We need to define what socialism is, first.
It is a term that was ideated in Europe, and I don't think non-Europeans gave a different connotation to it.
-
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!
How Socialist...
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
We need to define what socialism is, first.
It is a term that was ideated in Europe, and I don't think non-Europeans gave a different connotation to it.
As a right wing, totalitarian state, it can get things done quickly and with little red tape. -- but also with very little input from the people, as would be the case in a more socialist democracy.
We need to define what socialism is, first.
It is a term that was ideated in Europe, and I don't think non-Europeans gave a different connotation to it.
I might humbly ask you don't divide the world into 'Europeans' and 'non-Europeans'.
Nevertheless, the arguments in (particularly) American politics around concepts like 'socialised medicine' aren't socialist in the sense of ownership of production. We do get a little tied up with Marxism or Leninism/Stalinism when throwing around terms like 'socialism'. I mean, Proudhon would argue against both law and government, yet we still talk about 'socialist governments' as if that's coherent.
Good luck defining socialism in any concise way, I guess I'm saying.
Last edited:
L'International -- refrain
C'est la lutte finale groupons-nous, et demain
Internationale sera le genre humain
"So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race."
I might humbly ask you don't divide the world into 'Europeans' and 'non-Europeans'.
Nevertheless, the arguments in (particularly) American politics around concepts like 'socialised medicine' aren't socialist in the sense of ownership of production. We do get a little tied up with Marxism or Leninism/Stalinism when throwing around terms like 'socialism'. I mean, Proudhon would argue against both law and government, yet we still talk about 'socialist governments' as if that's coherent.
Good luck defining socialism in any concise way, I guess I'm saying.
If you ask me, what Socialism is, I would answer: Art 18 (Labor basic law).
That is, the article that forbids employers from laying off employees without just cause.
Example: if the employer wants to get to profit maximization of his firm, by firing people, that is not a just cause. And the employer will be condemned to compensate the employee (worth up to 24 months of salary).
This is the basic principle of socialism, in my humble opinion.
Profit maximization at cost of people's unemployment is not tolerated, for it is uncostitutional.
Last edited:
If you ask me, what Socialism is, I would answer: Art 18 (Labor basic law).
That is, the article that forbids employers from laying off employees without just cause.
Example: if the employer wants to get to profit maximization of his firm, by firing people, that is not a just cause. And the employer will be condemned to compensate the employee (worth up to 24 months of salary).
This is the basic principle of socialism, in my humble opinion.
Profit maximization at cost of people's unemployment is not tolerated, for it is uncostitutional.
Both Bakunin and Proudhon would argue that it's the very notion of 'employer' that is contrary to socialism though.
Too much power to give government.Dearest, I do not understand why these three are not considered suitable. Care to explain?
It's like we share on neuron!
When I say the word State (capitalized) I do not mean the administrative apparatus of a country, the public law entities etc...
The State is us. All of us.
When I say "the State must control the economy", I mean that all of us do. All of us control one another.
Liberism (Adam Smith's vision) is the freedom the rich have to exploit the poor.
I have an atheist vision of economics, unlike Smith.
God does not exist. So there is no invisible hand. There is no godly providence.
There are people. Who can replace God and create the common good.
The mechanism by which "All of us" run things is government.
I prefer more individual independence from the whims of the masses.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
noun
1 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.
noun
1 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.
To me the mass is a sacred concept.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
Which does not mean that God exists, but that the voice of the People is the only thing I believe in.
Which is worth believing. The common good.
That's pretty much how it's been since at least the 1980s. Reagan and his followers tended to favor something more akin to anarcho-capitalism or a kind of "Mafia economics."
This line from the movie Goodfellas represents (in my view) the typical mindset of capitalists these days:
For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked ****ty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean, they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something, we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.
A lot of people have this mindset. Not necessarily literally organized crime, as in the movie, but the same basic Darwinian mentality that "only the strong shall survive." (Or as Heinrich Von Treitschke put it "the weak and cowardly perish, and perish justly.") That puts capitalists in the same ideological ballpark as nationalists, which is why I don't idolize or praise the capitalist system as many Americans do. I don't believe in the capitalist system because I see it as morally bankrupt and self-destructive. It's a system based on social Darwinism, just as nationalism is, and just as it has done historically, capitalism will tend to lead to and justify nationalism. The two World Wars are proof of this.
Of course, many capitalists might argue that today's capitalism is different, since it seems more benign and restrained by laws and regulations. Most people nowadays seem to agree that the bad old days of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism (which included sweatshops, slavery, genocide, and other atrocities) would not be the kind of capitalism we want today.
Liberals and moderate Democrats/Republicans seem to favor a kind of "woke" capitalism, which still favors free market economics while demanding regulation and oversight by government to ensure that there is a level playing field for all. They ostensibly view life as some kind of parlor game, like Monopoly, believing that everyone should follow the rules and all be good sports about it. If some people end up wealthier than others, it's only because the wealthier worked harder or had better skills or were genetically superior - something along those lines.
However, along the same lines, liberal capitalists tend to advocate for social programs, aid to the poor, UBI, nationalized healthcare, and other things often deemed "socialist" by their more conservative cousins. Although, ever since the Reagan era, liberals have had to deal with much more greedy, mobbed-up, amoral, nihilistic elements in politics and business, who have been more reckless and throwing caution to the four winds. The liberals have mostly given in to the conservatives on foreign policy and fiscal issues, while doubling down on social issues and identity politics as their bread-and-butter. This has been churning for the past few decades now, leading us to where we are now, in terms of our current political landscape and overall popular culture.
As for Ayn Rand, I can't say I'm a fan, although I've stumbled across those who seem to be really devoted Ayn Rand fanatics, almost to the point where they seem like some kind of cult. I'm not sure what the fascination is, as there are quite a few ardent capitalists who aren't fans of Ayn Rand and don't really like her that much. But I have noticed that capitalists tend to argue very passionately in favor of capitalism over socialism.
Another aspect of this is that, throughout the Cold War and beyond, capitalism has become closely connected to and associated with Americanism and patriotism. In this way, anyone who is seen as against capitalism is viewed as some sort of "foreign agent" or "enemy." So, there's always been this "McCarthyesque" element which tends to foul the debate.
How that voice is distributed matters.To me the mass is a sacred concept.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
Which does not mean that God exists, but that the voice of the People is the only thing I believe in.
Which is worth believing. The common good.
I prefer that it be distributed rather than centralized.
Up to high-school / vocational high-school
No such thing as "free". Combination gov./private
No. hunger can be a great incentive. We have people who work with the homeless and absolutely don't want work.
hybrid. We know of people who are needy but don't want to change. Homeless people who actually don't want to work or have a home
definitely not.
not unless we want people on the street with brooms.
hybrid
definitely not.
It's funny that you mention Monopoly, since I honestly believe there are some people out there who actually view it that way. Or maybe more like a game of poker.
Part of the problem in the U.S. is more of a political one, since there's a division of power and responsibilities among the Federal and the individual state and local governments which also impact upon the economic system and perceptions of capitalism.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
How Socialist are you willing to go?
Free education - Yes
Free healthcare - Yes
UBI - Dont know the meaning
Free housing for the needy - Yes
Open borders - No
Guaranteed employment - Yes
Government owned utilities - Some
Government control of corporations - No
What changes would need to be implemented to make you happy with how government is being run? - Quicker and tougher punishment for those who act against people.
Free education - Yes
Free healthcare - Yes
UBI - Dont know the meaning
Free housing for the needy - Yes
Open borders - No
Guaranteed employment - Yes
Government owned utilities - Some
Government control of corporations - No
What changes would need to be implemented to make you happy with how government is being run? - Quicker and tougher punishment for those who act against people.
Go back far enough, the founding fathers of anarchism were socialists.
They are playing. It is a game. The problem is that they play with real money.
Those things are mutually exclusive.
Socialism can only exist when it's imposed upon
everyone in a country. But anarchy is about the
lack of control.