Commie Central

folkbabe, Since we live in a world of redefining, i.e., Assault Weapon, tolerance, etc., what's your definition of a Socialist?

In your opinion, who at this time in Congress is a socialist? Bernie Sanders is a self admitted democratic socialist?
 
I'm going to be lazy and quote Albert: that workers and consumers have appropriate empowerment and receive fair and equitable incomes not based on any structural or personal advantage.

I think a lot of the members of the congressional progressive caucus are socialists, but I'm not sure all are and the caucus doesn't define itself as such and some are probably people who believe in capitalism as the basic system but a strong social net. I'm not going to pretend to be all-knowing and guess which of the people in the list of names you provided consider themselves socialist. I know former representative Ron Dellums and Bernie Saunders are, and that's about it. Like I said, these aren't my local representatives. (Neither of Baltimore City's representatives at this point are socialist.)
 
folkbabe, A Constitutional Republic protects the rights of the minority(individual)from the majority(masses). Under socialism the majority has all the power including the power to say who may have rights(sounds elitist to me).

In advanced capitalist systems, it comes from loans from banks most of the time.
Click to expand...

So do you mean government forces private businesses to cough it up?

Another option is through the pooled wealth of the future workers.
Click to expand...

Of future workers? How do you do this? Wealth has to have a beginning, it just doesn't fall out of the sky like manta. Does government once again force the workers to do this? What happens to the workers that don't want the responsibility of owning their part of the business? Where is also the incentive to work hard to get ahead, but yet under socialism we are all equal? Why work harder if the guy next to you just does enough to fill the daily quota, but yet he will still receive the same amount of money? Where would the motivation to improve come from?
 
In the United States, a variety of a supermajority has the right to say what rights the minority holds. Under socialism, one could have the exact same system or even stronger protections. What you're discussing is basically political systems and socialism is an economic system so they don't really affect another directly, though indirectly they do (I'd argue that socialism can't exist in an authoritarian government because socialism means that some people don't have control over others).

So do you mean government forces private businesses to cough it up?

Um, are you referring to the present U.S. system or to a socialist system of some type? In either case, banks are very happy to loan money out if they think they'll make decent interest and get paid back.

Re wealth:
Following our train of conjecture, the workers would be investing their savings from previous jobs when they decided to found this company. Please bear in mind that what I'm saying is just one possible socialist economy, not one that would neccessarily be endorsed by all socialists.
 
In the United States, a variety of a supermajority has the right to say what rights the minority holds
Click to expand...

Only of course by constitutional amendment.

What you're discussing is basically political systems and socialism is an economic system so they don't really affect another directly, though indirectly they do
Click to expand...

I disagree. Socialism does have a direct impact on the political system. For a country to become socialist government would by force have to make those that don't want socialism live under socialism.
 
wait a minute...

Wait a minute.. There's actually a socialist on this board???

Socialism is ANTI-individualism. I dismiss socialism and socialist off-hand.

In Marx's theory, socialism was the "stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles". (1)

We are not a truely capitalist economy. IMHO, we are heading towards communism.

(1) Webster's College Dictionary, Random House, 1991
 
I'm not surprised to occasionally find a socialist opposed to gun control. Usually, it's the ones who observe that the best way to spread political power broadly through a society is to spread armaments broadly through a society.

I think the more people who are _not_ Republicans who support RKBA reasonably consistently, the better our chances of keeping our rights in the long run.
 
It seems to me that socialism requires a government to enforce it, while capitalism does not. The redistribution of wealth will not be possible without force, and force is what governments do best. On the other hand, capitalism only requires that the buyer and the seller agree on the price; government intervention actually interferes with the market, and does not improve it. Therefore, the idea that a purely capitalist society will end up totalitarian is false. Certainly, one can imagine a case where a nominally capitalistic constitutional republic ends up in tyranny (its coming to me now) however, without government totalitarianism isn't possible.

The point is: socialism requires central planning, which requires government, which requires force to accomplish its goals, which means that eventually we have totalitarianism. Capitalism does not require government, and actually works better without it. Therefore, while socialism must inevitably become totalitarian, capitalism need not.

BTW, folkbabe, I admire your conviction and courage in defending your 'unpopular' beliefs. I disagree with you on this issue, but not many agree with my belief in anarcho-capitalism, either.
 
folkbabe says: "there's nothing inherent in a socialist society that prevents it from being a constitutional republic."

Wrong. The fundamental elements of a constitutional republic are 1) defense of the rights of the minority and 2) protection of private property. Socialism is diametrically opposed to both of these concepts. This fact is plain as water.

You can redefine the issues all you like. You can say 2 + 2 = 5 so many times that you begin to believe it. But you are wrong about socialism, and history underscores that fact.

folkbabe also says: "In the United States, a variety of a supermajority has the right to say what rights the minority holds. Under socialism, one could have the exact same system or even stronger protections."

Wrong again. The rights of Americans (and everyone else) were conferred on us by God. The American Constitution merely codifies these rights for use as a basis of human government. These rights are inalienable and are not subject to revocation or dilution. While it is certainly true that some have attempted such abrogation of authority, their efforts do not comprise the Constitutionally correct American way.

We could go on and on forever about this and our worldviews probably wouldn't change. So be it. But the truth at the bottom of it all won't change either: the socialist's efforts to replace God with the State will always end in failure.

Over and out.
 
For a country to become socialist government would by force have to make those that don't want socialism live under socialism.

I'd argue that under the current system everyone is "forced" to live under capitalism. If there was a nuclear holocaust and the remaining humans lived without government they'd be just as capable of setting up communal ventures as privately owned ventures. The problem is that without a catostrophic destruction of the current society (something no one wants) it's hard to establish communal ventures when the "means of production" are controlled by a small minority of the population.

ds1973, Marx used the word socialist (which of course predated him) as a cog in his theory. That doesn't mean that socialism _became_ his. ;)

ugh, I have to go but I'll try to get back later tonight
 
The means of production are not controlled. There are new millionaires every year; millionaires who weren't from rich families, who didn't have connections with the Government.
There would be even more if there wasn't such an asinine level of FedGov interference.

Freedom is its own reward. I'd rather be dirt poor and free than "comfortable" and a subject of a "compasionate," leftist, nanny-state.

(Marx was generating an emotional reaction to his own personal failure. Fitting that he wrote his fantastic work while someone else was paying his bills.)
 
Under our system you can have it any way you want to as long as it's legal. If you want a company that is owned by the workers so be it, it can be done, but under socialism that choice would not be available.
 
Currently, you can live a communal lifestyle if you wish, even in this country. Nobody forces you to live a capitalist lifestyle, in fact, if anything some people are encouraged to live a more socialist lifestyle thru our wonderful 'social' programs such as welfare, housing assistance and foodstamps. Capitalists, on the other hand, are forced at gunpoint to turn over a large share of their wages in order to pay for the costs of these programs.

As Shin Tao said, the production of wealth is not controlled by gov't, nor by any small minority of the population. If it was, the fledgling Microsoft would have been gobbled up by IBM years ago; now Microsoft could practically purchase IBM with what they spend on snacks for the programmers.

Communism, socialism, all the various income redistribution schemes have been tried, and have failed, because humans aren't naturally communists. Human interaction is always based on the capitalist ideal: get more in trade than what you give. We've been this way since before we had money, it seems to me it's as natural as sleeping and eating. Even in rural Africa, a place as far from the traditional idea of capitalism as you can get, there is an ancient saying, "meat for meat".

If someone wants to live in a commune I'd be the first to defend that right, even to the extent that they not pay taxes as long as they don't ask for or receive gov't assistance. I would be tempted, however, to remind the communists of the fate of the original colonists in America who also tried the commune idea...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top