CocoaBrotha Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 It's all I've been hearing this week. The USA has had socialism since lord knows when, but ya got dumb fucks who wouldnt know any better. eg. Social Security, Social services Etc.. Anyway, Questions? Comments?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 oh come on... I cooked up a huge batch of popcorn and it's going to bloody waste!! as a neo Stalinist Trotskyite libertarian post angst anarchist, I say 'Yes'!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 confused are ya, Iain...lol Socialism is just a word. It's mere mention, though, brings out the piss in both sides of the argument. Hell, a couple of folks were upset when I used it in a sentence along with capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 confused are ya, Iain...lol not at all. It's like fusion cooking. You take a little smidgen of this ideology and a soupcon of that, and create the ideal political system for your self. Socialism, imho, is the ideal system if applied at a local or community level. It is when the attempt is made to impose it on a vaster entity such as the USSR that the system becomes prey both to its own inherent weaknesses and the weaknesses of those chosen to lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Marx and Lenin used the word and its affiliated with communism which was used to black ball people for years. Democracy is a form of socialism in my opinion and the people crying socialism and saying Obama is a socialist are Dum asses who don't even know what it means ,just puppets on a string. Democracy remember is a government of the people for the people and by the people, can't get much more socialist then that :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaunitz Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Well, I don't think that social security and social events necessarily are affiliated with socialism. Socialism is a theory that - may be not only at first glance - has its attractive sides but as everywhere it was what man made out of it that turned the word into what it is perceived as today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I suggest you wiki it and then read the responses posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Well, I don't think that social security and social events necessarily are affiliated with socialism. Socialism is a theory that - may be not only at first glance - has its attractive sides but as everywhere it was what man made out of it that turned the word into what it is perceived as today. Social Security is a means where all receive benefit from the whole so I'd say it qualifies. Marx had his ideas and thats what the people yelling are trying to say that Obama will take their money and give it to someone they think doesn't deserve it. I agree in some ways but for health care :shock: give me a break. We are not cars on a car lot that the free enterprise capitalist way can keep us healthy. Stopping the waste in the US system alone will fund a lot of it. The money is there just to many holes in the money bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaunitz Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Well, I don't think that social security and social events necessarily are affiliated with socialism. Socialism is a theory that - may be not only at first glance - has its attractive sides but as everywhere it was what man made out of it that turned the word into what it is perceived as today. Social Security is a means where all receive benefit from the whole so I'd say it qualifies. Marx had his ideas and thats what the people yelling are trying to say that Obama will take their money and give it to someone they think doesn't deserve it. I agree in some ways but for health care :shock: give me a break. We are not cars on a car lot that the free enterprise capitalist way can keep us healthy. Stopping the waste in the US system alone will fund a lot of it. The money is there just to many holes in the money bucket. Still I think that "social" and "socialism" are not necessarily affiliated to each other. Even the conservatives (at least in Europe) are fighting to improve social plans and benefits - and they would be greatly upset if they were called socialists for that ! Of course, I see this all from the development in Europe, where in Austria for instance, there were the socialist and the christian social parties in hte twenties and thirties of last century. Today, they are called social democratic party (they changed their name from socialist party only about ten years ago!) and peoples party. So maybe already our starting points of defining socialism are different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolbreez Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Most people have no clue. There is very little difference between pure Democracy, and pure Socialism. Both are designed to benefit the majority of the people. But that is also where the problem with both systems arise, there is no room in either system for the minority. They are both built on the premise that the majority rules, and the minority will adapt to the wishes, and rules, of the majority of the people. That simply doesn't happen. People the world over rejoice in their individuality, thus dooming either system. There are simply too many minorities that feel they are the majority, and are too set in their ways to change when it is learned they are no longer the majority, and no longer represent the majority of the people. Some go as far as becoming the perceived majority by violence, and the use of guns to intimidate the real majority. Others selectively adopt only those elements of either system that benefit only themselves. I don't know how many people I listen to that badmouth Socialism yet belong to a union....lol. The other BIG factor why neither system has ever worked, and most government structures for that matter, is corruption. Eliminate corruption in any form of government, and that government will work plain, and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Marx and Lenin used the word and its affiliated with communism which was used to black ball people for years. Democracy is a form of socialism in my opinion and the people crying socialism and saying Obama is a socialist are Dum asses who don't even know what it means ,just puppets on a string. Democracy remember is a government of the people for the people and by the people, can't get much more socialist then that :wink: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. In Marxist theory, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism characterized by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. [1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.Forerunners of communist ideas existed in antiquity and particularly in the 18th and early 19th century France, with thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the more radical Gracchus Babeuf. Radical egalitarianism then emerged as a significant political power in the first half of 19th century in Western Europe. In the world shaped by the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, the newly established political left included many various political and intellectual movements, which are the direct ancestors of today's communism and socialism ? these two then newly minted words were almost interchangeable at the time ? and of anarchism or anarcho-communism. Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor. 'Democracy is a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy).In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom.[4] These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power.[5] Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution.[6][7] Technically, Obama was/is engaging in a socialist act when he purchased majority shares of several organizations (banks, car manufacturing, etc). Many on here seem to be comparing a Political Theory with an Economic Theory. It's apples and oranges. One can be both Socialist and Democratic. One can be both Capitalist and Democratic. One can not be a pure Socialist and engage in Capitalism or vice versa. Though China is proving that one can be both Communist and Capitalist right before our eyes or perhaps they are simply oligarchic capitalists. When someone states that Obama is Socialist that does not preclude him from being Democratic in political system preference. President Obama is more Socialist than say Forbes or Reagan (perhaps). He's no more Socialist than Bush in my opinion. Bush approved/extended a few programs that many might consider Socialist and if he had been able to sit for a third term, I believe, he would have acted much as did Obama. The United States must care for it's citizens in our post-Industrial age. The economy and capitalism is not going to do this nor are they designed in theory to do so. Companies are attempting to cut back on expenses to improve the bottom line. Canceling health care benefits. Canceling pensions. And so on and so forth. If the United States is going to be a Nation of values and humanity going forward, it must care for it's citizens. Health Care is an important part of that plan. In my opinion. If America is truly a Nation of, by and for the people, then Health Care is and must be a priority. It will likely mean heavier taxes. Personally, I think some of those taxes should come from the businesses that benefit from American Capitalism, the Federal Government and from our military protectionist adventures around the world. Some must come from the citizens themselves. Additionally, I think in order for citizens to qualify for said health care, they should be willing to serve in some capacity the country that provides these benefits and "entitlements." "To whom much is given, much is expected" after all. Some want much and expect to give nothing in return. Welfare as we know it should be heavily reformed. To qualify for welfare, I believe, that one should show that one is working towards something such as higher education or some sort of self improvement. Welfare should be a graduated system rather than an all or nothing system. If recipients are not working towards some goal, they should be willing to work in some service category such as working for an NGO or volunteer work or community service of some sort. I'm completely against giving anyone's tax dollars away for nothing for all or a great many years of one's life. Disability and ill-health should be taken into consideration, of course. I know too many people back home in Kentucky who have never worked a day in their lives trailer park livin', mayonnaise sandwich eatin' lives. Yet, they sit and collect tax dollars in the form of food stamps and other forms of social services. Some of these folks sell drugs on the side or engage in other illicit activity. Many do not. (I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks.) Socialism and Democracy can co-exist and America has proven this to a more or less limited degree over the past 70 or so years. Sweden is rated the most democratic country in the world according to the links below. It also engages heavily in social welfare. I don't know if larger countries can maintain that same model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Koolbreez wrote: The other BIG factor why neither system has ever worked, and most government structures for that matter, is corruption. Eliminate corruption in any form of government, and that government will work plain, and simple. Democracy is excellent in theory but with lobbyists allowed to BUY political favor it becomes something else. Its a joke for the US to push democratic rule for others when it has a system run by banks or corporations or anyone with huge sums of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeGeneve Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's all I've been hearing this week. The USA has had socialism since lord knows when, but ya got dumb fucks who wouldnt know any better. eg. Social Security, Social services Etc..Anyway, Questions? Comments?. Hard to believe how stupid and ignorant some Americans are when this term is used. One lady at one of the health public meetings started crying by saying that she didn't want the US to end up like "how socialist Russia is" (she used a contemporary context), and I had to laugh when a Fox commentator, Harrity or whatever his name is, called "Putin the communist". can let go of those Ruski fuphies even when Russia is probably currently more capitalist than the US! Push button terms for the sheep to flock to your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now