• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What socialism is (and what it isn't)

James972 said:
It's bad because it doesn't work. Its been tried 1000 different ways and has never caught on. Employees are not managers or owners and so don't function well when participating where they have no interest or expertise. The dream was that it would make everyone a team player but apparently not everyone wants to be on a team or is qualified to be on a team.
Click to expand...

I agree that Marxism in most of its forms, is a failure that has been tried 1000 different ways. I just read another one two nights ago about Critical Theory (I was reading about education reform), I found it interesting. The quote is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
Yet, contrary to Marx's famous prediction in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, this shift did not lead to "an era of social revolution," but rather to fascism and totalitarianism. As such, critical theory was left, in Jürgen Habermas' words, without "anything in reserve to which it might appeal;
Click to expand...
How much damage and death has Marxism caused around the world due to its absurdities? I shudder to think.

But employee ownership can be envisioned without Marx. If schools goal is to prepare students for success in their life/career, then I think they do a terrible job at it, personally.
I know a lot about English literature, but I knew ****-all about investment, compounding, and ownership, etc. Lemonade stand isn't going to cut it. A few weeks in Civics class isn't going to cut it. I had to learn, like so many others, all of this after school and it was like a fog lifted. If more people had a good work ethic, and tried hard to invest into ownership rather than just "getting by", we'd have more social ownership naturally, all without government trying to force it.
 
James972 said:
Sure, liberals are for govt and conservatives against. Which are you???
Click to expand...

I registered as a Democrat on my 18th birthday in 1974, meaning old enough to have enlisted for Vietnam.... and have never changed my affiliation. I currently call myself Progressive. From your posts that I have read, I guess your age at something more than 20 years younger than me. This may account for vastly different interpretations of the same words. For instance, I think of Liberals as hippie-like, open-minded and generous. Whereas you might think of Liberals as lazy welfare recipients who want their government to take care of them from cradle to grave. You and I might have more in common than we realize if we try to understand our underlying perspectives and can get on the same page. I generally do not trust government or politicians at any level. I liked Rand Paul's idea of a minimalist government coupled with a super powerful military.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I registered as a Democrat on my 18th birthday in 1974, meaning old enough to have enlisted for Vietnam.... and have never changed my affiliation. I currently call myself Progressive. From your posts that I have read, I guess your age at something more than 20 years younger than me. This may account for vastly different interpretations of the same words. For instance, I think of Liberals as hippie-like, open-minded and generous. Whereas you might think of Liberals as lazy welfare recipients who want their government to take care of them from cradle to grave. You and I might have more in common than we realize if we try to understand our underlying perspectives and can get on the same page. I generally do not trust government or politicians at any level. I liked Rand Paul's idea of a minimalist government coupled with a super powerful military.
Click to expand...

You should learn history. It's the battle between freedom and govt. Liberals are for govt conservatives are not.
 
James972 said:
You should learn history. It's the battle between freedom and govt. Liberals are for govt conservatives are not.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your advice James. What qualifies your history knowledge? Do you get paid to teach history? If yes, your posts reveal very little history or English literacy. That said, I still wish you and yours much quality time in the coming weeks. Feel some Love!
 
Trippy Trekker said:
your posts reveal very little history or English literacy.
Click to expand...

if so why are you so afraid to say where the history illiteracy is?? What do we learn from your fear?
 
'What is 'Socialism'
Socialism is a populist economic and political system in which the means of production operate under public political ownership, sometimes called common ownership. Common ownership under socialism may take shape through technocratic, oligarchic, totalitarian, democratic or even voluntary rule. All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the ruling class.

BREAKING DOWN 'Socialism'
Prominent historical examples of socialist countries include the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.'



Read more: Socialism Definition | Investopedia Socialism Definition | Investopedia
 
DA60 said:
'What is 'Socialism'
Socialism is a populist economic and political system in which the means of production operate under public political ownership, sometimes called common ownership. Common ownership under socialism may take shape through technocratic, oligarchic, totalitarian, democratic or even voluntary rule. All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the ruling class.
Click to expand...


Yes, it seems there are two ways to interpret this.
One is the above, where its economic AND political, and ownership is public, period.
The other notion in this thread was that in a free market, you can have employees own a business.

It was argued by me and maybe others that the first type of socialism is terrible and leads to collapse.
The second is idealistic and has never voluntarily been successful at any significant size, which leads one to think it may not actually be a good thing.
 
Mach said:
Yes, it seems there are two ways to interpret this.
One is the above, where its economic AND political, and ownership is public, period.
The other notion in this thread was that in a free market, you can have employees own a business.

It was argued by me and maybe others that the first type of socialism is terrible and leads to collapse.
The second is idealistic and has never voluntarily been successful at any significant size, which leads one to think it may not actually be a good thing.
Click to expand...

socialism is liberalism. Bernie and Hilary supported each other. You might call them libsocialists. In reality it means they want ever more govt control of business which can result in a less efficient economy and more poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom