4
4
0
Posted in these groups: 
Socialism
Millennials
Socialism Millennials
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 4
7
7
0
Whoever controls the definitions of words controls the argument. And socialists work their damnedest to redefine terms because no rational person would adopt their position when exposed to the truth of it. That's not to say that there are plenty of irrational people who cling to socialism regardless of any facts or definitions. The real issue is that there are those who cling to their intentions and socialists sell themselves on the premise that they have the best intentions. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is intolerable. We want everyone to thrive. Thus, socialism is the best. The problem is that every from of socialism by whatever definition you choose has been tried and always ended with the same result. Failure. Free markets (lacking government or centralized control) have elevated the masses from poverty to middle class and some have even achieved great wealth. Under socialism, the masses have descended into poverty. In every instance! Look back at the Pilgrims who arrived in the New World with dreams of Utopia. They didn't call it socialism, but the intent was the same. All would contribute their work product to the community warehouse and each would receive according to their need. No, it wasn't the native tribes who saved the Pilgrims. Indeed, native tribes allied themselves with the Pilgrims to save themselves from neighboring tribes. The Pilgrims saved themselves by abandoning that foolishness. Look at China and India today where masses have achieved the middle class by free market forces. Yes, in China, the Communists keep tabs on the situation and exert control to keep the people from shaking off their tyranny, but the Communists too like the added wealth that allows them to build their military and exert growing influence in their party of the world. Meanwhile, in our modern world, those places that cling to socialism, such as Cuba and Venezuela, suffer the consequences. So, hypothesize all you want. Bask in self-righteousness for your good intentions. But the proof is in the pudding. Socialism is, was, and will always lead to the yoke of tyranny and the suffering of the masses.
(7)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
CPT Jack Durish - I think to be fair many people cast as socialist never advocated for pure socialism either.
I've also watched the debate over regulation and if that is cast as socialism seems to have a fair amount to do if the person believes the regulation to be beneficial of not. It is hard to come up with a "fair" definition of socialism that everyone agrees to and doesn't ... move around ... when it politically suits them.
I've also watched the debate over regulation and if that is cast as socialism seems to have a fair amount to do if the person believes the regulation to be beneficial of not. It is hard to come up with a "fair" definition of socialism that everyone agrees to and doesn't ... move around ... when it politically suits them.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SSG Robert Mark Odom From the Marxism website.
“ And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.”
“ And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.”
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SSG Robert Mark Odom - In regards to your meme, how do you define socialism? Here is the definition I use
Socialism: a form of economic production, whereby workers co-own and co-produce goods and services, sharing in the profits. In capitalism the business owner owns all of the tools and other means of production and keeps all of the profits while paying workers simply a wage.
Note that there is no mention of the general public in that co-ownership, co-production, and sharing of the profits. The general public has no ability to transfer individual "ownership" of the public services offered and cannot gain from increased value of the public service; in the same way a company with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) can transfer ownership (typically through a buy back program upon leaving the employ of the public service.
Furthermore, the workers of a publicly owned service hold no special "ownership" rights or entitlements over the general public. The worker's "ownership comes by virtue of residency and payment of taxes, not by virtue of being a worker. Those workers are in fact employees engaged for a wage/salary and benefits package. That is pure capitalism with the government as the employer.
That eliminates everything from your meme's list except Veterans' benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, The G.I. Bill, and Bank Deposit Insurance.
Veteran's Benefits and the G.I Bill are the fulfillment of obligations offered to induce acceptance of employment that are extended to the military. That is no different than a private company offering its employees retirement benefits or education benefits as prt of the compensation plan. Once again pure capitalism with the government as employer.
Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, and Deposit Insurance are part of government mandated social welfare designed to provide for those who are permanently or temporarily economically disadvantaged. That does not equal socialism.
And that eliminates every supposedly "socialist" program on the meme.
Socialism: a form of economic production, whereby workers co-own and co-produce goods and services, sharing in the profits. In capitalism the business owner owns all of the tools and other means of production and keeps all of the profits while paying workers simply a wage.
Note that there is no mention of the general public in that co-ownership, co-production, and sharing of the profits. The general public has no ability to transfer individual "ownership" of the public services offered and cannot gain from increased value of the public service; in the same way a company with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) can transfer ownership (typically through a buy back program upon leaving the employ of the public service.
Furthermore, the workers of a publicly owned service hold no special "ownership" rights or entitlements over the general public. The worker's "ownership comes by virtue of residency and payment of taxes, not by virtue of being a worker. Those workers are in fact employees engaged for a wage/salary and benefits package. That is pure capitalism with the government as the employer.
That eliminates everything from your meme's list except Veterans' benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, The G.I. Bill, and Bank Deposit Insurance.
Veteran's Benefits and the G.I Bill are the fulfillment of obligations offered to induce acceptance of employment that are extended to the military. That is no different than a private company offering its employees retirement benefits or education benefits as prt of the compensation plan. Once again pure capitalism with the government as employer.
Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, and Deposit Insurance are part of government mandated social welfare designed to provide for those who are permanently or temporarily economically disadvantaged. That does not equal socialism.
And that eliminates every supposedly "socialist" program on the meme.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Socialism in this country is a political cudgel to smear anyone who says the government should do something while usually ignoring all the things the government already does. If the government doesn't do it now and someone says they should but you don't, that's socialism. If the government does something now and you don't want it to go away, clearly not socialism.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Socialism is not a "general" concept encompassing all expressions of compassion, charity, or fairness. It's not a synonym for "being a good member of a society"...nor is it the exclusive ideology of those who value the lowest members of that society every bit as much as those at its head. Rather, socialism encapsulates the notion that the only way those virtues can be realized is for all socio-economic elements of a civilization to be controlled collectively, rather than privately.
In short...socialism is opposed to individuality. Calling it "democratic" only implies the decisions will be made by popular vote-rather than an imposed dogma (essentially communism). How and where the "popular vote" is generated is always less clearly defined, and always vulnerable to dictatorship.
Social Security, Welfare, and the Public School System are NOT purely socialist...They are funded by individual taxpayers, earning money in a free market economy, legislated by elected officials of a representative republic. The key benefit of this system is that it prevents "mob rule"...i.e., it recognizes the fact that what's good for the citizens of inner-city Detroit may not be at all good for the citizens of rural Texas...and vice versa.
Those arguing for socialism do so for many reasons, but I suspect the three leading are as follows:
1. They do not trust the representative government to operate as justly or efficiently as a straight majority.
2. They are unwilling to accept the opposing views and opinions of other segments of society, and want a system that would "force" compliance.
3. They have an absolutist view of society; one in which all values should be aligned in a linear fashion.
Guess what... a whole lot of Republicans probably fit this model to a "T", albeit with very different aims than their Democrat counterparts.
Left, Right or Center...Americans should be able to see how a shift towards socialism threatens everything contained within the Constitution. A "socialist" government could be liberal, OR conservative. It could be secular...or fundamentalist. What the Founders envisioned, was a system in which the individual has the RIGHT to determine their own principles, and vote for leaders who will support them within the confines of Constitutional law.
In short...socialism is opposed to individuality. Calling it "democratic" only implies the decisions will be made by popular vote-rather than an imposed dogma (essentially communism). How and where the "popular vote" is generated is always less clearly defined, and always vulnerable to dictatorship.
Social Security, Welfare, and the Public School System are NOT purely socialist...They are funded by individual taxpayers, earning money in a free market economy, legislated by elected officials of a representative republic. The key benefit of this system is that it prevents "mob rule"...i.e., it recognizes the fact that what's good for the citizens of inner-city Detroit may not be at all good for the citizens of rural Texas...and vice versa.
Those arguing for socialism do so for many reasons, but I suspect the three leading are as follows:
1. They do not trust the representative government to operate as justly or efficiently as a straight majority.
2. They are unwilling to accept the opposing views and opinions of other segments of society, and want a system that would "force" compliance.
3. They have an absolutist view of society; one in which all values should be aligned in a linear fashion.
Guess what... a whole lot of Republicans probably fit this model to a "T", albeit with very different aims than their Democrat counterparts.
Left, Right or Center...Americans should be able to see how a shift towards socialism threatens everything contained within the Constitution. A "socialist" government could be liberal, OR conservative. It could be secular...or fundamentalist. What the Founders envisioned, was a system in which the individual has the RIGHT to determine their own principles, and vote for leaders who will support them within the confines of Constitutional law.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google