So You're a Socialist...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Well, let's call it Libertarianism then if it pleases you better.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

However, it turns out that you have only paid for the first installment, because a bull costs 99 cows. You can't even afford to pay for the interest on the loan even after breaking your back. The bank comes in and takes everything you have away.

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
(SOUND - EVERYONE's A WINNER)

Who are you trying to fool?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I reject all political systems.

Waiter, this conversation isn't very good. May we have something else.

Skilord,

Some of us are actually interested in good govt.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Socialism rejects that all men are equal.

By taxing men differently it treats them as though they are inequal and therefore it rejects that they are.

I see a lot of concepts are getting confused in one big mumbojumbo pile. Interesting.

[chequita guevara]

Sometimes some people are so wrong, you don't even know how to correct them. Siklord falls into that catagory. Why do Libertarians have to make up their own language that no one else uses?

[bipolarbear]

Well wouldn't looking at Canada be good enough? Aren't they classified as Capiltalist-Socialist?

[Kidlicious]

Skilord,

Here's some honest advice. Figure out something real to stand up for before you start in a thread like this. No one wants to debate with someone who obviously hasn't figured out what they stand for yet.

[Az]

stop trying to coherse him into making sense.

[Space05us]

I say that we should reject the idea of inheritly tyrannical Civil Government altogether and simply learn to live our own lives morally

move to southcentral LA

http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html

too different.

how is local control over just about every aspect of the economy supposed to make things better?

why would you eliminate the classes of society entirely? Theres a reason a Doctor makes more money than a gas station attendent, and a person who refuses to work doesnt eat.

[LiberalAtheist]

To give a straight answer socialism is an economic system where the government owns all of or almost all of the economy.

This definition is for the most part backed by dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Wikipedia.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

And the Columbia encyclopedia:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/so/socialis.html

However it should be noted that due to the changing nature of words, which is to be expected in our constantly evolving language the word socialism has often times evolved and become interchangeable with words like marxism. Though not all marxists are socialists, i.e. Thomas Moore's utopia, a socialist (communist?) society based on Christian principles.

Socialism is not necessarily totalitarian, though the two have often times accompanied eachother, nor is it egalitarian. Strictly speaking, communism is also not necessarily socialism.

In regards to recent statements: Socialism of course relies on heavy taxation and redistribution, whether or not this is "theft" however is a question of value judgment.

According to such logic all taxes could be considered theft, and many would consider unfair market mechanisms themselves a form of theft (as they allow some to get an unfair portion of society's rescources).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Well, firstly, it didn't say that the US did have something to do with domestic european policies, did it?

LOTM - it said various groups were seen as allies of the US - prior to 1941 the US was isolationist and didnt look at anyone in Europe as an ally, particularly.


Secondly, it states that SD:s where suspected of being "soft on communism", not that they where.

LOTM - They werent so suspected, not by the foreign policy branches of the US govt, anyway. At least not all of them. There were divisions in Euros SDs at the time between "anticommunists" and neutralists - for example in Italy the Social Dem party vs the Socialist party, and in UK between different wings of the Labour party. US policy makers were QUITE aware of the distinction, IIRC. For the author of an article about Social democracy to be UNAWARE of such distinctions is a serious failing, IMHO.

Thridly, I tend to agree with you. The term eurocommunism really seems missplaced for the period at hand.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I would define socialism as basically a belief that the workers ought to control the means of production in some way, whether this control is exercised through a democratic state or directly. As such, I wouldn't classify social democrats (i.e. welfare statists) as socialists since they advocate fundamentally capitalist controls over the economy.

I wouldnt object to your distinction in principle, but since non-socialist social democrats and democratic socialists often shared the same political parties in Western Europe (EG German SD's and UK Labour) this gets confusing when examining West Euro politics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Space05us
how is local control over just about every aspect of the economy supposed to make things better?

You don't have peopl far away making decisions that effect you life, like plant closures, etc.

why would you eliminate the classes of society entirely? Theres a reason a Doctor makes more money than a gas station attendent, and a person who refuses to work doesnt eat.

You are confusing profession and class. Economic classes have to do with your relationship to society, the role you play in production or distribution of goods and services. In capitalism, there are two main classes: workers and owners. If society owns the means of production and distribution, then everyone is an owner, and it ceases to exist as a class. If everyone works, then it ceases to be a class.

That's the 2 cent version.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[
You are confusing profession and class. Economic classes have to do with your relationship to society, the role you play in production or distribution of goods and services. In capitalism, there are two main classes: workers and owners. If society owns the means of production and distribution, then everyone is an owner, and it ceases to exist as a class. If everyone works, then it ceases to be a class.

That's the 2 cent version.

But of course hasnt made much sense for decades. Marx considered professionals a particular subclass of workers who basically the well paid servants to the Bourg, whose role is essentially capital owners. Made sense in 1850's UK, where there were few joint stock companies, and ownership and management were closely linked. The class situation in the US has been different since at least 1920, with the seperation of management and ownership. Its kind of silly to consider a retired professional with a batch of stock a capitalist, and a highly paid CEO a "worker". I mean you can, but then you cant see the essential class conflicts going on. Theres been some movement of capital and management back together in recent years, with more entrepreneurship, stock options for CEOs, etc, but its still pretty far apart. Failing to recognize the role of highly paid professionals and managers in the contemporary US (and Euro?) class structure would seem to me to doom any class analysis that so fails.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Failing to recognize the role of highly paid professionals and managers in the contemporary US (and Euro?) class structure would seem to me to doom any class analysis that so fails.

I agree. Highly paid prodessionals should be classified as capitalists. Just like the capitalists, the're able to gain high income, because of the current system.

I don't disagree with paying workers in a profession where there are shortages more, but they should also work more to recieve that pay, and we should work to train more workers to the profession, and gradually even out the pay and work hours.