Socialism in the Heart of Capitalist US

[Mr.United_Nations]

Seems someone is confused on what Socialism actually is...

[Gromdor]

Actually, Questionmark is right. Libertarians are the group that closest fits the original definition of "liberal". I hate to reference a wiki but this was the best link I could find that wasn't just partisan smack talk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Both "conservative" and "liberal" have been so warped that neither means what it original was.

[Harte]

Actually, Questionmark is right. Libertarians are the group that closest fits the original definition of "liberal". I hate to reference a wiki but this was the best link I could find that wasn't just partisan smack talk. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Liberalism

Both "conservative" and "liberal" have been so warped that neither means what it original was.

Long view versus short view.

Harte

[Gromdor]

Well it is kind of important to make sure words keep their proper meaning. Considering things such as our laws and constitution are written in them.

[Harte]

Liberalism in my lifetime is the standard against which I measure liberalism in my lifetime. Just funny that way, I guess.

If you're worried about words maintaining their meaning over time, then you must have very little else to worry about.

Do you know what a screw is? LOL

Harte

[Leonardo]

Not really.

Since they still pay for the food, it isn't socialist at all, just capitalist.

Exactly as in any other labor market, this group is performing work in trade for goods and services, whether for the actuality (grocery discounts) or for the symbolic equivalent (money.)

Harte

Socialism does not imply no currency. That is just another misconception abounding of what socialism is.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Socialism does not imply no currency. That is just another misconception abounding of what socialism is.

Do you what Socialism is? have you visted a socialist country?

[Harte]

Socialism does not imply no currency. That is just another misconception abounding of what socialism is.

Yet what you're calling "socialism" here is nothing but the equivalent of paying money to subscribe to a coupon service.

"Money" being the symbolic equivalent to work and "coupon" being the symbolic equivalent of grocery discounts.

Socialism would involve an overseeing agency determining the value of the work you provide and the subsequent allotment of free groceries you would receive for it. Along with an allotment for free groceries given to those unable to perform work as valuable as that which you provide.

Harte

Edited December 28, 2013 by Harte

[Leonardo]

Do you what Socialism is? have you visted a socialist country?

Yes to the first question and there is no nation on the planet which is completely socialist, although most are partly socialist - so I would call that a qualified yes.

However, you haven't answered the question I set to you back on page 1 of this thread. You asked me why the article I linked to described a socialist enterprise. I explained that, and then I asked you why you thought it didn't.

Care to answer, or are you simply going to keep asking generic questions? In which case there is no dialogue going on.

Yet what you're calling "socialism" here is nothing but the equivalent of paying money to subscribe to a coupon service.

"Money" being the symbolic equivalent to work and "coupon" being the symbolic equivalent of grocery discounts.

Socialism would involve an overseeing agency determining the value of the work you provide and the subsequent allotment of free groceries you would receive for it. Along with an allotment for free groceries given to those unable to perform work as valuable as that which you provide.

Harte

What I am calling socialism is a collective effort based on equal contribution for the equal benefit of all.

Socialism does not have to involve some overseeing 'agency' as you describe - although it can. Nor does socialism have to involve "free" (i.e. moneyless) products as a result of this collective endeavour.

All you are doing is promoting one perspective of socialism as "the only socialism" - much as the rest of the population of the US (and probably many other people) do. Socialism covers quite a diverse field of activities, behaviours and philosophies however - much more than you would promote it to be.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[Gromdor]

Liberalism in my lifetime is the standard against which I measure liberalism in my lifetime. Just funny that way, I guess.

If you're worried about words maintaining their meaning over time, then you must have very little else to worry about.

Do you know what a screw is? LOL

Harte

Ah, but this is exactly the problem. Your definition of liberalism is limited by your own experience and perception and not necessarily what is true. And the meaning does matter to you, else you would not have tried to correct Questionmark.

[Kowalski]

In these types of situations, socialism is a good thing. It's when it's in the hands of the government that I worry..... Many Americans, have been brainwashed from many sources to believe that socialism is bad, which is a huge problem as well. They really don't understand what their talking about, but repeating what they've heard over the years.

[spartan max2]

When stuff is voluntary by everyone involved it works. Like hippie communes for example. Even though a lot of those fell apart.

Im not sure if I would call this socialism though.

The reason Im weary of the word socialism is because of the people who used that word throughout history. like the United Socialist states of Russia, that turned out well. And then when red china took over and had the biggest genocide ever. North Korea is something else. Cuba's population seems happy. They are not trying to float to our country or anything.lol.

[spartan max2]

and someone on here I think said that communism and fascism is on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I see them as being on the same side. as in total freedom on one end and total control of the other end.

So we would have anarchy on the most extreme of one side them a total totalitarian states on the other end. Communism and fascism would be more on that side of the spectrum.

I look at the spectrum as freedom/control not left/right

[Kowalski]

When stuff is voluntary by everyone involved it works.

Oh, I agree.

The reason Im weary of the word socialism is because of the people who used that word throughout history. like the United Socialist states of Russia, that turned out well. And then when red china took over and had the biggest genocide ever. North Korea is something else. Cuba's population seems happy. They are not trying to float to our country or anything.lol.

Exactly! In some countries socialism works quite well. It's just many people in America have been brainwashed to think all socialism is bad and evil. It's not. It can work in some cases. I just think when the government gets involved, it can go bad. But in these types of situations I think it can work. Just my two cents though.....

[spartan max2]

Exactly! In some countries socialism works quite well. It's just many people in America have been brainwashed to think all socialism is bad and evil. It's not. It can work in some cases. I just think when the government gets involved, it can go bad. But in these types of situations I think it can work. Just my two cents though.....

In some situations/countries it may work. I have yet to be convinced that it works when not voluntary but I haven't entirely ruled the possibility out yet.

But that post is so that people see where my predisposition against the word socialism comes from.

[Harte]

Ah, but this is exactly the problem. Your definition of liberalism is limited by your own experience and perception and not necessarily what is true. And the meaning does matter to you, else you would not have tried to correct Questionmark.

No, it's certainly true, unless I'm speaking to someone from the 17th or 18th century.

I don't do that often.

See, the point of the screw was that the meanings of words change. The "f" word once mean to beat with a stick.

When you use it, do you qualify your statement with something like "...and I don't mean with a stick!" LOL

Harte

[Harte]

Yes to the first question and there is no nation on the planet which is completely socialist, although most are partly socialist - so I would call that a qualified yes.

However, you haven't answered the question I set to you back on page 1 of this thread. You asked me why the article I linked to described a socialist enterprise. I explained that, and then I asked you why you thought it didn't.

Care to answer, or are you simply going to keep asking generic questions? In which case there is no dialogue going on.

What I am calling socialism is a collective effort based on equal contribution for the equal benefit of all.

Socialism does not have to involve some overseeing 'agency' as you describe - although it can. Nor does socialism have to involve "free" (i.e. moneyless) products as a result of this collective endeavour.

All you are doing is promoting one perspective of socialism as "the only socialism" - much as the rest of the population of the US (and probably many other people) do. Socialism covers quite a diverse field of activities, behaviours and philosophies however - much more than you would promote it to be.

See, you warned us against characterizing it as some sort of localized "mini socialism" which, to your way of thinking, is what it is.

I tried to formulate it in a different way from a different perspective.

It's payment for goods and services, symbolically. Such direct transactions don't occur in a socialist state.

Just in a socialist co-op store.

Harte

[Leonardo]

See, you warned us against characterizing it as some sort of localized "mini socialism" which, to your way of thinking, is what it is.

I tried to formulate it in a different way from a different perspective.

Where did I "warn you" as you state?

I have suggested there is a trend, in the US and also elsewhere, to misconstrue what socialism is, if that is what you meant.

It's payment for goods and services, symbolically. Such direct transactions don't occur in a socialist state.

Just in a socialist co-op store.

Harte

Nonsense. As I have said, socialism does not exclude monetism. You are misrepresenting socialism as something it isn't - or is only in limited circumstances.

[Harte]

Where did I "warn you" as you state?

That's how I took this:

Awaiting comments on the evils of socialism, or how it can only work on such a small scale, etc, etc...

I don't mean you threatened me, for God's sake. I meant you seemed not to want to hear these arguments, so I provided a different one.

I have suggested there is a trend, in the US and also elsewhere, to misconstrue what socialism is, if that is what you meant.

If you want to nit pick and/or equate a co-op to the tragedy of state socialism, you can. This would make you right in your comments about "misconstruing what socialism is." On the other hand, "socialism" to those who lived it doesn't mean doing a little part-time work in a small grocery co-op for discounted food.

After all, I shop at two different grocery stores where i have to bag my own. Sure their prices are a little cheaper. Is that socialism too?

How about pumping your own gas for a discount? Socialism?

Harte

[Gromdor]

No, it's certainly true, unless I'm speaking to someone from the 17th or 18th century.

I don't do that often.

See, the point of the screw was that the meanings of words change. The "f" word once mean to beat with a stick.

When you use it, do you qualify your statement with something like "...and I don't mean with a stick!" LOL

Harte

So you do agree with Questionmark that people change the meaning of words and then have to make new words to cover the old meaning. Libertarian in this case to cover the original meaning of Liberal.

[Harte]

Yes. My example was a more recent shift - made by Liberals alive today - to "progressive."

Harte

[MonkeyLove]

The heart of capitalism in the U.S. is free market capitalism leading to crony capitalism.

[Space Commander Travis]

In these types of situations, socialism is a good thing. It's when it's in the hands of the government that I worry..... Many Americans, have been brainwashed from many sources to believe that socialism is bad, which is a huge problem as well. They really don't understand what their talking about, but repeating what they've heard over the years.

Oh, I agree.

Exactly! In some countries socialism works quite well. It's just many people in America have been brainwashed to think all socialism is bad and evil. It's not. It can work in some cases. I just think when the government gets involved, it can go bad. But in these types of situations I think it can work. Just my two cents though.....

indeed, Socialism under any of the current or recent US or British govts. would be a recipe for disaster*, not because Socialism as a concept is inherently flawed but because the system of party political "Democracy", in the US and Britain in particular, is designed to produce governments that are hopelessly ineffectual and incompetent.

* just look at what happened to British industry since the war

[Leonardo]

That's how I took this:

I don't mean you threatened me, for God's sake. I meant you seemed not to want to hear these arguments, so I provided a different one.

I didn't take your meaning as me threatening anyone, but I appreciate my reply was not 100% clear so I can see how you could misconstrue it. As for my comment in the OP, several times in past discussions regarding socialism there have been comments by (largely) American posters along the lines of "it can only work at the village level" or similar.

While I don't disagree that socialism can work at the village level (or smaller), the comments suggesting this is the largest level it can work at don't appreciate that a nation is effectively many villages.

If you want to nit pick and/or equate a co-op to the tragedy of state socialism, you can. This would make you right in your comments about "misconstruing what socialism is."

Where have I suggested the US employs state socialism?

It seems to me that some (many?) Americans display an almost psychopathic fear/loathing/distrust of the socialism concept. All I have suggested is that socialism has a place in a well-run, effective society and my premise in showing this is to educate and attempt to alleviate some of this paranoia regarding the concept.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Leonardo

[acidhead]

Egalitarianism is socialism. Its what built America. Individuals persuing their own interest. An interest that needs one another to prosper by coming together economically within the free market The word has been abused by the media and repeated by hack politicians to boost their popularity. The ptoblem begins when the GOV forces socialism. It doesn't work as intended because there is no responsibility to maintain the objective. Only an idea without any concrete substance. Personal responsibility doesn't exist when risk is abandoned in favor of political decisions.