Thread: What is your definition of socialism?

Originally Posted by Libhater

You have no use for capitalists? Then you have no use for life itself and for being a citizen of America where capitalism is what has made her great. If it weren't for capitalism you would probably be living in some banana republic picking crops.

The capitalists are parasites not "life itself" .
By the way i am not American citizen but Greek citizen, now consider this : Greece's debt is ~$300 billions , Greece is also 30 times smaller than USA, do the math , $300x30 = $9trillions , your debt stands at $16 trillions yes indeed you are great LOL

Originally Posted by mutmekep

The capitalists are parasites not "life itself" .
By the way i am not American citizen but Greek citizen, now consider this : Greece's debt is ~$300 billions , Greece is also 30 times smaller than USA, do the math , $300x30 = $9trillions , your debt stands at $16 trillions yes indeed you are great LOL

How can capitalists...the very people who generate business and industry, hire employees, create wealth for its people and for our government to maintain the greatest military in the world be considered a parasite? You have the gall to mention a country (Greece) who is in the throes of total insolvency to compare that hellhole to America the beautiful? Wow, methinks you need an adjustment or at least a political tune-up before proceeding any further.

Originally Posted by Libhater

How can capitalists...the very people who generate business and industry, hire employees, create wealth for its people and for our government to maintain the greatest military in the world be considered a parasite? You have the gall to mention a country (Greece) who is in the throes of total insolvency to compare that hellhole to America the beautiful? Wow, methinks you need an adjustment or at least a political tune-up before proceeding any further.

I just noted how huge your debt's greatness is even when compared to (*)(*)(*)(*)holes.

Now you say that the capitalists generate business and jobs, well you are wrong it is the working class that does , the working class creates the need for business , the opportunities and jobs or at least it uses to in real economies. Look the country i live , the working class has no money so business are closing down because none buys goods so the crucial link in the chain is the proletariat . If you remove capitalists at all and replace them with workers you will have a system where those who create commodities also consume them so the capis are obsolete and none is missing them.

If you consider fiat money of "financial products" real economy then yes the capitalists are everything but do you see where this is heading? 2008 and onwards crisis was not a crisis of the poor (working class) but a crisis that was caused and hit the capitalists more than any ; yet this was "bailed out" with working class (real economy) money . I know that it is wildly off topic but capitalism has reached it's final form which (for me , others with knowledge in the subject may disagree) is free market anarchism . Free market anarchism is a scheme where fictional economy acts like a black hole that sucks everything down to top , after the lower economic classes are depleted of any wealth it will start sucking upper ones (as it did to several big business in the US and elsewhere) until the creation of any real wealth will be simply not profitable... IMO what will happen next is socialist revolution .

Socialism is when we do for each other what we cannot do for ourselves.

Police, fire, ambulance, building roads, airports, and national defense are all socialist endeavors.

Originally Posted by dadoalex

Socialism is when we do for each other what we cannot do for ourselves.

Police, fire, ambulance, building roads, airports, and national defense are all socialist endeavors.

In other words, it does what capitalism is supposed to do but doesn't - organise the division of labour so that it makes some sense. In the long run, or course, we'll all help one another out automatically and have all we need without all this tedious greed which makes the capitalists destroy their own system sooner than loose a possible penny.

Originally Posted by Iolo

In other words, it does what capitalism is supposed to do but doesn't - organise the division of labour so that it makes some sense. In the long run, or course, we'll all help one another out automatically and have all we need without all this tedious greed which makes the capitalists destroy their own system sooner than loose a possible penny.

Actually, this is my interpretation of what Marx believed was the evolutionary path for humankind.

Capitalism offers no path for caring or compassion. All capitalists are, at heart, socialists because they want the bridges built and police departments manned so they can take advantage of the facilities and services. Much like their economic debacle of 2008 they always want to socialize the infrastructure costs and big losses while privatizing their personal gains.

Originally Posted by Iolo

In other words, it does what capitalism is supposed to do but doesn't - organise the division of labour so that it makes some sense. In the long run, or course, we'll all help one another out automatically and have all we need without all this tedious greed which makes the capitalists destroy their own system sooner than loose a possible penny.

Actually, this is my interpretation of what Marx believed was the evolutionary path for humankind.

Capitalism offers no path for caring or compassion. All capitalists are, at heart, socialists because they want the bridges built and police departments manned so they can take advantage of the facilities and services. Much like their economic debacle of 2008 they always want to socialize the infrastructure costs and big losses while privatizing their personal gains.

How about all of the above? These options are not mutually exclusive. Small "c" communists ans small "s" socialists will always tell you that they believe in an abolition of the State. Yet when they come to power, you get Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. So many on the Left will tell you that they do not propose State ownership of property/control of the means of production, but this is invariably where their philosophy leads them. However the one thing every socialist/communist/Socialist/Communist has in common is collectivization. Socialists and Communists do it through the coercive power of the State. Whereas socialists and communists claim that collectivization is the natural state of things, and is where society would go in the absence of the State. I don't know why they think this. Maybe they all have an extra chromosome... So that's my answer. All of the above essentially, if you just change "Government" to "Collective" in option 1.

Originally Posted by Tim Cornelis

What is your definition of socialism?

Forcing of utopias and killing of enslaved states.

E.g. Russia which became a mafia state or Europa which will be transformed to an union of poor caliphates.

SOCIALISM:

a shallow and stupid theory destined for failure,,,
Sooner when actual people are involved.