Skip to comments.Define Socialism
Posted on 01/14/2014 12:59:37 PM PST by MosesKnows
Discussions about socialism have been in vogue since Obama became President Obama. Many of those discussions reveal disagreement on what constitutes socialism regarding Obamas socialist agenda for America. I want to dwell on that aspect of the discussion, the definition of socialism.
I am weary of repeated attempts to establish an agreed upon definition of socialism. You will discover, as I have, that liberals and conservatives define socialism differently.
To that end, I only support governments whose main function is to protect private ownership of capital and property rights. All definitions used to describe other governments is of no interest to me. I will not support government that does not protect property rights regardless of all manner of noble accomplishments that may be cited.
The progressives have influenced liberals that capitalism doesnt exist under socialism when of course it does. The difference between capitalism under socialism and capitalism under Americanism lies in the ownership and control of the capital. In Socialism, the state owns or controls capital via laws and regulations. In Americanism, the individual experiences private ownership and control of property.
That’s when government takes away all of your freedom in exchange for the false promise of taking care of you.
socialism de jure = state ownership of private property and capital
Discussions about socialism have been “in vogue” in my neck of the woods since WAY before King Barack I came in to power.
“From me, To You!” The Beatles
Ever-decreasing productivity and ever-increasing taxation/confiscation of resources yielding an ever-decreasing standard of living bounded only by total annihilation.
Let me tell you how it will be,
Theres one for you, nineteen for me.
A reading of the Constitution of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA at this link should adequately define Socialism for you:
Is that like Facebook or Instagram something? Social media?
Private property and capital are as inseparably connected as private property and liberty. One can simply not exist without the other.
Therefore, one must conclude that socialism must take both in order to effectively govern.
And in answer to your question, there is no other form of government acceptable to a free people, because without a government that operates in a manner in order to protect both private property and capital, there is no such thing as free people.
I have noticed that as well. Liberals define socialism the way I define Marxism. It is a diversionary tactic, so I simply refuse to debate the terms. I call them whatever pisses them off the most: socialist, communist, statist - it doesn’t matter to me what they want to be called, I will call them something else.
Socialism = exploitation of uncertainty.
bump for later
We’re thinking in 20th century terms. Socialism is one thing, fascism is another, communism is yet another. In the 20th century, when nations were trying all three, we drew boundaries between each so we could clearly say, “This is socialist, but that is fascist.”
In the new world where information has value and people will actually pay for purely intellectual property (downloaded games, streaming video, e-books, etc), the old definitions of “property” get shady and useless.
The Progressive will say that Obama is not socialist because he allows for private ownership of the means of production and he is not communist because he allows you to own your home and he is not fascist because he does not fully control industry.
But, in the 21st century, we have a president who does think that wealth should be shared and that industry should be tightly regulated and that businesses should be forced to pay wages far above what the work is worth. He thinks that people should be forced to buy insurance just for breathing. He is socialist, communist, and fascist—and by the strict 20th century definitions, he is none of them.
Eventually, the Progs will invent a term for the Obamunism that we are entering into. Count on it to be focus group tested, and inoffensive to as many people as possible.
But, it will certainly be a hybrid of socialism, communism, and fascism.
The most famous socialist country in the world? That would be the USSR, back when I was on active duty, we called ‘em commies. Today, socialists are still commies.
For those interested ping!
OPM - Other People’s Money - is the means by which commerce is carried on all over the world. There are various means of securing the use of OPM, most of which are covered by contracts and custom. Socialism is a short-circuit of that web of contracts and custom, merely taking one person’s money and delivering it without benefit of a contractual agreement to the disposal of another person, with no opportunity of redress or accountability, should the money be used unwisely or profligately. Robbing Peter to pay Paul certainly does not gain the favor of Peter, and Paul is probably going to be rather ungracious after the first flush of receiving newfound wealth.
Running a lottery is the most extreme form of socialism around, because the “fortunate” winner is almost certainly unable to maintain possession of the winnings for very long.
Socialism, communism, progressivism, nazism, modern liberalism and fascism are all just variations on the theme of economic and social central planning by a government with too much concentrated power.
They are all just different branches on the tree of totalitarian leftism.
The difference between them is like the difference between cow manure, bull manure, horse manure, dog manure, pig manure and elephant manure. It’s all basically the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.