NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, being an american i have absolutly no idea how this works except for bias news descriptions. So can anyone tell what the hell it is?

Well, being an american i have absolutly no idea how this works except for bias news descriptions. So can anyone tell what the hell it is?
You dont wanna know. 1 word: HELL.

Socialism is a government by an elite minority of Jews over the entire nation.

Wow, lotta nutbags here.

Socialism is a government by an elite minority of Jews over the entire nation.

If that's the case, then so is capitalism.

Socialism is where the workers own and manage the means of production. In practice, though, it's used to mean almost anyone who criticizes capitalism.

socialism is when the people get the same benefits that republicans give the rich

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

make sure to read the whole page

So there is no freee capital? Or corperations or small buiesnesses?

Socialism is a government by an elite minority of Jews over the entire nation.
Just keep it in the other discussions on this topic, and not in this topic. Thanks ;)

socialism is when the people get the same benefits that republicans give the rich
Well... Id rather you keep that in a different topic also.

socialism is when the people get the same benefits that republicans give the rich

NO FLAMING!

Socialism is taking from the hard-working rich and giving to the lazy-ass poor.
The harder you work, the more the government will take from you.
The more you refuse to work, the more the government will give to you.


Socialism is designed to spread misery evenly throughout the population.
:rolleyes:

Socialism is taking from the hard-working rich and giving to the lazy-ass poor.
The harder you work, the more the government will take from you.
The more you refuse to work, the more the government will give to you.


Socialism is designed to spread misery evenly throughout the population.
:rolleyes:

lol, I'm sorry. Right now I find the hard working as the poor tbh.

I always found that to be the problem. When you think of equalitity the problem is you think of paradise. But you just get equal poverty :(. Like comunism.

If that's the case, then so is capitalism.

Precisely.

So there is no freee capital? Or corperations or small buiesnesses?

The total lack of free capital and the accompanying private ownership of business is typically communism.

Socialism is an intermediate point of no fixed area in between pure capitalism and communism. Businesses are partially owned and subsidized by the government, and the workers and laborers receive a larger share of the total GDP of the nation. There is a greater emphasis on workers rights and a worker's share in the profits.

Socialism isn't an absolute. No functioning society is 100% capitalistic or communistic. If Capitalism is white, and Communism is black, then Socialism is all shades of gray in between.

Socialistic influences in America include Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Worker's Compensation, The Minimum Wage, etc... Universal Healthcare, or some form thereof could also be considered to a degree, socialistic in nature.

Socialism is taking from the hard-working rich and giving to the lazy-ass poor.
The harder you work, the more the government will take from you.
The more you refuse to work, the more the government will give to you.


Socialism is designed to spread misery evenly throughout the population.
:rolleyes:

Have you ever met the mega-rich?

I meet them every week almost - Dinner Parties I have to go to with my family, Wedding Receptions at the Ritz e.t.c. And you want to know something? Most of these 'hard working businessmen' work 3 days a Week for about 5 hours a day.

Who is to say poor people are not hard working? Perhaps thier fathers, who were poor before them, could not afford to send them to private schooling and thus did not have as wide a range of opportunities? (And I had this opportunity at Primary School Level - So don't start calling me poor and flaming me, because I'm not, and I could just as easily embrace Capitalism which has rewarded my family - but I don't - because I know there are just as many poor people out there who work thier socks off every day just to put food on the table. So keep your mouth shut in future.).

Socialism is taking from the hard-working rich and giving to the lazy-ass poor.
The harder you work, the more the government will take from you.
The more you refuse to work, the more the government will give to you.

Who works harder? A person with two jobs or someone who inherited their money?

The total lack of free capital and the accompanying private ownership of business is typically communism.

It takes more than that. Communism lacks forms of exchange. Remember that free capital means oppressed workers.

Precisely.

In that case, you have no economic options. Your anti-semitism has sentenced you to starvation.

The total lack of free capital and the accompanying private ownership of business is typically communism.

Socialism is an intermediate point of no fixed area in between pure capitalism and communism. Businesses are partially owned and subsidized by the government, and the workers and laborers receive a larger share of the total GDP of the nation. There is a greater emphasis on workers rights and a worker's share in the profits.

Socialism isn't an absolute. No functioning society is 100% capitalistic or communistic. If Capitalism is white, and Communism is black, then Socialism is all shades of gray in between.

Socialistic influences in America include Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Worker's Compensation, The Minimum Wage, etc... Universal Healthcare, or some form thereof could also be considered to a degree, socialistic in nature.

Universal healthcare sounds nice on paper but is often poorly excecuted.

Have you ever met the mega-rich?

I meet them every week almost - Dinner Parties I have to go to with my family, Wedding Receptions at the Ritz e.t.c. And you want to know something? Most of these 'hard working businessmen' work 3 days a Week for about 5 hours a day.

Who is to say poor people are not hard working? Perhaps thier fathers, who were poor before them, could not afford to send them to private schooling and thus did not have as wide a range of opportunities? (And I had this opportunity at Primary School Level - So don't start calling me poor and flaming me, because I'm not, and I could just as easily embrace Capitalism which has rewarded my family - but I don't - because I know there are just as many poor people out there who work thier socks off every day just to put food on the table. So keep your mouth shut in future.).

My friend is currently 800 in debt, unable to get out, yet out of 90 people in the department is doing 25% of the total output, usually working @ 300%.. That is just one of many examples I can give right now. Fully agree with you there.

Have you ever met the mega-rich?

I meet them every week almost - Dinner Parties I have to go to with my family, Wedding Receptions at the Ritz e.t.c. And you want to know something? Most of these 'hard working businessmen' work 3 days a Week for about 5 hours a day.

Who is to say poor people are not hard working? Perhaps thier fathers, who were poor before them, could not afford to send them to private schooling and thus did not have as wide a range of opportunities? (And I had this opportunity at Primary School Level - So don't start calling me poor and flaming me, because I'm not, and I could just as easily embrace Capitalism which has rewarded my family - but I don't - because I know there are just as many poor people out there who work thier socks off every day just to put food on the table. So keep your mouth shut in future.).
Why are the world's most die hard socialists also happen to be the richest people? Like George Soros and Che Guevara.

Why are the world's most die hard socialists also happen to be the richest people? Like George Soros and Che Guevara.
I am not rich by a long shot, I am well-off and had more opportunities than most. As my dad says - who works with the mega rich and thier financial assets all the time - "Its about being in the right place, at the right time"

I am not rich by a long shot, I am well-off and had more opportunities than most. As my dad says - who works with the mega rich and thier financial assets all the time - "Its about being in the right place, at the right time"
Plus a combination of factors, like work-ethic, investments, etc. From what it sounds like, quite a few of these people you're describing inherited their money, and not necessarily self-made millionaires.

Alright. It's time for the truth about socialism. In a nutshell it's when the governement takes care of you, ex. pays for your medical expenses, gives you money if you're poor, etc. I should know. I do live in Canada, which will always be part socialist.

Plus a combination of factors, like work-ethic, investments, etc. From what it sounds like, quite a few of these people you're describing inherited their money, and not necessarily self-made millionaires.

No, I don't agree. I'll give you a little example - During the 80's there was a little thing called the 'rag trade' (making cheap dresses e.t.c) - A few Greek Immigrants to Britain started to get rich off of this, and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon, there was no skill involved. Most of the people I have met in this trade are now millionaires, yet it just so happened they were in the right business, at the right time (when it exploded).

No, I don't agree. I'll give you a little example - During the 80's there was a little thing called the 'rag trade' (making cheap dresses e.t.c) - A few Greek Immigrants to Britain started to get rich off of this, and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon, there was no skill involved. Most of the people I have met in this trade are now millionaires, yet it just so happened they were in the right business, at the right time (when it exploded).
Still, it took a lot to fend competition off.

Universal healthcare sounds nice on paper but is often poorly excecuted.

Well, the US had a GDP greater than the next 3 largest economies combined, and yet much poorer nations are able to swing universal healthcare. When I visited France, I was the happy recipient of free healthcare. No forms, went in, got stiched up, came out.

Like anything, a vigilantly maintained balance of powers, such as is spelled out in our Constitution regarding the checks and balances of our 3 branches of government, is required. To much concentration of power, be it in the politically or economically powerful, is a dangerous thing.

A balance of vibrant capitalism while still making sure that the common workers still have a voice and are not squeezed is a good thing, in my opinion. After all, who is going to buy the goods if the masses don't have enough to get by?

Still, it took a lot to fend competition off.

Well not really, there was enough room for new businesses because demand was always on the rise (as it is during a massive economic growth period in a certain industry), those that were already in it became millionaires, over the space of say... A year. After a few years the corporations gobbled up these relatively small businesses but these people were left multi-millionaires.

I don't know where the myth started that rich people work harder than poor people. I think it's largely spread by the fat-ass CEOs, so they can pat themselves on the back every time they lay off a bunch of workers to give themselves a pay rise

Universal healthcare sounds nice on paper but is often poorly excecuted.

Really?

Hmm, seems to be working pretty well in Western Europe to me. I should know, I live there.

As a Labour MP once said "The NHS is the jewel in Europe's Socialist Crown"

I don't know where the myth started that rich people work harder than poor people. I think it's largely spread by the fat-ass CEOs, so they can pat themselves on the back every time they lay off a bunch of workers to give themselves a pay rise

Yeh I know, its a lot of hard work being a director. Heres an everyday scene from a boardroom.

Int: Boardroom

*Man holds up a graph*

Director 1: Hmmm

Man holding up Graph: As this shows, profits are up

Director 3: I see

Man holding up Graph: So shall we invest more money now we have more money?

Director's 2 and 3: Yes

Thats all it is basically, looking at some data your Managing Directors have prepared for you, and saying yes or no.

Well not really, there was enough room for new businesses because demand was always on the rise (as it is during a massive economic growth period in a certain industry), those that were already in it became millionaires, over the space of say... A year. After a few years the corporations gobbled up these relatively small businesses but these people were left multi-millionaires.
And I'm sure it was just like the .com bubble: they were millionaires with private jets one day, then average joes on coach the next. There are exceptions, but I bet they lost quite a bit of money. They always do if a business grows as rapidly as you're describing.

And I'm sure it was just like the .com bubble: they were millionaires with private jets one day, then average joes on coach the next. There are exceptions, but I bet they lost quite a bit of money. They always do if a business grows as rapidly as you're describing.

Well not really, the bigger corporations gobbled up the smaller competition as they saw this opportunity, and they were basically left with fat payoffs. I know some who try to play the Stockmarket, but fail miserably, so they hire loads of people in my my dads department to do it for them.

This definition makes the most sense:

"The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy."

In Canada, we have a blend of free enterprise combined with universal health care, or "socialized" medicine.

Well not really, the bigger corporations gobbled up the smaller competition as they saw this opportunity, and they were basically left with fat payoffs. I know some who try to play the Stockmarket, but fail miserably, so they hire loads of people in my my dads department to do it for them.
Of course. Everyone is like Baron Danglars in The Count of Monte Cristo. When they speculate, they become very wealthy, but eventually, they meet doom. I'm sure Georges Soros will meet the same fate if the dollar gets stronger, or for that matter, Warren Buffet, if Berkshire-Hathaway makes a big mistake.

Well, being an american i have absolutly no idea how this works except for bias news descriptions. So can anyone tell what the hell it is?

socialism is really a group of related ideas held by various groups. at its most basic, the various usages of socialism are united by the idea that capitalism, like fuedalism before it, mainly benefits a tiny elite, and that society should be changed to be more egalitarian and be run for the good of all. socialist ideologies hold that society should be based on economic cooperation instead of competition, and that at least some of the means of production and distribution should not be privately owned.

beyond that, various forms of socialism hold up different goals, models, and paths to get there.

General definition:
Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.

The society in Star trek's Enterprise is more or less socialistic.

See what Einstein thought about Socialism and capitalism on his article "Why Socialism?":
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

.........................................

Very general and extreme definitions but the principles are there..
What is capitalism:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/whatcap.htm

What is socialism:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/socalism.htm

Of course, as others have said, there exist intermediate ways. Read Will Hutton's "The World we're in" if you're interested.

General definition:
Economic system which is based on cooperation rather than competition and which utilizes centralized planning and distribution.

centralized planning doesn't fit - anarchism and market socialism spring to mind.

NO FLAMING!
im not flaming thats what I truley believe

True, uncorrupted, total socialism have never existed. I'm pretty sure it hasn't. Socialism is generally the spreading of money by the government to fit the needs of the people. What happens in a communist society is that the government takes more money than it needs and the citizens suffer for it because they aren't receiving the money they would get in a truly socialist setting. While true socialism would make sure no one was poor, I like the idea of being able to get ahead in the world through my own merit. What I don't like about capitalism is where the money lies. I understand why doctors make the money they do. They're important for the welfare of the people. Actors, athletes, lawyers, and other groups who don't really do much to further society but are rich is what I don't like. Lawyers "uphold" the laws of a community but do they really need that much money? Actors and athletes entertain the populace but they don't do much good. CEO's can be deserving of their money. It's more work than you may think. Alright, who do you consider more important? An actor or a construction worker who builds homes to give the populace shelter? I consider the worker more important so why is the actor payed millions more than the worker. I like the idea of capitalism in the sense of what I want to do with my life. It's my intention to design games in the future so if I design a good game and people buy it, I should receive money for it. Just not in the bloated amounts of actors. Actors should receive money from movie/television sales but not the massive amounts they get now. Does this make me a hypocrite?

You know someone once, err Gladstone I think,
'the idea of liberalism is to rise the poor up to the likes of the richer classes, while the idea of socialism is to bring down the richer classes to the likes fo the poor'
But if you ask me, I'd say socialism is a mix of the two, having the classes meet half way.

You know someone once, err Gladstone I think,
'the idea of liberalism is to rise the poor up to the likes of the richer classes, while the idea of socialism is to bring down the richer classes to the likes fo the poor'
But if you ask me, I'd say socialism is a mix of the two, having the classes meet half way.

well, to get historical, socialists have always aimed to both raise the position in society of the vast majority of the population that has to sell itself to the elite in order to live and to do away with the legal privilege that allows the elite to hold that position. which is kind of like meeting halfway, but more like abolishing class distinctions to a greater or lesser degree (shading into merely lessening the distance between top and bottom for the less revolutionary socialists)

and of course, liberalism can do nothing of the kind because the system it supports requires and necessitates the existence of a rich elite and a mass of wage-slaves.

well, to get historical, socialists have always aimed to both raise the position in society of the vast majority of the population that has to sell itself to the elite in order to live and to do away with the legal privilege that allows the elite to hold that position. which is kind of like meeting halfway, but more like abolishing class distinctions to a greater or lesser degree (shading into merely lessening the distance between top and bottom for the less revolutionary socialists)

and of course, liberalism can do nothing of the kind because the system it supports requires and necessitates the existence of a rich elite and a mass of wage-slaves.

And thats why Gladstone was a git,...still if we are the same class, there is no need for the class system if you see what I mean, it isn't gonna happen (at least not yet) but its nice to dream

You dont wanna know. 1 word: HELL.
That's exactly the kind of partisan bullshit he's trying to get away from. You don't know what socialism is either.

Funny you should ask such a question, Wowcha wowcha land. After being here a few days, you will notice that the socialism/capitalism/communism issue comes up at least once a day.

Anyway, I don't feel comfortable discussing socialism with all these forum bigwigs, but I'll give you my private interpretation.

Socialism is a economic system between communism (collectivism, public ownership, classlessness) and capitalism (individualism, private ownership, stratified classes), but closer to communism. It is seen by some as a stop on the road from capitalism to communism: socialism is the path, communism is the destination, or however it goes. Others consider socialism as a less extreme take on the causes that communists stand for, combining the efficiency of private-run companies with the cooperative spirit of workers' rights, peace, caring for the environment, aiding the plight of the poor, and fostering equality for all. Socialism relies more on (as others have mentioned) cooperation than competition. Those who support capitalism often say that socialism is a form of theft, as it strives to take money, power, and privileges from those who have more to those who have less.

To get an understanding of a real world experiment in socialism, study the nations of Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark), widely considered to be the most socialist nations in the world today. For more "soft-core" socialism, check out Canada, France, Germany, and other European countries.

You will notice that these countries have, in general, large governments that are more concerned with education (Sweden has perhaps the best education in the world), welfare, national healthcare, and regulation of business than with defense (most have small, even underfunded, militaries), corporate welfare, etc.

It's easy to understand why you have little understanding of socialism, as you're American. These things aren't taught to us in school; I know personally. I didn't have an understanding of socialism until fairly recently. To put the alienation of Americans to socialism in perspective, we are the only industrialized nation with no national healthcare system. Having recently been to Canada, which does, I can tell you that such a thing is an entirely different ball game.

Americans also believe in a large, well-funded military, which conflicts with the socialists' desire for peace. We also have less interest in caring for the environment, in general. The United States of America is not, then, very socialist at all; what socialistic programs we do have we seem to have adopted rather reluctantly and only at great need.

The socialist programs of America, mostly begun by the New Deal of FDR, include Social Security (check out the name), welfare, minimum wage, graduated income tax rates for the rich, public education, and others. Someone else wrote a more complete list above. These programs, for the most part, have run into serious problems with funding, which ever seems to be a chief problem of socialist initiatives. Conservatives see this as evidence that they are therefore ineffective, and thus should be privatized, cut down, or eliminated. Liberals see it as evidence that the programs need more funding (in the form of taxes), or are being mined by other parts of the government (that would be corruption, another huge issue with socialism).

However, the ideals of socialism are hardly limited to government programs with long names. They are visible in everyday life, even in the most capitalist nations. We call one of the major embodiments of socialist values the nuclear family. Families work because of cooperation among their members (certainly not competition), the willingness of the more privileged and able parents to make sacrifices on their children's behalf, and, of course, peace. Other socialistic institutions of society include the community (basically a family writ large), and the church or other religious center.

This last brings up an interesting topic, religion and socialism. Many in America today believe religion (I will use Christianity as an example here, as I'm familiar with it and because it is the prevailing religion of the United States, but I think the below would be nearly as applicable in the case of the other great religions) and socialism are anathema to each other. This idea apparently stems from the fact that many Americans associate socialism with Marxism, an all-too-easy mistake. It couldn't be further from the truth, however. In the New Testament, the early Apostles are described as owning all their goods in common, so that "not a man was needy among them". Most socialist ideals (including the family) are, or ought to be, important to the religious as well. This is particularly true concerning the attitude toward the poor. Jesus taught that when we deal with the poor, we deal with him, and that whether we go into Heaven or not depends on how we treated them, and other unfortunates we met in our lives. It is rather telling then, that, in a thread on this board asking fellow members to guess who initiated socialism, Jesus Christ was mentioned by more than one.