations looking for a cheap supply of labor. What kind of "communists" allow their own people to be exploited so that Western capitalists can get rich?
Of course, seeing how things have developed, it would appear that those Western corporations were ultimately duped, as China has become an even greater threat now than they ever were. But not because they're communist. They come across as more nationalistic than anything else.