Definition of Socialism

[F3SS]

Sorry, I'm an angel.

[Gunn]

There is much to comment on in your list, but let me just hit the highlights. Minimum wage is usually established on entry level jobs. Do you understand what that means? That's entry level into the work force. These are usually jobs held by the high school or college student to gain experience. The level of their experience does not rate $14.50. These are and should never be bread-winner type jobs. When you go through life there are certain hardships that you need to go through so that you can become stronger. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Without these hardships, you become frail and will die or easily manipulated. And if the government falls upon hard times, your welfare and entitlements will be the first to go. Governments cycle through recession every dozen years or so. In hard times, when the unemployment rate is high, it'll be the more experienced worker going for these minimum wage jobs, closing the work force to the youth.

I feel your wrong on some of your statement, in the above. While it's good for teenager (or anybody who's never had a job before) to start out in a minimum wage first timer starter job, to gain working experience all through their life, work ethic and work their way up through the company or other companies. No one should have to go back to working a minimum wage starter job again because of crony capitalism and corruption, screwing over the rest of us and causing a economic recession. First off, this shouldn't have happen at all. A 20 something to 60 year old shouldn't lose their job after so many years of working experience and loyalty, then turn around and haft to work in a McDonalds somewhere just to get by, because of greedy capitalist who want to screw the rest of us over. That's a load of BS. People shouldn't stand for this recurring recession crap, no matter what the excuse. Every hard working American who ever built a career, home, family and a lifetime of working experience got shafted and lost just about everything because of this crap. Whether it's the government's fault or greedy capitalist, or both -> which I strongly suspect is the case, it doesn't matter. What matters is, we shouldn't stand for this to happen ever again, for us and our future children. It shouldn't have happened in 1929 and any other time since then, especially recently.

It's just ridiculous to work hard to get where one is and then haft to turn around and start all over again because of someone else's carelessness, corruption and greediness and screwing over the rest of us in a capitalistic society. It's no wonder people in other countries and even in our own country say that Capitalism doesn't work, just because of the recessions as one example that we keep having.

[Space Commander Travis]

For the past century, we have been moving left and look at where it's gotten us! Reagan was the only bright spot in that century.

America becoming the world's mightiest global superpower? Which happened long before ol' Ron came on the scene.

[F3SS]

I feel your wrong on some of your statement, in the above. While it's good for teenager (or anybody who's never had a job before) to start out in a minimum wage first timer starter job, to gain working experience all through their life, work ethic and work their way up through the company or other companies. No one should have to go back to working a minimum wage starter job again because of crony capitalism and corruption, screwing over the rest of us and causing a economic recession. First off, this shouldn't have happen at all. A 20 something to 60 year old shouldn't lose their job after so many years of working experience and loyalty, then turn around and haft to work in a McDonalds somewhere just to get by, because of greedy capitalist who want to screw the rest of us over. That's a load of BS. People shouldn't stand for this recurring recession crap, no matter what the excuse. Every hard working American who ever built a career, home, family and a lifetime of working experience got shafted and lost just about everything because of this crap. Whether it's the government's fault or greedy capitalist, or both -> which I strongly suspect is the case, it doesn't matter. What matters is, we shouldn't stand for this to happen ever again, for us and our future children. It shouldn't have happened in 1929 and any other time since then, especially recently.

It's just ridiculous to work hard to get where one is and then haft to turn around and start all over again because of someone else's carelessness, corruption and greediness and screwing over the rest of us in a capitalistic society. It's no wonder people in other countries and even in our own country say that Capitalism doesn't work, just because of the recessions as one example that we keep having.

We don't have to have another work ethic conversation. We settled that a couple weeks ago. It just sounds like some of what you're saying is that throughout life one should be paid based on how long they've been in the workforce and essentially by age. Like if you work as a bagger for minimum wage from ages 16-20 and maybe that company shuts down you shouldn't have to work another minimum wage job at someplace like mcdonalds for instance? Well why not? Is mcdonalds greedy because they don't recognize your age and desired standard of living? Maybe this does lead back to our other conversation. I'm not dishing out raises year after year just because you've been working with me. I'm dishing out raises as fast as you want me too so long as you pick up more skills and take more responsibility initiatives. Otherwise, wages based on tenure will eventually become unsustainable if you never do anything if all you do is simply just show up.

[Frank Merton]

America becoming the world's mightiest global superpower? Which happened long before ol' Ron came on the scene.

I think the actual event was during the second Roosevelt's presidency with the defeat of Germany, and he was surely a socialist. That however is just coincidence. The rise of America to power was mainly under laissez faire presidents.

[questionmark]

I think the actual event was during the second Roosevelt's presidency with the defeat of Germany, and he was surely a socialist. That however is just coincidence. The rise of America to power was mainly under laissez faire presidents.

or, as through the whole of the history of the USA, from the revolution on, the liberals (and no, it does not refer to the democrats, liberal in that context is a slur word)

[Frank Merton]

or, as through the whole of the history of the USA, from the revolution on, the liberals (and no, it does not refer to the democrats, liberal in that context is a slur word)

I choose my words carefully and I don't think there is an English word for what I wanted to say.

[Gunn]

We don't have to have another work ethic conversation. We settled that a couple weeks ago. It just sounds like some of what you're saying is that throughout life one should be paid based on how long they've been in the workforce and essentially by age. Like if you work as a bagger for minimum wage from ages 16-20 and maybe that company shuts down you shouldn't have to work another minimum wage job at someplace like mcdonalds for instance? Well why not? Is mcdonalds greedy because they don't recognize your age and desired standard of living? Maybe this does lead back to our other conversation. I'm not dishing out raises year after year just because you've been working with me. I'm dishing out raises as fast as you want me too so long as you pick up more skills and take more responsibility initiatives. Otherwise, wages based on tenure will eventually become unsustainable if you never do anything if all you do is simply just show up.

What I was talking about was gained work experience and skills, something we usually get working in one place or several places, over the years. If you started out as a bagger in a store and work adequately (not screwing around of course), apply yourself, show up at work on time, work overtime when asked to and just become generally a damn good all-around employee, than at some point you will eventually move up into some other position in that store; or gain a better job somewhere else if the opportunity arrives. I'll give you an example of someone I know in the town I live in. He actually started out as a bagger at the age of 18, then he moved up to a lead checker at 19, then about year and half later, they put him in the meat department cutting meat (which he was making pretty damn good pay compared to when he was a bagger), he's now 24 and a assistant store manager. I'm pretty sure that at some point he'll make store manager someday, unless he decides to leave that store for a similar job or as in your example the store suddenly shuts down. But let's go with that example about the store shutting down, in his case and he's suddenly out of work. Providing that the economy is in great shape and there are plenty of jobs to be had, which is the way it should be by the way, in other words no recessions, he should have no problem finding another management or assistant management job in retail or sales, continuing his work experience and skills, thus moving up the latter. But because of this stupid recession we had recently, which again, I stress...should not have happened and should never happen, other people like him with gained work experience and skills, who got laid off, found themselves working right back were they started at a young age. Working at Mcdonalds, gas station, or as a bagger in some grocery store, until the economy picks up again. That ain't the way it should be. What's worse about this, is a lot of young people who are looking for employment for the first time, have a slim chance of even getting a job at Mcdonalds, a gas station, or a bagger at a store because the people with gained work experience and skills, who are usually older and who've also been out of a job, are now filling those positions.

Anyway, my beef is mostly with this recent recession or any future recession, in which RavenHawk seems to think, like it's some regular thing that comes along in a capitalistic society, but I don't. I'm saying that it should never happen and we shouldn't tolerate it when it does.

[RavenHawk]

There is but one definition of socialism, and that is the one created by Marx and Engels who invented it.

Never said there was more than one. I said that there are two interpretations. One is the ideal and the other is reality. This is why you can’t answer the question. It is beyond you.

If I create a definition it will not be socialism but questiomarkism just as most of you definitions are Raven_hawkisms. The reality is another one.

Knock yourself out but I haven’t created a new definition. I have cleared up confusion in the spectrum and I explain how I use it. Just because you can’t comprehend that isn’t my problem. All I can do is to encourage you to challenge yourself until you find the understanding.

[RavenHawk]

No, friend, there's something you're not understanding.

Not in this case.

In the first post, a question was asked: "Just curious but does the following definition meet your concept of what Socialism is?"

Can’t get anything past you can I?

I came here to explain what my concept of socialism is. I stated up front that I didn't want to debate, stated my reasons, and went on to answer the question of what socialism means to me. I took the time out of my day to write a post for the sole purpose of sharing information with you or whoever else would want to read it.

Just because you state that you don’t want to debate doesn’t mean that your comments are off limits. If you don’t want debate then don’t post. It is as simple as that. Thank you for your sharing but if it’s too much trouble to take time out of your day, then please don’t feel that you have to grace us with your presence.

You not only ignored my reasons for not wanting to debate,

No I didn’t. I noted it and carried on. Again, if you don’t want to debate then move on.

but tried to start a fight, and then tried just now to say I conceded in a fight I didn't want.

I did not try to start a fight. Just because I presented comments on some of the things you said does not imply that I was starting a fight. You did concede. You took the time out of your day to respond (when I thought you didn’t want to) and your responce was of nothing productive. In fact it was insulting.

Amusingly, in a private message to someone from here, I pointed out that your type does this fairly often. Allow me to quote myself at 7am:

Congratulations on being both disrespectful and predictable.

What’s that? Stand up for myself and call your type out? For that I’m guilty as charged. Perhaps you should just go back to the private message and talk about me all you want. That seems to be the only place where you can win. I think you should review what has been said. You’re the one showing disrespect. That’s the typical Socialist mindset. You are full of it.

[Frank Merton]

All societies are developing understandings and tools to suppress economic cycles, mainly because downturns cause suffering and sometimes new governments.

I'm not sure this is entirely a desirable things; sometimes deadwood and accumulated wasteful practices have to be squeezed out of a system and these can only be achieved with some pain.

[questionmark]

Never said there was more than one. I said that there are two interpretations. One is the ideal and the other is reality. This is why you can't answer the question. It is beyond you.

The reality is not an interpretation, it is a fact. If you start to have "interpretation" problems at that low a level of language usage I am not surprised we can't understand you.

[Guest]

Never said there was more than one. I said that there are two interpretations. One is the ideal and the other is reality. This is why you can’t answer the question. It is beyond you.

You have just stated everything that ever needs to be said on this debate here - but you just cannot see that it applies equally as well to your own chosen utopia. As I said you have no depth of analysis on these matters so very little to share of any use to anyone.

There is no magic hand which will produce perfect market outcomes, just as there is no beard man in the sky watching your every move. All evidence has always shown that markets behave irrationally and destroy lives along the way. I prefer the only system that has been shown to work and that is social democracy - a system of checks and balances.

God save us from fanatics and crazies.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 9, 2014 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

The effort here is to define the word. I would say it's fairly simple -- when governments or instruments of government have legal title to enterprises.

[Space Commander Travis]

. I prefer the only system that has been shown to work and that is social democracy - a system of checks and balances.

God save us from fanatics and crazies.

Br Cornelius

When has that ever been tried? Democracy, I mean.

[Guest]

When has that ever been tried? Democracy, I mean.

Like everything - we approach the ideal, but some systems make a closer approach than others.

Social democracy is a system of democracy based upon a social contract between the citizens and the leadership such that the best social outcomes are sought rather than the best outcomes for the leadership. We have strayed far away from rhese ideals in most situations - but where the social contract is held to the outcomes are generally the best for everyone - not just the preditory or born rich.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

I feel your wrong on some of your statement, in the above.

Fair enough.

No one should have to go back to working a minimum wage starter job again because of crony capitalism and corruption, screwing over the rest of us and causing a economic recession. First off, this shouldn't have happen at all.

I would agree but you are too general and your beliefs are misplaced. This is a problem that isn’t as simple as blaming the big corporation. It’s more representative of a system out of whack. All three legs are corrupted. It is not the fault of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is a symptom. It’s the fault of the environment. That environment consists of rules and when the government is too restrictive with regulation and changes the rules in illogical ways creates an unstable environment. This is artificial manipulation and counter to the free market.

A healthy system will have about 5% unemployment and those out of work need a couple of months to find a new job. The system is cyclic as Frank Merton has just pointed out and will see regular recessions. This removes the deadwood from the system. This includes the cronyism unless the government encourages it to continue. Plus, compounded by the nanyism of the state has made the consumer renege on their power. Our system is a balance between the People, Government, and Business but Socialism has raised the levels of Ignorance and Apathy into this system that it can’t function properly.

A 20 something to 60 year old shouldn't lose their job after so many years of working experience and loyalty, then turn around and haft to work in a McDonalds somewhere just to get by, because of greedy capitalist who want to screw the rest of us over. That's a load of BS.

Yes, it is a load of BS. No doubt that there are unscrupulous people running businesses, just as there are unscrupulous people in everything else. This is why the ideal interpretation of Socialism can never work. But this does not represent the entirety of business. Crony capitalism is not the free market system of Adam Smith. The “Invisible Hand” says that the business man should only take care of himself but the thing is that this selfishness requires a certain level of care for his customer. No one says it better than Smith himself “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

People shouldn't stand for this recurring recession crap, no matter what the excuse.

As was mentioned before, recession is a natural cycle of a healthy free market system. Instead of acting like it’s a disaster every time, we need to understand the nature and be ready and prepared to absorb the impact. We don’t do that, not even Reagan was interested. One way to lessen the impact is for the public to regain the power of the consumer and become more politically active. This is the people’s best defense from Business and Government. If they can’t stand this crap then they need to start looking within themselves, the individual (and not depend on government and not assume from business).

It's just ridiculous to work hard to get where one is and then haft to turn around and start all over again because of someone else's carelessness, corruption and greediness and screwing over the rest of us in a capitalistic society. It's no wonder people in other countries and even in our own country say that Capitalism doesn't work, just because of the recessions as one example that we keep having.

This isn’t meant to be an excuse but life isn’t fair. Those that are unlucky or are incapable of managing their resources shouldn’t expect everyone else to pay for it. Some people are just meant not to succeed. That’s crappy but that’s life. We all get an equal opportunity at life. We all don’t make it. And that’s a good thing for the whole. To be a strong nation, we need to focus more on our abilities rather than our shortcomings. When we as a nation excel, those that fall by the wayside have a means of subsistence from the success of the top performers. The success of the wealthy raises all boats. Socialism is a poison that entraps people in the ideal without seeing the consequences of reality. The ideal definition of Socialism is sterile of understanding human nature. If Engels and Marx understood Smith, they would have latched onto his theories. Their definition of Socialism needs to be modified by that of Smith.

[spacecowboy342]

A socialist is someone who is unable to get over his or her astonishment that most people who have lived and died have spent lives of wretched, fruitless, and unremitting toil.- Terry Eagleton

When I gave food to the poor they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor had no food, they called me a communist.- Helder Camara

[RavenHawk]

The reality is not an interpretation, it is a fact.

Precisely!!!!! You seem to understand that, but you still can’t answer the question.

If you start to have "interpretation" problems at that low a level of language usage I am not surprised we can't understand you.

I’m not the one that puts the interpretation of reality into practice. You shouldn’t be having problems. I’ve tried to keep the language simple enough that a five year old can understand. So I don’t know what your problem is.

[questionmark]

Precisely!!!!! You seem to understand that, but you still can't answer the question.

I'm not the one that puts the interpretation of reality into practice. You shouldn't be having problems. I've tried to keep the language simple enough that a five year old can understand. So I don't know what your problem is.

To the contrary of you I can, because I don't have to make it up on the go, and I put that above. Now, if you missed that I would reread this thread before causing more cheerfulness.

Edited February 9, 2014 by questionmark

[spacecowboy342]

Fair enough.

I would agree but you are too general and your beliefs are misplaced. This is a problem that isn't as simple as blaming the big corporation. It's more representative of a system out of whack. All three legs are corrupted. It is not the fault of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is a symptom. It's the fault of the environment. That environment consists of rules and when the government is too restrictive with regulation and changes the rules in illogical ways creates an unstable environment. This is artificial manipulation and counter to the free market.

A healthy system will have about 5% unemployment and those out of work need a couple of months to find a new job. The system is cyclic as Frank Merton has just pointed out and will see regular recessions. This removes the deadwood from the system. This includes the cronyism unless the government encourages it to continue. Plus, compounded by the nanyism of the state has made the consumer renege on their power. Our system is a balance between the People, Government, and Business but Socialism has raised the levels of Ignorance and Apathy into this system that it can't function properly.

Yes, it is a load of BS. No doubt that there are unscrupulous people running businesses, just as there are unscrupulous people in everything else. This is why the ideal interpretation of Socialism can never work. But this does not represent the entirety of business. Crony capitalism is not the free market system of Adam Smith. The "Invisible Hand" says that the business man should only take care of himself but the thing is that this selfishness requires a certain level of care for his customer. No one says it better than Smith himself "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

As was mentioned before, recession is a natural cycle of a healthy free market system. Instead of acting like it's a disaster every time, we need to understand the nature and be ready and prepared to absorb the impact. We don't do that, not even Reagan was interested. One way to lessen the impact is for the public to regain the power of the consumer and become more politically active. This is the people's best defense from Business and Government. If they can't stand this crap then they need to start looking within themselves, the individual (and not depend on government and not assume from business).

This isn't meant to be an excuse but life isn't fair. Those that are unlucky or are incapable of managing their resources shouldn't expect everyone else to pay for it. Some people are just meant not to succeed. That's crappy but that's life. We all get an equal opportunity at life. We all don't make it. And that's a good thing for the whole. To be a strong nation, we need to focus more on our abilities rather than our shortcomings. When we as a nation excel, those that fall by the wayside have a means of subsistence from the success of the top performers. The success of the wealthy raises all boats. Socialism is a poison that entraps people in the ideal without seeing the consequences of reality. The ideal definition of Socialism is sterile of understanding human nature. If Engels and Marx understood Smith, they would have latched onto his theories. Their definition of Socialism needs to be modified by that of Smith.

So those who are born into situations where they have no resources and little opportunity to succeed are just lazy and stupid and should be allowed to starve? Sounds like social Darwinism which, if I recall was Hitler's justification for eugenics. I think excellence should be rewarded but everyone should be able to eat, have a warm place to sleep, and have medical treatment when needed. Unrestricted capitalism leads to revolutions when the poor refuse to be exploited anymore, see French Revolution.

[F3SS]

So those who are born into situations where they have no resources and little opportunity to succeed are just lazy and stupid and should be allowed to starve? Sounds like social Darwinism which, if I recall was Hitler's justification for eugenics. I think excellence should be rewarded but everyone should be able to eat, have a warm place to sleep, and have medical treatment when needed. Unrestricted capitalism leads to revolutions when the poor refuse to be exploited anymore, see French Revolution.

Born into. Not necessarily stuck and no one else's fault if they choose to remain there and no one other persons responsibility if pay for their circumstances, chosen or otherwise.

Hitler tried to manipulate his opinion of social hierarchy and that in no way means that survival of the fittest is wrong or inherently evil.

Do we have unrestricted capitalism? If not, who's calling for it?

[spacecowboy342]

Born into. Not necessarily stuck and no one else's fault if they choose to remain there and no one other persons responsibility if pay for their circumstances, chosen or otherwise.

Hitler tried to manipulate his opinion of social hierarchy and that in no way means that survival of the fittest is wrong or inherently evil.

Do we have unrestricted capitalism? If not, who's calling for it?

It isn't choice to remain there if there are no viable options to get out. Those who claw their way out of poverty are to be commended but I would suggest they are the exception not the rule. No we don't have unrestricted capitalism and I hope we never do. When I was a young marine stationed in Japan, I saw the poor people scrambling through our dumpsters to get something to eat. I don't want to see that here. I know it goes on here but not, I think to that extent. There must be a safety net so that people don't go hungry or sleep cold or have to decide between buying medicine or food. Once, not so long ago, in this country, a man could get a job, buy a house and raise a family on his income. That is no longer the case unless you are a professional of some sort. People working full time jobs still rely on food stamps to get by. To suggest that they all get business loans and become entrepenuers is unrealistic.

[questionmark]

While that all is nice and good, it still dances around the theme, the definition of socialism can be found in this book:

http://www.gutenberg...7-h/39257-h.htm Socialism:Utopian and scientific by Engels

the reason to create socialism can be found in this book:

http://www.gutenberg...4-h/27814-h.htm Feuerbach by Engels

and the changes of the first years can be found in this book

http://www.gutenberg...3-h/31933-h.htm Landmarks of scientific socialism by Engels

Edited February 9, 2014 by questionmark

[RavenHawk]

You have just stated everything that ever needs to be said on this debate here

That was my intention.

- but you just cannot see that it applies equally as well to your own chosen utopia.

I’m not even talking about the free market. But I don’t consider the free market as a utopia. It is the furthest from it. But what it does do is take into consideration the failings of human nature. It is far from perfect but it takes advantage of human nature. And it protects the individual.

As I said you have no depth of analysis on these matters so very little to share of any use to anyone.

Then why do you bother responding? But how in depth does it need to be? We know from track record and history that Socialism is unsustainable. The only question is how long does it take for collapse from one instance to the other? It’s too early to really tell how the Hong Kong of today will turn out but the Hong Kong of Milton Friedman’s time was the best example of the free market. What more is needed?

There is no magic hand which will produce perfect market outcomes, just as there is no beard man in the sky watching your every move.

Exactly! This is why the ideal definition of Socialism can never work. It assumes perfect distribution.

All evidence has always shown that markets behave irrationally

Exactly! It takes ultimate advantage of chaos.

and destroy lives along the way.

Life is a crapshoot. If the risk is not great then the reward can not be great. Many of those on top have lost many fortunes and yet they didn’t give up. It has only made them stronger. What is more destructive than Socialism? Look at East Germany under the Soviet Union (or any of the other Republics and Stans). Look at Europe today. How many nations have collapsed or are on the verge? That equates to how many lives destroyed?

I prefer the only system that has been shown to work and that is social democracy - a system of checks and balances.

Social Democracy is redundancy. It’s been shown to fail. Socialism is unsustainable. When you run out of other people’s money, it has no place to go. That’s the only way Socialism can survive by taking from the producers and destroying the nation. That was the point of the American Revolution. To distance us from that method of governance and economy.

God save us from fanatics and crazies.

Engels and Marx were two of the biggest. Their theories were an attempt to return to Monarchy without the King. Have we not evolved beyond the need for a Monarch (at least other than a figurehead)?