• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

PSL Presidential Campaign: What is Socialism

DVSentinel said:
A fantasy is something someone desires, no sane person desires war. However, realistic people accept the possiblity of warfare and that it is sometimes necessary. In the realm of politics, everything has a relationship to conflict and either will move us away from it or move us towards it. Many times throughout history, political differences have led to warfare. For decades now, the US has seen greater and greater polarization between the two sides. For the left to believe that it can eventually win a total victory for it's side without the potential for warfare and outright warfare is an unrealistic fantasy.

I do not desire warfare, but I do recognise that there is an increasing pontential and possiblity of it. Peace is my fantasy, the increasing potential for conflict is reality. I do believe very much in the old saying "better dead than red", so yes, I will accept participation in active warfare before I allow leftist free reign here. I am more than willing to die and kill to prevent it. The purpose for even presenting it is that we must all recognise the increasing potential, without that recognition, we can not move away from it. Without the left recognising that there are indeed people in this country that will take up arms against them, then their policies can only lead to an increased potential for armed conflict.
Click to expand...

If you your ideology can't win over enough people to vote for it, how the hell do you think you will win over enough people to fight for your ideology???
 
Paschendale said:
So then it's entirely up to the character of those in power, and not the specific ideology they espouse, right? So we can agree that equating oppression and totalitarianism with socialism is stupid and wrong, right? Since any kind of leader can be a despot, and any kind of leader can be beneficent, regardless of the system under which they operate.
Click to expand...

The people in that video made it clear that they want to seize ownership and control of other people's stuff. Is that socialism? I have no idea, nor do I care. They intend to forcibly take what isn't theirs, so in my book that puts them into the same camp as thieves and rapists.
 
Paschendale said:
So then it's entirely up to the character of those in power, and not the specific ideology they espouse, right? So we can agree that equating oppression and totalitarianism with socialism is stupid and wrong, right? Since any kind of leader can be a despot, and any kind of leader can be beneficent, regardless of the system under which they operate.
Click to expand...

Socialism requires oppression to function.
 
Catawba said:
If you your ideology can't win over enough people to vote for it, how the hell do you think you will win over enough people to fight for your ideology???
Click to expand...

I am talking about fighting the oppressive and unconstitutional actions of those pursueing the leftist ideology. My ideology is to live and let live, each person responsible for themselves, their actions and their children and each person living or dying as the results of their own choices and actions. I have no responsibility for or to others the same as they have no responsiblity to or for me. You have your beliefs and I have mine and we both have the right to have them and pursue them, but no one has a right to force mine or anyone elses participation in their ideology.

How many would be enough? According to a history teacher I had in highschool, only about 1/3 of the colonists actually supported the American Revolution, 1/3 was pretty much neutral at the start and 1/3 was loyalist. In America today, niether side can claim a true majority is backing their veiws. Check the records, at times, the majority of eligible Americans didn't even vote. If pushed, no one can predict how many would resist. We do know that somewhere in excess of 100 million of them are gun owners, how many of them will stand up and join against a regime that continues to attack that ownership? We don't know and cannot accurately predict it. Until and unless leadership emerges and organizes, we simply cannot not know or predict how many that are currently dissatisfied or disenfranchised with the government will join in a revolt against it. I do belief that we are quickly coming to a point where we will find out. We don't know how many it would take. The American Colonist revolting against England should not of been able to win, but they did. The same for slaves revolting against France in the carribean. Did a majority of people in Egypt actually participate in the uprising that overthrew that governmet? Or in Libya? Or Mexico against Spain, etc, etc...
 
Catawba said:
If you your ideology can't win over enough people to vote for it, how the hell do you think you will win over enough people to fight for your ideology???
Click to expand...

Forgot to address this above. It is not my fight, I am not leading anyone. I am predicting the possiblility of revolution and stating which side I will support if it comes about. I am not advocating for it, only bringing to everyones attention that it is a possibility. "how the hell do you think you will win over enough people to fight for your ideology???" None, since I am not even trying to win people over, just trying to open their eyes and minds to a probability. I am physically disabled, I cannot lead or even participate a great deal if/when that possibility/probability comes about. The most I could do physically is defend my own home and that of my family, beyond that, it will be up to others.
 
Joby said:
The more they talk about socialist visions for things a majority of people can stand behind .........
Click to expand...

....and the more people hurt just by being Americans under the do-nothing leadership that feels that when ever the country goes done the tubes, the people must always, unequivocally bear the full burden of putting everything back together again, PSL sounds more and more better.
 
Aberration said:
Socialism requires oppression to function.
Click to expand...

If Socialism requires no oppression to function. If you find a real Socialistic society, you will find no oppression. Notice that I said a real socialistic society.

Socialism means no-one goes without. Capitalism means somebody goes without. If somebody is to go without, who is to choose that somebody?

Socialism means taking care of each other. When the banks were about to go under, they rallied together and took care of each other. They made sure that each of his own, did not go without. It works! Look at the results.

So, they practice Socialism at the top, it's Capitalism for everybody else.
 
debatedeb1 said:
If Socialism requires no oppression to function. If you find a real Socialistic society, you will find no oppression. Notice that I said a real socialistic society.

Socialism means no-one goes without. Capitalism means somebody goes without. If somebody is to go without, who is to choose that somebody?

Socialism means taking care of each other. When the banks were about to go under, they rallied together and took care of each other. They made sure that each of his own, did not go without. It works! Look at the results.

So, they practice Socialism at the top, it's Capitalism for everybody else.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what socialism is, nor do I care. But I do have issues with people threatening to seize other people's property, whether they're socialists or not.

Live your life however you like, share with whomever you want, and I'll do the same. Just don't come at me or my stuff, and we'll all get along fine.
 
Centinel said:
I have no idea what socialism is, nor do I care. But I do have issues with people threatening to seize other people's property, whether they're socialists or not.

Live your life however you like, share with whomever you want, and I'll do the same. Just don't come at me or my stuff, and we'll all get along fine.
Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:
My ideology is to live and let live,
Click to expand...



That sound great. If you were the only living being on the planet, that would make sense. But you are not. So, that means there are people out there that want you to live the way they want you to live.

What makes best sense to them as to how you are to live translates to what is most profitable to them. They came up with capitalism. Their way is fine...until they screw it up and want you to pay for it. You can talk "Live and Let live" all you want to, but when they send men with guns to your house because you wont comply, you and your family will suffer. Unless of course there are enough people like you, that surround you, who love you, and who will fight for you to protect you from your demise. It doesn't have to be all the people, or even half the people, just 1/3 of the people.

And now that you and your people have become a great force, three will be a need for the remaining 2/3rds of the people to protect themselves from YOY. And so on...

There is no such thing as "live and let live". You cannot survive by yourself. Unless you are going to live like a hermit in the mountains which statistics show an average life span of 35 to 45 years of age, you'll need a home, electricity, heat, telephone, transportation and...A JOB! And if you have a job, you are not taking care of yourself, you are merely as good as your job and while it lasts. Somebody else is taking care you and that's your employer.

In order to obtain your belief to live and let live, you will have to become a Socialists because those are the Socialistic terms of Socialism. Socialism means no Dictator, King President or political parties required.
 
debatedeb1 said:
That sound great. If you were the only living being on the planet, that would make sense. But you are not. So, that means there are people out there that want you to live the way they want you to live.

What makes best sense to them as to how you are to live translates to what is most profitable to them. They came up with capitalism. Their way is fine...until they screw it up and want you to pay for it. You can talk "Live and Let live" all you want to, but when they send men with guns to your house because you wont comply, you and your family will suffer. Unless of course there are enough people like you, that surround you, who love you, and who will fight for you to protect you from your demise. It doesn't have to be all the people, or even half the people, just 1/3 of the people.

And now that you and your people have become a great force, three will be a need for the remaining 2/3rds of the people to protect themselves from YOY. And so on...

There is no such thing as "live and let live". You cannot survive by yourself. Unless you are going to live like a hermit in the mountains which statistics show an average life span of 35 to 45 years of age, you'll need a home, electricity, heat, telephone, transportation and...A JOB! And if you have a job, you are not taking care of yourself, you are merely as good as your job and while it lasts. Somebody else is taking care you and that's your employer.

In order to obtain your belief to live and let live, you will have to become a Socialists because those are the Socialistic terms of Socialism. Socialism means no Dictator, King President or political parties required.
Click to expand...

As I said before, I oppose people who want to take other people's property by force. They may be socialists, fascists, capitalists, or whatever. The people in the add in the OP call themselves socialists, and they say they want to seize the property of others by force. I oppose this, as it is nothing more than stealing.

As you intimate, there are others besides self-proclaimed socialists who want to plunder others for their personal gain. They too are no better than robbers and brigands in my book.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone can live their life however they want. Just don't come at me trying to take what's mine, and I will return the courtesy. That goes for self-proclaimed socialists, fascists, and other garden variety thugs.
 
Presidential Campaign: What is Socialism?

Socialism/communism is whatever conservatives say it is when they want to "smear" their opponent as being "unAmerican!"
 
debatedeb1 said:
If Socialism requires no oppression to function. If you find a real Socialistic society, you will find no oppression. Notice that I said a real socialistic society.

Socialism means no-one goes without. Capitalism means somebody goes without. If somebody is to go without, who is to choose that somebody?

Socialism means taking care of each other. When the banks were about to go under, they rallied together and took care of each other. They made sure that each of his own, did not go without. It works! Look at the results.

So, they practice Socialism at the top, it's Capitalism for everybody else.
Click to expand...

If there is no oppression in a Socialistic society, then it would shrink until it didn't exist. Maybe that is why none exist, and every one that is tried requires heavy oppression.

How does Capitalism mean somebody goes without?

Seriously? Look at the bank results and proof? They are horrible results.
 
debatedeb1 said:
In order to obtain your belief to live and let live, you will have to become a Socialists because those are the Socialistic terms of Socialism. Socialism means no Dictator, King President or political parties required.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is Communism. Go back and read your Marx, Socialism is the transition from Capialism to Communism. Communism is a utopian society which requires everyone to act in accordance with the ideals of Communism. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your own view, humans have not, at least up to this point, shown the ability to live up to ideals in any great number. Communism, the desired outcome of Socialism depends on everyone acting unselfishly. Do you have any evidence that people, as a whole, are capable of acting that way?

Under Socialism (as defined by Marx, the originator of the term and idea of socialism), the government or some other organization seizes and controls all means of production, resourses and distribution of resourses/products. Socialism is by nature oppressive unless everyone voluntarily gives up their property and other resourses. Many espousing Socialism or Socialistic ideas are simply sponsoring the government to take away from those who are productive and achieve to give equal benefits and wealth to those too lazy to achieve anything on their own.

As to your description of live and let live, ok, thats your veiw of it, but thankfully, we are still, at this time, free to have other veiws of it.
 
Centinel said:
As I said before, I oppose people who want to take other people's property by force.
Click to expand...

You must have misunderstood, is Socialism, nobody takes anything from you.
 
Aberration said:
If there is no oppression in a Socialistic society, then it would shrink until it didn't exist. Maybe that is why none exist, and every one that is tried requires heavy oppression. How does Capitalism mean somebody goes without? Seriously? Look at the bank results and proof? They are horrible results.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any true Socialistic societies. If there were any, they would still exist.

Capitalism means if you beat out your competitor, he goes without.

In elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and universities they teach you how to get ahead in life.

Get ahead of who?
 
debatedeb1 said:
I don't know of any true Socialistic societies. If there were any, they would still exist.

Capitalism means if you beat out your competitor, he goes without.

In elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and universities they teach you how to get ahead in life.

Get ahead of who?
Click to expand...

That would depend on your definition of ture Socialistic societies. Many have attempted to implement Marxist Socialism. Of those, some do still exist, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and others. China was one attempt at it, but under G.H. Bush, they accepted limited capatalist zones and expanded them when the took control of Hong Kong in '97 and decided to keep it as a capatilist zone.

Capatilism is about competition. But under a truer version of Capatilism, not corporatism, new competition would constantly arise as new things were discovered and we would see a constant turn over of companies and wealth would be very hard to concentrate. Competition has always spurred technological advancement with the most advancements coming during times of war, the most intense type of competition. The horse and carriage with suspension systems beat out ones without, of course trains, planes and automobiles beat out the horse and carriage. Currently we do see problems and reduced competition due to protectionism, laws designed to protect existing corporations in the market place and employment in market segments.

While competition does leave winners and losers, Socialism only balances everything to where there are no winners, only losers. Countries that have had strong Socialistic tendencies are failing or have failed already. The Soviet Union and Eastern Block European nations went bankrupt and failed. Greece and Ireland went bankrupt. France, Italy, Spain and many others with strong Socialistic laws/institutions are all in finacial trouble. Other European countries are looking at and considering reducing the amount they spend on Socialistic institutions. Germany, England and many others privatised Telecommunications and other industries in the 1990s because of poor performance and inability to match technologies coming from America. England has even started to privatise some of it's Universal Healthcare.

If you wish to see the trends from the US, take a look at our debt vs number of Socialistic institutions such as welfare. You can chart a lot of current American problems back to the "Social" revolution of the 1960s and later. Look at Socialistic institutions, EPA regulation and labor costs and chart them against oursourcing. Chart the cost of medical insurance from the 1970s/80s when laws were changed. As America has become more and more Socialized, our debt has mounted, we have bled jobs, and our annual deficit has increased. As a greater number of laws that are protectionist in nature, protecting existing corporations, employment and enviromental protection laws has increased, competition levels in any given market has decreased.

Niether Corporatism nor Socialism really work, however, Corporatism does have fewer negative affects than Socialism in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
True, I never said it was anything but my opinion. Much of politics is opinion. Much of the "evidence" presented here is primarily support and causes of the opinions presented. Even when absolute facts are given, the interpretation of those facts are the opinions of the person/s presenting and reading those facts.
Click to expand...
Okie dokie.



According you, never. According to others that base their opinions on the definition of socialism derived from Marxist theory, the original source of socialism, then there are many, many examples of socialist systems and programs.
Click to expand...
Correct

Interesting that you say it has never been tried by your definitions then turn around and point to Venezuela as an example of socialism working even though it does not meet your previous definition of socialism.
Click to expand...
There has never been a true socialist country. Venezuela has implemented many socialist systems and ideas into their country (communes, co-operatives, state owned enterprises which turn around a fund public works, socialized medical care, grassroots democracy, workplace democracy, nationalizations, etc.) This does not however make them a socialist country they just have many socialized implementations in their country.



I never used the term "fake".
Click to expand...
I know im just quoting other people

I did say "real" socialism, this is to destinguish between socialism based upon Marx and what I would term sudo-socialism which has some basis in the ideals of Marx but attempts to incorporate other ideas into it. Those proposing beliefs outside of Marxist theory of socialism should actually either hyphenate the name with something else or come up with a new name. The term "Socialism" is defined and derived from Marxist theory, any other "socialism" is a sudo-socialist theory, not true socialism.
Click to expand...
Actually socialism was around way before Marx. Socialism was around a very long time ago. Way before the French Revolution. People lived in a socialist matter way before the actually term was originated. In the midevil times there were socialists (even tho as stated earlier the term was not originated), and Christian socialists, who used co-ops to own the means of production and owned everything in common. But the first time the term "socialism" was used was during the French revolution. There were forms of socialism before the Marxian "socialism". Marx just envisioned socialism as a almost historical stepping stone from socialism to communism.

Links please for your notion of improvements of Venezuela and other nations. It is hard to judge the accuracy of your assertion without veiwing what you determine to be "improving".
Click to expand...
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf



And yet, their regulatory position is tantamount to control of the business and their desired tax policies would see the majority of profits from that business go to government coffers.
Click to expand...
Sounds like regulatory capitalism to me since the democratic state or the workers do not own the means of production.

If the government controls the policies of the company and gets the lions share of the profits,
Click to expand...
Ive never really meant a liberal politician who advocates the gov recieving the majority of corporate or company profits.

then is there really a difference between their idea of a "regulated capitalist market" and government ownership? Looks like the end result is the same to me, just different rhetoric to name it.
Click to expand...
Ehhh not really. More like Keynesian or regulated capitalism since the company or corporation is still in private hands.



Some, yes. All, no. Moderates are actually those towards the center, but not having a party of their own, they side with existing parties according to their lean. On the two dimensional scale that seems to be popular, I lean slightly right but not enough to truely identify with the absolute right. I can be considered a "moderate" or "centrist" on that two dimensional line. However, on a three deminsional scale, I am "other" because I don't fit the pre-defined designations.
Click to expand...
Well i guess it matters what scale you are using.



That is your opinion on it, however, some of us would clearly disagree with your definition of "public good". Every government has certain functions that must be provided by said government. Common Defence and Law Enforcement being just two of the functions that all governments provide. I would call some of the policies of the Republicans that you might term as "socialist", I would term as protectionism and corpratism. Others I simply put in the catagory of "natural government functions".
Click to expand...
Well sure you have functions in which all govs provide, defense, etc. But people call for other services from the gov, and still yet they have private enterprises.


If they are true socialist, they do, because that is what Marx defined it as, a transition phase needed to move from capitalism to communism. However, I, like many others, use the term to describe anyone who promotes or espouses sudo-socialist ideals or anyone promoting ideas that are socialistic in nature.
Click to expand...
Earlier stated comments cover this point.
 
DVSentinel said:
Cuba, Vietnam, and others. China was one attempt at it, Marxist Socialism. North Korea, The Soviet Union and Eastern Block European Greece and Ireland France, Italy, Spain . Germany, England a
Click to expand...

Let me know when you get to a true Socialistic society.
 
DVSentinel said:
Under Socialism (as defined by Marx, the originator of the term and idea of socialism), the government or some other organization seizes and controls all means of production, resourses and distribution of resourses/products. .
Click to expand...

Show me a country that seizes and controls all means or production, resources and distribution of recourse/products an i'll show you a country that does not practice Socialism.
 
debatedeb1 said:
You must have misunderstood, is Socialism, nobody takes anything from you.
Click to expand...

As I said before, I oppose people who want to take other people's property by force. If your definition of socialism doesn't involve taking other people's property by force, then I've got no problem with your type of socialist.
 
DVSentinel said:
Has nothing to do with "wishing" to murder anyone. It would be much better if we cured socialist/liberals of their dillusional state rather than kill them. The problem is that while socilaist/liberals can find a desirable level of socialism elsewhere in the world, those opposed to leftist policies and organisations have only the US to chose from. Current pressures are driving us against the wall where we will face the choice of either capitulating and an end to our beliefs or we fight. Socialist/Liberals will not accept any form of peaceful co-existance or allow us to have "non-socialist/liberal" zones/states to pursue our believes and our way of life. We need to recognise this fact and prepare for the coming fight as surrender is not a realistic option. The left is forcing us to the point of fight or flight and since there is no place to run to, fight is the only option left.
Click to expand...

8b04f_ORIG-internet_tough_guys.jpg
 
Centinel said:
As I said before, I oppose people who want to take other people's property by force. If your definition of socialism doesn't involve taking other people's property by force, then I've got no problem with your type of socialist.
Click to expand...

So you think people who defraud others should go unpunished and be allowed to keep the stuff they swindled from others?

No wonder the Duggar family is more popular than the Libertarian Party
 
sangha said:
And let us know when anyone gets to a true free market capitalistic society
Click to expand...

Now, we're talkin'. A true capitalistic society would be awesome. A true Socialistic society would be awesome. Should we be allowed to choose between a true capitalistic society or a true socialistic society. The biggest difference between the two is that it would be harder to get rid of corruption in a capitalistic society than in a socialistic one.

But, here is the solution to both worlds. A capitalistic corporation owned by the American people. And it's only purpose is to buy out other companies and corporations. We are still a capitalist society, but the people would own everything.

Just think, the American people would have more bribing power than the Koch brothers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom