I was addressing socialism, not communism.
-
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
Oh, well....I prefer being first world.
The problems we complain about are superior problems,
eg, the high cost of yacht polish, poor selection of caviar.
What is there socialist about N. Korea? It's neither a democracy nor a 'people's republic'; and what social services does it have?
But the Norwegian, people-oriented social services are what the Republicans -- and some Democrats these days -- are calling "radical socialism." Americans largely have no clue about the social systems of other countries.
Capitalists in the US have made socialism a dirty word. When Americans hear socialism they think Stalinism, Maoism or Kimism (?) They have no idea what these American socialists like Sanders are actually proposing, and no idea that the policies are being used successfully in many other countries.
But what does "becoming socialist mean?
I suspect you're conflating it with totalitarianism.
Last edited:
Yeah, more or less. It's kind of like being anti-monarchist, which was a major thing back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But it's not like there's any real point in being that today.
It's kind of the same with anti-communism. During the 50s, McCarthy and his crowd went overboard. J. Edgar Hoover was obsessed with spying on Martin Luther King because he thought he was a communist. Some people even thought the Beatles were a communist plot, although that was also when anti-communism was going out of style. Public opinion started turning more towards anti-anti-communism. That didn't mean they were communists themselves (although opinions vary), but people were getting tired of all the scare tactics and weak pretexts for war and interventionism based on anti-communism.
The sad irony of it all is that there was never any danger of communists staging a revolution or taking over the country. Very few Americans would actually want such a society, and frankly, there really aren't that many socialists in America either. Most people favor a mixed economy, but conservatives and liberals seem to be pulling in opposite directions these days.
But there's no real reason to be "anti-communist," per se, not in this day and age. It's not as cool as it used to be back when Reagan was president. Communists were the "evil empire," and we Americans were the good guys, the heroes of the Free World to stamp out evil wherever it exists. But even that's pretty much old hat these days.
Yes, but the designation is wrong, isn't it? Anybody can call themselves whatever they want, that doesn't make it so.
The "People's Republic" is a Totalitarian Dictatorship. The people have no say in anything. It's the opposite of socialist.
And if the government isn't The People then it's not socialist.
In classical socialism The People control the means of production. Control of 'the means of production' doesn't mean a command economy or control by a ruling class, it means a nation of worker controlled co-ops, like Mondragon.
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I've always considered the methods of implementation to be the main difference. Communist regimes have been implemented through forceful, revolutionary means, whereas socialist regimes would be evolutionary and implemented through democratic, peaceful means. Communists ostensibly wanted to change everything overnight, whereas socialists are more patient to change things incrementally and a little bit at a time.
That's why some people might view other countries (usually the Scandinavian countries) as "socialist," since some aspects of society are controlled by the state and not by the private sector.
And for that, you should be commended, but you do realize that it would automatically put you on Nixon's enemies list.
They're Southwestern horned cats. Lots of horned/antlered creatures in these parts.
Jackalope Amaze Visitors of Douglas, Wyoming | Travel Wyoming. That's WY
travelwyoming.com
1800 × 1200
That's the kernel of seriousness in my mostly cheeky point though.
Democratic process, separation of the judiciary and political spheres, and healthcare aren't exactly 'yacht polish' in terms of being what's colloquially known as 'First World Problems'.
My wife's choice of almond milk for her latte is.
The socialism sought by 'the left' in America is a socialized commons and a privatized free market.
The Commons refers to those services used universally, by everyone in the economy, such as education, healthcare, police and fire protection, water, roads, electricity and so on. These can be provided, at cost, to everyone, co-operatively.
Other goods and services can be provided privately.
Co-operative provision of needs, privatized provision of wants.
The Commons refers to those services used universally, by everyone in the economy, such as education, healthcare, police and fire protection, water, roads, electricity and so on. These can be provided, at cost, to everyone, co-operatively.
Other goods and services can be provided privately.
Co-operative provision of needs, privatized provision of wants.
They're called social democracies or democratic socialism depending on your preference.
That's exactly why I started the thread - because the right screams socialism currently about the incoming Biden administration.
It's possible that you've worked hard to achieve that acclaim.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
DEMOCRAT......?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Oh them........!
The Right is just screaming out loud at this time.
After President Trump the Right could well be screaming for the next twenty years......
exchemist
Veteran Member
Hmm, not convinced. It's the definition in most dictionaries, for a start.
This seems like a No True Scotsman argument to me: [true] socialism has never been tried [yet] - and thus the failure of every socialism-inspired government to date can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Audie
Veteran Member
They're Southwestern horned cats. Lots of horned/antlered creatures in these parts.
Jackalope Amaze Visitors of Douglas, Wyoming | Travel Wyoming. That's WY
travelwyoming.com
1800 × 1200
Not bad but we have dragons
"Socialism" isn't defined by the kind of government
or by offering social services.
It's about who controls the means of production.
In N Korea, it is "the people" by their government.
Something odd....
If what people want is health care guaranteed by government,
why is it that they usually argue in stead for socialism?
There's an underlying hatred of capitalism & economic
liberty in general.
But in this case, N Korea is actually socialist.
The fact that their democracy is a sham, doesn't
make other claims a sham too.
If we are to use commonly accepted definitions (ie, dictionary)
rather than personal definitions, then how the system came to
be is independent.
Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
1) 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.
Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
One could even argue that "communism" better
fits N Korea's governance & economy.