A Question for Liberals: How many of you embrace Socialism?

[Ren]

You definition sucks.

Your grammar is what sucks.

That's the correction definition. Deal with it.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Wrong.

Socialism is what is described in that definition, and Obama did his part to bring the US closer to it.

Wrong.

Obama did the exact opposite. Obamacare was a move away from Socialism. It was a move to help prevent Socialism.

 

[jpevans]

Your grammar is what sucks.

That's the correction definition. Deal with it.

This is the one I keep coming up with.
NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wrong.

Socialism is what is described in that definition, and Obama did his part to bring the US closer to it.

If you are referring to the ACA, it does not meet the definition of socialism as you presented in the OP.

The ACA does not involve nationalization of any industries. It simply imposed regulations and a tax.

 

[Ren]

Wrong.

Obama did the exact opposite. Obamacare was a move away from Socialism. It was a move to help prevent Socialism.

Wrong.

Nationalizing shit is the core of socialism, not your romanticizing of history.

 

[Ren]

If you are referring to the ACA, it does not meet the definition of socialism as you presented in the OP.

The ACA does not involve nationalization of any industries. It simply imposed regulations and a tax.

The ACA is the government's involvement with healthcare. That's socialism in part.

 

[vegas giants]

The ACA is the government's involvement with healthcare. That's socialism in part.

Yeah its great

 

[Jredbaron96]

Wrong.

Socialism is what is described in that definition

Well no, not exactly.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The ACA is the government's involvement with healthcare. That's socialism in part.

If government being involved with an industry is all that is required for socialism, then I dare you to name a government in the entire history of humanity that was not socialism. Even tribal societies imposed rules on these sorts of things.

 

[Ren]

If government being involved with an industry is all that is required for socialism, then I dare you to name a government in the entire history of humanity that was not socialism.

I said it's socialism in part. It's transitional.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I said it's socialism in part. It's transitional.

So for the entire history of human society, we have had transitional socialism?

 

[Ren]

Yeah its great

It's great for socialists.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I said it's socialism in part. It's transitional.

What you say ultimately means nothing. It's pretty clear from this discussion you're not familiar with socialist doctrine.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You

Wrong.

Nationalizing shit is the core of socialism, not your romanticizing of history.

You should have used "nationalizing shit" as your definition in the OP then, if that is what you think. The core of Socialism is for the proletariat to rise up and and seize the means of production in a glorious revolution.

The purpose of the Cura Annonae, and panem et circenses in general, is to placate the masses to prevent exactly that sort of revolution.

 

[Ren]

So for the entire history of human society, we have had transitional socialism?

I'd say we've had it here since not long after Karl Marx was spewing his filth.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'd say we've had it here since not long after Karl Marx was spewing his filth.

Countries nationalized industries long before Karl Marx was born.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I'd say we've had it here since not long after Karl Marx was spewing his filth.

The pyramids were not built by private sector captains of industry. The roads and aqueducts of Rome were nationalized endeavors. Governments using tax money to fund projects predates Marx by thousands of years.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'd say we've had it here since not long after Karl Marx was spewing his filth.

The pyramids were not built by private sector captains of industry. The roads and aqueducts of Rome were nationalized endeavors. Governments using tax money to fund projects predates Marx by thousands of years.

Rome also nationalized grain production during attempts to stabilize food prices after riots. Of course, it was nationalized under Egypt before that as well.

 

[vegas giants]

It's great for socialists.

And Americans

 

[Ren]

You


You should have used "nationalizing shit" as your definition in the OP then, if that is what you think. The core of Socialism is for the proletariat to rise up and and seize the means of production in a glorious revolution.

The purpose of the Cura Annonae, and panem et circenses, in general, is to placate the masses to prevent exactly that sort of revolution.

See, your problem is that you've got your head too far up history's ass.

Revolutions and proletariat uprisings and all that shit is just ONE way to achieve Socialism.

ANOTHER way to achieve Socialism is for closet Socialists like Barack Obama to step in and start nationalizing shit like healthcare and the auto industry.

 

[Antiwar]

That is not true. The far left and right tell that lie a lot.

With respect:

Ultimately, the two definitions of 'socialism' don't matter much to me. I could go with either one or both, because most words have more than one definition.

1. Socialism defined as the abolition of private property and the collective ownership of the means of production being the strict definition.

2. The idea that socialism is on a spectrum which is based on commanding the economy (intervention) versus unfettered capitalism.

If we go with #1, then what shall we call #2?


@AConcernedCitizen


Here's an interesting short article that claims mixed economies are capitalism and socialism:

Is the United States a Market Economy or a Mixed Economy?

The United States has a mixed economy, which combines elements of capitalism and socialism. It functions as a free market economy with governmental economic controls.

www.investopedia.com

Quote:

The United States has a mixed economy. It works according to an economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects some private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to intervene in economic activities in order to achieve social aims and for the public good.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Rome also nationalized grain production during attempts to stabilize food prices after riots.

Yeah, but I had already mentioned the Cura Annonae in the preceding post, so I felt obligated to use some new material.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, but I had already mentioned the Cura Annonae in the preceding post, so I felt obligated to use some new material.

Whelp, I learned a new latin term today.

 

[Slartibartfast]

See, your problem is that you've got your head too far up history's ass.

Revolutions and proletariat uprisings and all that shit is just ONE way to achieve Socialism.

ANOTHER way to achieve Socialism is for closet Socialists like Barack Obama to step in and start nationalizing shit like healthcare and the auto industry.

Besides the VA system, what parts of health care and the auto industry are currently owned by the government?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

See, your problem is that you've got your head too far up history's ass.

Revolutions and proletariat uprisings and all that shit is just ONE way to achieve Socialism.

ANOTHER way to achieve Socialism is for closet Socialists like Barack Obama to step in and start nationalizing shit like healthcare and the auto industry.

Is that how Stalin did it? Is that how Mao did it?

What is the cautionary tale here? That we might end up like Norway, with a higher per capita GDP, better standard of living, and longer life expectancies? If that's Socialism, sign me up.