What is socialism? (your opinion, not the dictionary definition)

[Dennis Leahy]

The president of the US said just yesterday that the US will never be socialist, yet the US (and UK, and Canada, and France, and Australia, and Finland, and many many other countries) all have some socialism. Maybe he was talking about not wanting the USA to ever become 100% socialist? But it sure makes me wonder what do people actually think socialism is.

The word "socialism" seems to have different meanings for different people. I'm not thinking about the dictionary or wiki definition of socialism, and particularly not about Marxism (which has a pretty firm definition in Marx's published work.)

In your present understanding, what does socialism actually mean, in concrete, non-nebulous terms? I think it would be helpful if you also name what you think is the opposite of socialism.

Some people run towards it and some people run away from it - that makes it a pretty interesting topic to me.

There's no wrong answers here - I am specifically NOT asking for a dictionary definition but rather your opinion of what socialism is, based on your current understanding.

[Ratszinger]

Socialism is like catching wild pigs. You ever caught wild pigs? You go out where you know there are some reported and you run a line of fence. You drop corn down and soon enough the pigs come in smelling it as they sniff all about. They see the row of fence and smell it and are wary but in time they come on in and eat up the corn. Then they leave.

You come in after and run a second row attached to first line of fence and now you have the start of a pen, a big ole "L" row of fence and and you drop more corn. The piggies come in and boy that second row throws them. They stand back a while but soon enough a bold one or two goes up and eats and things seem okay so the others say it must be cool and they join in.

Now they feed up and leave and you come in and run a third row of fence now making a big ole "U" and boy they are really really wary now and it take some extra corn and a few days of leading them in deep but in a few you get them used to it. Then it's no big deal they come eat and walk right in and get comfortable, heck even causing the young ones to get playful and now they leave and the trap is getting close to being set!

The unsuspecting piggies come back but now there is a fourth row of fence and it's kinda blocking the way a bit and looks imposing. They stand back, squeal some and carry on but in time hunger gets to some of the bolder ones and they wander in and begin eating. Soon the others start thinking they better get in there or those guys will eat up all my food and so they run in and now you've got several big ones and some little ones and a good variety of color and why you pull on your fishing line and that old gate snaps shut!

Now you got em all but boy are they unhappy! They are fussing up a storm running around all carrying on just not to be consoled. But they settle down in time and the corn keeps coming but now it's half as much and they are trapped!

That is socialism! As taught by my grandfather at just about every family reunion we ever had, this in a family reunion full of democrats. He called em all have nots and that the left created have not mentality that wanted to be taken care of on a draw all the time that would lock them in and never be enough> to him it was slavery.

[Franny]

There are indeed many ideas of what socialism is and I can't say I can contribute much to the answer.

I was talking to a friend last night who lost his business in 2008, then his medical insurance, then his house, then he and his wife split up. Then his father died, soon followed by his mother. He moved in with his sister and a short time later found he had advanced colon cancer. He had no way to pay for treatment as he was only able to find part-time employment.

He told me he had never been socialist but...he was quite sure that he would now be dead without socialized medicine.

Socialism, in part, is taking money from those who have it and giving to those who don't. And he knows that and feels a bit guilty that he is alive because money was taken from others and given to the medical system to help him out medically. He even pondered if he should have not taken the medical care and died as doing so is essentially theft. We did not come to any conclusion :)

It reminds me of what Catherine Austin Fitts said in one interview that caused me to stop, rewind and listen again then write it down.


You can’t have socialism without capitalism or it becomes communism.
And you can’t have capitalism without socialism or it becomes fascism.

Ponder that one!

I had hoped she would expound upon that but it was not to be...

And remember, she is conservative.

[Flash]

There are indeed many ideas of what socialism is and I can't say I can contribute much to the answer.

I was talking to a friend last night who lost his business in 2008, then his medical insurance, then his house, then he and his wife split up. Then his father died, soon followed by his mother. He moved in with his sister and a short time later found he had advanced colon cancer. He had no way to pay for treatment as he was only able to find part-time employment.

He told me he had never been socialist but...he was quite sure that he would now be dead without socialized medicine.

Socialism, in part, is taking money from those who have it and giving to those who don't. And he knows that and feels a bit guilty that he is alive because money was taken from others and given to the medical system to help him out medically. He even pondered if he should have not taken the medical care and died as doing so is essentially theft. We did not come to any conclusion :)

It reminds me of what Catherine Austin Fitts said in one interview that caused me to stop, rewind and listen again then write it down.


You can’t have socialism without capitalism or it becomes communism.
And you can’t have capitalism without socialism or it becomes fascism.

Ponder that one!

I had hoped she would expound upon that but it was not to be...

And remember, she is conservative.

What your friend may not have realised is that he paid for his treatments while he had his business, through the taxes he paid.
That is what capitalist socialism is about. A better equalizer of wealth while still promoting entrepreneurship and encouraging commerce and ideas.

I would not want to be in a place that does not care for its most vulnerables.

Austin Fitt is entirely correct in my views and based on life experience.

[samildamach]

The benchmark of any society is how it treats it's disabled and sick.
Socialism for me is ownership by the people equally .

[Ernie Nemeth]

Pure socialism has never been just as pure capitalism has not. There are always moderating factors that amend the scope of either.

Socialism in my mind is about taking care of the poor, making sure everyone has equal opportunities, and that the working class can prosper. Socialism is supposed to be about working together toward a common goal for all the people, not gays, muslims, or other tiny segments of the population. It certainly is not for increasing the rights of minorities, or silencing the voice of individuals, or enacting laws that favor a few special people. Socialism is also not about PC speech or hate laws like those for jews and muslims. Socialism is also not about opening the borders to anyone who can make it there any way they can. It is about peace-keeping, refugee intake, and curbing the rampant greed of capitalism.

I have been a Liberal all my life here in Canada - I do not have a party that upholds my standards anymore, if ever they did...

edit to add: And I really want to hear your, Denis', opinion, since I am certain you have one. If anyone can make it clear, you can.

[DeDukshyn]

Well there's only been a small handful of posts ... I'd say already the whole problem about evaluating socialism is clear. No consensus of the definition of terms (in this case "opinions of terms". The same issue at the root of 95% of all the worlds problems.

Dennis, this thread idea of having everyone lay it out is brilliant. You have the mind of a true problem solver. :)

[Franny]

What your friend may not have realised is that he paid for his treatments while he had his business, through the taxes he paid.
That is what capitalist socialism is about. A better equalizer of wealth while still promoting entrepreneurship and encouraging commerce and ideas.

I would not want to be in a place that does not care for its most vulnerables.

Austin Fitt is entirely correct in my views and based on life experience.



Many people equate the paying of taxes to theft. Also, his tax withholdings do not equal the money it took to pay his medical bill. Plus taxes are not voluntary, it is written into law that the State will take a portion of your earnings which many also consider unconstitutional theft.

These things were part of the conversation that I didn't include, didn't want to bore anyone with so many details as these things are rather well known.

One thing he also mentioned is that it's getting more difficult for many people to live as well as they did at one time as the prices of so many things have risen above even inflation - and wages have not kept up with inflation.

About 4 years ago I looked into inflation vis-a-vis wages and there is a significant disparity. Had wages kept up with inflation from the mid 1960s the minimum wage would have been about $17.00 USD in 2015.

His view was that necessities should be affordable to people, and I can't help but agree. Recall the articles a few years ago about Wall-Mart paying low wages and instructing employees how to obtain food stamps and medicaid - and how our taxes pay for those services to help keep Wall-Mart's net profit somewhere in the stratosphere. But these low wages even apply to many other businesses including, ironically, bank tellers.

However that is not how our system works so there must be a way to help those who fall through the safety net. Fortunately we have various social services to take care of those needs. Even at $18.00 an hour many people would not be able to afford even very limited medical care.

I also grabbed a quote from our own Wade Frasier:


…capitalism may well be the most inefficient system yet developed, and its apparent “efficiency” is only maintained by wiping out alternative systems and innovations that could unseat the capitalists who quickly consume and destroy Earth’s real wealth, which largely lies in its ecosystems and exploitable hydrocarbons. ~ Wayne Frasier

Sorry, back to the definition of socialism.

[pluton]

Socialism, in part, is taking money from those who have it and giving to those who don't.

That somewhat defines "part time socialism," as you can recall the situation where the big banks found themselves very short of "good" money and had to be bailed out by the ordinary folks.

West European socialism has been characterized by heavy taxes levied on high earners, East European socialism was steered toward a different path paved by the ideas of communism; and so it appears that the fruit of socialism doesn't grow on the same tree.

If you look at the historical development, western-style socialism has evolved into quite different species.

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

I'm curious to see where this is going. Obviously to me, what has been done in the last century under the banner of Socialism was quite awful; but I do understand that doesn't necessarily represent Socialism.

To me Socialism has always been like the group projects done in school. One or two students do all the work while the others surf the internet or play games and everyone gets the share of the credit.

I am a bit biased against Socialism. As a dual history / economics major, many of my favorite writers (Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, Mises) wrote against Socialism but I am open to at least read why some say they are wrong.

[norman]

Dennis, you have separate out the 2 very different ends of this thing called socialism.

There's the little people who have been told it's all going to get better because socialism distributes power and money more equally.

Then there's the semi hidden hand 'socialists' who are playing crowds looking for the best crowds for the easiest and fewest Machiavellian moves in what is raw power playing. For a long time (since the 60s) the crowds they've liked the best, as armies of meltdown, have been the "lefty" brained liberal progressives. Some would even say they are the inevitable outcome of a corrupt, secular and decadent 'Western' development. I tend to agree, and there's the irony. The very people who are now rabidly screeching against the state of western society are the ultimate products of it. Hence the terms "snowflakes" etc.

The big difference between them and the so called conservatives is that while the conservatives stood back and shook their heads in disbelief, they took it all deadly seriously and built an entire belief system out of it. Kinda like lab rats. Poor buggers, I should feel sorry for them, and I do, a little, but their attitude is very hard to sympathise with.

You may well say that socialists are not the same thing as progressives. Damn right they are not. The Socialist intelligentsia are definitely not progressives in any other sense, perhaps, than criminally or secretively within elite circles of power.

What the hell IS socialism as an idea anyway ? If we go with the idea that Marks brought it about, we have to take a good hard look at him and find who were his influencers and backers. The research I've run into strongly suggests he was a banker dynasty stooge thrown into a bloody rebellion, arranged by yet another stooge, to intellectualise the outcome and generally steer it towards a grand alpha test of a new world order. The beta tests came later, culminating in the rise of China which turned into the basic skeleton of the actual fulfilment of the new world order, and damn well nearly succeeded, too.

Growing numbers of people around the world are joining these same dots and coming to a fairly unified conclusion which is manifesting in a resistance to anything that walks and quacks like an army of intellectual zombie ism suckered over a century and more by bogus political ventriloquism till our heads are spinning.

[Bubu]

Are you trying to establish a common definition so that we can come up with a better discussion in regards? otherwise I see no point to this discussion.

[Dennis Leahy]

Are you trying to establish a common definition so that we can come up with a better discussion in regards? otherwise I see no point to this discussion.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that there is no consensus definition. If different individuals have strongly different ideas of what socialism is, "the point" of the discussion might just be to try to wrap your head around each person's concept. It certainly underscores that people have a spectrum of ideas of what socialism is - and, a spectrum of feelings about their concept of socialism. I think everyone has an opportunity to gain insight into how differently people think and feel about socialism.

Yes, at this time, each person's post is a bullet point in a list, rather than stopping to discuss individual viewpoints, so far. I'm just thanking everyone for being honest and taking the time to each add another viewpoint. (I'll add mine too, Ernie, but later, because I don't want to steer this. When I do, it won't be the correct answer, but I will express the same thing I'm asking others to do.) I'd love to discuss our differences and similarities after we amass opinions of whomever wants to express their opinion, but even if that discussion doesn't take place, I'm already gaining a better understanding of the variety of viewpoints.

[Caliban]

What's sad is that in this country they treat Socialism like the bogie man -- oooohhhh Socialism! Watch out it's hiding under the bed!!

Meanwhile the military budget is $700 plus Billion dollars a year, the "above" military budget.
And most people couldn't afford a doctor visit if they didn't have the health insurance their company is able to get a cheaper deal on than they ever could. Nor would they dream of affording any prescription medication.

You can't even talk about Socialism in this country. There's no category of understanding for it. It's been so derogated and vilified as a concept that it's a dead fish. Dried up.

Yet they go on stealing from us. Remember this ? https://home.solari.com/the-federal-government-cant-account-for-21-trillion-does-anybody-care/

We are deluded here because we do have a kind of Socialism. That means money generated by one population segment and diverted to another. They've been doing that to us for at least 100 years.

[Hazelfern]

What your friend may not have realised is that he paid for his treatments while he had his business, through the taxes he paid.
That is what capitalist socialism is about. A better equalizer of wealth while still promoting entrepreneurship and encouraging commerce and ideas.

I would not want to be in a place that does not care for its most vulnerables.

Austin Fitt is entirely correct in my views and based on life experience.



Many people equate the paying of taxes to theft. Also, his tax withholdings do not equal the money it took to pay his medical bill. Plus taxes are not voluntary, it is written into law that the State will take a portion of your earnings which many also consider unconstitutional theft.

These things were part of the conversation that I didn't include, didn't want to bore anyone with so many details as these things are rather well known.

One thing he also mentioned is that it's getting more difficult for many people to live as well as they did at one time as the prices of so many things have risen above even inflation - and wages have not kept up with inflation.

About 4 years ago I looked into inflation vis-a-vis wages and there is a significant disparity. Had wages kept up with inflation from the mid 1960s the minimum wage would have been about $17.00 USD in 2015.

His view was that necessities should be affordable to people, and I can't help but agree. Recall the articles a few years ago about Wall-Mart paying low wages and instructing employees how to obtain food stamps and medicaid - and how our taxes pay for those services to help keep Wall-Mart's net profit somewhere in the stratosphere. But these low wages even apply to many other businesses including, ironically, bank tellers.

However that is not how our system works so there must be a way to help those who fall through the safety net. Fortunately we have various social services to take care of those needs. Even at $18.00 an hour many people would not be able to afford even very limited medical care.

I also grabbed a quote from our own Wade Frasier:


…capitalism may well be the most inefficient system yet developed, and its apparent “efficiency” is only maintained by wiping out alternative systems and innovations that could unseat the capitalists who quickly consume and destroy Earth’s real wealth, which largely lies in its ecosystems and exploitable hydrocarbons. ~ Wayne Frasier

Sorry, back to the definition of socialism.

Thanks Wade and latte, for the truth of the matter.

[Bill Ryan]

My best shot. I've just come across this thread, so I'm writing it straight out. :)

Socialism is an idealistic political model that has as its prime goal the support in all practical ways of the most disadvantaged members of society, as opposed to a more competitive model (commonly known as capitalism) in which members of society compete for their own well-being with minimal support from the state.

[Flash]

What's sad is that in this country they treat Socialism like the bogie man -- oooohhhh Socialism! Watch out it's hiding under the bed!!

Meanwhile the military budget is $700 plus Billion dollars a year, the "above" military budget.
And most people couldn't afford a doctor visit if they didn't have the health insurance their company is able to get a cheaper deal on than they ever could. Nor would they dream of affording any prescription medication.

You can't even talk about Socialism in this country. There's no category of understanding for it. It's been so derogated and vilified as a concept that it's a dead fish. Dried up.

Yet they go on stealing from us. Remember this ? https://home.solari.com/the-federal-government-cant-account-for-21-trillion-does-anybody-care/

We are deluded here because we do have a kind of Socialism. That means money generated by one population segment and diverted to another. They've been doing that to us for at least 100 years.

take a third of that military budget taken from the US citizens and diverted into armament and throwing others countries into disarray, (this is a form of communism by the way, supporting large structures without the agreement of the people, but paid by them), and a system helping the poorer and giving free medeàicine could be achieve without raising anybody's taxes.

It is true, in the USA, there is no way one can discuss socialism at all, nothing can be discuss about it . American's brains have been thoroughly washed. The word itself raises emotional uproar. Incredible when seen from outsiders point of view.

All European countries have some form of socialism, if taking care of the very poor and the very vulnerable is socialism. Canada and Australia have similar system. Yet, we all have successful business and great businessman. And social medicine. But no, we cannot even mention it to an American. Thoroughly brainwashed they are.

[Satori]

Socialism is a set of beliefs that lead to the development of systems, such as political, economic, and cultural systems, which ostensibly hold the view that there is a sufficient abundance of money, wealth and means of production such that it can be relatively equally distributed to all members of a given society; but only under, and pursuant to, the dictates of a centralized administration and bureaucracy controlled by a few, most of whom have not been [s]elected by democratic processes.

[AutumnW]

When I think of government socialism I think of a system that rewards innovation and hard work, while protecting those who cannot compete.

It's amazing to me that 'welfare,' is a dirtier word than 'warfare' to Social Darwinists.

[Bubu]

Are you trying to establish a common definition so that we can come up with a better discussion in regards? otherwise I see no point to this discussion.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that there is no consensus definition. If different individuals have strongly different ideas of what socialism is, "the point" of the discussion might just be to try to wrap your head around each person's concept. It certainly underscores that people have a spectrum of ideas of what socialism is - and, a spectrum of feelings about their concept of socialism. I think everyone has an opportunity to gain insight into how differently people think and feel about socialism.

Yes, at this time, each person's post is a bullet point in a list, rather than stopping to discuss individual viewpoints, so far. I'm just thanking everyone for being honest and taking the time to each add another viewpoint. (I'll add mine too, Ernie, but later, because I don't want to steer this. When I do, it won't be the correct answer, but I will express the same thing I'm asking others to do.) I'd love to discuss our differences and similarities after we amass opinions of whomever wants to express their opinion, but even if that discussion doesn't take place, I'm already gaining a better understanding of the variety of viewpoints.

May I remind you that one of the widely employ trick of the trolls, is to waste the sheeples time and effort on useless things. But of course if you are having fun with the discussion then its no waste. Although I am concerned that facebook has all the time wasting discussion and they have all the fun there while on their way to the inner cells of the prison. We are here on avalon to have a beneficial discussion while having fun. at least you and me and all the real truthers. Carry on I'm in no way stopping you or anyone. just bringing up what is it that we are here for. I'm just concerend that this forum is going the FB way.

[TrumanCash]

Socialism is, in the de facto sense, the government putting a gun to your head and demanding a large portion of your labor and possessions (e.g., "money") and if you don't give it over then you face losing all your money and all your possessions and may even face a stiff prison sentence--in other words, a form of slavery. :ballchain:

You have no say so in what the government does with that money and the money that you are forced to give may or may not make it to the people who need it. Anytime a middle man (i.e., government) is used to administrate the funds, the bureaucracy itself becomes parasitic to the extent that a large part of those funds never make it to people in need in order to feed the burgeoning bureaucracy.

However, in the de jure sense, the social security system/administration and social security number in the US are "voluntary" in order to comply with the 13th amendment (no involuntary servitude or slavery). However, in real life one is required to have a social security number to obtain a bank account, credit/debit cards as well as an ID, driver's license, business license, professional license, fishing/hunting license, etc, under US Code, Title 42, Section 666.

BTW, I have letters from the Social Security Administration that reveal that it is a corporation (created by Congress without constitutional authority) under the jurisdiction of another corporation called the IRS. (The SSA does not even have franking privileges under the US Constitution as evidenced by the postage paid on the envelope.)

I would venture to say that it is pretty much the same in most countries in the world.

If, as Dennis says in the OP, Trump said that the US will never be socialist, I'm guessing he either doesn't have a clue about what socialism is or perhaps he was thinking to himself, well, it's really more fascist than socialist. :facepalm:

Even taxation is a socialist principle. In spite of what Ben Franklin wrote, taxation is entirely unnecessary in that the US could take over the Federal Reserve and banking industry and use the interest that people pay on loans, etc, to fund public necessities. Theoretically, any country could take over the banking industry and fund roads, bridges, etc, and perhaps even social programs thus eliminating the need for "socialism".

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

What's sad is that in this country they treat Socialism like the bogie man -- oooohhhh Socialism! Watch out it's hiding under the bed!!

This is interesting, but I find this to be completely untrue. It could be because I am currently in college or maybe because I have only lived in two states that lean pretty far left but in college, this is more true about Capitalism than Socialism. Most of my professors are Socialists, many Marxists. They only tout the good of a the safety net as Socialism and ignore the removal of civil liberties. Of course civil liberties are quickly disappearing on campus. Capitalism is this evil monster that has never done any good while Socialism is this amazing system of peace and love. All the death in it's history was because "That's not real Socialism." I have gotten in my share of debates with professors by saying, well in that case, "That is not real Capitalism."

It is probably best if both words were just tossed out since nobody appears to agree on the meaning of either.

[AutumnW]

Knight, The academic arena is kind of the opposite side of the same coin as Christian fascism/fanaticism. All of these types seek total domination aand have become what they profess to hate.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I agree with the descriptions already posted by Ratszinger, Bill, Satori, and TrumanCash above.

Vladimir Lenin had this to say about socialism, and he probably knew something about it:


https://media.allauthor.com/images/quotes/img/vladimir-lenin-quote-the-goal-of-socialism-is-communism.jpg


In economic terms, socialism is when the government interferes in the free market system and prevents anyone from being able to tell where the equilibrium point in supply and demand should be. Minimum wages are a prime example of this. I just posted a thread not long ago about how immediately after higher minimum wages went into effect in New York, there were already large numbers of people laid off, or having their hours reduced, because companies, already severely burdened under heavy taxes and regulations, could not afford paying out more money without facing bankruptcy.

This is exactly why Venezuela is such a shining example of socialism's ultimate fruits right now, because they followed the same heavy taxation and regulation route, killing independent businesses and making government a monopoly on money and power.


In political terms, socialism is in direct opposition to the limited government the founders of the US set up in our Constitution. Our Constitution, I should point out, represents the longest-running government in the world. France implemented a more socialist documented after their revolution, and since then, they've had several government changes while we've had none. Virtually all European governments had to be reformed as a result of the world wars and Cold War. Asian countries, likewise, have been through numerous governments since we adopted our Constitution, as have African and South American countries, and even Canada and the United Kingdom have had significant revisions to their government since 1789.

The US Constitution has provided us with a remarkably stable and long-lasting government which is based on the idea of limited federal government, and allowing the states and the people themselves to determine their own destiny, without the heavy hand of centralized power inserting itself into the lives of its citizens. The founders rightly considered this to be a form of tyranny, and they revolted against much less than the nonsense we put up with from the federal government today.

Thomas Jefferson said the following:


I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition.


To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association-the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.


Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.


A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.


To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.


Tyrannical governments have to suppress their populations in every way to consolidate their grip on power. That includes impoverishing them. Modern tyrannies impoverish their people by gutting the middle class and creating a huge divide between the rich and poor, and they do this through excessive taxation and regulation. The richest people in the world never pay taxes because they always hide it off-shore in international tax havens, so the idea of taxing people like Rothschild or Rockefeller is a non-starter in the first place. Nor can taxing the 1% pay for all of the social programs that socialists want, like free education, free healthcare, etc. It's the middle classes that ultimately have to carry that burden, and that's not by accident. Again, they have to gut the middle class in over to create totalitarianism, because a middle class means large numbers of people with large amounts of resources at their disposal to resist tyrants. People like Maduro, Mao, or Stalin wouldn't tolerate that.

Note that the individual state governments have every right under the US Constitution to create programs to take care of the disadvantaged without having to appeal to federal funding. In the old days (and still to some degree today), local communities would use fundraisers and church collections to raise money to help take care of each other, and I think this is a much more healthy and economically sound way for communities to take care of each other. Giving that responsibility to government bureaucrats does not actually solve our problems, as various statistics about poverty and the purchasing power of the dollar since the time of FDR can demonstrate.

States even have the right to implement socialism if they like. That's exactly what states like New York and California have already been doing. The only problem for the rest of us is that it's leading to a mass exodus of people into more conservative states, and when these leftists flee their urban hellholes for more comfortable living, they immediately resume voting for socialism. Texas and Nevada are already having to deal with this problem, and Yankees fleeing to the South are why Virginia also now has an executive branch of clowns. When I was younger, and the suburbs of Washington DC were less swollen, Virginia would have never elected socialist baby-killers like Ralph Northam. But who is celebrating the murder of infants? New York. That tells you everything you need to know about where this insane culture is invading the South from.

It's fortunate that the founders who gave us the Constitution also gave us the most heavily-armed citizenry in the world, specifically to prevent tyrants from coming to power by preventing them from ever gaining a monopoly on physical violence. Unlike other countries, the US government cannot force its citizens to do anything without having to seriously contemplate the consequences of a military rebellion backed by about 70 million armed citizens, larger than any army on Earth. Otherwise we would probably already be just as socialist as Europe by now.


One more thing about the economic consequences of socialists interfering with the free market, which their propagandists have cleverly projected onto the free market itself: creating artificial scarcity by destroying any idea of a real price equilibrium, leading to shortages of some items, surpluses of others, and causing the black market to flourish. Cuba is a good example of this, or, again, Venezuela.

Go to a grocery store in Caracas today and this is what you'll see:


http://mqltv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/crisis1.jpg


If that isn't a scarcity of goods, artificially caused by overly burdensome economic policies, then what is?

Can anyone show a country with a free market that has such barren grocery stores? I'll wait for it.

[Tree Of Life]

Socialism? Simple.

Work hard to make a better life.
Someone who does not work hard, or often does not work at all, wants a piece of your pie.

Now, if an individual decides to share that pie of their own free will and volition, that is charity.

If the strong arm of the government comes along and makes you give up your pie, now we are talking socialism.

The major problem however, and the big lie, is that the government decides who is going to get that piece of pie they are forcing you to give up.

The government usually keeps the pie for themselves, prints some paper called 'money' backed by nothing but thin air, and gives that to the non-working, pie-eating welfare class to shut them up, devaluing the hard worker's cash in the process.

This system of socialism goes against Human Nature, which is why it always fails... every single time.
Human nature naturally inclines humans to want to better themselves, not turn over the blood, sweat, and tears it took to accomplish that.

A revolt is most often the result.

Simple as pie.

[sunwings]

We as a community are only as strong as our weakest link. If one person fails, the whole group fails.

That is socialism to me.

Many people do not choose to be the weakest link, but some do!

[A Voice from the Mountains]

How about this system:

From the day you are born, until the day you die, your housing, food, and healthcare are all provided to you for free.

In exchange, when you work, you are allowed to keep a small portion of it for whatever you want to spend it on, but the rest goes to the people who are providing your housing, food, healthcare, etc.

I'd be willing to wager that many/most Avalonians would think that sounds like a pretty good deal. And it happens to be the arrangement that blacks were under on plantations in the Antebellum South.

So which is better: freedom, or free stuff?

[yelik]

Thinking about some of the major issues going on vs communism, socialism and capitalism our understanding and thinking becomes clouded.

The 1% spiritually wicked psychopaths rule the world - backed up by political dogma.

1. Increasing inequality rich getting richer and poor getting poorer (Extreme capitalism)
2. Power of Central Banks - controlling (owning) finance, Governments and assets Agenda 21 / 2030 (communism)
3. Stock markets have become reliant upon money printing QE. (capitalism, communism & socialism)
4. When Central Banks wind in the printing to control their balance sheet stock markets decline – capitalism, socialism and capitalism)
5. Middle classes – eroding away (socialist & communism)
6. Inflation is worsening where the majority of income is spent on mortgages, utilities, food and healthcare (capitalism, communism and socialism)
7. UK National Health Service is broadly a good thing but is slowly being privatised (capitalism)
8. Significant increases in military and surveillance spending (capitalism & communism)
9. Trillions missing from Government expenditure (capitalism, communism & socialism)
10. socialism, communism and capitalism – muddy the water’isms
11. The Annunaki may return and sort it all out !!

For me socialism is not political. It is when a person is fundamentally good and causes no harm or suffering to others

[christian]

Here's something I wrote a while ago when I penned some definitions of political systems:




Socialism is an essentially contested concepted, usually referring to the increasing reliance on political institutions for the organization of society.

Socialism means to let political institutions decide on what's being done, as opposed to a free market in which individuals decide self-responsibly what they do.

[christian]

Socialism is an idealistic political model that has as its prime goal the support in all practical ways of the most disadvantaged members of society […].

I would like to make a counter argument.

The most disadvantaged member in a society is always the lone individual. Someone who has a completely unique set of beliefs, habits and goals that make him a stranger to the rest of society. That person is certainly more disadvantaged than an old, sick or poor person that is integrated into a supportive network of other humans.

Socialism is a form of collectivism, meaning that the individual must follow a certain group consensus. Therefore, Socialism does not support the lone individual who has a completely unique set of beliefs, habits and goals. Instead, Socialism compels the individual to become a wheel in a machinery that is organized by some sort of government that claims to be the legitimate ruler of all individuals.

Therefore, the prime goal of Socialism is not the support of the most disadvantaged and not even the support of fellow believers in Socialism, but always the support of its own power structure.

As Eric Hoffer noted in The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements (1951):


Collective unity is not the result of the brotherly love of the faithful for each other. The loyalty of the true believer is to the whole—the church, party, nation—and not to his fellow true believer. True loyalty between individuals is possible only in a loose and relatively free society.

You could also say, in Socialism the end (empowerment of the most disadvantaged) justifies the means (subjugation of the most disadvantaged).

[what is a name?]

Over 100 years ago people where told that equality in all ways comes under the name of socialism, as promoted by the parties at that time, then that was what they understood socialism to be.

I live in Glasgow, West of Scotland and this area became the powerhouse of the British Empire during the industrial revolution, 'second city of the empire' was the tag thrown up from London to keep the natives quiet - but it didn't work.

At the end of the 1700s, the Land Clearances in Scotland (removing the people from the land and replacing them with sheep) was instigated by the Lairds and Lords who owned the lands as sheep were more profitable than the subsistence farming practised by the crofters, which led to a massive increase in the larger towns and the emigration around the World of the Scots.

And this town population increase coincided with the rapidly evolving Industrial Revolution - no surprise there, everything happening by design, leading to Glasgow being the 'forerunner' to witness the effects of industrial inner city overcrowding, squalor and poverty.

After about 100 years of witnessing what 'progress' had brought them, the newly formed Socialist Parties had many people joining their ranks because they witnessed firsthand the inequality that Capitalism brings. The shipyards that used to line the banks of Glasgows river,the Clyde, became known as Red Clydeside due the support they gave to the red flag of Socialism.

Even during the WW1 troops were put onto the streets of Glasgow due to civil unrest brought about by WOMEN. The ignition point being a rent increase by Glasgow Council leading to women and children being evicted while the husbands were away fighting for their country. This led to the women forming gangs and ATTACKING the council enforcers and the police. The unrest escalated but the government didn't bring in the local soldiers stationed in Glasgow in case they joined the 'cause', troops from South were sent in to quell the dissent.

So after all that, my take on Socialism would be witnessing the inequality that Capitalism brings and wanting to do something about it - simple!

[Ivanhoe]

Hmmm, what a can of worms, eh?
I was born in 1952.
When I started school capitalism was king. You worked hard, paid your taxes, saved your money, tried to live up to the goals of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
There were really no "social" programs to speak of.
I grew up in a exceedingly poor family and when my father broke his back we had no state sponsored or federally sponsored help available and relied upon the church and charity to survive. It may not have been the best of times but it did instill in my family the notion of take care of yourself and your kindred but remember to give to others less fortunate, since we had been on the receiving end of others generosity. We did not take just to be taking, we accepted what was needed and let others receive who were more needy than us. When my father got back to work, we provided for ourselves. The government was not involved.
We were taught in school that communism and socialism were basically the same thing and was bad for a variety of reasons, the worst being enslavement by the government of it's peoples.
During the 60's social programs began to roll out.
People in our society became more and more dependent on social programs and assistance from the state and federal governments instead of relying on the individual communities and their own ability to provide for themselves.
It was, if they can have it I can have it too, I must have it too, and I demand the government give it to me. It became the governments responsibility to provide those services through heavier and heavier taxation for social programs that have been a failure, imho. The people have given up their personal responsibility and allowed the "state" to become their nanny.
My thought then (and now) was, I was willing to give someone a helping hand and a leg up, but it has turned into giving handouts that people expect more and more of instead of relying on themselves.
To me, that's socialism, and the greed of the people for "free" services has been the downfall of our society.
I'm sure I could have been more clear in this missive, so much more is involved. These are just my initial musings on the subject and are subject to tweaking. LOL

[Ernie Nemeth]

Hi Ivanhoe.
It sounds to me like your family enjoyed true socialism - the charitable kindness of your neighbors...

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

Hi Ivanhoe.
It sounds to me like your family enjoyed true socialism - the charitable kindness of your neighbors...

Sorry but Socialism does not equal charity. It is so clear that the name needs to be tossed. Voluntarily giving to your neighbor is not the same as the state taking from you with the threat of violence.

[Ernie Nemeth]

What exactly do you think socialism is but charity? Socialism becomes government policy when institutionalized. Otherwise socialism is just people helping people - the way it was always supposed to be.

[AriG]

The first thing that comes to mind when asked a question like this is my idealistic true gut response - all beings are deserving of the opportunity to be their very best. In order to achieve this, it is quite clear that doing without basics like healthcare, food, shelter, clothing, clean water and energy eliminates the possibility for personal achievement. This should not be a privilege afforded for the top 5% And what is even more clear, is that none of these life sustaining necessities should be vehicles for garnering personal wealth either as stakeholders, shareholders or both. Somehow, most Americans (and a few other Banana Republic dwellers) seem to have a problem with we as a society (NOT a government) demand that we change the status quo to accommodate the needs of ALL people. Not just the disadvantaged (whatever that means).

So to get to the point - My Socialism (or just call it basic human integrity) is eliminating the financial incentives for providers of life's basic necessities not by means of creating a Nanny State, but by means of making their operations truly non profit. That doesn't mean that a CEO of a Pharmaceutical company shouldn't make 5M annually if they are truly achieving great results for the health of the people. All high contributors should be paid well, the operations, R&D funded, all expenses covered and then that is it! No public trading, no profiteering from the process whose sole purpose should be to eliminate illness and suffering and improve the quality of life for all.

Now there are those that will say that no one will invest themselves in companies if there isn't a huge monetary incentive. Not true. If the sole reason you are going into Pharma is to make money? Too bad. Go make sports cars. We the people will not allow you to publicly trade this as a commodity. End of story. So that requires that we get a handle on the Banksters as well. All of life's necessities should not be funded by any bank. We as a society should find a way to draw a line in the sand that allows for profiteering on non necessity items only. If that means higher taxes, so be it. I'd rather pay more in tax, (but not with the bureaucrats running the show)would probably end up with more money in the pocket than the current highway robbery system anyhow. And all of the unemployed traders, banksters, oil executives, real estate developers, food sellers, energy execs, insurance workers, pill pushers, and anyone else living off of a depraved system can all be proud stakeholders in the non profit foundations that make all of life's basic necessities available to everyone at an affordable price. And be paid well and fairly for doing it. Just remove profit. Not money. Profit. From necessity items only. And of course, establish a basic acceptable MINIMUM wage consistent with the true non profit cost of producing necessities. And true and fair subsidy for those who cannot work built into the model.

And then one day, over time, the concept of money will disappear and all people will have access to needs and wants while contributing back that service that inspires them. One day.

Call me naive and idealistic.

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

Nobody would have an issue with Socialism if it was just "people helping people." If we are going to distort the word to mean whatever we think is good in the world, then what is the point of this discussion. No decent person is against charity.

You want to see a Danish economics student turn red, tell him his country is Socialist. To the shock of my professor, the three students from Nordic counties, two from Denmark and one from Finland in my economics class became visibly upset and vocally angry when this was stated by my professor. It turned into a shouting match and he decided to just end the class.

[AriG]

Nobody would have an issue with Socialism if it was just "people helping people." If we are going to distort the word to mean whatever we think is good in the world, then what is the point of this discussion. No decent person is against charity.

You want to see a Danish economics student turn red, tell him his country is Socialist. To the shock of my professor, the three students from Nordic counties, two from Denmark and one from Finland in my economics class became visibly upset and vocally angry when this was stated by my professor. It turned into a shouting match and he decided to just end the class.

The top four countries with the Happiest Citizenry:

1. Finland
2. Norway
3. Denmark
4. Iceland

And it surely isn't their amazing weather driving this!

[guayabal]

Socialism instills the idea that the government is responsible for helping the weak and poor through special taxation/projects and by doing that it takes away the individual freedom to help them directly... the money to do it is siphoned by the government and the rationale to help ends being absurd "the wonderful socialist government already helps them right?". The bastards in power that are (almost?) always head of governments continue stealing and even more through the increased taxes/projects and the poor people end suffering more.

[Metaphor]

Socialism is easy to explain. Its how much nannystate you have. For me, who lives in a country run by socialists for many decades, socialism is like a psychtic overprotective mother. Cant say I like it.

[TargeT]

Socialism is the most selfish approach to society, it follows the idea of:

"I'm here, give me ****"

the only way socialism works is through theft; there is no other way... it is always immoral to steal, even if you vote to do so.

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

Nobody would have an issue with Socialism if it was just "people helping people." If we are going to distort the word to mean whatever we think is good in the world, then what is the point of this discussion. No decent person is against charity.

You want to see a Danish economics student turn red, tell him his country is Socialist. To the shock of my professor, the three students from Nordic counties, two from Denmark and one from Finland in my economics class became visibly upset and vocally angry when this was stated by my professor. It turned into a shouting match and he decided to just end the class.

The top four countries with the Happiest Citizenry:

1. Finland
2. Norway
3. Denmark
4. Iceland

And it surely isn't their amazing weather driving this!

And none of them practice "Socialism"

https://www.quora.com/Are-Norway-Denmark-Iceland-Finland-and-Sweden-market-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-countries

[AriG]

Socialism is the most selfish approach to society, it follows the idea of:

"I'm here, give me ****"

the only way socialism works is through theft; there is no other way... it is always immoral to steal, even if you vote to do so.

Don't want to turn this into a debate - don't think that is Dennis' intention for this thread. But... seriously? YES, i am here, give me ****e. Absolutely yes! Do you seriously believe that the Capitalists are entitled to hoard all of the resources of this world? And they do it through generational theft (Rothschilds) and deception. So yes, as a citizen of Earth you are entitled to have shelter, eat, medicine, water, protection from the elements. You, by virtue of your birth have every bit as much right to basic comfort as anyone else. And if the system is making this difficult to attain at best? Yes, we as the people of Earth need to step in and put an end to it. And of course, if you can work, you must. That goes without saying. People of this screwed up world do not enter on a level playing field. This "every man for himself" mentality is unconscionable. You don't have to surrender your rights to a government to support basic living conditions for all and better for those who can afford it. Its just humane to do so.

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

It appears you are confusing Capitalism (another word that I feel needs to be tossed) with corporatism or what Chesterton called Proletarianism.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Our basic problem with these premises is that we immediately look to an authority to implement the required laws.
That is the very problem. Government is corrupt and inept. They could not tie a shoe without a debate and an oversight committee.
It is government that has corrupted the idea of socialism. Just as it has capitalism...

[AriG]

It appears you are confusing Capitalism (another word that I feel needs to be tossed) with corporatism or what Chesterton called Proletarianism.

And possibly Socialism with Humanism?

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

I agree that government is the problem, I would say that is true for thousands of years and was warned against by God in 1 Samuel 8. (Sorry for the biblical reference.)

But, Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Unless we are supposed to be talking about anarcho-communisim, I don't see how you can have Socialism without the state and Socialism has so far, always led to tyranny. Again, if we are just redefining the term, its impossible to have a conversation about it.

[aKnightThatSaysNi]

It appears you are confusing Capitalism (another word that I feel needs to be tossed) with corporatism or what Chesterton called Proletarianism.

And possibly Socialism with Humanism?

Maybe that is what is being done here but they not the same thing. Capitalism and Corporatism are not the same thing. Humanism and Socialism are not the same thing. Charity and Socialism are not the same thing.

[TargeT]

So yes, as a citizen of Earth you are entitled to have shelter, eat, medicine, water, protection from the elements.

Cool, so who do I steal that stuff from?


You, by virtue of your birth have every bit as much right to basic comfort as anyone else.

Comfort?? basic comfort?


And of course, if you can work, you must. That goes without saying.

So theft AND forced labor...



Logic still prevails, NO ONE has the "right" to comfort... and no one is entitled to anything that they have not labored or "earned" in some way.

The only true "laws" are the laws taught to us by Nature... entitlement is not present in any of them; human concepts like "rights" and "entitlement" don't really exist; no matter how much we'd like them to.

[Ernie Nemeth]

T if that were true I would be a guerilla warrior, blowing **** up and bringing chaos to a world that pats itself on the back. Those rights you dismiss are enjoyed by every sovereign beast. Only humans are born into a world already spoken for in its entirety.

[TargeT]

T if that were true I would be a guerilla warrior, blowing **** up and bringing chaos to a world that pats itself on the back. Those rights you dismiss are enjoyed by every sovereign beast. Only humans are born into a world already spoken for in its entirety.

comfort though?

I disagree, please tell me where the basic right to comfort, or any of the other stuff he listed, exists in nature?

You do not have a right to food, shelter, medicine, water or protection from the elements... no animal and nothing in nature does; all of those things must be earned through labor or effort of some type.


the "rights" argument to support socialism isn't a very good one.

you can dress it up how ever you want, but in the end socialism is theft.

Capitalism is FAR more egalitarian... in capitalism you are ENCOURAGED (not forced) to do things for others so they will do things for you, socialism is the opposite.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Denis is right. The definition of socialism is murky and changes with each individual...
So does capitalism...

[AriG]

[QUOTE=AriG;1273823] So yes, as a citizen of Earth you are entitled to have shelter, eat, medicine, water, protection from the elements.


Cool, so who do I steal that stuff from?

You don't steal it. You take it back from the system that stole it from humanity.


You, by virtue of your birth have every bit as much right to basic comfort as anyone else.


Comfort?? basic comfort?

Ok, let me clarify. There should be a bare minimum standard below which, no one should have to live. I am not suggesting that everyone have "basic" anything. I am just suggesting that we as a civil society, should not allow people to starve and suffer no medical care. If you earn more than the basic minimum, get whatever you want. Not suggesting limits. Just suggesting acceptable minimum.


And of course, if you can work, you must. That goes without saying.


So theft AND forced labor...

No, an individual would always have the choice to not work or contribute. Not sure many would opt for that. Change my "must work" to "should work"




Logic still prevails, NO ONE has the "right" to comfort... and no one is entitled to anything that they have not labored or "earned" in some way.


You contradict yourself. Above, you state a work expectation would be forced labor and now you suggest that you must labor for the bare essentials.


The only true "laws" are the laws taught to us by Nature... entitlement is not present in any of them; human concepts like "rights" and "entitlement" don't really exist; no matter how much we'd like them to.

Do birds have to create the trees in which they nest? Do ants have to get a mortgage to build their ant colonies? You cannot compare a very complex and unfair system created by humans to thriving in the Natural world with the innate knowledge and resources that were designed in wild species. The Corporate and Government devils even seek to capitalize upon the natural systems that support the fauna. Mankind is not a product of Earth. We inhabit it. We have no natural means of defense. And most of us a preyed upon by a Predatory Systems that honors money and control over basic human dignity.

Edit to add:

And I fear that you may have Cherry picked my post. I didn't say do away with money, possessions, wealth or anything that is worshiped by the Elites. I said that in my ideal circumstance, none of these things would be permitted to be publicly traded and produce profit beyond paying stakeholders and covering expenses. I also stated that if we have a minimum acceptable livable wage, that the essentials should be made affordable for everyone based upon that wage as a basis point. Just for the essentials. All else, fair game.

[TargeT]

Its a difficult topic, easy to get lost in the weeds on it.

I over simplify in an attempt to avoid getting mired in minutia

I'm a much bigger fan of voulenterrism or anarco-capitalism

Anything that is not forced, as limited "should" or "must" language as possible

Nothing should be forced on anyone, ever...

Socialism is a large umbrella, with communist on the left and fascist on the right... but all of it includes some form of force.

Not acceptable to me, no matter how its dressed up

[Dennis Leahy]

Socialism is...

Socialism: social ism:

"-ism" is the word suffix indicating "belief in."

social-ism is thus: the belief in "social."

What is "social", what does it indicate? "Social" refers to a group of individuals, plural, more than an individual. "Social" refers to a group.

Social interaction is energy exchange between individuals in a group.

Socialism is the belief in the group. The words "belief in" don't do a good job unless describing humans, unless we think that non-human animals have belief systems too. (I don't.) The phrase "work toward" is a better description than "belief in" when you think of non-human animal species. Animal species activities range from species that exhibit very little social interaction other than mating and rearing young, and fighting territorial interlopers (like maybe a jaguar), to animal species that have constant social interaction (like dolphins, penguins, apes, humans.) What humans refer to as socialism has been an adaptation and survival strategy in animal communities for millions and millions of years before any humans created a name for the group benefit/group survival strategy. Witness the huddling together of Emperor penguins through the Antarctic winter. It's a group energy exchange (in this case, body heat) to benefit the group, to ensure the group survival. This is an excellent example of socialism that involves an entire species. So, socialism is better described as "working toward the group", rather than "believing in the group." The group may not include the entire species, but may rather be a subset of the entire species, divided into "tribes"/"pods"/"packs", etc., but still is based on group rather than individual survival strategy. Socialism is working toward the group.

That's my answer to the question, 'what is socialism?': Socialism is working toward the group.


The opposite of socialism: (Understanding the opposite of a concept helps narrow the definition of the concept.)

In terms of energy flow direction:
The opposite of socialism (working toward the group) is individualism (working toward the individual.)
"Individualism" and "socialism" are not mutually exclusive terms. An individual can both work toward the individual and work toward toward the group, cyclically, sporadically, or even simultaneously. In fact, this is the norm among animal species, and I'd say that both directions of energy flow are critical to the survival of the species, and individualism is critical for the survival of that one individual within the species. Socialism is "we-ism"; individualism is "me-ism" - both are simply directions of the flow of energy.

In terms of resources, for humans:
The opposite of socialism (group allocation) is hoarding (individual allocation)

In terms of ownership, for humans:
The opposite of socialism (group ownership of a "commons") is privatization (individual ownership, no commons)

====================
I asked for everyone to define socialism and to define the opposite of socialism. Again, this is just my answer, not "the correct answer", but rather my opinion of the answer. I'm interested to compare and contrast my opinion with that of others.

[norman]

That's an abstract thought about socialism Dennis. It almost doesn't describe what the world knows as socialism at all.

The group and the community and the species interacting with a bit of common cause is perfectly natural, and at a stretch we can call it socialism, but that's hardly what the word means in the current paradigm. The word is actually used to describe political socialism, and that's something quite different.

Before coming around to softening the word enough to be able to talk about cooperation among multiples of the species, the word, as it stands in the current language, has more things that it isn't than what it is. It's isn't "family". It's isn't "love" or "respect", even. Sure, there's a lot of crowing about respect but it comes across to me as hollow machinations from communually lost mental abstractionists who can't seem to find the linkup between their heads and their hearts. People who use the word love like a dildo rather than like a hug. People who have lost "faith" in themselves as proactively responsible for maintaining a society that can give them everything they aspire to, not as rights, but as common achievements. That's a subtle difference but massive in it's orientational significance.

Another good word to have a thread natter about would be 'Respect'.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Well, having a universal healthcare system is the best reason I can think of. Unlike every other first world country (leaving out those sometimes called sh*tholes) the American system has very serious problems, as noted in this recent article:

"A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that 67 percent of people filing for bankruptcy were wiped out by medical bills. That amounts to 530,000 families per year, a "figure that is virtually unchanged since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)."

From Physicians for a National Health Program:

Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study, a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York's (CUNY) Hunter College and Lecturer at Harvard Medical School commented: "Unless you're Bill Gates, you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, copayments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse. And even the best job-based health insurance often vanishes when prolonged illness causes job loss - just when families need it most. Private health insurance is a defective product, akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain."

In the article, the authors note that "medical bills frequently cause financial hardship, and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported that they were by far the most common cause of unpaid bills sent to collection agencies in 2014, accounting for more than half of all such debts."

The U.S. already has socialized healthcare in the form of Medicare, but it simply doesn't cover enough Americans, leaving it, I suppose, with the same level of care as those previously noted sh*thole countries.

Brian

[spade]

CJhRMEW-5ws

[Dennis Leahy]

...video...

That's a 'hit piece.' Mr Microphone announces within 15 seconds it is an anti-socialism video. It adds nothing to the conversation, and neither would a pro-socialism biased piece. Unless you are Mr. Microphone (the interviewer/propagandist in the video) it would be cool if you edit your post and ditch the video and give your own answer. I would say the exact same thing to you if you posted a pro-socialism video. I'd like to hear your opinion of what socialism means.

[christian]

The top four countries with the Happiest Citizenry:

1. Finland
2. Norway
3. Denmark
4. Iceland

And it surely isn't their amazing weather driving this!

The wealth and happiness there comes from many factors such as a long history of sovereignty, strong property rights, strong human rights, free markets and high social capital.

Since these countries introduced more "socialist" policies in the 1960s, you can observe an economic decline, a growing entitlement attitude among the population and a steady increase in taxation.

"Nordic Nations Show How Welfare and Redistribution Weaken the Human Spirit" (https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/nordic-nations-show-how-welfare-and-redistribution-weaken-the-human-spirit/)
"Misconceptions about the Nordic Economies" (https://fee.org/articles/misconceptions-about-the-nordic-economies/)
"Scandinavia is no socialist Valhalla" (https://capx.co/scandinavia-is-no-socialist-valhalla/)
"The Nordic Glass Ceiling" (https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/nordic-glass-ceiling)

[christian]

Let me pen a "capitalist" equivalent to yours, Dennis.


Socialism is...

Socialism: social ism:

"-ism" is the word suffix indicating "belief in."

social-ism is thus: the belief in "social."

What is "social", what does it indicate? "Social" refers to a group of individuals, plural, more than an individual. "Social" refers to a group.

Capital-ism is the belief in "capital."

What is "capital," what does it indicate? Capital comes from the Latin word "caput," meaning head, human, main thing or life.

Capitalism is the belief in the sanctity of the life of the human being.

...

Just to make this clear: I think there is obviously no capitalism today, even though this word is commonly used for today's society. I would rather call it like John Perkins, a corporatocracy. You can also go for oligarchy, plutocracy, pathocracy, or many others. But by the definition of capitalism = private property & free markets, capitalism is obviously non-existent today. Sorry for the excursion, just wanna say I'm not an apologist for the system that we have today.

...

As for the opposites of socialism and individualism, aren't they both directed towards the human being? If I love and respect every individual, don't I love and respect the entire human community?

However, if my love is directed to the whole human community in an abstract way and not explicitly to the individual next to me, couldn't that be dangerous?

Again, from Eric Hoffer's The True Believer:


It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one's neighbor. There may even be a certain antagonism between love of humanity and love of neighbor; a low capacity for getting along with those near us often goes hand in hand with a high receptivity to the idea of the brotherhood of men. About a hundred years ago a Russian landowner by the name of Petrashevsky recorded a remarkable conclusion: "Finding nothing worthy of my attachment either among women or among men, I have vowed myself to the service of mankind."

Or think of all the famous philanthropists of the US, loving mankind so much they never get tired of devising grand schemes to put order and harmony into the pitiful lives of mankind.

[Mypos]

Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism. Socialism is a system based on working together and sharing while Capitalism is a system based on competition and winners and losers.

This is the theory of it. Which system would you prefer Dennis?

I know that Socialism and Communism are like swear words in the USA but thats based on the Cold War (fear) and ignorance.

[TargeT]

I know that Socialism and Communism are like swear words in the USA but thats based on the Cold War (fear) and ignorance.

Communism is "the left" of socialism, Fascism is "the right"

Socialism is actually quite popular in the US, especially for anyone who spent time in the higher education (staffed by mostly leftist) system.

But still....
vnbVu8QXCMY

A lot of smart people have very solid points:
-XgdtHewGR0

[Ratszinger]

I would say 'aspects' of socialism are present in our current system in the USA but not the socialist system as it is commonly known just certain parts of it. I believe technically speaking we're still a republic.

[Savannah]

http://https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/ocasio-cortez-1-600x348.jpghttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/ocasio-cortez-1-600x348.jpg


Socialized medicine: I can be forced to pay for and use drugs and tx I believe kill people. If you want abortion, pay for it, don't pull me into it.

Climate change: I can be forced to pay for programs based on junk science that say the world is heating up due to human generated Co2. That includes energy control, housing, food you name it.

I could go on and on....

It's clear we don't have true democracy in the US, that is no reason to say we need socialism, maybe we just need to try an implement a system that was hijacked practically from conception.

[Fellow Aspirant]

I would say 'aspects' of socialism are present in our current system in the USA but not the socialist system as it is commonly known just certain parts of it. I believe technically speaking we're still a republic.

Technically, yes, whatever "republic" is interpreted to be. Pinning down ANY political belief system is nigh on impossible, as they continually morph according to the context of history. Communism, usually considered synonymous with Russia, is likewise an amorphous stew: recall that up until the "fall", Russia was set up as the leader of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".

Such change is why Dennis has set us a very difficult task. Trying to pin jello to the wall is an apt analogy for trying to define socialism. Declaring our multivarious points of view is a good start, but may be as far as we can get. Fascinating, none-the-less.

Brian

[Dennis Leahy]

...Which system would you prefer Dennis?...
A question I'd love to "answer"/explore, but outside the scope of this thread. I'm actually excited about the prospect of having that discussion (which, I'll hint, for me includes and transcends current governance ideologies and policies, and would ideally be an enhanced hybrid system that would certainly include some socialism, "working towards the group", as I define/understand it (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105961-What-is-socialism--your-opinion-not-the-dictionary-definition-&p=1273861&viewfull=1#post1273861)), but until there is an understanding of what the basic meaning of the word "socialism" is, it's kind of nebulous to the point of meaningless.

[James Newell]

If we really want to understand something a little exaggeration can help.

The end product of SuperSocialism is that the ones who run it owns everything.
The end product of SuperCapitalism is that the ones who run it owns everything.

It probably is a Hegelian game where the ones who stage the games, figure the only way to learn is by colliding two forces together and see what comes of it. They also control both sides of the forces. And probably can determine the outcome.
Welcome to the NWO.

[Dennis Leahy]

I suspect that for a lot of people - most especially US citizens - the questions I asked in the opening post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105961-What-is-socialism--your-opinion-not-the-dictionary-definition-) are kind of a brain teaser. It is pretty obvious from the responses so far that there is an overwhelming amount of emotion attached to the word "socialism." It's a highly charged word, an emotional "trigger" for some. I'd like to note it, but step past the emotion and get to the intellectual side of this. Just what does the word "socialism" mean without all the emotional baggage, right?

"socialism is evil awful rotten terrible" is all emotion. "socialism is wonderful awesome fabulous great" is all emotion. This does help the reader understand what emotions you have attached to the word, but gives no clue as to why you feel this way. if you simply supply the "why" as a conclusion, the reader still won't know what your intellectual process is to arrive at "why." For example, if someone said, "socialism is great because it protects against tyranny", it wouldn't give a clue as to how socialism would cause or lead to protection against tyranny.

It was sort of a trick question because I had a pretty good idea that most people would just express emotion - because they don't have a clear definition of what socialism is - and isn't. I excluded Marxism, trying to narrow-in on just what the stripped-down word "socialism" actually means, rather than (fill in adverb here)---> "_______ socialism", "forms of socialism" and especially "implementation of socialism or socialist policies." I'll enter into those discussions as well - they will be interesting as well (if not just emotions.) However, until someone can strip off all the emotion attached to the word, and if the definition of "socialism" remains nebulous to them and cannot be defined, then discussions of forms and implementations are going to be just emotional as well.

To have an intelligent discussion about all of the various forms and implementations of socialism, we need to examine the word socialism without any modifiers. We need to understand the plain, vanilla, emotionless word as a foundation for any intelligent discussion.

[christian]

If you merely go back to the root meaning of the word, Socialism sounds as fine as Capitalism, as explained above. Sharing with others, respecting the human being, that's all good.

To differentiate definitions, it's absolutely necessary to transcend the mere word in a concrete way. Ambitions, hopes and generalities don't suffice. The definition needs to answer this hard question in a clear way: Who decides what, and how?

Whatever answer one would come up with, it would be expedient to compare it to previous and commonly accepted definitions. That makes it easier for people to grasp your definition and to understand any similarities and differences to the existing models in their mind. This implicitly encourages to consider and mention existing definitions when talking about Socialism.

[Antagenet]

Removed :facepalm::Angel::(:sun:

[Dennis Leahy]

It is as if I asked for everyone's definition of "ocean", and the majority of the replies are "tsunami", and "shipwreck", and "waterspout." If the topic was "sex" some would jump to "rape!" If the subject was "knife" some would jump to "murder."

I am underscoring that "socialism" is a word that few people can define (whether their conditioned emotional reaction is anger or joy.) I think a discussion about the implementation of some form of socialist policy on groups of humans is just going to be the same pile of emotion, unless there is some understanding of the basic concept of what socialism is before human twisting, manipulating, rebranding, Orwellian doublespeaking - whether demonizing or glorifying their modified concept of socialism.

Here is the topic that many of you seem to be responding to:
"Implementation of some form of Marxist-inspired if not Marxism labeled as "Socialism", including a gun-to-the-head armed robbery taxation shakedown of hard working people to pay for the lazy scumbag people to eat cake and make babies."

But, that's not the topic of this thread.

How are we going to discuss socialism in human governance if we don't really know what socialism actually is? A reader may not emotionally like my definition of socialism (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105961-What-is-socialism--your-opinion-not-the-dictionary-definition-&p=1273861&viewfull=1#post1273861), but if it is wrong, it should be deconstructed using logic, not emotion. Quite frankly, I was kind of surprised that when I sat down and tried to articulate what socialism is, I realized that is is a direction of energy flow toward a group of similar creatures, as opposed to a flow of energy toward the individual. Neither is "bad"; both are necessary for survival of a species. How many "higher" animals survive without any cooperative strategy blended with individual strategy? I can't think of any. Are Emperor penguins just too far removed from humans to be a valid example of how socialism is a species survival strategy? Well then, let's talk about early hominids (before gunpowder and taxation.) The flow of some of an individual's energy as working towards the group was imperative for hominid species survival. You (dear reader) and I would not be here if early hominids didn't have cooperative group survival strategies - energy directed towards the group - even if clan-based or tribal-based group size.

We can get to talking about 21st century humans and what is labeled as "socialism" or "Socialism", but it won't mean much without an understanding of what socialism actually is.

[TargeT]

but if it is wrong, it should be deconstructed using logic, not emotion..

I did that though.

It is immoral to steal, even if you vote to do it.


That covers all the re-distribution / fair society ("socialism") concepts that I've ever heard of; no emotion either. ;)

[Dennis Leahy]

but if it is wrong, it should be deconstructed using logic, not emotion..

I did that though.

It is immoral to steal, even if you vote to do it.


That covers all the re-distribution / fair society ("socialism") concepts that I've ever heard of; no emotion either. ;)

No, that doesn't reference the definition I gave, it's a reiteration of your opinion. {edit to add: Not that anyone needs to deconstruct my definition, but if someone is going to say they deconstructed my definition, then my definition needs to be referenced.}


A reader may not emotionally like my definition of socialism (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105961-What-is-socialism--your-opinion-not-the-dictionary-definition-&p=1273861&viewfull=1#post1273861), but if it is wrong, it should be deconstructed using logic, not emotion.You are leaping to the next topic, which I want to also explore. You might even be surprised by my thoughts on what I think of what the word "socialism" has been twisted into, and a third subject of how I would like to see "energy directed towards the group" as part of governance. A desire for a complete lack of governance (anarchy) it yet another subject. All interesting subjects, none of which will be able to be examined and discussed without recognizing that there really is such a thing as "energy directed towards the group" that is species innate.

Do you recognize that the successful survival of hominids is due to some individual energy directed toward the group, rather than solely directed strictly toward each individual?

[TargeT]

Do you recognize that the successful survival of hominids is due to some individual energy directed toward the group, rather than solely directed strictly toward each individual?

Absolutely, that's why my preferred (non-existent, for the most part) way to comport a society is through volunteerism (https://www.interexchange.org/articles/career-training-usa/volunteerism-in-the-us/)... much like we had in the early days of the USA (the first 100 years or so); which has a drastically different connotation when compared with socialism.

What it seems you are trying to do, is take a term that is fairly well understood and re-define it... another common tactic in politics, a logical fallacy and very insidious way of CREATING double speak. (https://highexistence.com/george-orwell-on-the-7-ways-politicians-abuse-language-to-deceive-you-and-how-to-make-it-stop/)

I've never seen a form of socialism that didn't have a central control structure that "guided" (aka forced) the energy direction away from the individual and to the group... if you are trying to re-define terms; then maybe we should come up with a new one? (no need though, UNBATU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy) has been around for a while... but that didn't work either)

[Dennis Leahy]

Do you recognize that the successful survival of hominids is due to some individual energy directed toward the group, rather than solely directed strictly toward each individual?

Absolutely, that's why my preferred (non-existent, for the most part) way to comport a society is through volunteerism (https://www.interexchange.org/articles/career-training-usa/volunteerism-in-the-us/)... much like we had in the early days of the USA (the first 100 years or so); which has a drastically different connotation when compared with socialism.

What it seems you are trying to do, is take a term that is fairly well understood and re-define it... another common tactic in politics, a logical fallacy and very insidious way of CREATING double speak. (https://highexistence.com/george-orwell-on-the-7-ways-politicians-abuse-language-to-deceive-you-and-how-to-make-it-stop/)

I've never seen a form of socialism that didn't have a central control structure that "guided" (aka forced) the energy direction away from the individual and to the group... if you are trying to re-define terms; then maybe we should come up with a new one? (no need though, UNBATU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy) has been around for a while... but that didn't work either)


"What it seems you are trying to do, is take a term that is fairly well understood and re-define it..."No, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about animal behavior, survival strategies. You are still trying to push the discussion to be about Marxism or other pseudo-implementations of political socialism. That's a different discussion. This is about the basic meaning of socialism. It is NOT fairly well understood. That is one of the points of the thread.

[TargeT]

I'm talking about animal behavior, survival strategies....This is about the basic meaning of socialism. It is NOT fairly well understood. That is one of the points of the thread.

I never thought of socialism in an animal context.. what you seem to be describing seems a lot more like volunteerism, since there is no central redistributionary structure.

But even social animals do not re-distribute wealth (unless it's in the form of direct theft) for the most part.

I'd say nature, espeically social groups; is a lot more of an anarcho - captialism structure.

Is there a place where socialism is NOT a political term? this seems like an attempt to re-define again.

[Ratszinger]

Capitalism is closer to duplicating nature in my opinion, in that it is like nature in that it is geared for survival of the fittest. Breeding a have not society dependent on big gov. and raising your children such that they believe this is accepted norm makes for a society lacking motivation to do anything more than they need to do to get by. I doubt but only the hardest core individuals do what they love to do but instead most are forced to do most often things they would rather not be doing and for many more hours per day than they would hope to ever be doing it and for a lot less pay in a have not society which I equate to socialist society. At least that is my feeling. Even someone lazy and mediocre in everything they do in life could carry on and even reproduce those genes in a have not society. Capitalism breeds hardier people more able to stand on their own two feet and in my opinion even when they can't they would rather fail trying than accept a hand out.

[AriG]

Philosophically speaking communism and fascism claim to be opposite ends of the spectrum, but upon analysis of of effect they are 100% the same.

Capitalism and socialism are more centered versions of the extreme of communism and fascism. Sort of the lite version.

What if we did away with the social constructs that we’re invented by those long dead and visualized the perfect compromise? What would that look like?

[enfoldedblue]

I have a good friend who is a libertarian..based on Austrian economics. We have a lot of interesting discussions. What often ends up being the crux of our disagreement is in my opinion his system would only work if it were a truly even playing field. Its easy for someone who is strong and capable to say ... every man for himseld...100% ability for self determination. But as someone who has a disability, who has had to accept the fact that i have no choice but to rely on others to survive...this is a terrifying prospect. He claims individuals will step up and take care of society's vulnerable....but this takes complete power and dignity away from the vulnerable...placing their survival at the mercy and whim of the strong and able.

[TomKat]

The most basic form of govt is a protection racket: mandatory taxation for mandatory protection. As time goes on the taxation will increase as well as the protection, until the govt owns everything and everyone, and humans are its protected possessions. That is totalitarian socialism. So it's a sliding scale from minimum to maximum government, and every growth in govt is more socialistic than the previous -- one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

[Jayke]

My understanding of socialism has evolved over the years. It’s definitely a heavily tainted concept. Groups like the Fabian Society were involved in repackaging socialism as Marxism to give the notion a bad rep in the public mind.

Before the Fabian Society and the Marxists got involved, in the early 19th century, Socialism was a catch all term for almost any proposal for radically reforming or abolishing the money power. It wasn’t about state power, it was a battle with parasitism, which was identified as usury...”the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living on the sale of their labour, while another class are of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour” - Benjamin Tucker, 19th century sociologist. 19th century socialism wanted to abolish usury, and return to early medieval Christian values where usury was illegal.

I find Dennis’s definition of socialism to be too vague, and actually gives more power to the parasites than it does to keep them in check.


That's my answer to the question, 'what is socialism?': Socialism is working toward the group.

By that definition, Trump, the Republithugs, the Demonrats and all the crony capitalists that infest politics could define themselves as Socialists, because everything they do is for their inner elite group of crony friends.

Synonyms of group: category, class, classification, grouping, set, lot, batch, bracket, type, sort, kind, variety, family, species, genus, breed, style

Working solely towards a preferred in-group is the fast track to class wars and mobocracies. Surely a more wholesome definition of socialism would be ‘working towards the health, wealth and happiness of society as a whole’, which doesn’t just cater to the likeminded in-groups, but also finds the common ground and shared values between multiple and diverse groups of people, so that all groups can flourish.

This is one reason Jesus would be a shining example of a true socialist, having founded a genuine socialist movement, someone who looks out for the well-being and welfare of everyone in society. Christianity in its untainted form is socialist. It promotes values of charity, generosity, kindness, compassion and love for your fellow humans. All for one and one for all. Not that socialism is exclusive to Christianity, it’s also present in Buddhism or Daoism, the Sanskrit concept of Punya I.e. ‘cultivating merit’ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(Buddhism)), doing good deeds to ease the suffering of people in society around you.

What most modern day socialists seem to miss though is that the best socialists, are actually excellent capitalists as well. Christianity and Buddhism both have a strong and disciplined work ethic. You have to really get your own house in order before you’re qualified to get out into society and start helping others. You need to have a stable foundation from which you can offer your support to others if you expect them to make a stand for themselves. Without that strong foundation, everything collapses.

Capitalism tainted by the money power becomes imperialism or mercentilism, neither have anything to do with true capitalism, which is the creation of value through your own merit and creative works to capitalise on your productive capabilities. Imperialism and mercantilism is all about stealing the productive wealth of others and selling it on for profit.

Just as Socialism tainted by the money power becomes communism, the stealing of wealth from the productive members of society to redistribute that wealth among your preferred group of Oligarchs for the centralisation of control and power.

Capitalism and Socialism then are both fighting the same enemy, the parasitic Oligarchs who steal other peoples productive wealth for their own profit.

[norman]

I wonder what Machiavelli would say if he was posting in this thread, if he could type through his laughter.

Central organisation, whether driving a Skoda or a Mercedes will always look the same. I can't tell the difference between a soviet politburo and a boardroom of a global corporation. With those 2 things identified for what they are, it seems to me that the real opposite is personal soveriegnty, and generosity of heart there of.

But there's the rub, if we are constantly terrorised, our generosity of heart flies out the window. That makes us look selfish and ignorant, giving cause for the centralists to do their thing . . . . chicken and egg. We have to be relaxed and loving to make it work, so we have to get the parasitic crooks off our backs.

[christian]

A reader may not emotionally like my definition of socialism (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105961-What-is-socialism--your-opinion-not-the-dictionary-definition-&p=1273861&viewfull=1#post1273861), but if it is wrong, it should be deconstructed using logic, not emotion.

I think it's neither right nor wrong, but it's legitimate. I see no point in deconstructing your perfectly valid point of view. I would then rather give a similarly benign definition of another -ism, such as Capitalism, as I did here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105961-What-is-socialism--your-opinion-not-the-dictionary-definition-&p=1273974&viewfull=1#post1273974), in order to illustrate that most any -ism can be defined in a way that spells benevolence. Individualism, as another example, doesn't have to be the sole interest in oneself only—but could be defined as the interest in the highest and best good of every individual.

In that sense, you can use an endless variety of labels that all say "the best and most benign way to organize a society." Therefore it's essential to get to the nuts and bolts when articulating a system to organize society. More important than the label is:


Who decides what, and how?

[Ernie Nemeth]

The only mind set that can understand a positive definition of socialism is the barter system, or any other form of SHARING from a place of wealth. Little pieces of paper desensitizes us to what wealth truly is. Profit and inflation are forms of stealing. In bartering there is no profit other than the agreed upon exchange - if one person views it as profit, the other is still not harmed. Everyone is in possession of wealth: it is the creative potential of all human beings.

From this place it would be obvious what system can uplift: it is the system that SHARES because it is the right thing to do.

Consider that in the present system a product is divorced from cost and is instead priced according to what 'the market will bear.' This steals wealth from the system that would otherwise be in circulation for other goods. Add in a thousand such products and the system pulls wealth from the masses and concentrates it in the hands of a few. Only the masses are wealthy, by definition. See how long the captains of industry would be considered wealthy if their little strips of paper and blips on a screen were not coveted by the masses. And the masses would still have their wealth, their creative potential and all the things they have created - because the oligarchs create nothing...and merely 'own' by virtue of our capitulation to the so-called authorities.

Until we understand the nature of the human being and consciousness we will not understand the dynamics of a true civilization. Money is a formality. It matters not one whit whether it is real and sanctioned currency or whether it is counterfeit. Both have the same affect. That is not true of any product or service. THAT SHOULD BE THE BIGGEST CLUE. And money has distorted our understanding of how a society functions and what its priorities are.

We are here together on this tiny rock in space. We each have a responsibility to one another. Socialism is that recognition. It is not political, it is life. Real Life. You cannot own anything here expect what you can take with you when you die. And what you can take with you is your true value and your wealth. The rest is of no consequence. That is the understanding of socialism in its truest sense. It is what makes socialism the only way for a true civilization to comport itself. Socialism isn't collectivism. Socialism is derived from the essence of what it is to be human. Our cells work in unison for the good of the body, socialism works in unison for the good of the populace. Each has a role, each partakes equally in the fruits of society.

Right now, as things stand, there is an organizing body that determines the trajectory of society that the common man has no say in except for a vote every four or five years, which never changes anything. The trajectory of our society is towards control and war. Neither of these are for the betterment of society, nor are they beneficial for the majority of the world's citizens. In such a climate it is almost impossible to understand socialism since it is completely contrary to it. All discussion leads to political contemplation. But politics leads to division. It is like saying air is good to breath but a little carbon monoxide never hurt anyone. The answers are not political; they are not debatable. They are matters of life and death, literally.

So far we keep choosing death.

There will come a time when someone is going to point that out in a way that everyone will finally understand it fully. Then we can get on with creating that civilization we all dream about. But that world will not have money, will redefine ownership, and will find a way to accommodate and uplift all in the name of humanity.

Since we are a long way from there we can be certain that almost, if not all, today's systems and institutions will be left behind and discarded because they will have been found to be hindrances to the goals of the common man.

[Praxis]

The benchmark of any society is how it treats it's disabled and sick.
Socialism for me is ownership by the people equally .

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will not know.


The capitalist thinks of himself as the next jeff bezos and therefore does not want to build a system that would curtail his existence.

Socialism is making sure that every(and this is for the American context as I am American) citizen of this country has food, water, shelter, education, and healthcare just because they exist and because the declaration of independence recognizes their right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are further codified in the Bill of Rights.

If you have the right to life, you have the right to food, water, shelter, and healthcare.

You can't have the right to breathe but have to pay for the air.

And what would make us a truly great country is if we take that same attitude and apply it to all humans regardless of location on the planet.

How about a food and health foreign policy instead of the current one?

Did you know Aircraft carriers produce their own water at sea? They have a capacity generally of about 500,000 gallons a day(If I recall correctly) and they use about 350, 00 for ship operations at full capacity. That means every American Aircraft carrier, of which there are over a dozen, could effectively be pumping clean fresh water to some place if they so desired.

We have all the right tools, we just need to use them differently.

[Dennis Leahy]

...

I find Dennis’s definition of socialism to be too vague, and actually gives more power to the parasites than it does to keep them in check.


That's my answer to the question, 'what is socialism?': Socialism is working toward the group.

By that definition, Trump, the Republithugs, the Demonrats and all the crony capitalists that infest politics could define themselves as Socialists, because everything they do is for their inner elite group of crony friends.

Synonyms of group: category, class, classification, grouping, set, lot, batch, bracket, type, sort, kind, variety, family, species, genus, breed, style

Working solely towards a preferred in-group is the fast track to class wars and mobocracies. Surely a more wholesome definition of socialism would be ‘working towards the health, wealth and happiness of society as a whole’, which doesn’t just cater to the likeminded in-groups, but also finds the common ground and shared values between multiple and diverse groups of people, so that all groups can flourish.
...
Great insights.

I'm deliberately trying to strip all the modifiers off of "social-ism", to get down to the basics of what it is before being modified. "Socialism for the rich!" (oligarchic socialism? plutocratic socialism?) is a valid modifier, as is "society-wide socialism" a valid modifier. The common ground, the gist, the essence is the underlying direction of flow of energy. You can pound nails in with a hammer; you can pull nails out with a hammer.

At its raw essence, "energy directed outward, towards the group benefit" is simply the opposite direction of the energy flow in "energy directed inwards, towards the individual benefit." It's the yin and yang of the direction of energy flow toward survival/maintenance/enhancement. I'm saying it is neither good nor bad, but rather BOTH directions of the energy flow are natural, normal, and critical for species survival.

There are most definitely going to be humans that "improperly" (could be too selfishly or could be too altruistically) direct that energy flow. And all of those modifiers, those bastardizations of "energy directed toward the group benefit"-defined socialism, are worthy explorations - and I realize it is where everyone wants the discussion to hurry up and go. But I'm hoping we can drop the modifiers that are the cause of the emotional baggage, so that when we have that next discussion (political socialism) we can explore the bastardization and hijacking of the simple biological root meaning (again, one of the two directions of energy flow toward survival.) The two directions of energy flow are more like exhale compared to inhale, both normal, natural, and necessary.

As several have noted, the word "socialism" has been misused, glorified or demonized, spun, rebranded, co-opted - in all cases, modified - and for some, possibly the modifiers just cannot be mentally stripped off. I don't know another word to substitute. The phrase "biological altruism" is close. Hopefully, those that cannot strip the word "socialism" to its essential meaning can at least recognize that socialism is the opposite of individualism, but that BOTH are critical to life for the species.

[Jayke]

At its raw essence, "energy directed outward, towards the group benefit" is simply the opposite direction of the energy flow in "energy directed inwards, towards the individual benefit." It's the yin and yang of the direction of energy flow toward survival/maintenance/enhancement. I'm saying it is neither good nor bad, but rather BOTH directions of the energy flow are natural, normal, and critical for species survival.

There are most definitely going to be humans that "improperly" (could be too selfishly or could be too altruistically) direct that energy flow. And all of those modifiers, those bastardizations of "energy directed toward the group benefit"-defined socialism, are worthy explorations - and I realize it is where everyone wants the discussion to hurry up and go. But I'm hoping we can drop the modifiers that are the cause of the emotional baggage, so that when we have that next discussion (political socialism) we can explore the bastardization and hijacking of the simple biological root meaning (again, one of the two directions of energy flow toward survival.) The two directions of energy flow are more like exhale compared to inhale, both normal, natural, and necessary.

This is actually why I love Ian McGilchrist’s work. The Broccas region (where the inner ego resides) is in the left hemisphere of the brain, hence left hemisphere dominant people tend to be more individualistic or self centre driven. Whereas right hemisphere dominant people tend towards group work and community focus. Capitalism and Socialism, two sides of the same coin brain. Finding the right balance between the two is the only way to make either of them work effectively, without creating what the Hopi call ‘Koyaanisqatsi’, “life out of balance.”

Pvr_gubcWUk
The dynamic dance between Yin and Yang, essential for the propagation of life.

[rgray222]

Socialism
Socialism (to me) means that government controls and owns corporations with the intent to redistribute profits. They would also implement and collect progressive taxes from individuals with the intent of redistributing that money. The government would have control over the distribution of goods, services, and price. The money from these corporations and individuals would be used for the betterment of society, healthcare, roads, hospitals etc.

Of course, it would be possible that a socialist government would allow some corporations to be held in private ownership but they would be highly regulated.

The government would also have control over every aspect of education.

The problem
To me, the inherent dangers of socialism (and communism) is that they are an easy sell to people, especially on the lower economic scale. On paper who wouldn't like to take all the money and redistribute it evenly. Using all that money and wealth for the betterment of society sounds wonderful in theory and it is wonderful but only in theory. Moving from theory to reality has never worked.

In a nutshell who checks to make sure the government is using all that money and power wisely. Who makes sure that the government officials are not keeping that money for themselves (https://www.latinpost.com/articles/71424/20150812/maria-gabriela-ch%C3%A1vez-net-worth-hugo-ch%C3%A1vezs-daughter-richest-woman-in-venezuela-worth-4-2-billion.htm).

The problems as I see it with any form of socialism is that it has never really worked. Venezuela is not an anomaly it is just full bore socialism that once again failed miserably. More than 3 million people have left the country. Wealth was sent all over the world to avoid high progressive taxes and its cities have become the most dangerous in the world. Inflation is at 1,000,000 percent and rising rapidly every day. This is no accident this is just socialism. These examples of what is happening in Venezuela are not fake news put out by the PTB, they are very real and this catastrophe is unfolding in slow motion as you read this.

Some countries have had hybrid capitalism, capitalism with a heavy dose of socialism. This is more than likely what most people envision when they talk about socialism in today's environment. The unfortunate and misleading term "FREE" is used when talking about socialism in the USA. Free healthcare, free college education, and free or highly subsidized stuff. In actual fact nothing is free, everything is paid for just by somebody else. This tricky and intentionally misused word FREE makes some aspects of socialism look pretty appealing.

This hybrid does work in some countries (particularly Scandinavia) that don't have much investment in defense and a fairly high tax rate. The result (I am sure people some will take offense) it cuts the top off the economic spectrum and brings the bottom up. Generally resulting in high achieving nations becoming somewhat mediocre. Wealth is not celebrated and high achievement is moderately discouraged.

What is the answer
I have always believed that having one all-powerful leader such as a President or Prime Minister is a not only dangerous but a bit bizarre. The US Constitution is a good start, it puts a limit on what a government can do. It is certainly not perfect but it gives the people a bill of rights. When people talk negatively about the US Constitution it is generally because they would rather have a document that gives power not one that takes it away.

Bottom line is that we should replace Presidents and Prime Ministers with groups of elders. Five or six people that are 65 years of age or older. These people would serve for a set period of time (3-5 years) before a new group would take over. At this age, they would be less likely to have a vested interest in power and money. They would have a great deal more wisdom than a man or woman of 35-45. This group of elders would have the ability to slant their country more towards socialism or capitalism.

[christian]

At its raw essence, "energy directed outward, towards the group benefit" is simply the opposite direction of the energy flow in "energy directed inwards, towards the individual benefit." It's the yin and yang of the direction of energy flow toward survival/maintenance/enhancement. I'm saying it is neither good nor bad, but rather BOTH directions of the energy flow are natural, normal, and critical for species survival.

What is the group benefit? Is there always a consensus? If not, who has the last word on that?

Is what is beneficial to the individual really the opposite of what is beneficial to the group? If I get stronger and wealthier, I can help others better, can't I? Economics is not a zero sum game—there are ample opportunities for win-win-situations.

Most Individualist philosophies that I'm aware of argue that allowing individual self-determination is genuinely in the best interest of the group. A group is strongest when its members are aware and self-responsible, that's why Individualists promote self-ownership and voluntary charity.

On paper, textbook Socialists and textbook Individualists have the same common goal; the common good, they just disagree on how to achieve it.

Socialists usually promote more external governance, discernment through political institutions—Individualists usually promote more internal governance, discerning individuals.

[Dennis Leahy]

...
Is what is beneficial to the individual really the opposite of what is beneficial to the group?
...
No. It's not the opposite, it is the opposite direction of energy flow. Wind is wind whether it is blowing east or west. Some energy expended toward the individual benefits the group; some energy expended towards the group benefits the individual. It doesn't require human sentience and planning and consciously, deliberately aiming the energy flow. The Emperor penguins are not all murmuring "for the group survival!" as they survive Antarctic winter clustered in a group, where individuals rotate from the perimeter of the cluster to the relative warmth inside the cluster and back out to the perimeter, and continue cycling. Individual survival is instinctual. Group survival is instinctual.

Inhaling and exhaling are directions of energy flow; both directions viewed together is breathing. Neither direction all by itself will suffice to describe breathing.

"Social" refers to a group - let's call it "group-ism."

Individual-ism and group-ism (directions of energy flow) taken together describe how higher animal organisms innately behave toward survival. The energy expended toward the group may not be the intent of the individual creature, but the group receives the benefit anyway.

I probably should have simultaneously started another thread about "political socialism." Virtually every reply in this thread has been about "political socialism", and not about the survival strategies where individuals also expend some energy toward the group. I am trying to drill down to the basic energy flow direction that higher animals all display and utilize toward group survival. It happens whether people believe in it or not. It isn't consciously-directed energy. It isn't as cyclic as breathing or the ocean tide, but animals do expend some energy that works toward group survival.

How are we going to be able to discuss "political socialism" intelligently if we solely focus on the one direction of energy flow we like the best, and worse, if we pretend the other direction of energy flow doesn't exist as a natural and normal part of the species survival?

[Delight]

...
Is what is beneficial to the individual really the opposite of what is beneficial to the group?
...
Virtually every reply in this thread has been about "political socialism", and not about the survival strategies where individuals also expend some energy toward the group. I am trying to drill down to the basic energy flow direction that higher animals all display and utilize toward group survival. It happens whether people believe in it or not. It isn't consciously-directed energy. It isn't as cyclic as breathing or the ocean tide, but animals do expend some energy that works toward group survival.

I like what you are emphasizing here. To me "enlightened self interest" is knowing that what is GOOD is equally supportive for every one. My Dad served in Korea (and being in the military is understood by some as "supporting" the group survival) and then was supported by the GI Bill where his education was paid.

The example above does NOT tease out the TRUTH of how supportive to the group War actually IS???? That is the kind of social question that IMO is supposed to be consciously wrangled by free humans. However, it states that WHEN a person is working to support the group, that "social well being" will also support Her or Him.

In the 70's there was a state loan program for education of registered nurses. I had a loan from the state and later by remaining in the state to work, over the next few years, the state paid my loan for me. That was GREAT for me. However, I worked at a public hospital where I was needed and that served the group. VERY fair and enlightened.

Here is a tweet from someone I read https://twitter.com/realAliTweets/status/1093405860997386240


Ali
‏
@realAliTweets
Follow Follow @realAliTweets
More
If you like the list below say thank you to socialism:

8hr work days
Military
Highways
Public Libraries
Police
Fire Dept
Postal Service
Farm Subsidies
Congressional Health Care
Social Security
Museums
Public Schools
VA Health Care
Public Parks
Food Stamps
Medicare
G.I. Bill

11:07 PM - 6 Feb 2019

In my ideal world, win/win is the governing guide. IF taxes go toward infrastructure and all the other socially responsive programs, they are fair. As soon as I could hear, I heard the words taxes and all about the feeling my parents had about the burdens of taxation. This whole notion of layers and layers between US, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE and NECESSARY PROGRAMS to enable us to have a large organized social worldhas been IMO the down fall of enlightened "policy of the city". There needs to be intimate connections between paying for it all and having the resulting fruit or it all gets siphoned into grift economies.

SO, if socialism is defined as enlightened self interest, win/win and intimate RESPONSE ABILITY between humans and other humans AND all beings, I subscribe.

Back to war.... it is never win/win. I personally believe that war is the way that we are constantly bombed or grenaded or canoned or IN SOME WAY thrown regressively backwards. As long as we have war as the central motivation for government, we will never have my ideal world IMO.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Any 'ism' is already set in stone, by our way of thinking. It is what allows us to place an 'ism' as suffix to any idea. Social or capital, is what we are being asked to choose between. Frist off, only one is alive, whereas the other is just an accounting system. Herein lies the mistake. We are not comparing terms set on an equal footing, and instead of preferring the one that speaks of life, we are obsessed with the means of accounting.

We don't want others having an easy life and get all the necessities of life for free while we toil away for the same things - but that happens now too. So we are really not saying anything in that regard. We ask who will do the dirty unwanted jobs, when even now those jobs are only done because some are economically forced to do so.

The choice as we see posed by this debate is not one type of lifestyle over another, it is the choice between the focus on life and the focus on the exchange rate. These are not compatible and are not alternates to one another. The opposite of socialism, the institution of programs for social order, are what we have in place right now. It is the old order of authority handed down by blood in the ancient philosophy of the 'right to rule'. The blue bloods and their ilk invented this system for their own gain, not ours. We have been so long under their thumb we cannot imagine any other system.

We all use social rules every day of our lives, and we guide our actions by a set of fundamentals that run counter to the rules of our society, for the most part. We help each other, we care about each other. We do not see color or race or creed during an emergency; everyone is our family in times of need. This is already social without the 'ism' - without the institutions from which bureaucrats like to build their massive edifices that obscure the intent in favor of the rules...and repercussions.

To ask what socialism is is already one step ahead of itself. The 'ism' places it among other understood concepts. If one were to truly institute social into an 'ism' there would be no bureaucrats needed because the institution would extend to every man, women, and child. It would be a lifestyle choice, as it already is - where capitalism hasn't caused havoc with the natural order, that is...

[christian]

Is what is beneficial to the individual really the opposite of what is beneficial to the group?

No. It's not the opposite, it is the opposite direction of energy flow. […]

How are we going to be able to discuss "political socialism" intelligently if we solely focuses on the one direction of energy flow we like the best, and worse, if we pretend the other direction of energy flow doesn't exist as a natural and normal part of the species survival?

Is what is beneficial to the individual necessarily the opposite direction of energy flow of what is beneficial to the group?

The energy flow directed towards myself is well able to simulataneously benefit the group. It can be a win-win-situation and go in both directions.

Directing energy to any aspect of creation can be to direct energy to the whole, depending on the quality of the energy.

[lunaflare]

Thanks for the interesting posts.

We are here together on this tiny rock in space. We each have a responsibility to one another. Socialism is that recognition. It is not political, it is life.

I like this view point (Ernie N) as it is expansive and inclusive; not wholly defined by money and government. I would add my piece by writing that planet earth, this little rock in space, is also part of a greater cosmic community. This planet does not exist in isolation. Widen the lens and the well being of this earth impacts the solar system to which it belongs and it is a ripple effect.

On earth, we have a responsibility to one another but also to this land, this planet, this earth that makes living even possible. If this is the first tenet of socialism then this, as an "ism", makes sense. But is it?

I agree that most religions and spiritual traditions in their purest sense call to the qualities of the soul. This is not about dollars and ownership and slavery, but calls to the the need to develop the most sensitive part of our being that recognizes that we are in fact all connected.

[Dennis Leahy]

Is what is beneficial to the individual really the opposite of what is beneficial to the group?

No. It's not the opposite, it is the opposite direction of energy flow. […]

How are we going to be able to discuss "political socialism" intelligently if we solely focuses on the one direction of energy flow we like the best, and worse, if we pretend the other direction of energy flow doesn't exist as a natural and normal part of the species survival?

Is what is beneficial to the individual necessarily the opposite direction of energy flow of what is beneficial to the group?

The energy flow directed towards myself is well able to simulataneously benefit the group. It can be a win-win-situation and go in both directions.

Directing energy to any aspect of creation can be to direct energy to the whole, depending on the quality of the energy.

I think we need to be careful, or someone is going to post some ultimate-level philosophical truth like "Only Oneness exists. There are no individuals..." or some such.

I'm trying to get to the essence of the word socialism, not the phrase with the modifier "political" prepended to it. It is biological, and toward species survival. That's not a statement of emotion or an analysis of motive. It's an observed behavioral phenomenon. It existed in nature before human observation. It is one of the forces of biological life.

I fully admit that the word 'socialism' is virtually never used without implicitly being used as part of the phrase "political socialism." That's obvious by almost every post in this thread. Political socialism most certainly tries to tap into that biological force of energy flow, and humans (being the idiots we are) anthropomorphize and distort the entire underlying concept.

Socialism takes nothing away from biological individualism; it complements it. If individuals didn't strive to survive, the social group would not survive. However, just as true: If the social group does not survive, individuals don't survive.


(to all, not just Christian)
Maybe the only way to talk about this biological group survival strategy force, (socialism), is to put it in non-human animal terms. Let's talk penguins and jaguars - they exhibit this force. Call it by a different name if the word socialism is impossible to divorce from the human distortions applied to the word. Call it something else more accurate, but until people realize that it is a natural force toward survival by directing some of an individual's energy toward group survival, the whatever new name you come up with will retain the same distortions as the word "socialism."

[TargeT]

It is biological, and toward species survival. That's not a statement of emotion or an analysis of motive. It's an observed behavioral phenomenon. It existed in nature before human observation. It is one of the forces of biological life.


Can you provide examples of that? (for example, why do you think Jaguars are socialist)?

I do not see that as the case except perhaps with Ants/bees ("hive" living).

If anything I see nature as highly analogous to "capitalism" or "free market"; where the focus is on the self, and the group benefits as a mostly secondary factor, not main focus (again, exceptions being hive colonies).

[christian]

It's not a philosophical but a very practical truth that service to self and service to others can happen simultaneously. If I build a chair, I can hone my skills, provide something of use for others, exchange the chair for something with another person when the other person values the chair more than his something and I value his something more than my chair (win-win), use the something that I got to purchase something that I desire from someone else according to the same win-win-principle, support them making a living and honing their skills, and so on. If I become more understanding, I may understand myself better and understand others better, I can be a more supportive agent with myself and with others.

If for you Socialism is all about "interest in group survival," I don't understand why you would call it Socialism, when that concept has been defined so differently already. You take a heavily branded and emotionally charged word and give it a new definition. That's like trying to divert the mightiest stream you could imagine with your bare hands.

There is a word that is commonly defined as "prioritization of the group," it's Collectivism.

[Agape]

All -isms are abstracts, together with the thousands and millions of pages of other abstracts written on their behalf. Quite like Buddh-ism or Christian-ity are abstracts that do not necessarily represent or encompass teaching of either Buddha or Christ but are in fact, subtle deception and “lite” , social version of association with belief in either doctrine carrying seeds of truth in them, without the need of inspecting their core meaning , so is any other -ism.
In political terms it seems to be a belief in a system or in an attempt to install such a system.

If you look at the world and various versions of human society from broader and epochal perspective and ask yourself question, such as “is there any system that would be accepted as form of governance on Earth by all humans” after due consideration taking no time and most probably you’ll be able to answer to yourself “no, there isn’t such a system”.

Of our very diverse human societies and no matter to what system of governance we had been born to or one imposed upon us, genuine philosophical minority or majority of humans would reject any system of governance or say, political system if they had pure views and true freedom to do so.

Some obsolete and redundant nations would probably choose a king, priest or a cult leader to follow rather than arguing among themselves about rights and wrongs,
some modern oriented groups would probably choose an AI to fill the same role.

But majority of humans I say, would not choose anyone and anything to plan and condition their destiny other than themselves , that is IF they had the freedom of choice.

If you think “and how does social-ism” fit into this equation, well, it’s not tax and obligation free way of life, of all things and depending how benevolently or less is it applied it can become quite taxing on its followers.

Since nature of life including that of human intelligence is very diverse on this planet, there’s at least 20-30% of populace who can not or do not wish to participate socially for any possible reason. It may be for a period of their life or a lifetime but some people wish to just live in fact, in their preferred way or life style and aren’t here to follow anyone else than their own minds, they’re not interested in common or uncommon trends or efforts to form groups and gatherings with the rest.

It may be that only 20-30% of the populace would voluntarily accept any “social
system” as a matter of experiment and if they had full freedom to decide about it and the rest would live( and roam) freely but I can’t really verify those numbers:)

In either case: being a part of self-sustaining yet group dependant system of governance that taxes and obliges its members to number of social duties and protocols should be in my ideal-istic opinion rather voluntary and all such experiments should come with freedom of faultless entry-and-exit.


That’s my freedom perspective on true human nature and the rest of the -isms too:)


Since my worldview above seems to be, at least so far, utterly unrealistic and there’s but couple of remaining islands on the planet to live free...I can’t be really bothered with idea of politics or political opponents :bigsmile:

More time to think on real meaning of Life in the Universe

[Dennis Leahy]

It is biological, and toward species survival. That's not a statement of emotion or an analysis of motive. It's an observed behavioral phenomenon. It existed in nature before human observation. It is one of the forces of biological life.


Can you provide examples of that? (for example, why do you think Jaguars are socialist)?

I do not see that as the case except perhaps with Ants/bees ("hive" living).

If anything I see nature as highly analogous to "capitalism" or "free market"; where the focus is on the self, and the group benefits as a mostly secondary factor, not main focus (again, exceptions being hive colonies).Well, I did give an example where the socialism is easy to see, the Emperor penguins making it through the Antarctic winter. A pod of Humpback whales cooperatively blowing bubbles underwater to corral krill for the group to eat. Individual coral polyps congregating in colonies. Prairie dog "sentries" whistling danger to the group. A troop (bigger than a family) of baboons protecting each other from a leopard attack.

When you think of lone predators, like a jaguar, you might only think about the individual expending energy towards itself and seeing any other jaguar as a competitor. It certainly spends most of its time in pursuit of its individual needs. However, a mother jaguar does not eat its own newborn. Why not? It's helpless, easy prey - why not munch it down? Then, why spend her energy over the next months protecting and hunting food for them? If the only natural biological force was individualism, why would a jaguar want additional predators to have to compete with? It wouldn't. There is another natural biological force besides individualism at play.

Capitalism is human monetary policy and more like a religion than a biological process. Capitalism isn't really a political ideology either, but that's another discussion. It's not only not the opposite of political socialism, it's apples-and-oranges to the natural biological drive toward group survival force of socialism. When we get to that other discussion - the political one - I'll be happy to delve into the monetary policies of capitalism having their 'untainted' roots in natural biological individualism, and the various political ideologies that are called "[_______] Socialism" having their 'untainted' roots in natural biological socialism/group-ism.

[norman]

haha, Dennis, you're trying your hardest to superglue the word socialism to cooperative common sense. Now you are getting political. Dang, if only you could make the word legit, then you could develop a crowd pulling strategy that could put political socialism back in the electable corner.

Nice try, I guess, but what you are trying to define has nothing to do with socialism. Perhaps it would be better to deconstruct the simple version first. Just have a go at finding out where the word 'social' came from. Forget the ism part for now.

Someone tell me, seriously, where does the word "social" actually come from. Does it have a politically neutral root somewhere?

[Jayke]

You could have picked a better example than penguins, Dennis. Looking into their behaviour, this is the first article I found.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151223-if-you-think-penguins-are-cute-and-cuddly-youre-wrong




In 2012, Douglas Russell of the Natural History Museum in London, UK unearthed a paper called "Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin". It was labelled "not for publication".

Fights break out as mobs of broody mothers struggle with each other to steal a chick

The paper was the work of George Murray Levick, Scott's expedition scientist and the first person to witness an entire breeding season. He was shocked by what he saw: gangs of males engaging in homosexual sex, sexually abusing chicks, and mating with dead females. At the time, the material was judged too depraved for public consumption.
Though it was alarming for an Edwardian Englishman, the behaviour was entirely within the realms of biological normality. The "hooligan" males Levick observed were probably sexually inexperienced and making mistakes.
This sort of thing does happen. In recent years, fur seals have been discovered trying to have sex with penguins on at least four separate occasions, and this may also be a simple mistake.
The other Antarctic species, the emperor penguin, is if anything even worse.

Female emperor penguins that have lost their own brood frequently "adopt" unattended chicks. If there are none available, things get violent. Fights break out as mobs of broody mothers struggle with each other to steal a chick from another penguin family.
Kidnappings last from a few minutes to a few days. Most end with the chick being abandoned to die in the cold. One confused penguin even kidnapped its own natural enemy, the chick of a penguin-eating bird called a skua.
It's a by-product of their very special strategy
These kidnappings are bizarre and brutal in equal measures, and why the females do it has been puzzling scientists for decades.
Emperor penguins are unique among birds, in that they nest in the middle of winter. The females must go to sea to feed, leaving the males to keep their offspring warm. This causes a problem. When most birds lose sight of their eggs, they stop producing the parenting hormone prolactin, and lose interest.
To maintain their maternal instinct during their 2-month vacation, emperor penguin mothers maintain high levels regardless. Frédéric Angelier of the French National Center for Scientific Research in Villiers en Bois wondered if this hormone might explain the kidnappings.
To find out, Angelier and his colleagues injected birds that had lost their chicks with bromocriptine, a chemical known to suppress prolactin. As they expected, these penguins kidnapped chicks less often than control penguins that did not receive bromocriptine.
"It's a by-product of their very special strategy," says co-author Olivier Chastel. "If you are back from the sea and there is no chick, you still have this really high hormone level and you are likely to grab a chick."

Finally, penguins have a reputation for romance, and this too is not really deserved.
A shortage of stones has pushed many females into "prostitution"
Emperor penguins form long-distance relationships that endure the Antarctic winter, and this has made them the poster children of monogamy. The penguins themselves have different ideas, and regularly get "divorced". Similarly, 81% of king penguins choose a different mate every season.
Infidelity is also commonplace. Nearly a third of female Humboldt penguins cheat on their partners.
This cheating is sometimes driven by factors that, to us, seem shockingly mercenary.
Adélie penguins build nests out of stones, and a shortage of stones has pushed many females into "prostitution": they mate with other males in exchange for stones. Some duplicitous females have started going through the elaborate courtship ritual to get the stones, and then running off before the male can mate. Both sexes also steal stones from their rivals' nests.

They certainly sound exactly like the liberal elite socialists that have given ‘socialism’ it’s negative connotations over the years. :blushing::blushing:

[Dennis Leahy]

haha, Dennis, you're trying your hardest to superglue the word socialism to cooperative common sense. Now you are getting political. Dang, if only you could make the word legit, then you could develop a crowd pulling strategy that could put political socialism back in the electable corner.

Nice try, I guess, but what you are trying to define has nothing to do with socialism. Perhaps it would be better to deconstruct the simple version first. Just have a go at finding out where the word 'social' came from. Forget the ism part for now.

Someone tell me, seriously, where does the word "social" actually come from. Does it have a politically neutral root somewhere?

meh

This feels like playing semantic games. Do you really not know what I'm talking about? (The biological drive of individuals toward group survival? The other direction of energy flow from the individual, compared to the biological drive of individuals toward individual survival.)

I'm using the word "socialism" because the underlying principal biological drive toward group survival is the underlying principle of political socialism. You can argue against any semblance of political Socialism (where that's the topic) but let's not go off into fantasy land where animals only have a drive towards their own individual self. Use the word cooperation, or use a made-up word like "group-ism" or "we-ism" if you have to.

I really don't want to play word games.

[PurpleLama]

I don't think Norman is playing word games. Can you find a term more loaded with misunderstanding than "socialism"? Might be easier to coin a new term, rather than wait for all the people to die off who would rather fight you for what they think it means.

Most people in Western society are either extremely wary of the term, or else conditioned with all the wrong ideas of big brother making it for you. There are lots of ideas in this thread which are synergistic, once one scratches beneath the surface.

To go back to the op, I think socialism is considering that given the amount that is taken from me through taxes, I ought to get some benefit beyond the most basic infrastructure. Safeguards against corruption, an incentive towards efficiency, making it give us our money's worth, ought to all be the hallmarks of good government, right along with leaving me alone for the most part. Just paying taxes ought to be enough for there to be enough for everyone, instead we have waste and favors. The reset button was a good meme, while it lasted.

[TargeT]

I don't think Norman is playing word games. Can you find a term more loaded with misunderstanding than "socialism"? Might be easier to coin a new term, rather than wait for all the people to die off who would rather fight you for what they think it means.

^^I agree.

I don't get trying to shoe horn "socialism" into what your (D) talking about, just shock factor?

I'm sure your not trying to normalize the term and get people to think of it in a positive way (common MSM tactic), are you?

Whats wrong with Unbuntu (https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/29/features11.g2) (the translation is something like: a person is a person through their people)? I think that fits what your trying to describe a lot better & doesn't have all the baggage with it.

Socialism is political, it doesn't exist in nature unless you re-define it; and that is the worst possible thing to do (forced linguistic drift) as it causes confusion & can be (often is) misleading.

[PurpleLama]

You would get more street cred with a link to Michael tellinger talking about ubuntu, rather than slick Willie. LOL

[Dennis Leahy]

I don't think Norman is playing word games. Can you find a term more loaded with misunderstanding than "socialism"? Might be easier to coin a new term, rather than wait for all the people to die off who would rather fight you for what they think it means.

Yes, when I write out my political thoughts, I usually avoid the poisoned word "socialism", and use "citizen-centric" to try to describe policy beneficial to the group. I think this thread underscored that it is a poisoned word with a history flooded with an immense amount of Ruling Elite think-tank nebulous, fear-generating, propaganda. A lot of time and money has been devoted to making sure that the Ruling Elite maintain their status quo of a very few controlling the many and owning literally half the wealth of the world. The word "socialism" is not able to be resurrected.

The thread (because almost every single person answered politically) hints that most/many people think capitalism is the opposite of socialism, and more, that they believe there cannot be a political system that incorporates both (even though I listed half a dozen countries off the top of my head - including the US - that have some socialism and some capitalism.) For a few people, there may be an even larger impasse to conversation, if they are attempting to negate the very existence of group cooperative strategies in nature. Others think it means centralization of power, even though political socialism is decentralization of power and much more horizontal governance. It has been interesting, and revealing.

[norman]

. . . . political socialism is decentralization of power and much more horizontal governance. It has been interesting, and revealing.



You'll have the expand on that because I don't see that in the world around me, other than in the David Icke sense, where we police ourselves so the elite don't have to lift a finger, we do it for them. Yea, that's a horizontal dynamic for sure, but I certainly wouldn't put it in the plus column.

[TomKat]

Is what is beneficial to the individual really the opposite of what is beneficial to the group?

No. It's not the opposite, it is the opposite direction of energy flow. […]

How are we going to be able to discuss "political socialism" intelligently if we solely focuses on the one direction of energy flow we like the best, and worse, if we pretend the other direction of energy flow doesn't exist as a natural and normal part of the species survival?

Is what is beneficial to the individual necessarily the opposite direction of energy flow of what is beneficial to the group?

The energy flow directed towards myself is well able to simulataneously benefit the group. It can be a win-win-situation and go in both directions.

Directing energy to any aspect of creation can be to direct energy to the whole, depending on the quality of the energy.

History says otherwise. The group outnumbers the individual. So the usual way to get everyone flowing in the same direction is to eliminate the non-conformers.

[what is a name?]

Wiki:

"Originally the term "socialist" was often used interchangeably with "co-operative", "mutualist", "associationist" and "collectivist" in reference to the organization of economic enterprise socialists advocated, in contrast to the private enterprise and corporate organizational structures inherent to capitalism."

[Merkaba360]

The thing is that independence and dependence are both extremes and illusions. Interdependence is the truth and balancing the paradox. Capitalism/free enterprise represent more of human creations on the independent side. It makes sense that western societies are more independent than asian and would lean toward that side to some degree. So, we will be a bit biased toward it , regardless of the outcomes in history showing more problems on the communist side of the fence. I suppose the control freak elites who wish to control a country prefer the ideologies that are more group oriented ( communist or whatever) since its more ideal for controlling a group. Thus, we are more fearful of allowing things to slide into socialism, collectivism, group ideologies. That is understandable, especially given the history.

Socialism and communism can be basically redefined and written because the present and rapidly changing future are so different than when Marx, et al. were alive. I don't think anybody wants some government owning all property and all that jazz. Can't technology empower us to create social like programs without big brother controlling it (just regulations that allow it to exist and keep it in check). Instead of gov't groups voting and deciding, can't some social system helping the needy be governed by "we the people" who all have a vote by logging in and monitoring how the system operates. Or some unbiased machine deciding whats best thru its own evolution of doing what works best. I guess we have to wait and see how all this AI stuff pans out.

[Merkaba360]

Calling taxes "stealing" is quite simple minded (btw tax on everything annoys me too). The design of the system is largely arbitrary and very corrupt. When I used to listen to this old guy tell me the billionaires earned their money fair and square I wanted to laugh my head off. Cuz its not stealing when u use a corrupt system and do everything you can to be greedy and stomp out others with shady or other immoral actions that are legal. lol So, everything you earn is yours and millions of consumers who made them rich and are cogs in the wheel are irrelevant? Sorry, but balance means that there is pay back to the public. BTW, The wealthy help to create jobs, but consumers create jobs thru demand. Just wanted to mention cuz i get bored of that silly biased argument as well.

The only solution is technological progress that creates abundance enough that basic needs is so easy to supply everyone.

We are evolving into higher orders of integration and interconnectivity. Looking back to history for wisdom will become more irrelevant and misleading. People gave some examples of observing nature. I can argue that our world is not the natural world at all in the grand scheme of things. I hope this isnt misunderstood as its hard for me to explain. In other words, we can't look at the animals and say survival of the fittest is how nature is. A very wise rosicrucian teacher said that the ancient mystery schools taught that later in the cycle all animals that feed off other animals will die off. If this is true, that means that "nature" of survival of the fittest and competition and food chain stuff was all temporary and not the nature of the universe, but more like the nature of experience of life in a Kali yuga or hellish type era. Our views are so narrow, we must be careful of what we assume by looking at our small experience around us, especially since we can see that the exponential change is so incredible that in 50 years we won't be in Kansas anymore. lol

I think we need to create a new word to talk about shifting the system into something with more interconnected cooperation without having to use vague and problematic words like socialism. Such a nice sounding word that isn't specific if u look at the literal meaning (social), but it got so messed up.

I hope that makes sense, quickly written.

[Fellow Aspirant]

haha, Dennis, you're trying your hardest to superglue the word socialism to cooperative common sense. Now you are getting political. Dang, if only you could make the word legit, then you could develop a crowd pulling strategy that could put political socialism back in the electable corner.

Nice try, I guess, but what you are trying to define has nothing to do with socialism. Perhaps it would be better to deconstruct the simple version first. Just have a go at finding out where the word 'social' came from. Forget the ism part for now.

Someone tell me, seriously, where does the word "social" actually come from. Does it have a politically neutral root somewhere?

meh

This feels like playing semantic games. Do you really not know what I'm talking about? (The biological drive of individuals toward group survival? The other direction of energy flow from the individual, compared to the biological drive of individuals toward individual survival.)

I'm using the word "socialism" because the underlying principal biological drive toward group survival is the underlying principle of political socialism. You can argue against any semblance of political Socialism (where that's the topic) but let's not go off into fantasy land where animals only have a drive towards their own individual self. Use the word cooperation, or use a made-up word like "group-ism" or "we-ism" if you have to.

I really don't want to play word games.

Good call, Dennis.

Word games that claim to want to get to a "truth" by dissecting words to their molecular essence are not useful methods to employ in the pursuit of any truth. The Rabbit Hole is deep and is ultimately a fruitless landscape, producing only a myriad of particles that can be argued about ad infinitum - leading to obfuscation rather than comprehension.

Better to stick to the common sense of regular discourse.

B.

[bogdan9310]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P97r9Ci5Kg

[Didgevillage]

Socialism is euphemism for communism.

The western countries (so-called capitalist countries) are ruled by the fake financial system with debt-based, interest-bearing fractional reserve banking where "economic growth" is nothing but more waste, more pollution, and more destruction of the environment.

People get paid for non-productive bull**** work (I think it's the title of a book) while the rich get richer for doing nothing and the poor get poorer for working.

Is communism (aka socialism) the solution? Hardly. It's the same old banking parasites who rule these communist countries. There may be no starvation from lack of work (with the exception of Khmer Rouge Cambodia and North Korea) but the state does not give you life.

[Praxis]

First, Semantics literally is meaning. So if you are using language, you are literally dealing with semantics.

If you come to a point where you need to say "Lets not quibble about semantics" Then you are not using the correct words.

Now wiki is ****: use this for word history https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=social

late 15c., "devoted to or relating to home life;" 1560s as "living with others," from Middle French social (14c.) and directly from Latin socialis "of companionship, of allies; united, living with others; of marriage, conjugal," from socius "companion, ally," probably originally "follower," from PIE *sokw-yo-, suffixed form of root *sekw- (1) "to follow." Compare Old English secg, Old Norse seggr "companion," which seem to have been formed on the same notion). Related: Socially.

Sense of "characterized by friendliness or geniality" is from 1660s. Meaning "living or liking to live with others; companionable, disposed to friendly intercourse" is from 1720s. Meaning "of or pertaining to society as a natural condition of human life" first attested 1695, in Locke. Sense of "pertaining to fashionable society" is from 1873.

Social climber is from 1893; social work is 1890; social worker 1886. Social drinking first attested 1807. Social studies as an inclusive term for history, geography, economics, etc., is attested from 1916. Social security "system of state support for needy citizens" is attested from 1907 (the Social Security Act was passed by U.S. Congress in 1935). Social butterfly is from 1867, in figurative reference to "flitting."

Social contract (1763) is from translations of Rousseau. Social Darwinism attested from 1887. Social engineering attested from 1899. Social science is from 1785. In late 19c. newspapers, social evil is "prostitution." Social justice is attested by 1718; social network by 1971; social networking by 1984; social media by 2008.



Dennis, you should take the advice of Fellow aspirant and not engage with people who are merely parrots using language. Dont say "lets not quibble over semantics" because that is PRECISELY what this thread is doing about the word socialism. THis entire thread is about quibbling over semantics.

Your trouble is you are quibbling over semantics with people who use language not with people who understand language.

THink of it this way: You are talking about car stuff with people who have only ever driven a car, not changed oil or flat tire even. In fact, it is worse than that; You are talking car stuff with people who have never even driven a car but merely have seen one in a magazine one time.

[johnf]

I have been tempted to post in this thread several times since it appeared but have stopped because of the

request not to use the dictionary definition. Praxis has just linked to a definition of the root word, and I find that to be the only way to get a rational workable discussion going.

So I feel that socialism when honest consists of various attempts to create a system based on humans living together and balancing out the
tendency of small groups of people to take over and tyrannize others based on ownership of goods and services. I think that capitalism is another way this has been done , but neither of these things has always been done honestly. Corporations and banks tend to get overly large and exert undue influence over the lives of the workers, and the definitions of those words have changed over the centuries. Fascism is a word used to describe the enforcement of law really, however if we look at the actual implementations of socialism , communism, as well as the long standing existence of brutal slavery within the so called democratic republic of the US, that people have objected to we begin to see varying degrees of fascism, and how they can turn any of these words into
destructive tools of tryanny. The banking system and the immense leeway that it has given to various groups throughout history absolutely loves to see people arguing about this subject. Visualize if you will a workshop with various tools laid out on a table and think about how a skilled craftsman picks up a certain tool, uses it for a certain period of time and lays it down again when the task it is best suited for is completed. That is what humanity has done over and over again with it's various social and economic tools, to various extents when they made the effort to co-operate in joint survival activities. This seems to only last for short periods of time till someone comes in and takes over ownership of things, often this includes other humans, and it works best if the general populace is divided up into opposing groups, and are given labels with which to see each other as enemies. So socialism can become all sorts of things so can capitalism, appreciation of ones cultural heritage etc. Why is it that whenever certain subjects come up people start reacting as if we are about to be invaded and taken over by the opposing side? I think it is because people think that thoughts and words are immutable objects that can be extended into weapons instead of used to point to an action that needs to be carried out, then left alone so the appropriate work can be done.


John

[onawah]

Jon Rappaport is quite clear on this aspect of the subject
The stone cold conservative socialist
5/9/19
by Jon Rappoport
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/the-stone-cold-conservative-socialist/

"“Is he a meth goony bird? He seems to be flopping around the stage like a creature who’s lost his wings. He’s talking about VALUES, but it’s clear he’s lost those, too. Something happened to his brain somewhere along the line. Something bad. Maybe it all came from too much preaching. Talking super-simple to simpletons could cause contraction and shrinkage in both lobes. He’s running for the US senate…He’s a chunk of cardboard standing on the shoulders of cardboard, going back centuries.” (fragment from “New Conservatives and Old Conservatives,” by Jon Rappoport)

In this piece, I’m not writing about what the conservative position should be; I’m writing about what it is most of the time. And when it comes to Welfare, the attitude is: pay the individual less, the family less, and the corporation more. Find every possible way to chisel money out of the government on behalf of corporations. And don’t worry—you’ll find many allies in elected government positions. They’re basically there to please and assist the “conservative.” Insurance companies, oil companies, construction companies, biotech, drug companies, defense contractors—they’re the real constituency. They always need more money. They always need government help. They always need Welfare to keep going. They talk about freedom and strength, but what makes them super-strong is government tax money and invented money. Whoever came up with the term “corporate welfare” wasn’t kidding around. Scratch a conservative candidate for Congress and this is what you usually find below the surface: a Welfarist. Try to find justification for corporate welfare in the Constitution. Good luck. A typical conservative may shower praise on the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders, but he somehow misses the point when it comes to shoveling huge amounts of government budget money on to corporate tables. To put it another way, he wants to be known as a pure priest of Original Intent, but he’s actually a whore. And, to put a cherry on the cake, all his life he’s assumed bull**** is the only reliable product in the marketplace. Maybe that’s why he wears such a big grin in public. Maybe that’s why his clothes and his hair and his tone of voice keep screaming FAKE.

A long time ago, I interviewed a “conservative politician” off the record. When the subject turned to re-election, he said, “Of course I know who the major companies are in my district. You can’t get elected unless you’re on their side. They want government money for new pet projects. They expect you to get it for them. Actually, this creates jobs. I’m a bleeding heart for companies and their workers. I want to get them more money, no matter what tricks I have to pull off…”

Imagine, I don’t know, 20 thousand politicians, at various levels of government, operating in this way across the whole country. Do you think this comes pretty close to government owning the means of production—in other words, socialism?

“Hi, I’m a stone cold conservative socialist. Let me explain. I think you’ll be on my side when you understand the realities of the situation…”

What I’m describing in this article is a major reason big government is such a convoluted mess. It’s a Rube Goldberg machine, contradicting itself and turning forward and backwards at the same time. Almost all elected officials are socialists of one brand or another, no matter what they profess. Speaking of messes, many people remember Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s famous statement about the “unaccounted for” trillions of dollars in Pentagon bookkeeping accounts. Without going into the deeper darker implications of that remark, it illustrates an (intentionally) hopeless tangle of hundreds of separate accounting government money records. This is what you’d expect from a behemoth dedicated to unconstitutional spending from one end of the sky to the other…

What about governments’ contracts with biotech giants like Monsanto/Bayer? How much government money has flowed into the coffers of those toxic outfits? That’s tax money plus money invented out of thin air. You might think a conservative politician would staunchly oppose this practice, but in most cases you would be wrong. No, gigantic government $$ landing in corporations’ laps is characterized as being “in line with the basic principles of Constitutional government.” After all, “the business of America is business.”

One of the central tenets of conservatism is preservation of property rights. How does EXPANDING THE PROPERTY of major corporations, through filling their coffers with government money and more money, have anything to do with property rights? How is the right to Pork a conservative notion, in any traditional sense?

When a so-called conservative pol gets up on his hand legs and speaks in favor of one of the Globalist trade treaties, like GATT or NAFTA, he is essentially handing major corporations billions of dollars in tariffs THAT DON’T HAVE TO BE PAID. What article or amendment of the Constitution is that in line with? Granted, the whole subject of international trade is complex and fraught with interventionist tactics from the get-go—but tariffs on imported goods go a long way toward protecting free and open competition among domestic companies. Globalism picks and chooses favored corporations, to the gross detriment of smaller businesses.

In case some readers think this article isn’t delving deeply enough into conspiracies (in that case, see my articles on Antony Sutton and Gary Allen), consider the vast culture that has been created around fake conservatives, who rake in votes through appearing to be “traditionalists.” Accepting the honesty of such politicians, with all their phony tells, is on the level of believing in a Sunday TV preacher who is spouting clichés at six mile a minute, while “raising cash for God.” How is a nation being engineered to include millions of these believers? What chemicals, education system, “family values” are being launched at their minds, on a continuing basis? Why aren’t “conservative” pols laughed out of court? (Of course, the political Left is no better; I consider it worse, and I’ve written many words on the subject.) For every monumental con game to succeed, you need true believers; and the growth and nurturing of such suckers in turn requires a culture of programming that can successfully reduce all issues to super-literal and super-simple thoughts.

Now that’s a covert op worthy of the name.

Addendum: An example of who and what I’m talking about, on the Left, would be Joe Biden. Earlier in his political career, as a US senator, he was an extremely sharp talker on matters of foreign policy. Perhaps because of a life-threatening brain aneurysm, and two surgeries, he changed. By the time he became vice-president under Obama, the press considered him a kind of loose-talking clown, a joke. He seemed “off.” But then, the media reshaped him as a “competent politician.” The creepy-Joe scandal aside, Biden has actually turned into a cliché machine. Who can believe that what’s coming out of his mouth should be taken seriously? Apparently, many brainwashed people…"

[Bluegreen]

Opinion: Socialism in Action

The city of Milwaukee had Socialist mayors (1910 – 1940) and (1948 - 1960)


http://www.mrfarm.com/files/2018/03/milorg.jpg


"Milorganite's roots began in 1911, when local Socialist politicians were elected on a platform calling for construction of a wastewater treatment plant to protect against water borne pathogens.

As raising taxes for public health was relatively controversial in the early 1900s, producing an organic fertilizer as a means of partially offsetting its operating cost was proposed. City officials and researchers in the College of Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin developed a process to use waste solids in the form of activated sludge as a source of fertilizer.

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's Jones Island Plant had the largest water treatment capacity of any in the world when constructed in 1925, and was the first in the United States to succeed in using the activated sludge treatment process to produce fertilizer. The Plant has been designated as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milorganite


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/pga/sites/default/files/articles/woods-tiger-050815-USA-640x360.jpg

[Dennis Leahy]

Resurrection of this topic, for a reason:

A quick search on Avalon for the term "socialism" in posts brings up a large list of posts, 99.9% of which are misusing the word socialism to depict something tyrranical, heirarchical with overlords, and that enslaves the people. Or, that socialism destroys individualism and produces homogenized worker bees.

OK then. The word "socialism" has been destroyed. It has become a much worse than worthless word, it has been twisted into a weaponized word, typically used to describe the opposite of socialism. It's kind of like 'Godwin's Law', arguments devolving into comparisons to Hitler, where now, someone (who is a victim of lexicon manipulation propaganda) who wants to cast a major pejorative calls someone a 'socialist.' As if any of the demo-corporate or republi-corporate gang members or oligarchs or royals or corporate globalists were actually working towards the people! :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :facepalm:

Has the concept of people working together for the people also been inverted in your mind?

So, let's forget the word socialism. Let's talk about the concept of people working together for the good of the people, contrasted with people working towards corporatism or plutocracy (maintenance of the status quo.)

"people working together for the good of the people": what do we call that now?

people-ism?

citizen-centric-ism?

people ideologically opposed to plutocracy working together for the people?

The rulers/owners of the world only have only one thing to fear: the people uniting and working together towards the people and against the hierarchical, pyramidal structure of ownership and control of planet Earth by the plutocratic overlords.

So, how about you, dear reader? Who do you fight for? The people (including, but not limited to, yourself), or the status quo overlords, the present owners and rulers of the world? Whose side are you on? (...and, if you side with and fight for the people, and someone calls you a "socialist!", please don't have a melt-down. It's just lexicon manipulation.)

[Bill Ryan]

Dennis, many thanks indeed for bumping this very interesting thread: :highfive:

I think the problem here is that language can be extremely powerful, and some words have been so totally misused or abused that their original meaning has been buried under a huge mudslide of political rhetoric.

I might possibly be some kind of socialist, in the purest possible original terms, but I'd run a mile (or more!) rather than be tarred with that brush in these times.

Socialists are the new Fascists. That's the problem.

I prefer to call myself a Libertarian. (And, had I been a US voter last year, I'd have voted for Trump. There's absolutely no anomaly there.)

[rgray222]

Resurrection of this topic

Dennis
Glad you resurrected this topic, it is certainly worthy of discussion. I think I get where you heading which (I hope) is don't focus on the word socialism, focus on how we want to move the world forward. A weighty topic for sure but it is also full of peril. No matter how we slice it someone has to be in charge and therein lies the problem. On paper Marxism and Socialism look great. Essentially redistributing wealth (Another hair-trigger lexicon - redistributing wealth) so that no one is left behind and suffering. On the surface that looks very appealing especially in wealthy countries but in reality, it has never worked.

You might argue that some of the Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all have some degree of socialism and it seems to be working fairly well. These are wealthy industrious countries that have been very homogenous for a long time, the ability to redistribute wealth is under attack largely but not exclusively due to immigration. The system becomes unsustainable once you have more taking out than putting in. This is a hot topic and has been for while in Scandinavia. Also just as a side note (I am not saying this is a bad thing) Scandinavian countries cut the wealth off from the top of the pyramid and give it to those that are at the bottom. This has a tendency to remove overachievement or excellence. You rarely find Steve Jobs, Gates or Elon Musk. Scandinavians are smart and they are certainly hard-working but the incentive for achieving (to some degree) has been removed.

It seems that all the possible 'isms' are corrupt or can easily and almost always become corrupt in short order. I believe that this stems back to mankind's early days on earth. The "guy" who was the strongest always became the leader of the tribe. It certainly did not mean he was the smartest or had the best ideas he was simply stronger than anyone else. We are still running the world the same way, the man or woman that is the strongest at raising money, understanding the political nuances and the strongest orator is much more likely to win rather than the person who knows nothing about politics, afraid to speak in public and raising money even though they may have the best ideas.

Also, I don't think our genetic makeup has much in the way of altruism, it is a learned trait. Putting altruistic practices into society only comes through wisdom and time on earth. So this leads me to how we can accomplish your people-ism or citizen-centric-ism. I think we should get away from one President, Priminister or Dictator and move to a group of elders that is comprised of men and women 65 years or older that rotate them in and out of government leadership every 3-5 years. We would benefit from their wisdom and they would be in the twilight of their lives and hopefully will be not chasing power and money.

Whether we like it or not the planet is on an unstoppable march to a one-world government. The problems, either real or perceived are now global in nature (climate, immigration, pandemics, overpopulation, nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence etc) and in most peoples minds they will eventually want a global authority to handle these global problems. So we better start getting our governance right before we get to a one-world government. We better make some changes before we reach the point of one world order because putting that much power and money in the hands of one person should scare everyone on earth.

[Dennis Leahy]

Dennis, many thanks indeed for bumping this very interesting thread: :highfive:

I think the problem here is that language can be extremely powerful, and some words have been so totally misused or abused that their original meaning has been buried under a huge mudslide of political rhetoric.

I might possibly be some kind of socialist, in the purest possible original terms, but I'd run a mile (or more!) rather than be tarred with that brush in these times.

Socialists are the new Fascists. That's the problem.
...

"...some kind of socialist, in the purest possible original terms..."
Exactly, Bill. And I know you and I are far from alone. There may be a few shills for the plutocrats here, and a few honestly completely selfish people here at Avalon that only care about themselves and not others (they are here, in a social setting, for self-aggrandizement, I'd guess), but I figure the VAST majority here are my compatriots, my fellow warriors, against the 'bad guys' of planet Earth.

We've got a problem recognizing it due to lexicon hijacking and manipulation, and the degrees of success of the propaganda of the bad guys, droning on ad infinitum. We also add to the fuzziness of visualizing who we're fighting against, who the enemy of most of mankind is, by speculating about and deflecting the onus onto the hidden layers of bad guys rather than the ones we can see and deal with.

We're also all guilty of complicity with the bad guys, of acquiescing to the status quo of existing elite-centric hierarchical systems and participating in them, but that speaks to the depth and degree of their control over existing systems more than our willingness to consciously and overtly support sociopathic plutocrats.

But the bottom line is that we're all united in spirit against the same malevolent overlords, the same bad guys (and their minions and systems.) Even the normies know it, on some level. This isn't one of those non-binary things: the plutocratic system exists and is the status quo, and our actions and intent either support that status quo or they don't. We individuals either fight against it or we don't. We individuals, united, have at least a theoretical chance of "rising like lions" and changing our shared paradigm, but alone we don't stand a chance.

The people fighting for the people, against the sociopathic, malevolent, overlords. What do we call ourselves? I'm in that group. "We the people, for the people, united." The labels we call ourselves are immaterial, but we do need to be clear that we are united in opposition to the sociopathic, malevolent, overlords and their control systems. We have to recognize that shared, foundational, commonality. We need to celebrate it, nurture it, repeat and repeat our true narrative even as it is assailed by the minions of the overlords with their repeated and re-repeated false narrative. We also have to be smart enough to demote the priority of anything that emotionally divides "we the people, for the people, united" into sub-groups, fracturing us and diminishing our group power.

[Merkaba360]

Western society is moving into the "green" stage of psychological development (spiral dynamics) which is about egalitarianism, equality, etc. BTW, thats why they are focusing on corrupting the green movement = egalitarianism, and the SJW lunacy/corruption is directed for our need to move into more equality.

To make a green sustainable society, that does take a lot of cooperation and social effort. The next stage after that is the "yellow" stage of integration. The more complex society gets the more it needs integration. Social programs are a part of society integrating and cooperating. To me that is what socialism should mean.

Socialism
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.

^^To me, the problem is pretending the gov't is the people, when its more of the Ruling class using propaganda to create the illusion that it is us. So, gov't owning the means of production, distribution, etc. is not the community. lol That is the big scam giving it a bad name.

It needs to be run by the community in a decentralized way, that no concentration of people control. Hopefully the Block chain can help with that.
We didn't have the technology for the community to control these things, and go beyond the hierarchy of the top of the pyramid dominating. Hopefully, we soon will have the tech to change. Connect all the people to organize and create networks the gov't can't control without shutting down the machine.

I'm starting to think that it would be good to evolve, so that capitalism remains at the top levels with smaller levels and businesses operated more socially (worker owned). But i am no political scientist. :)

[Dennis Leahy]

...what I'm trying to get to here is to recognize that, although the term "socialism" has been Orwellian-doublespeak flipped (it means "the people fighting for the people"), hopefully your underlying allegiance to the people has not also been flipped. Even if your mind has accepted a new definition for "socialism", and that it now means something awful, hopefully the monsters of mind control haven't also flipped your allegiance from fighting for the people.

There's a reason that the word "socialism" has been targeted and has been flipped. It's social engineering (and it has been ongoing for a long time before the Internet.) They confused many people with this one. Hopefully, you, dear reader, are aligned with and fight for the people and not the status quo rulers of the world.

Who are you fighting for? Who are you fighting against?

[Ernie Nemeth]

In the last year I have been accosted twice. Once by a Middle Eastern new arrival. And today it was a young woke black dude. So I guess it depends on how you define 'the people'. Neither of these were that. They were both radicals with very messed up ideology. Neither realize they are merely pawns in a global chess game.

[Dennis Leahy]

In the last year I have been accosted twice. Once by a Middle Eastern new arrival. And today it was a young woke black dude. So I guess it depends on how you define 'the people'. Neither of these were that. They were both radicals with very messed up ideology. Neither realize they are merely pawns in a global chess game.
Yeah, "the people" includes turds and gems and everything in between (most of whom are intellectually asleep), but... this doesn't mean that you do not recognize who the real enemy of mankind is, right?

[Ernie Nemeth]

I feel you're leading me, Denis. But I'm game.

Ultimately, the real enemy is evil, as in good vs. evil. Pragmatically and honestly I am my own worst enemy. In between these two there is a plethora of targets that one could call enemy, although each is merely a product of this society and in that regard blameless.

[Dennis Leahy]

I feel you're leading me, Denis. But I'm game.

Ultimately, the real enemy is evil, as in good vs. evil. Pragmatically and honestly I am my own worst enemy. In between these two there is a plethora of targets that one could call enemy, although each is merely a product of this society and in that regard blameless. Well, I may be 'leading', but then, you seem to be ducking and obfuscating the issue. This is about the people standing up for ourselves, fighting for ourselves, and exploring the word "socialism" that used to mean "the people fighting for the people." If you watch the first 2 parts of the documentary called "The Power Principle (http://metanoia-films.org/the-power-principle/)", you'll see that "the people fighting for the people (and against the corporate, neo-colonial, cabal that is the American Empire) knew themselves as "socialists" and were indeed the people fighting for the people.

This really isn't confusing, it's the very straightforward, deliberate, rebranding of the word "socialism" to mean something other than what it has actually meant for 100 years. But, if we are going to discard the word "socialism" because the meaning has been flipped, we should still be smart enough not to discard the underlying meaning of social-ism: to recognize our alignment with "the people."

[Gracy]

Here are the the views of a self proclaimed socialist, a very popular one at that with 1.1 million subscribers: (17 minutes)
gaIZ9KGlgts

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Here are the the views of a self proclaimed socialist, a very popular one at that with 1.1 million subscribers: (17 minutes)
gaIZ9KGlgts

Literally capitalism at the end there when he talks about sponsors/Patreon, and how every click/dollar counts. So I'm not sure he knows what he's talking about.

And that video doesn't really differ from say, a Ben Shapiro video, in that it's just partisan rhetoric in action - the bias is laid out in the first seconds and proceeds from there without deviation.

I had to do a double take when, espousing the virtues of socialism, he said "we must be willing to try new ideas". What new Ideas? Socialism is anything but new. There are no new ideas in politics, only old regurgitated ideas. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I've said it many times, but this in my view is why socialism is a bad idea..

People by and large are basically, in their core essence, envious, covetous, self-centred, and weak. They are weak because they have spent their entire existence aloof to, and in many respects ignorant of, their intrinsic Sovereign Power. Layer by layer it has been stripped away by the state, the church, and widespread media indoctrination.

What the utopian socialist vision professes to aspire to is not possible with a thus disabled and enfeebled population. Just too many are unable to live moderately and self-sufficiently. When the state must step in to regulate how life is to be lived, they'll control the food, the housing, the healthcare, and the supply of income. That equals an erosion of personal freedom in my book. As a result, people become less responsible and even more dependent. It's a vicious circle. The people end up miserable and resentful, and that always ends badly.

When any political systems fail, it is often not the fault of the system (as it appears on paper, socialism included), but the same variable of dysfunction: the shortcomings of those at the head of the table. The top end of the power curve always, always tends to distortion, exploitation, and elitism. Socialism isn't at fault, really, any more than capitalism is at fault. It's the seed of corruption and greed that blooms at the top of all hierarchical power structures. It's human bloody nature! If Jesus was put in charge of a socialist society I suspect it would, in theory, flourish. But in reality it wouldn't flourish, because Jesus wouldn't be in charge. By his very nature he shuns ego and the trappings of power. Inversely proportionate to Jesus are those who live solely for power, to control and dominate others. And these are the ones who end up seizing the reins of power in this world. ALWAYS. One never reaches a position of power without being corruptible.

Which is why those who hold power are the least fit to wield it. Why does anyone think it would be any different with socialism? Expect the very worst individuals to be at the top of that regime like any other.

I suspect, possibly, the only example of socialism at work in America right now is the Amish. They appear to live happily, safely, and productively, right? But how much of that is an illusion? In order for their system to work, you have to do this, you have to do that, and you cannot do this, and you cannot do that! In other words, the regime is all over your a$$ telling you how you must conform, and how you should and shouldn't live your life. No effin' thanks! I don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do. At least in a democracy your liberty remains intact, and you have the opportunity, with some dedication and hard work of course, to change your life, improve your circumstances, and advance to a better standard of living. You have freedom and you have choice, to go your own way and in your own time.

I think Dennis's idea of socialism would only work if every individual in the collective was a hard-working, conscientious, morally advanced, spiritually aware, self-sufficient, self-moderating contributor - where there'd be no need for any government body at all, no bureaucrats either, and no lawyers. No money would be necessary, because everyone would be bartering for what they need with goods and/or services in a fair and equitable manner. There would be no lack, and therefore no want, and therefore no crime, either.

Only with these conditions met would socialism work. And I would sign up to that! But short of a global shift in consciousness in order to meet those ideal conditions, socialism is no more than a pipe dream.

I like the idea of renaming/rebranding the word "socialism". So I invent the word "civilism". Humanity needs to re-learn so many things that it has lost. First and foremost, how to be civil. That would be a good start.

[Dennis Leahy]

The baby and the bathwater...

You've heard the old saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!" There is something to be rejected, and something that is precious.

The CONCEPT of social-ism (not Marx-ism) is that a society of humans maintains and uses a shared resource. Every tribal society for the past millions of years of humans recognized that there were resources that are shared resources. The spring, the stream, the river, the lake, the ocean, the forest, the fire pit, the food. If one powerful warrior rose up in a tribal society and declared that he took possession of the well, and that everyone else would have to trade him goods for water... how many nights would go by before the tribal society smashed his head with a rock while he was sleeping?

I realize that the word "socialism" is contaminated, twisted, and Orwellian doublespoken, and really now is simply a pejorative term that's often used ridiculously misapplied to some person or movement that someone can't think of an appropriate term to describe.

The US uses a blend of socialism (ssssh, don't tell anyone!) and capitalism, or a better way to say that is that US citizens share quite a bit of resources, infrastructure, and land, and also have the ability to purchase and solely own resources, infrastructure, and land. The "Elite" (Global Corporate Network) do not want shared resources, shared infrastructure, and shared land. They wish to possess these, and rent them back to us: "You will have nothing, and be happy."

Hopefully, you won't have to say: "When they came and took the commons from us, I did not speak up, because I was manipulated into decrying anything that could be considered as "socialist."

The political puppets of the "Elite" have been stealing co-owned resources, and selling them to the highest bidder. There are now US Interstate Toll Roads that have been sold to French and German corporations. A number of US major ports have been sold to the Chinese (governments? corporations?)

From Marketwatch:
...the value of foreign-owned American assets climbed to $32.5 trillion in the second quarter..." "...outright ownership of a company by a foreign entity, which amounts to 20%..." Governments convert co-owned resources into corporate entities, and then sell the 'asset' to the highest bidder. It's not just foreign corporations, either, those thefts of the US commons by foreign entities simply seems more outrageous to me, but the bottom line is that whenever previously co-owned resources are appropriated and sold, they are no longer part of the commons.

So, before you jump up and down decrying "socialism!", adjust your lexicon whatever way you need to to understand that having co-owned resources is a hell of a lot different than whatever the f-'d up new re-definition of "socialism" might have devolved into. A nation full of individuals who all live in self-sufficient ranches is a lovely fantasy, but societies are social gatherings of disparate people, gathered together to live, work, and play. 99.9% of the world's humans do not live on a self-sufficient ranch, nor is there any way to structure a nation or a world based on self-sufficient ranches. Humans are a social species, gathered together with other humans to survive and to thrive by sharing co-owned resources.

Nobody wants fake 'socialism', your nation living under tyrannical authoritarian rule, one where the elite in power possess and control all of the resources. Be smart enough to recognize the principles of societal co-ownership of resources, life-critical resources - and call it something else other than 'socialism.' When you are jeering your understanding of the word "socialism", be sure to differentiate the word from the underlying principle of co-ownership. Throw out the bath water. Save the baby.

[norman]

The baby and the bathwater...

You've heard the old saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!" There is something to be rejected, and something that is precious.

The CONCEPT of social-ism (not Marx-ism) is that a society of humans maintains and uses a shared resource. Every tribal society for the past millions of years of humans recognized that there were resources that are shared resources. The spring, the stream, the river, the lake, the ocean, the forest, the fire pit, the food. If one powerful warrior rose up in a tribal society and declared that he took possession of the well, and that everyone else would have to trade him goods for water... how many nights would go by before the tribal society smashed his head with a rock while he was sleeping?

I realize that the word "socialism" is contaminated, twisted, and Orwellian doublespoken, and really now is simply a pejorative term that's often used ridiculously misapplied to some person or movement that someone can't think of an appropriate term to describe.

The US uses a blend of socialism (ssssh, don't tell anyone!) and capitalism, or a better way to say that is that US citizens share quite a bit of resources, infrastructure, and land, and also have the ability to purchase and solely own resources, infrastructure, and land. The "Elite" (Global Corporate Network) do not want shared resources, shared infrastructure, and shared land. They wish to possess these, and rent them back to us: "You will have nothing, and be happy."

Hopefully, you won't have to say: "When they came and took the commons from us, I did not speak up, because I was manipulated into decrying anything that could be considered as "socialist."

The political puppets of the "Elite" have been stealing co-owned resources, and selling them to the highest bidder. There are now US Interstate Toll Roads that have been sold to French and German corporations. A number of US major ports have been sold to the Chinese (governments? corporations?)

From Marketwatch:
...the value of foreign-owned American assets climbed to $32.5 trillion in the second quarter..." "...outright ownership of a company by a foreign entity, which amounts to 20%..." Governments convert co-owned resources into corporate entities, and then sell the 'asset' to the highest bidder. It's not just foreign corporations, either, those thefts of the US commons by foreign entities simply seems more outrageous to me, but the bottom line is that whenever previously co-owned resources are appropriated and sold, they are no longer part of the commons.

So, before you jump up and down decrying "socialism!", adjust your lexicon whatever way you need to to understand that having co-owned resources is a hell of a lot different than whatever the f-'d up new re-definition of "socialism" might have devolved into. A nation full of individuals who all live in self-sufficient ranches is a lovely fantasy, but societies are social gatherings of disparate people, gathered together to live, work, and play. 99.9% of the world's humans do not live on a self-sufficient ranch, nor is there any way to structure a nation or a world based on self-sufficient ranches. Humans are a social species, gathered together with other humans to survive and to thrive by sharing co-owned resources.

Nobody wants fake 'socialism', your nation living under tyrannical authoritarian rule, one where the elite in power possess and control all of the resources. Be smart enough to recognize the principles of societal co-ownership of resources, life-critical resources - and call it something else other than 'socialism.' When you are jeering your understanding of the word "socialism", be sure to differentiate the word from the underlying principle of co-ownership. Throw out the bath water. Save the baby.

Socialism, is headbangery academia's best ( and worst ) shot at creating a facsimile of the real love unity of truly individuated spiritual beings.

Chalk and cheese. As opposed, oh so subtly, as "Belief", rooted in the cerebral, and "Faith", rooted in the soul. From a casual unconscious 'distance' they pass by in the peripheral vision as being the same thing, when they are really the polar opposite grasps on life.

[Yetti]

K DENIS , here we go, socialism is a regime where the government will take your property and give to "someone in need " who never work for in and will never do. Turn you into a terrorist if you dare to think different than the government narrative, make very difficult to survive to all the people capable to think for themselves and praise the illiterate dumb folks into grate warriors of the social revolution! Example VENEZUELA where a bus driver end up be the president and he cannot articulate 4 words together that make sense because does not know how to speak his own language correctly! you need any more explanation?

[Yetti]

Adding something else to the words of gov R. Desantis: Venezuela, population 30 million just 6 million left the country because the comunist regime, 20% OF THE TOTAL POPULATION, so this must say something about the total failure of the comunist system . And this is happening right now!