Posted on Feb 10, 2016
Is Socialism is a political system or an economic system?
6.53K
112
77
6
6
0
Socialism
Economics
Politics
Responses: 16
8
8
0
It is primarily an economic system CDR Michael Goldschmidt. However like Islam, Socialism can only be fulfilled when the government adopts it as a ruling philosophy.
(8)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
You mean when the Government imposes it as a mandate! When socialism isn't coerced it's called capitalism.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ (Join to see) - A rose by any other name? Socialism is capitalism when people accept it willingly? My God. Is that what they're teaching in schools these days?
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
It's a belief system, which attempts to affect the economy.
I was listening to the Adam & Drew Podcast yesterday, and one of the quotes was "The Right attempts to control Behavior, while the Left attempts to control Belief."
We can look at it like an Economic System, however without the underlying Belief System, it just falls apart. It can't "scale" if the People who are inside it don't believe in it.
I was listening to the Adam & Drew Podcast yesterday, and one of the quotes was "The Right attempts to control Behavior, while the Left attempts to control Belief."
We can look at it like an Economic System, however without the underlying Belief System, it just falls apart. It can't "scale" if the People who are inside it don't believe in it.
(5)
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - of course the government relies on effectiveness and not efficiency; but this has nothing to do with Socialism vs Capitalism. The nature of the MIC and modern tech has caused many Defense Contractors to merge, thus reducing options and competition, that doesn't impact what type of economic system we have. There are no intentional monopolies and the government itself does not produce or control the means of production for anything (you can excuse my exclusion of the federal oil reserves and other emergency/critical resources that the government strongly regulates and the export restrictions on critical military tech for national defense and security reasons). Some members of the government may steer tax monies towards their cronies/constituents/backers/etc, but the other members and the other branches of government allow that; and out level of corruption is far lower than most other countries in that regard.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Eric Coger - I don't disagree with you. My statements above is merely that we are using the "best" (Subjective Term) tool for specific things. Military Medicine or the VA even if we use Capitalistic Tools are still Socialistic in nature. Roads are no different. It is not based on the basic concepts of the Free Market, but instead based on Government deciding what we need.
It's not a Socialism VERSUS Capitalism argument. It's a "how does Socialism AFFECT Capitalism" argument. Socialism by itself is a belief system, which can AFFECT Economic Systems, is "my" stance. Capitalism is an Economic System (period). Our government defaults to Capitalism, and the political system (belief) allows for Social Concepts like Risk Sharing (mandated Health Care), and Production Sharing (paying for Roads for all to use).
It's all based on the root question. Is Socialism Economic or Political (Belief) Based? I don't believe it can exist as a strictly Economic structure, however it can as a belief structure.
It's not a Socialism VERSUS Capitalism argument. It's a "how does Socialism AFFECT Capitalism" argument. Socialism by itself is a belief system, which can AFFECT Economic Systems, is "my" stance. Capitalism is an Economic System (period). Our government defaults to Capitalism, and the political system (belief) allows for Social Concepts like Risk Sharing (mandated Health Care), and Production Sharing (paying for Roads for all to use).
It's all based on the root question. Is Socialism Economic or Political (Belief) Based? I don't believe it can exist as a strictly Economic structure, however it can as a belief structure.
(0)
(0)
LTC Eric Coger
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - That's a well thought out expression of how thing actually appear to be, but the actual term Socialism as defined by the guy who coined it (Marx) is not supported. Roads are built (mostly) by gas taxes which are usage taxes, the government just collects that money and uses it to maintain the roads. It makes no logical sense for us to all build our own roads. That is not in any way shape or form Socialist. We just use the government as a conduit for our collected fees to contract with and maintain the road. Health Care in some cases could be a better analogy, but even then we would have to look at one case in specific.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Eric Coger - Again concur, but we don't build things based on "usage" or "need based" concepts. As you said it makes no logical sense to build our own roads, so we shift it upward to the "agency" which is BEST (again subjective term) able to to do it. We build roads which will have little or no usage/need to support outlying areas in a "Robin Hood" scheme. This meets about "half" the criteria of Marx Socialism in that Supply & Demand goes out the window.
But the problem with looking at strict Marx Socialism is that we are 100~ years removed from that, and it is not the commonly understood concept. His system was (Theoretical) Philosophical Economic System, which has yet to be duplicated in the real world. What we end up with instead is either "modern" Socialism which affects Capitalism, or Communism which is "akin" to Socialism, but a different Economic system all together.
But the problem with looking at strict Marx Socialism is that we are 100~ years removed from that, and it is not the commonly understood concept. His system was (Theoretical) Philosophical Economic System, which has yet to be duplicated in the real world. What we end up with instead is either "modern" Socialism which affects Capitalism, or Communism which is "akin" to Socialism, but a different Economic system all together.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Socialism is both a political and economic system under the umbrella of collectivist ideology. Under socialism, the individual is irrelevant in the manner that the needs of the collective always outweigh yours. Want to go from rags to riches? Too bad, as long as there are poor people, your dream to be wealthy must be crushed for the greater good. In essence, the individual is a slave to the collective. Individual rights, individual liberty, the individual as a whole is regarded as an anachronism, a hindrance to progress. Think about it, under socialist societies, the collective sets the moral standard; your personal nor religious morals are once again regarded as anachronistic and harmful to a progressive nation. How many have heard the arguments against Christians, "don't force your morals on us" and "you can't legislate morality? Well, under the very notion of morality, we now have obamacare, gay marriage, welfare, and much more. The hypocrisy is glaring. Charities to help the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged, etch, are scrutinized to within an inch of their existence and those that give to charity are "only doing it for the tax write off"; however, give your money to a wasteful government program run by incompetent boobs and you are regarded as a patriot. Yet again, your individual choice is bad, the strong arm government allegedly working on behalf of the collective is good.
Socialism is tyranny because it oppress individualism. I make no apologies when I say my needs will always come first. After all, if I am happy, if I have an uninhibited path (free of government constraint) to my dreams and goals, I will most likely aspire to bring others up with me; one person's success can provide opportunities for others but in a socialist society this is regarded as creating a society of haves and have note which "just isn't fair".
Okay, I'm getting pissed off now. Y'all got my point. It is obvious socialism and individualism cannot coexist. I also wager that socialism and liberty cannot coexist.
Socialism is tyranny because it oppress individualism. I make no apologies when I say my needs will always come first. After all, if I am happy, if I have an uninhibited path (free of government constraint) to my dreams and goals, I will most likely aspire to bring others up with me; one person's success can provide opportunities for others but in a socialist society this is regarded as creating a society of haves and have note which "just isn't fair".
Okay, I'm getting pissed off now. Y'all got my point. It is obvious socialism and individualism cannot coexist. I also wager that socialism and liberty cannot coexist.
(4)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
Indeed, Socialism and liberty cannot coexist, for there is no liberty but individual liberty, which collectivism hates.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Liberty can not exist without some degree of socialism. If we do not regulate and limit the powers of the oligarchy we will eventually be reduced to serfdom. By the way, Sanders isn't trying to make the US more like Cuba or the old USSR... he's trying to make it a little more Denmark, Sweden or the Netherlands. There are plenty of rich people in those countries.
To the extent that the only moral thing to do is to allow each person to follow their conscience and make their own decisions, legislation to allow gay marriage or support women's rights that sort of legislation is about morality... however even more than morality, it's about liberty.
To the extent that the only moral thing to do is to allow each person to follow their conscience and make their own decisions, legislation to allow gay marriage or support women's rights that sort of legislation is about morality... however even more than morality, it's about liberty.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google