Thread: What is your definition of socialism?

What is your definition of socialism?



Barack Obama

Originally Posted by stekim

Wouldn't it be easier to just use the actual definition? Having everyone make up their own seems silly.

Well there seems to be three categorial definitions of socialism:
Academic: socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. (this is the most neutral)
Idealist: socialism is whatever you want it to mean (e.g. government influence, regulation, totalitarianism, nationalised healthcare, taxation)
Materialist: socialism is associated labour and collective ownership of he means of production.

(I included all in the poll).

The first socialists, like Robert Owen, advocated cooperatives, i.e. associated labour. All subsequent socialists advocated or described it as associated labour, from Proudhon to Karl Marx, from GDH Cole to Karl Kautsky, from Kropotkin to... well you get it. So that would be the "actual definition."

Originally Posted by 4Horsemen

What is your definition of socialism?

Barack Obama

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by Californian

Socialism is an economic policy, not a form of government. Anything from a dictatorship to a democracy can be socialist which simply indicates government control over the economy. Nearly all governments in the world are socialist to one degree or another, even the US. Of course Democrats push for stronger socialist policies, Republicans also favor socialism mainly through subsidies and tax breaks.

So don't kid yourself Republicans, you are socialists, albeit a diet/lite version.

All governments on earth are simply the central committee of the local boss class, the capitalists, monopoly or state.

Workers control over production, Market Socialism.

Originally Posted by Tim Cornelis

Are you serious?

Sadly, yes. He is.

A college economics professor reported he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class insisted socialism works, and if implemented, no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor agreed to an experiment in this class where the principals of socialism were applied to the students intellectual work products. All grades would be averaged, and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would have to fail, but no one would be able to receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little before, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied far less. The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the 3rd test was graded, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased, but bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would agree to study for the benefit of anyone or everyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor explained to them that socialism would also ultimately fail for exactly the same reason, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, however, when someone (government) takes the reward away, no one will try or care enough to strive to succeed.


* You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

* What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

* The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

* You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

* When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

http://www.soars.info/?page=socialism_defined

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

A college economics professor reported he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class insisted socialism works, and if implemented, no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor agreed to an experiment in this class where the principals of socialism were applied to the students intellectual work products. All grades would be averaged, and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would have to fail, but no one would be able to receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little before, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied far less. The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the 3rd test was graded, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased, but bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would agree to study for the benefit of anyone or everyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor explained to them that socialism would also ultimately fail for exactly the same reason, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, however, when someone (government) takes the reward away, no one will try or care enough to strive to succeed.


* You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

* What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

* The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

* You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

* When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

http://www.soars.info/?page=socialism_defined

That professor should be fired for believing a strawman is a legitimate argument. Seriously, I know of no socialist who advocates that.

Let me subject you to an academic rule: SOURCES. I've read plenty of socialist literature: GDH Cole, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, and so forth. No one advocates this and I bet you are unable to give me one source of a socialist who advocates such a model.

If you were attending a University you would receive a 1 (or F, whatever system is used, the lowest rank for using strawmen without sorces).

Originally Posted by Tim Cornelis

That professor should be fired for believing a strawman is a legitimate argument. Seriously, I know of no socialist who advocates that.

He should be fired for proving that socialism doesn't work...interesting, demented, but interesting.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

A college economics professor reported he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class insisted socialism works, and if implemented, no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor agreed to an experiment in this class where the principals of socialism were applied to the students intellectual work products. All grades would be averaged, and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would have to fail, but no one would be able to receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little before, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied far less. The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the 3rd test was graded, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased, but bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would agree to study for the benefit of anyone or everyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor explained to them that socialism would also ultimately fail for exactly the same reason, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, however, when someone (government) takes the reward away, no one will try or care enough to strive to succeed.


* You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

* What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

* The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

* You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

* When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

http://www.soars.info/?page=socialism_defined

When you have to make stuff up to prop up your side of an argument it says more about you than anything else.

Originally Posted by CoolWalker

A college economics professor reported he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class insisted socialism works, and if implemented, no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor agreed to an experiment in this class where the principals of socialism were applied to the students intellectual work products. All grades would be averaged, and everyone would receive the same grade, so no one would have to fail, but no one would be able to receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little before, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied far less. The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the 3rd test was graded, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased, but bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would agree to study for the benefit of anyone or everyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor explained to them that socialism would also ultimately fail for exactly the same reason, because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, however, when someone (government) takes the reward away, no one will try or care enough to strive to succeed.

This hypothetical scenario first saw the light of day in the documentary "I Want Your Money".