• 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.

What is socialism?

I'm sorry I just don't care if someone works for their money or inherits it, it doesn't effect me or how well I do in life if the Baldwin's worked for their money or not. As for the poor I think we should concentrate more on welfare reform and tax reform (my vote is for the FairTax plan). I will say TJS sounds like he has a level head about all of this and is obviously just looking for a solution that will help the people who need it the most, I have no problem with that but if I get wealthy through my hard work I don't want the government to take my money when I die. I will handle my own children and teach them responsibility, I don't need the gov to help with that.
 
I just know who I was argueing with, I think she's said it before she wants to ban inheritance.
 
you cant ban inheritance becuase its not your money, those people worked to make a better life for there kids. Yes those kids may not have to work at all in there life but it is there money. We need to just let people worry about themselves, i think the world has gotten away from TALKing and has gotten to reliant on passing legislation on things that are just family issues. I agree with what gdalton said before.
 
Last edited:
TJS0110 said:
you cant do that becuase its not your money those people worked to make a better life for there kids. Yes those kids may not have to work at all in there life but it is there money. We need to just let people worry about themselves.
Click to expand...


amen to individualism.
 
jimmyjack said:
You forgot to add the killing of unborn humans to your list.

Socialism is communism in disguise; in fact socialism is just communism under a different name.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a libertarian/religious issue, socialism is an economic system, it usually has very little to do with social issues, this is more dictated by your style of government, and Britain, France, Germany, Sweden and pretty much every industrialised nation in the world has at least some socialist policies usually involving a social contract of some kind providing free healthcare, education, welfare and pensions. Linking socialism to communism has a certain validity, they are two left-wing philosophies, but then fascism and capitalism are two right wing philosophies so by your logic capitalism is just fascism in disguise, or by another name (those two mean the same thing by the way)

Even the U.S. has underlying socialist principles buried under all the corporate propaganda, the New Deal, the Wagner Act (which Reagan refused to enforce) and even Adam Smith himself held socialist principles although don't expect to hear any of this from the educated classes or the mainstream media.
 
Fascism is the merger of state and industry, I think that fits the socialist idealogy, is it not?
 
128shot said:
Fascism is the merger of state and industry, I think that fits the socialist idealogy, is it not?
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence of that? Nazi Germany didn't run the industries, there was no merger, as it happens through communism, it is actually more to do with the state and industry working closely together, not merging. If you look at the history of corporatism in Nazi Germany you will see they were all still privately owned, not state owned. That's the difference, and thats how it's carried out in the U.S. Ford, Coca-cola and IBM all profited from the Third Reich and German business leaders made a fortune.

The relationship between German business and the Reich was undeniably close, as it is in the U.S. today, in the Soviet Union the state owned industry and only the state (i.e. high ranking Soviet officials) profited.
 
well, I was close :D
 
Short answer = Government intervention in economy.

Long answer = The abolition of individual liberty caused by a government that doesnt respect property rights.
 
Socialism is a far less extreme outlook than communism, in reference to Marxism it is the stage between capitalism and communism where the means of production have not yet been fully brought under state control. Marxism and Communism are two very specific socialist philosophies, the general meaning of socialism now refers mainly to social reform in pre-existing democracies, strong principles include an organised labour force and some form of social contract.

The vast array of socialist theories that exist today all agree on one major principle, that the populace at large should benefit from the economy and not just a tiny minority, the 'elite' if you will. In this principle we see why the U.S.S.R. betrayed underlying socialist principles very early on in its creation, mainly due to Stalin's influence, although the upper echelons of the intellectual classes which incited the revolution believed they should mandate the needs of the people to the people, itself a totalitarian or elitist philosophy.
To further understand the betrayel of communism (in many countries) to it's socialist principles are both 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, seemingly allegories of the situation (Animal Farm directly so).
 
So, could you consider subsidies a form of fascism? or state funded research that inevitably gets in the control of private hands for profit?
 
It very much depends on the structure of the economy, in a fascist state then yes they would be (obviously) but in a true socialist society there would be no subsidies as the people control the means of production and can't really subsidise themselves. In a modern socialist society it would be a socialist principle. The structure of the economy would be very different so the question is pretty irrelevant.

I can try give you an example though, if a business is going under and it threatens jobs then subsidies given to prevent job losses might be considered socialist but if the subsidies are simply a bail out for the owners (as is usually the case) then it is corporatist/capitalist. I understand the line is very thin but that is because modern socialism is quite moderate and mainly involves worker protection rather than state ownership.

As to, your other point, I would say this would still be a form of subsidy and it again goes down to the root of the difference between capitalism and socialism, in a socialist economy as the workers would directly benefit from the profits companies made it would not be a fascist principle. Oh and then there is the fact that in even moderate socialist societies the rich get taxed a bucket load, so their profit, is the countries, while in economies such as the U.S. this should be a factor, but there are so many corporate loop holes and creative accounting that it ceases to be.
 
Last edited:
corporatism is not capitalism...

since clearly, coporatism deals with the government intervening.
 
Capitalism spawned corporatism, and they both exist at the same time.

And in your corporatism, governments do intervene.... to help corporations.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Capitalism spawned corporatism, and they both exist at the same time.

And in your corporatism, governments do intervene.... to help corporations.
Click to expand...

The evidence for this is extreme in most cases, I'm not really going to go into it, just go onto google and try to find a few examples, one rather anecdotal example is Newt Gingrich's former congressional district, the most heavily subsidised suburban county outside of the federal government, home to lockheed martin, a private company which had already benefitted from public expenditure on developing the technologies it now produces. I believe someone brought this up, and this is a pretty good example of the totalitarian structure governing the U.S. economy and government interactrion with it.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Capitalism spawned corporatism, and they both exist at the same time.

And in your corporatism, governments do intervene.... to help corporations.
Click to expand...


how many freakin times do I have to say this?

the close to capitalism we get, the less the government will ever interfere. True capialism is the total SEPERATION of state from the economy.
 
I'm sorry baby (no apoligys for the sexist remark cuz your a hottie)
but distain for corporations, unless they are a monopoly, is distain for capitalism,





_____________________________________<empty streets

and to the Republic for which it stands (if you don't understand then don't even bother to ask).
 
Last edited:
I didn't know I was a hottie ?
 
that was directed at the socialist chick who had the audacity to diagree with me. Umm if you're socialist and a feminist would you hate it badly if I opened a door for you or called you Ma'am,. . . . .. Just kidding MS.
 
My sisters kind of like that, assumes that every time I try to help her that I'm trying to tell her because shes a women she cant do it. I would do the same thing for a guy. Some people get paranoid about that stuff.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Capitalism spawned corporatism, and they both exist at the same time.

And in your corporatism, governments do intervene.... to help corporations.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the intervention is irrelevent, the point is that the government does intervene. Corporatism is socialism.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
that was directed at the socialist chick who had the audacity to diagree with me. Umm if you're socialist and a feminist would you hate it badly if I opened a door for you or called you Ma'am,. . . . .. Just kidding MS.
Click to expand...

Socialist chick...socialist chick...are talking about moi?

Any other socialist girls around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom