# What is socialism?



## Irwin (Jun 20, 2021)

If you Google socialism, you can come up with a few different definitions...

From Oxford languages: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​​From Wikipedia: Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production.​​From Britannica: Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.​​From Dictionary.com: 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.​
Some of the definitions define it as public ownership of production while others say that it includes public _control _of production, i.e. regulation. I've always understood it to be public ownership of production, but I may have been wrong.

What's been your understanding of socialism.


----------



## Ceege (Jun 20, 2021)

My understanding is that if I pay my share of taxes, I will benefit by receiving certain benefits, when I need them, and being able to share in these programs>>>


What angers me is when _some_ people and corporations do not pay their *fair* share, or in some cases do not pay *any* taxes, but still benefit from these programs.

55 major companies paid $0 in federal taxes on their 2020 profits: report https://fortune.com/2021/04/02/55-companies-paid-zero-in-federal-2020-taxes-itep-report/


----------



## Ceege (Jun 20, 2021)

Just sayin'..........


----------



## Murrmurr (Jun 20, 2021)

The Wikipedia definition can be disregarded. The others say basically the same thing in a slightly different way; theory, philosophy, and doctrine.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 20, 2021)

Irwin said:


> If you Google socialism, you can come up with a few different definitions...
> 
> From Oxford languages: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​​From Wikipedia: Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production.​​From Britannica: Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.​​From Dictionary.com: 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.​
> Some of the definitions define it as public ownership of production while others say that it includes public _control _of production, i.e. regulation. I've always understood it to be public ownership of production, but I may have been wrong.
> ...


Public buildings and lands are held by the government, for the use by the public.      Roads, all kinds of infrastructure, even GPS is held for the good of, and use by the public.      The term "socialism" has been weaponized to invoke fear and loathing, and as an insult by those that seek to sway the public conversation.


----------



## officerripley (Jun 20, 2021)

All of the above, plus:

It's thought by many who have worked really hard on it that humans lived a mostly socialist lifestyle (i.e., hunter/gatherer/foraging band) for at least 25,000 years--some scientists think it was closer to 50,000--after becoming homosapiens-sapiens (same as we are now except maybe for lactose and high altitude tolerance). So looks like after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, that dreaded ol' socialism (gasp) is the lifestyle, at least in some respects, that most humans evolved to thrive in. It's just science; I'll bet that 25,000 years (at least) against the monarchist/dictatorship/authoritarian/feudalistic/hyper-capitalist, dog-eat-dog, supposedly natural lifestyle that's only lasted (in some places on the planet) 5,000 years tops. (Talk to a biologist about 5,000 years being important & they'll laugh you out of the room; "5,000 years?! That's the blink of an eye!") So, IMO, 25,000 beats 5,000 all to heck and gone for what's "natural."


----------



## Ceege (Jun 20, 2021)

And, as the saying goes, "No man is an island".  We need each other.  To chip in and join in for the sake our present and our future.  

I remember when the 'Tea Party' first became public at rallies.  There were people with teabags hanging from their hats, on scooters and with oxygen that their Medicare paid for, holding up signs stating "Keep government out of my healthcare".  Our government gave them mobility and was helping them breath.


----------



## Irwin (Jun 20, 2021)

I wasn't really trying to start a debate on the merits of socialism; I was just looking for a good definition.


----------



## officerripley (Jun 20, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I wasn't really trying to start a debate on the merits of socialism; I was just looking for a good definition.


Okay, bye.


----------



## Chet (Jun 20, 2021)

I always understood it to be what was manifested in the USSR and Mao's China; absolute government control, which failed by the way.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 20, 2021)

Chet said:


> I always understood it to be what was manifested in the USSR and Mao's China; absolute government control, which failed by the way.


That is communism, not socialism.


----------



## horseless carriage (Jun 20, 2021)

Nathan said:


> That is communism, not socialism.


My definition of communism is working for the good of the community. A real communist would be someone like a monk in a monastery. The communist countries hijacked the definition, totalitarianism doesn't seem like communism. 

This thread is sailing very close to the political wind, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Irwin (Jun 20, 2021)

My definition of communism is a classless society. Doctors and janitors have the same standard of living.

Socialism is public ownership of production—or—public ownership or control of production, depending on what definition you use.

What they had in the Soviet Union was Stalinism—not communism.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 20, 2021)

horseless carriage said:


> This thread is sailing very close to the political wind, wouldn't you say?


Probably.   However, posting is still sort of _in the abstract_, no references to current politicians or occurrences.



> Totalitarianism doesn't seem like communism.


Totalitarianism could be manifested wherever a centralized and dictatorial government is in place.    Fascism is of course just as much a centralized system of power in government as is Communism.   Fascist countries currently include Brazil, Japan, Germany, Italy and Austria.


----------



## Irwin (Jun 20, 2021)

A few posts have veered into politics, but we're doing pretty good in not turning it into a political discussion. It's more an economic discussion because socialism is an economic system. Its antonym is capitalism.

Socialism is where the public (i.e. the government) controls the means of production.
Capitalism is private ownership and control of production.

And then there are dictatorships vs. democracies. A dictatorship is completely centralized government around one person. Democracies are decentralized with equal distribution of power among the populace; everyone has an equal say in how policies are formulated and implemented (theoretically speaking, that is) and they voice their opinions via their vote.

In the U.S., we have a representative democracy in that we elect people who we believe will legislate in our best interests. In a pure democracy, the people would vote for every piece of legislation.


----------



## mellowyellow (Jun 20, 2021)

It's complicated, I get the feeling that socialism is feared in America, but could be mistaken.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 20, 2021)

Ceege said:


> What angers me is when _some_ people and corporations do not pay their *fair* share, or in some cases do not pay *any* taxes, but still benefit from these programs.
> 
> 55 major companies paid $0 in federal taxes on their 2020 profits: report https://fortune.com/2021/04/02/55-companies-paid-zero-in-federal-2020-taxes-itep-report/


Those businesses are following the LEGAL tax codes that have been in place for decades.   The tax laws should be scrutenized, but you can't fault them for using legal methods to avoid taxes; don't you do the same thing?  If taxes were equitable perhaps many major manufacturers wouldn't have fled for China.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 20, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I wasn't really trying to start a debate on the merits of socialism; I was just looking for a good definition.


You should have realized how this would go.


----------



## Remy (Jun 20, 2021)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## ohioboy (Jun 20, 2021)

Prefix: Social. Suffix: --ism.

Everyone (society) is entitled to own a piece of the economic and industrial goods by collective monies, etc. and reap the rewards, etc. (..ism). Good definition as any I guess?  Stalin --ism: Marx--ism, for comparison.


----------



## Chris P Bacon (Jun 20, 2021)

Just my personal opinion but it seems as though we're on a path to social-wasim or maybe antisocialism. I don't sense a lot of sociabilty in the places I go or the people I encounter, day to day. Or maybe "not a lot" isn't the right term but I sense more "_hostilism_" than socialism these days. Maybe my memory is selective but before all these labels and terms started being bandied about, the whole social structure of my life felt a lot more inclusive rather than feeling exclusive, as it does now. Socialism is just yet another label that means different things to different people, I'd say. It's like defining what is pornography, I know it when I see it but you may not see it the same way as I do. 
My 2¢ worth.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 21, 2021)

Nathan said, "The term "socialism" has been weaponized to invoke fear and loathing, and as an insult by those that seek to sway the public conversation." I agree. There has been a concerted effort to equate "socialism"  with communist totalitarianism. This horrible "socialism" is  like the boogie man, who is gonna get you. "Socialism" is a nebulous term, it can mean almost anything, but generally it's a union for the common good.


----------



## Chet (Jun 21, 2021)

Nathan said:


> That is communism, not socialism.


USSR stands for Union of Soviet *Socialist *Republics. Just sayin '.


----------



## Chris P Bacon (Jun 21, 2021)

Chet said:


> USSR stands for Union of Soviet *Socialist *Republics. Just sayin '.


Very true but the USSR was ended 30 years ago. A lot of things have changed since then but the perception of socialism seems to be changing more slowly than others.


----------



## Remy (Jun 21, 2021)

mellowyellow said:


> It's complicated, I get the feeling that socialism is feared in America, but could be mistaken.


I think it is by many. Especially where one network has a propensity for stating "radical socialist agenda."

I think too many people in the U.S. forget how many things they take advantage of that everyone pays into. Public school included. I received a substandard education and never had kids, yet part of my tax dollars goes to public school. It's part of living in a society. 

I also don't think anyone can start this topic without realizing it's a big hot button issue.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 21, 2021)

Marxist/Socialism??

Let's see:

Universal health care ~ Ben Franklin & Thomas Jefferson

Free college ~  Franklin & Jefferson

Infrastructural building ~ Washington (letters on the Potomac) & Alexander Hamilton "Report on Manufactures" (1791)

Social Security & UBI ~ Thomas Paine "Agrarian Reform" (1795)



Right wing delusionals call anyone who believes in these things "socialists" and "Marxists". This despite the fact that it was our own Founding Fathers who advocated them decades before Marx was born.


----------



## DaveA (Jun 21, 2021)

Chris Bacon stated;   "I'd say. It's like defining what is pornography, I know it when I see it but you may not see it the same way as I do."

I think it's time to post some and we can study it and then offer our opinions - - - -without offending anyone, of course.  

OK Chris - - -anytime!!


----------



## Nathan (Jun 21, 2021)

Chet said:


> USSR stands for Union of Soviet *Socialist *Republics. Just sayin '.


Yea, sadly they're gone now.  But, it's just a name....the National *Socialist* Party of America is as far from communism as one can get.


----------



## horseless carriage (Jun 21, 2021)

Chet said:


> USSR stands for Union of Soviet *Socialist *Republics. Just sayin '.


Just because the word Socialist is part of the USSR doesn't make it Socialist, no matter how much the Russian dictators try, any more than Hitler's Nationalsozialistische, better known by it's acronym as, Nazis, is socialist.


----------



## Irwin (Jun 21, 2021)

DaveA said:


> Chris Bacon stated;   "I'd say. It's like defining what is pornography, I know it when I see it but you may not see it the same way as I do."
> 
> I think it's time to post some and we can study it and then offer our opinions - - - -without offending anyone, of course.
> 
> OK Chris - - -anytime!!


Okay, is a minimum wage socialism? If so, under what definition?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 21, 2021)

Chet said:


> I always understood it to be what was manifested in the USSR and Mao's China; absolute government control, which failed by the way.


IMO that is totalitarianism masquerading as socialism.

Let's not forget that what might be called socialism has public benefit. Before there were public schools, the wealthy employed private tutors for their children, the middle classes sent them to Dame schools where they learnt very little beyond elementary literacy and numeracy. The poor sent them to the mines and factories. Public schooling has produced opportunities for more children to achieve their potential, which must surely be valuable to the economy as a whole.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 21, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Okay, is a minimum wage socialism? If so, under what definition?





Minimum wage is biblical which means it is not of socialist origin.  See Matthew 8:20 et seq where farm workers were to be paid one denarius which is defined as:


denarius
[dəˈnerēəs]

NOUN
an ancient Roman silver coin, originally worth ten asses.
a unit of weight equal to that of a silver denarius.
an ancient Roman gold coin worth 25 silver denarii.



Wow - the equivalent of ten asses for one hour's work.  Had I lived in that era, I would sell 9 of them for cash, use one for general labor, and live off the profits and from other wages. 


Too bad corporate capitalists don't believe in their own Bible and pay decent living wages to their poor employees.


----------



## mellowyellow (Jun 21, 2021)

Socialized medical in Australia

Every Australian is eligible for Medicare — the country's national universal health care program — and can receive medical care at public hospitals and other health care providers, usually with no out-of-pocket costs except for outpatient prescription drugs and some auxiliary services.

One of my daughters decided to go private for her first child (very expensive), but went public for the second child which cost her nothing. This scenario plays out every day here and this article about two sisters explains it better.

_Two sisters. Two different journeys through Australia’s health care system. One sister had her babies for free, the other decided to go private and it cost her $5,000_

*https://www.vox.com/2020/1/15/21030568/australia-health-insurance-medicare*


----------



## Irwin (Jun 21, 2021)

Here's a story about a large cooperative in the Basque region of Spain that consists of 255 businesses, all run by its more than 70,000 employees. I guess that would be "public" ownership of production, but not by the government so technically, it's not socialistic. In it, instead of managers hiring and firing employees, employees vote for who will manage them. To enter the coop, you have to buy into it and it's not cheap. 15,000 Euros in one of the cases they talk about.

The concept of the cooperative may conjure notions of hippie socialism, limiting its value as a model for the global economy, but Mondragón stands out as a genuinely large enterprise. Its cooperatives employ more than 70,000 people in Spain, making it one of the nation’s largest sources of paychecks. They have annual revenues of more than 12 billion euros ($14.5 billion). The group includes one of the country’s largest grocery chains, Eroski, along with a credit union and manufacturers that export their wares around the planet.​https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/business/cooperatives-basque-spain-economy.html​


----------



## Chris P Bacon (Jun 21, 2021)

Don't take life too seriously as no one has ever gotten out alive. - Plutonius of Carpathia


----------



## DaveA (Jun 22, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Okay, is a minimum wage socialism? If so, under what definition?


Irwin - -What the h--l does the minimum wage and socialism have to do with my post regarding pornography?  LOL


----------



## Irwin (Jun 22, 2021)

DaveA said:


> Irwin - -What the h--l does the minimum wage and socialism have to do with my post regarding pornography?  LOL


I thought you were saying that you knew socialism when you saw it (like you knew porn when you saw it). If that's not the case, what does your post about pornography have to do with socialism, which is the topic of this thread?


----------



## Chris P Bacon (Jun 22, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I thought you were saying that you knew socialism when you saw it (like you knew porn when you saw it). If that's not the case, what does your post about pornography have to do with socialism, which is the topic of this thread?


@Irwin -  Actually, I'm the one who made the comment about "knowing it when I see it". I think that Irwin was commenting to me that he might like to see what I see as being pornographic. His comment was  directed at me. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. It was never my intent to ruffle anyone's feathers. I'll refrain from commenting further on this topic. Enjoy your discussion.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 22, 2021)

6 Degrees of @Chris P Bacon


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 22, 2021)

Why is Denmark the happiest land on earth:


----------



## DaveA (Jun 23, 2021)

Chris P Bacon said:


> @Irwin -  Actually, I'm the one who made the comment about "knowing it when I see it". I think that Irwin was commenting to me that he might like to see what I see as being pornographic. His comment was  directed at me. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. It was never my intent to ruffle anyone's feathers. I'll refrain from commenting further on this topic. Enjoy your discussion.


I enjoyed your bit of humor, Chris,  and tried to pick up on it.  Guess my humor was misplaced.


----------



## Chris P Bacon (Jun 23, 2021)

DaveA said:


> I enjoyed your bit of humor, Chris,  and tried to pick up on it.  Guess my humor was misplaced.


Thank you, Dave but maybe it’s _my_ humor that was misplaced. I don’t always take life as seriously as my fellow earth folk it seems.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 23, 2021)




----------



## Irwin (Jun 23, 2021)

This is what our current system has given us:





There are more than 66 thousand homeless people living in Los Angeles. In Denver, the park across from the state capital has been completely overrun by the homeless. Many other major cities in the U.S. have a similar problem. It's a completely out of control situation.

Part of the problem is a lack of affordable housing. The average rent for a one bedroom apartment in Denver is $1,724! Holy crap! If you're making $15 an hour, 2/3 of your income would need to go to your rent. You'd have about $833 left each month for all your other bills including car payments, utilities, food, clothing, insurance. You might be able to just barely make it if you didn't spend anything on entertainment, and if you needed medical care, that would put you over the top. Of course, that's how it was when I was working class back in the 1980s, so maybe things aren't that different now, but we sure as hell didn't have that kind of homeless problem back then.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 23, 2021)

Irwin said:


> lack of affordable housing






There are many abandoned military bases all over the USA.  Each and every one can readily be converted into a homeless shelter city and house tens of thousands of people.  Let the churches such as Catholic Charities and Salvation Army run them *tax free* and the problem is largely solved.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 23, 2021)

the list is only somewhat dated but it's still largely true as European socialists are the happiest people in the world:












Even Israel is ranked higher than the USA and that's because its socialist economy is financed by American taxpayers.


----------



## Irwin (Jun 23, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Even Israel is ranked higher than the USA and that's because its socialist economy is financed by American taxpayers.


Israel has a market based, capitalistic economy with the exception of  their kibbutzim, which is only a small portion of their economy.

The only financing the U.S. provides to Israel is in the form of arms, which comes to several billions of dollars worth each year, but that's it. We don't in any way finance their economy—just their military.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 24, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Israel has a market based, capitalistic economy with the exception of  their kibbutzim, which is only a small portion of their economy.
> 
> The only financing the U.S. provides to Israel is in the form of arms, which comes to several billions of dollars worth each year, but that's it. We don't in any way finance their economy—just their military.





Without the multibillion dollar handouts it gets every year from the USA, the economy and military would both collapse. Good bye to health care and to the government.  Thankfully (for them) they get the socialist handouts to keep them going.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 24, 2021)




----------



## TooMuchMuktuk (Jun 28, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Israel has a market based, capitalistic economy with the exception of  their kibbutzim, which is only a small portion of their economy.
> 
> The only financing the U.S. provides to Israel is in the form of arms, which comes to several billions of dollars worth each year, but that's it. We don't in any way finance their economy—just their military.


Do you really have credible information that the U.S. "finances" the Israel military, or does the U.S. simply supply/SELL military resources to Israel, because that was my understanding.


----------



## Irwin (Jun 28, 2021)

TooMuchMuktuk said:


> Do you really have credible information that the U.S. "finances" the Israel military, or does the U.S. simply supply/SELL military resources to Israel, because that was my understanding.


The U.S. finances military equipment and provides about three billion in military aid a year. Here is a document from Congressional Research Service with the details, if you're willing to wade through it.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Jun 28, 2021)

TooMuchMuktuk said:


> Do you really have credible information that the U.S. "finances" the Israel military, or does the U.S. simply supply/SELL military resources to Israel, because that was my understanding.




There are many online sources which answer that question but I won't post more than this one as they deal in politics:

The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans (ifamericansknew.org)


The fact is that Israel gets  thousands of dollars per person every year.  If you received that kind of money you would be called a welfare recipient and that you were a socialism beneficiary.


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

Irwin said:


> If you Google socialism, you can come up with a few different definitions...
> 
> From Oxford languages: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.​​From Wikipedia: Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production.​​From Britannica: Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.​​From Dictionary.com: 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.​
> Some of the definitions define it as public ownership of production while others say that it includes public _control _of production, i.e. regulation. I've always understood it to be public ownership of production, but I may have been wrong.
> ...


After some review of this thread I decided to start at the top.

I find that although I disagree with Marx on some issues, or let me say I at least do not agree with him on some issue (even if I have not formulated a cogent criticism), I do find his overall perspective and his general analysis to ring true in my ears.  So much of what I say will probably reflect his ideas while some will seem to almost conflict with his ideas.  

Let's take the subject of definitions for an example.  First, I agree with the premise that in class society, everything takes on a class character.  This is especially true in cases that tend to be controversial.  Definitions are controversial.  So, coincidentally, definitions have a class character.  The capitalist class has its favorite definitions of socialism, and they conflict with those definitions that are in the interest of the working class.  

The capitalist class has worked long and hard to slant the playing field in their interest.  What else could be expected?  So capitalists define socialism in terms that lend it a derogatory and/or insulting quality.   An example, although it isn't so much a "definition" as it is a slur, some notable anti-socialist individuals have said "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".  Not only does it not define socialism, but it also breaks down upon examination, proving to be false and meaningless.

The goal is to make socialism look unreasonable, foolish, impractical, and repugnant.

Ok, enough for now about bourgeois definitions that are designed to favor and benefit the bourgeoisie.  If a valid definition of socialism is desired, then the source of the definition needs to be a socialist, preferably one who is engaged in the work of organizing the working class as an advocate of socialism and of the transformation of society to socialism.   But for now, I offer what I've learned, understood, and figured out after many years of exposure to, and inquiry into, such sources.

All attempts to create a national economy based on, and describable as, "socialism" have also been efforts to end capitalism or other oppressive economic system.  And all of these advocates of socialism who've headed up the effort to lead the transition have said that socialism would be "the liberation of the working class from ..... (exploitation)".   They said while capitalism is the domination of capital and the capitalist class over the working class, socialism would be the domination of the working class over the capitalist class.  And this new relationship was named by Marx as "the dictatorship of the proletariat (working class)" over the capitalist class.

So maybe now we can jump to a definition of socialism.  My suggestion would be that it be known as *"an economic system in which the working class owns and runs the Means Of Production collectively and democratically for the benefit of society, while banning private ownership of the MOP and the private profit that derives from it".*

That eliminates the notion of "mixing" capitalism and socialism being possible, and it excludes democratic socialism as a possible form of "socialism".

It's also worthwhile to note the past was a learning period, and no reasonable person ever expected any of the earliest attempts to create socialism to go smoothly and with complete success.  But much was learned and each new attempt benefits from the lessons learned from past efforts.  Consequently, we can be sure that the most desirable process to socialism will be a gradual, methodical one and will therefore provide opportunities to learn as we go and to correct errors and problems before they mushroom into disasters.  And therefore, with such a gradual transition, the ultimate finished, functioning, stable socialist economy and relations of production will be very different from what it will be at the outset.  Only then will conditions lend themselves to being structured effectively as community ownership and control of production.  Only then will a socialist government limit itself to mostly record-keeping functions including statistics, inventories, sales volumes, production levels, and distribution data while facilitating worker control of industry and business.


----------



## ronaldj (Sep 27, 2022)

its a perfect system......until people get involved, people are  selfish and greedy.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 27, 2022)

ronaldj said:


> its a perfect system......until people get involved, people are  selfish and greedy.


... and dishonest.


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

ronaldj said:


> its a perfect system......until people get involved, people are  selfish and greedy.


Well, we really can't say it doesn't work since there has not yet been a national system of a completed, stable, functioning socialist system.  There have been a few attempts to create a socialist economy, which, as I indicated above, takes time.  And so far nearly every such attempt failed due to strategies being unsuccessful in addition to being unclear on the role of the state in such transitions.  That is something Marx never got around to addressing, so it's all being learned "on the job".

But I believe Cuba is the only country still working on creating socialism, .... maybe.   The others, as far as I know, have all succumbed to capitalism or state capitalism and abandoned the push for socialism.  Of course the corrupt governments would never admit that's what has happened as they keep telling their populations they have "socialism".


----------



## Lewkat (Sep 27, 2022)

If one person develops a product and wants to mass produce it, he hires qualified people to help him do this.  This should then lead to what is known as profit-sharing.  Bonuses are added for the ability to improve his business by demands, and meeting that output, streamlining and making a better product, etc.  When employees are in a workplace that recognizes talent, interest, and the like, the conditions are far more pleasant, and the rewards should be forthcoming.  For example, regular increments in salary based on experience, reasonable paid vacations and holiday time, personal days, and on and on are not generally a problem for the boss.  What is troublesome, is the fact that, each generation has demanded more and more for less and less, thus, a boss says, "enough."


----------



## Raddragn (Sep 27, 2022)

There is no one type of socialism. It comes in degrees from none to 100%. Most countries - including the USA have various degrees. As someone said earlier. It's being used as a Boogieman by some to sway voter thing (and voting their way). A certain amount of it in a society is a good thing.


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

Raddragn said:


> There is no one type of socialism. It comes in degrees from none to 100%. Most countries - including the USA have various degrees. As someone said earlier. It's being used as a Boogieman by some to sway voter thing (and voting their way). A certain amount of it in a society is a good thing.


As I indicated in my previous post, that is an example of the kind of anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda we've all been fed for about 70 years in the USA.   We have capitalism.  It entails private ownership of business for private profit produced as a consequence of hiring employees.  That is capitalism.  What you're advocating is not socialism.  Rather, it is "socially-beneficial programs in a capitalist system".  Now, just for the record, I agree that socially-beneficial programs can make a very big difference in increasing happiness and satisfaction with life.  And yet it isn't socialism.   Think of this: if what you advocate, which is actually "social democracy", were actually socialism in some degree as you suggest, then the Nordic countries must be socialist or at least be well on the way to socialism with all the socially-beneficial programs they have.  But talk to people from Norway or Finland, or Denmark as I have.  Ask them if their system is socialism as I have.  One guy was near irate when I asked and he sharply and indignantly retorted that "no, Norway is capitalist!"

So socially-beneficial programs in a capitalist economy no more make the economy socialist in any degree than selling goods in stores in a socialist economy makes the economy capitalist.

Another little item: FDR arguably created more socially-beneficial programs than any other single president has.  And yet at the end of his term, FDR famously said "I saved capitalism".


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 28, 2022)

We have many examples of successful socialism in the U.S. with the recent growth and popularity of co-ops. Granted, that's on a small scale, but that's what socialism is all about: the people or the workers control the means of production. Of course, there are many examples of larger scale socialism, such as the military, police, fire dept, etc... And there are a few successful communes.

The Shakers are fairly successful socialists with their manufacture of furniture. And they've remained successful because they haven't succumbed to capitalist greed. They still manufacture fine furniture made out of solid wood — no particleboard or even plywood is used.

With capitalism, the only thing that matters is profit. That usually means cutting corners and quality, and not paying workers any more than the bare minimum they can get away with, which results in the workers not giving a %$#@! about their work.


----------



## Senter (Sep 28, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> We have many examples of successful socialism in the U.S. with the recent growth and popularity of co-ops. Granted, that's on a small scale, but that's what socialism is all about: the people or the workers control the means of production. Of course, there are many examples of larger scale socialism, such as the military, police, fire dept, etc... And there are a few successful communes.
> 
> The Shakers are fairly successful socialists with their manufacture of furniture. And they've remained successful because they haven't succumbed to capitalist greed. They still manufacture fine furniture made out of solid wood — no particleboard or even plywood is used.
> 
> With capitalism, the only thing that matters is profit. That usually means cutting corners and quality, and not paying workers any more than the bare minimum they can get away with, which results in the workers not giving a %$#@! about their work.


I'll call the examples you list as "socialistic".   I've often referred to workers' co-ops as "embryos of a socialist economy" because, while they're a good start, actual socialism has to be a national "event" with the government on-board the effort and working to facilitate it.

Did you see my previous post directly above yours?  It ties in with what you said.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Sep 28, 2022)

Defining socialism as you have done makes it clear that it is opposite to capitalism. The workers/labor are in charge not the bosses. I tend to wish for Democratic Socialism where issues are to be voted on by everyone. One person, one vote.


----------



## Lawrence (Sep 28, 2022)

Fow me socialism is the family I knew back in1963 when I was a child. We lived in a rural farming community and a man moved his family to the USSR. Everyone in the town was against him doing that and tried to convince him to stay in the community that he and his family lived in. He read all the Communist propaganda of the day and totally got himself immersed into the Socialist viewpoints of the USSR Socialist way of living. He tried to tell the people of my community of the good life of the Socialist life in the USSR. He was shut down very quickly when he did, and possibly beaten. His wife agreed with him, and his two children were about the same age as I was. He took himself and his family sold his possessions to take the money with him to the USSR. Time past, time went on then the about two months later he made contact with citizens within our community asking for help to return to our farming town. People tried to help, and the government tried to help also. It was all to no avail. The USSR took all his money had the father and his family denounce their USA citizenship. He was on the bottom of the socialist empire He and had to work himself up through the ratings of the socialism empire. There was much sorrow for him and what had happened to the family. Sometimes when I hear the word socialism, I remember of what happened to him, and his family. Sometimes I wonder what has happened to them and wished that I did.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> Defining socialism as you have done makes it clear that it is opposite to capitalism. The workers/labor are in charge not the bosses. I tend to wish for Democratic Socialism where issues are to be voted on by everyone. One person, one vote.


Actually I agree with you.  If we begin with workers' co-ops it will give us all a "taste" of "one person, one vote" that will be very hard to change into something else less democratic in the future.

My "vision" for a new system would rely heavily on something I've seen called "mass democracy".  There would be small, local and regular community meetings where the public would discuss conditions and what's to be done.  It would include breaking down into "casual" discussion among random participants where the leadership circulates to get a sense of what concerns are popular.  (This gives those like me who are shy about public speaking an opportunity to be heard by someone.)  Then the meeting reconvenes with random attendees taking turns standing and speaking to make their concerns known.  

The summary of the meeting is then taken by the leadership back to the regional level where it is integrated with those of other locales and summed up.  That regional leadership then takes the summary back to the state level where the same process is followed.  The state leadership then takes their summary back to the national level for presentation and integration with a national plan.  And along the way whatever is specific to the region stays with the region; whatever is specific to the state stays there for implementation, and the national level deals with the national issues.

This is just a very general description, of course.   But how much more democratic and transparent is this than what we have right now?  It's HUGE!


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> Fow me socialism is the family I knew back in1963 when I was a child. We lived in a rural farming community and a man moved his family to the USSR. Everyone in the town was against him doing that and tried to convince him to stay in the community that he and his family lived in. He read all the Communist propaganda of the day and totally got himself immersed into the Socialist viewpoints of the USSR Socialist way of living. He tried to tell the people of my community of the good life of the Socialist life in the USSR. He was shut down very quickly when he did, and possibly beaten. His wife agreed with him, and his two children were about the same age as I was. He took himself and his family sold his possessions to take the money with him to the USSR. Time past, time went on then the about two months later he made contact with citizens within our community asking for help to return to our farming town. People tried to help, and the government tried to help also. It was all to no avail. The USSR took all his money had the father and his family denounce their USA citizenship. He was on the bottom of the socialist empire He and had to work himself up through the ratings of the socialism empire. There was much sorrow for him and what had happened to the family. Sometimes when I hear the word socialism, I remember of what happened to him, and his family. Sometimes I wonder what has happened to them and wished that I did.


That's sad.   But do you believe that is what socialism is and must be?


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 29, 2022)

oldiebutgoody said:


> the list is only somewhat dated but it's still largely true as European socialists are the happiest people in the world:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ignorance is bliss...if you have never lived in a free society and you have been propagandized all your life as to how good they have it, then they all report they are happy.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 29, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> ... and dishonest.


So Ben, now you are suggesting that Socialist are not dishonest?  Wow...!


----------



## Paco Dennis (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> Actually I agree with you.  If we begin with workers' co-ops it will give us all a "taste" of "one person, one vote" that will be very hard to change into something else less democratic in the future.
> 
> My "vision" for a new system would rely heavily on something I've seen called "mass democracy".  There would be small, local and regular community meetings where the public would discuss conditions and what's to be done.  It would include breaking down into "casual" discussion among random participants where the leadership circulates to get a sense of what concerns are popular.  (This gives those like me who are shy about public speaking an opportunity to be heard by someone.)  Then the meeting reconvenes with random attendees taking turns standing and speaking to make their concerns known.
> 
> ...



I agree in principle. I think Hugo Chavez had a similar means to communicate the people's needs. The meetings are very important for community well being. I can not see most of the people in our world today willing to stop their habits enough to sincerely be interested and attend community meetings. Free market capitalism is a loosely arranged set of laws and controls. Socialism would take a much stricter approach to accounting also....of which most people do not like to do.


----------



## David777 (Sep 29, 2022)

Neither straight socialism nor pure capitalism have proved to be long term reasonable economic systems in our complex world.  Wisest approach is to democratically use both in order to work towards a sustainable world where the well being of all members of we humans and the planet's amazing life are given consideration instead of a dog eat dog survival of the fittest or wealthiest, or most powerful.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> I agree in principle. I think Hugo Chavez had a similar means to communicate the people's needs. The meetings are very important for community well being. I can not see most of the people in our world today willing to stop their habits enough to sincerely be interested and attend community meetings. Free market capitalism is a loosely arranged set of laws and controls. Socialism would take a much stricter approach to accounting also....of which most people do not like to do.


The meetings would not be mandatory.  Those who are interested would attend, of course.  But that would change as issues and conditions develop in such a way as to impact different people, at which point different people would become interested in the meetings.  That's fine and it's far better than what we have now.  But in addition, those who attend would go back to their friends and tell them about developments of interest.  And that will also produce a change in attendees.  So it's all good.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

David777 said:


> Neither straight socialism nor pure capitalism have proved to be long term reasonable economic systems in our complex world.  Wisest approach is to democratically use both in order to work towards a sustainable world where the well being of all members of we humans are given consideration instead of a dog eat dog survival of the fittest or wealthiest, or most powerful.


As I previously explained, there has been no socialist economy anywhere, ever .......... yet.  Also as I've discussed, you can't "use both" in a composite system that mixes worker control over the capitalist class, with capitalist control over the working class.


----------



## David777 (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> As I previously explained, there has been no socialist economy anywhere, ever .......... yet.  Also as I've discussed, you can't "use both" in a composite system that mixes worker control over the capitalist class, with capitalist control over the working class.


Disagree with that kind of opinion. There are those at both political extremes that dislike ideas of pragmatic moderate centrists. Please read the below.

https://hiddentribes.us/


----------



## Lawrence (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> That's sad.   But do you believe that is what socialism is and must be?


That is what socialism leads to when it matures and arrives at its conclusion. There are organizations and people who will seek the opportunity to use it for their benefit to control the masses. The individualist does the same thing. One is not better than the other I my viewpoints in life. We need both to keep things in a check and balance routine. If either one totally takes over our country, we will not have a democracy anymore.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> That is what socialism leads to when it matures and arrives at its conclusion.


How can you "know" that when no country has ever had a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control?  You can't.




Lawrence said:


> There are organizations and people who will seek the opportunity to use it for their benefit to control the masses. The individualist does the same thing. One is not better than the other I my viewpoints in life. We need both to keep things in a check and balance routine. If either one totally takes over our country, we will not have a democracy anymore.


You seem to be having difficulty imagining a system based on cooperation and democracy where private profit and private opportunism are banned and prevented.  Remember that all you've been exposed to in your life is government that allows those things, so you think it is the rule.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 29, 2022)

This has been an interesting thread to read though.  A wide variety of opinions and definitions of socialism.

I have always thought of socialism as state ownership of the means of production.  However I can see there is some gray area, lots of social programs that do not involve government ownership.

I am a bit of a libertarian, skeptical of the government's ability to run things as efficiently as private industry.  So not a socialist.  However I do support some social programs, particularly those that support people in need.  And I support government subsidization of education.  Also I know the government needs to provide for our defense and a lot of things like highways, airports, etc.  No objection there, so long as it is done with reasonable efficiency.

I have seen a number of folks complain that corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes.  That is something I disagree with.  Corporations are owned by the stockholders.  I believe that corporations should not be taxed, just the stockholders when they receive benefit from the stock ownership.  Seems to me to be both more fair and more efficient.  Though I think it would take some reworking of our tax code, something we probably need anyway.

I believe Communism is similar to total or near total Socialism, except that in practice it is much less democratic than Socialism.  So for that reason I very much oppose most Communist governments.  I think countries other than my own should be free to choose Socialism to the extent their people want it.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

David777 said:


> Disagree with that kind of opinion. There are those at both political extremes that dislike ideas of pragmatic moderate centrists. Please read the below.
> 
> https://hiddentribes.us/


Try debating your convictions.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> This has been an interesting thread to read though.  A wide variety of opinions and definitions of socialism.
> 
> I have always thought of socialism as state ownership of the means of production.  However I can see there is some gray area, lots of social programs that do not involve government ownership.


Yeah, that's the capitalist "definition" of socialism.  And it's pretty easy to persuade people that's what socialism is because it reflects what we've all seen in the USSR and China in particular.  But what they don't tell us is that it turned to "state ownership" for one of two reasons.  One is that in China the "capitalist roaders" regained power and sabotaged the socialist effort, and the other is that in the USSR the "detour" into state capitalism was consciously made in order to supercharge the effort to develop the productive forces.  Lenin talked about this and recommended it, calling it "state capitalism" since the relationship between employer and employee was not changed.  And he also said that the downside would be that a second revolution would eventually be necessary in order to transition finally to actual socialism.




Alligatorob said:


> I am a bit of a libertarian, skeptical of the government's ability to run things as efficiently as private industry.  So not a socialist.  However I do support some social programs, particularly those that support people in need.  And I support government subsidization of education.  Also I know the government needs to provide for our defense and a lot of things like highways, airports, etc.  No objection there, so long as it is done with reasonable efficiency.
> 
> I have seen a number of folks complain that corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes.  That is something I disagree with.  Corporations are owned by the stockholders.  I believe that corporations should not be taxed, just the stockholders when they receive benefit from the stock ownership.  Seems to me to be both more fair and more efficient.  Though I think it would take some reworking of our tax code, something we probably need anyway.
> 
> I believe Communism is similar to total or near total Socialism, except that in practice it is much less democratic than Socialism.  So for that reason I very much oppose most Communist governments.  I think countries other than my own should be free to choose Socialism to the extent their people want it.


Wow.  You did it.  You confused "communism" with "communism".   Yeah, if you read THIS it will clarify what I'm saying.


----------



## Lawrence (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> That's sad.   But do you believe that is what socialism is and must be?


How can you believe that a country can have a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control? I can’t.


Senter said:


> How can you "know" that when no country has ever had a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control?  You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be having difficulty imagining a system based on cooperation and democracy where private profit and private opportunism are banned and prevented.  Remember that all you've been exposed to in your life is government that allows those things, so you think it is the rule.


You seem to believe that a system based on cooperation and democracy where private profit and private opportunism are good, but it is just a delusion. There will be fights in the democratic society just like there just like there is today. Banned and prevented people will seek refuge and want to escape the democratic society. Just like the do today. Remember that all you've been exposed to in your life is a belief that allows those things, so you think it is true.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 29, 2022)

Thanks for your response @Senter and I did go back and read your post at the link.  To be honest I am still not quite clear as to what you are saying, but have better idea now.

How do you see the Communist regions of Italy fitting into this?  I have done some  work in that area, including in Bologna, it did not seem all that different, except that many of the corporations were government owned.  It seemed more what I call Socialist, but they claim to be Communist. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party:

_In all its history, the PCI_ (Italian Communist Party) _was particularly strong in Central Italy, in the so-called "Red Regions" of Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and Marche, as well as in the industrialized cities of Northern Italy. However, Communists' municipal showcase was Bologna, which was held continuously by the PCI from 1945 onwards. Amongst other measures, the local PCI administration tackled urban problems with successful programmes of health for the elderly, nursery education and traffic reform while also undertaking initiatives in housing and school meal provisions. From 1946 to 1956, the Communist city council built 31 nursery schools, 896 flats and 9 schools. Health care improved substantially, street lighting was installed, new drains and municipal launderettes were built and 8,000 children received subsidised school meals. In 1972, the then-mayor of Bologna, Renato Zangheri, introduced a new and innovative traffic plan with strict limitations for private vehicles and a renewed concentration on cheap public transport. Bologna's social services continued to expand throughout the early and mid-1970s. The city centre was restored, centres for the mentally sick were instituted to help those who had been released from recently closed psychiatric hospitals, handicapped persons were offered training and found suitable jobs, afternoon activities for schoolchildren were made less mindless than the traditional doposcuola (after-school activities) and school programming for the whole day helped working parents. Communists administrations at a local level also helped to aid new businesses while also introducing innovative social reforms._


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> As I previously explained, there has been no socialist economy anywhere, ever .......... yet.  Also as I've discussed, you can't "use both" in a composite system that mixes worker control over the capitalist class, with capitalist control over the working class.


Back in my college days I spent a summer working in a unionized sheet metal factory. I paid my dues and went to meetings. Over time I began to feel that I was working for the union, not the company. It was not a good experience. Years later I did a little research on the internet and read about a big shot in my former union found floating in a canal, and a Canadian branch that had turned over management of its funds to a defrocked priest living in Panama. Huh?

Is this what you have in mind to govern us? Of course not, but the dream world you imagine just might turn out to be something less than you wish. Anyhow, is there a country, any country, that has adopted your model of socialism? If not, who comes the closest, and why do you think they have not succeeded?


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> How can you believe that a country can have a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control? I can’t.


Why not?  And how can you know?   You can't because you have no possible basis for knowing.




Lawrence said:


> You seem to believe that a system based on cooperation and democracy where private profit and private opportunism are good, but it is just a delusion.


"where private profit and private opportunism are good"???   I've specifically stated that socialism would BAN private profit and private opportunism and private profit!   Maybe a closer reading of my post would clarify this.



Lawrence said:


> There will be fights in the democratic society just like there just like there is today. Banned and prevented people will seek refuge and want to escape the democratic society. Just like the do today. Remember that all you've been exposed to in your life is a belief that allows those things, so you think it is true.


Well, just for the record, any belief we can establish a society in which there are no fights, no disagreement, no conflicting interest would be a belief in utopia.  And that's certainly not me.  But I also know that our seeming differences have been exaggerated, capitalized on, and even boosted with insane conspiracy theories.  I believe if most of us and the government really wanted to sort out differences and unite over the most pressing issues facing us, it could be done.  But one weakness of the Russian experience which led to its demise as an attempt at socialism, was there was little effort to effectively manage those who would prefer a path back to capitalism and exploitation.  That would be a role of the state and Marx never got around to analyzing that need and claifying his thoughts on the role of the state.  So that is one of the main issues the new flock of socialists will need to sort out.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> Thanks for your response @Senter and I did go back and read your post at the link.  To be honest I am still not quite clear as to what you are saying, but have better idea now.
> 
> How do you see the Communist regions of Italy fitting into this?  I have done some  work in that area, including in Bologna, it did not seem all that different, except that many of the corporations were government owned.  It seemed more what I call Socialist, but they claim to be Communist. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party:
> 
> _In all its history, the PCI_ (Italian Communist Party) _was particularly strong in Central Italy, in the so-called "Red Regions" of Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and Marche, as well as in the industrialized cities of Northern Italy. However, Communists' municipal showcase was Bologna, which was held continuously by the PCI from 1945 onwards. Amongst other measures, the local PCI administration tackled urban problems with successful programmes of health for the elderly, nursery education and traffic reform while also undertaking initiatives in housing and school meal provisions. From 1946 to 1956, the Communist city council built 31 nursery schools, 896 flats and 9 schools. Health care improved substantially, street lighting was installed, new drains and municipal launderettes were built and 8,000 children received subsidised school meals. In 1972, the then-mayor of Bologna, Renato Zangheri, introduced a new and innovative traffic plan with strict limitations for private vehicles and a renewed concentration on cheap public transport. Bologna's social services continued to expand throughout the early and mid-1970s. The city centre was restored, centres for the mentally sick were instituted to help those who had been released from recently closed psychiatric hospitals, handicapped persons were offered training and found suitable jobs, afternoon activities for schoolchildren were made less mindless than the traditional doposcuola (after-school activities) and school programming for the whole day helped working parents. Communists administrations at a local level also helped to aid new businesses while also introducing innovative social reforms._


My point was that many tend to conflate "communism" (communist ideology and policy) with "communism" (theoretical communist society).   One minute they say "communism" meaning the current or past ideology-driven actions, policies, and views of a communist party somewhere, and the next minute they're saying "communism" meaning a theoretical socio-economic system that would be classless, stateless, and moneyless where the rule is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" where if you need a gallon of milk you go to the distribution center and take one.  One is ideology and the other is a social structure, but the hypothetical poster in questions never thinks about this and so conflates the two thinking there is just one "communism".  Theory and practice.

And that is what I believed I saw in your post.  Is that more clear now?


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Back in my college days I spent a summer working in a unionized sheet metal factory. I paid my dues and went to meetings. Over time I began to feel that I was working for the union, not the company. It was not a good experience. Years later I did a little research on the internet and read about a big shot in my former union found floating in a canal, and a Canadian branch that had turned over management of its funds to a defrocked priest living in Panama. Huh?
> 
> Is this what you have in mind to govern us? Of course not, but the dream world you imagine just might turn out to be something less than you wish. Anyhow, is there a country, any country, that has adopted your model of socialism? *If not, who comes the closest, and why do you think they have not succeeded?*


I've talked about that ad nauseum in "SeniorForums" for days now.  You might hover over my "avatar" and when the window pops up, select "Messages" in the bottom left to see what I've said.

I'll say this: capitalism is in crisis.  We have late-stage capitalism and it is now doing what it must: transitioning to fascism, or trying to.  We can't go on with all these problems capitalism has created and shown it cannot solve.  The problem is the profit motive and the greed that rises to the top.  So all we can do is to keep developing a system that democratically bans private profit if we are to get past this.


----------



## Lawrence (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> Why not?  And how can you know?   You can't because you have no possible basis for knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 * Well, I am a bit confused it seems as though we have run around in a big circle. In my initial post I told the story of a childhood experience I had. I did not expect to have someone like you chasing after me for what I experienced in the story, insulting, ridiculing me for what I told in the story. I see you as a troublemaker and I will treat you like one.   Troll - Troll -Troll *


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> * Well, I am a bit confused it seems as though we have run around in a big circle. In my initial post I told the story of a childhood experience I had. I did not expect to have someone like you chasing after me for what I experienced in the story, insulting, ridiculing me for what I told in the story. I see you as a troublemaker and I will treat you like one.   Troll - Troll -Troll *


I have no idea what you're talking about.  Maybe you should report my post.

[Edit:  I tracked back to your story of your childhood experience.  You seem to be hyper-sensitive with a good dose of imagination involved.  None of our conversations that followed seem to be even vaguely related to your objections.  I don't think I am qualified to help you.]


----------



## Paladin1950 (Sep 29, 2022)

Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

Harry Truman October 10, 1952

No wonder back in the 50's people used to say, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Paladin1950 said:


> Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
> Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
> Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
> Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
> ...


It's very instructive to notice all the ways the "powers that be" work to confuse and disarm the people.  You listed examples.  If we cannot agree on what capitalism and socialism are, we sure as hell can't unite to stop the madness and create an alternative.

Another example of how any growing interest in socialism is crushed is the "taboo" on discussing it.  Just try raising a slightly positive thought about socialism at a party.   Immediately there will be someone who will ridicule you for daring to think that way.  That is the taboo on discussing it.  You may even feel a hesitancy to bring the subject up because you may get such a reaction.  That is the taboo at work, doing its job.

And there's more work that was done to prevent the working class from taking any steps to organize its power or to represent its interests.  Just study into the Powell Memorandum and you'll see.


----------



## Lawrence (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.  Maybe you should report my post.
> 
> [Edit:  I tracked back to your story of your childhood experience.  You seem to be hyper-sensitive with a good dose of imagination involved.  None of our conversations that followed seem to be even vaguely related to your objections.  I don't think I am qualified to help you.]


I hope we are done with each other for I am ready to close this matter and leave it behind. Do not repost my posts in the near future please. It is nice for people to get along together is a good ideology. Up and down, we jump, the world goes around, a wise man knows when to keep secrets, the man that sleeps outside his house has a wife who is angry, do not judge and not be judged and then the day will pass, and the tomorrow will be a better day.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Does anyone know what I did wrong?  I can't find it.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> I've talked about that ad nauseum in "SeniorForums" for days now.  You might hover over my "avatar" and when the window pops up, select "Messages" in the bottom left to see what I've said.
> 
> I'll say this: capitalism is in crisis.  We have late-stage capitalism and it is now doing what it must: transitioning to fascism, or trying to.  We can't go on with all these problems capitalism has created and shown it cannot solve.  The problem is the profit motive and the greed that rises to the top.  So all we can do is to keep developing a system that democratically bans private profit if we are to get past this.


Capitalism is transitioning to fascism? No it is not, but socialism will be severely rejected in the midterms. Disagree? Well, we shall see.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Capitalism is transitioning to fascism? No it is not, but socialism will be severely rejected in the midterms. Disagree? Well, we shall see.


Well, I sure as hell HOPE we don't go fascist but that seems to be on the ballot in some states.  Socialism isn't anywhere on the horizon.  Oh, there are brainless accusations flying around occasionally, but no socialism.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 29, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> I have always thought of socialism as state ownership of the means of production.  However I can see there is some gray area, lots of social programs that do not involve government ownership.


Socialism is community ownership of the means of production. The state (meaning government) may represent the community when the economic system is democratic socialism. I don't think anything like that currently exists today, though.

Several countries, such as China, have government run capitalism — not communism. The government runs everything and the people don't have a say, since the government is a dictatorship. It's actually called the "people's democratic dictatorship," which is an oxymoron since with a dictatorship, the dictator isn't elected, so obviously, there is no democracy.

Occasionally, a leader is democratically elected and then manipulates elections until they are so corrupted that they become irrelevant. The leader becomes defacto dictator. That's what Putin has become and what was attempted in our last presidential election here in the U.S.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> Well, I sure as hell HOPE we don't go fascist but that seems to be on the ballot in some states.  Socialism isn't anywhere on the horizon.  Oh, there are brainless accusations flying around occasionally, but no socialism.


You could say the same about Fascism. We better be careful -- this is getting political.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 29, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> e better be careful -- this is getting political.


Ya think?


----------



## Lavinia (Sep 30, 2022)

A Socialist society is one where everyone is considered equal. However the 'one size fits all' policy doesn't work in practise because people vary so much. Children have widely different levels of intelligence and skills and to educate them all to the same level is very frustrating for the brighter ones.
If a child works hard at school, passes exams and takes a training course, surely they are entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who couldn't be bothered to work and so ends up doing menial tasks. All societies need doctors, scientists, engineers etc. They need to be educated and trained, which again, puts them on a higher level than those of lower intellect.
I don't think it's actually possible to have a classless society with everyone regarded as being the same.


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> A Socialist society is one where everyone is considered equal. However the 'one size fits all' policy doesn't work in practise because people vary so much. Children have widely different levels of intelligence and skills and to educate them all to the same level is very frustrating for the brighter ones.
> If a child works hard at school, passes exams and takes a training course, surely they are entitled to a higher standard of living than someone who couldn't be bothered to work and so ends up doing menial tasks. All societies need doctors, scientists, engineers etc. They need to be educated and trained, which again, puts them on a higher level than those of lower intellect.
> I don't think it's actually possible to have a classless society with everyone regarded as being the same.


Let's see if I can bring my 50+ years of interest in socialism to bear on this.   My comments will be "all Marx" and I agree with all of what I'll be saying.   I think I covered all your point in the following, @Lavinia .

Capitalist society is a class society.  There are various ways of identifying "classes" but the capitalist method of dividing society into "classes" based on income is an arbitrary method.  Where does the middle class end and the upper class begin?  $150,000 of annual income?  $160,000?  $200,000?

The Marxian method is based on a person's relationship to the economy; their role.  There's nothing arbitrary about that.  And the role has strong influence on their outlook, which becomes a class outlook.  So one class is the working class and the working class tends to have a working class outlook of laboring, struggling against exploitation, "pinching pennies", and everything else that goes into being a working class person.

Classes, then, do not end by decree.  Even ending exploitation doesn't end classes because the class outlook remains.  Ending class consciousness is a long process.  So the working class person is left with their class interests, class goals, class values, intentions, hopes, expectations, desires, purposes, etc. etc. etc.  These are what makes them a class.

So your first point: "everyone is considered equal" cannot be true if the assessment of society is valid.  We all have different abilities, intelligence, innate talents, interests, drives, ambitions, etc.   Those tend to become "entangled" with class consciousness.

Bottom line is that capitalism is class society and socialism will also be class society.  That is the essence of the meaning of "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It's the dictatorship of the working class over the capitalist class.  The real difference is that in the context of socialism where capitalist privileges are denied and the one equality is that of everyone being required to refrain from exploitation of others, owning businesses with employees, and other capitalist activities, the very existence of class distinctions can diminish and ultimately vanish, leading to a very distant "communist society" which would be classless.

So there can be no "one size fits all" policy in socialism.  Education will need to accommodate different interests, different intellects, etc. producing engineers, doctors (Cuba has excelled at this!), mathematicians, production workers, janitors, accountants, etc. etc.  And with the rule being "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", there will be a "pay scale" for different incomes for different job descriptions just like there is now.

So classless society ONLY "shows up" when classes vanish of themselves.  Marx said that by living in a society in which people cooperate rather than compete, economically, and become accustomed to democratic interaction and problem solving, the existing class-thinking and class-consciousness will diminish and eventually vanish, leaving communist society as the norm.  But that will be a very distant future after many generations of practicing cooperation and I'm not convinced it will ever happen.  But then there's no need to convince or be convinced.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 30, 2022)

May I suggest that those who really want to understand all of this don't look here!   You will not find the answer here!  

Most all, including me, have a strong bias and will present our arguments accordingly.  Some may be factual; many will not be.  Do your own research, do some reading and find your own conclusions...be careful, as having this knowledge, especially if you live in a Free Market Society, is critical as your votes, over time, will determine where you end up!


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 30, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> May I suggest that those who really want to understand all of this don't look here! You will not find the answer here!


Maybe so.  

It has me thinking that the definitions of Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism are not so important.  To me specific issues such as how do we manage Medicare or Government subsidized education and housing are what's important.  Not the label we put on it.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 30, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> Maybe so.
> 
> It has me thinking that the definitions of Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism are not so important.  To me specific issues such as how do we manage Medicare or Government subsidized education and housing are what's important.  Not the label we put on it.


I think you have to also ask if you and other likeminded voters can in anyway, by voting, influence how these services are run....


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

Lawrence said:


> How can you believe that a country can have a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control? I can’t.


OK.  Here's a good exercise.  List for me a variety of job titles of different kinds of workers.

Anti-socialists typically only can think of ditch diggers, line workers, trash collectors, janitors, etc.

What would you list?


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 30, 2022)

Ok, glad to oblige. Software engineer, Secretary, Book Keeper, Assistant Vice President, Operations Analyst, Carpenter, Customer Service Rep, Lawyer, Truck Driver, Equipment Operator, Chef, Nurse, Law Clerk, Event Manager, Dispatcher, Agricultural Worker, Pilot, etc …


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 30, 2022)

Senter said:


> OK.  Here's a good exercise.  List for me a variety of job titles of different kinds of workers.
> 
> Anti-socialists typically only can think of ditch diggers, line workers, trash collectors, janitors, etc.
> 
> What would you list?


Oops, I neglected to format my post as a reply. Here it is again:

Ok, glad to oblige. Software engineer, Secretary, Book Keeper, Assistant Vice President, Operations Analyst, Carpenter, Customer Service Rep, Lawyer, Truck Driver, Equipment Operator, Chef, Nurse, Law Clerk, Event Manager, Dispatcher, Agricultural Worker, Pilot, etc …


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Oops, I neglected to format my post as a reply. Here it is again:
> 
> Ok, glad to oblige. Software engineer, Secretary, Book Keeper, Assistant Vice President, Operations Analyst, Carpenter, Customer Service Rep, Lawyer, Truck Driver, Equipment Operator, Chef, Nurse, Law Clerk, Event Manager, Dispatcher, Agricultural Worker, Pilot, etc …


Pretty good!  But you don't believe that a country can have a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control?  Lawyers (which you listed) already run the USA, so why should that be expected to change?


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 30, 2022)

Senter said:


> Pretty good!  But you don't believe that a country can have a functioning, stable, economy of worker ownership and control?  Lawyers (which you listed) already run the USA, so why should that be expected to change?


So why has socialism failed over and over again, wherever it has been tried? North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.

Here are a few reasons why it has failed, and will continue to fail. Read if you dare, but we both know you will not. Socialism is clearly your religion.

https://bwcentral.org/2019/11/the-failure-of-socialism-in-the-world/

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/these-are-the-most-telling-failures-socialism

https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainer...-failed-idea-that-never-dies/?sh=746e3a8723cc

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/why-socialism-always-fails

Want more? Just do a search on the failure of socialism. You will get countless hits.


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> So why has socialism failed over and over again, wherever it has been tried? North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.
> 
> Here are a few reasons why it has failed, and will continue to fail. Read if you dare, but we both know you will not. Socialism is clearly your religion.
> 
> ...


I'm not interested in your bourgeois capitalist propaganda.  I probably forgot more *facts and truth* about the subject than you ever knew and more than any of those apologists will ever tell you.  First of all N. Korea has nothing to do with Marxism, socialism, or communism.  It's a ruthless dictatorship where the working class is very oppressed.  No democracy.  Little freedom.  Lots of threats from government.

Venezuela and Cuba have been very heavily sabotaged by the US in every conceivable way with the goal being total destruction.  If socialism is so damned bad, why does the US think it needs to make the Venezuelan and Cuban people suffer like this?  Why can't we just live and let live?  Do you have a logical answer for that?  No, because there is none.

Now, China and the USSR.  You seem to think socialism can be imposed and up-and-running in a year or two or five.  I explained it to some extent in a previous post which I mentioned in my last post to you.  In every case the transition to socialism, like the transition to capitalism (which took about 300 years from the first blacksmithing shop to the first country with a capitalist economy), happened gradually over time.  But standing against capitalists is a bit different from standing against a feudal landlord.  In China, Mao warned against "capitalist roaders" and "the gang of five" who were trying to subvert the effort, sabotage it, and divert it to capitalism before socialism could be established reliably.  But the counter-revolutionaries eventually won and state capitalism was established.  Similar in Russia.  The strategies failed.  Socialism didn't because socialism was never fully established in the first place.

Here are my earlier comments on it.

*BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. * Elsewhere I mentioned the taboo we have on discussing socialism in the US. That's what you're doing. You're trying to insult, intimidate, condescend, and conflict with a purpose of hoping to suppress the discussion and drive me out with my tail between my legs, as they say. Only in the US. In most other countries you can discuss it openly and fairly without any such crap. So it would be appreciated if you would "back off" and try honest discussion.


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> Maybe so.
> 
> It has me thinking that the definitions of Socialism, Communism, or Capitalism are not so important.  To me specific issues such as how do we manage Medicare or Government subsidized education and housing are what's important.  Not the label we put on it.


You're calling for socially-beneficial programs in our capitalist system.  If we could get such changes and keep them, that would be great.  FDR was arguably the most effective at producing a list of such programs, as you know.  But what happened since then?  One by one a large number of them have been eliminated, converted to capitalist-serving programs, or defunded and now we no longer have them available.  In capitalist society this is what happens.  We fight for rights and services only to have to keep fighting to keep them, and then we lose many of them anyway.  And I think most of us have grown weary of it all.

It's actually difficult to find a current significant national problem that wasn't created by capitalism and for which capitalism does not prevent a solution.  So in many cases solutions are impossible as long as we have capitalism and its profit motive.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 30, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> May I suggest that those who really want to understand all of this don't look here!   You will not find the answer here!
> 
> Most all, including me, have a strong bias and will present our arguments accordingly.  Some may be factual; many will not be.  Do your own research, do some reading and find your own conclusions...be careful, as having this knowledge, especially if you live in a Free Market Society, is critical as your votes, over time, will determine where you end up!


This thread caused me to do a little research into democracy vs republic, or it might have been one of the other threads on socialism. Either way, when I don't understand something, I do a little research. In this day and age with so much information being instantly available with just a few keystrokes, there's no excuse for being uninformed. Of course, there's a lot of misinformation out there, so one needs to weed through the biased information, but that's not too difficult.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 30, 2022)

Here's an example of socialism at its worst:

Hurricane Ian Flood Waters Leave Fla. Driver Stranded: See Rescue Workers Pull Woman from Her Car​https://people.com/human-interest/h...r-see-rescue-workers-pull-woman-from-her-car/

She should have let the free market handle her rescue!  </sarcasm>


----------



## Senter (Oct 13, 2022)

Someone, on another forum, asked "how will socialism transition to communism?"

This is a good subject for clarification because of the enormous confusion about it.

First of all, the short answer is "the transition will be gradual enough that the point at which the change from socialism to communism occurs will not be identifiable."  Also, it will not be planned or intentionally caused and so it will not be the result of force.  It will be as natural and gradual as the melting of snow leading to the germination of the seeds of the new season.  And actually even more gradual by far.

Part of the existing confusion is due to the latent and false belief that the policies imposed historically by communist parties following a successful revolution constituted "communism".  They did not.  Every communist party worked to establish socialism after a successful revolution.

Marx said that in class society, government mediates the class struggle in favor of the ruling class.  In capitalism the class struggle is between employers and employees; owners and workers.  The ruling class is the capitalist class or "bourgeoisie".  And the government mediates in favor of the bourgeoisie.

In socialism class society remains.  Classes cannot be eliminated by edict because classes ARE maintained and perpetuated by class consciousness.  And class consciousness consists of class goals, class interests, class identification, class hopes, class intentions, class desires and everything else that distinguished one class from another.  These things cannot be eliminated by laws.  Views, attitudes, beliefs, desires, and all else that constitute class consciousness must "wither away" of themselves over time, and Marx said that this "withering away" will progress as people become habituated to cooperating, democratically making decisions affecting society and life, and as people gradually give up their class consciousness under socialist rule of the working class over capital.   And communist society represents that state of affairs resulting from classes fully "withering away", during which time the state machinery also "withers away" leading to much of the state becoming obsolete as it will then be unnecessary for the mediation of classes since classes have vanished.

Communist society will be stateless, classless, and will ultimately involve no money as it will no longer be needed ....... if humanity ever gets to "communist society", but it is hard to imagine it would be possible right now.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 14, 2022)

Senter...like most Socialists you have your propaganda speak fully loaded up for anyone you can get to read/ listen to it!  Not surprised from someone living in the Socialists Republic of Oregon!  Both Socialized countries and Capitalistic countries have a mix of both systems.  Economies of nations are so very complex that a mix of both capitalism and socialism will always result, regardless of leadership of a country.  If you don't recognize this, anyone can "prove" the USA is socialized by pointing out the ways we have socialized many systems within our free market system.  The opposite can be said about Russia or Cuba.  In both cases these discussions would be void, as the majority of the USA still if free market...

For purposes of this discussion, I am using the terms 'free markets' vs. 'socialized markets' for ease of comparison only....

Free market countries will always remain free market only if the majority of the population understands what the difference is of free market vs. a socialized market.  With that knowledge the population will make the free market happen.   In a socialized market the people are not educated about free markets and are propagandized only to understand how good, socialized governance is for them.  They don't know, what they don't know.

I see the USA media slowly but surely going down the road of selling socialized markets.  Our educational system is also quickly moving aways from teaching free market vs. socialized markets.  More often they only preach the benefits of socialized markets...

Be afraid, be very afraid!


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 14, 2022)

Most Republicans Wrongly Believe Russia Is a Communist Country: Poll​https://www.newsweek.com/most-republicans-wrongly-believe-russia-communist-country-poll-1684317


----------



## Senter (Oct 15, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Senter...like most Socialists you have your propaganda speak fully loaded up for anyone you can get to read/ listen to it!


EVERY country and ideology generates it's own propaganda.



Timewise 60+ said:


> Both Socialized countries and Capitalistic countries have a mix of both systems.  Economies of nations are so very complex that a mix of both capitalism and socialism will always result, regardless of leadership of a country.  If you don't recognize this, anyone can "prove" the USA is socialized by pointing out the ways we have socialized many systems within our free market system.


Capitalism has the fundamental and consistent characteristic of private ownership of business for private profit.  That is what makes it "capitalism".

Socialism has the fundamental and consistent characteristic of worker control and a ban on private profit.  That is what makes it "socialism".

The two cannot be combined as one will "win" and suppress the other by it's power.




Timewise 60+ said:


> For purposes of this discussion, I am using the terms 'free markets' vs. 'socialized markets' for ease of comparison only....
> 
> Free market countries will always remain free market only if the majority of the population understands what the difference is of free market vs. a socialized market.  With that knowledge the population will make the free market happen.   In a socialized market the people are not educated about free markets and are propagandized only to understand how good, socialized governance is for them.  They don't know, what they don't know.


In the "free market USA" (which is not actually a free market) the people have been propagandized by 70 years of Cold War propaganda such that they actually often believe the government and economy include a little "socialism" here and there.   Meanwhile the propaganda has further confused any facts about socialism to disarm the people, and then applied a standing taboo to suppress any attempt to sort out the confusion.




Timewise 60+ said:


> I see the USA media slowly but surely going down the road of selling socialized markets.  Our educational system is also quickly moving aways from teaching free market vs. socialized markets.  More often they only preach the benefits of socialized markets...
> 
> Be afraid, be very afraid!


LOL!!!  Was FDR a socialist?  Yes or no.

You're edging up to nearly utilizing the taboo if-and-when you try to persuade people to refrain from a serious, intelligent discussion of the subject.  You didn't present any actual criticism of socialism, although you did show that you hold to certain false items of propaganda like "both socialized countries and capitalistic countries have a mix of both systems".  I'd welcome a serious, rational discussion of the subject any time you're willing.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 16, 2022)

Senter, as you know many definitions for Socialism can be found, so spin that as you will....but let me give you something to 'chew' on.  Spin as you will...

Source: *britannica.com* › politics, law & government › politics & political systems

August 23, 2022 - *socialism*, *social* and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people ...

We have many socialist systems that work alongside many private capitalist systems. Many of them are quite popular too.

Examples include:

public K-12 education, which functions alongside charter schools and private K-12s.

public libraries, which function very well in an age of bookstores.

public police forces, which work alongside private detectives and private security firms.

public infrastructure like roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, making modern life as comfort driven as it is today.

public parks, with green spaces and recreation space for all

Municipal power is in many towns, akin to the TVA. My old hometown had a company run by the town, with rates about 2/3 what you'd expect from the nearby private power companies in neighboring cities and towns--also lower downtime and better service, despite more inclement weather; and

Social Security, which is socialism for seniors. Who can still work for extra money if they must but won't be totally destitute if they don't. Medicare helps seniors as well.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 16, 2022)




----------



## Senter (Oct 16, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Senter, as you know many definitions for Socialism can be found, so spin that as you will....but let me give you something to 'chew' on.  Spin as you will...
> 
> Source: *britannica.com* › politics, law & government › politics & political systems
> 
> ...


Yes, there are many different ways nations have found to implement socialism.  But socialism is always about ending capitalism and private profit, and putting control in the collective hands of the people.  Here is a very good presentation of such things.  The most relevant part starts at the 17:00 timestamp.


----------



## Senter (Oct 16, 2022)

sch404 said:


> View attachment 245026


huh? 

That's a pretty cartoonish and silly way to misrepresent something so important.  As for me, I prefer mature and intelligent conversation.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 16, 2022)

Actually, I used to be a socialist when I was younger. I stopped being a socialist when I ran out of other people's money.


----------



## Senter (Oct 16, 2022)

sch404 said:


> Actually, I used to be a socialist when I was younger. I stopped being a socialist when I ran out of other people's money.


And now it looks like the leading US capitalists are running out of other people's money.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 16, 2022)

Only capitalism creates wealth. Only capitalism creates technological progress. Socialism creates nothing. NADA. Other than despair and misery. Don't get me started.


----------



## Senter (Oct 16, 2022)

sch404 said:


> Only capitalism creates wealth. Only capitalism creates technological progress. Socialism creates nothing. NADA. Other than despair and misery. Don't get me started.


Well, you're right: only capitalism creates wealth...... for capitalists.

By the end of 2021 the total US wealth was $142 trillion.

The *bottom half* wealth was $3.73 trillion or 2.6% of all wealth.

The *top half* wealth was $138.45 trillion or 97.45% of the wealth.

The wealth of the *top 1%* was more than $60 trillion or more than 42% of all wealth.


New EPI research shows CEO pay has soared by 1,460% since 1978 while workers' pay rose by 18.1% during the same time period.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/

Regarding what socialism creates, if you read my previous posts  here on the Senior Forums, you will have a chance to understand that there has been no socialist country in the 20th century nor in the first 22 years of this century.  I can probably direct you to those posts if you can't find them.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 16, 2022)

sch404 said:


> Only capitalism creates wealth. Only capitalism creates technological progress. Socialism creates nothing. NADA. Other than despair and misery. Don't get me started.


The NASA mission to the moon and ARPANET, which became the internet, were socialistic programs.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 16, 2022)

You make the point that capitalism only benefits capitalists. Uhh. Isn't that what capitalism is *supposed* to do??


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 16, 2022)

Senter said:


> Well, you're right: only capitalism creates wealth...... for capitalists.
> 
> By the end of 2021 the total US wealth was $142 trillion.
> 
> ...


Senter....odd that you only talk about 'wealth' in terms of a country!  As we all know our country is deep in debt spending more than they take in.  Of course all of this does not speak towards the people in America.  Because of the freemarket we all have an opportunity to create personal wealth.  As a society our people have a higher standard of living than all Socialist countries, and yes including Sweden.  I worked for a Swedish company and worked with many Swedish people.  I visited their homes and met their families.  They have very few poor people and the overall population live well, but not as well as most Americans.  And they are limited in what opportunities they can pursue...so they all tell me.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 16, 2022)

The U.S. doesn't even make the top 10 for standard of living ranking:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country

Sweden ranks pretty high.

Of course, most of the high ranking countries have a fairly homogeneous population, as apposed to the U.S., which is pretty diverse. We're a nation of immigrants. Some people appreciate that and others don't, but that's the way it is. But because of our diverse population, an economic system that works well for other countries might not be so good for us.


----------



## Manatee (Oct 16, 2022)

Ask the folks from Venezuela who are trying to come to the US.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 16, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Oops, I neglected to format my post as a reply. Here it is again:
> 
> Ok, glad to oblige. Software engineer, Secretary, Book Keeper, Assistant Vice President, Operations Analyst, Carpenter, Customer Service Rep, Lawyer, Truck Driver, Equipment Operator, Chef, Nurse, Law Clerk, Event Manager, Dispatcher, Agricultural Worker, Pilot, etc …


 You left out teachers and personal care workers for the aged and disabled. Without some level of socialism both slip down the ladders of respect and recompense.


----------



## Senter (Oct 16, 2022)

sch404 said:


> You make the point that capitalism only benefits capitalists. Uhh. Isn't that what capitalism is *supposed* to do??


Of course!  BUT . . . it was "sold" to society as benefiting us all.  Yet more and more it benefits the capitalist AT THE EXPENSE of the rest of us.  Are you ok with that?


----------



## Senter (Oct 16, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Senter....odd that you only talk about 'wealth' in terms of a country!  As we all know our country is deep in debt spending more than they take in.  Of course all of this does not speak towards the people in America.  Because of the freemarket we all have an opportunity to create personal wealth.  As a society our people have a higher standard of living than all Socialist countries, and yes including Sweden.  I worked for a Swedish company and worked with many Swedish people.  I visited their homes and met their families.  They have very few poor people and the overall population live well, but not as well as most Americans.  And they are limited in what opportunities they can pursue...so they all tell me.


Sweden is not a socialist country so it is irrelevant to the conversation.  Can you name a country in which the economic system is designed to serve the people and private profit from privately owned business is banned?  If not then you don't know of a socialist country.  And that's not surprising because there is no socialist country.  Even Cuba says they are building socialism but are not "there" yet.

The capitalists and their government in the US work every angle to persuade you that you "live well" and have a good life, but I posted numbers that don't lie.  Heck, I have a good life!  I own my home outright with no mortgage, have plenty of income, and own stocks and annuities.  But I know this is not about me.  It's about society as a whole.  If my society is suffering, then I'm not happy and shouldn't be.  And I think of that as being a patriotic attitude.  A flag in the back of a pickup truck with a rifle in the back window isn't patriotic.  It's just an idiotic display of belligerent nationalism!


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 16, 2022)

Manatee said:


> Ask the folks from Venezuela who are trying to come to the US.


The U.S. is partially responsible for the refugee crisis and the migrants coming to America from Venezuela. We helped create the conditions that have resulted in so many fleeing. Venezuela would be a far better place to live if the U.S. would lift economic sanctions on it. Sanctions hurt the ordinary citizens. They have virtually no effect on the oppressive leaders who are the intended targets. Sure, we don't like their oppressive government, and we don't like the drug trade and violence, but the U.S. isn't exactly a model of ethics and equality. Removing sanctions would allow the country's economy to thrive, which will lead to more democratic policies.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 16, 2022)

Senter said:


> Of course!  BUT . . . it was "sold" to society as benefiting us all.  Yet more and more it benefits the capitalist AT THE EXPENSE of the rest of us.  Are you ok with that?


If you own stocks, that means you are, by definition, a capitalist. An evil, selfish, money grubbing capitalist! Just like me! Just like millions of other people like me who toiled away during their working lives in unstable, oftimes stressful and downright shitty jobs so they could raise their families put a roof over their heads and save a little for their retirement, which they then invested sensibly like any good capitalist would do. All I can say is welcome to the (capitalist) club!


----------



## sch404 (Oct 16, 2022)

Senter said:


> Sweden is not a socialist country so it is irrelevant to the conversation.  Can you name a country in which the economic system is designed to serve the people and private profit from privately owned business is banned?  If not then you don't know of a socialist country.  And that's not surprising because there is no socialist country.  Even Cuba says they are building socialism but are not "there" yet.
> 
> The capitalists and their government in the US work every angle to persuade you that you "live well" and have a good life, but I posted numbers that don't lie.  Heck, I have a good life!  I own my home outright with no mortgage, have plenty of income, and own stocks and annuities.  But I know this is not about me.  It's about society as a whole.  If my society is suffering, then I'm not happy and shouldn't be.  And I think of that as being a patriotic attitude.  A flag in the back of a pickup truck with a rifle in the back window isn't patriotic.  It's just an idiotic display of belligerent nationalism!


This is where you are so mistaken in your argument! It IS about you! To see the evils of capitalism just look in the mirror! I rest my case. Q.E.D.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> Sweden is not a socialist country so it is irrelevant to the conversation.  Can you name a country in which the economic system is designed to serve the people and private profit from privately owned business is banned?  If not then you don't know of a socialist country.  And that's not surprising because there is no socialist country.  Even Cuba says they are building socialism but are not "there" yet.
> 
> Your definition for Socialism is lacking!  Here is a recent post of a better perspective. (See below)  I found many articles that agree that Socialized countries can still be found throughout the world.  But, I'll give you one!  You are correct on Sweden, although in a recent pole, most Americans believe Sweden is Socialized.


Socialist Countries 2022

_Socialist countries are states that have aligned themselves with socialism. There is no criteria or official process for being named a socialist state. All that is required is that a country identifies itself as socialist. This includes nations that claim to be socialists or have constitutions that state that they are based on socialism, even if they do not rigidly follow the economic or political systems associated with socialism, because socialism is still the foundation of their political and economic policy. Similarly, countries that appear to follow at least some socialist principles, but do not openly declare themselves socialist countries are not regarded as socialist._

*States Currently Governed by Socialist or Communist Parties:*

In many cases, while a country may have become more democratic and/or capitalist and removed references to socialism/communism from their constitution, the ruling political party still operates based upon socialist/communist principles: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bolivia, Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Mepal, Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countrieshttps://www.bing.com/search?q=socia...650C4C0E911FC6F421CC1B88&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

sch404 said:


> If you own stocks, that means you are, by definition, a capitalist. An evil, selfish, money grubbing capitalist! Just like me! Just like millions of other people like me who toiled away during their working lives in unstable, oftimes stressful and downright shitty jobs so they could raise their families put a roof over their heads and save a little for their retirement, which they then invested sensibly like any good capitalist would do. All I can say is welcome to the (capitalist) club!


Bunk.  A capitalist is an owner/controller of a business and a capitalist advocate need not own or control any business.  As a person who has lent IRA money to a mutual fund I'm neither.  And as a critic of capitalism and advocate of socialism I've made it clear where my loyalties lie.

Do you believe that everyone who pays into Social Security and Medicare is a socialist?


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Socialist Countries 2022
> 
> _Socialist countries are states that have aligned themselves with socialism. There is no criteria or official process for being named a socialist state. All that is required is that a country identifies itself as socialist. This includes nations that claim to be socialists or have constitutions that state that they are based on socialism, even if they do not rigidly follow the economic or political systems associated with socialism, because socialism is still the foundation of their political and economic policy. Similarly, countries that appear to follow at least some socialist principles, but do not openly declare themselves socialist countries are not regarded as socialist._
> 
> ...


BTW, you altered my quote by adding your own words.   On most forums that is a no-no.

Here's the absurdity of the World Population Review 'definition' of socialism ......  it says "_All that is required is that a country identifies itself as socialist. This includes nations that claim to be socialists .... even if they do not rigidly follow the economic or political systems associated with socialism, because socialism is still the foundation of their political and economic policy. Similarly, countries that appear to follow at least some socialist principles, but do not openly declare themselves socialist countries are not regarded as socialist."_

In other words, it's all just a matter of opinion.   Your opinion is just as valid as mine or Marx or anyone else and so there is no reliable truth based on fact.  So N.Korea is democratic because it's in their name, and theft isn't always theft and juries are pointless.

_Cute._


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> Of course!  BUT . . . it was "sold" to society as benefiting us all.  Yet more and more it benefits the capitalist AT THE EXPENSE of the rest of us.  Are you ok with that?


NO! If you look at the average household income, adjusted for inflation, in the USA going back to the 1960's, the USA population has seen ongoing income growth. Look it up if you doubt it...


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> NO! If you look at the average household income, adjusted for inflation, in the USA going back to the 1960's, the USA population has seen ongoing income growth. Look it up if you doubt it...


I've probably looked it up a couple of dozen times more than you have.  Yes, ongoing income growth.  Less than 0.33% per year.  That loses against inflation, "BIGLY."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/


And I'm sure you've seen this one...
https://www.advisorperspectives.com...d-u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective


So why misrepresent the true picture?


----------



## sch404 (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> Bunk.  A capitalist is an owner/controller of a business and a capitalist advocate need not own or control any business.  As a person who has lent IRA money to a mutual fund I'm neither.  And as a critic of capitalism and advocate of socialism I've made it clear where my loyalties lie.
> 
> Do you believe that everyone who pays into Social Security and Medicare is a socialist?


The only thing that is 'bunk' is your argument! If you own stock, as you have already asserted that you do, you both own and control the 'means of production' the factories which exploit the working class. That is according to both your proxy statement and Karl Marx. I gather you must be fairly new to this.. still trying to win your first argument in the world of blogging? I'll help you any way that I can, but in this case I think you have simply picked the wrong hill to die on.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 17, 2022)

Here is the true picture of unfettered capitalism in America.


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

sch404 said:


> The only thing that is 'bunk' is your argument! If you own stock, as you have already asserted that you do, you both own and control the 'means of production' the factories which exploit the working class. That is according to both your proxy statement and Karl Marx. I gather you must be fairly new to this.. still trying to win your first argument in the world of blogging? I'll help you any way that I can, but in this case I think you have simply picked the wrong hill to die on.


You're trying to turn this into an argument about me rather than the subject.   As an investor in mutual funds through my IRA I have no control over any business and there's no proxy statement.  It seems you are the one new to this.  

Now, try addressing the subject of the thread.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> You're trying to turn this into an argument about me rather than the subject.   As an investor in mutual funds through my IRA I have no control over any business and there's no proxy statement.  It seems you are the one new to this.
> 
> Now, try addressing the subject of the thread.


Senter, I am anxious to learn from you. Could you please name your top 3 socialist nations — not someone else’s opinion, but YOURS.


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Senter, I am anxious to learn from you. Could you please name your top 3 socialist nations — not someone else’s opinion, but YOURS.


Well, I answered that in post #59 and 106, but I'll do it once more for you.  And BTW I'm remembering our previous conversations.

Let me help you answer your question for yourself.    --What is socialism if not a substitute for capitalism?  And what kind of substitute?  While every attempt at socialism has its own characteristics, just like every capitalist country has its own characteristics, just as in capitalism we also find a few consistent traits common to every call for "socialism".   

Every socialist has called for an end to the private ownership of business for private profit that is the hallmark of capitalism.  Every socialist has called for "the liberation of the working class from exploitation by capitalism".  So while capitalism is defined by its main trait of private ownership of business for private profit, socialism is defined by its main trait of banning  private ownership of business for private profit, and it promises to do this by transparency: by the power of democratic control of conditions in the workplace and in society as a whole.  Karl Marx said “Democracy is the road to socialism” because democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

So what countries can you think of that have banned the new formation of new privately-owned businesses and facilitates and empowers workers to run their businesses democratically and collectively?   IOW what countries have put the working class in control over the capitalists?   The only possibility I can think of is Cuba, but Cuba is so damaged, oppressed, and harmed in every way imaginable by the USA and its embargoes and attacks and attempted assassinations that we can't get much real news out of Cuba as it's all "interpreted" by capitalist agents who only want to harm and terminate this tiny, powerless nation.  Similarly in the case of Venezuela.

So what exceptions do you know of?


----------



## sch404 (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> You're trying to turn this into an argument about me rather than the subject.   As an investor in mutual funds through my IRA I have no control over any business and there's no proxy statement.  It seems you are the one new to this.
> 
> Now, try addressing the subject of the thread.


Your fund owns the stocks. Your fund votes the proxies. You own the fund. You have painted yourself into the corner of left/liberal hypocrisy. There is no saving you now. I tried my best. Goodbye


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

sch404 said:


> Your fund owns the stocks. Your fund votes the proxies. You own the fund. You have painted yourself into the corner of left/liberal hypocrisy. There is no saving you now. I tried my best. Goodbye


You pay/paid into Social Security and Medicare.  You're a socialist.  There's a nice hypocrisy corner for you!


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> So what exceptions do you know of?


Exactly what I expected from you, reams of excuses and evasion. You are unable to name a successful thriving socialist country anywhere on the planet because there are none, and I venture to say, never will be.


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Exactly what I expected from you, reams of excuses and evasion. You are unable to name a successful thriving socialist country anywhere on the planet because there are none, and I venture to say, never will be.


And that is exactly what I expected from you with your phony "I want to learn from you" crap.

I gave you the facts, but I understand you HAVE TO attack and reject it by pretending whatever is the opposite of what I might say.  That's who you are.

And you are causing this thread to degenerate into what the management fears about "politics".  But I can deal with this by putting you on "ignore".   Bye.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Oct 17, 2022)

This news struck me as being THE symbol of Capitalism today. Big corporations merging together to create private monstrosities that control it all. ( What ever these monopolies push/sell). I think Fascism is defined in a similar manner.

Fascism="Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini

_"Kroger Plans to Buy Albertsons Grocery Stores in a Massive Merger

Grocery stores in the US might be about to undergo a dramatic change. Kroger has announced plans to buy Albertsons in a deal it says totals nearly $25 billion.

For:
"This merger advances our commitment to build a more equitable and sustainable food system by expanding our footprint into new geographies to serve more of America with fresh and affordable food and accelerates our position as a more compelling alternative to larger and non-union competitors," Rodney McMullen, Kroger CEO, said in a statement.

Against:

They argue prices could ultimately rise due to the merger and that competition will be driven out of some markets. "There is no reason to allow two of the biggest supermarket chains in the country to merge--especially with food prices already soaring,” said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly organization. "With 60% of grocery sales concentrated among just 5 national chains, a Kroger-Albertons deal would squeeze consumers already struggling to afford food, crush workers fighting for fair wages, and destroy independent, community stores. This merger is a cut and dry case of monopoly power, and enforcers should block it.""_

https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/kroger-albertsons-grocery-stores-merger


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 17, 2022)

Norway, according to this article, is far more socialist than Venezuela.

"In Norway, the surplus from its oil boom has been used to build a $1 trillion collectively-owned capital fund with the return on that capital going to finance general government spending, including the country’s large welfare state. This capital fund is even colorfully described by the Norwegian government as “the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.”
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/27/norway-is-far-more-socialist-than-venezuela/


----------



## Senter (Oct 17, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Norway, according to this article, is far more socialist than Venezuela.
> 
> "In Norway, the surplus from its oil boom has been used to build a $1 trillion collectively-owned capital fund with the return on that capital going to finance general government spending, including the country’s large welfare state. This capital fund is even colorfully described by the Norwegian government as “the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.”
> https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/01/27/norway-is-far-more-socialist-than-venezuela/


Norway is not socialist.  Browse these. (If you can't get access I might be able to do an image or something.)

It seems Norwegians are a bit better informed on such political questions than many Americans are.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 17, 2022)

Senter said:


> And that is exactly what I expected from you with your phony "I want to learn from you" crap.
> 
> I gave you the facts, but I understand you HAVE TO attack and reject it by pretending whatever is the opposite of what I might say.  That's who you are.
> 
> And you are causing this thread to degenerate into what the management fears about "politics".  But I can deal with this by putting you on "ignore".   Bye.


And that is exactly what I expected from you. You can‘t name a successful socialist country because there are none. As a college freshman I was honestly enchanted with socialism - untilI I majored in economics. The problem with you socialists is that you always believe you will get it right next time, but of course, you don’t, and we wind up with Cuba, Venezuela, China,   North Korea, and the failed Soviet Empire.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 17, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> And that is exactly what I expected from you. You can‘t name a successful socialist country because there are none. As a college freshman I was honestly enchanted with socialism - untilI I majored in economics. The problem with you socialists is that you always believe you will get it right next time, but of course, you don’t, and we wind up with Cuba, Venezuela, China,   North Korea, and the failed Soviet Empire.


What's your definition of socialism?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 18, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> What's your definition of socialism?


Good question.

Communism/capitalism is not a binary situation. I see it as a continuum with various combinations in between. Australia is clearly towards the capitalism end of the continuum but I consider us to be a social democracy with limitations on private enterprise imposed by governments to protect consumers and workers. Competition, the driver of capitalism tends to be less effective in countries with smaller populations. Without government imposed checks and balances the consumer is price gouged by greedy corporations.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 18, 2022)

Senter said:


> I've probably looked it up a couple of dozen times more than you have.  Yes, ongoing income growth.  Less than 0.33% per year.  That loses against inflation, "BIGLY."
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/
> 
> 
> ...


I looked it up, and it was inflation adjusted and factual!   Move on....


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 18, 2022)

All,
I need to *warn my follow members* that posting on this particular post any further is a *waste of your valuable time*.  It seems we have an individual here, senter, that knows so much more than we all do, therefore, we should not really upset him/ her with any additional posts.  Our thoughts or opinions.  They just don't matter, as the true answers only he/ she knows.  So, I suggest we just move on...


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> I looked it up, and it was inflation adjusted and factual!   Move on....


Yup.  The red, orange, and green lines represent half of the population and you're happy with that.  That is your "ongoing income growth" which seems to satisfy you.   That half owns 2.6% of all wealth.  And knowing that you claim victory.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com...d-u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 18, 2022)

Senter said:


> Yup.  The red, orange, and green lines represent half of the population and you're happy with that.  That is your "ongoing income growth" which seems to satisfy you.   That half owns 2.6% of all wealth.  And knowing that you claim victory.
> 
> https://www.advisorperspectives.com...d-u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective


Did, I hit a nerve?  Move...on...


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> All,
> I need to *warn my follow(sic) members* that posting on this particular post any further is a *waste of your valuable time*.  It seems we have an individual here, senter, that knows so much more than we all do, therefore, we should not really upset him/ her with any additional posts.  Our thoughts or opinions.  They just don't matter, as the true answers only he/ she knows.  So, I suggest we just move on...


And I need to remind my FELLOW members that only in the USA  are we subjected to a taboo against discussing socialism in rational, intelligent terms.   The culture has produced an army of ready attackers, willing to insult, malign, and offend anyone who dares discuss socialism in order to stop the discussion and prevent the population from exploring and discovering the facts.  This is what "Timewise 60+" is doing.  He apparently wants to cause this thread to be locked down by turning it into a fight if he can by making me the subject rather than discussing a subject that scares him.


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Did, I hit a nerve?  Move...on...


Not at all.  You only applied what is commonly called a "spin" to the truth.  Are you familiar with that term?


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 18, 2022)

Senter said:


> Not at all.  You only applied what is commonly called a "spin" to the truth.  Are you familiar with that term?


So do you feel attacked, insulted, maligned, and offended?  That was not my intent, just messing with you...


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> So do you feel attacked, insulted, maligned, and offended?  That was not my intent, just messing with you...


No, I just characterized and explained what you're doing.  No prob.  I'm putting you on "ignore".  Bye.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 18, 2022)

You say there is great wealth and income inequality in the world?
The peasants have no bread?
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 18, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> What's your definition of socialism?


Government ownership of the means of production and distribution.


----------



## Raddragn (Oct 18, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Government ownership of the means of production and distribution.


That's on the extreme end; there are other manifestations in a decreasing order. Certain political entities have made a ''scare" weapon out of it and vastly exaggerated the effects.


----------



## Pepper (Oct 18, 2022)

sch404 said:


> Qu'ils mangent de la brioche


Delightful sentiment, did you make that up?


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Raddragn said:


> That's on the extreme end; there are other manifestations in a decreasing order. Certain political entities have made a ''scare" weapon out of it and vastly exaggerated the effects.


Yes, the whole point of socialism is to change the relationship between employer and employee to one in which the employee IS the employer.

Government ownership doesn't change it.  And that is why Lenin referred to such an arrangement as "state capitalism".


----------



## sch404 (Oct 18, 2022)

Socialism haiku

I have a great plan. 
Tax the rich, give it to me. 
Socialism rocks!


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 18, 2022)

Raddragn said:


> That's on the extreme end; there are other manifestations in a decreasing order. Certain political entities have made a ''scare" weapon out of it and vastly exaggerated the effects.


Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. I suspect that what you refer to is a typical welfare state — free enterprise tempered with abundant regulation, high taxes on the “rich”, and numerous welfare programs, many racially and minority oriented -- in short, well you get the picture.


----------



## sch404 (Oct 18, 2022)

Pepper said:


> Delightful sentiment, did you make that up?


No it was this French lady. Marie something


----------



## Murrmurr (Oct 18, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Government ownership of the means of production and distribution.


That more closely defines communism.

Socialism is an economic ideology. It can be the foundation of a government's economy but that government can be communist or have elements of communism, or be a democracy...any type of government can have a socialist or partially socialist economy if that's what they want.


----------



## Raddragn (Oct 18, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution.


"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the COMMUNITY as a whole." Not necessarily the "government." The degree of socialism in any community can vary in it's concentration - from almost none to concentrated. Societies rarely flourish long enough under the highest level long enough to be even noted nor do they at the lowest leval
Some issues are better handled by the government - given the wide range of human empathy from almost none to all encompassing.


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Raddragn said:


> "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the COMMUNITY as a whole." Not necessarily the "government." The degree of socialism in any community can vary in it's concentration - from almost none to concentrated. Societies rarely flourish long enough under the highest level long enough to be even noted nor do they at the lowest leval
> Some issues are better handled by the government - given the wide range of human empathy from almost none to all encompassing.


And, we always have to ask whether a person says "communism" meaning the typical policies, strategies, and methods of a "communist party" in their effort to establish socialism, or whether they mean a communist system which is stateless, classless, and moneyless.  Since it would be stateless, a communist society could not have government ownership of anything.

A communist party could conceivably create a socialist economy if they succeeded at what they do, because every revolution led by a communist party worked initially to establish socialism.  That was their goal.  So in that sense @Murrmurr is correct.  He is also correct about democracy although I don't think he meant it as I do.  Socialism would be a "_socio-economic system_" of both socialist government and a worker-run economy. Limiting "socialism" to an economy or "economic ideology" is incorrect since government always rises and functions in service to the economic base. So a socialist government is needed to mediate the class struggle in favor of the working class and to facilitate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or governance over capital and capitalists. But such governance must be transparent to work, and so it must be democratic as well. Karl Marx said “Democracy is the road to socialism” because democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. So democracy is the weapon of socialism and any socialist government. Hence, a socialist government can be described as "democratic".


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 18, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Government ownership of the means of production and distribution.


When the government doesn't represent the people and only represents the leaders -- usually dictators, that's called _government run capitalism._

When the government represents the will of the people and the leaders are elected in legitimate elections, it would be socialism -- democratic socialism. Many Nordic countries, such as Norway, have a democratic socialism form of government and economy, which have been extremely successful. 

So how many of those countries you listed are actually socialistic? None. And the reason most of them failed is due to the crippling sanctions we imposed on them because of their flawed democracies. Who the hell are we to punish other countries because we don't like their governments? Nearly half of the U.S. populace seems to crave an authoritarian leader, so who are we to punish other countries because they have dictators? We have friendly relations with many other countries that have dictators.

Well, come to think of it, Venezuela took ownership of the oil industries, and that's why we punished them. So that could be considered socialism if the public benefits from it, but I don't believe that's the case.

Cuba might have been successful had their economy not been hamstrung with sanctions imposed by the U.S. And they might have a successful democracy, also. We %$#@!ed them and never gave them a chance. We did the same to Venezuela, too, and several other countries. They don't have anything resembling a socialistic form of economy.


----------



## Knight (Oct 18, 2022)

The socialist system as I understand it still has a class system. If that is a true statement then how would a person get out from under the working class to be part of the upper class? 

I ask only because I've lived under the capitalist system with no education higher than high school I've managed to rise from a poverty upbringing to us living a comfortable life. I think more than likely in a socialist system that would have set my life in the working class.


----------



## Murrmurr (Oct 18, 2022)

Knight said:


> The socialist system as I understand it still has a class system. If that is a true statement then how would a person get out from under the working class to be part of the upper class?
> 
> I ask only because I've lived under the capitalist system with no education higher than high school I've managed to rise from a poverty upbringing to us living a comfortable life. I think more than likely in a socialist system that would have set my life in the working class.


and usually your children would have little chance of climbing that ladder as well.


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Knight said:


> The socialist system as I understand it still has a class system. If that is a true statement then how would a person get out from under the working class to be part of the upper class?
> 
> I ask only because I've lived under the capitalist system with no education higher than high school I've managed to rise from a poverty upbringing to us living a comfortable life. I think more than likely in a socialist system that would have set my life in the working class.


Hi Knight.  I'm not going to throw guesses and speculation at you.  I've been interested in socialism for over 50 years and I can tell you you are correct that socialist society would be class society, and let me explain why and how it works.

First, in socialist ideology, class is not based on money.  It is based on one's relationship to the system and forces of production.  And it entails "class consciousness".   So there is no "upper class" and "lower class" etc.   There is the capitalist class because their relationship to production is their ownership of business and their "right" to appropriate profit from their businesses in the capitalist system.

Then there is the class of people the capitalists exploit for their profit: the working class.  This includes about 99% of the public.  If you're disabled or too old to work or a child, you are still a member of the working class because you have no prospect for using wealth and ownership of a business to put you in the capitalist class, and, all you really have to make a living is your labor, so you sell your labor to the capitalist class.  (We can talk about sole proprietorships and small "mom and pop" businesses if you like.)  So to move from the working class to the capitalist class a person would have to own a business, but a window washing business would make you no "better" than a member of the working class because you would have no real power to buy government policy and candidates to do your bidding.

Socialism would nationalize select businesses that are critical to national security and it would prioritize worker-owned worker-managed businesses, while at some point (maybe immediately) banning the creation of any new privately-owned businesses for private profit.  Existing corporate America and corporate elite would be properly taxed.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 18, 2022)

Raddragn said:


> "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the COMMUNITY as a whole."


Oh, the “COMMUNITY”. In a country of more than 300 million how do you define Community? No more government, laws, or constitution, just I’ll defined “Communities” running their own show. Sounds like CHAOS to me.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 18, 2022)

I'd like to see broadband access socialized. We pay far to much for that utility which most of us couldn't live without. Obviously, capitalism has failed us in that realm and in pretty much all realms when it comes to essentials. Capitalism works best with luxury items unless it's heavily regulated, or if there is easy entry into the industry and market.


----------



## Knight (Oct 18, 2022)

Senter said:


> Hi Knight.  I'm not going to throw guesses and speculation at you.  I've been interested in socialism for over 50 years and I can tell you you are correct that socialist society would be class society, and let me explain why and how it works.
> 
> First, in socialist ideology, class is not based on money.  It is based on one's relationship to the system and forces of production.  And it entails "class consciousness".   So there is no "upper class" and "lower class" etc.   There is the capitalist class because their relationship to production is their ownership of business and their "right" to appropriate profit from their businesses in the capitalist system.
> 
> ...


I don't think  you explained how the socialist system differs from the capitalist system. Maybe an example of what I want to understand would help.

Example
I was raised by  working class parents  that held jobs in a company employee owned. I had no education beyond  12 years. My only option for employment was to apply for & get a job in production at the same place my parents were employed at.

What would it take or would it be possible for me to go from production worker to some higher paid better position in the company? 

Another question
Looking at nationalized businesses. What prevents employees in those from deciding not to comply with a "need" government officials deemed critical to national security?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 18, 2022)

I am pretty much illiterate when it comes to economics but I have one or two insights I would like to share.

During the Industrial Evolution in England it was private capital that built the railways and as I understood it, the same thing happened in US. However, in Australia with huge distances to cover and a very small population, railways were built by state governments. No capitalists could see any profit to be had. Today, the Sydney transport system is still a mixture of government and privately owned enterprises. 

In early days of aviation Australians were serviced by a combination of commercial and government owned airlines. Today even QANTAS is owned by foreign investors and is no longer our national carrier. Our major banks are also majority owned by foreign capital.

IMO some enterprises should be government owned in the interest of national security


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 18, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> I'd like to see broadband access socialized. We pay far to much for that utility which most of us couldn't live without. Obviously, capitalism has failed us in that realm and in pretty much all realms when it comes to essentials. Capitalism works best with luxury items unless it's heavily regulated, or if there is easy entry into the industry and market.


Huh? Capitalism has no more to do with universal access to the Net than it has to do with universal access to public education. Pass a law and Capitalist corporations might compete (if asked) to be the lowest cost highest quality supplier of the service.


----------



## Senter (Oct 18, 2022)

Knight said:


> I don't think  you explained how the socialist system differs from the capitalist system. Maybe an example of what I want to understand would help.
> 
> Example
> I was raised by  working class parents  that held jobs in a company employee owned. I had no education beyond  12 years. My only option for employment was to apply for & get a job in production at the same place my parents were employed at.
> ...


So your parents worked in an employee-owned business.  Well, at this time, one of the main ways many are trying to transition to a socialist economy is by creating worker-owned, worker-controlled co-ops (Workers' Self-Directed Enterprises or "WSDEs").  There are some big differences between them and most other types of co-ops, some of which include provisions for workers of WSDEs to hire and fire the CEO and Board members, according to the Articles of Incorporation the CEO's pay is typically set to 7 or 8 times the lowest-paid worker, and workers vote on what to do with the profits, and much more.  But regarding workers moving up the ladder in the business, the workers typically vote for workers who would serve as managers and Board members with qualified workers rotating through these positions with appropriate pay scale, and the managers promote workers if that is how workers want promotions handled.  Or the workers can vote on a different arrangement or system.  It's their company.  So the point is to design the business, which is usually the LLC legal structure, in a way that promotes workers' democratic collective control of it, from hiring to vacations, pay scale, right through to deciding what to do with the profits.  And therefore yes, a pathway would be created for workers to qualify for higher progressively positions with commensurate pay raises much like we find in our current capitalist system in all probability.

Right now Cuba is transitioning government-operated activities and businesses to worker co-ops as part of the continuing process of building socialism.



Knight said:


> Another question
> Looking at nationalized businesses. What prevents employees in those from deciding not to comply with a "need" government officials deemed critical to national security?


If I understand your question, I would answer that we have "businesses" now that are operated by government, like the State Bank of North Dakota, Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA, and many more.   Any problem you could imagine has probably been handled by such agencies/businesses (for lack of a better term).  But maybe I'm not understanding your question.


----------



## Knight (Oct 19, 2022)

@Senter
Quote
"If I understand your question, I would answer that we have "businesses" now that are operated by government, like the State Bank of North Dakota, Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA, and many more. Any problem you could imagine has probably been handled by such agencies/businesses (for lack of a better term). But maybe I'm not understanding your question."

You didn't understand. I guess to clarify I don't consider Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA as businesses. I view those as a result of needs developed over the years that are paid for by taxes. A business that would impact security could be like utility industries. 

I'll use an example.
A electrical utility tied into a national grid could include several utility companies. In the middle of winter thousands of miles of transmission lines collapse due to severe weather. That leaves the northern tier with 50 million people out of power with temps below zero. The union employees of power companies all part of that national grid don't show up to make needed repairs. The union  decided they want better pay & benefits because of the severe conditions they have to work in. 

Because they too want more, the same union employees of the generation stations that have been damaged due to transmission lines collapsing causing the generation stations to shut down won't begin damage repair. 

That is extreme I know but as an example an extreme is needed in order for me to understand what action the government would take under a socialist system.


----------



## Senter (Oct 19, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Senter
> Quote
> "If I understand your question, I would answer that we have "businesses" now that are operated by government, like the State Bank of North Dakota, Social Security, Medicare, the FBI, the CIA, and many more. Any problem you could imagine has probably been handled by such agencies/businesses (for lack of a better term). But maybe I'm not understanding your question."
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand your choice of extreme examples.  I often do the same to make principles clear.

I felt SS, Medicare, the FBI and such were problematical too.  That is why I started the list with a state bank, but your example, though hypothetical, makes it clear.  Thanks.

As I often say in reply to questions about how it might work, I'll tell you that any transition to socialism would be gradual and address issues that would provide needed relief to Americans, first.  And BTW, I fully expect based on history and sentiment among socialists, that unions would be encouraged and protected because it is in the interest of the working class.

So in fact, the answer to your question would be "how are such situations handled now?"   One thing that would NOT be done would be any kind of punishment of unions.  But think about this: studies show that when private profit is taken out of the equation, wages go significantly up, prices come down, and productivity increases by about 14% in studies of worker co-ops.  Higher wages mean increased sense of fairness and satisfaction, and that is why studies find higher productivity and other metrics increasing.  Also, the workers may be justified in receiving a "situational increase" in pay if conditions are difficult.   Remember, socialism would be guided and determined and run by the working class or it isn't socialism.

One of the first tasks of socialist, and it's happening now, is to sort out the role of government and methods of ensuring that the government is irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.

Thanks for the question and clarification.


----------



## Knight (Oct 19, 2022)

Senter said:


> One of the first tasks of socialist, and it's happening now, is to sort out the role of government and methods of ensuring that the government is irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.
> 
> Thanks for the question and clarification.


I'm beginning to understand your position in believing it's possible to convert the American capitalist system to a socialist system.  It sounds like conversion would be possible if everyone held the same belief that a socialist society will solve the myriad of problems.  Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now. 

So I'll ask. 

Can you give examples of sorting out  the role of government that is happening now ?  I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the ability to insure government being  irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.

I noticed you separated workers & people. What criteria will be used to identify that difference? What will be the role of government in addressing the needs of those people?


----------



## Senter (Oct 20, 2022)

Knight said:


> I'm beginning to understand your position in believing it's possible to convert the American capitalist system to a socialist system.  It sounds like conversion would be possible if everyone held the same belief that a socialist society will solve the myriad of problems.  Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now.
> 
> So I'll ask.
> 
> Can you give examples of sorting out  the role of government that is happening now ?  I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the ability to insure government being  irrevocably dedicated to the workers and people.


It is happening in many countries in small groups of socialists, theoreticians, and ideologues.  Socialism has been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was and is beginning to rebuild due to the conditions we're all facing.

The first issue regarding the state will be its role in the transition of power.  Once the state is held by socialists there will be a need for reforming and reshaping the state to establish it and to keep it in the service of the people rather than capital.

Since the socialist community is very small, the question is just beginning to be debated.  It is often just being raised as something to sort out as we see HERE.

Sometimes the history of the socialist principles and experiences of the state is reviewed to begin directing our focus to the subject as it is HERE.

In one of his videos Dr. Richard Wolff talks about Marx having never gotten around to developing the role of the state before he died, and so as Wolff says, the role must be sorted out and the absence of such a developed analysis significantly contributed to the downfall of previous attempts to establish socialism as we saw in the USSR and China.

Too many people think the events we saw in the USSR and China indicate the way socialism "must" proceed, and nothing could be further from the truth, so I like to mention the need for a more developed understanding of the role of the state.



Knight said:


> I noticed you separated workers & people. What criteria will be used to identify that difference? What will be the role of government in addressing the needs of those people?


I only made that "distinction" in order to be all-inclusive.  When the working class is mentioned, so people worry about the rest of the population who doesn't work.  Sometimes they're worried that the elderly will be killed off or ignored, and similar for the disabled.  So I say "workers and the people".   Fact is that 99% of the population only have their ability to work and sell their labor power to provide for themselves and their families.  They don't own sufficient capital to start a business and they really don't have the interest or psychology for it.  So they can be employees even if they aren't employed.  So they are of the working CLASS.

A socialist government will focus on serving the working class which means about 99% of the people.  Of course that doesn't mean polling each person and trying to give each what they may want or say they need.   Rather, it means providing for the inherent class needs and goals of the people, which means suppressing and ultimately eliminating the capitalists' class needs and goals and that which feeds their motivations, which is profit.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 20, 2022)

Senter said:


> A socialist government will focus on serving the working class which means about 99% of the people.  Of course that doesn't mean polling each person and trying to give each what they may want or say they need.   Rather, it means providing for the inherent class needs and goals of the people, which means suppressing and ultimately eliminating the capitalists' class needs and goals and that which feeds their motivations, which is profit.



As soon as you find a country that implements your fantasized socialist goals please let us know. Meantime please excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for a day that will never come.


----------



## Knight (Oct 20, 2022)

@Senter 
I really am trying to understand your position. As you can easily see, I read your posts & question the content.

In the 1st paragraph in response to my 
"Your post seems to indicate that conversion is happening now." 

you wrote this.
Quote
" Socialism has been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was and is beginning to rebuild due to the conditions we're all facing."

Questions
1. Why has socialism been reduced to a very small fraction of what it once was?
2. In your perception. What conditions are we all facing?

That as a response doesn't seem like you believe it is happening. 

Quote
"When the working class is mentioned, so people worry about the rest of the population who doesn't work. Sometimes they're worried that the elderly will be killed off or ignored, and similar for the disabled."

Thats a pretty broad statement. Is there a reliable non biased factual report/article available to read? 

This last paragraph.
Quote
"In one of his videos Dr. Richard Wolff talks about Marx having never gotten around to developing the role of the state before he died, and so as Wolff says, the role must be sorted out and the absence of such a developed analysis significantly contributed to the downfall of previous attempts to establish socialism as we saw in the USSR and China."

Why do you think major population countries haven't been successful in implementing fully socialized country's

Please don't refer me to articles, I'd like your thoughts on that.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 20, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> As soon as you find a country that implements your fantasized socialist goals please let us know. Meantime please excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for a day that will never come.


A 100% socialistic economy is an economy of the future... maybe 100 years from now. None of us alive today will still be here when it comes to pass, but we can't continue on the current path to destruction of society and of the planet and expect it to survive. Unless the wealthy suddenly become altruistic and act in ways that benefit society, socialism is the only solution.


----------



## Knight (Oct 20, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> A 100% socialistic economy is an economy of the future... maybe 100 years from now. None of us alive today will still be here when it comes to pass, but we can't continue on the current path to destruction of society and of the planet and expect it to survive. Unless the wealthy suddenly become altruistic and act in ways that benefit society, socialism is the only solution.


That makes sense.
 I'm of the opinion that 100 years from now earth's resources will have been depleted at least 30 years before that  population 100 years from now.  I think those still alive won't have the same luxury of wasting resources. What I believe. In 70 years or less mankind will have been reduced in population because food supply, land area for farming & resources to maintain the billions that are alive now won't be available.  I can almost picture a primitive way of life where socialism is the key to any survival. 

I don't have factual evidence it's just me looking at what I see happening now & projecting that as an opinion.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 20, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> A 100% socialistic economy is an economy of the future... maybe 100 years from now. None of us alive today will still be here when it comes to pass, but we can't continue on the current path to destruction of society and of the planet and expect it to survive. Unless the wealthy suddenly become altruistic and act in ways that benefit society, socialism is the only solution.


Free enterprise, free speech, democracy, and a competitive capitalist economy have gotten us to where we are, which ain’t that bad. If socialism is down our path, so be it, but keep in mind that socialism has led several countries and many people down a dark and dreadful path, so be careful of what you wish for.


----------



## Senter (Oct 20, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> I'd like to see broadband access socialized. We pay far to much for that utility which most of us couldn't live without. Obviously, capitalism has failed us in that realm and in pretty much all realms when it comes to essentials. Capitalism works best with luxury items unless it's heavily regulated, or if there is easy entry into the industry and market.


Agreed.  And most media.  And basic phone service.  And healthcare.  And energy.


----------



## Knight (Oct 21, 2022)

@Senter

Where did you go? I was hoping for a response to my post 186.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 21, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Free enterprise, free speech, democracy, and a competitive capitalist economy have gotten us to where we are, which ain’t that bad. If socialism is down our path, so be it, but keep in mind that socialism has led several countries and many people down a dark and dreadful path, so be careful of what you wish for.


Pick your best example where socialism led down a "dark and dreadful" path and let's take a look at what happened.


----------



## Senter (Oct 21, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Senter
> 
> Where did you go? I was hoping for a response to my post 186.


I keep coming back here to check for replies and I see the little bell in the top right corner of my screen and it shows no new replies.... -no red number, ... nothing.   So I've been moving on.  Today I scrolled down even though there is no alerts to new messages, and I find several new posts.  So something isn't working!!

I'll be right back with a reply for you, Knight.  -and probably others too.


----------



## Knight (Oct 21, 2022)

Senter said:


> I keep coming back here to check for replies and I see the little bell in the top right corner of my screen and it shows no new replies.... -no red number, ... nothing.   So I've been moving on.  Today I scrolled down even though there is no alerts to new messages, and I find several new posts.  So something isn't working!!
> 
> I'll be right back with a reply for you, Knight.  -and probably others too.


Thanks I appreciate when something of interest is discussed & points of view can be questioned.


----------



## Senter (Oct 21, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Senter
> I really am trying to understand your position. As you can easily see, I read your posts & question the content.
> 
> In the 1st paragraph in response to my
> ...


Good questions.
1. In the early 1900s there was a very large and powerful communist party as well as a socialist party.   And as hard times were developing and public outcry was increasing, the government began attacking labor unions, the socialist and communists and turning the Pinkertons loose to launch armed attacks on them.  The communist party, and probably the socialist party as well, were infiltrated by government agents with orders to gain leadership and then basically disable the party.  Gus Hall, in particular, has been named as a government and FBI agent.  Under his "leadership" CPUSA shrank to a shadow of what it had been.

Propaganda was continuously developed and spread, then the threat of Soviet communism showed up and propaganda increased.  Propaganda regarding socialism has so confused the American people as to effectively disarm them and turn most into propaganda centers for anyone daring to mention the subject.  Few people know what socialism is today.  Then in August of 1971 former Justice Powell wrote the now "famous" Powell Memorandum which laid out the "plan" for countering the left, overwhelming them with propaganda, think tanks, etc. etc. etc.   It's quite an eye-opener and I recommend looking it up and reading as much as is available about it.

During that time an enormous amount has been done to discourage union membership, causing membership to fall from about 25% of the workforce to 7%.  And with all these combined efforts and much more, politics of interest to the working class have been rendered a confused tangle of anti-left propaganda.

2. Conditions we're facing creating an interest in rebuilding consideration for socialism:

We've had a series of worsening economic and other crises that more and more people are finding to be entirely resistant to efforts by "the powers that be" to correct them.   They include an increasing share of national income going to the top 1%, out-of-control wealth and income disparity, healthcare being twice as expensive as in the next most expensive country, highest drug prices, education in decline, more incarcerations per capita than any other country, global warming, polarizing media, racism/white supremacy/Nazism, mindless gun proliferation including assault-style weapons designed specifically to kill people, privatization of prisons, privatization of the USPS, homelessness, crippling student debt and college costs, irrational campaign finance laws, unpopular abortion laws, out-of-control defense spending, destructive use of social media, etc. etc. etc.




Knight said:


> Quote
> "When the working class is mentioned, so people worry about the rest of the population who doesn't work. Sometimes they're worried that the elderly will be killed off or ignored, and similar for the disabled."
> 
> Thats a pretty broad statement. Is there a reliable non biased factual report/article available to read?


I was referring to my own experience in getting replies and objections when I have mentioned "the working class" and having some people think I was only interested in, and concerned for, people who have a job.  So I was "preempting" such a possible concern.




Knight said:


> This last paragraph.
> Quote
> "In one of his videos Dr. Richard Wolff talks about Marx having never gotten around to developing the role of the state before he died, and so as Wolff says, the role must be sorted out and the absence of such a developed analysis significantly contributed to the downfall of previous attempts to establish socialism as we saw in the USSR and China."
> 
> ...


Ok.  But I have to reflect my past investigations, readings, inquiries, etc. because that's where my views on it come from.

So in reality I believe you have all the knowledge to see and know the answer but you just haven't put it together.  That, I believe, is true for most people.  So I'd like to see if I can remind you of things you know to sort of lead you to your own conclusions, if you don't mind.

First, relying on common sense and logic, I think we can all understand that with a change so grand and sweeping as one that eliminates an economy based on producing personal income or profit, whether it is making a living from farming,  or owning a business, and replacing it with a completely different kind of economy based on collective work for the benefit of the collective with a ban on private profit, and with all the laws that would be needed and the transformation of agencies and government structure needed, it would require a well-developed insight in to what it all needs to become, how to proceed, which issues to address first, and how to keep it all on track and would take time.  It couldn't and shouldn't be done "overnight".  And keep in mind that there are always plenty of people who secretly want to stop the progress and turn it all around to some form of privatization of the system for personal gain: reactionaries.  And they already have extensive experience in a functioning society that the socialist are trying to eliminate by replacing it with something unknown, undeveloped, or they want to create a similar but more "modern" such society of private personal opportunities.

Add to that the difficulties of sorting out an effective process of creating socialism among sincere socialist, each with different concerns and ideas of what would work best when what's being created has never existed, there's no guide for it, and conditions to be addressed are specific to the one country you're living in.  So it's all uncharted territory.  And there are immediate serious issues needing to be addressed yesterday.

Capitalism took about 300 years to go from the first privately-owned blacksmith shop in town with an employee, to the first nation whose economy was based on private ownership of business for private profit.  This is because of all the things, some of which I just listed, that need to be sorted out and resolved and codified and mastered.

Socialism has been attempted in some form for a little over 100 years I believe.  And like capitalism, it is a "trial-and-error" process.  The role of the state in organizing the transformation and in running the economy afterward has not yet been worked out sufficiently to allow us to say a plan or description has been roughed out.   So with that summary, your question was why the implementation of socialism hasn't been successful yet.

In Russia, Lenin noted that the country was largely agrarian and backward..... --undeveloped in terms of industry.  So in his "New Economic Program" he recommended that the new state machinery take ownership of existing activities, both farming and industrial, and run them by means of government managers overseeing them.  He noted that since this would not change the relationship of worker to boss, employer to employee, it wouldn't actually be socialism.  He called it "state capitalism" and said that the downside would be that at some time in the future after Russia was developed industrially and technology was sufficiently advanced, there would have to be another revolution to make the transition to socialism.

As this process proceeded over the years, mistakes were made and opportunists gained control and pushed the USSR into increasing private ownership of business, resulting in the wealthy oligarchs they have today.  So now Russia has reverted to capitalism and will need a full, new revolution one day.

In China, under Mao, the Gang of Four emerged and began working to drift from the socialist path and create capitalism, and they succeeded.

Marx actually said the country that would be developed to the point of being ripe for transition to socialism would be the industrial giant of the USA.  The idea of an agrarian economy skipping the developmental stage of capitalism and jumping straight into socialism was unreasonable in Marx's mind, though he said that after a few industrialized countries made the change first and successfully, agrarian economies could then make the leap because of the successful examples available for all to learn from.

WHEW!!!  I didn't know this post would be so long!   Sorry!  But you asked and I wanted to give more than talking points and sound bytes.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 21, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Pick your best example where socialism led down a "dark and dreadful" path and let's take a look at what happened.


I could supply substantiation of the murder of hundreds of millions in the name of Socialism and Communism by Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and North Korea, but we both know that you will just have some excuse. However, if you would like I will be glad to supply the links. BTW, the old rationalization that socialism will get it right the next time won't work on me, so don't bother.
​


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 21, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> I could supply substantiation of the murder of hundreds of millions in the name of Socialism and Communism by Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and North Korea, but we both know that you will just have some excuse. However, if you would like I will be glad to supply the links. BTW, the old rationalization that socialism will get it right the next time won't work on me, so don't bother.
> ​


None of those leaders murdered anyone in the name of socialism. They murdered because they were brutal dictators.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 21, 2022)

Sigh, their victims, millions of them, were murdered because they were perceived to be members of a class opposed to Socialism. An old friend and coworker, a Cambodian who as a child escaped the murder crews of his countries Socialist dictatorship, explained to me that merely wearing wearing a ring or eyeglasses could mark you as Middle Class, and therefor an opponent of socialism, which meant certain death.


----------



## Pepper (Oct 22, 2022)

Mao famously said "Kill the Landlords" and actually had good reasons to, IMO.  They were brutal in their treatment of their tenants.  What's a person supposed to do when they get the chance.....just make nice?  The problem is lies in continuing the killing after winning the war.........that's when it's time to make nice.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Oct 22, 2022)

It seems Senter is posting about what the possibilities of a society based around the laborers being in control of their lives. That is not what happened in Nazi Germany. Socialism IS an important issue to contemplate as many countries face hardship and are turning to authoritarianism, which has many forms. In our country we are terribly divided on basic principles of how our democracy works. Some have thought these divisions are so strong that violence/civil war could erupt. At this point most all countries have socialist and capitalism/democracy mixtures.  I think that we need civil discussion on this mixture at this time in our history. No country is going to become a utopia. That is pie in the sky. Only dreamers think that life will be a utopia someday. No, we need to quite throwing our opinions at each other....( just like I just did ). Complex, No?


----------



## Knight (Oct 22, 2022)

@Senter

I'm going to take this one paragraph in your post # 195 to reply to.

"As this process proceeded over the years, mistakes were made and opportunists gained control and pushed the USSR into increasing private ownership of business, resulting in the wealthy oligarchs they have today. So now Russia has reverted to capitalism and will need a full, new revolution one day."

IMO the concept of socialism is worthy of consideration but reality is in that paragraph. I think human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life. What do you think?


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 22, 2022)

Pepper said:


> Mao famously said "Kill the Landlords" and actually had good reasons to, IMO.  They were brutal in their treatment of their tenants.  What's a person supposed to do when they get the chance.....just make nice?  The problem is lies in continuing the killing after winning the war.........that's when it's time to make nice.


Mao is estimated to have killed between 40 and 80 million in a campaign to “purify class ranks”. If you believe he had “good reason” for those brutal murders … disgusting!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ngs-era/01044df5-03dd-49f4-a453-a033c5287bce/


----------



## Senter (Oct 22, 2022)

So who are "the workers" and "the laborers" in socialist parlance?

Just for clarification, they include accountants, doctors, engineers, managers, actuaries, line workers, janitors, sales analysts, statisticians, historians, . . . . in short, anyone who is not a "principle" in a business, i.e. anyone who does not own a controlling interest in a business for private profit.   The typical shareholder among the public does not own a controlling interest in a business though they own stock.

However, that leaves a question regarding "mom & pop" businesses and sole proprietorships.  Marx referred to them as "petty bourgeoisie" and said their real interests lie with the working class because they remain workers though they own their work organization, but because of their position and affiliations they are more likely to align themselves with the capitalist class ("bourgeoisie") than a worker would be, but also more likely to align themselves with the working class than the bourgeoisie would be.  E.g. they are more likely to go either way.


----------



## Senter (Oct 22, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Senter
> 
> I'm going to take this one paragraph in your post # 195 to reply to.
> 
> ...


Good question.  Keep in mind that history never stands still.  Who could have guessed that we would be in the position we are now in here in the USA?  And similarly, the economy also evolves.  Fifty years ago no one would have dreamed that workers would work from home on computers.  Hedge funds were not foreseen.  A service economy wasn't an idea.  

If we look at trends we will see that the difference in income of the worker versus the CEO has continuously increased, a larger and larger share of income has gone to the top 1%, the percentile of those who file tax returns with gross income representing 5% of all reported income has continuously shrunk to a smaller and smaller portion of the population, healthcare costs have constantly increased while the USA falls farther and farther behind in key health metrics, our prison population has grown per capita to be significantly greater than it is in any other developed country, and capacity utilization has increased over time to name just a few things.

These changes are due to the evolution of our economic system.  US capitalism requires continuing growth.  A "good" or "promising" or "healthy" corporate financial report is gleefully presented as having an increasing market share, sales increased, and record profits.  "Healthy growth" is usually defined as a growth rate of about 2.5% to 3%.  Try creating a spreadsheet as I have done, projecting one dollar growing annually at 3% over 200 years, and then convert it to a graph.  You will see that growth begins gradually but by the 100th to 150th year it has turned sharply upward to "go straight up".   It is unsustainable.  Compounded growth like that is impossible as it produces things like what I listed above, and especially destructive wealth and income disparity.

With these things happening the majority of the public grows increasingly impatient, angry, and even rebellious eventually.  People feel cheated more and more.  And at some point the pot boils over.

Add to that the evolutionary changes in the conditions described in my paragraph which you quoted in your post, Knight.  The most effective ways of keeping the creation of a socialist society on track and preventing opportunists and even bad but honest judgement and policy from undermining and sabotaging the effort also evolves.  We learn.  We find and develop more effective ways of ending back-sliding.

You said you think "_human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life_." And in reply I always say we learned how to launch a rocket into space with such precision that Voyager I took advantage of the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" it at an increased velocity on a course so precise that it was able to do the same thing again with another planet, and ultimately accelerated to speeds beyond anything we had previously achieved and then continue to send us data for 47 years now as it exits our solar system. I think if we can do that, we can find a way to create a society for the benefit of all of us.


----------



## Knight (Oct 22, 2022)

Quote
"You said you think "human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life." And in reply I always say we learned how to launch a rocket into space with such precision that Voyager I took advantage of the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" it at an increased velocity on a course so precise that it was able to do the same thing again with another planet, and ultimately accelerated to speeds beyond anything we had previously achieved and then continue to send us data for 47 years now as it exits our solar system. I think if we can do that, we can find a way to create a society for the benefit of all of us."

Sounds nice but not a realistic comparison. Mankind has evolved in many ways but since recorded history mankind has always had differences that blocked the kind of unity you seem to believe is possible. 
My thinking aligns more with this.

Not 2022 info but close enough to think about.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/world-natural-resources-may-run-out-by-2040-study-674844
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF Published: JULY 25, 2021 15:13

World natural resources may run out by 2040 - study
A study predicted that if the world's economy and population continue to grow at their current pace, natural resources will run out within 20 years.

ending with this

While this scenario is least aligned with the 2020 data, humans may decide to deliberately limit their own economic output before the dearth of natural resources forces them to. This includes, among others, having smaller families and limiting industrial pollution and consumption of natural resources.

IMO. Even a reduction in population & consumption of natural resources mankind won't unite globally to form one world wide socialist society.  I think pandemic panic buying would be the best example of why I don't think a world wide socialist society will ever happen.


----------



## Pepper (Oct 22, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Mao is estimated to have killed between 40 and 80 million in a campaign to “purify class ranks”. If you believe he had “good reason” for those brutal murders … disgusting!
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ngs-era/01044df5-03dd-49f4-a453-a033c5287bce/


Were they all landlords?


----------



## Senter (Oct 22, 2022)

Knight said:


> Quote
> "You said you think "human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life." And in reply I always say we learned how to launch a rocket into space with such precision that Voyager I took advantage of the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" it at an increased velocity on a course so precise that it was able to do the same thing again with another planet, and ultimately accelerated to speeds beyond anything we had previously achieved and then continue to send us data for 47 years now as it exits our solar system. I think if we can do that, we can find a way to create a society for the benefit of all of us."
> 
> Sounds nice but not a realistic comparison. Mankind has evolved in many ways but since recorded history mankind has always had differences that blocked the kind of unity you seem to believe is possible.
> ...


Knight, it's not about human nature.  With all our human nature we have a nation that has managed and fumbled along for a couple of centuries.  You're worried about selfishness and greed.  Legislation has structured and created society so as to control and manage greed and selfishness in the way and to the extent desired.  It is done largely with laws pertaining to property rights and personal rights.  You're not allowed to dump on your neighbor's property.  You're not allowed to take money from someone's bank account to help you pay for your boat.  But laws allow for an enormous and growing share of national income to go to the top 1% while the bottom half of Americans owned just 2.6% of all wealth for 2021.  Socialists warn that this is unsustainable and is destructive and therefore needs to be corrected.  And if we have managed to prevent human nature from destroying a nation based on grand economic freedoms for two centuries, I think we can find a way to keep the struggle for democratic collective governance from being hijacked by corrupt and selfish people too.

So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive.  But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 22, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Mao is estimated to have killed between 40 and 80 million in a campaign to “purify class ranks”. If you believe he had “good reason” for those brutal murders … disgusting!
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ngs-era/01044df5-03dd-49f4-a453-a033c5287bce/


Where has anyone on SFs suggested that Mao had good reasons for murdering millions of people?

When an authoritarian government runs the means of production and distribution, that's not in any way "socialism," or at least not in a Marxist sense. In Marxism, the community as a whole controls production and distribution. The government exists for the people, and you can't have true Marxism and a dictator at the same time. They're diametrically apposed concepts.

The article you posted gives a brief description of China's Great Famine. Mao created farm communes in which rural workers were forced to work, and millions starved to death because the crops that they cultivated and harvested were sent to cities with nothing left for the farmers, kind of like in the U.S. where workers are paid so little that they can't afford a place to live and are living on the streets in almost every major city. That's free market capitalism at its finest. 

Mao also had execution quotas where 5% of the population was to be executed. Perhaps you could point us to where in the Communist Manifesto it says that 5% of the population has to be killed.

We could also talk about all the deaths that resulted from U.S. capitalistic policies... all the countries where we deposed their democratic leaders simply because they had ties to communist countries or tried to implement socialistic policies on their own. Some Central American countries come to mind, along with Iran and South Vietnam.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research instead of just posting what you read on right-wing websites.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 22, 2022)

Senter said:


> Knight, it's not about human nature.  With all our human nature we have a nation that has managed and fumbled along for a couple of centuries.  You're worried about selfishness and greed.  Legislation has structured and created society so as to control and manage greed and selfishness in the way and to the extent desired.  It is done largely with laws pertaining to property rights and personal rights.  Y*ou're not allowed to dump on your neighbor's property. *


You can if they don't know where it came from. These are most effective at night when you're not likely to be seen...


----------



## Knight (Oct 22, 2022)

Senter said:


> Knight, it's not about human nature.  With all our human nature we have a nation that has managed and fumbled along for a couple of centuries.  You're worried about selfishness and greed.  Legislation has structured and created society so as to control and manage greed and selfishness in the way and to the extent desired.  It is done largely with laws pertaining to property rights and personal rights.  You're not allowed to dump on your neighbor's property.  You're not allowed to take money from someone's bank account to help you pay for your boat.  But laws allow for an enormous and growing share of national income to go to the top 1% while the bottom half of Americans owned just 2.6% of all wealth for 2021.  Socialists warn that this is unsustainable and is destructive and therefore needs to be corrected.  And if we have managed to prevent human nature from destroying a nation based on grand economic freedoms for two centuries, I think we can find a way to keep the struggle for democratic collective governance from being hijacked by corrupt and selfish people too.
> 
> So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive.  But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes.


You limit your responses to the 1% in America. Wages as you point out we know are the monies paid for selling labor hours.  Where socialism as I understand your point of view is that labor hours will still be sold but the top earners will earn less.  I'm going to go out on a limb here & guess in a socialist system, the 1% will no longer exist. The monies not paid the 1%  will be used for the common good.  Is that the concept?

You ignored the input about diminishing resources, and the part relating  panic buying in the early stages of covid-19.  
I think this article explains why socialism isn't likely to ever gain momentum. 

Israel, India, and the United Kingdom all adopted socialism as an economic model following World War II.

Ket take aways in the article
Socialism is guilty of a fatal conceit:
 It believes its system can make better decisions for the people than they can for themselves.
Socialism has failed in every country in which it has been tried.


https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

Toss in the effect of dwindling resources in the time frame you have posted about & the dream IMO is never going to happen.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 22, 2022)

Knight said:


> You limit your responses to the 1% in America. Wages as you point out we know are the monies paid for selling labor hours.  Where socialism as I understand your point of view is that labor hours will still be sold but the top earners will earn less.  I'm going to go out on a limb here & guess in a socialist system, the 1% will no longer exist. The monies not paid the 1%  will be used for the common good.  Is that the concept?
> 
> You ignored the input about diminishing resources, and the part relating  panic buying in the early stages of covid-19.
> I think this article explains why socialism isn't likely to ever gain momentum.
> ...


You're basing your opinion on an opinion piece from an extremely biased source. Try using facts instead.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 22, 2022)

Pepper said:


> Were they all landlords?


Probably bourgeoisie. The children probably just had their legs broken and thrown in a ditch. The father and uncle of the Cambodian guy I worked with were both murdered, but as a child he escaped to a farm where he worked for several years. One day he was in the field working when a friend ran up and told him some men were looking for him. He hid out until they were gone, else he would almost certainly have been killed. He eventually made his way to Thailand where he and his mother were transported to the US by a church.

A Vietnamese guy I also worked with had been in the South Vietnam army, captured and imprisoned. When he caught Malaria he was sent home to his aunt and uncle to die. What they didn’t know was that his uncle was a doctor. (-8


----------



## Senter (Oct 22, 2022)

Knight said:


> You limit your responses to the 1% in America. Wages as you point out we know are the monies paid for selling labor hours.  Where socialism as I understand your point of view is that labor hours will still be sold but the top earners will earn less.


Top "earners"?  Like engineers and surgeons?  Or do you mean the top "takers"?  CEOs; Board members; hedge fund managers?



Knight said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here & guess in a socialist system, the 1% will no longer exist. The monies not paid the 1%  will be used for the common good.  Is that the concept?


Pretty close.  Most people don't think anyone's work is worth $1 million per month.  CEOs of workers' co-ops typically are quite satisfied with salary that is 7 or 8 times what their lowest-paid worker earns.  They don't require 340 times that of the lowest-paid worker to do a good job. 
Today, with the bottom half of all income earners having 2.6% of all wealth, there are large and unnecessary problems with access to medical services, education, healthy food, etc. and that isn't necessary.  The top 1% received a much smaller share of all income in the past and yet we got where we are today on the world stage.   Nobody can justify the top 1% having 42% of all wealth.




Knight said:


> You ignored the input about diminishing resources, and the part relating  panic buying in the early stages of covid-19.
> I think this article explains why socialism isn't likely to ever gain momentum.


Or it explains why socialism MUST gain momentum.  And I noticed you ignored all my comments about "human nature" which was one of the main things you previously asked about and used half of your post to express objections related to it.  Maybe you didn't get the response from me that you hoped for.




Knight said:


> Israel, India, and the United Kingdom all adopted socialism as an economic model following World War II.
> 
> Ket take aways in the article
> Socialism is guilty of a fatal conceit:
> ...


Knight, I do not accept Heritage Foundation articles.  They are known and ranked as among the farthest right wing of think tanks.  You asked me to share my personal views and I did, yet now you post and quote Heritage.

I've already explained to you that socialism is not achieved by installing some socially-beneficial reforms in a capitalist system.  All that is, is reforms in a capitalist system.  Israel's, India's, and the UK's economic systems are not, and never were, socialism.  Try asking citizens of those countries and see what kind of a reaction you get when you suggest their country is socialist.

You don't have to believe and accept what I've said about socialism never having existed anywhere in the last 100 or 200 years.  But please don't try to tell me a socially-beneficial program makes a country socialist.  You can believe it if you enjoy propaganda.  But please don't think you're going to change my mind on it.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 22, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Perhaps you should do a bit of research instead of just posting what you read on right-wing websites.


The Washington Post is a “right-wing website”? I don’t think so.


----------



## Knight (Oct 22, 2022)

@Senter

This brief input about human nature of yours didn't address how people react when they believe they won't get what they think will not be available. I thought using the panic that took place at the beginning of the pandemic as a reference to how humans react addressed that point.
Quote
"So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes."

Then the time frame you previously suggested of 100 to 150 years from now as a point that a decline could be the catalyst for change means nothing since neither you nor I will be around to know if resources last that long to maintain the level of use now. 

As for the 1% the capitalist system made it possible for people to achieve. I don't envy them. During my years of active employment  I was part of that system.   As a married couple with only high school educations we thrived under the capitalist system & still do. We knew what our skill levels were & the value of our time to sell to an employer. Never having the desire to be an employer the system met out needs. 

  Lastly  there are articles by both points of view, reading both helps in forming an opinion.  I'm not trying to change your mind just trying to understand your thought process.


----------



## Senter (Oct 22, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Senter
> 
> This brief input about human nature of yours didn't address how people react when they believe they won't get what they think will not be available. I thought using the panic that took place at the beginning of the pandemic as a reference to how humans react addressed that point.
> Quote
> "So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes."


what?



Knight said:


> Then the time frame you previously suggested of 100 to 150 years from now as a point that a decline could be the catalyst for change means nothing since neither you nor I will be around to know if resources last that long to maintain the level of use now.


When you comment on my words, please use the provided quoting function as I do and everyone else does.  I was referring to a timeframe represented in a hypothetical spreadsheet, anhd it had nothing to do with "years from now".  Maybe you don't speak "spreadsheet".



Knight said:


> As for the 1% the capitalist system made it possible for people to achieve. I don't envy them. During my years of active employment  I was part of that system.   As a married couple with only high school educations we thrived under the capitalist system & still do. We knew what our skill levels were & the value of our time to sell to an employer. Never having the desire to be an employer the system met out needs.


The standard viewpoint of the political right is that of the individual, and usually themselves.  This is not about you.  It's about society and the repeating crises of capitalism.  But why do you raise the question of envy.  A common right wing and rather cheap attempt to attack the left is to accuse them of envy.  That's not involved here is it?



Knight said:


> Lastly  there are articles by both points of view, reading both helps in forming an opinion.  I'm not trying to change your mind just trying to understand your thought process.


Then you should try to understand and remember that my POV is immersed in the awareness of the ongoing and inescapable class struggle.
And consequently to the class struggle the viewpoint of pro-capitalist sources serve the failing system of capitalism and conflict with the reality of the working class, so comparing them and trying to form an opinion on the basis of a synthesis of the two results in confusion, and when forming an opinion on the basis of both normally leads a person to what is most familiar, and that is the capitalist's viewpoint.

I think we may have reached the end of our very enjoyable discussion, unless you have something else.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 22, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Senter
> 
> This brief input about human nature of yours didn't address how people react when they believe they won't get what they think will not be available. I thought using the panic that took place at the beginning of the pandemic as a reference to how humans react addressed that point.
> Quote
> ...


Knight, you probably came of age during the '60s or '70s when things were radically different. Houses were affordable and you could get ahead by working your way up in a company. The American Dream was attainable to anyone with a bit of drive and some common sense.

I had some neighbors a while back who bought their homes in the '70s. Their houses are now worth 3/4 of a million dollars. They were strictly working class. One neighbor became a manager at a King Sooper's bakery and another was a manager at a factory. Neither had any college, but they did well for themselves and their families by working their way up in their respective companies.

Those days are long gone. Since our government's embrace of Milton Friedman's economic policies, it's become more and more difficult to achieve the American Dream without a four year degree. Free market capitalism has nearly destroyed the middle class. You can't just work your way up in a company because many rungs of the ladder have been eliminated. The only way to reach the higher rungs is through college, which has become unaffordable for many due to the high tuition costs and high cost of living.

In other words, a sizable portion of the population is just plain screwed.


----------



## Senter (Oct 22, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Knight, you probably came of age during the '60s or '70s when things were radically different. Houses were affordable and you could get ahead by working your way up in a company. The American Dream was attainable to anyone with a bit of drive and some common sense.
> 
> I had some neighbors a while back who bought their homes in the '70s. Their houses are now worth 3/4 of a million dollars. They were strictly working class. One neighbor became a manager at a King Sooper's bakery and another was a manager at a factory. Neither had any college, but they did well for themselves and their families by working their way up in their respective companies.
> 
> ...


My father never finished high school.  My mother did.  And my father always felt inferior to my mom as a result.   wow

He worked in a factory that manufactured nuts, bolts, etc. until they closed and he got a job as a tool salesman in a lumber and hardware retailer.  My mother took a job as a secretary when I started school and on that income they had two cars, which was unusual in that day, and a couple of years later they bought two lots in a vacation community by a lake and built a summer house that we enjoyed every summer until I went into military service.   Try that today.


----------



## Knight (Oct 23, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Knight, you probably came of age during the '60s or '70s when things were radically different. Houses were affordable and you could get ahead by working your way up in a company. The American Dream was attainable to anyone with a bit of drive and some common sense.
> 
> I had some neighbors a while back who bought their homes in the '70s. Their houses are now worth 3/4 of a million dollars. They were strictly working class. One neighbor became a manager at a King Sooper's bakery and another was a manager at a factory. Neither had any college, but they did well for themselves and their families by working their way up in their respective companies.
> 
> ...


I totally agree that my time & availability of jobs was different.  I did face management cut backs during the mid 1990's but was not impacted due to planning to retire early at 55. The management cutbacks worked for me because the offer to retire at 54 was to good to pass up. I didn't face this until later working years.  
1.Manufacturing done off shore for cheaper labor
2. Work force reduction due to technology.  Automated equipment doesn't need sick pay, paid vacations, paid holidays, pay raises 

While socialization sounds like a way to salvage the poorer quality of life that is being projected, I don't envision that happening. IMO population consuming resources will be the factor for any change in the not to distant future. What that change will be I'd like to live just long enough to know, AND no longer.  My reference to negative human behavior stems from when Pres. Nixon instituted price controls & the most recent start reality of how people reacted during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic.  

It would be nice if the entire world would look out for one another as in the concept of socialism but my life experiences tells me that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 23, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> The Washington Post is a “right-wing website”? I don’t think so.


Wow!  Your comment says all we need to know about why you think the way you think!  Many would disagree with you on this  point, although the Post tries to keep folks confused about this by throwing out contradictory comments throughout other media outlets, and they even post of few articles contradicting this standard.  

Washington Post - Media Bias/Fact Check​https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post
Oct 20, 2022 · According to Pew Research, the Washington Post is more trusted by* liberal* readers than* conservatives.*


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 23, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Washington Post - Media Bias/Fact Check​https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post
> Oct 20, 2022 · According to Pew Research, the Washington Post is more trusted by* liberal* readers than* conservatives.*


When debating with those firmly planted Left of center, I make a point of not quoting conservative sources. As you indicated, the Washington Post does indeed lean to the Left.

I think this Socialism debate is interesting in that it is symptomatic of a trend currently supported by many elements in American politics, and strenuously opposed by many others. If the day comes when the most extreme left leaning elements in this conversation seize control of DC, I anticipate the very real  possibility of a second Civil War.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 23, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> When debating with those firmly planted Left of center, I make a point of not quoting conservative sources. As you indicated, the Washington Post does indeed lean to the Left.
> 
> I think this Socialism debate is interesting in that it is symptomatic of a trend currently supported by many elements in American politics, and strenuously opposed by many others. If the day comes when the most extreme left leaning elements in this conversation seize control of DC, I anticipate the very real  possibility of a second Civil War.


I absolutely agree with what you say regarding a civil war!  The ongoing effort to socialize our country began in the 1950's and it started and it continuing in our public school systems.  If all the kids coming out of school do not clearly understand our history and the differences between socialism and free market capitalism, the war will happen!  The seeds are already well planted...


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 23, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> When debating with those firmly planted Left of center, I make a point of not quoting conservative sources. As you indicated, the Washington Post does indeed lean to the Left.
> 
> I think this Socialism debate is interesting in that it is symptomatic of a trend currently supported by many elements in American politics, and strenuously opposed by many others. If the day comes when the most extreme left leaning elements in this conversation seize control of DC, I anticipate the very real  possibility of a second Civil War.


@ElCastor, when I replied to your post earlier, I wasn't disputing the information in the WaPo article. I was questioning your interpretation of that information that it was a failure of socialism. Maniacal, oppressive, murderous, power-hungry leaders who take control of all aspects of the economy may claim that it's socialism, but what it really is is government run capitalism. Norway is far more socialistic than any regimes under the rule of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al., but using them as examples of the failure of socialism is standard right-wing spin.


----------



## Senter (Oct 23, 2022)

Knight said:


> I totally agree that my time & availability of jobs was different.  I did face management cut backs during the mid 1990's but was not impacted due to planning to retire early at 55. The management cutbacks worked for me because the offer to retire at 54 was to good to pass up. I didn't face this until later working years.
> 1.Manufacturing done off shore for cheaper labor
> 2. Work force reduction due to technology.  Automated equipment doesn't need sick pay, paid vacations, paid holidays, pay raises
> 
> ...


When people react to policies in a capitalist system where they can hope for and work for personal opportunities offered by a capitalist system, their reactions will be different than they would be if they were living in a socialist system with a different set of opportunities, supports, democratic input, and expectations.  So it is actually unreasonable to expect the same responses to conditions.


----------



## Senter (Oct 23, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> I absolutely agree with what you say regarding a civil war!  The ongoing effort to socialize our country began in the 1950's and it started and it continuing in our public school systems.  If all the kids coming out of school do not clearly understand our history and the differences between socialism and free market capitalism, the war will happen!  The seeds are already well planted...


Why do you not see that it makes excellent capitalist sense, when conditions grow negatively and the public begins to object and resist them, to implement a carefully designed and strategically created set of programs that offer some benefits to the public to buy them off and put their potential for rebellion to rest?  ..... --to buy more time for capitalism?

Remember, FDR at the end of his last term said "I saved capitalism".


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 23, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> @ElCastor, when I replied to your post earlier, I wasn't disputing the information in the WaPo article. I was questioning your interpretation of that information that it was a failure of socialism. Maniacal, oppressive, murderous, power-hungry leaders who take control of all aspects of the economy may claim that it's socialism, but what it really is is government run capitalism. Norway is far more socialistic than any regimes under the rule of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al., but using them as examples of the failure of socialism is standard right-wing spin.


Stalin, Mao, and PolPot were all acting in the name of Socialism. Socialists inherently hate and fear those they view as the enemy, anyone who can be counted on to oppose their policies. As for Norway it is NOT, repeat NOT, Socialist. It has a thriving Capitalist Free Market economy combined with the generous trappings of a welfare state. Read all about it …
https://scandinaviafacts.com/is-norway-socialist/

I have visited Norway and was impressed by a country that in physical terms resembles New England. So why does the Norwegian system work so well? I think the answer is obvious, but you aren’t going to like it. The Norwegian population is ethnically, racially, historically, and intellectually consistent and in numbers considerably less than that of New York City. Obtaining universal agreement on selected welfare features like universal free education is a far easier task in Norway than in our far more diverse population.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 23, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Stalin, Mao, and PolPot were all acting in the name of Socialism. Socialists inherently hate and fear those they view as the enemy, anyone who can be counted on to oppose their policies.


Just like capitalists inherently hate and fear those they view as the enemy, anyone who can be counted on to oppose their policies. The U.S. has destroyed the economies of many countries out of hatred for their socialistic policies. Cuba, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Iran are a few examples. Along with crippling sanctions, we also deposed their leaders... all because of our hatred and fear of socialism, plus to help out powerful corporations whose profits were hurt due to socialistic policies of those countries.



ElCastor said:


> As for Norway it is NOT, repeat NOT, Socialist. It has a thriving Capitalist Free Market economy combined with the generous trappings of a welfare state. Read all about it …
> https://scandinaviafacts.com/is-norway-socialist/


Norway is one of the most socialistic countries in the world. It's economy and government are considered Democratic Socialism since their policies are chosen in a democracy by the people.

Here's a brief description:
The Nordic model is underpinned by a mixed-market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership,[35][36] with the exception of Norway which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[6]​​The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector, which amounts to roughly 30% of the work force, in areas such as healthcare and higher education. In Norway, Finland, and Sweden, many companies and/or industries are state-run or state-owned[37][38][39][40] like utilities, mail, rail transport, airlines, electrical power industry, fossil fuels, chemical industry, steel mill, electronics industry, machine industry, aerospace manufacturer, shipbuilding, and the arms industry.[41] In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies", while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world."[8][42] Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly capitalism", with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states, and reduced concentration of top incomes, contrasting it with the more "cut-throat capitalism" of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes, among others social inequalities.[15][43][44]​


ElCastor said:


> I have visited Norway and was impressed by a country that in physical terms resembles New England. So why does the Norwegian system work so well? I think the answer is obvious, but you aren’t going to like it. The Norwegian population is ethnically, racially, historically, and intellectually consistent and in numbers considerably less than that of New York City. Obtaining universal agreement on selected welfare features like universal free education is a far easier task in Norway than in our far more diverse population.


That's true. I've posted something similar previously, probably in this same thread. It's one of the problems with the U.S. economy and government. Some call it a feature, some call it a bug.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 23, 2022)

Once again, Norway is Not Socialist! It is a thriving competitive competitive free market capitalist economy whose small intelligent high quality population has wisely adopted welfare policies and institutions that function well in their uniquely compatible environment. The United States is unfortunately not Norway, but properly designed and sold, which our would be Socialists seem incapable of, many of the welfare trappings of Norway could well work here.


----------



## Senter (Oct 23, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> .......
> Norway is one of the most socialistic countries in the world. It's economy and government are considered Democratic Socialism since their policies are chosen in a democracy by the people.
> .....


Ben, here is what Norwegians say about that ...

Is Norway a socialist country?


----------



## Knight (Oct 23, 2022)

Senter said:


> Ben, here is what Norwegians say about that ...
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Norway/comments/y6mlp0


The link is in the question

Is Norway a socialist country

The comments by Norwegians seem to match what El Castor posted in his post #228


----------



## Senter (Oct 23, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> That's true. I've posted something similar previously, probably in this same thread. It's one of the problems with the U.S. economy and government. Some call it a feature, some call it a bug.


How about the history and culture of Norway plus choices made after WWII?

"_The Nordic Model traces its origins back to a 1930s compromise between workers and employers. It was spearheaded by farmers—which was how most people in the region, and indeed most of the world, made their money back then—and the workers parties that represented them._

_"The key feature of the Nordic Model is the social partnership. That's centralised coordination of wage negotiation and rights between employers and workers.

"Agreements such as the Danish Kanslergade Agreement in 1933 and the Swedish Saltsjöbaden Agreement of 1938 set out a means for employers and unions to bargain on matters such as wages. In addition, both employers and workers have a framework to lobby the government to come to an arrangement on legislation affecting employment in terms of conditions and regulation.

"One outcome of this, that certainly diverts from the left-wing playbook, is that there is no national minimum wage in Sweden, Denmark or Norway._

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/

And adding to that, unionization of labor in Norway stands at 51%!!!!!

I think that is key.

By the way, Scandinavian counties seem to say that Nordic countries that have "cuddly capitalism" are not examples of democratic socialism, but rather are cases of social democracy.

Interesting too how so many people see the word "social" in that and instantly assume it means "socialism".  Yeah like "social media" is a form of socialism?  A "social club" is socialist?   LOL!!!


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 23, 2022)

Senter said:


> Ben, here is what Norwegians say about that ...
> 
> Is Norway a socialist country?


I never said Norway is a socialist country, although I did say that they have a democratic socialism system, which may not be accurate since democratic socialists are anti-capitalism and Norway does have elements of capitalism along with elements of socialism in what is known as a mixed economy. The U.S. also has a mixed economy. Norway just has a lot more socialist programs than we do as I detailed above in this post:
https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/what-is-socialism.61207/post-2273282

There are few successful pure socialistic countries but there are no successful pure free market countries. Bolivia is considered a relatively successful socialist country. Its political and economic systems are considered democratic socialism.
In recent history, Bolivia has consistently led Latin America in measures of economic growth, fiscal stability and foreign reserves.[140] Bolivia's estimated 2012 gross domestic product (GDP) totaled $27.43 billion at official exchange rate and $56.14 billion at purchasing power parity. Despite a series of mostly political setbacks, between 2006 and 2009 the Morales administration spurred growth higher than at any point in the preceding 30 years. The growth was accompanied by a moderate decrease in inequality.[141] Under Morales, per capita GDP doubled from US$1,182 in 2006 to US$2,238 in 2012. GDP growth under Morales averaged 5 percent a year, and in 2014 only Panama and the Dominican Republic performed better in all of Latin America.[142] Bolivia's nominal GDP increased from 11.5 billion in 2006 to 41 billion in 2019.[143]​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia#Economy​​Bolivia in 2016 boasted the highest proportional rate of financial reserves of any nation in the world, with Bolivia's rainy day fund totaling some US$15 billion or nearly two-thirds of total annual GDP, up from a fifth of GDP in 2005. Even the IMF was impressed by Morales' fiscal prudence.[142]​​Here's more on Bolivia:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1cb3ae-e6f6-11e9-b0a6-3d03721b85ef_story.html


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 23, 2022)

Bolivia certainly is an economic hurricane. By 2022 its GDP per capita had skyrocketed to #153 in the world, trailing an African power house like Eswatini, but still far behind neighbors like El Salvador and Guatemala. A real tribute to the power of Socialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 24, 2022)

Senter said:


> Why do you not see that it makes excellent capitalist sense, when conditions grow negatively and the public begins to object and resist them, to implement a carefully designed and strategically created set of programs that offer some benefits to the public to buy them off and put their potential for rebellion to rest?  ..... --to buy more time for capitalism?
> 
> Remember, FDR at the end of his last term said "I saved capitalism".


I don't buy any of this, it is much more complicated than this...


----------



## Senter (Oct 24, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> I don't buy any of this, it is much more complicated than this...


That begs an explanation of what FDR said, then.   What do you believe it was about?


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 24, 2022)

Here is a definition that might be helpful in our discussion. What we consider capitalism is a market economy. Socialism is a command economy. What are known as "blue laws" are part of a traditional economy.

A market economy is one in which almost all economic activity happens in markets with little or no interference by the government. Because of the lack of government intervention, this system is also often referred to as laissez-faire, which is French for 'let well alone'.
A command economy is one in which all economic activity is directed by the government.
A traditional economy is one in which production and distribution are handled along the lines of long-standing cultural traditions. For example, until the caste system was abolished in India during the last century, the production of nearly every good and service was permitted only by someone born into the appropriate caste. Similarly, in medieval Europe, people were usually unable to be part of the government or attain high military rank unless they were born into the nobility.
Because nearly every modern economy is a mixture of these three pure forms, most modern economies fall into the very inclusive category called mixed economies. With the exception of a few isolated traditional societies, however, the traditional economy part of the mixture has tended to decline in significance because most production has shifted to markets and because traditional economic restrictions on things like age and gender have become less important (and more illegal).

The result is that most mixed economies today are a mixture of the other two pure types: the command economy and the market economy. The mixtures that you find in most countries typically feature governments that mostly allow markets to determine what's produced, but that also mix in limited interventions in an attempt to make improvements over what the market would do if left to its own devices.

I assume business regulations fall under the category of command economy.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 25, 2022)

Senter said:


> That begs an explanation of what FDR said, then.   What do you believe it was about?


So, you do lie!  You said you put me on ignore...or did you forget?


----------



## Senter (Oct 25, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> So, you do lie!  You said you put me on ignore...or did you forget?


So you are stupid!  You think there's some rule or logic that says I can't check to see anything you've said from then on, . . . --including when it involves an attack on me!  LOL!!!!


----------



## Knight (Oct 25, 2022)

I like SeniorBen's post # 236 much better than posts 237 & 238.


----------



## Senter (Oct 25, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Here is a definition that might be helpful in our discussion. What we consider capitalism is a market economy. Socialism is a command economy. What are known as "blue laws" are part of a traditional economy. .....
> 
> A market economy is one in which almost all economic activity happens in markets with little or no interference by the government. Because of the lack of government intervention, this system is also often referred to as laissez-faire, which is French for 'let well alone'.
> A command economy is one in which all economic activity is directed by the government.
> ...


BUT!! .......

There is no "pure" economy   ...... --an economy that lacks reforms and lacks modifications.   There is *no capitalist economy* that is as pure as the textbook ideal.  Education very often involves learning the ideal first, then studying variations.  Learning to fly a fighter jet as taught by an instructor is a process of learning the ideal.  Later, with experience, a person can vary practice into variations like stunt flying and methods of the test pilot, and yet they are still jet pilots; they are not qualified to operate high-speed rail or even a freight train.

Again, there is no ideal form of capitalism on earth except in textbooks.  And yet there are many forms of capitalism, complete with modifications.  They remain systems in which individuals may create privately-owned businesses for their own private profit.  Capitalist textbooks say that is the minimal definition of capitalism.  Private ownership for private profit can never be socialism, which is defined by socialists as a system of worker ownership that bans private ownership and private profit.  And so we see there is no socialist country on this planet.  There are countries that have tried, an some that continue to try, to create a socialist system but none have gotten there yet.  Try naming one.

In ancient Roman slave systems there were cases of people raising crops on land owned by others for an established agreement, yet the system was not feudalism.

In ancient Roman slave systems there were people manufacturing tools and weapons for others to use, and they did so for an agreed-upon benefit.  Yet the system was not capitalism.

In feudalism there were private businesses, yet the system remained feudalism.

In capitalism we have had sharecroppers and slave systems, and yet we did not have a slave society.  We have the equivalent of slavery today in many prisons, and yet this is not a slave society.

So what is the deciding factor?  Logically and obviously *the deciding factor is the **predominant economic model plus the dominant government orientation in what it predominantly facilitates, protects, and promotes.*

A society's economic system is indicated by it's dominant economic form.

Roman society was not a mix.  It was a slavery system with non-slave supportive activities.

Feudal society was not a mix.  It was predominantly a feudal system with non-agricultural activities in support of the feudal system.

Capitalist society is not a mix.  It is predominantly a capitalist system with supportive, socially-beneficial programs. So it is identified as "capitalism".

Did the US begin a path to socialism when FDR signed the New Deal and other programs into law?  Let him answer that.  At the end of his term he said "I saved capitalism".

Capitalism and socialism are antagonistic.  They are mutually exclusive.  There cannot be an economic system that facilitates, promotes, and protects private ownership of business for private profit, AND also facilitates, promotes, and protects a ban on private ownership and private profit and/or collective ownership.  They conflict because they each encroach on the other in detrimental ways.  Hence, in the end, one of them would dominate and exclude the other.

We live in class society.  We have a class of people who own and operate and control corporations and other business types for profit, and we have another class of people who only have their labor to sell.  So all these questions have a class character to their existence and function.   And the question then, is "what class is being served and how?"

The notion of capitalism consisting of a "mixture" of capitalism and socialism contributes to confusion.  If it were true, then how can we have a socialist society?  The answer would be "by installing more socially-beneficial reforms to capitalism".  IOW by having a system increasingly dominated by socially-beneficial programs and policies.   But FDR tried that and look where that is today, which the Republican Party openly stating a plan to eliminate even Social Security and Medicare!  And since FDR the public has had to constantly fight to hold onto the gains of FDR's time.... and gradually lose them, one by one.   Clearly socially-beneficial reforms didn't produce a viable mix of economies.

Any attempt to establish a socialist economy would be fiercely fought by capitalists, as it has been even when the attempt was not in the US, but in another country.  And socially-beneficial reforms are temporary.


----------



## Senter (Oct 25, 2022)

Knight said:


> I like SeniorBen's post # 236 much better than posts 237 & 238.


So do I.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Oct 25, 2022)

The idea that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist is based on extremes-total capitalism OR total socialism. There's nothing in the rule book that prevents using capitalist theories and approaches when beneficial, nor using socialist theories, when appropriate. We do use hot and cold running water. It's rather inane to dismiss a working solution to a problem because of a theoretical extreme.


----------



## Senter (Oct 25, 2022)

fuzzybuddy said:


> The idea that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist is based on extremes-total capitalism OR total socialism. There's nothing in the rule book that prevents using capitalist theories and approaches when beneficial, nor using socialist theories, when appropriate. We do use hot and cold running water. It's rather inane to dismiss a working solution to a problem because of a theoretical extreme.


You're posting your own opinions.   I posted characterization of known history.   And BTW I said basically what you said about coexistence of the two things, but I provided a logical explanation based on facts and history.  I'd enjoy reading your logical and historical refutations of the major points of my post if you have any.


----------



## Senter (Nov 3, 2022)

There is no "pure" system and never has been.  Ancient Roman slave society had scattered elements of feudalism and capitalism.  Feudal society had a few elements of capitalism.  Think of the blacksmith who made weapons, armor, and other items for society.

Capitalism has had elements of slave society and feudal society.  And yet our system, even during days of legal slavery, was not a slave society.

The decisive factor is the question "what is dominant and most facilitated and protected and accommodated by government".

We have about 600 workers' co-ops in the US today.  I like to call them "embryos of socialism".  And yet our economy is not socialism.  It is most definitely capitalism.  Note that a system that facilitates and protects the hiring of employees for private profit in privately-owned businesses is not compatible with a system that facilitates and protects worker ownership and bans the hiring of employees for private profit.

Any newly formed socialist economy would have some privately owned businesses for private profit, --for a while.  But they would be phased out over time and they would at no point be dominant.


----------



## Senter (Nov 3, 2022)

deleted


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 8:40 AM)

fuzzybuddy said:


> The idea that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist is based on extremes-total capitalism OR total socialism. There's nothing in the rule book that prevents using capitalist theories and approaches when beneficial, nor using socialist theories, when appropriate. We do use hot and cold running water. It's rather inane to dismiss a working solution to a problem because of a theoretical extreme.


I was just now rereading some of the replies on this page and I had another thought about your post.   You’re right about using what works and I don’t think I commented adequately on your post.  

When socialism is established that will not instantly switch the economy from capitalism to a worker owned-and-controlled socialist system.  The transition will be gradual with the most essential changes coming first.  In fact, in his “Critique of the Gotha Programme” Marx said "_What we have to deal with here is a socialist society, not as it has__ developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, *just as it emerges from capitalist society*; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose __womb it emerges._"

The strategy then being to use what works, fix what needs to be changed, and thus improve with positive change.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 9:12 AM)

_"The goal of socialism is communism."_
Vladimir Lenin

Another quote, not by Lenin, but along the same lines is _"Softly Softly Catchee Monkey"........._or, as the Arabs might say, "_Shway, Shway"_... a little bit at a time.


----------



## chic (Saturday at 9:14 AM)

The original point of socialism was to curtail the rich from oppressing the poor to finance their luxury lifestyles while preserving the status quo.


----------



## Jean-Paul (Saturday at 9:16 AM)

Socialisme...just a pseudonym for so called "democrats" 
at base .... commies....-

USSR joke....
"we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"
j


----------



## SeniorBen (Saturday at 10:02 AM)

How the internet was created by government — not private — innovation​https://www.salon.com/2023/01/07/ho...eated-by-government--not-private--innovation/


----------



## Magna-Carta (Saturday at 10:14 AM)

Ceege said:


> My understanding is that if I pay my share of taxes, I will benefit by receiving certain benefits, when I need them, and being able to share in these programs>>>
> View attachment 170107
> 
> What angers me is when _some_ people and corporations do not pay their *fair* share, or in some cases do not pay *any* taxes, but still benefit from these programs.
> ...


These types of things on this list are not what we in the UK would call "socialist" programs.  These are socialised programs.  We perceive the word socialist & socialised as two very different things.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 11:05 AM)

https://www.lifeinsweden.net/is-sweden-socialist/


_"The economy of Sweden is an open market style with intense competition and high liberalization. Financially, Swedes are taxed at a much higher rate (almost 62 percent on personal income, and 25 percent on consumer purchases) but their money is redistributed through public systems. Pension, health care, unemployment insurance, education, child care, leaves of absence from work, and public holidays are all supported through tax money. These systems have traditionally been seen as coming from socialist policies, but they are simply benefits that Swedes receive from their higher rates of taxation. The good that Sweden has taken from supposedly socialist ideas does not make them a socialist country in the way that many view socialism. The Sweden that exists today simply is not a socialist Sweden. So when asked, “is Sweden socialist?” your answer can be a resounding “no.”"_


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 11:19 AM)

One factor, generally overlooked by the unfortunates 'sucked in', is that those behind the push for what they start off calling 'Socialism' are looking further down the road.....considerably further......they are/were to politics what Bernie Madoff was to investing.

I'll wager that the average person who supported the Russian Revolution wasn't thinking of Gulags, the_ Cheka, Dachas _and roads no-one else drove on for those in power, but rather the promise of a piece of the pie..........turned out that said 'pie' was "In the sky" and they weren't going up there.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 11:29 AM)

Nathan said:


> That is communism, not socialism.


In what way might we differentiate communism from socialism?

The best I've come up with is that communism is Marx/Engel's description of a perfect socialist society, combined with a historical theory of the tension between workers/capitalists.

It's therefore a specific socialist reaction against capitalism.

Socialism is simpler, more organic. It's closer to what traditional family structures have evolved to, with a combining of assets to be shared for the benefit of that particular group (family).

I've thought about this a lot. In college I was of course a big fan of socialism because, well, that was the way to think, back then. 

Later, I rejected socialism as even being possible, before I considered that no, it was possible, and it's what the Plains Indians practiced, and what many primitive societies still practice. And it may be true that all human societies at one point passed thru a socialist stage.

Further, I realized that the core indispensible attributes of socialism are surpluses and trust. If it gets bad enough, and it's strictly hand-to-mouth, this puts practical pressure on the system for simple survival everyday. Of course I'm talking about very dire times--extended famine. Something that human cooperation cannot overcome. It is strictly individual survival.

Now assuming modest, regular surplus, which is collected and distributed for the good of all, you MUST trust all participants in the system. Trust those who handle collection of the surpluses, and those who receive more from the surpluses than they have contributed. You can only do this thru personal visibility of the entire process. You have to be able to see that the collectors do not syphon off some for themselves or favored others, and that the recipients really and truly do need extra help due to any of a number of intuitively understandable reasons: old age, lack of health/intellect, etc.

In short, if it appears that they are capable of contribution, they are expected to contribute, otherwise they are of special status, which now immediately suggests that the members of the society are not equal. Once this is recognized, mistrust sets in and must be overcome by persuasion, external coercion (a group of collectors), or internal coercion (guilt).

This seldom comes to this at the family/clan/tribal levels, and can still work at a "national" level for uniformly ethnic states, where all are of the same "type" and there is no easily discernible difference in background. The less closely related the individuals are by ethnicity/race/etc., the more important it is that the surpluses be large.

But in large multi-ethnic states there's a natural mistrust of others who are perceived to be different, so there will be suspicion about how much they contribute and how much they receive as compared to other groups.

Because of the way political power is passed here in the US, by popular vote of some sort, it has been to the benefit of unscrupulous, short-sighted, or ideologically narrow political leadership to make sharp distinctions between the various groups inhabiting the US. From this follows cultivation of grievances against groups other than one's own.

So ultimately, there is insufficient mutual trust to have a voluntary socialist society in the US. Groups who consistently contribute tend to believe that groups who consistently receive more than they contribute are gaming the system, while those who receive think that those who contribute are hiding or withholding "their fair share", and have very likely cheated in some fashion to have gotten to their present financial position. 

If this is accurate, any large-scale socialist programs require external coercion and/or individual guilt to keep them going.


----------



## Nathan (Saturday at 11:40 AM)

Sawfish said:


> In what way might we differentiate communism from socialism?


" The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government."
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448


----------



## ElCastor (Saturday at 12:07 PM)

As anyone who follows this thread now knows, there are endless definitions of socialism. For me it is government ownership of the means of production, distribution, transportation and residential housing. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this definition has failed to work, as shown by the necessity and success of free enterprise in China and Eastern Europe. So what is it? I believe there is no definitive definition, just a lot of opinions and wishful thinking.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 12:14 PM)

Nathan said:


> " The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government."
> https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448


In a way, it would be easy to read "a democratically-elected government" as synonymous with "the state".


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 12:17 PM)

ElCastor said:


> As anyone who follows this thread now knows, there are endless definitions of socialism. For me it is government ownership of the means of production, distribution, transportation and residential housing. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this definition has failed to work, as shown by the necessity and success of free enterprise in China and Eastern Europe. So what is it? I believe there is no definitive definition, just a lot of opinions and wishful thinking.


Hah!

Humans are an unruly lot, aren't they?

There's no satisfactory fit at this stage in our evolution. Public sentiment appears cyclical in nature.


----------



## Nathan (Saturday at 12:18 PM)

ElCastor said:


> As anyone who follows this thread now knows, there are endless definitions of socialism. For me it is *government ownership of the means of production, distribution, transportation and residential housing.* Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, this definition has failed to work, as shown by the necessity and success of free enterprise in China and Eastern Europe. So what is it? I believe there is no definitive definition, just a lot of opinions and wishful thinking.


That's the classic definition of Communism.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 12:30 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> https://www.lifeinsweden.net/is-sweden-socialist/
> 
> 
> _"The economy of Sweden is an open market style with intense competition and high liberalization. Financially, Swedes are taxed at a much higher rate (almost 62 percent on personal income, and 25 percent on consumer purchases) but their money is redistributed through public systems. Pension, health care, unemployment insurance, education, child care, leaves of absence from work, and public holidays are all supported through tax money. These systems have traditionally been seen as coming from socialist policies, but they are simply benefits that Swedes receive from their higher rates of taxation. The good that Sweden has taken from supposedly socialist ideas does not make them a socialist country in the way that many view socialism. The Sweden that exists today simply is not a socialist Sweden. So when asked, “is Sweden socialist?” your answer can be a resounding “no.”"_


Hah!

The taxation is therefore like an enforced savings program run by a trusted administrator.

I think that ideally, there has to be a resounding public buy-in for a category of subsistence needs that in the case of any individual it can be objectively shown that the individual cannot provide for him/herself. This would be a sort of "from those who can to those who cannot" category open to only those who objectively cannot.

All other public programs would need to be available to all members of society equally, regardless of assets/abilities. These would be like roads, etc.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 12:34 PM)

Sawfish said:


> The taxation is therefore like an enforced savings program run by a trusted administrator.


Major point:  A 'trusted administrator' that can be ousted in a non Ceaușescu-esque manner though.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 1:17 PM)

This is an interesting thread for many reasons.

WRT Marx, it's important to note that while I was growing up in the 50s, communism had about as much positive association as cannibalism, and Karl Marx might well have been Charles Manson's great grandfather, in terms of reputation.

But Marx did a great job in clearly identifying the social tension between those with wealth and those without. Dead on the money.

Where he fell down was in his prescriptive ideas. This idea of cooperative and benevolent "workers' councils" deciding on how to manage production, this never came to pass, anywhere, so far as I know. Marx greatly misjudged *basic* human nature, and characteristics like ego and personal ambition, competition--which ironically are important attributes of capitalists.

So one should not simply discount content because the purveyor of the content has a bad reputation. S/he may well have some solid ideas/observations.

It's up to us to weed thru them and analyze them for validity.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 1:21 PM)

Sawfish said:


> But Marx did a great job in clearly identifying the social tension between those with wealth and those without. Dead on the money.


Since Marx apparently leeched off his buddy Engels that'd result in good insight.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 1:35 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> Since Marx apparently leeched off his buddy Engels that'd result in good insight.


Yes!

Engels was a "have"!

Good one!


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 4:40 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> _"The goal of socialism is communism."_
> Vladimir Lenin
> 
> Another quote, not by Lenin, but along the same lines is _"Softly Softly Catchee Monkey"........._or, as the Arabs might say, "_Shway, Shway"_... a little bit at a time.


huh?   Care to spell that out in clear language?  I think I detect misunderstanding followed by incorrect assumptions.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 4:45 PM)

Jean-Paul said:


> Socialisme...just a pseudonym for so called "democrats"
> at base .... commies....-


YUP!  All democrats are card-carrying commies!  Yup!  They’re all members of CPUSA!!  Yup!

You’re being facetious, right?


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 4:54 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> https://www.lifeinsweden.net/is-sweden-socialist/
> 
> 
> _"The economy of Sweden is an open market style with intense competition and high liberalization. Financially, Swedes are taxed at a much higher rate (almost 62 percent on personal income, and 25 percent on consumer purchases) but their money is redistributed through public systems. Pension, health care, unemployment insurance, education, child care, leaves of absence from work, and public holidays are all supported through tax money. These systems have traditionally been seen as coming from socialist policies, but they are simply benefits that Swedes receive from their higher rates of taxation. The good that Sweden has taken from supposedly socialist ideas does not make them a socialist country in the way that many view socialism. The Sweden that exists today simply is not a socialist Sweden. So when asked, “is Sweden socialist?” your answer can be a resounding “no.”"_


THANK YOU!   That is an excellent take-down of an all-too-common confused way of thinking.   In fact, here’s a mystery for any American who disagrees: FDR established more socially-beneficial programs for Americans than any other president, but at the end of his last term he proudly stated “I saved capitalism”.

How can that be explained if the proliferation of socially-beneficial programs is the equivalent of establishing socialism?


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 4:57 PM)

Senter said:


> THANK YOU!   That is an excellent take-down of an all-too-common confused way of thinking.   In fact, here’s a mystery for any American who disagrees: FDR established more socially-beneficial programs for Americans than any other president, but at the end of his last term he proudly stated “I saved capitalism”.
> 
> How can that be explained if the proliferation of socially-beneficial programs is the equivalent of establishing socialism?


* but at the end of his last term he proudly stated “I saved capitalism”.*

First, can we simply take someone's word when making a claim without testing or examining it?

But let's assume the claim is in some way correct. How can this claim be make sense in the historical perspective?

I think it can, but would like to hear the thoughts of others.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 4:58 PM)

Senter said:


> huh?   Care to spell that out in clear language?  I think I detect misunderstanding followed by incorrect assumptions.


OK...(typing slowly here)....you tell the gullible that they're getting 'A', and you slowly spoon feed them for a little while...then, one morning at 3 a.m. there's a knock on the door....it's Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 5:02 PM)

It's easy. Socialism is a thing that works until you run out of other people's money.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 5:05 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> OK...(typing slowly here)....you tell the gullible that they're getting 'A', and you slowly spoon feed them for a little while...then, one morning at 3 a.m. there's a knock on the door....it's Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.


After the breakup of the Soviet Union, it kinda amused me to think that if it was true that Lenin ever said something like:

"When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope."

when the time _did_ come, they didn't have the money to buy it.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 5:10 PM)

Nathan said:


> " The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government."
> https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448


Nathan, do yourself a really, really big favor and toss your link to that website into your trash folder.  The quote you posted is horribly, egregiously wrong!  I can tell you right now that the writer of that article is confusing two entirely different uses of the word “communism”.  But he is not referring to any notion of a communist society!

I really don’t want to lecture unless invited to do so, so for now just let me say that if you spend 5 minutes reading what Marx said about communism and what it is, or even check with wikipedia(!!), you will find that a future, theoretical communist society will be BY DEFINITION classless and *stateless*.   So if it would be stateless, how can that author of that article say “under communism most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the *state*”????   What “state”???  There would be none!!

Now, if you like I can explain how Marx said communism would develop and that will prove what I just said.   It will also prove something quite remarkable that very few people who are not very familiar with Marx’s writings know.  In fact it is often met with near-violent rejection and cursing and accusations.  And here it is: communist society cannot be imposed by force or edict!  And I can prove that, too, to anyone with an understanding of classes and class consciousness.


----------



## ElCastor (Saturday at 5:13 PM)

Nathan said:


> That's the classic definition of Communism.


Maybe so, but not a heck of a lot of difference between the two.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition of socialism …
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


----------



## Nathan (Saturday at 5:23 PM)

Senter said:


> I really don’t want to lecture unless invited to do so,


...and yet here you are...lecturing me.    You may not like the random link I posted on some technical aspect that you deem important, but I am well versed in political thought, including Marxist thought.  Here, take your pick of references and post up the one that suits your fancy:
Google search- socialism vs communism


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 5:26 PM)

Sawfish said:


> * but at the end of his last term he proudly stated “I saved capitalism”.*
> 
> First, can we simply take someone's word when making a claim without testing or examining it?
> 
> ...


You may not get them.  Look, it’s really quite simple.   At the time there was a large labor union membership, there was a large and popular communist party, and there was one or more popular socialist party(s).  And they were very active and protesting the treatment of workers with 12 and 14 hour days, weekend work, child labor, and very abusive treatment.  The police and government had utilized Pinkerton thugs to attack and even kill workers who were on strike.

Along came FDR and he told corporate leaders they had better accept the reforms he offered because if they didn’t, the communist party had other ideas for them.

So FDR established programs and labor laws to alleviate much of the strife and general anger over conditions.  He got the communist and socialist parties to “stand down” in return for his socially-beneficial programs.  He calmed the waters.   He saved capitalism.

If you can’t take someone’s word for it, look into it.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 5:27 PM)

Senter said:


> Nathan, do yourself a really, really big favor and toss your link to that website into your trash folder.  The quote you posted is horribly, egregiously wrong!  I can tell you right now that the writer of that article is confusing two entirely different uses of the word “communism”.  But he is not referring to any notion of a communist society!
> 
> I really don’t want to lecture unless invited to do so, so for now just let me say that if you spend 5 minutes reading what Marx said about communism and what it is, or even check with wikipedia(!!), you will find that a future, theoretical communist society will be BY DEFINITION classless and *stateless*.   So if it would be stateless, how can that author of that article say “under communism most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the *state*”????   What “state”???  There would be none!!
> 
> Now, if you like I can explain how Marx said communism would develop and that will prove what I just said.   It will also prove something quite remarkable that very few people who are not very familiar with Marx’s writings know.  In fact it is often met with near-violent rejection and cursing and accusations.  And here it is: communist society cannot be imposed by force or edict!  And I can prove that, too, to anyone with an understanding of classes and class consciousness.


By your understanding, has there ever been a communist society?


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 5:29 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> OK...(typing slowly here)....you tell the gullible that they're getting 'A', and you slowly spoon feed them for a little while...then, one morning at 3 a.m. there's a knock on the door....it's Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.


Ok, so you’re relying on made-up stories and the fear they can generate to sway people instead of dealing with facts.   Nice.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 5:30 PM)

Senter said:


> You may not get them.  Look, it’s really quite simple.   At the time there was a large labor union membership, there was a large and popular communist party, and there was one or more popular socialist party(s).  And they were very active and protesting the treatment of workers with 12 and 14 hour days, weekend work, child labor, and very abusive treatment.  The police and government had utilized Pinkerton thugs to attack and even kill workers who were on strike.
> 
> Along came FDR and he told corporate leaders they had better accept the reforms he offered because if they didn’t, the communist party had other ideas for them.
> 
> ...


No, this is what I'd call the historical context. It's about as you said: either FDR's half measures or as Marx postulates, revolutionary overthrow.

He was kinda like an excessive pressure relief valve.


...and yeah, I never take someone's word for it, I always look into myself.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 5:31 PM)

Hyperion said:


> It's easy. Socialism is a thing that works until you run out of other people's money.


This is based on a smug quip from the neo-liberal Margaret Thatcher. As with most politicians’ sound bites, this one makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with why any nominally socialist regime failed.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 5:32 PM)

Senter said:


> This is based on a smug quip from the neo-liberal Margaret Thatcher. As with most politicians’ sound bites, this one makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with why any nominally socialist regime failed.


Let's hear your version of why they failed.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 5:47 PM)

Nathan said:


> ...and yet here you are...lecturing me.    You may not like the random link I posted on some technical aspect that you deem important, but I am well versed in political thought, including Marxist thought.  Here, take your pick of references and post up the one that suits your fancy:
> Google search- socialism vs communism


LOL!!!!  Not a single Marxist among them.  All capitalist sources.  WTF do you think they’ll say?

And if you think I was lecturing you, I conclude you are just looking for an opportunity to attack, insult and denigrate anything I say on the subject.

BTW, you say you’re well versed in Marxist thought?   Then I wonder why you get so much about it wrong.   Truth is you’re well versed in what anti-Marxists and capitalist ideologues SAY about Marxist thought.   But Marxist thought?  Nah!    Hell buddy, the most basic thing about communism is that it is to be stateless, while you carried on about “communist state-owned property and economic resources”!!!!


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 5:54 PM)

Sawfish said:


> By your understanding, has there ever been a communist society?


To give you a completely correct answer you have to tell me whether you mean a society that is ruled by a “communist party” which some then ignorantly call a “communist society” when it isn't, or are you referring to a society that has been through a long period of socialism in which citizens became accustomed to a cooperative lifestyle and the capitalist class has therefore “withered away” as Marx put it, leading to the state “withering away” to end in a stateless communist society.

Obviously the latter has not happened.  That may take a couple of centuries of socialism to develop it.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 5:55 PM)

Senter said:


> Ok, so you’re relying on made-up stories and the fear they can generate to sway people instead of dealing with facts.   Nice.


Facts...OK...when I was a kid, pre teen, my father would buy all the Sunday newspapers, we didn't have a TV so I read them.  Even at that age I'd recall periodic stories of Soviet factory managers being executed for 'sabotage'.  Years later I realized that the 'sabotage' was the inability to function with insufficient or zero supplies, a 'workforce' that didn't, and outrageous demands by those in power.

It was 'impossible' for the  _nomenklatura_ to be wrong, so the heads of the unfortunate rolled.

Then there were the depression era Americans who emigrated to the USSR with dreams of utopia:  https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsan.../the-forgotten-american-emigrants-to-the-ussr

Those that eventually wanted to leave were told they could go......but...their children born there were Soviet citizens and were not permitted to leave.

And The New York Times 'noted reporter' Walter Duranty lied about it all.

It was all a lie from start to finish.....but to this day the gullible still echo the mantra "But, but, that wasn't _true_ socialism/communism" .

Reminds me of an old joke:  Guy goes to a farm, sees a pig with three legs and a wooden leg.  Asks the farmer about it...farmer rambles on about what a great pig it is......saved the family from a fire, etc.......visitor keeps asking about the leg.  Finally the farmer says "A pig like that, you don't eat him all at once".


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 6:00 PM)

There are no real socialist or communist countries left. The Soviet Union collapsed, now Russia is sort of an Oligarchy with capitalism. China figured out it didn't work and now are basically just a capitalist country with a totalitarian regime in control. Socialism was always a pipe dream, human nature dictates it will never work and there is no way around that. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it's what we have that will allow some degree of success and prosperity in whatever hybrid form it takes.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 6:06 PM)

Senter said:


> To give you a completely correct answer you have to tell me whether you mean a society that is ruled by a “communist party” which some then ignorantly call a “communist society” when it isn't, or are you referring to a society that has been through a long period of socialism in which citizens became accustomed to a cooperative lifestyle and the capitalist class has therefore “withered away” as Marx put it, leading to the state “withering away” to end in a stateless communist society.
> 
> Obviously the latter has not happened.  That may take a couple of centuries of socialism to develop it.


I could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale, extended family for sure, but even at the clan level could it work without central leadership?

How might such a system work?

We're getting pretty close to political anarchism (not to be confused with anarchy, for sure). I mean, it's what anarchism is all about. So was Marx postulating a politically anarchistic social entity that followed the precepts of communism, as he defines it?

You'll note that I'm keeping this respectful and civil, and so far, with me, you've done the same. I look forward to continuing this exploration with you, but only under those circumstances.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 6:09 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Let's hear your version of why they failed.


“My version”??   Isn’t that just a bit patronizing?

Well, in the case of the USSR, Lenin announced in 1921 in his NEP that Russia may first need a period of capitalism in order to utilize the powerhouse that capitalism is to develop Russia’s productive capacity and technical capability before socialism could succeed.  He said if it was done (and he specifically called it “state capitalism”) it would require a second revolution at some time in the future to transition to socialism after the country became advanced enough.  And that is what happened.  Russia, which their communist party transitioned initially to socialism and expanded into the USSR, later transitioned to state capitalism without much fanfare.

I’m not an expert on Russian history but I’m familiar with this much.

In China Mao warned about “The Gang of Four” and capitalist-roaders who would sabotage Marxism.

https://redphoenixnews.com/2018/04/06/in-china-capitalism-is-being-consolidated-not-socialism/


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 6:10 PM)

Senter said:


> This is based on a smug quip from the neo-liberal Margaret Thatcher. As with most politicians’ sound bites, this one makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with why any nominally socialist regime failed.


I know who said it. And I know she was right and will always be right.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 6:10 PM)

When I went back to school, 50+ years ago, a guy in one of my classes, (Bus Admin), had previously been involved in some kind of manipulation scheme.  The suckers, oops clients, were pretty much exclusively recent immigrants to Canada from Eastern Europe.

He leased a 'fancy' car, Cadillac at that time IIRC, and when he picked the 'mark' up to take him to some kind of 'sales pitch meeting' he'd plead fatigue and ask the guy if he wouldn't mind driving.

So here they are, mark is behind the wheel of a vehicle he'd only dreamed about.  "Let's have some music" says the conman....presses the tape deck......wow..music from the same country as the mark......whodathunkit?

And on and on and on.......promises, reinforcing dreams that'll never come true.

Ah, but I bet the mark, like Gerry Rafferty, "Got it right next time".

Yeah.  Tell 'em what they're desperate to hear.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 6:11 PM)

Senter said:


> “My version”??   Isn’t that just a bit patronizing?
> 
> Well, in the case of the USSR, Lenin announced in 1921 in his NEP that Russia may first need a period of capitalism in order to utilize the powerhouse that capitalism is to develop Russia’s productive capacity and technical capability before socialism could succeed.  He said if it was done (and he specifically called it “state capitalism”) it would require a second revolution at some time in the future to transition to socialism after the country became advanced enough.  And that is what happened.  Russia, which their communist party transitioned initially to socialism and expanded into the USSR, later transitioned to state capitalism without much fanfare.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.


----------



## Nathan (Saturday at 6:13 PM)

Senter said:


> And if you think I was lecturing you, I conclude you are just looking for an opportunity to attack, insult and denigrate anything I say on the subject.


If you had anything serious and relevant to say, you really conceal it well.   I can see from your statement in quotes above that you are projecting your own feelings on me.   I really have nothing at stake in this thread, I know what Socialism and Communism are, and don't really care about other posters opinions that deviate from accepted definitions.

If you think you have some interesting perspective on the definitions of Socialism and Communism I invite you to share them in your next post, rather than attack me and others for...whatever reasons that you have conjured up.


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 6:14 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Let's hear your version of why they failed.


I've got that one. 

Obviously, Kulaks, hoarders, and wreckers.

Or, that wasn't real socialism, it's never been tried yet!


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 6:18 PM)

Sawfish said:


> By your understanding, has there ever been a communist society?



Not 'real' communism. This time we need to murder a few billion to get it to work, it will work this time for sure, or else!


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 6:20 PM)

Sawfish said:


> I could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale, extended family for sure, but even at the clan level could it work without central leadership?
> 
> How might such a system work?
> 
> ...


When you say you "could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale” I assume you’re referring to communist society.  Not socialism in this case.   But do you see my point about the term “communism” being used to indicate both “communist society”  and also “communist policies and ideology” in a society that is not a classless, stateless, communist society?

My own take on this question of communist society is that I have my doubts.  I’m not sure the transition can be made to a society in which people work together in an advanced technological society without an enforcement mechanism in the state.  But what we think is really irrelevant since it will take a couple of centuries of a functioning socialist society, probably, to reach the point where we can see whether the process is happening or not.  If it does it will be as close to utopia as we would ever see.   If not, we will live in an advanced, “comfortable” socialist society. 

What do you think?


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 6:25 PM)

Nathan said:


> If you had anything serious and relevant to say, you really conceal it well.   I can see from your statement in quotes above that you are projecting your own feelings on me.   I really have nothing at stake in this thread, I know what Socialism and Communism are, and don't really care about other posters opinions that deviate from accepted definitions.
> 
> If you think you have some interesting perspective on the definitions of Socialism and Communism I invite you to share them in your next post, rather than attack me and others for...whatever reasons that you have conjured up.


So you’re one of those who pulls a reversal to put people on the defensive if you can, eh?  You are the one who has been attacking.  I don’t initiate attacks but I do give back what I get.

Do us both a favor and refrain from replying to each other.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 6:30 PM)

Isn’t it interesting how everyone thinks they know all about Marx, socialism, and communism?  It actually a good indication of how effective US anti-communist propaganda has been.   I’ve been looking into the subject for over 50 years and my sources have been Marxists, mainly, …—not defenders of capitalism.   I even had some personal experience with it, but for some all that counts for nothing.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 6:32 PM)

Hyperion said:


> I've got that one.
> 
> Obviously, Kulaks, hoarders, and wreckers.
> 
> Or, that wasn't real socialism, it's never been tried yet!


So you sound like you really know what Marx said, what socialism is, and what communism is.   

Can you tell me what Marx called “socialism”?  No.  Of course you can’t.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 6:32 PM)

Basically socialism/communism/totalitarianism is like fishing......you throw chum in the water to pull in the fish/suckers, and then you bait the hook and later eat the catch.

Oh, and in the interim you play semantics.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 6:40 PM)

Senter said:


> When you say you "could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale” I assume you’re referring to communist society.  Not socialism in this case.   But do you see my point about the term “communism” being used to indicate both “communist society”  and also “communist policies and ideology” in a society that is not a classless, stateless, communist society?



Yes. As I wrote it I could see that there was no parallel to "ownership of means of production" at this scale.

I can see that "communism" is used to refer to both the social philosophy AND states like the former USSR and China.

But so far as I know there has never been a classless, stateless, communist society, and hence without any concrete examples we have to talk about non-stateless societies that practice communist precepts, right?

To me, postulating what such a stateless society would be like is a lot like talking about what it would be like to live in 1.5 gravity. We could play around with it, but without even a test bench, it's purely speculative and hence subjective.


Senter said:


> My own take on this question of communist society is that I have my doubts.  I’m not sure the transition can be made to a society in which people work together in an advanced technological society without an enforcement mechanism in the state.



Well, earlier I've often thought about under what conditions a socialist society might work and and I always came to the conclusion that knowing what I learned about human nature over 75 years, humanity has too many hard-wired instinctual-level motivations for large-scale, multi-ethnic/racial socialist nations to work, without further evolution in a very resource-rich physical environment.

Does this make sense to  you, what I just said? I'll spend more time on it if needed.


Senter said:


> But what we think is really irrelevant since it will take a couple of centuries of a functioning socialist society, probably, to reach the point where we can see whether the process is happening or not.



OK. This is similar to my "further evolution in a resource rich physical environment. I can understand this.



Senter said:


> If it does it will be as close to utopia as we would ever see.   If not, we will live in an advanced, “comfortable” socialist society.
> 
> What do you think?


It will be either an evolved marginally comfortable socialist/collectivist large scale society, or we'll fragment and devolve into feudal-type societies, small scale.

To me, a lot more would be possible with an evolved population that is much reduced--maybe 50% or more.

I don't expect to see any of this, and this does not displease me.


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 6:41 PM)

Senter said:


> So you sound like you really know what Marx said, what socialism is, and what communism is.
> 
> Can you tell me what Marx called “socialism”?  No.  Of course you can’t.



Yeah of course. I'm just an uneducated hick who knows nothing. Yet somehow I know that Marx was a total loser who came up with an idea that eventually led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in a quest to make something unworkable work. And yet, there are people who still cannot just let it go and want to believe it will work no matter the mountains of dead bodies proving it will not work, and is a very dangerous idea that only leads to poverty, misery, and death.


----------



## Nathan (Saturday at 6:45 PM)

Senter said:


> So you’re one of those who pulls a reversal to put people on the defensive if you can, eh?  You are the one who has been attacking.  I don’t initiate attacks but I do give back what I get.
> 
> Do us both a favor and refrain from replying to each other.


I see you are trying to suck me in to be a playmate.   

Goodbye, go see if someone else will take the bait.


----------



## Hyperion (Saturday at 7:12 PM)

Sawfish said:


> I could see this working on a very small and intimately connected scale, extended family for sure, but even at the clan level could it work without central leadership?


I've always said that the only time in history that socialism ever really worked was far before the term even existed.

When we were still hunter gatherers, in groups of typically no more than 25 individuals. Almost all of them relatives. They all had common needs and goals. Mostly survival, getting enough to eat that day. Not getting eaten by wild beasts. 

But scale it up to a nation of 10s or hundreds of millions of people? No, it will never work, it cannot work. It needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history forever, lest we recreate the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao's atrocities, or Pol Pot's Khrmer Rouge horror.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:16 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Yes. As I wrote it I could see that there was no parallel to "ownership of means of production" at this scale.
> 
> I can see that "communism" is used to refer to both the social philosophy AND states like the former USSR and China.


OH, but this is my point.  There has been no communist society.  The USSR and China were not communist societies.  They were revolutionary societies ruled by a Marxist party that called itself a “communist party”.   BTW, the way that came about is interesting.  First there were socialist parties.  And in the early 1900s a split developed.  There were those who advocated a peaceful transition obtained by election of socialists to government positions.  But the other faction advocated violent revolution and said the ruling class would never allow a peaceful transition.  Eventually those who advocated violent revolution split away from the socialist and the socialist parties, calling themselves “communists”.

Now, our US propaganda looked at that and didn’t care for nuance.  The USSR and China, since they were the product of communist parties, were called “communist countries” and “communist societies” because of the type (“communist”) of party that ruled.  But they were never actually communist societies because that, by definition, would mean they were stateless and classless.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 7:17 PM)

Kibbutzim
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rise-and-disastrous-fall-of-the-kibbutz/


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 7:19 PM)

Hyperion said:


> I've always said that the only time in history that socialism ever really worked was far before the term even existed.
> 
> When we were still hunter gatherers, in groups of typically no more than 25 individuals. Almost all of them relatives. They all had common needs and goals. Mostly survival, getting enough to eat that day. Not getting eaten by wild beasts.
> 
> But scale it up to a nation of 10s or hundreds of millions of people? No, it will never work, it cannot work. It needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history forever, lest we recreate the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao's atrocities, or Pol Pot's Khrmer Rouge horror.


The whole topic is really interesting. It's a recognition of good in humanity--sharing equally, cooperatively--but smacking in to the brick wall of recognition that these very positive human motivations work in either families, or with strangers only when you have huge, huge and repeated surpluses.

In the world I've lived in, if I was this generous and waited for reciprocation, I'd seldom get it except from family. To do unreciprocated sharing among strangers, I'd be reducing my own chances of success, and my family's.

So until I can can be assured of reciprocal behavior, I can't afford to be that generous.

Maybe if another 2k years people like me might be able to put that concern aside, but not me, and I'm a long way from it.

I mean, by now I know what makes me tick, and I'd be a poor candidate for participation in a large scale collectivist society. I would have to be coerced.

It's just how it is, for me.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:19 PM)

Hyperion said:


> Yeah of course. I'm just an uneducated hick who knows nothing. Yet somehow I know that Marx was a total loser who came up with an idea that eventually led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in a quest to make something unworkable work. And yet, there are people who still cannot just let it go and want to believe it will work no matter the mountains of dead bodies proving it will not work, and is a very dangerous idea that only leads to poverty, misery, and death.


LOL!!!!!   I have a clue for you: Marxist analysis has nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain.

But Marx’s term for socialism?  It’s in most of his writings.  And it’s one of the basic facts about Marxism.   You don’t know, huh?


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 7:21 PM)

Socialism is like Levitation......it's never worked yet........but, someday...


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:23 PM)

Socialism, that's when people make a conscious effort to get along better, isn't it?
It doesn't seem like it's anything to worry about. People won't ever want to live harmoniously.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:23 PM)

Hyperion said:


> I've always said that the only time in history that socialism ever really worked was far before the term even existed.
> 
> When we were still hunter gatherers, in groups of typically no more than 25 individuals. Almost all of them relatives. They all had common needs and goals. Mostly survival, getting enough to eat that day. Not getting eaten by wild beasts.
> 
> But scale it up to a nation of 10s or hundreds of millions of people? *No, it will never work, it cannot work.* It needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history forever, lest we recreate the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution and Mao's atrocities, or Pol Pot's Khrmer Rouge horror.


Yeah, you’re the expert sociologist who knows these things better than the rest.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:23 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> Socialism is like Levitation......it's never worked yet........but, someday...


It hasn't failed 10,000 times, there's just been 10,000 ways it was found not to work.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:24 PM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> Socialism, that's when people make a conscious effort to get along better, isn't it?


No.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:25 PM)

Senter said:


> Yeah, you’re the expert sociologist who knows these things better than the rest.


Well, we all seem to feel we're experts at something. It's a shame to let expertise go to waste.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:27 PM)

Senter said:


> No.


@Senter

No? What's working toward getting along called then? I'd appreciate your expertise here.

Well, anyway, that's how I define it. And my pronouns are Me and verb


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 7:29 PM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> Socialism, that's when people make a conscious effort to get along better, isn't it?
> It doesn't seem like it's anything to worry about. People won't ever want to live harmoniously.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/what-termites-can-teach-us

_"Some have seen in termites a darker vision for humanity, a warning rather than a guide. The early-twentieth-century American entomologist William Wheeler began as a believer in the political example of termites and ants, detecting in their colonies a Deweyan ethos, both communitarian and democratic. But, by the late nineteen-twenties, Wheeler had begun to worry that the social insects represented a sort of evolutionary cul-de-sac, which foretold “the eventual state of human society”: “very low intelligence combined with an intense and pugnacious solidarity of the whole.”"_


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:31 PM)

Anybody notice the American taboo at work here today?

For those who don’t know about this, it’s the trend and trick of suppressing conversation, discussion, and honest exploration of ideas about socialism by spewing boilerplate, bullshit, nonsensical accusations about gulags and running out of other people’s money and foolishness about “human nature” in order to make anyone daring to bring up the subject feel stupid.  The plan is to make them turn tail and run away to save what face they can.  That is the American taboo.  And it’s in play here today.  And it’s a childish ploy, but common.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:33 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/what-termites-can-teach-us
> 
> _"Some have seen in termites a darker vision for humanity, a warning rather than a guide. The early-twentieth-century American entomologist William Wheeler began as a believer in the political example of termites and ants, detecting in their colonies a Deweyan ethos, both communitarian and democratic. But, by the late nineteen-twenties, Wheeler had begun to worry that the social insects represented a sort of evolutionary cul-de-sac, which foretold “the eventual state of human society”: “very low intelligence combined with an intense and pugnacious solidarity of the whole.”"_


Termites can't teach us anything. Why even just on this site, there are tons of people who know all there is to know already. 

There's no shortage in sight of people who know it all. Termites, hah! They don't even know what's good to eat!


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 7:33 PM)

Senter said:


> Anybody notice the American taboo at work here today?
> 
> For those who don’t know about this, it’s the trend and trick of suppressing conversation, discussion, and honest exploration of ideas about socialism by spewing boilerplate, bullshit, nonsensical accusations about gulags and running out of other people’s money and foolishness about “human nature” in order to make anyone daring to bring up the subject feel stupid.  The plan is to make them turn tail and run away to save what face they can.  That is the American taboo.  And it’s in play here today.  And it’s a childish ploy, but common.


I mean, you're free to say/think that, of course, but if this refers to me, I disagree. We've been engaging in a mutual exploration of the nature of communism.


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:33 PM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> @Senter
> 
> No? What's working toward getting along called then? I'd appreciate your expertise here.
> 
> Well, anyway, that's how I define it. And my pronouns are Me and verb


https://www.socialism101.com/basic


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 7:36 PM)

Sawfish said:


> I mean, you're free to say/think that, of course, but if this refers to me, I disagree. We've been engaging in a mutual exploration of the nature of communism.


No no no!   I’ve enjoyed our conversation!   But some few here have fit the description.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:36 PM)

Senter said:


> Anybody notice the American taboo at work here today?
> 
> For those who don’t know about this, it’s the trend and trick of suppressing conversation, discussion, and honest exploration of ideas about socialism by spewing boilerplate, bullshit, nonsensical accusations about gulags and running out of other people’s money and foolishness about “human nature” in order to make anyone daring to bring up the subject feel stupid.  The plan is to make them turn tail and run away to save what face they can.  That is the American taboo.  And it’s in play here today.  And it’s a childish ploy, but common.







Only in America?​


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:39 PM)

Senter said:


> https://www.socialism101.com/basic


You big silly, I'm looking for getalongism. Your link doesn't define that at all. But I see what getalongism isn't, right here, now.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 7:40 PM)

Here's an interesting thought...

For a free market type society, has any government ever had to force their populace to participate in this, aside from a short transition period from protected markets/planned production?

For a collectivist type economy, has any government not had to enforce adherence if there is any access to free market (foreign sourced) production?

What i'm exploring is the idea that you have to force collectivism, but that for free market,* it's what people tend to do without being forced*, and especially in exchanges with foreigners.


----------



## Nemo2 (Saturday at 7:40 PM)

Bottom line  -  "If we clap our hands, Tinker Bell will fly again".  Reality be damned.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:40 PM)

Guess I'll be getting along now.
Nothing social in this thread.


----------



## Sawfish (Saturday at 7:41 PM)

Senter said:


> No no no!   I’ve enjoyed our conversation!   But some few here have fit the description.


Fair enough.
Hammering stuff is how you find out how solid it is.

I mean, it is for me...


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 7:52 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Fair enough.
> Hammering stuff is how you find out how solid it is.
> 
> I mean, it is for me...


You've got a hammer, he's got a sickle (sp?)
Let's all get along and share a popsicle!

From our collective conscience, a song is born!

Cool, Daddy-O!


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 8:06 PM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> @Senter
> 
> No? What's working toward getting along called then? I'd appreciate your expertise here.


Uhhh …….. “being cordial”?    But “expertise” is probably a stretch.  I’m noticing my vocabulary shrinking as I age.  Is that normal?   LOL!


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 8:08 PM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> You big silly, I'm looking for getalongism. Your link doesn't define that at all. But I see what getalongism isn't, right here, now.


OH!  Sorry.  I seem to have read your post too fast.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 8:12 PM)

Senter said:


> Uhhh …….. “being cordial”?    But “expertise” is probably a stretch.  I’m noticing my vocabulary shrinking as I age.  Is that normal?   LOL!


I'm sure I don't know. I'm not an expert but you seemed to act like you are so I thought you would know.
I'm sure there's an expert for that here somewhere though. There are experts everywhere here! It's great!


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 8:13 PM)

Senter said:


> OH!  Sorry.  I seem to have read your post too fast.


It's okay, no apology necessary. I wish I could read fast. Are you an expert and can teach me how? That'd be great!


----------



## Senter (Saturday at 8:30 PM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> It's okay, no apology necessary. I wish I could read fast. Are you an expert and can teach me how? That'd be great!


I hope not!  I’m retired!   LOL!!


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 8:36 PM)

Senter said:


> I hope not!  I’m retired!   LOL!!


Well, since you're retired maybe you're an expert at that.
Do you study things with the time not spent working?
Or are you a socializer? Or is that akin to being a socialist?
It's all so confusing to my tiny mind. I wish I knew better.


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 8:43 PM)

Senter said:


> I hope not!  I’m retired!   LOL!!


I almost forgot and I hope that you won't take offense but
you're a pretty sociable guy for being non-socialist. Thanks!


----------



## SeniorBen (Saturday at 8:52 PM)




----------



## Farrah Nuff (Saturday at 8:56 PM)

SeniorBen said:


>


High five back to ya, "Gentle" SeniorBen!


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 10:15 AM)

Farrah Nuff said:


> I almost forgot and I hope that you won't take offense but
> you're a pretty sociable guy for being non-socialist. Thanks!


Thanks, but “non-socialist”?


----------



## Farrah Nuff (Sunday at 10:32 AM)

Senter said:


> Thanks, but “non-socialist”?


Nauta-socialist? Oh bother, it’s all so confusing, the semantics involved. You seem like you’re probably okay and you don’t seem threatening. So yeah, I think you’re probably okay. Not a braggart or a layabout, it seems, so that’s all I really need to know to give you my stamp of approval. Nice to chat with you but socialitis causes me to think I’ve enjoyed this subject for long enough. Maybe even more than. Thanks for the civility. I rather fancy that.


----------



## Remy (Sunday at 10:40 AM)

Found this interesting. My mother told me West Germany purposely sent their TV signals to the east. But apparently children in schools were asked if their parent's watched West German TV.  It's long gone, thankfully. If North Korea could just go. 

The East German schools where 'children were educated to lie' | CNN


----------



## SeniorBen (Sunday at 11:31 AM)

This is what free-market capitalism has brought us:





And this...


----------



## Jean-Paul (Sunday at 11:40 AM)

Get the  homeless to fix up the infrastructure, and learn a trade, like Socialist F.D. Roosevelt did in 1930s, WPA. 

So called public debt is a result of   machinations of the dems, and bureaucracy in WDC over many decades. 

Most US gov sending is  a waste of taxpayer money

J


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 12:28 PM)

Jean-Paul said:


> Get the  homeless to fix up the infrastructure, and learn a trade, like Socialist F.D. Roosevelt did in 1930s, WPA.
> 
> So called public debt is a result of   machinations of the dems, and bureaucracy in WDC over many decades.
> 
> ...


I think the important thing to know and never forget is that the government isn’t stupid.   The many seemingly dumb and wasteful things we see being done are not a result of ignorance or inept handling by elected officials.  It’s mostly intentional with elected officials being content to look stupid rather than look like they’re favoring the rich and intentionally destroying the country for them.  Find a program that looks botched, wasteful, or foolish and follow the money.  You’ll see.


----------



## Pepper (Sunday at 12:43 PM)

Jean-Paul said:


> Get the  homeless to fix up the infrastructure, and learn a trade, like Socialist F.D. Roosevelt did in 1930s, WPA.
> 
> So called public debt is a result of   machinations of the dems, and bureaucracy in WDC over many decades.


Must I report this crap as being political?  I ain't no snitch, but it is ignorant.  Stay in France IMO.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 12:57 PM)

Senter said:


> I think the important thing to know and never forget is that the government isn’t stupid.   The many seemingly dumb and wasteful things we see being done are not a result of ignorance or inept handling by elected officials.  It’s mostly intentional with elected officials being content to look stupid rather than look like they’re favoring the rich and intentionally destroying the country for them.  Find a program that looks botched, wasteful, or foolish and follow the money.  You’ll see.


It is a big mistake to think that our political leadership is stupid. In fact, they'd prefer you to think that, to underestimate them.

I don't uniformly think that they favor the rich at all times, however. This is what I think happens, and I'd be interested in kicking it around a bit.

I think that in the end, both of the major parties tend to represent the interests of the wealthy, and that this is very often in the form of add-ons to bill. Most normal such business is therefore "under the radar". Did you ever hear of the carried interest exemption before it came under scrutiny in 2007?

But to obtain power in this nation you must be elected, and say what one will, I think that most elections are valid. If they are fixed, then they are paying way too much in campaign contributions to justify an already decided outcome. So what happens is that each candidate approaches an election as a demonstration to moneyed interests of their access to power. They are granted power by the fact of election.

Now that they have access to power for 2, 4 or 6 year terms, they bid out their services to interests that can benefit them, one way or another.

But how does one get elected? In the US it's by promising something that the majority of voters within a particular political boundary like, and they therefore vote for you over an opponent who does not make as many promises, or as convincingly.

It's important to note here that the candidate is perfectly willing to keep the promises so long as they do not alienate the interests of the moneyed. So they can promise and deliver services that are funded by taxes, that certain moneyed interested are exempted from, or they can fail to deliver the promises, claiming that they intended to, but were thwarted by opponents.

The moneyed interests also know this, and it doesn't matter to them so long as their interests are served.

Nor are the moneyed interests monolithic; some interests, such as manufacturing, have less clout with the elected officials than do, say, banking. So there's actually a degree of warfare and competition between the moneyed interests.

So I'd say that an example of a promise to essentially purchase votes was the recent forgiveness of student debt, coming as it did 6 months before a mid-term. This seems like a fairly obvious attempt to motivated  young, middle class or less, college educated adults to vote for a particular party.

Too, loosening immigration plays to the interests of those looking for cheaper labor, and at the same time caters to the emotions of many voters who are ethnically or economically related to the immigrants.

In only rare cases are the undifferentiated voters actually represented; more often they receive benefit as a by-product of a benefit for the moneyed classes; it's what figurative falls off the table, and if you're quick, you can get some of these crumbs. This would be the case for someone like me benefiting from the decision to retain the capital gains step up of basis on the death of the owner.

So really,  you cannot really count on electing anyone to represent your interests. They most you can hope for is that the rules as you've learned and mastered them, do not change, or if they do, to learn the new rules and adapt to them as best you can, in any way that you can.


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 5:19 PM)

The main reason that 'socialism' is unworkable is that people are not altruistic clones.  Sure, they may go along with it for a while, but when the old push/shove appears, it's what-do-I-feel-is-best-for-me-and-mine?

Wolf packs have a hierarchy, who eats first/best, and who eats last; grazing animals have been known to fight over food; plants will emit toxicity or will cut off sunlight to other growing species.

Sure, people might/will be cooperative & charitable when things are going well, but when the situation turns sour, with few exceptions, it's dog-eat-canine, either overtly or clandestinely.


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 5:38 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> The main reason that 'socialism' is unworkable is that people are not altruistic clones.  Sure, they may go along with it for a while, but when the old push/shove appears, it's what-do-I-feel-is-best-for-me-and-mine?


Well, it’s very clear to me that you have the standard, false view of socialism that has been cultivated by US anticommunist propaganda for 70 years.  If we just see and read what is prepared for us to see and read, that is the result.  To actually know what it is one must look into the horse’s mouth and see.   HERE’s one of many sources, and it isn’t even the best.



Nemo2 said:


> Wolf packs have a hierarchy, who eats first/best, and who eats last; grazing animals have been known to fight over food; plants will emit toxicity or will cut off sunlight to other growing species.
> 
> Sure, people might/will be cooperative & charitable when things are going well, but when the situation turns sour, with few exceptions, it's dog-eat-canine, either overtly or clandestinely.


Don’t you think that is/would be true of the USA too?   We’ve seen some glimpses of it during COVID and the insurrection.


----------



## Warrigal (Sunday at 5:45 PM)

I can't believe this discussion is still going.

There would not be a single economy on the planet that is either pure capitalism or pure socialism.
Most are a blend of both. It's horses for courses. For some aspects of society socialism is the answer, for others, let the market prevail.

Public schooling is an example of socialism that aims for basic education for everyone. Before there were public schools many children were not sent to school at all. They learnt what they could from their often unschooled parents and went to work at age 10. Slightly better off parents sent their children to dame schools where they learnt to read and write and the girls learnt manners, deportment and how to set the table properly. Then they also went to work around the age of 13 or stayed at home as home helpers.  My mother in law went to one such school. MIL then went to work in a cigarette factory cutting the stems out of the tobacco leaf.

Do people really want to revert to the days when there were no public schools, transport, libraries or hospitals?

Of course not, but such public amenities must be paid for. The options are fee for service, tolls (capitalism) or income taxes (socialism).

Taxation if by far the fairest way to provide public services and amenities. You cannot do it by relying on the philanthropy of the wealthy.


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 5:49 PM)

Senter said:


> Well, it’s very clear to me that you have the standard, false view of socialism that has been cultivated by US anticommunist propaganda for 70 years.  If we just see and read what is prepared for us to see and read, that is the result.  To actually know what it is one must look into the horse’s mouth and see.   HERE’s one of many sources, and it isn’t even the best.
> 
> 
> Don’t you think that is/would be true of the USA too?   We’ve seen some glimpses of it during COVID and the insurrection.


1)  I don't know about "US anticommunist propaganda' but I have visited somewhere in the region of 84 countries, so I don't consider myself totally sheltered from reality.

2) The Red Phoenix, yeah, right.

3) 'Insurrection'   That was as close to an insurrection as the Afghanistan debacle was to a 'success'.


----------



## perChance (Sunday at 5:57 PM)

Senter said:


> I think the important thing to know and never forget is that the government isn’t stupid.


A lot of the voters are oblivious.


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 6:00 PM)

Remy said:


> Found this interesting. My mother told me West Germany purposely sent their TV signals to the east. But apparently children in schools were asked if their parent's watched West German TV.  It's long gone, thankfully. If North Korea could just go.
> 
> The East German schools where 'children were educated to lie' | CNN


_"... half his classmates gone, having fled with their families to the West."_

Funny that we never heard about 'families fleeing to the East' to embrace the wonders of leftism....wonder why?


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 6:25 PM)

Henry VI, Part 2: Act 4, scene 2

Jack Cade:_  "Be brave, then, for your captain is brave and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny. The three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops, and I will make it felony to drink small beer. All the realm shall be in common, and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass. And when I am king, as king I will be......."_

That Bill Shakespeare.....ahead of his time, eh?


----------



## Warrigal (Sunday at 6:29 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> _"... half his classmates gone, having fled with their families to the West."_
> 
> Funny that we never heard about 'families fleeing to the East' to embrace the wonders of leftism....wonder why?



Rhetorical question and a rather silly one at that.

Leftism is a new term to me. Does it imply being supportive of socialism in a free society?
Or, are you suggesting this term implies card carrying Communist?

East Germany under Communism was not free. The wall was to keep people in, not to prevent people from entering the country. It was an impoverished economy before the wall came down so why would anyone want to travel there after that unless it was to buy property cheaply and seek economic opportunities.

I would guess that some West Germans may have grabbed any economic opportunities that freedom delivered.

However, I maintain that communism and socialism are not the same thing at all.
I do not understand why the word 'socialism' puts the fear of the Almighty into so many people's minds. It does not mean that people lose personal freedom but it does require everyone to shoulder some responsibility for their less well off fellow citizens, depending on our ability to do so.


----------



## Warrigal (Sunday at 6:35 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> Henry VI, Part 2: Act 4, scene 2
> 
> Jack Cade:_  "Be brave, then, for your captain is brave and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny. The three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops, and I will make it felony to drink small beer. All the realm shall be in common, and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass. And when I am king, as king I will be......."_
> 
> That Bill Shakespeare.....ahead of his time, eh?


Very much ahead of his time, which is why his work is still studied in Australian schools. In my five years of high school I studied eleven of his plays. It was a publicly funded school. My parents could never have afforded a private education for me or my sister.


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 6:36 PM)

Warrigal said:


> However, I maintain that communism and socialism are not the same thing at all.
> I do not understand why the word 'socialism' puts the fear of the Almighty into so many people's minds. It does not mean that people lose personal freedom but it does require everyone to shoulder some responsibility for their less well off fellow citizens, depending on our ability to do so.


Great...if it wasn't for the fact that those who advocate 'socialism' appear to inevitably attempt to steer it into totalitarianism.....the door-to-door-salesman's proverbial foot.

Every single time.

Until the next batch of "Well, _they_ didn't get it right-ers come along" and here we go again.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 6:55 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> Henry VI, Part 2: Act 4, scene 2
> 
> Jack Cade:_  "Be brave, then, for your captain is brave and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny. The three-hooped pot shall have ten hoops, and I will make it felony to drink small beer. All the realm shall be in common, and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass. And when I am king, as king I will be......."_
> 
> That Bill Shakespeare.....ahead of his time, eh?


There was this claim in a utopia in an R.  Crumb comic...

"In the future, *everyone* will have *all* of *everything*!"


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 6:56 PM)

Warrigal said:


> Very much ahead of his time, which is why his work is still studied in Australian schools. In my five years of high school I studied eleven of his plays. It was a publicly funded school. My parents could never have afforded a private education for me or my sister.


Have you sent any kids thru the same system?

If so, how does it compare?


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 7:06 PM)

Sawfish said:


> There was this claim in a utopia in an R.  Crumb comic...
> 
> "In the future, *everyone* will have *all* of *everything*!"


A number of years back someone commented, (quite seriously I believe), on a national newspaper here, that since Canada had oil we should get it for free, (forget what it takes in knowledge/labor/equipment/money etc, etc, to bring it out of the ground).

I responded by saying Canada has gold too.....should everyone get that for nothing?

Crickets.


----------



## Warrigal (Sunday at 7:33 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Have you sent any kids thru the same system?
> 
> If so, how does it compare?


Actually I have experienced the public school system for myself and my kids. I was selected for an enrichment program in Years 5 & 6 and so was my daughter. Our son missed out.

Daughter went on to a selective public school as I did but hers was co-ed; mine was girls only.
At that time I was teaching in a girls' catholic junior high and I could see that the selective school wasn't as good for the students as it thought it was. I pulled her out for the last two years and placed her in a girls' Anglican school. It was a horrible experience for her - too many snobbish and catty girls and she was bullied by one in particular, however she did score well enough to be admitted into nurse training school. She has thrived in that profession

Our son went to secondary school at a boys Anglican Grammar School (private). His father was one of the masters there, teaching maths and engineering studies so I had a very good idea of the school culture. It was good for him academically but he hated it as a social environment. The long and the short of it is that no one school or school system is a good fit for every child.

Private schools in Australia receive government funding in addition to income from fees and property investments. Public schools only receive funding from governments. Private schools offer some scholarships to allow high performing students to attend. It is not altruism. These students add to the prestige of the school when the results of statewide tests are published. The wealthy seldom give away money to the poor for charity's sake. There is always some advantage for themselves or their class.

The long and the short of it is that education which is a mix of public and private funding (socialism and capitalism) provides opportunities for advancement for all students. However, the old school tie tends to offer even more to the well off.

Communism does not come into it.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 7:57 PM)

Warrigal said:


> Actually I have experienced the public school system for myself and my kids. I was selected for an enrichment program in Years 5 & 6 and so was my daughter. Our son missed out.
> 
> Daughter went on to a selective public school as I did but hers was co-ed; mine was girls only.
> At that time I was teaching in a girls' catholic junior high and I could see that the selective school wasn't as good for the students as it thought it was. I pulled her out for the last two years and placed her in a girls' Anglican school. It was a horrible experience for her - too many snobbish and catty girls and she was bullied by one in particular, however she did score well enough to be admitted into nurse training school. She has thrived in that profession
> ...


Thanks for the interesting perspective.

I went to the CA public school system in the 50s. Later, in the mid 70s thru the early 80s, I taught in the same system. It had changed somewhat by that time. Over time I have developed some strong opinions about what is most useful for a child growing up.

Much later, when I had changed careers, we had our daughter and I shopped all public and private schools (you could transfer to chosen public schools here at that time) here in Portland. OR. We settled on an Episcopal school, K-12( with boarding as well as dayschool) here that we had to drive her to, but it was on the way to work for both of us and so that was no real problem.

The school worked well for her, it was very demanding in a relatively positive way. I've heard some parents who looked at the school with intent to send their kids say they felt it was too snooty, but this was not our daughter's experience, nor is she what you'd call a socially driven person.

We let her select her college, within bounds, and she chose a small east coast college that in many ways was the college equivalent of the K-12  Episcopal school and did well there, also.

You can never tell, but personally, I suspect that the parents of kids who had the most troubles coming into the school, transferred in, and the workload and expectancies were so unlike what they'd grown accustomed to in the public system--nor did their parents really grasp the difference in workload/expectancies--that they were under immediate academic pressure. Because a very high premium *among students* was placed  on academic success, this may have cause a two pronged problem.


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 8:26 PM)

Warrigal said:


> I can't believe this discussion is still going.
> 
> There would not be a single economy on the planet that is either pure capitalism or pure socialism.
> Most are a blend of both. It's horses for courses. For some aspects of society socialism is the answer, for others, let the market prevail.
> ...


I hereby declare that it’s true that taxation is by far the fairest way to provide for funding of public programs whether under a capitalist economy/government or a socialist one!!

Now, I will also mention that I can be counted on to always, always correct mistaken ideas about what socialism is.  FDR agreed with me.  After installing all those socially-beneficial programs, at the end of his last term he said “I saved capitalism”.  So, once again, what is this mysterious “socialism” if it’s not socialized public programs?

All sources that are fundamentally capitalist and/or not pro-socialist will say public education is socialism; Social Security is socialism; Medicare is socialism; public transportation is socialism; parks are socialism.  And FDR disagreed.  Such programs make the harsh edges of capitalism more tolerable.

But all sources that are pro-socialist say capitalism must go.  It has to end.  The two are not compatible.
https://www.socialism101.com/basic

Also...
"_Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.  The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few_."
https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/


Socialism would ultimately ban private ownership of business for private profit.

So public education is not socialism.  Worker ownership and control of production is socialism.


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 8:32 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> 1)  I don't know about "US anticommunist propaganda' but I have visited somewhere in the region of 84 countries, so I don't consider myself totally sheltered from reality.


But since there are no socialist countries but maybe Cuba and I doubt you visited Cuba, you had to have visited capitalist countries, all of which produce propaganda for their system like all countries do.  So I would not expect you to have experienced a pro-socialist society.  Yugoslavia may be one of the more “socialism-tolerant” countries however.



Nemo2 said:


> 2) The Red Phoenix, yeah, right.


It’s a source of some truly socialist/Marxist ideas.  That has nothing to do with your aversion to socialism.  Are you really so afraid to expose yourself to alternate data and info?



Nemo2 said:


> 3) 'Insurrection'   That was as close to an insurrection as the Afghanistan debacle was to a 'success'.


Right.  But it was an ATTEMPTED insurrection and the law makes no distinction, nor does the Constitution.  Why do you live in the USA yet oppose our Constitution?


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 8:55 PM)

Warrigal said:


> Rhetorical question and a rather silly one at that.
> 
> Leftism is a new term to me. Does it imply being supportive of socialism in a free society?
> Or, are you suggesting this term implies card carrying Communist?


You’re kidding!  The right routinely calls Democrats “leftists”.  ([Edit:] OH!!!  I see now you’re from Australia!)   When they say it they mean anyone who is not politically as far right as they are. To them, a centrist like Biden is a “leftist” and sometimes “a communist”!




Warrigal said:


> East Germany under Communism was not free. The wall was to keep people in, not to prevent people from entering the country. It was an impoverished economy before the wall came down so why would anyone want to travel there after that unless it was to buy property cheaply and seek economic opportunities.
> 
> I would guess that some West Germans may have grabbed any economic opportunities that freedom delivered.
> 
> However, I maintain that communism and socialism are not the same thing at all.


You’re right.  But here’s something to be clear on and a trap to avoid: Many unaware, uninformed people use the word “communism” to mean either of two very, . . . . in fact, ENTIRELY, different things.   First, someone will use it to refer to communist theory, policies, strategies, and ideology, usually of a communist party, or of a society over which a “communist party” rules with their policies, ideology, etc.

That’s one.  Ideology.  Politics.  Strategies.

The other one that people sometimes refer to is *communist society.*  And that is a society that emerges naturally from a couple of centuries of socialist society (theoretically) and it is characterized by utilizing and having no money/currency, having no classes, and having no state “machine” to enforce or regulate anything.  It only would have a skeleton of a state dedicated mostly to clerical duties of record-keeping and publishing of useful data like production statistics.  So when you hear someone refer to a “communist state” you know they don’t know the first thing about which they speak.

Thing is, in any conversation of the uninformed, you will often be able to detect a mindless switching back and forth from use of “communism” to first mean one, and then the other, and they have no idea what they’re doing.  That kind of mindlessness is a good indication that you’re seeing or hearing propaganda being mindlessly spread.




Warrigal said:


> I do not understand why the word 'socialism' puts the fear of the Almighty into so many people's minds. It does not mean that people lose personal freedom but it does require everyone to shoulder some responsibility for their less well off fellow citizens, depending on our ability to do so.


Good point indeed!  You could say that socialism is just the end of greed by owners of the larger corporations, too!

Here’s what motivates socialist: You could list our top dozen major national problems and a socialist can tell you how capitalism caused the problem and why capitalism cannot and does not solve the problem even after decades and decades.  Only the end of private profit can make it possible to solve them.


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 9:24 PM)

Senter said:


> But since there are no socialist countries by maybe Cuba and I doubt you visited Cuba, you had to have visited capitalist countries, all of which produce propaganda for their system like all countries do.  So I would not expect you to have experienced a pro-socialist society.  Yugoslavia may be one of the more “socialism-tolerant” countries however.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1)  I was in Cuba when Brezhnev visited.  I was in Yugoslavia when Tito was in command.  (Post USSR, I've been to Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia.)

2) Why do I live in the USA?  I don't.


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 9:33 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> 1)  I was in Cuba when Brezhnev visited.  I was in Yugoslavia when Tito was in command.  (Post USSR, I've been to Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia.)
> 
> 2) Why do I live in the USA?  I don't.


Oh.  Yeah.  I see you’re in Ontario.


----------



## Nemo2 (Sunday at 9:33 PM)

Senter said:


> You could say that socialism is just the end of greed by owners of the larger corporations, too!
> 
> Here’s what motivates socialist: You could list our top dozen major national problems and a socialist can tell you how capitalism caused the problem and why capitalism cannot and does not solve the problem even after decades and decades.  Only the end of private profit can make it possible to solve them.


That must be why Venezuela went from being a starving bankrupt mess to becoming one of the richest countries in South America?

Oh, wait.....I have that ass backwards...


----------



## Senter (Sunday at 10:21 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> That must be why Venezuela went from being a starving bankrupt mess to becoming one of the richest countries in South America?
> 
> Oh, wait.....I have that ass backwards...


Yeah, I should be ashamed to be so stupid as to dare talk about socialism, let alone advocate it.  (The American taboo in operation!)


----------



## Warrigal (Sunday at 11:05 PM)

Senter said:


> I hereby declare that it’s true that taxation is by far the fairest way to provide for funding of public programs whether under a capitalist economy/government or a socialist one!!
> 
> Now, I will also mention that I can be counted on to always, always correct mistaken ideas about what socialism is.  FDR agreed with me.  After installing all those socially-beneficial programs, at the end of his last term he said “I saved capitalism”.  So, once again, what is this mysterious “socialism” if it’s not socialized public programs?
> 
> ...


Does the socialism you describe exist anywhere?


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 3:23 AM)

Senter said:


> FDR agreed with me.


Did he mention you in his memoirs?


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 3:28 AM)

Warrigal said:


> Does the socialism you describe exist anywhere?


Only in J. M. Barrie's _'Neverland',_ where Tinker Bell is happily flying again.


----------



## Judycat (Monday at 5:18 AM)

I was watching a show called Prophesy Watchers last night. The guy on there claims the grays of UFO abduction fame are just vehicles inhabited by fallen angels and socialism is their creation. Lots of proof with history and scripture if you buy and read his book.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 5:48 AM)

Senter said:


> Well, it’s very clear to me that you have the standard, false view of socialism that has been cultivated by US anticommunist propaganda for 70 years.  If we just see and read what is prepared for us to see and read, that is the result.  To actually know what it is one must look into the horse’s mouth and see.   HERE’s one of many sources, and it isn’t even the best.
> 
> 
> Don’t you think that is/would be true of the USA too?   We’ve seen some glimpses of it during COVID and the insurrection.


Oh Jesus.  The Red Phoenix?  Really? 

What is the true view of socialism?  The USSR in its glory days?  China?  Cuba? North Korea?  Venezuela? 

Socialism (government ownership of the means of production) is an inherently flawed economic system that has never worked _anywhere._  And please don't point to Sweden or Denmark, which are free capitalist countries with strong social safety nets. 

Free market capitalism as practiced in the US has many failings and needs more regulation and more reform.  But please don't talk about socialism and expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 5:51 AM)

Senter said:


> Yeah, I should be ashamed to be so stupid as to dare talk about socialism, let alone advocate it.  (The American taboo in operation!)


Well, Oregon...


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 6:30 AM)

2012  -  couple weeks 'escape the cold' vacation in Costa Rica   -  intercepted by young Scotsman on way to beach  -  he's handing out fake (we'll sell you a time share) 'scratch & win' cards.

I get Four Monkeys  -  big winner.

"You don't look too excited" he says.

("Naah, I didn't see a turnip truck nearby...besides which, I don't think I just fell off one anyway.")


----------



## Jean-Paul (Monday at 6:35 AM)

pseudonyme for thief of your money by Commies in your government 

j


----------



## Senter (Monday at 9:15 AM)

Warrigal said:


> Does the socialism you describe exist anywhere?


First recognize that a new economic and political system will never be abruptly installed “overnight” anywhere.  Such a transition will take time.  (Marx brilliantly mentioned this in “A Critique of the Gotha Programme”.)  And during that time the capitalist class will use every trick and means they have to stop, prevent, and sabotage socialism and return to the capitalist system.  And that is “kinda-sorta” what happened in every case so far (and for a reason that is now understood) with the possible exceptions of Cuba and Laos.

So at this time, no worker-owned, worker-controlled economic system is the dominant system in any country.  Even Cuba says they’re working on it as they make incremental progress after 60 years.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 9:18 AM)

Senter said:


> First recognize that a new economic and political system will never be abruptly installed “overnight” anywhere.  Such a transition will take time.  (Marx brilliantly mentioned this in “A Critique of the Gotha Programme”.)  And during that time the capitalist class will use every trick and means they have to stop, prevent, and sabotage socialism and return to the capitalist system.  And that is “kinda-sorta” what happened in every case so far (and for a reason that is now understood) with the possible exceptions of Cuba and Laos.
> 
> So at this time, no worker-owned, worker-controlled economic system is the dominant system in any country.  Even Cuba says they’re working on it as they make incremental progress after 60 years.


Right.   So it's a dream that will never happen, accompanied by tyranny, poverty and misery.  Sounds great!  Where can I sign up?


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 9:23 AM)

Senter said:


> So at this time, no worker-owned, worker-controlled economic system is the dominant system in any country.  Even Cuba says they’re working on it as they make incremental progress after 60 years.


Bob Seger:  Roll Me Away:

_"Keep searchin' 'til I find what's right
And as the sunset faded I spoke to the faintest first starlight
And I said next time
Next time
We'll get it right"

 _


----------



## perChance (Monday at 9:24 AM)

Senter said:


> First recognize that a new economic and political system will never be abruptly installed “overnight” anywhere.  Such a transition will take time.  (Marx brilliantly mentioned this in “A Critique of the Gotha Programme”.)  And during that time the capitalist class will use every trick and means they have to stop, prevent, and sabotage socialism and return to the capitalist system.  And that is “kinda-sorta” what happened in every case so far (and for a reason that is now understood) with the possible exceptions of Cuba and Laos.
> 
> So at this time, no worker-owned, worker-controlled economic system is the dominant system in any country.  Even Cuba says they’re working on it as they make incremental progress after 60 years.


Perhaps it is the socialists who are using "every trick and means they have" to undermine capitalist systems.  

Perhaps there are no true socialist societies because people don't want to live in them.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 9:27 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> Oh Jesus.  The Red Phoenix?  Really?
> 
> What is the true view of socialism?  The USSR in its glory days?  China?  Cuba? North Korea?  Venezuela?


https://www.socialism101.com/basic



JimBob1952 said:


> Socialism (government ownership of the means of production) is an inherently flawed economic system that has never worked _anywhere._  And please don't point to Sweden or Denmark, which are free capitalist countries with strong social safety nets.


I’ll be smart enough to recognize that the Nordic countries are capitalist if you will be smart enough to recognize that your definition of socialism (government ownership of the means of production) is a standard, ready-made bit of capitalist propaganda that requires a little more investigation.  What you don’t seem to know is that Lenin, in his presentation of his “NEP”, talked about what you described and called it “state capitalism” since the relationship of employer to employee remains that of capitalism.



JimBob1952 said:


> Free market capitalism as practiced in the US has many failings and needs more regulation and more reform.  But please don't talk about socialism and expect anyone to take you seriously.


AH!  A more polite form of the American taboo against socialism!  …. denigrate the willingness to discuss it but avoid any attempt to refute the facts!   Cute.   But it’s really just another form of the attempt to suppress discussion of the subject.  …. —hence, the taboo.


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 9:28 AM)

perChance said:


> Perhaps there are no true socialist societies because people don't want to live in them.


C'mon now, East Germany, for one, erected a wall manned by snipers in order to discourage capitalists from sneaking in and running away with all their amassed goodies!


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 9:29 AM)

I get it, you're a true believer.  Might as well have a rational dialogue with a Proud Boy.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 9:30 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> Well, Oregon...


Yeah, the leading Democratic and somewhat left state.  After what we’ve seen red states do and advocate to harm and roll back rights and sanity, I’ll be happy to remain here!


----------



## Senter (Monday at 9:34 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> Right.   So it's a dream that will never happen, accompanied by tyranny, poverty and misery.  Sounds great!  Where can I sign up?


Marxist analysis has nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 9:40 AM)

Senter said:


> https://www.socialism101.com/basic
> 
> 
> I’ll be smart enough to recognize that the Nordic countries are capitalist if you will be smart enough to recognize that your definition of socialism (government ownership of the means of production) is a standard, ready-made bit of capitalist propaganda that requires a little more investigation.  What you don’t seem to know is that Lenin, in his presentation of his “NEP”, talked about what you described and called it “state capitalism” since the relationship of employer to employee remains that of capitalism.
> ...





Senter said:


> Marxist analysis has nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain.



"Marxist analysis?"  Theory versus reality?  I'll take reality, any day.  

Your Socialism 101 text is a hilarious mash-up of exaggerations, lies and half-truths.   Sort of like, well, religion.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 9:47 AM)

Senter said:


> Yeah, the leading Democratic and somewhat left state.  After what we’ve seen red states do and advocate to harm and roll back rights and sanity, I’ll be happy to remain here!



Oregon is losing population.  We may have to consider a border wall to keep you folks in there...


----------



## Remy (Monday at 10:29 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> _"... half his classmates gone, having fled with their families to the West."_
> 
> Funny that we never heard about 'families fleeing to the East' to embrace the wonders of leftism....wonder why?


I know. The Utopia! My mother said when we were in East Germany that she heard a woman ask someone "where did you get the bananas?" I guess they were not easy to find. Bananas everywhere here. I remember dreary and oppressive.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 10:53 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> "Marxist analysis?"  Theory versus reality?  I'll take reality, any day.
> 
> Your Socialism 101 text is a hilarious mash-up of exaggerations, lies and half-truths.   Sort of like, well, religion.


More taboo language.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 10:54 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> Oregon is losing population.


Yeah, wildfires are a real threat and problem.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 11:08 AM)

Senter said:


> More taboo language.


First, Senter, you're new here, so welcome to SF.  

Second, you have linked us to websites which post speeches by Stalin and which call the US intervention in Korea in 1950 an attempt to overthrow a socialist regime (although maybe even you would admit that the North Koreans invaded South Korea and not the other way around).   

For me, that goes beyond rational discourse and into some sort of la-la land.  Would I take seriously someone who posted speeches by Hitler?  Who said that the Japanese were right to attack Pearl Harbor?  Why should I worry about what you call "taboo language?"  What does that even mean?  

Again, welcome to SF, and welcome to one of its most useful features, the "ignore" button.


----------



## SeniorBen (Monday at 11:14 AM)

Capitalism is great... if you're born rich. If you're working class, good luck getting ahead!

That hasn't always been the case in the U.S., though. It's just in the past 40 or so years that it changed. It used to be that anyone with the motivation and ability could go to college and make something of themselves, or you could work your way up in a company... even in a factory, and achieve the American ream. Not any more.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 11:22 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> First, Senter, you're new here, so welcome to SF.
> 
> Second, you have linked us to websites which post speeches by Stalin and which call the US intervention in Korea in 1950 an attempt to overthrow a socialist regime (although maybe even you would admit that the North Koreans invaded South Korea and not the other way around).
> 
> ...


HUH?

I’d like very much for you to point me to any link I posted to a website of speeches by Stalin-the-butcher.  The rest of your comments are a mystery to me.

Regarding the taboo I mentioned, look back at my posts in this thread searching for “taboo” because I explained it twice I believe.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 11:25 AM)

SeniorBen said:


> Capitalism is great... if you're born rich. If you're working class, good luck getting ahead!
> 
> That hasn't always been the case in the U.S., though. It's just in the past 40 or so years that it changed. It used to be that anyone with the motivation and ability could go to college and make something of themselves, or you could work your way up in a company... even in a factory, and achieve the American ream. Not any more.


Which is why no one wants to move here.  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, there are millions of people trying to enter both legally and illegally?  They must not have gotten the memo. 

There are literally millions of people who have come here in the last 40 years from places like South Korea, Vietnam and India who have not only survived but flourished here.  All it takes is hard work, combined with a respect for education and a supportive family structure. Unfortunately many native-born Americans have instead embraced sloth, ignorance, crime, obesity, illegitimacy, computer games and substance abuse as the way forward.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 11:34 AM)

Senter said:


> HUH?
> 
> I’d like very much for you to point me to any link I posted to a website of speeches by Stalin-the-butcher.  The rest of your comments are a mystery to me.
> 
> Regarding the taboo I mentioned, look back at my posts in this thread searching for “taboo” because I explained it twice I believe.


From your beloved Red Phoenix:

HOME *›* HISTORY *›* *STALIN: “ON THE DEATH OF LENIN” (A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE SECOND ALL-UNION CONGRESS OF SOVIETS)*

Stalin: “On The Death Of Lenin” (A Speech Delivered at the Second All-union Congress of Soviets)​BY THE RED PHOENIX _on_ APRIL 22, 2019


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 11:42 AM)

It appears that Pea Soup isn't pea soup, but simply soup with peas, unless, of course, as Remy noted about bananas, there aren't any peas......that would peas people off.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 11:53 AM)

JimBob1952 said:


> From your beloved Red Phoenix:
> 
> HOME *›* HISTORY *›* *STALIN: “ON THE DEATH OF LENIN” (A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE SECOND ALL-UNION CONGRESS OF SOVIETS)*
> 
> Stalin: “On The Death Of Lenin” (A Speech Delivered at the Second All-union Congress of Soviets)​BY THE RED PHOENIX _on_ APRIL 22, 2019


But I ignored that entry on the website.  I’m sure you would agree that no one who is guilty of a transgression however serious as the publishing of that article is for “Red Phoenix”, could be identified as 100% wrong on all things.  I quoted and referenced what I agree with.  Maybe referencing that website is not a good idea due to “sensitive” people tending to generalize, so I’ll be sure to delete it from my list.  (The truth is that I just found “Red Phoenix” in the last few days and haven’t had time to explore it fully.)

But if you decide to comment on what I said rather than what else you can find on websites, I’ll be happy to defend and justify anything I say using more acceptable sources.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Monday at 11:59 AM)

Senter said:


> But I ignored that entry on the website.  I’m sure you would agree that no one who is guilty of a transgression however serious as the publishing of that article is for “Red Phoenix”, could be identified as 100% wrong on all things.  I quoted and referenced what I agree with.  Maybe referencing that website is not a good idea due to “sensitive” people tending to generalize, so I’ll be sure to delete it from my list.
> 
> But if you decide to comment on what I said rather than what else you can find on websites, I’ll be happy to defend and justify anything I say using more acceptable sources.


I'm sure you will be happy to defend and justify anything you say.  However, I haven't got time for Marxist-Leninist cranks, so welcome to Ignoreland.


----------



## Senter (Monday at 12:05 PM)

JimBob1952 said:


> I'm sure you will be happy to defend and justify anything you say.  However, I haven't got time for Marxist-Leninist cranks, so welcome to Ignoreland.


Thank you.  I will enjoy being ignored by you.


----------



## Warrigal (Monday at 2:06 PM)

I'm going to raise a bit of history here that predates the Russian revolutions. Many Australians have never heard of this failed attempt at forming a socialist utopia in Paraguay in 1893.



> The Unfortunate Australian Utopia In Paraguay​
> “All Utopias / are castles in the air or counsels of despair.” —Robert Bridges, The Testament of Beauty
> In A Nutshell​
> In 1893, 220 Australians sailed out of Sydney to start a new life in Paraguay. Their settlement, named New Australia, was to be a “socialist utopia,” and went about as well as anything bearing that description, quickly abandoning its founding principles and even splitting in two. Today, a substantial number of Paraguayan Australians still exist and continue to maintain some of their heritage.
> ...



This history is a cautionary tale. Ideal societies cannot be created artificially. We can, however, chip away at social problems and improve our institutions over time through legislation. When the men of the first AIF returned from WW I they were determined to create a land fit for heroes and they set about doing just that by joining unions and forming friendly societies, and by standing for election to parliament. Australia became a better and fairer nation as a result of their efforts. Capitalism was not abolished but, for the benefit of the working man, it was tamed somewhat.


----------



## SeniorBen (Monday at 3:49 PM)

JimBob1952 said:


> Which is why no one wants to move here.  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, there are millions of people trying to enter both legally and illegally?  They must not have gotten the memo.
> 
> There are literally millions of people who have come here in the last 40 years from places like South Korea, Vietnam and India who have not only survived but flourished here.  All it takes is hard work, combined with a respect for education and a supportive family structure. Unfortunately many native-born Americans have instead embraced sloth, ignorance, crime, obesity, illegitimacy, computer games and substance abuse as the way forward.


That's because Gov. Abbot and other southern state governors are telling the world that we have open borders and lots of free stuff for all who come here. People in third world countries overrun with gun violence -- with guns from the U.S. -- hear that and believe that paradise awaits them, and compared to what they're escaping, the U.S. is paradise. Everything is relative.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Tuesday at 5:25 AM)

SeniorBen said:


> That's because Gov. Abbot and other southern state governors are telling the world that we have open borders and lots of free stuff for all who come here. People in third world countries overrun with gun violence -- with guns from the U.S. -- hear that and believe that paradise awaits them, and compared to what they're escaping, the U.S. is paradise. Everything is relative.


You completely ignored the fact that many people from Asia and elsewhere have migrated here and done very well over the last 40 years.  

Your comment about Abbott and other governors is a regurgitated administration talking point, trying to deflect blame for the chaos on the southern border.  Border security is a federal responsibility, and it has been criminally neglected.  

But you know that.


----------

