Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
RavenHawk

Definition of Socialism

233 posts in this topic

Just curious but does the following definition meet your concept of what Socialism is?

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a source for where you got that definition from, RavenHawk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious but does the following definition meet your concept of what Socialism is?

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

Yes, that is the definition given by the inventor, a certain Mr. Engels based of the brain maxturbation of a certain Mr. Marx.

As you can see, most people you call socialist are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a source for where you got that definition from, RavenHawk?

I believe that questionmark is correct that it originated with Engels. I just want to know if you agree with that or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoosh! Folks need summat to hate and fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can see, most people you call socialist are not.

Well we’ll see. I want to see a few more replies, then I’ll have a question for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words the government owns companies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words the government owns companies

No, the people own companies, where there is no individual ownership.;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think an essential characteristic of socialism is state ownership of the means of production and a centrally planned economy. Neither of those things seem to be a characteristic of present day America, so perhaps if one did wish to seek to make analogies with totalitarian systems Fascism might be a more apt analogy, where the State certainly wanted to dictate to the hearts & minds of the people and cultivate a cult of the Leader, but the Economy was a private sector capitalis tone, which often had very close ties with senior figures in the government which worked to their mutual benefit. Not that that would be a close parallel with modern day America, of course. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think an essential characteristic of socialism is state ownership of the means of production and a centrally planned economy. Neither of those things seem to be a characteristic of present day America, so perhaps if one did wish to seek to make analogies with totalitarian systems Fascism might be a more apt analogy, where the State certainly wanted to dictate to the hearts & minds of the people and cultivate a cult of the Leader, but the Economy was a private sector capitalis tone, which often had very close ties with senior figures in the government which worked to their mutual benefit. Not that that would be a close parallel with modern day America, of course. :innocent:

Now, now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that ownership of property is a requirement of socialism. Costs can also be socialized it seems. I think the ownership requirement narrows the meaning too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that ownership of property is a requirement of socialism. Costs can also be socialized it seems. I think the ownership requirement narrows the meaning too much.

Th ownership system, in pure socialism is collective. Most "socialist systems" we know are so called social democratic, which surely is not socialistic. To the contrary of socialism social democracy allows private ownership but under the caution that "ownership carries obligation" and "common welfare precedes private welfare".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in theory socialism is when everything is owned by people, but in reality, everything is owned by gvmnt, and people don't care less how well it works, cuz no matter how hard or little they work they get same benefits.

former ussr is perfect example. . anyone that lived there will tell you what socialism was in reality.

also no way during socialism any corporation would be big enough to affect gvmnt. you would not be allowed to own something anything that big, or be rich enough to manupulate politics. hell, you would not be allowed to own much of anything

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory socialism sounds pretty good to me.

But, in application, it falls apart pretty quickly.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any ........ism will fail if it does not take human nature into account. you just can't expect everyone to be on the same page by themselves. it may work somewhat for a short time, after some big significant event, but not in a long run.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory socialism sounds pretty good to me.

But, in application, it falls apart pretty quickly.

As I've said, it works on the self-sufficent village level.

Even on the "trading goods between villages" level. Anything higher then that and anyone whose job it is to produce something that doesn't have a tangible product (ie a "thing") will cause the system to break down.

Look at me, I'm a teacher. In a socialist village my role is valued as it enhances the knowledge-base of the community and ensures the local children get all the skills and knowledges they need to thrive. Thus my place is secure in the village and I can be rewarded thusly by exchanging my service as a teacher for the food etc I need to survive and thrive myself.

However, why should someone three villages over care what I do if what I produce (an increase in knowledge and skills) doesn't have an effect upon them? It's not their kids I'm teaching, so why should they "reward" me with food etc? The intellectual class (ie the people who don't produce anything physical as part of their occupation) have no place in a "trade for trade" based society because unless what they're producing has a direct effect on the person they're trading with then there's no point of trading on the other person's behalf, they're not getting anything in return.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Th ownership system, in pure socialism is collective. Most "socialist systems" we know are so called social democratic, which surely is not socialistic. To the contrary of socialism social democracy allows private ownership but under the caution that "ownership carries obligation" and "common welfare precedes private welfare".

Recently I've read an "example" of socialism which is thought provoking, at least to me.

Some offer the example of fire protection services, like the old Volunteer Fire Department which still exists in some rural areas. That is, having a system whereby everybody makes a financial contribution by way of taxes, and fire protection is provided to all.

Is this considered an example of socialism on one level or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently I've read an "example" of socialism which is thought provoking, at least to me.

Some offer the example of fire protection services, like the old Volunteer Fire Department which still exists in some rural areas. That is, having a system whereby everybody makes a financial contribution by way of taxes, and fire protection is provided to all.

Is this considered an example of socialism on one level or the other?

No, while it could exemplify socialism it is a perfectly capitalistic tool (collective/mutual insurance). It would be different if we were talking about the farmers in that village being forced into a production cooperative (socialistic) or voluntarily joining up into a production cooperative(social democratic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said, it works on the self-sufficent village level.

Even on the "trading goods between villages" level. Anything higher then that and anyone whose job it is to produce something that doesn't have a tangible product (ie a "thing") will cause the system to break down.

Look at me, I'm a teacher. In a socialist village my role is valued as it enhances the knowledge-base of the community and ensures the local children get all the skills and knowledges they need to thrive. Thus my place is secure in the village and I can be rewarded thusly by exchanging my service as a teacher for the food etc I need to survive and thrive myself.

However, why should someone three villages over care what I do if what I produce (an increase in knowledge and skills) doesn't have an effect upon them? It's not their kids I'm teaching, so why should they "reward" me with food etc? The intellectual class (ie the people who don't produce anything physical as part of their occupation) have no place in a "trade for trade" based society because unless what they're producing has a direct effect on the person they're trading with then there's no point of trading on the other person's behalf, they're not getting anything in return.

Then what you describe is not socialism.

The point of socialism is that you inculcate into the population that it does matter "what someone 3 villages over is doing", because everything contributes to the whole, even if it doesn't have a direct effect on you.

A fundamental part of socialism is "what's good for everyone is also good for me, because I am a member of {everyone}."

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism has never been tried. There is always the class-state, power and government. I believe that we are spiritual beings and the individual is better than the collective based on power. I say, get rid of power. We are going to use up all the earth's resources so some can have billions $, while children starve and die of preventable diseases. The secret to perpetual motion and free energy is: No one has the power. We share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't socialism a system where Too Big To Fail Banks constantly get bailed out by taxpayers, effectively 'socializing' their losses while allowing them to 'privatize' their gains and, in either case, continue paying ever-growing executive salaries and bonuses?

Yep...big American Business loves them their socialism!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't socialism a system where Too Big To Fail Banks constantly get bailed out by taxpayers, effectively 'socializing' their losses while allowing them to 'privatize' their gains and, in either case, continue paying ever-growing executive salaries and bonuses?

Yep...big American Business loves them their socialism!!

No, that is State Capitalism. In socialism there would be no Too Big To fail Banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is State Capitalism. In socialism there would be no Too Big To fail Banks.

Hence why 'socialism' is and always will be notional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that the debt itself is an unfortunate type of social ownership (Socialism).

Too Big To Fail is more like Mussolini's fascism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism has never been tried.

USSR. Warsaw pakt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.