Socialism is a society in which everyone is forced to pay for the "free" things that society provides
ex. USA
Topic: What is Socialism? (Read 949 times)
What's despotism?
Socialism is the younger brother of a decrepit despotism, which it wants to succeed.
True. I'm not saying it's always totalitarian. But Russia and Venezuela and the other communist countries ended up that way
My point is that one shouldn't say what communism is based on what "communist" countries were. And same really goes to any system.
I didn't say what communism was based on those countries. When I was adding totalitarianism it was in response to someone's post. It was in no way an umbrella statement about communism.
True. I'm not saying it's always totalitarian. But Russia and Venezuela and the other communist countries ended up that way
My point is that one shouldn't say what communism is based on what "communist" countries were. And same really goes to any system.
I still say that communism has been tried to achieve, but it always ended in totalitarianism.
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
Totalitarianism kind of overlaps with communism. If one group is in charge and everyone else is equally poor... Then the guys in charge are probably usually totalitarian...
Mixing up ideologues or theories and systems that has used the name isn't really good.
It's like saying that capitalism or free market systems are bad because there is government intervention... Even as there hasn't been pure systems lately...
True. I'm not saying it's always totalitarian. But Russia and Venezuela and the other communist countries ended up that way
No THAT IS COMMUNISM. If anyone is in control (EVEN WORKERS). it's Communism.
No, communism is a term coined by Engels and Marx as an interpretation or "advancement" of socialist theory. Communism may be distinguished from socialism by the idea that a global revolution and world-wide solidarity between workers (hence "The Internationale") is needed to overcome the stranglehold of the state and rich capitalists.
Needless to say, there is a lot of disagreements between the different schools of thought.
I still say that communism has been tried to achieve, but it always ended in totalitarianism.
The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc was not communism, it's better described as monopolistic state-controlled capitalism (all capital in the hands of the state). Rulers often abuse and pervert ideologies to justify dictatorship. Marxists would argue that today's capitalism is ending in totalitarianism as well (I know we don't have a truly free market but then again how can it ever exist? You don't like the central bank? Well guess how it came into existence. Due to the concentration of capital in the most powerful "free" banks who then went on to lobby for the central banking system on Jeckyll Island.)
I still say that communism has been tried to achieve, but it always ended in totalitarianism.
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
Totalitarianism kind of overlaps with communism. If one group is in charge and everyone else is equally poor... Then the guys in charge are probably usually totalitarian...
Mixing up ideologues or theories and systems that has used the name isn't really good.
It's like saying that capitalism or free market systems are bad because there is government intervention... Even as there hasn't been pure systems lately...
They all fail at the inherent corruption of man. Plain and simple, let them stay on paper because they never translate to reality.
Scorpion and the frog.
Scorpion and the frog.
I would argue that communism hasn't either survived yet or existed for considerable time...
They have all ended up in totalitarian regime...
They have all ended up in totalitarian regime...
This is pretty much what has happened for ages now, the people who rant about socialism are sticking with that because people know now communism is either dead or has never existed in the first place, socialism is the new imaginary threat that the established parties like to use in their own country and terrorism is the one that they use to get people terrified of the outside world.
I still say that communism has been tried to achieve, but it always ended in totalitarianism.
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
Totalitarianism kind of overlaps with communism. If one group is in charge and everyone else is equally poor... Then the guys in charge are probably usually totalitarian...
I still say that communism has been tried to achieve, but it always ended in totalitarianism.
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
And I don't think communism is really overly bad once we have certain level of production, which we are far away now...
That's all wrong. The typical American definition of Socialism. 
Socialism originally and first and foremost meant one thing:
Workers are to be in control of the means of production.
(as opposed to exploitative bosses and capitalists.)
It doesn't say anything about a state, about welfare, about equal redistribution of wealth, or the like. The European tradition of Anarchism is in fact socialist, anti-state, anti-capitalist.
Socialism originally and first and foremost meant one thing:
Workers are to be in control of the means of production.
(as opposed to exploitative bosses and capitalists.)
It doesn't say anything about a state, about welfare, about equal redistribution of wealth, or the like. The European tradition of Anarchism is in fact socialist, anti-state, anti-capitalist.
No THAT IS COMMUNISM. If anyone is in control (EVEN WORKERS). it's Communism.
That's all wrong. The typical American definition of Socialism.
Socialism originally and first and foremost meant one thing:
Workers are to be in control of the means of production.
(as opposed to exploitative bosses and capitalists.)
It doesn't say anything about a state, about welfare, about equal redistribution of wealth, or the like. The European tradition of Anarchism is in fact socialist, anti-state, anti-capitalist.
Socialism originally and first and foremost meant one thing:
Workers are to be in control of the means of production.
(as opposed to exploitative bosses and capitalists.)
It doesn't say anything about a state, about welfare, about equal redistribution of wealth, or the like. The European tradition of Anarchism is in fact socialist, anti-state, anti-capitalist.
Socialism is first step towards Communism. The liars, schemers and cheats that promote socialist egalitarianism know this very well.
You are right. It always DOES happen that way.
It's just not the actual philosophy... Once it starts to favor any one group, it's communism.
Now,
I do not align with any socialist parties, I just want to make something clear because it seems people forgot what Socialism is...
Socialism:
A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.
Communism:
This is what ACTUALLY happens whenever anyone tries to bring Socialism into the world. 1 group takes charge and makes everyone else "equal" in poverty, while they shit in gold toilets and wage war on the capitalists.
All the "Socialist" governments you are thinking of when you think of Socialists, are actually COMMUNIST governments. There has never been a true Socialist government nation to exist on the face of this planet (as far as western history tells us).
Socialism is not a bad idea on paper, it just always turn into something bad when you actually try to apply it... Because someone always has to try to be the alpha dog.
I do not align with any socialist parties, I just want to make something clear because it seems people forgot what Socialism is...
Socialism:
A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.
Communism:
This is what ACTUALLY happens whenever anyone tries to bring Socialism into the world. 1 group takes charge and makes everyone else "equal" in poverty, while they shit in gold toilets and wage war on the capitalists.
All the "Socialist" governments you are thinking of when you think of Socialists, are actually COMMUNIST governments. There has never been a true Socialist government nation to exist on the face of this planet (as far as western history tells us).
Socialism is not a bad idea on paper, it just always turn into something bad when you actually try to apply it... Because someone always has to try to be the alpha dog.
+1
But more.. Socialism is an ideology born of jealousy and dysfunction. It dehumanises, lies and corrupts to force an unnatural egalitarian order on the many while granting absolute power to the worst, diabolical few.
It is not meant to dehumanize, that is communism. When you all get the same grey shirt, and all go to the same church (with "leaders" face on the wall)... That's communism...
Socialism WAS born of jealousy and dysfunction, but the jealousy came from the dysfunction. You can't have a giant hungry overworked work force, while you eat caviar and champagne.
Socialism is first step towards Communism. The liars, schemers and cheats that promote socialist egalitarianism know this very well.
Socialism is the attempt to override using various means the miscellaneous trappings of statehood.
Anarchists are socialists, capitalists are socialists, marxists, maoists, antimonarchists, the redemopublicratian party, me, you.
The encompassing shape of what a state is, often supercedes socialist agendas, repressing it into a totalitarian state run monster.
Yup. Capitalists are socialists. *currently bracing for impact*
Anarchists are socialists, capitalists are socialists, marxists, maoists, antimonarchists, the redemopublicratian party, me, you.
The encompassing shape of what a state is, often supercedes socialist agendas, repressing it into a totalitarian state run monster.
Yup. Capitalists are socialists. *currently bracing for impact*
Now,
I do not align with any socialist parties, I just want to make something clear because it seems people forgot what Socialism is...
Socialism:
A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.
Communism:
This is what ACTUALLY happens whenever anyone tries to bring Socialism into the world. 1 group takes charge and makes everyone else "equal" in poverty, while they shit in gold toilets and wage war on the capitalists.
All the "Socialist" governments you are thinking of when you think of Socialists, are actually COMMUNIST governments. There has never been a true Socialist government nation to exist on the face of this planet (as far as western history tells us).
Socialism is not a bad idea on paper, it just always turn into something bad when you actually try to apply it... Because someone always has to try to be the alpha dog.
I do not align with any socialist parties, I just want to make something clear because it seems people forgot what Socialism is...
Socialism:
A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.
Communism:
This is what ACTUALLY happens whenever anyone tries to bring Socialism into the world. 1 group takes charge and makes everyone else "equal" in poverty, while they shit in gold toilets and wage war on the capitalists.
All the "Socialist" governments you are thinking of when you think of Socialists, are actually COMMUNIST governments. There has never been a true Socialist government nation to exist on the face of this planet (as far as western history tells us).
Socialism is not a bad idea on paper, it just always turn into something bad when you actually try to apply it... Because someone always has to try to be the alpha dog.
+1
But more.. Socialism is an ideology born of jealousy and dysfunction. It dehumanises, lies and corrupts to force an unnatural egalitarian order on the many while granting absolute power to the worst, diabolical few.
It is not meant to dehumanize, that is communism. When you all get the same grey shirt, and all go to the same church (with "leaders" face on the wall)... That's communism...
Socialism WAS born of jealousy and dysfunction, but the jealousy came from the dysfunction. You can't have a giant hungry overworked work force, while you eat caviar and champagne.
Now,
I do not align with any socialist parties, I just want to make something clear because it seems people forgot what Socialism is...
Socialism:
A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.
Communism:
This is what ACTUALLY happens whenever anyone tries to bring Socialism into the world. 1 group takes charge and makes everyone else "equal" in poverty, while they shit in gold toilets and wage war on the capitalists.
All the "Socialist" governments you are thinking of when you think of Socialists, are actually COMMUNIST governments. There has never been a true Socialist government nation to exist on the face of this planet (as far as western history tells us).
Socialism is not a bad idea on paper, it just always turn into something bad when you actually try to apply it... Because someone always has to try to be the alpha dog.
I do not align with any socialist parties, I just want to make something clear because it seems people forgot what Socialism is...
Socialism:
A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.
Communism:
This is what ACTUALLY happens whenever anyone tries to bring Socialism into the world. 1 group takes charge and makes everyone else "equal" in poverty, while they shit in gold toilets and wage war on the capitalists.
All the "Socialist" governments you are thinking of when you think of Socialists, are actually COMMUNIST governments. There has never been a true Socialist government nation to exist on the face of this planet (as far as western history tells us).
Socialism is not a bad idea on paper, it just always turn into something bad when you actually try to apply it... Because someone always has to try to be the alpha dog.
+1
But more.. Socialism is an ideology born of jealousy and dysfunction. It dehumanises, lies and corrupts to force an unnatural egalitarian order on the many while granting absolute power to the worst, diabolical few.
The world you described would be hell. No one would have the incentive to work hard, since they would not get any benefit from that. It would make no sense to be the one sacrificing your free time for innovating since you wouldn't get any reward for your sacrifice. This is exactly what happens is communist countries. People do the absolute minimum they can get away with.
To you that may be hell. But society was slave driven (so not "motivation") for a long time, so I think the world would become artistic and innovative like Greece if it were Socialist. It would just have to be aided by robots (slaves).
But even then I bet the Socialism would collapse, which is why I believe more in a "Robo-Socialist" Republic. It's socialism that can work...
Imagine a library where the masses get to decide what goes on the shelves, but they don't even ever have to go to the library if they don't want to an the library is run by robots and 2 mechanics. That would be the philosophy of the whole government.
And there would still be wealth to accumulate. You would just start with something also. Just something to give the children of the world a head start. So there is still plenty of incentive to get rich, you just start with capital.
Don't forget that creating and maintaining robots is hard work. If there is no benefit for one to create a robot, then why should he be the one working on it? If I can design great robots but there is no reward for me to do so, then let me just watch tv and eat hamburgers while letting the other guys do the hard work of designing the robots. Of course with that kind of system and mentality, no one would eventually design anything.
And there would still be wealth to accumulate. You would just start with something also. Just something to give the children of the world a head start. So there is still plenty of incentive to get rich, you just start with capital.
Well your world would mean that I couldn't pass on any wealth that I have created to my children (since that would mean they have an advantage over others). If I worked hard my whole life to get a nice house and it would be "socialized" at my death and not given to my kids, I would rather burn it to the ground.
No. You are focusing to hard on the word socialist. If we are talking about the society I proposed, it is NOT at all the same as traditional socialism.
ROBO-Socialst REPUBLIC
Making this society a society that promotes individual freedom. Meaning you could pass wealth to your children.
And there will always be creative people trying to design new things, you can't just say "people will stop doing stuff one day". That simply is not how people work as a whole.
And there is reward for working. Even in a traditional socialist society you can work and get paid. I do propose mining though as a base income for everyone, and every town, state and nation should have it's own coin. Then you can work for people to get the coins they earned. Otherwise, what is the point of earning money at all?
Jump to: