Dearest, I do not understand why these three are not considered suitable. Care to explain?
-
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!
How Socialist...
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Dearest, I do not understand why these three are not considered suitable. Care to explain?
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I think the OP is an American. For some of them socialism is anything not sanctioned by Ayn Rand.
Last edited:
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I think corporations and utilities shouldn't be controlled by a centralized government, but managed by the workforce and the affected communities, respectively.
Other than that, sure, let's go all the way.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Libertarian, but yes, borders are not commonly a thing socialists care particularly much about; with that said, a common Marxist slogan is "workers of the world, unite!" so there is a certain degree of international solidarity baked into Marxist socialism from the get go (although of course individual stances on that part varied wildly throughout history in different places, and continue to vary wildly).
I understand. The American media has helped drill that into our heads. I'm one of the possibly rare Americans who knows the actual ideological differences between socialism and capitalism, and I also know that capitalism is not another term for market economy. The definitions of these things are in dictionaries and Wikipedia articles. I wish more people would look these terms up instead of just believing what someone with an agenda tells them.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Dictionaries are written by Communists (and possibly not Americans at that).
Ahh that makes sense
Dictionaries are written by Communists (and possibly not Americans at that).
Are you implying that Samuel Johnson believed workers of the world ought to unite?
Socialism and Communism are two different things.Dictionaries are written by Communists (and possibly not Americans at that).
Communism is Marxist philosophy.
Socialism was born before Marx.
The very first socialist parties were in Germany, and in Italy, SPD and Partito Socialista Italiano.
They were created in the 19th century.
Decades before the Russian Revolution.
It is a good idea. Ownership is irrelevant when there is the control of workforce's trade unions or associations.
The control of the State is essential in my opinion.
Free enterprise is not compromised if the State owns banks, enterprises, factories, highways, railways, flight companies, dockyards etc...
There are resources for everyone. Unless capitalists want it all...as if they were playing monopoly as spoiled kids do.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
In Europe socialism has evolved to include capitalism, or elements of it.How Socialist are you willing to go?
Free education
Free healthcare
UBI
Free housing for the needy
Open borders
Guaranteed employment
Government owned utilities
Government control of corporations
(Sorry not a socialist so add or remove what you feel appropriate)
What changes would need to be implemented to make you happy with how government is being run?
The list you give is more akin to Communism
In the UK we have many of those, although the current Government is trying to scrap some of them.
We have Free Education, Free Healthcare, a National Minimum Wage.
We have subsidised housing for the unemployed, unemployable
Since we left the EU the borders are no longer open - however numbers of migrants and refugees is increasing
We do not have guaranteed employment
We sold our utilities off under Thatcher in the 80s and 90s - a big mistake
The government does not 'control' corporations, but we have regulations to which they have to abide.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think we need to think in terms of two economies. One based on meeting human needs in a modern, complex, inter-connected society, and the other based on allowing for individual talents, commitment, and desires.
If providing for everyone's needs eliminates freedom of choice, I think it defeats it's own purpose, as we humans need to be more than just alive, to live. On the other hand if in the name of freedom of choice we are consigning millions of very talented, worthy humans to a life of economic servitude and slavery, then that freedom of choice has become a totem for oppression and enslavement which is certainly NOT freedom of choice for a great many of us. So we need to find a way to provide everyone with the basics so they can then seek to fulfill their best selves, and thereby contribute their best to the society as a whole.
And it seems to me to do that we are going to have to stop pretending that the necessities of survival in our society are free market commodities. Because they are not. Yet at the same time, we need to leave available to people the opportunity to pursue their individual desires through the medium of a free marketplace. So in the end we really need two different economies. One based on collectively providing for the basic needs of survival in a modern society, and the other allowing for free and open competition of ideas and talents beyond that.
The trick is figuring out a form of governance that would set, protect, and enable those basic priorities. Democracy alone will not do it. And neither will an authoritarian dictatorship. I think the ultimate authority has to be a kind of written prime directive, rather than any body of humans, and then some sort of representational functionaries put in place to see to it that the prime directive is carried out.
If providing for everyone's needs eliminates freedom of choice, I think it defeats it's own purpose, as we humans need to be more than just alive, to live. On the other hand if in the name of freedom of choice we are consigning millions of very talented, worthy humans to a life of economic servitude and slavery, then that freedom of choice has become a totem for oppression and enslavement which is certainly NOT freedom of choice for a great many of us. So we need to find a way to provide everyone with the basics so they can then seek to fulfill their best selves, and thereby contribute their best to the society as a whole.
And it seems to me to do that we are going to have to stop pretending that the necessities of survival in our society are free market commodities. Because they are not. Yet at the same time, we need to leave available to people the opportunity to pursue their individual desires through the medium of a free marketplace. So in the end we really need two different economies. One based on collectively providing for the basic needs of survival in a modern society, and the other allowing for free and open competition of ideas and talents beyond that.
The trick is figuring out a form of governance that would set, protect, and enable those basic priorities. Democracy alone will not do it. And neither will an authoritarian dictatorship. I think the ultimate authority has to be a kind of written prime directive, rather than any body of humans, and then some sort of representational functionaries put in place to see to it that the prime directive is carried out.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I like that you are honest. It is about what you like. I like differently, now what?
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Yes, I am aware that communism is a form of socialism.
I mean...I disagree entirely that welfare provides free education, healthcare, housing, or a UBI?
How do you figure they do?
Those three things are essential, in my humble opinion.
Not wanting them is a rightist position.
Not a leftist one.
With all due respect.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
This has nothing to do with socialism but it breaks my heart to learn that so many people here are against open borders. I feel very empty suddenly.
Those three things are essential, in my humble opinion.
Not wanting them is a rightist position.
Not a leftist one.
With all due respect.
I don't really see them as 'socialist' in any traditional sense either. But I think the OP was really more meaning social welfare.
It wasn't socialism that "crashed" Greece or Venezuela.
Isn't a big, controlling government the opposite of socialism? It sounds more like totalitarianism.