Jump to content

Since We're Talking Fuax-socialism


eatcorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

falconbeast (2/19/2008)
Not one because those who call other socialists have no idea what socalism really is. I live in a country where a part of the population (east Germany) had to live in a socialist society and it had nothing to do with anything that is currently debated on this forum

give us a couple details please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/19/2008)
falconbeast (2/19/2008)
Not one because those who call other socialists have no idea what socalism really is. I live in a country where a part of the population (east Germany) had to live in a socialist society and it had nothing to do with anything that is currently debated on this forum

I've been to East and West Germany shortly after the wall came down including to Berlin and the wall itself. I have to say the capitalist side (West Germany) looked a HECK OF A LOT BETTER than the socialist side (East Germany).

And for the record, I'm not calling everyone socialists.

I think you missed my point. Actual socialism (like in East Germany/Europe) has nothing at all to do what you call socialism. It`s actually an insult for anyone who hads to live 50 years under socialism when you call people socialists because they want to raise to taxes or just refuse to grant tax cuts.

PS: If you call West Germany capitalistic, then you shouldn´t call Obama a socialist because Obama is proposing alot of things countries like Germany already have in place. If you don´t agree with him, fine... but don´t call it socialism because it isn´t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

falconbeast (2/19/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (2/19/2008)
falconbeast (2/19/2008)
Not one because those who call other socialists have no idea what socalism really is. I live in a country where a part of the population (east Germany) had to live in a socialist society and it had nothing to do with anything that is currently debated on this forum

I've been to East and West Germany shortly after the wall came down including to Berlin and the wall itself. I have to say the capitalist side (West Germany) looked a HECK OF A LOT BETTER than the socialist side (East Germany).

And for the record, I'm not calling everyone socialists.

I think you missed my point. Actual socialism (like in East Germany/Europe) has nothing at all to do what you call socialism. It`s actually an insult for anyone who hads to live 50 years under socialism when you call people socialists because they want to raise to taxes or just refuse to grant tax cuts.

PS: If you call West Germany capitalistic, then you shouldn´t call Obama a socialist because Obama is proposing alot of things countries like Germany already have in place. If you don´t agree with him, fine... but don´t call it socialism because it isn´t

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or indirect exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term 'socialism' was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.

Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve_Bartkowski (2/19/2008)
thesouphead (2/19/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (2/19/2008)

And for the record, I'm not calling everyone socialists.

who are you calling socialists?

Only saying that Obama has ties to socialism and that he MAY have a long term agenda of socialism. I don't think anyone on this board is a socialist unless they admit to it or promote its ideas.

so all of that fuss about something Obama "may" do in the "long term"???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
falconbeast (2/19/2008)
Steve_Bartkowski (2/19/2008)
falconbeast (2/19/2008)
Not one because those who call other socialists have no idea what socalism really is. I live in a country where a part of the population (east Germany) had to live in a socialist society and it had nothing to do with anything that is currently debated on this forum

I've been to East and West Germany shortly after the wall came down including to Berlin and the wall itself. I have to say the capitalist side (West Germany) looked a HECK OF A LOT BETTER than the socialist side (East Germany).

And for the record, I'm not calling everyone socialists.

I think you missed my point. Actual socialism (like in East Germany/Europe) has nothing at all to do what you call socialism. It`s actually an insult for anyone who hads to live 50 years under socialism when you call people socialists because they want to raise to taxes or just refuse to grant tax cuts.

PS: If you call West Germany capitalistic, then you shouldn´t call Obama a socialist because Obama is proposing alot of things countries like Germany already have in place. If you don´t agree with him, fine... but don´t call it socialism because it isn´t

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or indirect exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term 'socialism' was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.

Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

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

And I don´t see where Obama or any other US Democrat would fit in anywhere in that definition. Maybe, just maybe you call call him a social democrat but a.) social democratism is not socialism and b.) social democracy (I call it social responsibility) is already part of every free society in the free world for 50-120 years.

It is just as wrong as calling conservatives fascists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eatcorn (2/19/2008)
Ah, good old Wikipdeia. Redefining words is always good times, epsecially if it's done my anonymous people.

Socialism requires state owned means of production. Current Repbulicans are closer to that ideal than any Democrat I'm aware of.

Do not like wiki??

so·cial·ism /ÈsoŠƒYÌljzYm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun 1. 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.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

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

Compare utopian socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
eatcorn (2/19/2008)
Ah, good old Wikipdeia. Redefining words is always good times, epsecially if it's done my anonymous people.

Socialism requires state owned means of production. Current Repbulicans are closer to that ideal than any Democrat I'm aware of.

Do not like wiki??

so·cial·ism /ÈsoŠƒYÌljzYm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun 1. 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.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

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

Compare utopian socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

I don't.

That definintion will suffice. Thanks for proving my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)

so·cial·ism: 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

I think that is a fitting definiton. I underlined the impirtant part to give you an idea why the countries in East Europe had socialism and why nothing we have (or may have) in Wester Europe / USA is anything close to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eatcorn (2/19/2008)
savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
eatcorn (2/19/2008)
Ah, good old Wikipdeia. Redefining words is always good times, epsecially if it's done my anonymous people.

Socialism requires state owned means of production. Current Repbulicans are closer to that ideal than any Democrat I'm aware of.

Do not like wiki??

so·cial·ism /ÈsoŠƒYÌljzYm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun 1. 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.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

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

Compare utopian socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

I don't.

That definintion will suffice. Thanks for proving my point.

So you do not think taking over a privetly owned and run health care industry, and putting it under government control,is not socialism?

That is the fabric of socialism..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
eatcorn (2/19/2008)
savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
eatcorn (2/19/2008)
Ah, good old Wikipdeia. Redefining words is always good times, epsecially if it's done my anonymous people.

Socialism requires state owned means of production. Current Repbulicans are closer to that ideal than any Democrat I'm aware of.

Do not like wiki??

so·cial·ism /ÈsoŠƒYÌljzYm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun 1. 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.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

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

Compare utopian socialism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

I don't.

That definintion will suffice. Thanks for proving my point.

So you do not think taking over a privetly owned and run health care industry, and putting it under government control,is not socialism?

That is the fabric of socialism..

Not one single candidate is espousing a health care plan that would have the government owning and administering health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you do not think taking over a privetly owned and run health care industry, and putting it under government control,is not socialism?

That is the fabric of socialism..

Small steps lead to giant leaps friend..I do not trust the government further than I could throw Rosie O'donnell..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
So you do not think taking over a privetly owned and run health care industry, and putting it under government control,is not socialism?

That is the fabric of socialism..

Small steps lead to giant leaps friend..I do not trust the government further than I could throw Rosie O'donnell..

Small steps lead to giant leaps could refer to anythign on Earth. Why pick this particular point?

No, that's not socialism. Not one single candidiate running is a socialist or advocates government owne and administered health care.

Why are you using the word 'socialism'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

savwboy savwboy (2/19/2008)
If this is not socialist,then what is it?

It is surely not capitalist..

Stop thinking black/white.

Every form of pure capitalism or pure socialism is going to fail. We choose to life in a capitalistic society that acknowledges some social responsibilities. The candidates that run for president are all following this pattern, the difference is how serious they are about social responsibilities. Just because Democrats have that pretty high on their agenda doesn´t make them socialists.

You should not forget that Obama / Hillary would be regarded as a conservative in every other country by their standards and I doubt that the rest of the world is one big socialist nest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...