• 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?

Eyeron

Unregistered
E
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
1,774
Why should I embrace Socialism? This is a serious questions to which I'd appreciate even handed answers please.
 
Which version or definition of socialism are you talking about embracing?
 
Maybe he's thinking that if Socialism got more hugs, it wouldn't try so hard to take wealth away from the people who earned it and give it to those who didn't, in order to improve its sense of self-worth.
 
Because you appreciate having the government provide certain essential public services, such as the emergency services, armed forces to protect you, communication channels and regulatory bodies to make sure you don't eat poisoned food.

Just a thought.
 
Who is asking you to embrace socialism?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Maybe you should be asking him instead of us.

Eyeron said:
And it's socialism as wealth distribution, not Socialism as mob rule.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't socialism as mob rule. Socialism is no more mob rule than capitalism.
 
I would still like to hear the thoughts of people who do know far more about it han him or I.
 
Eyeron said:
I would still like to hear the thoughts of people who do know far more about it han him or I.
Click to expand...

You've said nothing yet about which people can know more.

As was said earlier, all governments transfer wealth. Tanks don't build themselves, for example. Laws don't enforce themselves. Schools don't build and staff themselves.

Life is risky. One of the key questions that any group of people will have to deal with is what do do about risk. If you're risk-averse, the idea of spreading your risk about by pooling it with other people makes a lot of sense. This, basically, is what socialism is about. Economic risk is pooled by providing a strong safety net, paid for by the people who have been lucky how their risks have turned out.
 
Eyeron said:
I would still like to hear the thoughts of people who do know far more about it han him or I.
Click to expand...
It's just that the question lacks too much context to give a meaningful answer. That, and I doubt there are many here who think you ought to embrace socialism.

I guess the first thing to ask is what do you think your friend means by socialism? As Arcade said, wealth distribution is not exclusive to socialism nor is it the central goal of socialism, per se.
 
I'm not entirely sure. The best way I know how to describe what I mean is the style that wants to punish the rich for having too much wealth and property and taking it to give it to people who don't have as much as the rich. 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.

Added:

I do not know a lot about it. I also hear it as a hot button topic among conservatives who blast Obama for it.
 
Uzzy said:
Because you appreciate having the government provide certain essential public services, such as the emergency services, armed forces to protect you, communication channels and regulatory bodies to make sure you don't eat poisoned food.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

That's not Socialism. That's regulation.

Socialism is when the collective controls wealth and property as opposed to individuals getting to chose for themselves what they do with what they've earned.
 
Eyeron said:
I'm not entirely sure. The best way I know how to describe what I mean is the style that wants to punish the rich for having too much wealth and property and taking it to give it to people who don't have as much as the rich.

{snip}

I do not know a lot about it. I also hear it as a hot button topic among conservatives who blast Obama for it.
Click to expand...
That isn't socialism. That is a straw man of socialism.

If I were you, I would start (stress on the start) here and continue into more depth as your time and inclination allows.


eta:
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...
What?!?
 
Last edited:
I'm a Social Democrat in large part thanks to Clement Attlee's Government of 1945-51. I can't think of a more brilliant Government. To have led the country away from such a devastating war was one thing, but to transform it for the better was another.
 
Last edited:
Phrost said:
Socialism is when the collective controls wealth and property as opposed to individuals getting to chose for themselves what they do with what they've earned.
Click to expand...

And, again, that's not socialism. That's a straw-man caricature of socialism.
 
drkitten said:
And, again, that's not socialism. That's a straw-man caricature of socialism.
Click to expand...

No, that's the damn dictionary definition.

"Socialism". Oxford English Dictionary. "1. A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common."
Click to expand...

Edit: but apparently, according to some posters here, this is also Socialism:

scotsman.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom