What is wrong with Socialism ?

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

This thread then seems pointless since no one can really say what the question even pertains too.

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

This thread then seems pointless since no one can really say what the question even pertains too.

It seems as often is the case nowadays that people can take the same definition and use it to what they would like it to be as opposed to what it is.

[Dangler Senior Administrator☼ Wizard ☼ White Tiger Award 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Dangler]

Definition shopping ?

Like doctor shopping?

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

In the US, the right has taken to calling any social program 'socalist' as a way to deride it. I find it strange when people on the left pick this up. ( Quoted from Peg)


This is how perception is far different than reality. How did a guy from Australia get the idea that the right feels social programs are socialist, which in a sense they are? Well this is the media they see designed to paint a group in a bad light.
We have many social programs in our country that everyone refers to as social programs. No one I know refers to Medicare as socialism. Welfare is referred to as welfare; it is a social program as is Social Security and Disability.
Programs that get referred to as socialism are programs that started off simply as social programs but because of politicians and their desire to get votes they expand these programs to include just about everybody.

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

.



Communism: state ownership of "the means of production." In practice it means no private ownership of virtually anything.

Socialism: private ownership of "the means of production" - but heavy confiscation of profits which are then socially directed.

"free market capitalism" - isn't a system per se because it isn't intentionally designed and implemented. It evolves spontaneously wherever human beings interact: this includes in communist systems.

Norway is in a highly unique position and to tout it as people do as an example to be replicated elsewhere is risible nonsense. It's extremely small, relatively homogenous (though this is changing), and it controls a massive oil field to fund it's socialism. Not many countries can say this. On the flip side, Norway is one of the most rigidly stratified countries in the world; whatever "class" you are born into, it's pretty much where you stay. This is what socialism is like in practice.

In the US, we have a kind of mix of fascism, socialism and central-bank manipulated/controlled economic order that we don't even have a name for yet.






.

[RedWilly Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close RedWilly]

There’s no problem with it so long as you don’t impose it upon others. Irony is, you have to. It just doesn’t work.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

There’s no problem with it so long as you don’t impose it upon others. Irony is, you have to. It just doesn’t work.

Norwegians, Germans etc etc would take umbrage at that.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

It seems as often is the case nowadays that people can take the same definition and use it to what they would like it to be as opposed to what it is.

There is no clear definition of what it is or if it is just a large church that contains everything except extreme capitalism

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

There is no clear definition of what it is or if it is just a large church that contains everything except extreme capitalism

Sure there is.

Communism: state ownership of "the means of production." In practice it means no private ownership of virtually anything.


Socialism: private ownership of "the means of production" - but heavy confiscation of profits which are then socially directed.


"free market capitalism" - isn't a system per se because it isn't intentionally designed and implemented. It evolves spontaneously wherever human beings interact: this includes in communist systems.


Norway is in a highly unique position and to tout it as people do as an example to be replicated elsewhere is risible nonsense. It's extremely small, relatively homogenous (though this is changing), and it controls a massive oil field to fund it's socialism. Not many countries can say this. On the flip side, Norway is one of the most rigidly stratified countries in the world; whatever "class" you are born into, it's pretty much where you stay. This is what socialism is like in practice.


In the US, we have a kind of mix of fascism, socialism and central-bank manipulated/controlled economic order that we don't even have a name for yet.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

Sure there is.

I quoted Oxford dictionary earlier you do not name your source .

Most west euro countries could just as easy be used as an example particularly nordic . I actually mentioned Germany. You also seem to claim that the US is using elements of socialism so your point is what exactly .

The US as I understand is more stratified than Norway don't know where you get that from. The US has more natural resources than Norway whose economy i notice is unaffected by the fall in the oil price . In so far as it's economy is "highly unique " (it isn't so much) it has created that uniquness .

Basically all your arguments are confused and weak .

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

Here is an exerpt from the Wiki of Sweden.

Quote
Sweden is a competitive mixed economy featuring a generous universal welfare state financed through relatively high income taxes that ensures that income is distributed across the entire society, a model sometimes called the Nordic model.^[17] Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

.

I quoted Oxford dictionary earlier you do not name your source .

1. Dictionaries are either descriptive or proscriptive. The "oxford" (lol - u realize how may there are?) dictionary you're citing - which one is it?: and is it proscriptive or descriptive. You probably don't know the difference.

2. Anyone who goes to dictionaries for definitions in arguments - much less wikipedia - is risibly clueless about the world, not to mention dictionaries and how to use them. Take the word "fascism" for example - it's a loaded and historically complex word and I have yet to see a dictionary that captures well it's meaning.

3. I haven't even made an argument yet; interesting that you think I've made one, which says a great deal about you. Probably you cannot recognize one; which doesn't say much for your ability to construct one. Trust me - when and if I do take the time to make one, you're rapidly going to realize how over your head you are in all of this.

Now, regarding my definitions; the first comes from Marx, second from Marx, Keynes, various 20th century political theorists, et. al.; and the third comes from the Austrian school of economics, particularly Hayek, Von Mises, etc.

1. Communism: state ownership of "the means of production." In practice it means no private ownership of virtually anything.
2. Socialism: private ownership of "the means of production" - but heavy confiscation of profits which are then socially directed.
3. "free market capitalism" - isn't a system per se because it isn't intentionally designed and implemented. It evolves spontaneously wherever human beings interact: this includes in communist systems.

These definitions are rooted in their origins, their use over time, and reason. And decidedly not in the ephemeral and ideologically charged swamp known as wikipedia - written and edited mostly by ill-educated people.

Those definitions - short and summary as they are - are indeed sound, useful and precise.

Please show what you think is wrong with them.

The first task in ANY debate is to agree on terms.

If your response isn't rooted in 19th-20th century political-economic literature (Marx, Keynes, Hayek, etc.), you're not even educated at a basic level to discuss this.






.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

.




1. Dictionaries are either descriptive or proscriptive. The "oxford" (lol - u realize how may there are?) dictionary you're citing - which one is it?: and is it proscriptive or descriptive. You probably don't know the difference.

2. Anyone who goes to dictionaries for definitions in arguments - much less wikipedia - is risibly clueless about the world, not to mention dictionaries and how to use them. Take the word "fascism" for example - it's a loaded and historically complex word and I have yet to see a dictionary that captures well it's meaning.

3. I haven't even made an argument yet; interesting that you think I've made one, which says a great deal about you. Probably you cannot recognize one; which doesn't say much for your ability to construct one. Trust me - when and if I do take the time to make one, you're rapidly going to realize how over your head you are in all of this.

Now, regarding my definitions; the first comes from Marx, second from Marx, Keynes, various 20th century political theorists, et. al.; and the third comes from the Austrian school of economics, particularly Hayek, Von Mises, etc.

1. Communism: state ownership of "the means of production." In practice it means no private ownership of virtually anything.
2. Socialism: private ownership of "the means of production" - but heavy confiscation of profits which are then socially directed.
3. "free market capitalism" - isn't a system per se because it isn't intentionally designed and implemented. It evolves spontaneously wherever human beings interact: this includes in communist systems.

These definitions are rooted in their origins, their use over time, and reason. And decidedly not in the ephemeral and ideologically charged swamp known as wikipedia - written and edited mostly by ill-educated people.

Those definitions - short and summary as they are - are indeed sound, useful and precise.

Please show what you think is wrong with them.

The first task in ANY debate is to agree on terms.

If your response isn't rooted in 19th-20th century political-economic literature (Marx, Keynes, Hayek, etc.), you're not even educated at a basic level to discuss this.






.

What a load of intellectual sounding twaddle .

My point is quite simple many euro countries are quite successful and they are socialist as much as one will find in the real world . Call them social democratic or whatever .

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

I don't think the description of socialism is entirely correct. I thought the difference in definition between communism and socialism is the state control of the means of production and the state ownership of it. Which is more or less the same thing as far as I'm concerned. If the state tells you what you do with your property then you don't really own it.

I always used to believe it was a moral thing before I really thought about it, but now I think the opposite. I don't think people realize by voting for more government to take care of them and take away from the rich they are also voting away their own property rights and agency. Government grows and increases rules/regulation and then ends up ruling the people instead of representing them.

I think the free market can provide everything the government can and can do a proper job. At the very least I don't think governments should be immune to market forces and be able to force taxation. What incentive is there for them to do a good job? People seem to vote for the politicians they dislike the least instead of voting for someone they like.

[GreenDevil Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close GreenDevil]

Wow, you people want to try and define socialism as something that is pleasant?
Stalin killed 30 million of his own comrades before that other socialist guy ever crossed the Polish border.