Quotewhat a bunch of socialist psycho babble.

Interesting. Where do you get socialism from in this article?

Quote from: peky on November 11, 2012, 10:12:56 AM
All the bitching about the people who sell products, TS Road map, etc

Gotcha, this is off topic but I'm going to say it anyway. Socialism has nothing against people selling things, in fact, that's what it's about (like most economic theories) The majority of developed nations utilize socialist ideas including America, you have a socialized police force, military and fire service for example.  You "Support the troops" don't you?

Quote from: Isabelle on November 11, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
Gotcha, this is off topic but I'm going to say it anyway. Socialism has nothing against people selling things, in fact, that's what it's about (like most economic theories) The majority of developed nations utilize socialist ideas including America, you have a socialized police force, military and fire service for example.  You "Support the troops" don't you?

It depends on what definition of socialism you mean. I remember reading something from a cuban official saying that they had made a mistake and assumed that having markets went against socialism, but since there were markets in feudal times markets were something that could exist in different economic systems (which is why they're letting people open restraunts, flower stands, etc recently). But they still consider themselves to have a separate economic system from the US, even with its socialized government services and collectively owned businesses, albeit collectively owned by certain groups of people and not society as a whole.   

Natalie Reed does not seem overly socialist to me though. She's no Hugo Chavez.

Quote from: Isabelle on November 11, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
Gotcha, this is off topic but I'm going to say it anyway. Socialism has nothing against people selling things, in fact, that's what it's about (like most economic theories) The majority of developed nations utilize socialist ideas including America, you have a socialized police force, military and fire service for example.  You "Support the troops" don't you?

The USA Constitution stipulates certain functions as inherent government function, such as the defense of the nation, regulation of commerce, etc. This does not take it from our democratic systems.


Your friend come across as anti-capitalist, and thus as a socialist (damn commie) in the vernacular.

Obviously,  if we were talking about economics and history, I would have used the word "socialist" sensum strictum

See, right there, right as I was typing:  socialist (damn commie) .

They are not the same.  Not even remotely.  Damn commies are Communists, but socialists are Socialists.  Hope that clears it up.  (But, if you're confused, start with who owns and controls the means of production - the industrial infrastructure)

Miss Tekla can pontificate all she wants about the fine points that differentiate a socialist form a communists.

To me, it is very simple, they are the enemies of democracy.

QuoteYour friend come across as anti-capitalist, and thus as a socialist (damn commie) in the vernacular.

The opposite of capitalism (if it can even be said to have one) would be labourism. Socialism is not communism.

Quote from: Isabelle on November 11, 2012, 07:00:37 PM
The opposite of capitalism (if it can even be said to have one) would be labourism. Socialism is not communism.

All communists would consider themselves socialists, though, and Karl Marx himself was an influential figure in the Second International that is still active today. 

Quote from: Isabelle on November 11, 2012, 07:00:37 PM
Socialism is not communism.

Here you go dear, below is my contribution to your education

Types of Socialism    

    Democratic Socialism advocates Socialism as an economic principle (the means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle (political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic). It attempts to bring about Socialism through peaceful democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection, and represents the reformist tradition of Socialism.
    It is similar, but not necessarily identical (although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably), to Social Democracy. This refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more equitable and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, implies an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of revolutionary transformation.

    Revolutionary Socialism advocates the need for fundamental social change through revolution or insurrection (rather than gradual refom) as a strategy to achieve a socialist society. The Third International, which was founded following the Russian Revolution of 1917, defined itself in terms of Revolutionary Socialism but also became widely identified with Communism. Trotskyism is the theory of Revolutionary Socialism as advocated by Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940), declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than Stalin's "socialism in one country") and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles. Luxemburgism is another Revolutionary Socialist tradition, based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg (1970 - 1919). It is similar to Trotskyism in its opposition to the Totalitarianism of Stalin, while simultaneously avoiding the reformist politics of modern Social Democracy.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_socialism.html

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[1] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with capitalist economies).

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

QuoteHere you go dear, below is my contribution to your education

Thanks for taking the time to show me those quotes however, nothing in those quotes contradicts anything I said so, I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote from: Isabelle on November 12, 2012, 12:40:23 PM
Thanks for taking the time to show me those quotes however, nothing in those quotes contradicts anything I said so, I'm not sure what your point is.

Contrary to your assertion, communism is a type of socialism dear, that is the point

All cars have wheels, not everything with wheels is a car.

Quotecommunism is a type of socialism dear, that is the point

Okidokie, by your own logic then, you are a fascist and an "enemy of democracy" because some types of fascism are capitalist.

Also just wondering, Peky, did you grow up during the 50s or 60s? Just wondering if you came from a culture of McCarthyism.

they are the enemies of democracy

OR

Democratic Socialism advocates Socialism as an economic principle (the means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle (political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic). It attempts to bring about Socialism through peaceful democratic means

Both of these can't be correct.  Are they 'enemies of democracy' or democratic people attempting to bring about change though democratic means?  Or is it that 'socialism' is just any stuff you don't like?

A reminder: keep personal attacks out of this discussion - they are not in the spirit of this forum.

Socialism is an ideology, plain and simple. So is capitalism. And no ideology is absolute in practice. No matter what, holding on too tightly to any one ideological set, so that one refuses to recognize the benefits of others, causes problems.

Some countries have clung too tightly to socialism (in various forms--USSR to Communism and Europe today to social democracy), and we have been made very well aware of how they have suffered.

But my country--the US--tends to cling too tightly to capitalism, and this has caused us problems as well: Excessive and irresponsible lending, monopolies, lobbyist government control, shoddy products that don't stand up in the world market because our own poorly educated consumers will go ahead buy them here while many better products from lesser known brands get overlooked. The list could go on... but the point is that both issues with socialism and issues with capitalism have caused economic turmoil.

Things that people point fingers at and say "Socialist" are sometimes things that have done this country a lot of good. Yes, police, firefighters, public schools, government grants for education, and the EPA--all stem from socialist ideals, and these things all do the country good: we need police and firefighters, we need an educated and well-informed population, and we need some regulation to make sure that companies remember that some things are more important than the financial bottom line--things such as clean air and water and public safety. "Socialist" shouldn't be synonymous with "enemy." Its just a label for an ideology--some of it works and some of it doesn't, and you can say the same for capitalism.

To me, pure capitalism is basically, at its root, unbridled greed--survival of the fittest. Pure socialism, on the other hand, is basically charity mixed with social and economic indistinction. Obviously the concepts are much more complicated than this, but the point is, too much of either is not good. I think socialism is the yin to capitalism's yang, or vice versa. I think people should realize that in government, we try to use ideas that work, no matter where they come from.  Labelling something as "socialist" shouldn't be sufficient enough to debunk it--we have a lot of social programs that work.

And actually, any dogmatic viewpoint is an enemy of democracy--that includes both capitalism and socialism. If an ideology is dogmatically is adopted by a party, and that party gains near complete power (like the Nazi party did), that could very easily lead to fascism or totalitarianism--which is what we are all truly afraid of in the end. Pure capitalism could so easily turn into a totalitarian aristocracy (just a few of the wealthiest fat cats running the show). And on the other side of the spectrum, if unregulated competition really did prevent monopolies, I think that eventually that "survival of the fittest" mentality would eventually turn to all out anarchy. Because there really is no heart or caring in capitalism--nothing to offset the greed--just as there really is no individuality in socialism--nothing to drive the society to progress.

QuoteA reminder: keep personal attacks out of this discussion - they are not in the spirit of this forum.

There have been no personal attacks, and I agree completely. This discussion is valuable but useless if it becomes hostile.

Quote from: Isabelle on November 13, 2012, 01:54:05 AM
There have been no personal attacks, and I agree completely. This discussion is valuable but useless if it becomes hostile.

I think the moderation uses a different definition of "personal attack" than I do. I don't want to turn this is into some kind of complain about the mods thing (don't worry mods) but it might be nice to see what they mean clarified since "personal attack" to me means making a direct statement about an individual person that is meant to be inflammatory, cruel, deflamatory, etc.

Regarding the whole socialism thing communists would consider themselves socialists, but they would not consider communism a "kind of socialism." They would consider socialism a peruisite to communism: first you're capitalist, then you're socialist, then you're communist. Communist leaders only talked about the "growth of communism" or something like that, they never claimed to have achieved it.

Also those definitions are pretty pro Trotsky, Trotsky wasn't some kind of democratic ideologue. He put down the rebellion at Kronsdat quite violently, criticized Stalin for using the secret ballot (Trotsky said it was Stalin's fault if people couldn't vote publicly; therefore by his logic people should be required to do that), and may have even attempted to collaborate with fascist powers to orchestrate a coup. At the very least internal Soviet documents that have been released make it clear that Soviet leadership believed that Trotsky was trying to do this, "proving" anything historical can become shaky.

There were obviously lots of problems with Stalin too, but there were are also a lot of problems with Churchill, leader of the British Empire that is not so well regarded in Africa today, for very good reason. I don't think any of the major leaders at the time had a clear and absolute commitment to "the people," although they generally seemed to have honestly believed that they did. I don't think it's useful to anyone to idolize certain leaders when what was culturally acceptable at that time in history isn't acceptable at all now that people are becoming more concerned with other people's lives.

Quote from: Isabelle on November 12, 2012, 09:10:14 PM
All cars have wheels, not everything with wheels is a car.

Okidokie, by your own logic then, you are a fascist and an "enemy of democracy" because some types of fascism are capitalist.

Also just wondering, Peky, did you grow up during the 50s or 60s? Just wondering if you came from a culture of McCarthyism.

WOW, you have to be related to Dionne Warwick, as you guess correctly.

Yeah, my name is Peky McCarthy,
also a second cousin of Paul McCarthy   

Quote from: Isabelle on November 12, 2012, 09:10:14 PM
Also just wondering, Peky, did you grow up during the 50s or 60s?

No dear I was born in the 80's

Cool beans was just wondering. I like humor as much as the next person but Id really like it if you could please respond to the points that have been brought up against your statements?