Father Heathen
Veteran Member
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you prefer Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom for U.S. President?
- Thread starter Patrick66
- Start date
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's also not Theocratic Iran or Nazi Germany.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
True.
Bravo!
So far, there are at least 2 of us using that old school definition.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'd say the loss of freedoms people once had.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
List 'em. Let's see these tear jerkers.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Your insensitivity is noted.
Especially in light of a Combat Marine that knows more about loss of freedoms in this country than you or me put together.
That said this is from a non partisan independent source that of course you will reject and they include their own sources.
BREAK DOWN: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost? | We Are Change
Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the overall scorecard of the government’s respect for our freedom: a failing grade.
wearechange.org
Yazata
Active Member
I don't think so.
I think that the people behind the curtain who are really calling the shots are the deep-state, the CIA, FBI, the DOJ, Pentagon and the State Department. Basically the top management levels of the various government departments who always believe that they know better than the President or Congress about how to conduct their agencies' business and about who is best qualified to lead the nation. They are the extra-Constitutional fourth branch of government, the civil service branch, who always remain in their positions of power almost impossible to fire, no matter who wins elections.
I think that they like Biden because he does as he is told and signs everything they put on his desk. The downside of Biden is that his senile dementia is becoming too obvious to hide and will be far worse by 2028, assuming that he's even alive by then.
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
Nice conspiracy theory. Too bad it's all incorrect.
If you’re wrong about this, what else are you wrong about?
All politics are socialist to some degree. Republicans just lack good ideas so embellish the socialist label as if it is 80s evil. The thing is conservatives can’t really explain what is bad about what democrats are working for. Look at the many republicans who bragged about projects jn their districts from money allotted from the infrastructure bill that they voted against. Hypocrites.
The disturbing thing is how conservatives think they are entitled to leadership. They don’t debate democrats over ideas. They call democrats evil are dare voters to vote for them.
Rosa Luxemburg was an anti-authoritarian socialist who dedicated her life to that type of socialism. I certainly wouldn't say she was "misusing" the label just because she wasn't a supporter of Marxist-Leninist authoritarianism.
Rosa Luxemburg - Wikipedia
And of course, there's this:
Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia
I would agree with parts of the above as general elements of socialism, with the caveat that there's a lot of variation among different socialist schools of thought on the extent of public ownership and the methods to achieve it. For example, many socialists outright reject a centralized government, such as libertarian socialists and socialist anarchists.
Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots (e.g., Stalinism and Maoism) tend to be associated the most with the term "socialism," which I think makes sense considering that they were the dominant varieties throughout the 20th century. Many advocates of other types of socialism faced either persecution or purges at the hands of Marxists-Leninists, Stalinists, etc.
To not support of authoritarianism per se
doesn't negate the 100% correlation between
socialist (ie, no capitalism) countries &
authoritarian government.
Defined systems have emergent properties.
that won't go away just because one claims
the system won't have those properties.
From your link...Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.
1) Rejecting ownership of private property isn't
socialism. It's...
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
2) Rejecting both private & state ownership of property
is an interesting idea. It seems hypothetical proposal
that wouldn't occur in nature. Have you ever seen it
tried & work?
3) To prevent people from running & owning their
own business would require some strong measures.
Would this by having a legal structure to make it
illegal under threat of punishment? Vigilantism?
Or what other form of coercion?
The existence of a belief system like libertarian
socialism is much like Christian nationalism &
Islamic theocracy, ie, they both propose that
countries & the populace conduct all affairs
according to such beliefs. But this doesn't mean
they'll work...even if they do have luminaries
advocate for them, & voluminous entries in
Wikipedia.
I look at the real world to see how various
systems play out. IMO, democracy + capitalism
+ social services + some useful regulation
is optimum. Socialism is the pits.
(My apologies to pits.)
From your link...
Social anarchism, also known as left-wing anarchism or socialist anarchism, is the branch of anarchism that sees liberty and social equality as interrelated.
Anarchism - Wikipedia
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including governments,[1] nation states,[2] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations.
This makes no sense.
How can they advocate "voluntary free associations",
yet prohibit people from freely conducting business
with each other, eg, selling to customers, paying
workers?
What mechanism would prevent people from
engaging in capitalism, war, or criminal behavior?
You regularly tout the merits of a multitude of
different flavors of socialism. Yet I don't recall
you exploring the various ways to practice
capitalism to find something you like.
Looking around the globe, what countries
offer results you like most?
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's true as well.
Obviously at present this country has socialist aspects , most obvious clear example would be the Post Office completely run and controlled by the government.
The issue is harm. Like turning things that are completely legal today into something illegal tomorrow, which to me is more often than not, a proverbial nail into the coffin of freedom. Weither it's miniscule or huge, a nail is a nail and compulsary legislation is a key driver.
It should be about winning hearts and minds, not forcefully cramming things down ones throat that dosent meet a particular ideology.
If elective legislation were employed more often I don't think things would be as bad as they are now.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I agree, however there is legislation that may need to be crammed into one's throat when it impacts the general welfare.
To not support of authoritarianism per se
doesn't negate the 100% correlation between
socialist (ie, no capitalism) countries &
authoritarian government.
Defined systems have emergent properties.
that won't go away just because one claims
the system won't have them..
From your link...
Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.
1) Rejecting ownership of private property isn't
socialism. It's...
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.dictionary.com
2) Rejecting both private & state ownership of property
is an interesting idea. It seems hypothetical proposal
that wouldn't occur in nature. Have you ever seen it
tried & work?
3) To prevent people from running & owning their
own business would require some strong measures.
Would this by having a legal structure to make it
illegal under threat of punishment? Vigilantism?
Or what other form of coercion?
The existence of a belief system like libertarian
socialism is much like Christian nationalism,
Islamic theocracy, ie, they both propose that
countries & the populace conduct all affairs
according to such beliefs. But this doesn't mean
they'll work...even if they do have luminaries
advocate for them, & voluminous entries in
Wikipedia.
I look at the real world to see how various
systems play out. IMO, democracy + capitalism
+ social services + some useful regulation
is optimum. Socialism is the pits.
(My apologies to pits.)
From your link...
Social anarchism, also known as left-wing anarchism or socialist anarchism, is the branch of anarchism that sees liberty and social equality as interrelated.
From that link...Anarchism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including governments,[1] nation states,[2] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations.
This makes no sense.
How can they advocate "voluntary free associations",
yet prohibit people from freely conducting business
with each other, eg, selling to customers, paying
workers?
What mechanism would prevent people from
engaging in capitalism, war, or criminal behavior?
I can answer all of these questions when I get back on a PC, but are you asking them to challenge those varieties of socialism or just to understand their underpinning reasoning more?
I'll get back to this when I can type without the tedious limitations of a phone.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Like I essentially said only when it dosent meet the ideology, it's then forced.
Half a country isn't , nor shouldn't be the bar to take forceful measures over. Maybe 75 % I can see such action happen , but certainly not 50% ish.
Last edited:
I saw problems with some claims.
I thought you could explain how to get around them.
I understand. No hurry.
I hate posting from a phone.