Basically socialism is state owned parts of the free market. I am not talking about communism where the state owns everything. I am talking about some fascism also in the area of law enforcement. A socialist state would bring a protector to the lower classes from the evils and problems of capitalistic systems while allowing those systems to advance our society in their way. Think of socialism like the jet engine that uses capitalism, status, democracy, republican representation, and concepts like these and refines them and accelerates them to drive society forward in a conscious direction. Socialism is a responsible capitalism, not a destructive communism. Tell me why we cannot have more socialist programs in America.
Meaningless gibberish. These discussions go nowhere if you don't define it, as everyone is talking about something different.
You're defining something, but it's not remotely socialist. (Except for the fascist police bit. That's definitely plausible.) You sound like someone who's drunk the Bernie Sanders Kool-Aid, but maybe also bothered to look up socialism on Wikipedia, but only skimmed the article, and what little you did read is causing you cognitive dissonance. So you're trying really, really, hard to pretend socialism is something other than what it is. We're not falling for it, and the actual socialists here won't even back you.
Except for the honest ones. ETA: Also, can you not? Socialism is repulsive. Tarring "progressive"-but-not-actually-socialist policies as socialism is a great way to get useful idiots like Tererun to think that maybe socialism isn't so bad. And then when real socialists run for office on the fake socialists' label, we get the calamity and human misery that real socialism entails. It's more than a sluggish economy, high taxes, and a welfare state; it's much, much worse.
You are absolutely right: socialism is bad, was bad, will always be bad. It has lead to far too much misery and death in the last 100 years over and over again to be anything but a catastrophically bad idea.
Isn't it funny how "lived experience" goes out the window once it's inconvenient to ones socialist utopian fantasy world?
Socialism tends to fail. I don't support it. However, in the U.S., the things that cause Republicans to start shrieking "socialism!" at the top of their lungs generally aren't ... and even the people who identify themselves as Democratic Socialists bear very little resemblance to actual socialists. At this point, I'm sure somebody is about to ignore the actual content of what I just said and haul out the old "Uh-huh, so you're saying socialism is good and it's just that nobody's ever tried pure socialism" line. Nope. I'm saying that pretty much everybody in a position of power in the U.S. is pro-capitalism; it's just that the right likes to slap the "socialist" label on anyone who doesn't want to live in an Ayn Randian shithole.
And you just made that same mistake when you branded everyone on "the right" as proponents of Rand. Without the bolded part your post would have been really good.
Meh. I oppose any political system that puts the State above the individual. Of course, I also would like people to be responsible enough not to need a State, but it's an imperfect world.
Just my take on things any system where you have economic wealth combined with political power is an invitation for corruption. Whether its socialism or capitalism. The problem with socialism is that it reverses natural processes. To me the natural process (capitalism) is a person or and organization creates wealth and then obtains political power. Power follows money. That is "crony capitalism". But the important thing to me is that something concrete (wealth) is created BEFORE political power is obtained. Socialism though by giving power to the state or at least to state sanctioned authorities basically gives those authorities "power" BEFORE they actually create wealth. Thus the temptation is a natural overwhelming one for the persons involved to use the power to enrich themselves without creating anything whatsoever. Another failing I believe of socialism is that ultimately is rises or falls on how well central planning works. Now, central planning in some cultures and some situations can work quite well. Speer in Nazi Germany for example was able to ramp up German industrial production in the latter stages of WW2 in part because he and a few underlings made the majority of the major economic decisions. They turned out to be right most of the time and Germany's war time economy benefited. Probably prolonged World War Two for a year or so. But many nations and cultures do not do that well with central planning. They are better off with authority and control spread over as many as possible so that the mistakes of some are compensated for by the successes of others. Just some thoughts. Economics and economic history has become one of my newer obsessions the last few years.
If the state owns it, it isn't free. Socialism is the social--inevitably state--ownership or control of the means of production. Communism is a hypothetical end state of socialism where all goods are owned in common, all production is for need, and the state has withered away. It is a utopian fantasy, has never existed, and never will. Attempts to bring it about, however, have created hell on Earth multiple times. Would you rather live in a state with a capitalist FBI or a socialist KGB? Inasmuch as such protections are required, socialism is not required to implement them. There are plenty of protections for lower classes in capitalist societies. The historical record is pretty clear: socialism is the opposite of a "jet engine." It results in stagnation and poverty. We just ran the experiment again--in Venezuela--because the hard-headed just don't get it. Your statement is so full of contradiction it's difficult for me to parse. "Cannot?" Nothing makes them impossible. Most people who were awake during the 20th Century know that socialism is a dead-end street.
I think they're trying to squeeze it in quickly here before the fracturing social-welfare states of Europe fully collapse in on themselves, as the checks are finally starting to become due. Even though Europe isn't socialist it's just capitalism with a much more burdensome social welfare system than in US, it's what the history- and information-challenged young AOC followers conceive of when their ignorant minds hear "socialism." If only that fucker Maduro had waited another year before fully imploding the most recent example of socialism, Venezuela, land of the richest oil reserves in the western hemisphere.
Arguing over broad ideologies is tiresome, especially when it inevitably turns into a game of semantics. How about we keep the debate in the realm of specific policy proposals?
Which definition of socialism are we using here? Is it the one that conservatives were using in the 1930s when they were shrieking hysterically that Social Security was socialism? 'Cause I don't think most people consider that to be a dead-end street.
Okay, so we're agreed on the definition, then. Next question: Who in mainstream American politics today is advocating state ownership of the means of production?
