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.
Divided powers is the only method ever found to protect citizens’ rights and property.
Governments can only usefully be classified on a scale from too little to too much division of power.
Well stated. The old communist, fascist, socialist labels were from a different era and worked to a degree then. Today like with some physical diseases, it rapidly adapts and takes advantage of all three.
We are getting hit with the unholy love child of a Mao, Stalin, and Hitler threesome.
Obama and his supporters do not feel bound to any particular “ism”. They only have one goal, total power, and that they control any aspect of your life they decide to.
We have the surveillance state of the East German Stasi. Many Obama bureaucrats and nominees are proven to be steeped in Maoist thought and even admit it in public speeches. And like Stalin, they know that it only matters who counts the votes.
The thing that strikes me, is that the lid would stay on if they simply left ordinary Americans alone and concentrated on concentrating their power and wealth, and played their international games.
But I don’t believe that will happen. They seem hell bent on revolutionary change and bringing home to Americans who simply want to be left alone. The propaganda sessions naming Christians as a hate group, the portrayal of TEA as an enemy for war game exercises when it was historically always “Orange Republic” or some such. The messianic zeal for pushing homosexuality on us,, such as gay weddings at West Point. NDAA military arrest powers,,etc.
The left does not realize there is a point that’s simply too far, and they are going for all the marbles. Traditional Americans have a point beyond which they will not be pushed.
A collision is guaranteed unless one side gives up their core values. Where is the flashpoint? Nobody knows,,
It all just comes down to preparing now for anything, and not putting it off for the future when it could be too late.
A few decades ago, I never thought id see America sink into an authoritarian government. Its very sad. Obama is a foreign enemy. Foreign in thinking, no matter where he was whelped.
Socialism should actually be called what it is....
A socialist is simply a communist without a gun.
“difference between them is like the difference between cow manure, bull manure, horse manure, dog manure, pig manure,,,”
Perfectly explained. I will be using that analogy in the future when someone explains to me how Obama isn’t a Marxist, Maoist, Moslem, Socialist, etc etc,,,,
Can’t wait. My trap is set,,,,
Anything the Bolshies want.
I love Hayek’s explanation of capitalism as what happens when there are no guns pointed at anyone’s heads.
As far as I’m concerned, anything else is unacceptable, whatever definition of “socialism” the left wants to try to use to deny that that is what they advocate.
The only rights that can be held by all people are negative: life, liberty, property, opportunity.
Positive rights, such as the "right" to food, or shelter, or a job, or health care, cannot be held by all people, because procuring positive rights for some requires taking property from all, resulting in a scarcity of the objective of the right. To use the example in the news, if everyone has a "right" to health care, then everyone's property must be confiscated to the extent necessary to provide the health care--thereby lessening the available property to be used to procure other "rights," such as food or shelter or schools. The inevitable result is that the "right" only becomes available to some--those who can obtain the provision before it runs out, or those who can manipulate the providers to provide it to the manipulators first. Eventually, if the system is allowed to continue, the right becomes available to none--of course it's never allowed to continue that long, there is an overthrow of the system and a replacement with a new system.
The purpose of government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to secure negative rights--the document doesn't make the distinction, because in the late 1700s no one was arguing for positive rights. What the Founders intended was a government that secured negative rights, populated by leaders and followers of mutual integrity--and history dictates that the only effective perpetuator of integrity is non-belligerent religion. It is no accident that to the extent people depend less upon God for guidance, strength, grace, and favor, the more they are willing to depend upon the state, and it does not matter what form that state takes: its necessary action will be to confiscate the property of all in a fruitless attempt to provide positive "rights" to all, resulting in an inevitably destructive collapse. Depending on the amount of property available, it may not come for a long time--the Roman Empire was able to remain standing for four centuries in the West and 15 centuries in the East--but it always comes.
Hey Moses. Socialism is a manifestation of what biology calls an r-selected reproductive strategy, just as Conservatism is an intellectual manifestation of a K-selected strategy.
In biology, when resources are freely available, animals will tend to develop a specific behavioral pattern, designed to take the free resources, and turn them into offspring, while avoiding any danger which is actually unnecessary, due to the free resource availability. It is called an r-selected reproductive strategy, and it basically entails docility and aversion to competition, promiscuity, low-investment single parent rearing, early sexualization of young, and no loyalty to in-group.
The opposite of that is a K-selected reproductive strategy, which arises when resources are more scarce, and some individuals will die due to there not being enough resources to feed everyone. There, individuals become aggressive/competitive/protective, because those who aren’t don’t get food, or see their families killed off. They become very sexually selective, looking for the fittest mate possible, so their offspring will be fitter, and have a better chance at resources, and they monopolize that fit mate with monogamy, so their offspring will not have to compete with highly fit half siblings from other parents. They invest heavily in offspring with two-parent families, so offspring will have the best chance to survive, and carry genes forward. They encourage offspring to wait to mate, so when their offspring acquire a mate, they will be maximally fit, and most likely to get the fittest mate possible for a monogamous relationship. And since group competition is often involved, K-selection tends to produce intense loyalty to in-groups, to facilitate the success of one’s group, and by extension themselves.
In humans, the evidence indicates these strategies are imbued through a mix of environment and biology, and as a result, their expression is linked to the presentation of stimuli that approximate resource shortage, such as war, or economic decline, as would be measured by the misery index.
It is much easier to look at ideology from a biological perspective, than from some social science, humanistic perspective, because in the social model, it is just a mess of different beliefs that cling together for no reason. In the biological model, every facet of ideologies that we see, actually has a purpose, and is linked for a reason. They are all ways to make the organism better suited to its respective environment. There is a free Kindle book with most of the scientific substantiation at http://www.anonymousconservative.com , and a blog on the subject at http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog .
Liberals hate this idea, but they really can’t argue with it.
THE primary beneficiary of any socialist program/policy is the politicians and their bureaucrat cronies.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< GOVERNMENT CONTROL <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>A collision is guaranteed unless one side gives up their core values. Where is the flashpoint? Nobody knows,,
That only happens if they get too greedy. The younger generations would be quite content to live in a nation where they get a free smartphone every year and free Wi-Fi, cable TV, and an EBT card. They don’t care about marriage, children, homes, or any of the things that used to motivate boys to become men. They can be proud of a beater POS car just by putting a $20 fart can on the tailpipe.
They aren’t motivated by the things that we call freedom. For them, freedom is the freedom to play video games all day, to get a hook-up from a friend with benefits, and some free antibiotics.
We’ve already lost the hearts and minds of almost everyone under 35. All they need to do is give them enough free stuff to keep them hooked and wait for the Cold War generations to die off in enough numbers that they are no longer viable revolutionaries or in the work force.
Then, they can launch the full-blown Progressive dream, and all those middle age people (who are young adults today) will suddenly discover the hell that they have created for themselves.
The differences between national socialism, soviet socialism, fascism, and Obama's modern socialism are trivial - packaging, not substance. The bottom line is socialism, with absolute government power over what individuals do with their lives and over how their productivity is distributed. I prefer the freedom that comes with a small government. Slavery has never made people happy, and socialism is effectively slavery.
A lot of the bizarre philosophy of socialism becomes clear, if still bizarre, with a simple axiom.
Socialism is a parody of Judeo-Christianity, substituting mankind in the role of God.
That is, the oddest of facets of socialism suddenly make sense if you take The Bible, and replace God with mankind. Granted, it is not a clean transition.
For example, replace The Garden of Eden with The State of Nature. In the Bible, mankind is kicked out of Eden for good. But in environmentalist socialism, the goal is to return to Eden, by giving up civilization, and the knowledge of good and evil, thereby returning “to nature.”
Being a rather ignorant bunch, socialist philosophers have over and over again reached this same conclusion, with the only thing they have in common being The Bible.
Ironically, socialists see mankind, perhaps as described by Thomas Hobbes as a unified entity he called Leviathan, and because they take the place of God, they are the “ultimate good”.
And since mankind is good, the government formed by mankind is good, so the more of it, the better. It is “the brain of God”, from their point of view.
Yes, their logic is strained, convoluted, contradictory, and downright imbecilic, but they are convinced of their agenda with religious fervor, and nothing can persuade them in the slightest that any of it is in error. “Socialist infallibility”, perhaps.
They are pathetic creatures. Which does not mitigate in the slightest their cruelty and viciousness.
A country isn’t a country if it has no borders. To the extent that the country can protect its national interests and the integrity of its borders, that is an acceptable government for a free people.
Oh, and ‘terrorists’, aren’t. There are either stateless foreign combatants and traitors, or there are criminals.
Marx used the term “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which has been replaced by “socialism.” It is essentially the stepping stone between capitalism and communism. But, make no mistake, the end result is communism in Marx’s view.
>>The differences between national socialism, soviet socialism, fascism, and Obama’s modern socialism are trivial - packaging, not substance.
My point to the OP was that trying to define Obamunism is like trying to tie a string on a cloud and trying to define it in 20th century terms is a waste of time because the Progs will always be able to say, “No it isn’t THAT because of THIS.”
(.. or we keel you)
Obama and his brand of socialism in fascist.
Yeah, that’s what I say when progs deny that Obama is a socialist.
“Yeah, you’re right, he’s more of a fascist than anything.”
They hate that, because “right wingers” are fascists, not them!
That's all I'm sayin.
American conservatism is, IMHO, best defined by T. Roosevelts man in the arena speech.
OTOH socialism is best understood as the theory that the critic - in the person of the journalism monopoly, and in the person of politicians who toady to the journalism monopoly - deserves the credit, and the man who is actually in the arena deserves only to be second-guessed and despised. This results in writers and journalists such as V. Lenin and B. Mussolini arrogating to themselves the authority over the entire country on the basis of their ability to snow the masses.
- From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
- There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
I love it when they play the NAZI fascist card, I then spend the time to explain to them what NAZI stands for and how conservatives cannot be fascists.
Socialism is a rule by promise.
Darwin got it all wrong at the time.
It is practically impossible to make a human out of ape, but it is not that hard to make an ape out of human, using mass media, public indoctrination and making them addicted to free stuff.
As soon there are no critical thinking and a last for free stuff dominates the population you can see a herd of apes electing their dear leader for banana.