Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

I live in a nation with both nationalised free healthcare, and nationalised free education. We've had both for decades. And you're absolutely right, plenty of people still refuse to do for themselves. But that's exactly why I love the system .. it allows me to see who is choosing to remain poor. Since the tools to escape poverty are readily available to all, only those who really don't want what is being offered, will refuse to utilise them. In which case, there is absolutely no need for myself, or any charity, or even govt, to waste a single second or dollar worrying about them or 'helping' them. Doing so would be an imposition, and contrary to the idea of freedom of choice.

 

Extremes on both ends have no where to go.

 

I'm certainly willing to see you and your local government solve those problems for your local community, but I think your method is doomed to fail, so I pass on being part of your experiment.

 

The only people who want socialism are either:

1. Not old enough to vote anyway
2. Have never held a job
3. Have never wanted to hold a job
4. Think they'll be one of the ruling class

 

I know, the Democrats 2020 slogan can be:

America, Let's Take a Great Leap Forward

 

Two types of people want socialism. One is the B'crats that want to run everything, and two are the drones that think they will get free schidt.

 

Nonsense. You're making up definitions again.

 

The 'worst' Marxist/Socialist/Commie I know, is a 22 year old college drop out only child from an upper middle class hipster family, who still doesn't have a proper job.

 

The list never fails.

 

They're quasi-adult spoiled brats, often from dysfunctional homes (even when the parents remain married), usually white, and almost always from the middle or above classes. They are an ugly and disturbing symptom of excess. Grotesque in any light, but especially when viewed from any position outside of their ridiculous Ivory Towers.

They're like insane little kings, who've never been outside the castle walls. No perspective whatsoever.

 

That is a good point, Kode. However, for some odd reason I remembered this conservation (it's been a whole week). And I agree with you because you can't separate economics from Life. However, one can made a distinction in thought, but not in fact. For example, the categories of "color," and "extension" are two different concepts, but they in fact cannot be separated. Every material body must have some shape, or dimension, and every shape must have some color. We can separate the two in thought, but not in fact.

And that is another reason talking about big categories like "socialism," "capitalism," and "communism" can be very tricky.

 

The problem is in how people define socialism. Few want strict socialism - where Gov't owns all resources and means of production.

Almost everyone wants wealth redistribution - which is a socialist policy. The problem is in limiting this wealth redistribution .. as all Gov'ts are wont to increase taxes over time so they can grow bigger and spend more.

 

An accumulation of social programs do not become socialism. The essence of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. A government for that kind of economy would also have social programs. But social programs don't make a society "socialist". Only worker control of the means of production does that.

 

Yeah, those are "leftover hangers-on". That has been tried several times and most have failed, and the rest never led to socialism yet.

The question is who is capable of influencing and limiting that. And the answer is "the people". Governments fear most a population that is very aware of their political power and willing to use it.

 

LOOK - I stated already that Socialism is state ownership of all resources and means of production.

The claim that "wealth redistribution" is not a socialist policy is semantic mindlessness. Taxation on things like property or someone's business - BY DEFINITION - is partial state ownership.

Nowhere do I state that accumulation of social programs becomes socialism.

The idea that wealth redistribution is not part of socialism is a patent falsehood. FULL STOP.

 

Agreed ... this is why Gov'ts over time move to increase Gov't power and decrease the power of the people. One of the main things the Establishment does in this nation ( The establishment includes international financiers in addition to political and bureaucratic elite - what I call the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster) is to control and influence the media.

Without a fair and free media there is no such thing as a functional democratic process (as you suggest - the awareness factor).

The other way awareness of political power is limited is through education - or lack thereof in this case. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach a kid the basic principles on which this nation was founded - Individual liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't, that authority comes from "consent of the Governed" and what this means, and what the legitimate power of Gov't is supposed to be limited to and why "Legitimacy of Authority".

 

You "sound" frustrated. Understand that I'm catching a lot of flak from many posters for my viewpoint. If I re-stated something in a post to you that seems to assert that you said something that you didn't state, i'm sorry. But that is why I try to simply state things without a direct "accusation" unless what I'm responding to is in the post I'm quoting and I think it's deserved. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I said that you defined socialism wrong. However, I do see how you would get that from my earlier reply to you since it was mostly a commentary on the "correct" definition of socialism. My bad.

I'd prefer to identify it as a "social policy" in order to be clear about the distinction of socialism.

That is an interesting formulation. The state claims a right to tax real estate and I assume it is that which causes you to refer to it as "partial state ownership". But then what about income? Shouldn't we then say that personal income is "partially owned by the state" as well since the state asserts a right to tax it, and take more as a penalty if we don't pay that tax? Or maybe you base your fiew of "partial state ownership" on something else.

You're right. You didn't.

Let's be clear. Wealth redistribution would certainly be part of socialism, yet wealth redistribution like what we saw under FDR did not create socialism. I think you agree with this.

 

"Wealth redistribution". Does that mean taking people's property?

 

I figured we were not that far off - which is why I was surprised by previous post. Most of your post confirms that we are mostly in agreement.

If I have to pay monthly rent on a piece of property where my house is located - do I own that property or am I renting it.

I use property because the right to ownership of private property is so critical from a historical perspective ... from feudalism through communism.

What happens if I fail to pay the property tax ? Does the state not take my property ?

I would claim that this is partial ownership of private property ... the portion that I do not own .. is owned by the state = socialism ... not full socialism .. but partial socialism

Regardless - why I made the distinction in my earlier post is because when ave Joe refers to socialism he is referring to wealth redistribution.

The reason this is important is because the person crying out against wealth redistribution (calling it socialism) is usually Republican. The problem with this is that the Republican Establishment loves wealth redistribution, big Gov't and big Gov't spending even more than Liberals. .. and that .. is a demonstrable fact.

 

Is income tax mean taking people's property? If you say "yes", then that's what wealth distribution means too.

 

I'd say "not ultimately as millions found in the last 9 years."

Yup.

There is so much confusion on these things because the pro-capitalist government and their culture has hammered on us with propaganda for so long. And therefore to solve our national problems, it is first necessary to end the confusion with precise, specific explanations and comments. Hence, I want to say again that since ownership of property by the state does not meet the basic, essential necessity of socialism, which is worker-ownership of the means of production. This means that if the working class does not actually own and operate the means of production, it isn't socialism. Mussolini's economy was most certainly not socialism, yet they taxed real estate.

And that is an example of the need I just cited.

Yup. True.

 

So it means taking people's property.

 

Yup, just like all governments do.

 

Right. So that makes it right. Can I roll my eyes any harder?

 

The only think I would quibble with in your post is idea that unless workers own the resources and means of production it is not socialism. Socialism - by definition- is state owned means of production/resources.

The idea is that the State is the representation of the workers but, was we all know, the workers always get the shaft in reality.

It always ends up at the same place - a few elite owning/controlling most resources and means of production. .. and I challenge anyone to come up with a system that tried what was claimed to be socialism without it going down this path.

Extreme capitalism ends up at the same place - albeit from a different path - a few elite owning most resources and means of production and the rest in some form of indentured servitude. This is what the "Pro Capitalist" lobby loves to ignore.

The US system has managed to mix some of the worst elements of both into what I call an Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster.

The Gov't - while claiming to act on behalf of the people - "social policy" - uses taxes from the worker to bolster the Oligopolies.