Question for socialists: what is socialism according to you?

Dec 2016
5,101
2,620
Canada
#41
Obam did not save GM , it could have reorganized under existing bankruptcy law. Obama stole the company, stole the pensions of thousands of the white collar workers and gave it to the union.
Correction: Obama saved GM for the CEO and board of directors, while new hires had to accept a $14.00 rate for working on the assembly lines! Anyone who's ever done this kind of work(which does not include the professional liberal class) can understand why Obama wasn't rewarded for his "saving" work in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana in 2012!
 
Dec 2012
19,430
8,313
California
#42
You are asking for opinions--not facts. Socialism is an ideology-- goals on how society should be organized and methods of the most appropriate ways to achieve that organization.

Socialism has been defined. That is a fact. It's a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The business dictionary defines socialism as An economic system in which goods and services are provided through a central system of cooperative and/or government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system.

Read more: What is socialism? definition and meaning - BusinessDictionary.com
No wonder the Liberals are not responding.
 
Feb 2007
3,324
1,685
New York
#44
I do not have a set opinion as there is no set definition. The tenets of the various forms of socialism date to Plato's Republic. Most modern-day socialism tenets started manifesting in the early 1600s at Plymouth Rock and in the late eighteenth century by François Noël Babeuf in France. Control of an industry in today's environment and intrusive laws functions as a owning means of production. The only difference being that government just a century ago did not have the capability of implementing controlling an industry via laws and enforcement. Another tenet is the government engineering equality at the expense of earned differences and for the sake of mediocracy. Single-payer follows this form of socialism. Some people do not have insurance or unimpeded access to healthcare. Some people pay up to $2000 per month for unimpeded access to the healthcare they choose or need. Single-payer would elevate the first group and demote the second group. The outcome is mediocre access to preferred healthcare. This functions like Thomas More's coined Utopia of1515, which was socialism.
I disagree with you. Regulation of an industry, even if it is intrusive' is NOT the same as the government owning the business. Even with intrusive regulations similar companies are competing with each other for customers and profit.

Engineering equality, if I remember correctly, is actually a tenet of communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism but it would be wrong to generalize this to all forms of socialism. In short, jelly beans are a type of candy but not all candy is jelly beans.

Personally I view having a populous with access to healthcare in the same light as having a populous that can read and write; there is a vested interest on the part of society and the government that this exists. How this is accomplished is up for grabs, but it isn't socialism.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#45
I disagree with you. Regulation of an industry, even if it is intrusive' is NOT the same as the government owning the business. Even with intrusive regulations similar companies are competing with each other for customers and profit.

Engineering equality, if I remember correctly, is actually a tenet of communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism but it would be wrong to generalize this to all forms of socialism. In short, jelly beans are a type of candy but not all candy is jelly beans.

Personally I view having a populous with access to healthcare in the same light as having a populous that can read and write; there is a vested interest on the part of society and the government that this exists. How this is accomplished is up for grabs, but it isn't socialism.
You are using a definitive definition of socialism and controlling the means of production; those definitive definitions do not exist.

You are relegating the United States to a unitary government regarding education; it is the opposite.
 
Feb 2007
3,324
1,685
New York
#46
You are using a definitive definition of socialism and controlling the means of production; those definitive definitions do not exist.

You are relegating the United States to a unitary government regarding education; it is the opposite.
Of course a definition exists. Claiming that it doesn't only allows one to throw anything that they don't like under that category. You and I have had some very good conversations; please don't let intellectual dishonesty ruin that.

I would have no issue with the states regulating the flow of healthcare. Having the different state marketplaces for healthcare is a good example of that. In either case, it still does not fall under the definition of socialism unless you consider the American school system as socialist.
 
Nov 2012
17,145
5,648
Michigan
#47
If GM failed, China would have bought it, and GM dealers would be selling Chinese cars, and selling lots of them, at $5000 for a new car, The Chinese would own the US auto market. And making cars in the US would be like making Conestoga wagons, something we used to do.
Well, maybe with obama negotiating trade deals for us.
 
Jul 2014
14,269
8,677
massachusetts
#48
Well, maybe with obama negotiating trade deals for us.
The president doesn't negotiate trade deals.
If there wasn't federal help to maintain GM, it would have gone bankrupt, and China would have bought it, for access to the dealer network to sell Chinese cars. Those were the options, an American owned GM or a Chinese GM.
Are you unhappy with an American Owned GM?
Would you prefer a GM that sold mostly Chinese cars?

You have to choose from what's available, if you driving down the highway and you're hungry, and the next exit has a Burger King and a Roy Rogers, you choose between the Burger King and the Roy Rogers, or you stay hungry till the next exit.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#49
Of course a definition exists. Claiming that it doesn't only allows one to throw anything that they don't like under that category. You and I have had some very good conversations; please don't let intellectual dishonesty ruin that.

I would have no issue with the states regulating the flow of healthcare. Having the different state marketplaces for healthcare is a good example of that. In either case, it still does not fall under the definition of socialism unless you consider the American school system as socialist.
Our conversations have always been good and I anticipate that they always will be.

For there to be a definitive definition of socialism, there would have to be only one form of socialism; that is not the case. Examples: Utopian Socialism, Marxism, Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. Since 1500, there have been myriad forms of socialism, which precludes a definitive definition.

The American school system is a state affair, and more specifically a local affair.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Sabcat