• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Socialism?

This is socialism:
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of modern socialist theory, and Utopian socialist Henri di Saint Simon advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism. This would allow for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Click to expand...
It's awesome and you want it.
 
I prefer making my way on my own merits without other people having a say in what I do with the fruits of my labors and talent.
 
Phrost said:
I prefer making my way on my own merits without other people having a say in what I do with the fruits of my labors and talent.
Click to expand...

There's no reason why this can't be the case under a Socialist Government. Communism, perhaps, but not Attlee or Ebert Socialism.
 
Last edited:
Phrost said:
I prefer making my way on my own merits without other people having a say in what I do with the fruits of my labors and talent.
Click to expand...

The problem with this desire, that is reasonable on its face, is that others have a say already, by virtue of being in a democratic republic that engages in any degree of business regulation. Socialism though is more than others having "a say", it implies a rather large degree of control.

You might decide that you are being asked to give up too much control, and arguing that would get you farther than trying to get people to agree on whether that rises to the level of being called socialism. What it's called isn't your problem. Wouldn't you rather the issue itself be addressed rather than getting everyone into a fight over what to call it?

ETA: Alternatively, you might be trying to get your issue called Socialism in order to gain the support of those that oppose actual Socialism and might find your complaint less objectionable otherwise. In which case, tsk tsk.
 
Last edited:
Phrost said:
I prefer making my way on my own merits without other people having a say in what I do with the fruits of my labors and talent.
Click to expand...
So, why don't you move to a place like Somalia? I'm pretty sure you can go there and live your life whichever way you want to, without any government bothering you.
 
Eyeron said:
I have a friend who became a Socialist after he wouldn't be given a raise at a job he once held. And of course he thinks I'm foolish because I don't embrace the philosophy. He is very biased against wealthy people.
Click to expand...
As others have noted, it's tough to respond with clarity because we know so little about your friend's views. How about invitiing him/her to join JREF and join in the conversation here. I bet we'd get a lot farther faster if that were to happen.
 
I've tried but he hates discussion forums to no end. Sorry. I personally think he really doesn't know that much about socialism either.
 
Eyeron said:
I guess the current beer commercials in which a big black guy simply goes in and takes the beer from the rich people who has it and gives it to others who don't.
Click to expand...
/\/\/\
This is basically the kind of socialism that Rober Owen proposed.

As far as punishing the rich, there are socialists that say you can do this without transferring wealth. For example, I think the Proudhon socialists used to advocate making rich people wear silly hats so everyone could mock them, but they were against taxes of any sort.
 
You should embrace socialism by the time you are 18. And you should jilt it before you are 30.
 
Eyeron said:
Why should I embrace Socialism? This is a serious questions to which I'd appreciate even handed answers please.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't. You shouldn't even hold hands with it or give it a little peck on the cheek.

Why do you ask?
 
Brainster said:
You should embrace socialism by the time you are 18. And you should jilt it before you are 30.
Click to expand...

Like Adequate mentions above, it was Libertarianism I embraced at that age. It seems to be the way a lot of kids are going. I don't know many 18 year-old Socialists these days, just people who describe themselves as very liberal.

I came to my senses soon enough though.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Like Adequate mentions above, it was Libertarianism I embraced at that age. It seems to be the way a lot of kids are going. I don't know many 18 year-old Socialists these days, just people who describe themselves as very liberal.

I came to my senses soon enough though.
Click to expand...

You were a naive Libertarian and then became a naive Social Democrat...well at least you're going in the right direction.
 
But it seems that people mean different things by "socialism". In the sense that it is actually defined, as the doctrine of public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, you should reject it because it doesn't work.

However, in the sense that, for example, Glenn Beck means it, i.e. anything Glenn Beck doesn't like, you should embrace it. Why? Well, to start with, because it would annoy Glenn Beck. And that, I believe, is reason enough.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
However, in the sense that, for example, Glenn Beck means it, i.e. anything Glenn Beck doesn't like, you should embrace it. Why? Well, to start with, because it would annoy Glenn Beck. And that, I believe, is reason enough.
Click to expand...


This may be the first time I find myself in complete agreement with you. Well said.
 
Eyeron said:
I have a friend who became a Socialist after he wouldn't be given a raise at a job he once held. And of course he thinks I'm foolish because I don't embrace the philosophy. He is very biased against wealthy people.

And it's socialism as wealth distribution, not Socialism as mob rule.
Click to expand...

Under our alleged free market system, we already have wealth distribution. Something to consider.

No, socialism is many things to many people.

I think the best reason to consider it is game theory. If you have a safety net then the chances of surviving job loss, catastrophic illness and the like are higher. The personal benefits to raising the bottom of the standard of living are harder to demonstrate.
 
Are progressive tax brackets combined with need-based social programs socialist?
 
Well, I dislike paying taxes, but enjoy the benefits, so it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

I like have roads, running water, a power grid, and all the other infrastructure that the government supplies.

I like knowing that I can be confident that corporations aren't allowed to harm me to save a few bucks.

I like that if I get sick or hurt, I do not have to worry about anything but recovery. I will not have to be concerned whether or not I can afford treatment, or the resulting debt.

I enjoy living in a country where a person with a great business idea can recieve support from society to get it off the ground, knowing that his family won't starve if it doesn't work.
 
Arcade22 said:
All governments "distribute wealth" to some degree (except Somalia[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/188094adb6910535af.gif[/qimg]) and there's nothing "Socialist" about that.
Click to expand...

In fact, capitalism as an economical system was meant to distribute wealth better than previous systems. And it was hugely successful at that - after capitalism was introduced the middle class grew to be the dominant class, and the lower and upper classes shrunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom