Total Posts:246|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is socialism?

feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 8:50:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
From: http://www.debate.org...

There's a real Atlantic semantic barrier with the term socialism.

It's easy for both sides to chuck around allegations of insidious cultural propaganda but it seems to me that Europeans and Americans are often talking about two completely different things when they discuss socialism.

Americans are taught that socialism is state ownership and state control. Of everything. They see it as a dictatorship where the government does what it wants and the citizens are powerless to effect change.

The understanding that we Brits have about socialism is that private property is respected but the means of production are owned and controlled by the citizens, the people, everybody. In addition, it's central tenet is equality and fairness.

Both these definitions are well represented on the internet but, as we all know, America owns the internets so it is no surprise which version comes out on top, but Americans should understand the distinctions between the original European concept of this political philosophy and their perversion of it. http://www.google.co.uk...

Real socialism requires absolute democracy. If a state is not acting in total accord with the will of it's citizens, then it is not a socialist state. Dissent should be encouraged and decisions that affect everyone shouldn't be taken without a substantial majority. A social contract has to be respected though, which includes a commitment to fairness, equality and justice.

Fascist ideas of elitism and the racial pseudo science of eugenics are in stark contrast with the principles of equality and universal brotherhood that are inherent in socialism.

Nazism and socialism are oxymoronic.
Dictator and socialist are antonyms.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 8:57:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Basically it seems like you are talking about a mild form of socialism rather than full socialism
But socialism as I understand it is simply state control of the means of production so any industry could be socialized or all industries could be
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:11:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 8:57:45 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Basically it seems like you are talking about a mild form of socialism rather than full socialism
But socialism as I understand it is simply state control of the means of production so any industry could be socialized or all industries could be

Yeah, well your definition is a perfect match for the princeton wordnet defnition that comes out on top here: http://www.google.co.uk...

Wiktionary seems to get it closest to the British concept I'm referring to: "Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists"

I've bolded the parts that would exclude fascism and dictatorships from qualifying for this definition.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:12:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You are confused.

Read Tucker:
http://fair-use.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:14:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 9:12:05 AM, Reasoning wrote:
You are confused.

Read Tucker:
http://fair-use.org...

Tucker is confused and you are confused by proxy.

Respond directly to my points with your own words, rather than quotes and I will be happy to discus things with you.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:15:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"To-day (pardon the paradox!) society is fundamentally anti social. The whole so-called social fabrice rests on privilege and power, and is disordered and strained in every direction by the inequalities that necessarily result therefrom. The welfare of each, instead of contributing to that of all, as it naturally should and would, almost invariably detracts from that of all. Wealth is made by legal privilege a hook with which to filch from labor's pockets. Every man who gets rich thereby makes his neighbor poor. The better off one is, the worse off the rest are. As Ruskin says, "every grain of calculated Increment to the rich is balanced by its mathematical equivalent of Decrement to the poor." The Laborer's Deficit is precisely equal to the Capitalist's Efficit.(119 ¶ 4)

Now, Socialism wants to change all this. Socialism says that what's one man's meat must no longer be another's poison; that no man shall be able to add to his riches except by labor; that in adding to his riches by labor alone no man makes another man poorer; that on the contrary every man thus adding to his riches makes every other man richer; that increase and concentration of wealth through labor tend to increase, cheapen, and vary production; that every increase of capital in the hands of the laborer tends, in the absence of legal monopoly, to put more products, better products, cheaper products, and a greater variety of products within the reach of every man who works; and that this fact means the physical, mental, and moral perfecting of mankind, and the realization of human fraternity. Is that not glorious? Shall a word that means all that be cast aside simply because some have tried to wed it with authority? By no means. The man who subscribes to that, whatever he may think himself, whatever he may call himself, however bitterly he may attack the thing which he mistakes for Socialism, is himself a Socialist; and the man who subscribes to its opposite and acts upon its opposite, however benevolent he may be, however pious he may be, whatever his station in society, whatever his standing in the Church, whatever his position in the State, is not a Socialist, but a Thief. For there are at bottom but two classes,—the Socialists and the Thieves. Socialism, practically, is war upon usury in all its forms, the great Anti-Theft Movement of the nineteenth century; and Socialists are the only people to whom the preachers of morality have no right or occasion to cite the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal!" That commandment is Socialism's flag." - Benjamin Tucker
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:18:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 9:14:46 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/30/2010 9:12:05 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Tucker is confused and you are confused by proxy.

Tucker is a great, widely-respected socialist. But if don't want to listen to him than Proudhon's definition is even broader. Essentially it is, "any effort to ameliorate social conditions" is socialism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:33:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Reasoning, I'd appreciate it if you stopped saying that I'm confused or that I don't know what I mean. I have a pretty clear idea of my own convictions. By all means, disagree and tell me that I've got the definition wrong but please don't tell me that I don't understand my own viewpoint.

I know that socialism is a broad term with different meanings for different people (kind of the whole point I was making). I'm talking about the common US perception against the common UK perception of the word.

You're insistence that your whacky third definition, which sounds more like anarcho-communism or syndicalism to me, is the one, true definiition, is a whole separate issue.

The main point I was trying to make is that when people discuss socialism on this site, they are often talking at cross purposes. You telling me that I'm confused and have the definition all wrong kind of underlines that observation.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:36:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 8:50:45 AM, feverish wrote:
Americans are taught that socialism is state ownership and state control.

That is the commonly-used economic definition.[1]

Of everything. They see it as a dictatorship where the government does what it wants and the citizens are powerless to effect change.

I don't know if it is seen as though the citizens are powerless to affect change. It is certainly thought, however, that the individual's rights become subordinate to the State, and this has indeed been true in all of the authoritarian societies which have taken the name "socialist".

The understanding that we Brits have about socialism is that private property is respected but the means of production are owned and controlled by the citizens, the people, everybody.

That is an extremely narrow idea of socialism.

Also, are the means of production controlled by the citizens or by everybody? How are conflicts to be resolved? Will the vanguard party make the decisions? Mob rule? What?

Furthermore, you may grant your subjects all the freedoms whatever, but if they do not have the freedom to own and operate a means of production for themselves then it means nothing. They are wholly dependent on the State for their subsistence, anyone that doesn't see the great danger here is mad.

In addition, it's central tenet is equality and fairness.

"Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man's environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute." - Benjamin Tucker

Both these definitions are well represented on the internet but, as we all know, America owns the internets so it is no surprise which version comes out on top, but Americans should understand the distinctions between the original European concept of this political philosophy and their perversion of it. http://www.google.co.uk...

The word socialism has been twisted by essentially everyone to fit their own needs.

Real socialism requires absolute democracy.

This is proven to be false by the vast number of anti-ballot socialists.

If a state is not acting in total accord with the will of it's citizens, then it is not a socialist state.

How are we to divine this "will of it's citizens"? Simple majority vote? I guess if the "will of the citizens" is to rape, pillage and plunder a nearby town and then set the citizens up as rulers of that town where they will then collect "rent" from their new subjects. That sounds a lot like feudalism. And under your definition feudalism would compatible with socialism, which is hilarious.

Dissent should be encouraged and decisions that affect everyone shouldn't be taken without a substantial majority. A social contract has to be respected though, which includes a commitment to fairness, equality and justice.

I find it incredibly amusing that you are appealing to the liberal concept of a social concept and using it as a central tenet of the "one true socialism".

Nazism and socialism are oxymoronic.

National Socialism. Socialism. Nope, no connection.

[1] http://www.econlib.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 9:39:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The understanding that we Brits have about socialism is that private property is respected but the means of production are owned and controlled by the citizens the people, everybody.

Everything worth owning is part of the means of producing something. There is nothing left to respect as private property here, and it is meaningless for "everybody" to own something.

In addition, it's central tenet is equality and fairness.
Contradiction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 10:01:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
feverish: i still don't understand how a democracy prevents facism if the majority wants it. i also don't think that i, or any other americans that have given it any thought, equate socialism with absolute dictatorship. however, in order to enact a distribution of wealth, someone has to do the distributing. since that task usually falls to the state, it does require a powerful state, democracy or not. unless you're freedo and think it happens by magic. but yeah, your objection still isn't making much sense to me.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 10:09:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 9:36:55 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/30/2010 8:50:45 AM, feverish wrote:
Americans are taught that socialism is state ownership and state control.

That is the commonly-used economic definition.[1]

Yes, as I said myself, this is the commonly used US definition as per the google definitions I referenced.

US dictionaries tend to say "state", UK ones tend to say "public", I think this is an important distinction.

I don't know if it is seen as though the citizens are powerless to affect change. It is certainly thought, however, that the individual's rights become subordinate to the State, and this has indeed been true in all of the authoritarian societies which have taken the name "socialist".

Yes, this is not applicable to the concept of socialism I am advocating. See here:

The understanding that we Brits have about socialism is that private property is respected but the means of production are owned and controlled by the citizens, the people, everybody. In addition, it's central tenet is equality and fairness.

That is an extremely narrow idea of socialism.

Yes and I'm saying that I think this is the kind of democratic socialism that most British and other European users of this site who describe themselves as socialists are referring to.

Also, are the means of production controlled by the citizens or by everybody?

Everybody who is a citizen.

How are conflicts to be resolved?

Democratically, fairly, under an agreed rule of law.

Furthermore, you may grant your subjects all the freedoms whatever, but if they do not have the freedom to own and operate a means of production for themselves then it means nothing. They are wholly dependent on the State for their subsistence, anyone that doesn't see the great danger here is mad.

I won't deny the inherent allegation of insanity, other than to say that it takes one to know one, real recognise real :)

"Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man's environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute." - Benjamin Tucker

Again with the quotes. Tucker's socialism is not mine.

The word socialism has been twisted by essentially everyone to fit their own needs.

Fair comment. All I'm trying to do here is represent my version of it here, so that people don't just think socialism = communism = fascism as they tend to do. I'm sure you are no happier about these misconceptions than I am.

Real socialism requires absolute democracy.

This is proven to be false by the vast number of anti-ballot socialists.

Okay. What I should have said was "My interpretation of socialism requires absolute democracy"

If a state is not acting in total accord with the will of it's citizens, then it is not a socialist state.

How are we to divine this "will of it's citizens"? Simple majority vote?

Votes, referenda, debate, discussion, compromise etc.

I guess if the "will of the citizens" is to rape, pillage and plunder a nearby town and then set the citizens up as rulers of that town where they will then collect "rent" from their new subjects. That sounds a lot like feudalism. And under your definition feudalism would compatible with socialism, which is hilarious.

Well as I've said, if a nation starts acting against principles of human brotherhood and co-operation, it would no longer qualify as a socialist nation to me.

The type of feudalism you describe seems far more likely in an anarchist society, such as you favour, than in a nation with laws which it's citizens have implemented themselves and therefore respect.

Dissent should be encouraged and decisions that affect everyone shouldn't be taken without a substantial majority. A social contract has to be respected though, which includes a commitment to fairness, equality and justice.

I find it incredibly amusing that you are appealing to the liberal concept of a social concept and using it as a central tenet of the "one true socialism".

Glad to have amused you so much.

Yeah, it may seem that, like your good self, I am promoting my own narrow definition of socialism as the one true version and I apologise because I see how this could come across as arrogant.

I also apologise to any other socialists who don't share my conception as, of course, I can only speak for myself.

Nazism and socialism are oxymoronic.

National Socialism. Socialism. Nope, no connection.

If I label slavery as freedom, does that make it so?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 10:27:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 9:39:13 AM, Ragnar(semantic)_Rahl wrote:

Everything worth owning is part of the means of producing something.

Producing "something" as an abstract concept perhaps, but obviously I'm referring to the industrial and manufactural means of production. Not the production of abstract things like the comfort you get from a bed, the clean teeth you get from a tooth brush or the education or entertainment you get from a book. These are all things worth owning.

There is nothing left to respect as private property here, and it is meaningless for "everybody" to own something.

How is it meaningless for everyone in a society to share mutual ownership of a public resource?

In addition, it's central tenet is equality and fairness.
Contradiction.

lol
If you have one chocolate bar and a bunch of hungry kids, then what is the fair way to divide it?
Equally. (inB4 "I'd just eat it myself")

"In its most basic terms, equality means treating everyone fairly. However, equality is not just about treating everyone the same, but making sure that no-one suffers or is disadvantaged when it comes to getting what they need." http://equalitydiversityservices.co.uk...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 10:38:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 10:27:49 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/30/2010 9:39:13 AM, Ragnar(semantic)_Rahl wrote:

Everything worth owning is part of the means of producing something.

Producing "something" as an abstract concept perhaps, but obviously I'm referring to the industrial and manufactural means of production. Not the production of abstract things like the comfort you get from a bed, the clean teeth you get from a tooth brush or the education or entertainment you get from a book.
There is no difference but scale and degree. You are producing a healthy body and a healthy mind. Which helps you manufacture things and such :P
Also, fat lot of good being able to own a bed does you if you can't own the means to produce a bed. Your possession of beds is still at the state's mercy either way.

There is nothing left to respect as private property here, and it is meaningless for "everybody" to own something.

How is it meaningless for everyone in a society to share mutual ownership of a public resource?
Because they can't all own it. Things have rivalrous uses, that only one person at a time can have, not billions.


In addition, it's central tenet is equality and fairness.
Contradiction.

lol
If you have one chocolate bar and a bunch of hungry kids, then what is the fair way to divide it?
How'd I get the chocolate bar?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 10:44:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 10:01:10 AM, belle wrote:
feverish: i still don't understand how a democracy prevents facism if the majority wants it.

When did I say it would?

I responded to the Hitler specific points here: http://www.debate.org...

i also don't think that i, or any other americans that have given it any thought, equate socialism with absolute dictatorship.

I'm glad to hear that you think that, but I often see comments by various people on this site which suggest otherwise.

however, in order to enact a distribution of wealth, someone has to do the distributing. since that task usually falls to the state, it does require a powerful state, democracy or not.

I agree.

but yeah, your objection still isn't making much sense to me.

What objection?
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 11:08:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 10:38:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

There is no difference but scale and degree.
Also, fat lot of good being able to own a bed does you if you can't own the means to produce a bed. Your possession of beds is still at the state's mercy either way.

You can own the means to produce a bed, you already share ownership of them and people would be allowed access on priority of need.


How is it meaningless for everyone in a society to share mutual ownership of a public resource?
Because they can't all own it. Things have rivalrous uses, that only one person at a time can have, not billions.

We teach children to share things, co-operate and take turns. It's not too difficult when you get used to it.

If you have one chocolate bar and a bunch of hungry kids, then what is the fair way to divide it?
How'd I get the chocolate bar?

Hmm, let's say it was freely donated to feed hungry kids and for some reason you have been chosen as the most trust worthy and reliable person to distribute it fairly.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 11:18:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 11:08:59 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/30/2010 10:38:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

There is no difference but scale and degree.
Also, fat lot of good being able to own a bed does you if you can't own the means to produce a bed. Your possession of beds is still at the state's mercy either way.

You can own the means to produce a bed, you already share ownership of them and people would be allowed access on priority of need.
You seem not to know that "own" means you need no one to "allow" you access.



How is it meaningless for everyone in a society to share mutual ownership of a public resource?
Because they can't all own it. Things have rivalrous uses, that only one person at a time can have, not billions.

We teach children to share things, co-operate and take turns. It's not too difficult when you get used to it.
We teach nothing, some people not including me teach it :P. And it's extremely difficult and counterproductive when dealing with things that actually matter, which is why intelligent ones abandon that nonsensical imperative soon after kindergarten, replacing it with a normal state of privacy and the possibility of limited contractual sharing.


If you have one chocolate bar and a bunch of hungry kids, then what is the fair way to divide it?
How'd I get the chocolate bar?

Hmm, let's say it was freely donated to feed hungry kids and for some reason you have been chosen as the most trust worthy and reliable person to distribute it fairly.
Why would I accept employment at the "Feed Hungry Kids" charity?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 11:34:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 11:18:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You seem not to know that "own" means you need no one to "allow" you access.

As you said, not everyone can have access at once, so queuing and a triage system may be needed. With a bit of basic consideration for others, it's really quite straightforward.

Why would I accept employment at the "Feed Hungry Kids" charity?

Clearly this scenario is going nowhere and you're not about to admit that equality can ever be fair.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 11:37:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 11:18:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

There is no difference but scale and degree.

Gah, meant to respond to this before just by saying that changes in scale and degree can represent some pretty massive differences and I think I've made the cut off point pretty clear.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 11:59:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism

You are so very wrong.
Socialism being a step to communism doesn't make it communism any more than feudalism being a step to capitalism makes them equal.
-Socialism gives control of capital to the government.
-Communism abolishes private property all together.
They're entirely different systems.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:01:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 11:59:19 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism

You are so very wrong.
Socialism being a step to communism doesn't make it communism any more than feudalism being a step to capitalism makes them equal.
-Socialism gives control of capital to the government.
-Communism abolishes private property all together.
They're entirely different systems.

Yes, but socialism is a stage on the path to achieving a communist utopia. Many people tend to use the words interchangeably which can be problematic.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:03:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 12:01:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 6/30/2010 11:59:19 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism

You are so very wrong.
Socialism being a step to communism doesn't make it communism any more than feudalism being a step to capitalism makes them equal.
-Socialism gives control of capital to the government.
-Communism abolishes private property all together.
They're entirely different systems.

Yes, but socialism is a stage on the path to achieving a communist utopia.
This doesn't make them equal.
Many people tend to use the words interchangeably which can be problematic.
This also doesn't make them equal.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:04:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 12:03:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/30/2010 12:01:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 6/30/2010 11:59:19 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism

You are so very wrong.
Socialism being a step to communism doesn't make it communism any more than feudalism being a step to capitalism makes them equal.
-Socialism gives control of capital to the government.
-Communism abolishes private property all together.
They're entirely different systems.

Yes, but socialism is a stage on the path to achieving a communist utopia.
This doesn't make them equal.
Many people tend to use the words interchangeably which can be problematic.
This also doesn't make them equal.

I know. I should know what socialism is, being a former communist.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:08:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 11:59:19 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism

You are so very wrong.
Socialism being a step to communism doesn't make it communism any more than feudalism being a step to capitalism makes them equal.
-Socialism gives control of capital to the government.
-Communism abolishes private property all together.
They're entirely different systems.

First off how do you figure that feudalism leads to capitalism
secondly under an ideal set of conditions the people would also control the government so
people control government
government controls means capital
people control capital
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:10:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 12:08:41 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 6/30/2010 11:59:19 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 6/30/2010 10:48:23 AM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Just a point of clarification Socialism is a necessary step in Marxist Communism and so you could equate Socialism = Communism

You are so very wrong.
Socialism being a step to communism doesn't make it communism any more than feudalism being a step to capitalism makes them equal.
-Socialism gives control of capital to the government.
-Communism abolishes private property all together.
They're entirely different systems.

First off how do you figure that feudalism leads to capitalism
History. It did.
secondly under an ideal set of conditions the people would also control the government so
people control government
government controls means capital
people control capital
But private property still exists. Only capital is collective under socialism.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:12:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 11:34:44 AM, feverish wrote:
At 6/30/2010 11:18:06 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You seem not to know that "own" means you need no one to "allow" you access.

As you said, not everyone can have access at once, so queuing and a triage system may be needed.
Therefore, no ownership.

Why would I accept employment at the "Feed Hungry Kids" charity?

Clearly this scenario is going nowhere and you're not about to admit that equality can ever be fair.
Well, actually, if I accepted such employment because they made the pay attractive enough-- it's perfectly fair to split that particular candy bar equally. However, the key is, it's not fair because it's equal, it's fair because thats what the donater of the candy bar wanted done with it and I agreed to make that happen.:)

Gah, meant to respond to this before just by saying that changes in scale and degree can represent some pretty massive differences and I think I've made the cut off point pretty clear.
And arbitrary. Differences in scale and degree are not part of moral reasoning.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2010 12:13:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/30/2010 12:08:41 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
First off how do you figure that feudalism leads to capitalism

Someone hasn't read his Marx.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran