What Is Socialism?

[Vlerchan]

Define: Socialism.

Or at least explain what you believe Socialism entails or what a Socialist economy would look like. I'd appreciate if people didn't read others definitions of what socialism is because that defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to do here. Because there is a purpose: recent polls have found that a large enough proportion of American's support Socialism, and I'm of the opinion that this is only happening because most Americans - and people in general - don't actually know what Socialism is. Adding whether you have a positive or negative view of your definition of Socialism would be interesting, too.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-hg_cxvgaugmwblhj7jpyg.gif

[Gamma Male]

I consider myself a democratic socialist and civil libertarian. I've always thought it meant a certain guaranteed quality of life for everyone(free healthcare, foodstamps), and the main natural resources and means of production are controlled primarily by the government and set toward the public good. But smaller businesses, like muffin bakerys and shit, could still operate independently. Also, free internet for all is a must.

[Harry Smith]

It's Obama right?

I think in the UK at least Socialism has become blurred, I mean I'd say that the Labour party represent a new brand of Socialism. I mean like all political ideologies in the UK it's extremely tribal. I'd say that socialism is ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to achieve in society meaning they have access to free education including university, cheap housing, secure employment including workers rights and care for the elderly

[Vlerchan]

It's Obama right?
Obama's a Fasco-Communist. (http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2011/9/13/the-fasco-communist-police-state-of-america.html)

[Miserabilia]

To me sociaism has always simply been allowing the government to help in creating social and economical equality,
though I can't formulate it exactly,
and I don't think there's something you can describe socialism as a whole,
as there're always subtypes.

[bob97]

I hate how all the Amercians, or most, all think that socialism is some evil thing that sucks because their way is the best and only way to function properly. I'm an American btw. I hear it all the time. 90% of people that I talk to about it dont actually have a clue what it is. I'm not going to act like I know all about it but it seems to be working to me. America has sort of gone to shit and Europe is thriving for the most part. I want to move to Europe so bad haha

[Sir Suomi]

It delves along the lines of government becoming involved in practically every aspect of your life. It's a far left-wing political idea, that is similar in some ways to communism, but not to the full extent of being communist.

[tovaris]

socialism is the inbetween time of transition to a better world, its the good kind of transition (unlike what we have here on the blakans „tranzicija je uspela, pacient je podlego, lstao je izjeban/.../stari sistem nije valjao, došao je novi ali ne kapitalizam nego fevdalizam”)

[Gamma Male]

It delves along the lines of government becoming involved in practically every aspect of your life.

Yeah, this simply isn't true.

[Faolan]

One difference between socialism and communism is that communism comes about through revolution while socialism occurs mostly due to popular vote. France's majority party is socialist, and they haven't had a large-scale revolution there since the 1800s.

[Miserabilia]

One difference between socialism and communism is that communism comes about through revolution while socialism occurs mostly due to popular vote. France's majority party is socialist, and they haven't had a large-scale revolution there since the 1800s.

It delves along the lines of government becoming involved in practically every aspect of your life. [1] It's a far left-wing political idea, that is similar in some ways to communism, [2]but not to the full extent of being communist.

[1]: That's not nescecairy at all. Socialism means more state help for certain matters, but not all.

[2]: Yes that is true but not really mentionable since they are still completely different things.

[Harry Smith]

It delves along the lines of government becoming involved in practically every aspect of your life. It's a far left-wing political idea, that is similar in some ways to communism, but not to the full extent of being communist.

That's ironic because the Republicans always talk about wanting a small government yet they want power over who you sleep with, power over your body and over your life

[phuckphace]

social democracy is transitional, led by a vanguard party that is supposed to oversee the transition to stateless communism and the abolition of private property. I could be wrong, but I don't think this holds true for any of the extant Social Democratic parties today, since they all embraced neoliberalism decades ago.

personally I prefer an authoritarian socialist state that remains in place indefinitely with no plans to transition. since authoritarian social policies necessarily require state centralization to coordinate and maintain, abolishing the state wouldn't be desirable IMO.

I'd permit the ownership of private property in reasonable amounts per individual. while the state needs to implement measures to prevent real estate bubbles from forming, I see no reason to abolish private property altogether.

[Vlerchan]

I'd personally define socialism as an ideology that seeks as a short- to medium-term goal to bring into public ownership, which does not necessarily entail state ownership, the means of production and holds the long-term goal of the abolition of private-property rights and the transition to a classless, stateless society. It contrasts with communism in that it is reformists and such gains are made through democratic means, i.e., parliamentarianism, as opposed to revolutionary means, i.e., eat the rich (baby).

I'd define Social Democracy along the same lines that Harry, Gamma Male, and Cheese did - i.e., welfare-capitalism.

I mean I'd say that the Labour party represent a new brand of Socialism.
What brand is this?

America has sort of gone to shit and Europe is thriving for the most part.
Have you tuned into European news since 2008?

France's majority party is socialist ...
... in name.

[Harry Smith]

What brand is this?

Post-Recession socialism, although it's not a clear ideology it's really about regulating capitalism to a degree, and where required introducing public ownership e.g Railways whilst not jumping to the conclusion that everything needs to be in public ownership. I'll admit it's an extremely boiled down form of socialism

[phuckphace]

I'd define Social Democracy along the same lines that Harry, Gamma Male, and Cheese did - i.e., welfare-capitalism.

to me they seem distinct. like, "I ordered a large Social Democracy, but they served me welfare-capitalism with a side of ECB and IMF."

[Vlerchan]

[...] and where required introducing public ownership e.g Railways.
Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Directive_91/440

whilst not jumping to the conclusion that everything needs to be in public ownership.
I personally wouldn't consider suggesting a transition away from market-centric economies 'jumping to conclusions' given that empirical backing (http://monthlyreview.org/2014/05/01/stagnation-and-financialization) that the idea of secular stagnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stagnation#Stagnation_and_the_Financial_Explosion:_The_1980s) in mature capitalist economies holds. You even have neoliberals/neoclassical economics like Larry Summers (http://larrysummers.com/secular-stagnation/) tending towards the view now.

I'll admit it's an extremely boiled down form of socialism
Or, how about, it's not socialism at all.

to me they seem distinct. like, "I ordered a large Social Democracy, but they served me welfare-capitalism with a side of ECB and IMF."
That's the reality.

Though, in theory, Social Democracy is just supposed to be good Welfare-Capatalism.

[Harry Smith]

Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Directive_91/440


I personally wouldn't consider suggesting a transition away from market-centric economies 'jumping to conclusions' given that empirical backing (http://monthlyreview.org/2014/05/01/stagnation-and-financialization) that the idea of secular stagnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_stagnation#Stagnation_and_the_Financial_Explosion:_The_1980s) in mature capitalist economies holds. You even have neoliberals/neoclassical economics like Larry Summers (http://larrysummers.com/secular-stagnation/) tending towards the view now.


Or, how about, it's not socialism at all.


That's the reality.

Though, in theory, Social Democracy is just supposed to be good Welfare-Capatalism.

there are no requirements in the legislation requiring any level of privatisation; the main aim of the process was the "de-monopolisation" of European railways, with the aim of increasing competitiveness,[12] a process referred to as 'liberalisation'

The East Coast train line is still in public ownership, and remains largely profitable so I don't see that law as stopping public ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_(train_operating_company)

Truthfully the biggest problem facing labour, is the fact that Trade unions have became so unpopular in Britain, so when that's combined to the New Labour movement I'd say that Labour's relationship with the unions is stagnating. If they could re-engage with the left of the party and the unions then they could make some progress however that's unlikely to happen.

[Vlerchan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_(train_operating_company)
The franchise was re-nationalised on 14 November 2009, with the intention being that operations would return to a private franchisee by December 2013.[4] In March 2013 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that this would occur in February 2015 instead.

I also wouldn't consider re-nationalising a few train-carts as the equivalent to re-nationalising the railways again, which would be impossible under the 'de-monopolization' directive that the EU produced.

[...] there are no requirements in the legislation requiring any level of privatisation; the main aim of the process was the "de-monopolisation" of European railways, with the aim of increasing competitiveness,[12] a process referred to as 'liberalisation'
Please explain how you believe that any level of 'de-monopolization' can be undertaken without a certain extent of privatisation.

It's also important to note that forcing competition is antithetical to nationalisation and running services for the 'public good'.

If they could re-engage with the left of the party and the unions then they could make some progress however that's unlikely to happen.
If Labour get into power I can almost guarantee you that the Trade Unions will start engaging again, just for the benefits that engagement will bring.

However, this is unlikely to drag labour left since there'll be no need to make such a move.

[Harry Smith]

The franchise was re-nationalised on 14 November 2009, with the intention being that operations would return to a private franchisee by December 2013.[4] In March 2013 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that this would occur in February 2015 instead.

I also wouldn't consider re-nationalising a few train-carts as the equivalent to re-nationalising the railways again, which would be impossible under the 'de-monopolization' directive that the EU produced.


Please explain how you believe that any level of 'de-monopolization' can be undertaken without a certain extent of privatisation.

It's also important to note that forcing competition is antithetical to nationalisation and running services for the 'public good'.


If Labour get into power I can almost guarantee you that the Trade Unions will start engaging again, just for the benefits that engagement will bring.

However, this is unlikely to drag labour left since there'll be no need to make such a move.

The part of the extract that I quoted (Albeit from wikipedia) showed that the move didn't force privatization, I'm sure that the bidding process would remain the same with public companies simply having to bid along side government ones. I'd say the west coast line is pretty crucial-it's allowed groups to campaign on behalf on the issue-20 labour MP's lobbied for it, the Greens support it along with 80% of British Public. The EU law appears to be a simple anti-competition law rather than something stopping the British government.

[Vlerchan]

The EU law appears to be a simple anti-competition law rather than something stopping the British government.
No, the directive stops the British government from nationalising its railways (to any great extent).

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/02/24/comment-the-eu-us-treaty-which-enforces-privatisation) deal is shaping up to do a lot worse, though.

[Harry Smith]

No, the directive stops the British government from nationalising its railways (to any great extent).

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/02/24/comment-the-eu-us-treaty-which-enforces-privatisation) deal is shaping up to do a lot worse, though.

Oh yeah that's a great treat-allows US companies to come over and privatize our companies after suing our government

[Sir Suomi]

That's ironic because the Republicans always talk about wanting a small government yet they want power over who you sleep with, power over your body and over your life

However democrats insist that I have to work my ass off to pay for some lazy ass on welfare, that I need to both pay for other's insurances and I'll be fined if I don't purchase what the government offers, and that I'm a maniac gun-loon, just because I like to own firearms.

[Stronk Serb]

However democrats insist that I have to work my ass off to pay for some lazy ass on welfare, that I need to both pay for other's insurances and I'll be fined if I don't purchase what the government offers, and that I'm a maniac gun-loon, just because I like to own firearms.

Actually, universal healthcare is better. You pay a small percent of your monthly salary, and you and your family gets healthcare for everything. From a common cold to a brain tumor, the doctors will patch you up. That's the system here.

[Vlerchan]

However democrats insist that I have to work my ass off to pay for some lazy ass on welfare[1], that I need to both pay for other's insurances and I'll be fined if I don't purchase what the government offers[2], and that I'm a maniac gun-loon, just because I like to own firearms[3].
[1]: So do Republicans. Just not to the same extent.

[2]: Yes. The centre-right solution to affordable healthcare is fucking awful (and soon to be in Ireland!) but then socialists have never advocated anything like ObamaCare. I mean: what was going through people's heads when they thought it would be a good idea to force people to buy into a private oligopoly.

[Sir Suomi]

[1]: So do Republicans. Just not to the same extent.

[2]: Yes. The centre-right solution to affordable healthcare is fucking awful (and soon to be in Ireland!) but then socialists have never advocated anything like ObamaCare. I mean: what was going through people's heads when they thought it would be a good idea to force people to buy into a private oligopoly.

I was referring more towards American Democrats.

Also, I should mention that I am a Libertarian, just for future references. By no means am I a Republican, I simply rather agree with them more on issues than I do with Democrats.

[Harry Smith]

However democrats insist that I have to work my ass off to pay for some lazy ass on welfare, that I need to both pay for other's insurances and I'll be fined if I don't purchase what the government offers, and that I'm a maniac gun-loon, just because I like to own firearms.

So that's your defense to the crimes of the Republican party? No one said that the democrats were socialists...

I love how that's the standard response of the GOP, just start moaning about how bad the democrats are. The republicans are at best a joke, look at the crop they spunked up in 2012- A wooden businessmen, a reject from the 90's, a restaurant owner charged with sexual harassment, a women who claimed God told her to run and a man who's name has become assicoated with anal leakage. And with the welfare-no,just no

The majority of people who are on welfare are able-bodied and want to work, however they can not find stable employment. Still, many work irregular, low-wage jobs in between receiving welfare.

In fact, the richest in our society get the largest medical care and housing benefits, with the poorest following—which means that the working poor, lower middle class, and even the middle class often fall through the cracks. The richest fifth of the population receives housing subsidies through the mortgage interest tax deduction—which is nearly four times the housing assistance provided to the poorest fifth and about eight times the assistance provided to the lower middle and middle classes. - See more at: http://socialwork.columbia.edu/news-events/welfare-state-myths-measurement#sthash.rhnHmcW0.dpuf

But yeah next time you defend the Republicans, try to actually defend the policy

[Sir Suomi]

So that's your defense to the crimes of the Republican party? No one said that the democrats were socialists...

I love how that's the standard response of the GOP, just start moaning about how bad the democrats are. The republicans are at best a joke, look at the crop they spunked up in 2012- A wooden businessmen, a reject from the 90's, a restaurant owner charged with sexual harassment, a women who claimed God told her to run and a man who's name has become assicoated with anal leakage. And with the welfare-no,just no



Oh, and Democrats are without sin? How many times have they overstepped the Constitution? They force people to abide by what they want, and if you don't believe in what they want, well that makes you a racist, homophobic, and sexist person. Bullying their way into inserting the Affordable Care Act, which has caused so much more harm than good? That's good? How about Benghazi? I suppose those 4 American lives that were lost that way mean nothing too? Fuck Democrats. I don't like Republicans that much either, which I've already said that I'm NOT a Republican instead I am a Libertarian, but I sure as hell would want them running our country than some damn liberal like Hillary.

[Harry Smith]

Oh, and Democrats are without sin?(1) How many times have they overstepped the Constitution? They force people to abide by what they want(2), and if you don't believe in what they want, well that makes you a racist, homophobic, and sexist person (3). Bullying their way into inserting the Affordable Care Act (4), which has caused so much more harm than good? That's good? (5)How about Benghazi? I suppose those 4 American lives that were lost that way mean nothing too? (6)Fuck Democrats. I don't like Republicans that much either, which I've already said that I'm NOT a Republican instead I am a Libertarian, but I sure as hell would want them running our country than some damn liberal like Hillary. (7)

Did you read what I said? You can't justify the republicans on the basis of the democrats being bad you know. I see you've decided to give up on the anti-welfare card as well

(1) See above, I never claimed the democrats were perfect-or even good.
(2) That tends to be what all government does
(3) In all likelihood when I hear this argument the person probably is one of the three-however that's a culture issue, and nothing to do with the policy of the democrat party
(4) Sigh-they passed it through congress, so yes I'm sure there was bullying. You know that happens on virtually every single bill in the last 50 years
(5) By that logic I'd love to see what you think about 9/11 considering the CIA had warnings about it for months, Benghazi was simply an attack by the Libyan people-there wasn't anything that Hillary or Obama could do to stop that. They provided security, it was just an accident. I mean I'm not of the view that governement is some vast base that is able to stop every single attack
(6)That's your view
(7)Feel free to vote for Ted Cruz

[Vlerchan]

I don't pretend to understand how people can decide to become right-libertarians.

I'd also agree that the Democrats are awful, too.

[Harry Smith]

I don't pretend to understand how people can decide to become right-libertarians.

I'd also agree that the Democrats are awful, too.

I was always of the understanding that it was those opposed to Bush, but still wanted to keep relative right wing values e.g gun ownership, whilst obviously making compromises on social issues

[Vlerchan]

I was always of the understanding that it was those opposed to Bush, but still wanted to keep relative right wing values e.g gun ownership, whilst obviously making compromises on social issues
Something like that. With extra emphasis on tax-cuts and leading the poor to early deaths, maybe.

Of course, they all end up supporting the Republican camp in the end, so it doesn't really matter what distinctions they try to make between their own positions and the positions they actually vote for, really.

[Harry Smith]

Something like that. With extra emphasis on tax-cuts and leading the poor to early deaths, maybe.

Of course, they all end up supporting the Republican camp in the end, so it doesn't really matter what distinctions they try to make between their own positions and the positions they actually vote for, really.

Yeah that generally seems to be the case. The annoying thing is that in my view they have worked out good policy on social issues-they've just arrived at these policies the wrong way

[phuckphace]

lol Labour are capitalist stooges and it'll be a cold day in hell before they bring back pre-Maggie levels of public ownership