It seems that socialists are "pretending"
that socialism is something it isn't.
-
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!
Your Political Status
- Thread starter Exaltist Ethan
- Start date
that socialism is something it isn't.
Frankly, I think that too many Americans have "internalized" their political identity (or party affiliation) to the point that they no longer know what they stand for individually, only what their self-idenitification says that they should adhere to.
It's easier for me. I'm a Canadian, and don't belong to any party. I know where my political leanings lie -- and I know why -- but I've found it expedient to vote for multiple parties and candidates. I decide how I'm going to vote (gasp!) by listening to and reading platforms, by investigating the past activities of candidates courting my vote, and comparing all of that to my personal preferences and concerns over many issues. Nothing's perfect. No candidate, no party, will ever meet all of my needs, so the best I can do is take it election by election.
Thus, my "political status" is that of always trying to evaluate what will be best for my city, my province, my nation and my world over-all -- knowing full-well that this "best" will come only in the tiniest of increments, if it comes at all.
It's easier for me. I'm a Canadian, and don't belong to any party. I know where my political leanings lie -- and I know why -- but I've found it expedient to vote for multiple parties and candidates. I decide how I'm going to vote (gasp!) by listening to and reading platforms, by investigating the past activities of candidates courting my vote, and comparing all of that to my personal preferences and concerns over many issues. Nothing's perfect. No candidate, no party, will ever meet all of my needs, so the best I can do is take it election by election.
Thus, my "political status" is that of always trying to evaluate what will be best for my city, my province, my nation and my world over-all -- knowing full-well that this "best" will come only in the tiniest of increments, if it comes at all.
Maybe it should be relabeled communitarianism, co-opism, or anarcho-syndicalism.
Disloyal heretic! Political turncoat! Individualist!
Guilty as charged!
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I don't care if you don't believe in God, this post alone makes me respect you more than most people. This is how politics should be, but most people are too apathetic about it to do their research on their candidates to give two cents worth on who they vote for. Luckily it isn't a crime in the United States or Canada to not vote, like it is in Australia...
This apathy and lack of knowledge is rampant in society. I remember a case worker I had who wanted me to convert to Christianity, to cure my depression (I have bipolar, not depression) and when we talked about Christ she did not know that Jesus was a Jew and didn't believe me when I told her that... And she stopped being my case worker because she got promoted...
Last edited:
I rather think that many who are called "socialist" really aren't. Although I champion some policies that provide what some people call "socialist" (like universal healthcare, government pension schemes and the like), none of those speak to the ownership of means of production, and are therefore not really socialist.
I remain, in other words, a capitalist who thinks that a capitalist society can take care of its members without contradiction.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Socialism in theory: Workers control the means of production.
Socialism in practice: Society takes care of itself.
Almost all "socialists" are socialists in practice and not socialist in theory.
Socialism in practice: Society takes care of itself.
Almost all "socialists" are socialists in practice and not socialist in theory.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
I don't agree with taxpayer funded college. It just needs to be cheaper as it used to be when more of a percentage was paid by the government. I don't agree with undocumented workers getting in state tuition. I don't agree with adding more members to the Supreme Court.
How about "social capitalism"?
It's shorter than "Capitalism with a social safety net".
Wouldn't free college tuition be a lucrative investment, as it was the last time it was tried on a large scale? True, it wouldn't pay off in the next few quarters, but I think our society is too focused on immediate profit, to the detriment of long-term benefit.
What's odd: Self identified "socialists" say socialism
is schools, roads, social services, courts, & such.
Then they criticize conservatives for using socialism
as a scare-word when referring to schools, roads,
social services, courts, & such. And then, they
say capitalism must die, & cite socialism's success
in capitalist countries, eg, Denmark.
It seems they're in love with a word they don't
understand at all.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
I think if it were free, everyone would go just because it was free, whether they were serious about it or not. Maybe, maybe not. My issue is that we need to make it more affordable, like before GOP started decreasing the government's role in funding public universities.
My ex-sister in law is from the Czech Republic. College was taxpayer funded, and they made her major in Nuclear Physics instead of Nursing, like she wanted. That kind of stinks.
Sounds good to me. We could call it Revolting Economics.
All societies have both social, ie: publicly owned/run features, and private enterprises.
I'd advocate public ownership and management of The Commons -- those necessary services used by the entire population. This would enable complete transparency, in expenses and management, at wholesale cost.
Discretionary goods and services could be left to free enterprise by profit driven entrepreneurs.
Services like the electrical grid, water, sewerage and waste disposal, education, police and emergency services, the courts, food/water/air quality inspection, insurance, healthcare, and roads could be co-operatively managed.
Car repair, landscaping, plumbing, bicycle sales, pubs, office supplies &c, could be left to private enterprise. That's modern socialism.
Assigning professions/curricula? Tyranny! That's not what I had in mind.
Actually, I was thinking of the post WWII G-I Bill, in the US, offering free tuition to returning soldiers.
It returned a 700% profit (yes, you read that right), after 20 years, just in increased tax revenues (higher tax brackets). We spent money -- and made money.
I haven't seen the figures for decreased crime and health care expenses, or economic contributions, but I expect they were significant., as well.
But none of it profited anyone in the next quarter. It was a long-term investment in the public welfare, ie: socialism.
Society no longer makes long-term investments. It devises Band-Aid solutions as problems arise.
. A rose by any other name....
Heyo
Veteran Member
How about "soziale Marktwirtschaft" (social market economy)? It works reasonably, we have it practically since 1949.
PureX
Veteran Member
Ditto.
I'd say you were correct. To differentiate between democratic socialists and social democrats (I put myself loosely in the latter category), democratic socialists do seem to be committed to the systematic transformation of the economy away from capitalism and towards socialism, while social democrats, leaving most businesses in private hands, try to use capitalism to create the means of affording strong welfare programs where needed.
I am convinced that capitalism, which encourages rather than discourages entrepreneurship for private gain, is the only economic system that can truly create wealth. As a social democrat, I don't see the difficulty in leaving much of that wealth with those who create it (and in doing so, create wealth opportunities for those it employs), while asking all "haves" to contribute (through taxation) to the general well-being. As a (very minor) "have" myself, I happily vote some tax money towards general welfare.
Last edited: