• 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 is as American as apple pie. Yes, really

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Your arguments are inconsistent. First you say that the word 'socialist' is too vague and then you use one particular form of socialism and conflate that with all forms. And you also react negatively when that is pointed out to you.
Down boy!
Down again!
I consistently use the dictionary definition for "socialism".
And I think the anger you sense is from within.
I don't mind in the least that you disagree.
Noam Chomsky for one described himself as a libertarian socialist.
He can call himself what he wants.
But libertarianism & socialism are at odds in reality.
How so?
Examine countries which became socialist.
They're far less libertarian than capitalist countries tend to be.
But presumably you'll next pull out the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy by saying he's not a true socialist?
You'd have to elaborate on how he tries to reconcile the two before I categorize him.
Such things are more complex than you think.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Btw, I found it odd that Nixon was an anti-commie, yet he was the one who
imposed wage & price controls.

So did FDR, but wage and price controls are neither socialist nor communist, since it does not entail direct government ownership.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Dems & Pubs WERE more alike than different.

I've just corrected your statement

Actually, they were more different prior to Reagan. Then, after getting pummelled in three straight elections ('80, '84, '88), the Democrats shifted their strategy to become more like Republicans. By picking Clinton over Brown in '92, the Democrats sold out to big business.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If these are examples of socialism, then what would you consider to be "communist"?
I've run across different descriptions of the two.
To me, they're more similar than different in that
both are command economies devoid of capitalism
Here is one source addressing your question.
(It's the ex-host of my former forum before RF.)
Ref....
https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

summarized the communist philosophy in this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.
Have any real world countries moved to Marx's post-socialism system
to full blown communism? I don't think so. Your mileage may vary.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So did FDR, but wage and price controls are neither socialist nor communist, since it does not entail direct government ownership.
Well, I didn't say Nixon actually was a communist.
Nonetheless, to control wages & prices is to assume a level of control which
seizes some rights from the full bundle of rights which comprise ownership.
("Bundle of rights" is a real estate concept dealing with the continuum between
unencumbered ownership & the other extreme of having no rights to property.)
Nixon's revoking (however temporary) such rights was certainly a socialist vector.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Even if I don't buy the next IPhone, I don't get paid for my air.

You don't own the air. It's a common resource right? Blame the socialist nature of air.

Your excuse is as if I built a factory on your land and told you "you don't have to buy my goods if you don't like it".

If you built a factory on my land, it wouldn't be my land. Capitalism supports individual property right. Socialism doesn't. If this were to happen, my "complaint" would be that of socialism.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
https://www.history.com/news/socialism-communism-differences
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

summarized the communist philosophy in this way: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.

Actually, this is the definition that I had learned initially, and it seems to be the most reasonable in terms of how it has been viewed. The Socialist Party and the Communist Party are/were two distinct organizations (although there are/were multiple parties using the name "socialist" or "communist," so that complicates it even more).

Have any real world countries moved to Marx's post-socialism system
to full blown communism? I don't think so. Your mileage may vary.

I don't think it's really possible, unless the whole world was under a single government dedicated to global communism.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I didn't say Nixon actually was a communist.
Nonetheless, to control wages & prices is to assume a level of control which
seizes some rights from the full bundle of rights which comprise ownership.
("Bundle of rights" is a real estate concept dealing with the continuum between
unencumbered ownership & the other extreme of having no rights to property.)
Nixon's revoking (however temporary) such rights was certainly a socialist vector.

In Nixon's case, I think it was a temporary measure to restore some stability. It didn't last for very long. FDR did the same thing during WW2, and it was thought that such measures were "communistic" back then, too. Of course, it was a time of war, and some civil liberties were curtailed on a temporary basis.

Remember what Frank Burns said: "Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
e45b336eb88934065c59244fb1cde04a.jpg


z-if65.jpg
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
No True Scotsman, eh.
Fans of socialism point to capitalist countries, eg, Denmark, Canuckistan.
But they chafe at facing actual socialist countries.

It makes me wonder....
What do self proclaimed socialists really want?
They oppose capitalism in speech, but it's the system in their touted examples.
What is their ultimate goal?
Do they really want to keep capitalism, & have it pay for social benefits?
Or do they believe in a USSR style command economy, but with honest,
kind, & competent leaders to make socialism (& perhaps someday even
communism) a successful reality...one with economic & social success?
While Republicans run scared from the word socialism they try to turn the country into a theocratic dictatorship like some Iran Russian hybrid monster.

Meanwhile most of the world has more sense for things like health which many feel should be a right.

List of countries in America's that have "social" healthcare.
Europe
Countries with universal healthcare include Austria, Belarus,[93] Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova,[94] the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,[95] Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,[96] and the United Kingdom.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
While Republicans run scared from the word socialism they try to turn the country into a theocratic dictatorship like some Iran Russian hybrid monster.
I don't see them as so extreme (as a group...some individuals being fringie).
Meanwhile most of the world has more sense for things like health which many feel should be a right.

List of countries in America's that have "social" healthcare.

Europe
You should note that I'm not defending Republicans here.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Well, I didn't say Nixon actually was a communist.
Nonetheless, to control wages & prices is to assume a level of control which
seizes some rights from the full bundle of rights which comprise ownership.
("Bundle of rights" is a real estate concept dealing with the continuum between
unencumbered ownership & the other extreme of having no rights to property.)
Nixon's revoking (however temporary) such rights was certainly a socialist vector.
By that reasoning any form of government is "socialism". Because all rights have to be limited by everyone else's (equality). And that includes the right to be as selfish and greedy as one wishes.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
By that reasoning any form of government is "socialism". Because all rights have to be limited by everyone else's (equality). And that includes the right to be as selfish and greedy as one wishes.
You're missing the idea of a vast continuum between extremes.
The mere existence of the rule of law doesn't mean "socialism".
It's about the nature & extent to which government (aka "the
people") controls the means of production.
You people really need to use the dictionary more.
And it wouldn't hurt to take some courses in real estate law.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You people really need to use the dictionary more.

A dictionary is only a starting point. It doesn't provide all the information.

Since you mention real estate, if you were looking to hire a contractor to build a house, would you hire someone whose only knowledge was to look up the word "house" in a dictionary? Do you think that's sufficient information to get the job done?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A dictionary is only a starting point. It doesn't provide all the information.

Since you mention real estate, if you were looking to hire a contractor to build a house, would you hire someone whose only knowledge was to look up the word "house" in a dictionary? Do you think that's sufficient information to get the job done?
Well that's just silly.
Dictionaries provide definitions.
My objection is to changing them, & then using words meaning
something other than what's commonly understood. Perhaps
some day "socialism" will mean "a capitalist economic system
which funds generous social programs"....but it's not there yet.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well that's just silly.
Dictionaries provide definitions.
My objection is to changing them, & then using words meaning
something other than what's commonly understood. Perhaps
some day "socialism" will mean "a capitalist economic system
which funds generous social programs"....but it's not there yet.

It depends on how you define what is "commonly understood." One thing to consider is that conservatives and capitalists have come up with some rather creative definitions of "socialism" themselves. I found this article which explains a lot of the background to the current debate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...es-are-suddenly-freaking-out-about-socialism/

One of the only things President Trump said in his State of the Union address that had a half-life over a nanosecond was his assertion that “America will never be a socialist country.” His comment, which attempted to tie a spate of progressive policy ideas to the terrible conditions in Venezuela, signaled how conservatives will fight back against ideas like a Green New Deal, universal health coverage and much more progressive taxation. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin echoed the point, averring that “we’re not going back to socialism.”

The Treasury Secretary said "we're not going back to socialism." According to that statement, America was a socialist country prior to the election of Trump. Conservatives routinely called Obama a "socialist," when nothing could be further from the truth.

The debate is obviously not really about "socialism," per se, since no one is advocating a system like North Korea here. As the article points out:

The real debate is about who gets to write the rules, and Trump and the conservatives are legitimately scared that a growing group of diverse, progressive politicians, backed by a diverse base that’s fed up with its lack of political representation, is threatening to take the pen.

A way to quickly spot the vacuity of the socialism scaremongering is to look at spending on safety-net protections (like public health care and retirement security) as a share of GDP across countries. OECD data show that at about 19 percent, the United States is below average, right in between Estonia and the Czech Republic, and far down the continuum from the social democracies of Scandinavia.

Clearly, the focus of progressives and democratic socialists is to push for more generous social programs, which the U.S. doesn't have. That's what is called "socialism" in today's parlance, and it comes from both sides of the aisle. It's not just "you people" (as you put it) misdefining "socialism." It's already part of the political culture. The people who say that Obama, Sanders, AOC, or Warren are "socialists" are dead wrong.

There’s no question that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and many other progressives want policies that push us up the continuum — and, to put my own cards on the table, I hope to help them. But what’s at stake is not the ownership of the means of production, as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board ominously warned. When you look at the actual proposals, it’s clear that the goal is simply, as Paul Krugman put it, to have “a market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation.” That is not “socialism.”
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It depends on how you define what is "commonly understood." One thing to consider is that conservatives and capitalists have come up with some rather creative definitions of "socialism" themselves. I found this article which explains a lot of the background to the current debate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...es-are-suddenly-freaking-out-about-socialism/



The Treasury Secretary said "we're not going back to socialism." According to that statement, America was a socialist country prior to the election of Trump. Conservatives routinely called Obama a "socialist," when nothing could be further from the truth.

The debate is obviously not really about "socialism," per se, since no one is advocating a system like North Korea here. As the article points out:



Clearly, the focus of progressives and democratic socialists is to push for more generous social programs, which the U.S. doesn't have. That's what is called "socialism" in today's parlance, and it comes from both sides of the aisle. It's not just "you people" (as you put it) misdefining "socialism." It's already part of the political culture. The people who say that Obama, Sanders, AOC, or Warren are "socialists" are dead wrong.
Partisans on both sides of the aisle misuse the word.
It's up to us to keep'm on the straight & narrow path.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Partisans on both sides of the aisle misuse the word.
It's up to us to keep'm on the straight & narrow path.

So, what is their real problem with Obama, Sanders, Warren or AOC? If we agree they're not socialists, then what is it?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, what is their real problem with Obama, Sanders, Warren or AOC? If we agree they're not socialists, then what is it?
Political maneuvering, tribal differences, & vying for power over
the other. This drives them. The result is a lot of name calling.
Being politicians, they the eschew intellectual rigor in favor of
pandering & demonization. Resistance is useful !!!!!!
 
Top