- 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.
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.