Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
I agree 110% with Joe!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ana the Ist" data-source="post: 76123091" data-attributes="member: 302807"><p>The problem goes back to the origins of socialism. </p><p></p><p>Originally, socialists and communists were the exact same thing. The socialists thought communism was "bad branding" as it might unintentionally be associated with religious communes....so they preferred the term socialism. </p><p></p><p>Further divides appeared as communits saw their ideas as end stage socialism that requires no state. Socialism saw the best way to implement their ideas as slowly through Democratic policies and gradually changing the economy from capitalism. </p><p></p><p>Communism of course, believed in violent revolutions incited by stirring discontent amongst the sheep.</p><p></p><p>But anyway....it's hard to say exactly what socialism is. It can be state owned resources that are required for production, or state owned sectors of the economy like public schools, or worker ownership of business and production.</p><p></p><p>In my opinion....a couple of things shouldn't be considered socialism....</p><p></p><p>1. Tax redistribution. Ever since taxes were first collected to build walls around cities and pay guards for those walls....tax redistribution is a primary function of the state and isn't socialism. It's a valid concern for every government. </p><p></p><p>2. Any institution required for the function of the state. Roads, police, firemen, the military....it's hard to imagine a state functioning without these things....and while they may have been private once...like firemen or the Pinkerton Agency prior to the FBI....they tended toward being heavily corrupt and ineffective. </p><p></p><p>There's a lot of valid arguments against free markets for a lot of markets. Prisons for example....can't simply fail. If a prison were to be badly mismanaged, the public would still have to pay for it, because prisoners need imprisonment. </p><p></p><p>You can typically identify these markets and sectors because supply and demand won't regulate them. </p><p></p><p>As for discussion of socialism....I'd rather that the person holding the discussion define it, and anyone who disagrees can just sit it out. Otherwise, it always devolves into a discussion about what socialism is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ana the Ist, post: 76123091, member: 302807"] The problem goes back to the origins of socialism. Originally, socialists and communists were the exact same thing. The socialists thought communism was "bad branding" as it might unintentionally be associated with religious communes....so they preferred the term socialism. Further divides appeared as communits saw their ideas as end stage socialism that requires no state. Socialism saw the best way to implement their ideas as slowly through Democratic policies and gradually changing the economy from capitalism. Communism of course, believed in violent revolutions incited by stirring discontent amongst the sheep. But anyway....it's hard to say exactly what socialism is. It can be state owned resources that are required for production, or state owned sectors of the economy like public schools, or worker ownership of business and production. In my opinion....a couple of things shouldn't be considered socialism.... 1. Tax redistribution. Ever since taxes were first collected to build walls around cities and pay guards for those walls....tax redistribution is a primary function of the state and isn't socialism. It's a valid concern for every government. 2. Any institution required for the function of the state. Roads, police, firemen, the military....it's hard to imagine a state functioning without these things....and while they may have been private once...like firemen or the Pinkerton Agency prior to the FBI....they tended toward being heavily corrupt and ineffective. There's a lot of valid arguments against free markets for a lot of markets. Prisons for example....can't simply fail. If a prison were to be badly mismanaged, the public would still have to pay for it, because prisoners need imprisonment. You can typically identify these markets and sectors because supply and demand won't regulate them. As for discussion of socialism....I'd rather that the person holding the discussion define it, and anyone who disagrees can just sit it out. Otherwise, it always devolves into a discussion about what socialism is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
I agree 110% with Joe!
Top
Bottom