Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[OldWiseGuy]

Socialism is capitalism with a government... interesting take!

More like a government with capitalism.

 

[Albion]

But, by definition, Socialism is not compatible with Capitalism. Not unless by the word Capitalism is meant that some small businesses like fruit markets are allowed by the government or, in the case of larger corporations--foundries, energy companies, manufacturers, etc--private ownership is allowed but the company operates according to the needs and demands of the government.

 

[gaara4158]

More like a government with capitalism.

If it’s capitalism it’s not socialism.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If it’s capitalism it’s not socialism.

Socialism is government run capitalism sans free enterprise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But, by definition, Socialism is not compatible with Capitalism. Not unless by the word Capitalism is meant that some small businesses like fruit markets are allowed by the government or, in the case of larger corporations--foundries, energy companies, manufacturers, etc--private ownership is allowed but the company operates according to the needs and demands of the government.

Socialism needs the formation of capital, but without the 'ism'.

 

[Albion]

Socialism needs the formation of capital, but without the 'ism'.

So it's not "Capitalism."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So it's not "Capitalism."

A distinction without much difference. Both run on money/capital.

 

[Albion]

A distinction without much difference. Both run on money/capital.

No. The difference is that Capitalism is a system in which private individuals or other non-governmental entities own and direct the businesses. It's not called "Capitalism" just because it takes money to operate a business!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. The difference is that Capitalism is a system in which private individuals or other non-governmental entities own and direct the businesses. It's not called "Capitalism" just because it takes money to operate a business!

I'll concede that point.

 

[mark46]

No. The difference is that Capitalism is a system in which private individuals or other non-governmental entities own and direct the businesses. It's not called "Capitalism" just because it takes money to operate a business!

Just for giggles, do you think that the majority of Democrats believe the government should OWN steel mills, car manufacturers, tech companies and other businesses? Who are the majority in the Senate and the House who hold such views, and want the US to enact such policies?

 

[mark46]

Because it's the rich man's party now, and the members in the House can hardly be expected to kill the golden goose.

The majority of the leadership of the Democratic party is rich, as is the majority of the leadership of the Republican party.

Both are funded by billionaires and their PAC money.

 

[Speedwell]

Just for giggles, do you think that the majority of Democrats believe the government should OWN steel mills, car manufacturers, tech companies and other businesses? Who are the majority in the Senate and the House who hold such views, and want the US to enact such policies?

You're forgetting the "slippery slope" which leads from Democratic social policies to atheistic totalitarian socialism.

 

[MIDutch]

You're forgetting the "slippery slope" which leads from Democratic social policies to atheistic totalitarian socialism.

Yes. First it's health care for all ... then it's everyone being forced to accept the Theory of Evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life we see on Planet Earth, past and present.

Oh, the horror.

 

[gaara4158]

Socialism is government run capitalism sans free enterprise.

No. No, it’s really not. Socialism and capitalism differ in where they place control of the means of production. Capitalism has the owners of capital (buyers/investors/owners) in control, whereas socialism has the control of the means of production shared between the workers.

In simpler terms, under capitalism you can be entitled to the profits of a company by buying a share in its stocks without ever having to work for them. It’s great if you already have a ton of capital and don’t feel like working, but it’s bad for workers because they have to share the excess value created by their labor with investors.
Under socialism, if you want to be entitled to the profits of a company you have to work for them, but then you’re getting the full value of your labor paid directly to you and not split with investors.
Either model can involve taxes from the government. Conservative pundits would have you believe that “socialism is when the government does stuff,” but I think that’s a message curated by higher-ups who are, shall we say... the rich, non-working types.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. No, it’s really not.

I don't think socialism can survive without the help of capitalism. Therefore the two must accommodate each other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes. First it's health care for all ... then it's everyone being forced to accept the Theory of Evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life we see on Planet Earth, past and present.

Oh, the horror.

Healthcare for all implies that everyone is sick.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think socialism can survive without the help of capitalism. Therefore the two must accommodate each other.

I felt my reply was a bit snarky and dismissive, so I added more useful content to it. I’ll let you look over that before I add anything else.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. No, it’s really not. Socialism and capitalism differ in where they place control of the means of production. Capitalism has the owners of capital (buyers/investors/owners) in control, whereas socialism has the control of the means of production shared between the workers.

In simpler terms, under capitalism you can be entitled to the profits of a company by buying a share in its stocks without ever having to work for them. It’s great if you already have a ton of capital and don’t feel like working, but it’s bad for workers because they have to share the excess value created by their labor with investors.
Under socialism, if you want to be entitled to the profits of a company you have to work for them, but then you’re getting the full value of your labor paid directly to you and not split with investors.
Either model can involve taxes from the government. Conservative pundits would have you believe that “socialism is when the government does stuff,” but I think that’s a message curated by higher-ups who are, shall we say... the rich, non-working types.

It's the "non-working types" that make socialism fail. Those who do work don't get the full share of their labors but are forced by the state, through exorbitant taxes, to support those who don't.

 

[Albion]

Conservative pundits would have you believe that “socialism is when the government does stuff,” but I think that’s a message curated by higher-ups who are, shall we say... the rich, non-working types.

We are on the same page with a lot of this that's been discussed, but when it comes to this particular comment, I have to disagree. You talk as though workers in a Socialist system share something about the company and, as employees, get paid.

The fact is that a Socialist system is not Syndicalism. Instead, it is a system in which the central government DOES own and operate the industries and major businesses, excepting only for the matter of "National Socialism" or Fascism which some people consider to be a version of Socialism and others do not.

 

[Albion]

Just for giggles, do you think that the majority of Democrats believe the government should OWN steel mills, car manufacturers, tech companies and other businesses? Who are the majority in the Senate and the House who hold such views, and want the US to enact such policies?

Hi, Mark. I really don't know what you have in mind there.

I have checked back through a number of posts on this thread and see nothing that would prompt that inquiry, so is this just "out of the blue" curiosity?