Socialism on the rise?

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Your suggestion is pretty much what caused the terrible working conditions and rock bottom wages in the 19th century.
The 19th century was a time of tremendous growth and prosperity.

It was a time when people flocked to the United States to flee the oppression and tyranny of the old world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smidlee
Upvote 0

BrianJK

Abdul Masih
Aug 21, 2013
2,292
685
40
Seaside, CA
✟20,934.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The 19th century was a time of tremendous growth and prosperity.

It was a time when people flocked to the United States to flee the oppression and tyranny of the old world.

So you're denying the problems with working conditions, etc?
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
You tell yourself that. I not being fooled here.
At one extreme ... free-enterprise. Some in this thread suggest that free-enterprise has caused a host of subtle worldwide problems which lurk largely under the radar, such as low-wages, poverty and workers who have been taken advantage of.

At the other extreme ... government controlled enterprise. The obvious examples of this have been horrendous to the extreme. All of the greatest calamaties of the twentieth century occurred under socialist regimes ... without exception. Just the truth.

Now, both of these approaches have drawn criticism in this thread, so wouldn't it be advisable to look at the criticisms leveled at each. Wouldn't that be a reasonable approach to a rational discussion on the subject? I merely ask the question, who, or what, is going to save you, or us, or the workers of the world, from the abuses of either system?

How about a quick show of hands ...
Who believes government will save the workers of the world from being exploited?
Who believes unfettered capitalism will save workers of the world from being exploited?
Who believes a moral people operating within the constraints of a competitive free-enterprise system will minimize exploitation?
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Reality check

Reality check the 99% uses a lot more resources and eat more food ,burns more gas than the small number of billionaires. A lot of the 1% wealth is invested back into the economy which helps back loans the 99% use to buy houses, cars, business that provides jobs, etc. Also note the poor are getting poor with all those freebies programs in place. These freebie programs often rewards bad behavior.
This video makes out the 1% are Scrooge McDucks swimming in piles of gold.
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
At one extreme ... free-enterprise. Some in this thread suggest that free-enterprise has caused a host of subtle worldwide problems which lurk largely under the radar, such as low-wages, poverty and workers who have been taken advantage of.

At the other extreme ... government controlled enterprise. The obvious examples of this have been horrendous to the extreme. All of the greatest calamaties of the twentieth century occurred under socialist regimes ... without exception. Just the truth.

Now, both of these approaches have drawn criticism in this thread, so wouldn't it be advisable to look at the criticisms leveled at each. Wouldn't that be a reasonable approach to a rational discussion on the subject? I merely ask the question, who, or what, is going to save you, or us, or the workers of the world, from the abuses of either system?

How about a quick show of hands ...
Who believes government will save the workers of the world from being exploited?
Who believes unfettered capitalism will save workers of the world from being exploited?
Who believes a moral people operating within the constraints of a competitive free-enterprise system will minimize exploitation?
None of the above.
I'd consider putting my hand up for free-market socialism though. (Using the technically correct definition of the "s" word.)
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
None of the above.
I'd consider putting my hand up for free-market socialism though. (Using the technically correct definition of the "s" word.)
Continue ...

So you want to be like China or what, exactly?
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Continue ...

So you want to be like China or what, exactly?
I'm not sure how many times we have to say this. Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian. I doubt any of the advocates of socialism here would consider authoritarianism a good thing. And I have specifically said so a number of times.
So no, of course not "like China". Serious discussion involves listening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A2SG
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
I'm not sure how many times we have to say this. Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian. I doubt any of the advocates of socialism here would consider authoritarianism a good thing. And I have specifically said so a number of times.
So no, of course not "like China". Serious discussion involves listening.
PS: Sorry, that came out sounding a lot more cranky than I intended.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure how many times we have to say this. Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian. I doubt any of the advocates of socialism here would consider authoritarianism a good thing. And I have specifically said so a number of times.
So no, of course not "like China". Serious discussion involves listening.
OK. Now that you say you don't want a strong authoritarian government ... how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government? :scratch:

Do you just suppose that those evil capitalists you speak so harshly of, who are waiting in nether regions, will stay down without being suppressed by the state?
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
OK. Now that you say you don't want a strong authoritarian government ... how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government? :scratch:

Do you just suppose that those evil capitalists you speak so harshly of, who are waiting in nether regions, will stay down without being suppressed by the state?
I apologise for repeating myself (and others), but your question seems to suggest that we haven't yet explained it well enough. So here goes again.

There are two definitions of the word "socialist":
  • One of them is requires an authoritarian government, the other does not.
  • One definition is pretty much unique to the USA, the other is not.
  • One definition is a popular one, the other one is a technical one.
  • The popular definition is completely different to the technical one.
(The popular/technical problem is similar to the problem some people have with the word "theory". Used in the popular sense the phrase "it's a theory" is interpreted as a weakness. But when used in the technical sense it is interpreted as a strength.)

So, the question "how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government?" only makes sense if you are assuming the popular definition. If you assume the technical definition, then answer to the question should be reasonably obvious, or at least it won't be as confounding as the emoji you used would suggest.

To restate your question is each of the two ways:

Using the US Popular understanding of the "S" word:
How do you implement a societal and economic system in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government, without a strong authoritarian government?

Using the Rest of the World Technical understanding of the "S" word:
How do you implement a societal and economic system where the means of production is owned by the citizens and is under democratic control, without a strong authoritarian government?

Now I think we can all agree that the first question is truly confounding, and deserves the emoji that you used.
However the second one, not so much. In fact I would say that it doesn't make sense to ask the second question. An authoritarian government would be a hindrance to this (correct) understanding of socialism. It would flourish under a small government that gets out of the way, and simply protects the will of the people.

I'm fairly confident that those of us on this thread who speak up for socialism are only using the second (correct) definition. By all means use your popular definition elsewhere if it makes you comfortable. But I think it might be more effective and efficient if you at least consider that those posting here might be using the technical (correct) definition.

I'd like to thank whoever it was who pointed out that there may be a distinction between "capitalism" and "free-market". It's not something I'd thought of before. I will certainly be looking into it more. (It's gems like this that I'm here for.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
So, the question "how do you implement socialism without a strong authoritarian government?" only makes sense if you are assuming the popular definition.
To be blunt, I don't care what your definition of socialism is.

I simply want to know how you intend to implement it without a strong authoritarian government. This should not be a hard question if you have thought the process through.
Using the Rest of the World Technical understanding of the "S" word:
How do you implement a societal and economic system where the means of production is owned by the citizens and is under democratic control, without a strong authoritarian government?
...
In fact I would say that it doesn't make sense to ask the second question. An authoritarian government would be a hindrance to this (correct) understanding of socialism. It would flourish under a small government that gets out of the way, and simple protects the will of the people.
OK. Since you seem to sincerely believe that somehow the "citizens" will own the means of production ... what is the mechanism through which these citizens own the means of production?

Unless you provide these citizens with ownership certificates or some such, I would submit that it is the state which owns the means of production. Therefore the state wields tremendous power.
I'd like to thank whoever it was who pointed out that there may be a distinction between "capitalism" and "free-market".
You're welcome.
It's not something I'd though of before. I will certainly be looking into it more. (It's gems like this that I'm here for.)
Please do.

By the way, I'm all with you on wanting the small limited government you speak about. That's what the founders of the USA wanted as well. In fact, their initial attempt at a nation, the Articles of Confederation, failed because they gave the federal government too little power. They called it liberty. Some call it freedom. Personally, I think libertarian might be the better name.

Where I differ with you is that I don't believe the government can own the means of production without wielding tremendous power ... which power, being vested in a single entity, will sooner rather than later be very badly abused. (History is full of ugly examples.) As the saying goes; Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The beauty of free-enterprise competition is that it allows efficiency of scale while simultaneously limiting the ability of any single person or group to fully monopolize the playing field. Socialism, by definition, can't offer that safeguard.
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
To be blunt, I don't care what your definition of socialism is.

I simply want to know how you intend to implement it without a strong authoritarian government. This should not be a hard question if you have thought the process through.
You raise some good points in the body of your last post. But until we agree what it is, then we can't discuss it. So until you care what my definition of it is, then there really is no point of continuing the discussion. (I'm sure we will regardless, but still.) I've seen you use the confusion as to the definition to obfuscate the debate before, and I'm here to learn; not to play word games.

Having said that, I am genuinely grateful for you raising the "capitalist/free-market" point. It's your most convincing rhetoric so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

MrSpikey

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
1,431
740
53
UK
✟34,367.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Then he went on his tirade against banks, corporations and the rich. The stated solution for Sanders is "revolution" against these groups.

If he actually was a revolutionary, in the sense of a physical overthrowing of the existing order, he wouldn't be running for office. He's what would generally be termed a progressive - just more progressive than those you wish to so label.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟33,863.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
To be blunt, I don't care what your definition of socialism is.
Unless you are here just to propagate your own philosophy, then you should care. But if that's the only reason you are here, then I won't bother interacting with you, and I'd suggest that others don't bother either (unless it's just me you have a problem with - in which case, that's OK). Please just point me to your blog, and I'll read it whenever I need to know what you think.
I simply want to know how you intend to implement it without a strong authoritarian government. This should not be a hard question if you have thought the process through.
  1. Who said I had thought any of this through?
  2. Where did you get the idea that thinking something through makes that thing easy to explain?
OK. Since you seem to sincerely believe that somehow the "citizens" will own the means of production ... what is the mechanism through which these citizens own the means of production?

Unless you provide these citizens with ownership certificates or some such, I would submit that it is the state which owns the means of production. Therefore the state wields tremendous power.
There ya go! Citizens ownership certificates. You answered your own question without a socialist is sight! I'm sure if we worked on it together we could come up with even better solutions.

[... ...]Socialism, by definition, can't offer that safeguard.
Actually not "by definition". Oh hang on! We never got to agree on a definition of socialism; so we'll never know...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
According to a recent PEW poll fourty-nine percent of voters under the age of thirty had a positive view socialism whereas only fourty-six percent had a positive view of capitalism. Socialism beating out capitalism in popularity with young voters represents a massive change in public opinion. Not long ago socialism was a smear term conservatives used to scare people with but now it's not so scary but has instead become down right popular. What does this mean for the future of America? Could we see the rise of a new socialist party or the "take over" of the Democratic party for socialism simmilar to the far right tea party take over of the Republican party?

The New Yorker :

"A 2011 Pew Research Center survey found that, among voters under the age of thirty, forty-nine per cent had a positive view of socialism. (Only forty-six per cent had a positive view of capitalism.) Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College, who has written about Sanders, says that younger voters “may not be willing to entertain a whole new system, but they are open to a pretty profound critique of the current one. They’re not as naïve as Americans used to be during the Cold War—they know that there are varieties of capitalism, that there is social democracy in Scandinavia and Canada, where the government plays a bigger role in regulating corporations and in expanding the safety net.”​
Honestly...

As I've said before in the past, Most people are already fearful of socialism in any/all forms because they think of the U.S.S.R and assume that communism began with socialism. But that's not necessary, IMHO, when considering the many variation of socialism just as there are variations of capitalism.

One form of socialism that's often not discussed is the Bottoms-Up kind where people take action themselves, from the bottom up instead of being directed by small elites, top down. It can be seen as a forn of communalism.....and technically, as much as many capitalists say socialists want the government to have more control, it's always interesting how much the government is used to look out for/enforce the interests of the big buisnesses---especially when certain people in government will favor (via lobbying) some buisnesses more so than others and effectively have a socialism for the rich. ..and a capitalism for the poor where resources are taken and people are still told to compete with each other/do their best.

For many countries that were communists, it was never the case that it was ever 100% communist - as the economics allowed them to keep communist ideology while also having markets to a limited degree. In example, China has long been an economic giant - even in times where it has not sought to play by the rules - and has advanced in a myriad of ways since Deng Xiaoping brought China into limited capitalist-socialist hybrid territory while retaining their Communist Ethos ( #68 ) - State Capitalism - and it has allowed them to reach the point where they are really the ones who are calling A LOT of the shots in the Economic world...including our own debt/tabs. They are already tied to the history of the U.S in its economic success due to how China even extended its reach in the U.S to help build much of what made U.S expansion possibly in the first place....as seen in the ways that China supplied many of its people to the U.S for construction projects and the Chinese Americans were abused during the government building of the railroad systems throughout the history of the U.S...and still have many of their rights consistently ignored by the government...despite how hard they work and seek to make buisnesses/adapt to many of the struggles coming their way.

I may disagree with others such as Marx - as well as Lenin, who I can sympathize with on some level - but I do think there are many aspects of history which get directly left out that we have to consider. Historically, Karl Marx promoted Marxist-Leninist socialism (communism from a Western perspective), not "democratic socialism" - which might account for the difference between North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China as compared to Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands (which have similarities with communist governments)

The Communist Revolution did involve others fighting against tyranny in one form of government - and yet later, they found themselves doing a lot of the same things that may've been done to them.....and even Lenin was betrayed when many started to see how the talk of "equality" was used to hide the fact that others were deemed more "equal" than others - and later, it was taken over/became nothing more than another form of oppressive monarchy that spoke as if it was against a monarch concept.

The book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell is truly one of the best critiques/satires on the issue. The revolt of the animals against Farmer Jones is Orwell's analogy with the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and Jones's attempt to regain control, with the aid of neighbouring farmers, parallels the Western powers' efforts in 1918-21 to crush the Bolsheviks. The pigs' rise to pre-eminence mirrors the rise of a Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR, just as Napoleon's emergence as the farm's sole leader reflects Stalin's emergence..and the pigs' appropriation of milk and apples for their own use, "the turning point of the story" as Orwell termed it in a letter to Dwight Macdonald, stands as an analogy for the crushing of the left-wing 1921 Kronstadt revolt against the Bolsheviks, and the difficult efforts of the animals to build the windmill suggest the various Five Year Plans...while the pigs' treatment of the other animals on the farm recalls the internal terror faced by the populace in the 1930s. Orwell had deep conviction that the Bolshevik revolution had been corrupted and the Soviet system become dark - as Orwell supported the goals of the socialists and yet condemned what it was turned into with the Soviets/U.S.S.R and Orwell himself wrote in 1946, "Of course I intended it primarily as a satire on the Russian revolution..[and] that kind of revolution (violent conspiratorial revolution, led by unconsciously power hungry people) can only lead to a change of masters [-] revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert.." What happened is that the Trotskyists sought to fight one form of corruption but opened the door for others to use the movement that was started to address an issue...and in the process, hijack a movement for their own ends in the name of good - and the same occurred with many fighting for Capitalism/Democracy.

Last
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
"Mark46: And yes, I strongly believe that regulated capitalism is by far the best economic and politicalstructure."​

Generally democratic socialists / social democrats don't call for the abolishment of the market all together. While they would certainly applaud and maybe even create incentives for cooperatives or other forms of work place democracy or shared ownership they don't call for state (or other forms of mandated collective )ownership of all the means of production but only of certain key industries and services like policing or healthcare. Some might argue that it's not "True socialism" but it's the label that has stuck.
Certain forms of socialism have actually been called Inclusive Capitalism.”



Where we're at in the times we live in and why is needing to remember community development starts with neighborhood/'Hometown Security'' work (thanks to Majora Carterfor the phrase) when it comes to looking to practical ways of changing up the area we live in instead of doing the same strategy of waiting for the next presidential figure to save us all. No one is going to save you but YOU - and the people you value.








I truly believe there are so many practical ways we can rebuild community around us from the bottom up and it didn't take a presidential figure to do it. And what I am saying is very much based on understanding the power of community wealth:

There is great significance in showing the power of community ownership. I appreciate his 2014 interview with Bill Moyers, where U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tells Bill that Big Money and Big Media are keeping critical issues from the American public. And the man is in line with MLK (whom he was an activist for during his campaigns) - as MLK was a Democratic Socialist and I appreciate the ways that both of them sought to address issues from the bottom up....THE SAME thing that the Founding Fathers spoke on when it came to Stock Ownership for all (which I have spoken about before herei, here and here ).


ted-howard-community-wealth-building-3-638.jpg


what-is-community-wealth-building.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Unless you are here just to propagate your own philosophy, then you should care. But if that's the only reason you are here, then I won't bother interacting with you, and I'd suggest that others don't bother either (unless it's just me you have a problem with - in which case, that's OK).
You're the one who said you wanted a genuine conversation, Greenguzzi. I've offered that.

If I've asked tough questions, it's only because I've thought this through more than a few times already. That said, this being a discussion forum, you are certainly free to discontinue conversing with me at any time you choose.
1. Who said I had thought any of this through?
Since you are advocating for socialism, the burden is on you to make the case.

Answer the questions ... or don't. Your choice.
2.Where did you get the idea that thinking something through makes that thing easy to explain?
Fair point. Thinking things through occurs at multiple levels. Some are easier to explain than others.
There ya go! Citizens ownership certificates. You answered your own question without a socialist is sight! I'm sure if we worked on it together we could come up with even better solutions.
:oldthumbsup:

I'm actually with you on this, Greenguzzi. There are several ways to accomplish this under our existing free-enterprise system.
1) Have the employees own stock in the corporation. (Admittedly, this works best for those who start the company. Many people have become millionaires and billionaires simply because they took the chance on working with a start-up company which eventually became huge.)
2) Have each employee own a certain percentage of the company. This is sometimes done with cooperative private companies.
3) Have employees and customers own shares in the company. This is done frequently with private cooperatives.
4) Give ownership of the company to its union. (Noting that this was actually done when Chrysler went bankrupt. The union owned about 60% of Chrysler at the time it emerged from bankruptcy, maybe more. Curiously, the union surrendered, or sold, most of its ownership shortly afterward ... for reasons which have never been explained, at least not that I have ever found.)

I'm sure there are other ways for workers in a company to share in ownership within the existing free-enterprise structure. (I'm also certain that I've oversimplified the statements above. ;) )

I'm just not aware though how "workers" have ever actually owned production in socialist states ... except by the state taking ownership. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Actually not "by definition". Oh hang on! We never got to agree on a definition of socialism; so we'll never know...
:sorry:

You caught me on that one. I guess I do care, at least a little, about the definition of socialism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Unless you are here just to propagate your own philosophy, then you should care. But if that's the only reason you are here, then I won't bother interacting with you, and I'd suggest that others don't bother either (unless it's just me you have a problem with - in which case, that's OK). Please just point me to your blog, and I'll read it whenever I need to know what you think.

  1. Who said I had thought any of this through?
  2. Where did you get the idea that thinking something through makes that thing easy to explain?
There ya go! Citizens ownership certificates. You answered your own question without a socialist is sight! I'm sure if we worked on it together we could come up with even better solutions.

Actually not "by definition". Oh hang on! We never got to agree on a definition of socialism; so we'll never know...
Does either of you know in whose possession resides the certificate of manufacture on your "privately owned" automobile?
Is the government's right of eminent domain de facto socialism?
 
Upvote 0