The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

1) no it doesn't. socialism is a mode of living, it has nothing (by itself) to do with politics.

2) socialism is a path to survival. it provides 'reasonable' survival for the entirety, instead of diamond class for some and dirt class for many.

 

Follow your messages

 

This is the definition of "socialism," according to Merriam-Webster: "Any of various economic and political [emphasis added] theories advocating collective or governmental [emphasis added] ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

So you're just flat-out incorrect to say that it has nothing to do with politics.

But what is your definition of politics, anyway? Political scientist Harold Lasswell once defined politics as "who gets what, when, and how." Do you disagree with this definition? If you don't, then how is socialism not involved with politics?

How is it a path to survival?

Why did you quote "reasonable"? Does that mean it is, in fact, an unreasonable way to survive? If so, I think a lot of conservatives would agree. But most fair-minded people would say that you are being ambivalent.

 

There is this country. You might have heard of it. It's called United States of America.

We are there. They just want to keep us there.

For emphasis, I guess. How is it confusing?

 

I think that is exactly what the radicals who are taking over the democrst psrty have in mind

And when the chips are down they are counting on your support to pull it off

 

Capitalism: Receiving what you've earned.
Socialism: Receiving what others have earned.

 

I remember what I wrote. I never remember saying I didn't read a message.

So you are going to have to tell me.

 

So, this country is a "Democratic Socialist" country? How so? Are you saying that this country is a "Democratic Socialist" country and a capitalist country, too? Can you give me a definition of what democratic socialism is?

So AOC, Bernie Sanders, and others want to retain the status quo? They don't want make to this country more socialist? So the Green New Deal would not fundamentally change the political fabric of this country: it would simply retain the status quo? Making college free would be retaining the status quo? The nationalization of the healthcare industry would be retaining the status quo?

It's confusingly unorthodox. There is a reason for the rules of grammar and punctuation: it lends clarity to your writing. When I read your writing, it is very hard on the eyes.

 

Let the light shine in:

Republic
That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government.

The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.

In the U.S. historical tradition, the belief in republicanism shaped the U.S. Revolution and Constitution. Before the revolution, leaders developed many political theories to justify independence from Great Britain. Thomas Paine, in his book Common Sense (1776), called for a representative government for the colonies and for a written constitution. Paine rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to have a part in government. This attack on the king was echoed the following year in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson proposed that colonists reject the monarchy and become republican citizens. Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to create a republican government. Article IV, Section 4, states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…." Though the language was vague, the authors of the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the rise to power of either a monarchy or a hereditary aristocracy. Article I, Section 9, states, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States," and most state constitutions have similar provisions.--https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/"Republic"+in+Political+Science

My conclusion: A true republic is a form of representative government that protects the rights of man. All others are false and use the sacredness of the idea "republic" to hide behind as they loot, rape, torture, and slaughter their citizens.

That means, once-upon-a-time, America was a republic; the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was not. It was a confidence game to hide its leaders' murderous atrocities--much like Venezuela today.

 

I thought socialism was about the workers controlling the means of production and capitalism about owners controlling the means of production.

I don't know when all these other definitions started to crop up.

Its funny

Liberals: "Sweden is a perfect example of a socialist country. Look how great they are."

Conservatives "Venezuela is a perfect example of a socialist country. Look how horrible they are."

Meanwhile I don't think in either of those countries has ownership been abolished.

 

Socialism can only be enforced by force, it takes government to force and entire nation to subject to the rule of the State.
Socialism provides poverty and collapse for every country which has tried to force it down its peoples throats.

 

Only on a very superficial cartoonish level, like Animal Farm.

 

Although I think this is beyond the point of the original premise of this thread (which was, I thought, about "Democratic Socialism," as Golem would say), I would argue that North Korea is not a republic, either.

Golem, you pointed out that North Korea is not a republic by pointing to this sense of the term: "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president."

How exactly does that prove that North Korea is a republic? The leader of North Korea is a monarch. He is "one that holds" a "preeminent position or power." No one is above him. No one checks him. He is free to do what he wants, like a king. He is also part of a dynasty, since he inherited his place in government after his father died. He is a king, and not a ceremonial one, but a dictatorial one.

Golem, you also mention the fallacy of appealing to a dictionary. That fallacy, which is not accepted in the academic community, does not apply here. Yes, there are words that have many senses and subsenses, and some of their senses can contradict another, since language is always evolving, but that does not apply with the word "republic." Yes, a definition is not going to give you a full breadth of what a word means; it's not going to look at every nook and cranny, but it does set up parameters, giving you the essential meaning of the word, to give you a basic framework.

 

1) It's an economic model/mode of living, yes - shared resources. It can be employed by ANY group. a family, a religion, a farming cooperative, a commune, a business. Again, it has nothing specifically to do with politics.

2) I'll say it again. It's a mode of living. ANY group of humans (and almost all herd/pack mammals) can and do practice it. if some political parties have attempted to employ it, that says nothing at all about the nature of the thing. Some religious groups employ it also, but you don't call socialism 'religious'.

3) It's a path to survival because participating members are subject to better odds together, than they are apart. It's VERY simple. Safety in numbers, shared resources, lowered costs, mutual support.

4) "Reasonable" means modest, obviously. Instead of dirt poor or filthy rich, in such systems everyone is roughly working class. Just a little over the poverty line. By world standards, that's very reasonable.

 

Capitalism: affords the luxury of 'social programs' for the idle.
Socialism: no free lunch

 

What is your definition of politics?

 

Those blokes wasting time and money up top.

 

Politics does not necessarily have to do anything with government. According to political scientist Harold Lasswell, politics is "who gets what, when, and how." According to Merriam-Webster, politics can be "the total complex of relations between people living in society" and "relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view." An example of the latter definition would be office politics. Again, nothing to do with the government.

Given those definitions, socialism, in order for it to work, must involve politics. Read again the definition that Harold Lasswell gives. It's "who gets what, when, and how." Politics would thus be the engine for socialism to run. Without politics, no one gets anything in socialism. It has no animation.

I'll finally point you to the definition of socialism: "Any of various economic and political [emphasis added] theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Again, its both economic and political. Politics is inherent in socialism. It cannot be removed from it.

 

AGAIN ... socialism is a MODE OF LIVING. It has nothing to do with politics, other than that some political parties sometimes attempt to employ it. It has no more association with or to politics, than it does to religion, or the family. You are inadequately informed on the topic, if you are unable to detach socialism from politics (or any other single manner of 'group' which employs it).

Your second paragraph confirms your inadequate knowledge. Collective living/common purse can be two people, or a thousand. It can be the wolf pack, the pride of lions, the human family, the small business, the cooperative farm, or village sharing of resources like water. ANY time that adult humans engage in shared labour and resources, they are practising socialism.

 

You are simply unable to grasp facts.

 

Golem, do you agree with crank that socialism has nothing to do with politics?

 

Many posters show up to defend socialism. But you are beating a dead horse.

 

Another defender of socialism? spare us.

 

How do you mean?

 

if socialism isn't 'family', or 'religion', then it likewise cannot be 'politics'. it can't be intrinsically linked to any one of these, when it's SOMETIMES used by ALL THREE groups.

I don't know why you need socialism to be political .. but I do know that many self-described 'socialists' need it to be political because they think socialism is a free lunch, and therefore need govt (POLITICS) to enforce it.