• 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)

M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By now, you probably heard the word "socialist" used as an insult by the right and as an ideal by the left but what is socialism really?


Socialism is when the economy is controlled by the government. That is the means of production, the provision of goods to customers, and the prices. In true socialist countries, the government decides what happens. Governments have a different mindset than corporations. Corporations seek to make profit while governments seek to maintain order and well being of its respective country. So while the latter is the ideal for running a country, the former provides a much better economic mindset. So while it would be a terrible idea to grant a profit-driven institution political power, handing the economy over to the government is not so great either. You see, an economy run by the government doesn't always seek the most economical option but a corporation does. Also, government-run businesses tend to be funded via taxdollars so their source of income isn't threatened when people aren't buying their product (i.e. they have no reason to do a good job) but private businesses have to make a profit off their products in order to keep afloat and on top of that, they act as a source of revenue for the government by paying taxes. What I'm trying to say is that the government should not be the one providing commodities.

But what about Europe?

Ah! Europe's economies are still privately owned but the governments put regulations in order to protect workers and prevent corporations from squashing small businesses. That's Keynesian capitalism. The economic system Bernie Sanders is advocating for is Keynesian capitalism. So unless Sanders is advocating that the government command the economy, no, he is not a socialist. A true American socialist would advocate something like what's in China, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc, but with democracy.

Countries which achieved socialism were often considered "communist" but were they really? Communism is when there is no government or currency; everything is owned by the collective. There is no private property under communism; property belongs to everyone. This was the true vision of Karl Marx. It seems like an ideal system, almost too idealistic to be true. Unfortunately, such a system would require that man give up free will to a hive mind. In other words, communism has never been successfully implemented. Vladimir Lenin tried to achieve Marx's vision by giving the government total control of the economy and funding revolutions across the world to overthrow capitalism and eventually get rid of government and finally achieve their communistic utopia. However, this vision was shattered when Stalin took power and took a different approach: preserve one communist country because the rest of the world is out to get them. So while Lenin and Trotsky saw socialism as a means to an end, Stalin saw it as the end itself.

This is not all to say that government regulations on the economy are bad, this it just to say that the government should not control the economy.
 
What does it mean for the government to making business decisions for you through regulations? Do you think they are assuming control over private property by government regulations? If I tell you exactly how to do something with your property and punish you for not doing it would it be accurate to say I'm assuming control over your property? Sure, you can say I'm not assuming complete control over your property, but I am robbing you of your right to control your property in certain cases that I deem fit.
 
Henrin said:
What does it mean for the government to making business decisions for you through regulations? Do you think they are assuming control over private property by government regulations? If I tell you exactly how to do something with your property and punish you for not doing it would it be accurate to say I'm assuming control over your property? Sure, you can say I'm not assuming complete control over your property, but I am robbing you of your right to control your property in certain cases that I deem fit.
Click to expand...

For the government in any respect to require a private pharmacy to carry specific medications. . .
For the government in any respect to require a private business to bake a cake that violates the ethics/convictions of the proprietor. . .
For the government to tell private business that it must hire certain kinds of employees, offer certain benefits, pay a certain wage. . .
For the government to tell private business that it must meet rigid work safety standards, carry certain kinds of insurance. . .
For the government to tell private business that it must be handicap accessible. . .
For the government to tell private business that it cannot build or expand on its own property without an environmental impact study. . .

I could go on and on and on but the slow creep of socialism has been overtaking the country for some time now. Admittedly some of the socialistic laws imposed on commerce and industry have practical and moral justification, but we should recognize it for what it is just the same.

And if we are not careful, we could quite easily become a completely socialist country in whicht he people have little or no say over the means of production or how it will be conducted.
 
Masterhawk said:
By now, you probably heard the word "socialist" used as an insult by the right and as an ideal by the left but what is socialism really?


Socialism is when the economy is controlled by the government. That is the means of production, the provision of goods to customers, and the prices. In true socialist countries, the government decides what happens. Governments have a different mindset than corporations. Corporations seek to make profit while governments seek to maintain order and well being of its respective country. So while the latter is the ideal for running a country, the former provides a much better economic mindset. So while it would be a terrible idea to grant a profit-driven institution political power, handing the economy over to the government is not so great either. You see, an economy run by the government doesn't always seek the most economical option but a corporation does. Also, government-run businesses tend to be funded via taxdollars so their source of income isn't threatened when people aren't buying their product (i.e. they have no reason to do a good job) but private businesses have to make a profit off their products in order to keep afloat and on top of that, they act as a source of revenue for the government by paying taxes. What I'm trying to say is that the government should not be the one providing commodities.

But what about Europe?

Ah! Europe's economies are still privately owned but the governments put regulations in order to protect workers and prevent corporations from squashing small businesses. That's Keynesian capitalism. The economic system Bernie Sanders is advocating for is Keynesian capitalism. So unless Sanders is advocating that the government command the economy, no, he is not a socialist. A true American socialist would advocate something like what's in China, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc, but with democracy.

Countries which achieved socialism were often considered "communist" but were they really? Communism is when there is no government or currency; everything is owned by the collective. There is no private property under communism; property belongs to everyone. This was the true vision of Karl Marx. It seems like an ideal system, almost too idealistic to be true. Unfortunately, such a system would require that man give up free will to a hive mind. In other words, communism has never been successfully implemented. Vladimir Lenin tried to achieve Marx's vision by giving the government total control of the economy and funding revolutions across the world to overthrow capitalism and eventually get rid of government and finally achieve their communistic utopia. However, this vision was shattered when Stalin took power and took a different approach: preserve one communist country because the rest of the world is out to get them. So while Lenin and Trotsky saw socialism as a means to an end, Stalin saw it as the end itself.

This is not all to say that government regulations on the economy are bad, this it just to say that the government should not control the economy.
Click to expand...

Interesting apology of Sanders' and to an extent European politics, cetainly.
 
Henrin said:
What does it mean for the government to making business decisions for you through regulations? Do you think they are assuming control over private property by government regulations? If I tell you exactly how to do something with your property and punish you for not doing it would it be accurate to say I'm assuming control over your property? Sure, you can say I'm not assuming complete control over your property, but I am robbing you of your right to control your property in certain cases that I deem fit.
Click to expand...

It boils down to the question of the basis from which the society defines itself. Social, socialist or communist societies are examples statist systems placing the State before the individual. Democracy is a form of order that derives its legitimacy from the individual.

These two approaches set fundamentally different processes of thought in most things concerning society.
 
joG said:
It boils down to the question of the basis from which the society defines itself. Social, socialist or communist societies are examples statist systems placing the State before the individual. Democracy is a form of order that derives its legitimacy from the individual.

These two approaches set fundamentally different processes of thought in most things concerning society.
Click to expand...

socialism is deadly because a govt monopoly is deadly. A govt monopoly is very deadly because inevitable failure creates no consequences. Under a industry specific capitalist monopoly, if ever one arises, failure creates instant competition and the temporary monopoly only affects one industry briefly.
 
Masterhawk said:
By now, you probably heard the word "socialist" used as an insult by the right and as an ideal by the left but what is socialism really?


Socialism is when the economy is controlled by the government. That is the means of production, the provision of goods to customers, and the prices. In true socialist countries, the government decides what happens. Governments have a different mindset than corporations. Corporations seek to make profit while governments seek to maintain order and well being of its respective country. So while the latter is the ideal for running a country, the former provides a much better economic mindset. So while it would be a terrible idea to grant a profit-driven institution political power, handing the economy over to the government is not so great either. You see, an economy run by the government doesn't always seek the most economical option but a corporation does. Also, government-run businesses tend to be funded via taxdollars so their source of income isn't threatened when people aren't buying their product (i.e. they have no reason to do a good job) but private businesses have to make a profit off their products in order to keep afloat and on top of that, they act as a source of revenue for the government by paying taxes. What I'm trying to say is that the government should not be the one providing commodities.

But what about Europe?

Ah! Europe's economies are still privately owned but the governments put regulations in order to protect workers and prevent corporations from squashing small businesses. That's Keynesian capitalism. The economic system Bernie Sanders is advocating for is Keynesian capitalism. So unless Sanders is advocating that the government command the economy, no, he is not a socialist. A true American socialist would advocate something like what's in China, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc, but with democracy.

Countries which achieved socialism were often considered "communist" but were they really? Communism is when there is no government or currency; everything is owned by the collective. There is no private property under communism; property belongs to everyone. This was the true vision of Karl Marx. It seems like an ideal system, almost too idealistic to be true. Unfortunately, such a system would require that man give up free will to a hive mind. In other words, communism has never been successfully implemented. Vladimir Lenin tried to achieve Marx's vision by giving the government total control of the economy and funding revolutions across the world to overthrow capitalism and eventually get rid of government and finally achieve their communistic utopia. However, this vision was shattered when Stalin took power and took a different approach: preserve one communist country because the rest of the world is out to get them. So while Lenin and Trotsky saw socialism as a means to an end, Stalin saw it as the end itself.

This is not all to say that government regulations on the economy are bad, this it just to say that the government should not control the economy.
Click to expand...

Didn't Sanders run on Single Payer ? So he's no Socialist, he just wants to Nationalize our Healthcare industry which accounts for 18 % of our GDP.

Thats Socialism and Sanders interference into the US economy wouldn't stop there. Also Keynesian Capitalism is crony Capitalism.

It is overt Governmental interference into the Free market economy as Govt basically becomes a venture capitalist for investments that are typically vetted purely along ideological lines.

Obama's Green Jobs initiative was a great example. Obama was going to fund the creation of a manufacturing base that built products that were not in demand. That and the fact that no one in the Obama administration gave any consideration to the fact that China could and would immediately undercut us on manufacturing cost

If Solar panels and batteries and Fisker electric cars were in demand the private sector would have beaten Obama to the punch, but they weren't.

The problem with Keynesian fiscal stimulus is its typically supported by people who are opposed to Free market initiatives on principle and thus have no clue what they're doing when the chose to invest billions of dollars of other peoples money.

Sanders was selling " soft Socialism ", Scandinavian style Socialism, not Venezuelan Socialism. Problem is there's little distinction between the two.

Nations like Denmark and Sweden have a working system because they sell lots of oil ( Denmark) and lots of guns ( Sweden, Switzerland ). They have small relative populations and small economies.

Sanders apparently thinks he can superimpose Scandinavian style Socialism in a Nation with over 300 million people and a open southern border. Its ludicrous
 
Masterhawk said:
By now, you probably heard the word "socialist" used as an insult by the right and as an ideal by the left but what is socialism really?

Socialism is when the economy is controlled by the government. That is the means of production, the provision of goods to customers, and the prices. In true socialist countries, the government decides what happens. Governments have a different mindset than corporations. Corporations seek to make profit while governments seek to maintain order and well being of its respective country. So while the latter is the ideal for running a country, the former provides a much better economic mindset. So while it would be a terrible idea to grant a profit-driven institution political power, handing the economy over to the government is not so great either. You see, an economy run by the government doesn't always seek the most economical option but a corporation does. Also, government-run businesses tend to be funded via taxdollars so their source of income isn't threatened when people aren't buying their product (i.e. they have no reason to do a good job) but private businesses have to make a profit off their products in order to keep afloat and on top of that, they act as a source of revenue for the government by paying taxes. What I'm trying to say is that the government should not be the one providing commodities.
Click to expand...

Not to be rude, but i don't agree with much of what you've written.

Socialism isn't necessarily government control of an economy. While it is true that a command economy can be considered socialist, that isn't the only example of a socialist economy. Market socialism is where the means of production are owned/controlled by immediate stakeholders i.e. all employees. Positions of leadership are determined democratically, and all profit is disbursed according to the firm’s charter. Under such a system, firms are still bound by market conditions such as competition, profit-maximization, innovation, integration (vertical and horizontal), but there is no ownership or equity positions to sell. Which means there isn't a market for equity management companies such as private equity firms, venture capital, hedge funds (as we know them), etc.... Financial markets operate entirely on the basis of making loans to both consumers and businesses. While it is possible for credit management firms to exist in such a system, as they create and facilitate credit issuance, the financial sector in a market socialist economy will be very different than what we have now.

What we have now are combinations of government and business, operating under various frameworks. Nations like Norway, Iceland, etc... have greater instance of government representation of the economy than the U.S. or Mexico. While nationalization exists in one form or another in basically every nation (defense, legal, utilities, etc...), the mixed economy is the norm. Within mixed economies, there are also examples of market socialism, more frequently called cooperatives. These firms represent a minority of business organization, but they are growing every year throughout the world.

I might have rambled on a bit here, but my point remains... socialism is more about worker control of the means of production than government control. Had to clip some of your post in my quote to meet the character limit.
 
Last edited:
THE PUBLIC PROVISION OF KEY SERVICES

Masterhawk said:
Europe's economies are still privately owned but the governments put regulations in order to protect workers and prevent corporations from squashing small businesses.
Click to expand...

You are exaggerating the role of EU governments in the provisions of services.

EU governments have divested themselves from enterprises in which it once either wholly owned or had a substantial interest but never a majority. It is a major actor in damn few companies, except perhaps wherever the general interest is important. Key word, "general".

For instance, the provision of Electricity or HealthCare Services. The amount/quantity of such enterprises, traditionally of the private sector, but run by governments is really quite minimal. See here:
Public of Private Share Ownership.jpg

The part owned by government (in orange, second from the top) is minimal. And for good reason - Europe learned that government cannot run everything, but can assure that certain provisions of key necessities (like electricity or healthcare or schooling) either privately- or publicly-owned are distributed at fair prices. Whyzzat?

Because the production of such services is not amenable to a competitive environment where multiple suppliers can be competing. There are certain services that must remain within the reach of the most people possible, and such cannot always be guaranteed by private enterprise within a competitive market-economcy

'Nuff said ... ?
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
.. socialism is more about worker control of the means of production than government control.
Click to expand...

absurd of course. The govt has to violently give them control and manage the control which in turn leads to soviet poverty for all. If workers buy control on the free markets that leads to poverty for all too since the emphasis will not be on profits while other companies will emphasize that and drive them into bankruptcy. Makes sense now?
 
James972 said:
absurd of course. The govt has to violently give them control and manage the control which in turn leads to soviet poverty for all. If workers buy control on the free markets that leads to poverty for all too since the emphasis will not be on profits while other companies will emphasize that and drive them into bankruptcy. Makes sense now?
Click to expand...

You didn't comprehend anything i wrote. After socialism, you kinda blanked out.
 
Kushinator said:
You didn't comprehend anything i wrote. After socialism, you kinda blanked out.
Click to expand...

absurd of course. The govt has to violently give them control and manage the control which in turn leads to soviet poverty for all. If workers buy control on the free markets that leads to poverty for all too since the emphasis will not be on profits while other companies will emphasize that and drive them into bankruptcy. Makes sense now? Workers control and govt control yield the same soviet result
 
James972 said:
absurd of course. The govt has to violently give them control and manage the control which in turn leads to soviet poverty for all. If workers buy control on the free markets that leads to poverty for all too since the emphasis will not be on profits while other companies will emphasize that and drive them into bankruptcy. Makes sense now? Workers control and govt control yield the same soviet result
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read (or maybe it was just a matter of comprehension) my entire post.
 
Kushinator said:
You clearly didn't read (or maybe it was just a matter of comprehension) my entire post.
Click to expand...
If workers buy control on the free markets that leads to poverty for all too since the emphasis will not be on profits while other companies will emphasize that and drive them into bankruptcy. Makes sense now? Workers control and govt control yield the same soviet result
 
Masterhawk said:
By now, you probably heard the word "socialist" used as an insult by the right and as an ideal by the left but what is socialism really?


Socialism is when the economy is controlled by the government. That is the means of production, the provision of goods to customers, and the prices. In true socialist countries, the government decides what happens. Governments have a different mindset than corporations. Corporations seek to make profit while governments seek to maintain order and well being of its respective country. So while the latter is the ideal for running a country, the former provides a much better economic mindset. So while it would be a terrible idea to grant a profit-driven institution political power, handing the economy over to the government is not so great either. You see, an economy run by the government doesn't always seek the most economical option but a corporation does. Also, government-run businesses tend to be funded via taxdollars so their source of income isn't threatened when people aren't buying their product (i.e. they have no reason to do a good job) but private businesses have to make a profit off their products in order to keep afloat and on top of that, they act as a source of revenue for the government by paying taxes. What I'm trying to say is that the government should not be the one providing commodities.

But what about Europe?

Ah! Europe's economies are still privately owned but the governments put regulations in order to protect workers and prevent corporations from squashing small businesses. That's Keynesian capitalism. The economic system Bernie Sanders is advocating for is Keynesian capitalism. So unless Sanders is advocating that the government command the economy, no, he is not a socialist. A true American socialist would advocate something like what's in China, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc, but with democracy.

Countries which achieved socialism were often considered "communist" but were they really? Communism is when there is no government or currency; everything is owned by the collective. There is no private property under communism; property belongs to everyone. This was the true vision of Karl Marx. It seems like an ideal system, almost too idealistic to be true. Unfortunately, such a system would require that man give up free will to a hive mind. In other words, communism has never been successfully implemented. Vladimir Lenin tried to achieve Marx's vision by giving the government total control of the economy and funding revolutions across the world to overthrow capitalism and eventually get rid of government and finally achieve their communistic utopia. However, this vision was shattered when Stalin took power and took a different approach: preserve one communist country because the rest of the world is out to get them. So while Lenin and Trotsky saw socialism as a means to an end, Stalin saw it as the end itself.

This is not all to say that government regulations on the economy are bad, this it just to say that the government should not control the economy.
Click to expand...


The entire premise that socialism is good for the people is BS based on the fallacy that government has some sort of obligation to do what is in the best interest of the people.

The purpose of government is the same as any other entity, which is to survive and to thrive. Government survives and thrives by enslaving the people and by usurping their rights and wealth.

Free trade is regulated by the forces of the free will of customers and competition between business. Government is not regulated by anything except the threat of public uprising which for the most part it can suppress by force.
 
jdog said:
The entire premise that socialism is good for the people is BS based on the fallacy that government has some sort of obligation to do what is in the best interest of the people.
.
Click to expand...

They do have the obligation to do what is in best interest but don't know what is best interest since each group has opposing interests: Unions/consumers, rich/poor, cars/buses, legals/illegals, Christians/others, management /workers, indians/pipeline companies, etc etc etc.

liberals are way too slow to see that so pretend like children the govt knows whats best.
 
James972 said:
They do have the obligation to do what is in best interest but don't know what is best interest since each group has opposing interests: Unions/consumers, rich/poor, cars/buses, legals/illegals, Christians/others, management /workers, indians/pipeline companies, etc etc etc.

liberals are way too slow to see that so pretend like children the govt knows whats best.
Click to expand...

Government is not and never has been a altruistic entity. Government has in itself, self interest, and acts in its own self interest. Government is made up of men, and men cannot be trusted with power as they always have and always will use it in their own interests and not the interests of the people.
 
jdog said:
Government is not and never has been a altruistic entity. Government has in itself, self interest, and acts in its own self interest. Government is made up of men, and men cannot be trusted with power as they always have and always will use it in their own interests and not the interests of the people.
Click to expand...

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.
 
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Compare the above to Tradition #1 from a 12 Step Program - Our common welfare should come first; personal progress for the greatest number depends upon unity.

IMO, the United States political and economic system, for all it's faults, still comprises the most successful hybrid socialist-capitalist system to ever exist! We all have a role in the system. Most of us have different preferences on priorities. I have a healthy distrust of government at all levels. I believe our primary priority remains military superiority and diplomatic acumen to maintain some semblance of worldwide stability.
 
Limited Power Government and Free Market Capitalism are not perfect but they made America the greatest most prosperous nation in all human history. The only time the American economy has stumbled or stagnated is when Big Government Socialist Policies started dominating.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
military superiority and diplomatic acumen to maintain some semblance of worldwide stability.
Click to expand...

liberals hate America and thus don't realize that it saved, recreated, stabilized civilization on earth through two world wars, and remains the source of stability on earth.
 
What is so bad about employees owning the company the invest their (life) into?

Government could set certain employee ownership requirements, they don't have to actually be involved in any of the money or governance of the private sector. I have a few ideas as to why it doesn't work so well, but I'm curious in general.
 
Mach said:
What is so bad about employees owning the company the invest their (life) into?
Click to expand...

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.
 
James972 said:
liberals hate America and thus don't realize that it saved, recreated, stabilized civilization on earth through two world wars, and remains the source of stability on earth.
Click to expand...

Help me out James. You appear to have a clear and deep understanding of what constitutes "a Liberal". Could you create a confirmation test? The Late Great U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, specialized in rooting out Communists. I figure if I test positive as a Liberal, I can find out my political views by reading your posts. Even before I take the test, I know this... I LOVE AMERICA! God Bless you and yours!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom