SOCIALISM FOR AMERICA....ITS TIME!!!

@ossobuco,

s'ok. No harm, no foul.

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Quote:

That makes it sound like you're more interested in anarchy than socialism, Amigo. I think I understand where you're coming from, but have you thought this out clearly?

Yes and No. I propose the conception of a new ideology and not to be told I have to pick only one of the old ones to be considered legitamate.

1 Reply

@Amigo,

new ideologies are all well and good but confusing when you give them an old name.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Okay, I had some wine, and apologize for sloppiness.

I do care about the discussion..

remain interested in non virulent chat.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

new ideologies are all well and good but confusing when you give them an old name.

Whats important is that the boogie man be brought back into the light.

Socialism; a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

By this definition I say that as a community we redistribute the monopolies into the hands of the people that work for these monopolies.

Working = Ownership

2 Replies

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

Quote:
new ideologies are all well and good but confusing when you give them an old name.

Whats important is that the boogie man be brought back into the light.

Socialism; a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

By this definition I say that as a community we redistribute the monopolies into the hands of the people that work for these monopolies.

Working = Ownership

So far I don't see ANY new ideas. You have merely recited some tired and very shopworn mantras of a social and political movement that has failed nearly everywhere it was tried. Indeed the failure of various forms of socialism was one of the central themes of the generally ghastly 20th century.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I agree that Amigo's proposal is nothing new.

Amigo - Socialism has been tried in somewhat different forms for many years, none of which have worked. I would say the general definition of socialism is when there are no "classes" of people - each person has the same amount of wealth and power (except the top bureaucrats, I'm sure). Socialism is the gateway to communism. If Karl Marx was still around, he could tell you all about it.

1 Reply

Not much use in argueing with people who have been brain washed by capatilists all thier life. Letting rich people tell us how to live our lives is much like royality doing the same thing.

1 Reply

@soozoo,

SOCIALISM..........U.S. Postal System, Works Great, no problem.

CAPITALISM.........Medical industry, Works like ****, everybody sick and going broke from medical bills, a few get rich.

2 Replies

@rabel22,

Socialism is a very few rich people telling the rest how to live their lives.

Capitalism is when you make your own decisions. And yes, there are flaws in capitalism, but the freedoms we possess in this system far outweigh the social and other everyday restraints imposed upon the people.

0 Replies

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

SOCIALISM

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Next stage, mass starvations and fake elections.

0 Replies

@Amigo,

Let's say Socialism wrongfully suppresses the need and desire humans have to be exceptional.

0 Replies

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

By this definition I say that as a community we redistribute the monopolies into the hands of the people that work for these monopolies.

Working = Ownership

Prior to the industrial revolution people "worked" at something they could own and sell. A shoemaker made shoes, a farmer grew crops. The worker sold HIS shoes and crops because he owned them. A factory worker doesn't "make" anything with his work. He participates in the work but he doesn't leave at the end of the day with something he can sell. Rather than selling his work to the market he's selling his time to the factory. The problem with your model is that without the capitalist there IS no factory to purchase his time.

In a modern day setting you have the small shoemaker trying to compete with Nike, or the corner drug store competing with Walgreens. I understand your concern and share it to a large extent, but I don't think you union (socialized production) model works in the long run.

2 Replies

The world economy works on capitalism, not socialism. So, within a country, socialism can only work, I believe, if the population is homogeneous, like Scandanavia. I say this because in Scandanavia there is less resentment about high taxes, since the "greater good" reflects people similar to the people taxed.

The U.S. has too many competing populations. We may resent those that utilize our tax dollars. We have yet to become a homogeneous American nationality. Black and White is only one division. There are plenty more. Capitalism is really the only working paradigm for a diverse population. Winners win, and losers lose. If socialism comes, the winners may eventually go elsewhere. Then socialized medicine can direct patients to a nurse/physician's assistant; the doctors might be elsewhere.

I would predict that state's rights might become a big issue to deal with a federal governement that has a social agenda.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

I understand your concern and share it to a large extent, but I don't think you union (socialized production) model works in the long run.

Exactly. I, too, share Amigo's concern about the present state of affairs as it relates to production, worker compensation and general lifestyle (lack of medical care for all, etc. etc.). Unfortunately, dismantling outfits like Walmart or Walgreen's or a dozen others would only lead to utter chaos, thus exacerbating the problem instead of solving it. As others have already pointed out, it's been tried in a number of poverty-stricken countries. And -- guess what? -- those countries are now more poverty-stricken than ever.

0 Replies

Everyone in this thread is stuck on thinking of socialism as an economic system, usually a centrally planned system. Expand your minds. Socialism is at heart a form of social order where the health of the collective is the measure of the worthiness of action. It is a societal order where the individuals agree that they will put the best interests of the collective ahead of their own personal individual desires if the two are in conflict. This need not be done with central planning, this need not and in my opinion should not be top down driven but rather bottom up driven.

There needs to be an institution for organizing the efforts, which so far as I can see must either be the church or the state, but perhaps NGO's (or more radically a collection on NGO's) could do the organizing.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Everyone in this thread is stuck on thinking of socialism as an economic system, usually a centrally planned system. Expand your minds. Socialism is at heart a form of social order where the health of the collective is the measure of the worthiness of action. It is a societal order where the individuals agree that they will put the best interests of the collective ahead of their own personal individual desires if the two are in conflict. This need not be done with central planning, this need not and in my opinion should not be top down driven but rather bottom up driven.

There needs to be an institution for organizing the efforts, which so far as I can see must either be the church or the state, but perhaps NGO's (or more radically a collection on NGO's) could do the organizing.

Oh, I see. All we have to do is reform humanity and alter human behavior !

Perhaps we could call the effort "the creation of Socialist Man". I assume of course that the state (or NGO) in charge would simply "wither away" after this simple chore is done. There may be a problem in dealing with those who cannot be reconciled to the wonderful new order of things. What will we do with the "irreconcilables"?

Seems like an enormous undertaking. I wonder if it has ever been tried before?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Oh, I see. All we have to do is reform humanity and alter human behavior !

No, I would argue that the moderns willingness to personally profit at the expense of the collective is an aberration from normal human behaviour, that capitalism has skewed human behaviour in a very negative way. Socialism would be a return to normal.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You enjoy railing against Socialism quite a bit, don'tcha?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think it can work in small group settings in certain environments. There were communes in the 60s, some more successful than others. There are certain religious orders where nuns live in social harmony while seeing to the needs of the individual only (or mostly) as it relates to the group. The difference is that these are small, "chosen" enclaves of like-minded individuals. Deciding that it will work for society as a whole and is better for humanity has been tried and, well... failed.

1 Reply

SOCIALISM FOR AMERICA....ITS TIME!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know