How Do You Define 'Socialism?'

[Deleted]

   I would like to pose this basic political question to members of the forum.

   How do you define "socialism?"

   It's a word that has been surfacing in American political discussions recently, but seems to mean very different things to different people.

   For example, is Medicare "socialist?"  Social Security?  Public education?  Police departments?

[Deleted]

Geez... talk about yer hot Trump troll forum topic... 

So much for trying to get the trolls here to define their poorly-defined terms.

[AlaCowboy]

I'll play your game, until you ignore rational discussion and go off on another of your insane tirades.


This is from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now, the first two of these are not acceptable in a Capitalistic society as we have in the United States. And the third, where one is paid according to the work done won't work if we are now paying some that are not working at all.

So, do you advocate government ownership of production and distribution of goods? Or, do you advocate no ownership of private property? Deed your house to the state?
Maybe you should demand that those that don't work don't get paid (rent subsidies, food stamps, free health care) if they don't produce.

[AlaCowboy]

So much for trying to get The Denver Troll to debate a topic he challenged others to debate.

[Walter]

Aug 22, 2018 16:24:30 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

I'll play your game, until you ignore rational discussion and go off on another of your insane tirades.


This is from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now, the first two of these are not acceptable in a Capitalistic society as we have in the United States. And the third, where one is paid according to the work done won't work if we are now paying some that are not working at all.

So, do you advocate government ownership of production and distribution of goods? Or, do you advocate no ownership of private property? Deed your house to the state?
Maybe you should demand that those that don't work don't get paid (rent subsidies, food stamps, free health care) if they don't produce.

So, based on your definitions, which parts of the fabric of American society are "socialist"?

[Deleted]

 Cowboy,

        Just saw your posts.  (Worked late today.)

       Your dictionary definition of classical "socialism" is too narrow.  For example, there are now popular forms of democratic "socialism" -- existing in the most successful, "happy" societies in the world today-- that are organized around the fundamental principals of regulating the well known, historic evils of free market "vulture" capitalism to optimize the public good.  They don't involve classic definitions of "socialism" that preclude private ownership of the means of production.

      Examples include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, and Switzerland.  The U.S. has a VERY, VERY long way to go to attain the middle and working class standards of living that have been achieved in these prosperous "democratic socialist" European countries in recent decades.  (We're ranked at #27)

      In fact, the U.S. middle class has been declining very dramatically in comparison with these successful democratic socialist countries, ever since the plutocratic "Reagan revolution" of 1980.  This is obvious from any study of various indices of middle class prosperity-- wages, income equality, access to affordable housing, education, healthcare, etc.*

     The U.S. Robber Baron, Koch/GOP Devolution of the past 38 years in the U.S. has resulted in a massive transfer of U.S.-generated wealth into the hands of the very wealthy few, at the expense of the hard-working American people.  And the Koch/GOP media complex has achieved this Banana Republican Devolution through a highly-organized, deliberate process of deception, disinformation, and the hijacking of our state and Federal governments.  (See the highly acclaimed scholarly study, Democracy in Chains by Nancy McLain.)   Most Americans don't even know that we are now, in essence, a Banana Republic-- ranked poorly on many indices of middle class prosperity.

     The billionaires who own the U.S. corporate media don't WANT the American people to know about the prosperity of working people in social democracies like Denmark.

     See, for example, Capitalism in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty, and the studies of Joseph Stiglitz on worsening U.S. inequality.

     

*  What Can We Learn From Denmark?

          www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html

 

          by Senator Bernie Sanders

July 26, 2013

Today in the United States there is a massive amount of economic anxiety. Unemployment is much too high, wages and income are too low, millions of Americans are struggling to find affordable health care and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider.

While young working families search desperately for affordable child care, older Americans worry about how they can retire with dignity. Many of our people are physically exhausted as they work the longest hours of any industrialized country and have far less paid vacation time than other major countries

Denmark is a small, homogenous nation of about 5.5 million people. The United States is a melting pot of more than 315 million people. No question about it, Denmark and the United States are very different countries. Nonetheless, are there lessons that we can learn from Denmark?

In Denmark, social policy in areas like health care, child care, education and protecting the unemployed are part of a “solidarity system” that makes sure that almost no one falls into economic despair. Danes pay very high taxes, but in return enjoy a quality of life that many Americans would find hard to believe. As the ambassador mentioned, while it is difficult to become very rich in Denmark no one is allowed to be poor. The minimum wage in Denmark is about twice that of the United States and people who are totally out of the labor market or unable to care for themselves have a basic income guarantee of about $100 per day.

Health care in Denmark is universal, free of charge and high quality. Everybody is covered as a right of citizenship. The Danish health care system is popular, with patient satisfaction much higher than in our country. In Denmark, every citizen can choose a doctor in their area. Prescription drugs are inexpensive and free for those under 18 years of age. Interestingly, despite their universal coverage, the Danish health care system is far more cost-effective than ours. They spend about 11 percent of their GDP on health care. We spend almost 18 percent.

When it comes to raising families, Danes understand that the first few years of a person’s life are the most important in terms of intellectual and emotional development. In order to give strong support to expecting parents, mothers get four weeks of paid leave before giving birth. They get another 14 weeks afterward. Expecting fathers get two paid weeks off, and both parents have the right to 32 more weeks of leave during the first nine years of a child’s life. The state covers three-quarters of the cost of child care, more for lower-income workers.

At a time when college education in the United States is increasingly unaffordable and the average college graduate leaves school more than $25,000 in debt, virtually all higher education in Denmark is free. That includes not just college but graduate schools as well, including medical school.

In a volatile global economy, the Danish government recognizes that it must invest heavily in training programs so workers can learn new skills to meet changing workforce demands. It also understands that when people lose their jobs they must have adequate income while they search for new jobs. If a worker loses his or her job in Denmark, unemployment insurance covers up to 90 percent of earnings for as long as two years. Here benefits can be cut off after as few as 26 weeks.

In Denmark, adequate leisure and family time are considered an important part of having a good life. Every worker in Denmark is entitled to five weeks of paid vacation plus 11 paid holidays. The United States is the only major country that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation time. The result is that fewer than half of lower-paid hourly wage workers in our country receive any paid vacation days.

Recently the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that the Danish people rank among the happiest in the world among some 40 countries that were studied. America did not crack the top 10.

As Ambassador Taksoe-Jensen explained, the Danish social model did not develop overnight. It has evolved over many decades and, in general, has the political support of all parties across the political spectrum. One of the reasons for that may be that the Danes are, politically and economically, a very engaged and informed people. In their last election, which lasted all of three weeks and had no TV ads, 89 percent of Danes voted.

In Denmark, more than 75 percent of the people are members of trade unions. In America today, as a result of the political and economic power of corporate America and the billionaire class, we are seeing a sustained and brutal attack against the economic well-being of the American worker. As the middle class disappears, benefits and guarantees that workers have secured over the last century are now on the chopping block. Republicans, and too many Democrats, are supporting cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition, education, and other basic needs — at the same time as the very rich become much richer. Workers’ rights, the ability to organize unions, and the very existence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are now under massive assault.

In the U.S. Senate today, my right-wing colleagues talk a lot about “freedom” and limiting the size of government. Here’s what they really mean.

They want ordinary Americans to have the freedom NOT to have health care in a country where 45,000 of our people who die each year because they don’t get to a doctor when they should. They want young people in our country to have the freedom NOT to go to college, and join the 400,000 young Americans unable to afford a higher education and the millions struggling with huge college debts. They want children and seniors in our country to have the freedom NOT to have enough food to eat, and join the many millions who are already hungry. And on and on it goes!

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what “freedom” means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all — including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

The United States, in size, culture, and the diversity of our population, is a very different country from Denmark. Can we, however, learn some important lessons from them? You bet we can.

     .

[AlaCowboy]

Aug 22, 2018 22:28:13 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 22, 2018 16:24:30 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

I'll play your game, until you ignore rational discussion and go off on another of your insane tirades.


This is from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now, the first two of these are not acceptable in a Capitalistic society as we have in the United States. And the third, where one is paid according to the work done won't work if we are now paying some that are not working at all.

So, do you advocate government ownership of production and distribution of goods? Or, do you advocate no ownership of private property? Deed your house to the state?
Maybe you should demand that those that don't work don't get paid (rent subsidies, food stamps, free health care) if they don't produce.

So, based on your definitions, which parts of the fabric of American society are "socialist"?

Based on these definitions? None. When some here try to claim that federal highway projects and/or police and fire protection are examples of socialism, I will disagree. Those (and others such as TVA) are examples of the government providing for the general welfare. Same for government agencies such as the EPA, FDA, FTC, and others.

[AlaCowboy]

Didn't take but one post for The Denver Idiot to go off on a tangent with his rants about the Koch brothers and robber barons. I'm done here.

[Walter]

Aug 22, 2018 22:56:27 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Aug 22, 2018 22:28:13 GMT -5 Walter said:

So, based on your definitions, which parts of the fabric of American society are "socialist"?

Based on these definitions? None. When some here try to claim that federal highway projects and/or police and fire protection are examples of socialism, I will disagree. Those (and others such as TVA) are examples of the government providing for the general welfare. Same for government agencies such as the EPA, FDA, FTC, and others.

So if a city owns, say a water supply system, how does that compare with your definition.

"...any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods..."

Read more: aolcfboutcasts.proboards.com/thread/37556/define-socialism?page=1#ixzz5OyFH6ylq

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2018 22:59:02 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Didn't take but one post for The Denver Idiot to go off on a tangent with his rants about the Koch brothers and robber barons. I'm done here.

Well, let's keep it simple, fella.  Don't be so frightened.

Are you saying that the highly successful modern forms of "democratic socialism" in the world today are not "socialist?"

I beg to differ.   I would define the term more broadly.

Operationally, IMO, the concept is about social/public control of critical resources and services vs. exploitative, for-profit, private ownership.

Utilities, highways, schools, and healthcare are examples of services where the public interest is not necessarily served best by exploitative, for-profit ownership of systems.

[AlaCowboy]

Aug 22, 2018 23:05:37 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 22, 2018 22:56:27 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Based on these definitions? None. When some here try to claim that federal highway projects and/or police and fire protection are examples of socialism, I will disagree. Those (and others such as TVA) are examples of the government providing for the general welfare. Same for government agencies such as the EPA, FDA, FTC, and others.

So if a city owns, say a water supply system, how does that compare with your definition.

"...any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods..."

Read more: aolcfboutcasts.proboards.com/thread/37556/define-socialism?page=1#ixzz5OyFH6ylq

Walter, a city water system or garbage service is not the same as the federal government owning the water systems for the nation. Where I live the city of Huntsville supplies water and electricity to the city and many surrounding communities, but that is not "socialism" as it relates to the nation. You can find isolated examples to suit your own prejudices, but when applied to the United States as a whole, they are not a factor.
If we are to discuss Socialism in America, then it should be when it applies to America, not an isolated or individual community.
For example, if a city having a police force is "socialism" then the federal government should simply establish a national police force and patrol every city and town.

[AlaCowboy]

Aug 22, 2018 23:11:16 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Aug 22, 2018 22:59:02 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Didn't take but one post for The Denver Idiot to go off on a tangent with his rants about the Koch brothers and robber barons. I'm done here.

Well, let's keep it simple, fella.  Don't be so frightened.

Are you saying that the highly successful modern forms of "democratic socialism" in the world today are not "socialist?"

I beg to differ.   I would define the term more broadly.

Operationally, IMO, the concept is about social/public control of critical resources and services vs. exploitative, for-profit, private ownership.

Utilities, highways, schools, and healthcare are examples of services where the public interest is not necessarily served best by exploitative, for-profit ownership of systems.

See? Rather than discuss, you pompously insult me and proclaim your own superiority and attack "exploitative" for-profit companies. Your idea is the only idea worth your time. No discussion.

[Walter]

Aug 22, 2018 23:17:49 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Aug 22, 2018 23:05:37 GMT -5 Walter said:

So if a city owns, say a water supply system, how does that compare with your definition.

"...any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods..."

Read more: aolcfboutcasts.proboards.com/thread/37556/define-socialism?page=1#ixzz5OyFH6ylq

Walter, a city water system or garbage service is not the same as the federal government owning the water systems for the nation. Where I live the city of Huntsville supplies water and electricity to the city and many surrounding communities, but that is not "socialism" as it relates to the nation. You can find isolated examples to suit your own prejudices, but when applied to the United States as a whole, they are not a factor.
If we are to discuss Socialism in America, then it should be when it applies to America, not an isolated or individual community.
For example, if a city having a police force is "socialism" then the federal government should simply establish a national police force and patrol every city and town.

You are making BgVol's argument then. You have no problem with localized socialism but do not approve of it on a federal level. Is that it?

[bgovolfan]

Aug 23, 2018 6:16:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 22, 2018 23:17:49 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Walter, a city water system or garbage service is not the same as the federal government owning the water systems for the nation. Where I live the city of Huntsville supplies water and electricity to the city and many surrounding communities, but that is not "socialism" as it relates to the nation. You can find isolated examples to suit your own prejudices, but when applied to the United States as a whole, they are not a factor.
If we are to discuss Socialism in America, then it should be when it applies to America, not an isolated or individual community.
For example, if a city having a police force is "socialism" then the federal government should simply establish a national police force and patrol every city and town.

You are making BgVol's argument then. You have no problem with localized socialism but do not approve of it on a federal level. Is that it?

It isn't that cut and dry...but you already knew that.
Your game of trying to get people to paint themselves into a corner is really getting to be boring. You try to make all things simply black or white..except when it comes to your opinion/definition.


Bg(guess that should be expected from a man puts his foot into his mouth as often as you)VolFan 

[oujour76]

Aug 23, 2018 6:16:09 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 22, 2018 23:17:49 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Walter, a city water system or garbage service is not the same as the federal government owning the water systems for the nation. Where I live the city of Huntsville supplies water and electricity to the city and many surrounding communities, but that is not "socialism" as it relates to the nation. You can find isolated examples to suit your own prejudices, but when applied to the United States as a whole, they are not a factor.
If we are to discuss Socialism in America, then it should be when it applies to America, not an isolated or individual community.
For example, if a city having a police force is "socialism" then the federal government should simply establish a national police force and patrol every city and town.

You are making BgVol's argument then. You have no problem with localized socialism but do not approve of it on a federal level. Is that it?

Oh, come on. Way too much gotcha going on here. Socialism is an economic system, and we don't have that system in this country. Even though we have roads and sewers in our local communities.