Socialism Doesn't Work?

Or they get shouted down as soft on crime, or asked, if they have anything to fear, with the implicit statement that they must be doing something wrong themselves.

 

I did not accuse the Gov't of monopolism directly.

Socialism is not "black and white" ... it is a continuum from communism on one extreme to taxation for roads and the military on the other.

ANY form of wealth redistribution (including via taxation) is "Socialism".

I would agree with you that extreme Socialism (communism) was often pretty dismal (in some ways it was not however). The term "failed" is meaningless without clarification.

And 2) your generalization is way to broad.

 

Pardon me.

You are both talking past each other.

Both understand the words, but come from a completely different view point.

At the risk of putting words in your mouths, one side takes the view that taxation is itself redistributionistic theft, while the other side believes that taxes are an intrinsically good means to providing the necessary services, if any, a government must, or should, provide.

 

The idea that no conspiracies exist is nonsensical to begin with - which is essentially what someone is doing when they try to demonize using that term. It is also logical fallacy if not backed up with any rational that supports that claim.

In general however it is not really a "conspiracy" so much as it is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

This is a normal cycle in history. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer until something snaps and wealth is redistributed.

That the rich (or Kings and Pharaoh's) try to keep the raging masses at bay for as long as possible is not new either.

The methods of social control however, have gotten very sophisticated - and are getting very Orwellian.

This nation was founded as a function of revolution as described above. The Brits were imposing draconian taxes and regulations on the people.

One of the main principles this nation was founded on was respect for individual rights and freedoms such that they were put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The call of the revolution " give me liberty or give me death".

Ben Franklin "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".

Today we have cowards running into the closet begging to give up their rights and freedoms to purchase a little security.

When the President introduces a bill that makes it your "Patriotic Duty" to give up individual rights and freedoms - The canary in the coal mine of liberation is already dead. (The Patriot Act).

Then Obama comes along (Harvard Trained constitutional specialist and civil liberties fighter) and changes the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak - Freedom Act.

Continuing with the History lesson. This is nothing knew. The game of getting the public to trade liberty for security is as old as old can be. The founders knew this trick well which is why they put individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The power of Gov't was to be very limited. Protection of people from direct harm (Murder, Rape, Theft) and so on.

Stalin used fear of a foreign threat to usher in "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler used fear of a foreign threat to usher in "Fatherland Security"
Bush used fear of a foreign threat to usher in "Homeland Security"

This is just the same old cycle repeating itself. Now we have Trump and what is he stressing most ? "Security" and under Trump the further eroding of individual liberty is continuing.

 

Not really. The one side is having trouble figuring out that wealth redistribution (via taxation) is Socialism.

 

Never the less Socialism must have a powerful government.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. A nation can be taxed without engaging in Socialism or any other form of Collectivism.

That's because it is dismal. Unneccessary, too.

Failed means it doesn't work work a darn. And especially when thinking people are involved.

 

The United States of America was founded on the basis of diffusion of state’s power, curtailing the power’s potential for injustice. The dazzling success of the system has made the concepts of democracy and capitalism popular around the world. The existing form of capitalism worked very well for a while, because then, wealth making power could not converge easily into a few hands. Industrialization has changed that. Now a few rich have undesirably high power to manipulate wealth distribution and politics, and to influence social values. Unrestricted capitalism favors the rich. It is easier to make money with money than by working. Extreme greed for wealth and the power of highly concentrated wealth has a degrading effect, the same as that of the power of state, on community.


Man is a social animal. In a community, attitudes of the perceived leaders set trends, and the followers reinforce each other’s thinking accordingly, creating euphoria over time. This is how ordinary people gear up for heroic efforts in times of community crisis, like wars. Now big money makers have become roll-models, and have too high an influence on community’s thinking. As a result, now ruthless greed generated by reckless enterprise has become popular world over. Too many of them heedlessly fall in the spider web of our luring credit industry, sinking deeper in misery. And seeking and pursuing quick money-making schemes makes one abhor hard work. Being valuable to society by honest work has gone out of fashion. The rich and the ones craving to become rich have disdain for honest work, while the poor/nearly poor have lost their pride of performance. The resulting loss of emotional fulfillment leads individuals to flagrant ways of pleasure.


Simply defined, morality is: ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’. The existing degenerate environment of greed forces new entrepreneurs to compromise their moral convictions and adopt cunning ways. This craving for quick gratification is evident in mature and growing economies all over the world. Look at how processed food is made unhealthy with harmful preservatives and cheap ingredients, the quality of food in chain restaurants has degraded over the years, farm produce is made unhealthy by high-breeding, and the quality of dairy products by rampant use of hormones and antibiotics.



The U.S. seems to be leading the way. This makes the nation fat and unhealthy, requiring more medical attention. On the other side, medical drugs/treatments are marketed at exorbitant prices, and once they are in circulation, our medical drug industry shows instances of suppressing and discouraging immerging cheaper/better remedies, and of suppressing discoveries of dangerous side effects. The common man is getting squeezed from every side. Our automobile industry ignored, or bought and shelved technical innovations, to avoid prerequisite expensive modifications to production processes, loosing against foreign completion in the end.



A revolution almost always has wide spread economic hardship at its base. Too much wealth in the hands of a few robs democracy of its effectiveness. The present worldwide wave of expression of dissatisfaction for the existing political establishments is only the beginning. Man’s pursuit of happiness is ever existing formidable force. Only the means and methods keep evolving. This force initiates new currents in accordance with the perceived changes in the reality. Each new generation brings forth clearer perspective of the prevailing reality. The majority of the world population feeling safer than before has shifted its focus to achieving comfort. The biggest obstacle to comfortable living, the common man sees now, is the unjust distribution of wealth. As a result the demand for more profound socialism is forming in the mind of the world masses. Often, at the beginning, revolting masses are acutely aware of their pain but not clear about remedy. We are in the early phase of Karl Marx’s ‘Class War’. Unless the real underlying decease is addressed, treating the symptoms only with political adjustments will not mollify the masses. It seems like the next lesson on humanity’s curriculum is that, ‘unchecked commercial greed is detrimental to community’s happiness’.


What we need is a way to defuse the power of money on economic decision-making, releasing the economic factors from the narrow channels of money flow that keep enriching the economically high and mighty. This needs to be effected without blocking individual’s ability to acquire wealth, which motivates economic production. It is best to achieve this economic power diffusion with least interference from other entities, like continued manipulation by government.



This can be achieved by limiting the number of persons any business can employ. In conjunction with this there has to be a limit to how much interest an individual can own in how many businesses.

 

Look .. if you do not understand that wealth redistribution through taxation is socialism then you need to go figure out what socialism is.

 

Please forgive me, I think the concept does not mean what you think it means. As you are using it, does it not cover all governments at least as far back as the Akkadians, and Old Kingdom of Egypt? That is over four thousand, maybe closer to five thousand years ago. Heck, let's throw in the city of Uruk, which is older!

That is just absurd. If you called them Socialist, you would fail your paper in college.

All Western, and I would guess all Eastern, civilizations use taxes to fund the government especially its military. And I like having the police around especially when they are not corrupt.

Personally, I think Anarchists are daydreaming as are hardcore Libertarians. The ideas look great on paper, but in the world we humans live in, not so much. It devolves into the theory cannot fail, it can only be failed. That is the reason l'm a Socialist and not a Communist, especially of a hard core Marxist variety. Maybe someday our technology will improve, and the social environment change, enough to allow such systems as Libertarianism, Anarchism, or Communism. But not in our lifetimes I think.

According to my handy dandy paper Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Any of various social systems based on shared or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
​

I believe that the definition of socialism as "that wealth redistribution through taxation is socialism" might be, in some way correct (although as an actual Socialist I would disagree) it is incorrectly being used to cover all funding of all functions of government.

 

No.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.

Redistribution through taxation can lead to the collective ownership of the means of production but does not automatically lead to collective ownership.

 

Anyway, Socialism is not defined by the sum of a full number of "ticks" on a list, as Americans seem to think ..... nor is Democracy for that matter. Some elements of governing may be Socialist while others not. And for God's sake(!) self-proclamation is almost always misleading. Many nations calling themselves 'Democratic' have such a minimum element of democracy that it is a joke to call it that. And then we have Stalin calling his government 'anti-Fascist'!

 

Nope. No need to redistribute wealth in a socialist economy.

 

That's what they do in a Capitalist economy like ours Einstein. In a socialist economy it wouldn't be necessary.

 

Notice how you never even addressed my point. That China is more socialist than Norway. Sooooo not sure what it is you "do not see". In China the state owns a MUCH larger portion of the means of production than they do in Norway.

 

Profits from the state owned and controlled means of production of course.

The state

from the state owned and controlled means of production

Taxation of the capitalist economy where the means of production are privately owned.

 

Yes, I have repeatedly said, the desires of men have never changed. Nor will they. Only technology changes, and specifically to enhance those desires of men. "POWER"

I really thought Trump might actual be a president for the people. But as time goes on, I could most certainly be wrong. It's hard to imagine the powers that be of this world, would allow someone power, that they did not want having such power. This entire debacle of intelligence agencies, and corruption, fake news, flat earth, could very well be a script. And everyone is playing their parts. All for one massive delusion, to usher in a one world dictator. Hard to imagine, but I wouldn't look past it.

 

Aside from China being a corrupt capitalist oligarchy that is devolving into autocractic rule that gives very limited government assistance of any kind while giving most of the wealth, and power, to the very elite, against Norway's actual functioning honest democracy with a uncorrupt, functioning free market capitalist system that along with the high taxes gives extensive supports to its people, I guess one could say China is socialist.

Restated, if China is socialist, so was the United States during the Gilded Age as that is how China's is run. Except even thing we still had a somewhat functioning democracy which meant that the American Federal government although just as corrupt as China is now, had less absolute power over the economy.

 

No, in our economy most of the wealth is going from the poor to the rich, and has been since the 1970s. We call our system free market capitalism, but really it is more. and more, of a variety of kleptocracy.

 

You are on hard road. We Americans have been brainwashed into Evil = Marxism = Communism = Socialism = social democracy = Liberalism such that single payer healthcare is Stalinist. One can make a case for, or against it, but it's Evil dontcha know?

For that matter, that democracy, free markets and capitalism, are all synonymous.

 

Don't blame me for your ignorance. Have you ever taken a political science class ?

If not then go do a little research - even wiki would do or .. just use your brain. There are numerous nations that are termed "socialist" such as Sweden, Canada, Norway, Finland and so on ... none of these nations own all the means of production.

Owning all resources and means of production would be an extreme form of socialism (communism). Taxation/regulation and then redistribution into various programs by the Gov't is another form.

In general any form of wealth redistribution that is not charity - is socialism.

 

That means corporations are socialist, since they are collectively owned.

 

I hope you're not suggesting there are no socio-economic classes in a socialist economy, because that would be just plain wrong.

 

LOOK - The whole purpose of "Socialism = Gov't owning or regulating (via taxation) resources and means of production" is to redistribute wealth among the collective.

Please explain to me how taxation - when put back in the community is some way shape or form - is not redistribution of wealth among the collective.

And try and find something other than a dictionary for a proper definition as they often give the most basic and simplistic definition.

 

Socialism can mean full ownership but it can also mean partial ownership of resources and means of production. When the wealth gained from this ownership is redistributed among the collective - that is socialism.

This is what is taught in Political Science.

 

Rather than a one world dictator it is more like a few spheres of influence. The biggest is US/NATO and allies.

China/India-Asia is another

Russia/Iran/Syria/Serbia and some of the former republics is another.

It is like the three spheres of influence in Orwell's book 1984.

Trump is still new but, the early signs are not good. He is looking elitist. He will continue the increase in Gov't/Police power while trampling on individual rights and freedoms - exactly the same way as those who came before.

This is one of the primary agendas of the Establishment.
The other agenda is to continue to bolster the Oligopolies and kill the free market economy through regulations and tax law (and lack of enforcing anti competition law) towards a system of indentured slavery.

Trump will forward this agenda as well.