How Far Left? This Far...

[GodLovesCats]

Have you ever heard Bernie advocate for state ownership of the means of production?

I have no idea what that means, but the government owning everything is Communism, not socialism.

 

[98cwitr]

I have no idea what that means, but the government owning everything is Communism, not socialism.

Would you then define socialism for us please?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Would you then define socialism for us please?

A form of government in some countries, which do not include the United States.

I can't tell you a specific definition, butb was taught socialism and democracy are not the same thing.

 

[98cwitr]

A form of government in some countries, which do not include the United States.

I can't tell you a specific definition, butb was taught socialism and democracy are not the same thing.

communism
[ kom-yuh-niz-uh m ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR communism ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
communalism.

Definition of communism | Dictionary.com

socialism
[ soh-shuh-liz-uh m ]
SEE SYNONYMS FOR socialism ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com


See the difference? And to note, they're not "forms of government," but moreso systems of social and economic organization.

Socialism is a milestone toward communism. It's government usurpation of industry in order to reach complete totalitarian rule over the individual via the control of capital, goods, and land.

Look at Venezuela right now....

 

[GodLovesCats]

Socialism is the government controlling how things are produced and distributed, but not what is produced and sold?

 

[98cwitr]

Socialism is the government controlling how things are produced and distributed, but not what is produced and sold?

In my own words: Socialism is the taking of private property to make it public, communism is the force required to maintain control of that public property from the hands of the public; derived from:

[above definition of socialism]: (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

--

Let me ask you plainly: Do you value private property rights?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Actually that is in the Bill of Rights, which guarantees compensation (either money or land) if private land that is currently owned must be turned over to the government. If voters approve widening a busy road, do you think that is socialism just because some people's front yards had to become narrower? It wasn't.

 

[Silmarien]

Distributism seems very much like a trojan horse. Someone or something must control the distribution, to whom, and how much.

I ask a third time: How much of my labor, in a numerical value representing the percentage, should the state own?

I really don't understand your question. Do you think the concept of taxation is new? Should the state not be permitted to raise money for the maintenance of roads and other public services? It's like you're asking how much of your labor the Emperor might own. Or the Crown.

 

[Speedwell]

Nattering about the definition of socialism doesn't matter. It's all just a smoke screen for gutting social safety net programs.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Obama is a moderate Democrat, so the attempts to paint him as part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are really questionable. He is no socialist. (On the other hand, I know people on the far left who complain that Elizabeth Warren is a fairly conservative capitalist, so this goes both ways.)

I don't think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, if by left we mean economic policy. I'm not happy about the constant focus on identity politics, so I dislike that aspect of progressivism, but I think it's high time to have a real discussion on modern socialism.

Modern socialism is a contradiction in terms. Like saying old baby or thin Sumo wrestler.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The word for that is oxymoron.

 

[Silmarien]

Modern socialism is a contradiction in terms. Like saying old baby or thin Sumo wrestler.

Political thought evolves over time. Neo-conservativism, neo-liberalism, etc., ad nauseam. Mainstream European socialists shifted significantly to the right after the catastrophic Soviet experiment, leading to the birth of social democracy. That's what I would consider modern socialism. There's democratic socialism too, but that's more radical, especially for this country.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

I don't see what's suddenly so controversial about putting any sort of limit whatsoever on economic freedom.

Well now it would no longer be called capitalism would it?
M-Bob

 

[Acts2:38]

Mandating people give money to private, for profit companies might be a form of progression, but it sure aint in the direction of the left.

I dont think I said that, did I?

As noted by the article, his healthcare reform was originally developed by the Heritage Foundation. It was also implemented first (and successfully) in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney.

I didn't say otherwise, did I?

As I replied to the other poster, it was still a "progressive" action, was it not?
The other poster asked for someone to point out anything progressive from Obama, I did.

It was based on a Republican plan.

Did I say otherwise?

Obama still formed his own version, therefore I was not wrong in my reply to the other poster I responded to, was I?

 

[Tanj]

Barack Obama actually changed his stance on that from children only during his first campaign to all ages while Congress tackled health care requirements. I never understood what the big deal was about it since all drivers are required to have vehicle insurance and nobody complains that should be optional.

You dont pay your vehicle insurance to a for profit private company

 

[Silmarien]

Well now it would no longer be called capitalism would it?
M-Bob

If you want to do away with the state and have only the free market and private property, that's anarcho-capitalism. The problem with all forms of anarchism is that unlimited freedom just turns into the strong (or rich) preying upon everyone else to accumulate more power (or wealth).

 

[iluvatar5150]

As I replied to the other poster, it was still a "progressive" action, was it not?
The other poster asked for someone to point out anything progressive from Obama, I did.

Depends on how you define “progressive”, I suppose. But I would say not really.

 

[Arcangl86]

You dont pay your vehicle insurance to a for profit private company

Uh, yes you do. Is it different in Australia? Because in the US with the exception of Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security, all insurance is provided by private for profit companies.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You dont pay your vehicle insurance to a for profit private company

I certainly do.

 

[Tanj]

Uh, yes you do. Is it different in Australia? Because in the US with the exception of Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security, all insurance is provided by private for profit companies.

I was wrong about that, apologies...although I'd argue you have the option of not buying a car, which is a viable option in a well infrastructured city like Melbourne.