Dena.

Define socialism.

You'll probably be wrong, so most of us will ignore this thread. :)

Have at it and have fun!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Sarge you ask a tough question for an idelogue to answer correctly, if one were to use clasic enonomic definitions. I shall be interested in the responce.

---

Hell nobody can decide what evil is and you want to debate socialism?

---

[/quote]

Old James

Sarge you ask a tough question for an idelogue to answer correctly, if one were to use clasic enonomic definitions. I shall be interested in the responce.

I'm busy for a week so I will only be able to pop in once in a while.

There are two forms of socialism. The first is the ideal form of socialism where you have some private ownership but the government has a good deal of control over the economy and the people. The government should provide what you need and tends to prevent you from accumulating a good deal of wealth because it is needed to support others.

Socialism in practice ends up with two classes of people, the haves and the have not. We are seeing the United States government evolve in to this form of socialism and the proof is the Washing DC area. While the entire country as been feeling the effects of the depression/recession for over 6 years, Washington DC has had a booming economy. About a third of the people are receiving some form of welfare from the government. Common core is proving to be a way to control our thinking. The IRS is controlling elections by eliminating the opposition's voice. The EPA is controlling land use and the economy with carbon dioxide restriction. Wall street and the banks are not only restricted as to what they can do but they are required to contribute to liberal causes as the result of an over active department of Justice.

Russia applied Marx's teachings with a even more damaging result. Germany attempted it and we had WWII. Socialism almost destroyed England until they moved away from it.

This is why I think it is evil to force a person to pay for another's existence. If a person wants to contribute their wealth to charity, I am all for it. But to steal the wealth earned by a person to support a person who choses not to work is evil. I started live working physical labor in the Arizona sun and I worked low income jobs when I first started out. I learned to survive with very little and through hard work and doing without, I have reached the point in my life where I am not rich but I will not suffer in my retirement. Many of the people on welfare don't need it. Yes, some do but most are able to work but they have found it is easer to collect a government check than work for the same amount of money. This is what happens under socialism.

In case you didn't know it, Karl Marx wouldn't have been able to produce what he wrote if it weren't for the fact that his man friend supported him. Karl wasn't much of a worker and preferred to hang around the bars and talk politics than do a day's work. His writings were to produce the type of government he would like to live under where you don't have to work if you don't want to. In other words, theft through government.

---

Hell nobody can decide what evil is and you want to debate socialism?

The two have nothing in common really. Socialism is a well defined concept, much like democracy or capitalism. Its just that the average person on the internet, doubly so if that person happens to be from the US, has never been taught the proper definitions of the word. Kinda like how those same persons tend to be completely ignorant of the meaning of Nazism and Fascism.

According to the Ecownomics poster on my wall.

Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbour.

Personally i think we're more living under:
Bureaucratism: You have two cows. The state takes both, shoots one, milks the other, then throws the milk away.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Hell nobody can decide what evil is and you want to debate socialism?

The two have nothing in common really. Socialism is a well defined concept, much like democracy or capitalism. Its just that the average person on the internet, doubly so if that person happens to be from the US, has never been taught the proper definitions of the word. Kinda like how those same persons tend to be completely ignorant of the meaning of Nazism and Fascism.

It has nothing to do with learning the correct meaning of socialism. It has to do with not learning the history of the movement. When Karl Marx died, he was a real popular fellow. He had a total of about half a dozen mourners. However, these half a dozen mourners changed the world by going forth and spreading the word. In Russia they gave us communism. In Germany they gave us National socialism, In England they gave us Fabian socialism. There are a few more countries that I haven't traced the history out on yet but they were far more productive that old Karl ever was.

As for the United States, we did it to ourself. In the late 1800's, We decided we lacked a good university system and the lack of skilled people was holding us back as a country. The solution to the problem was simple. We would send our best and brightest to Germany for a world class education. This worked out well for the engineering students but it was a disaster for the political science students. They get mixed up in the German Marxist movements and brought it back to the United States. They understood that a revolution would never work like it had in other countries so they formed the Progressive movement with the idea of changing the system over time through the education system. Each new teacher would spread the word to a new generation of children. So far we have had four surges of the progressive movement in the United States and it's starting to look like the last one may achieve it's goal. Almost the entire Democrat party backs the the Progressive ideas and some of the Republicans do.

There isn't one form of socialism in the real world, the concept only exist in books. Each country that has adopted socialism has altered it to fit the needs and wants of the country.

As I have said before, it is evil to steal from another and that is the basic premise of socialism. Use the government and the power of the people to steal from those who have. An unequal tax is nothing more than the ability for the have nots to steal from the people who have. An equal tax is the only way to prevent this type of theft.

---

It has nothing to do with learning the correct meaning of socialism. It has to do with not learning the history of the movement. When Karl Marx died, he was a real popular fellow. He had a total of about half a dozen mourners. However, these half a dozen mourners changed the world by going forth and spreading the word. In Russia they gave us communism. In Germany they gave us National socialism, In England they gave us Fabian socialism. There are a few more countries that I haven't traced the history out on yet but they were far more productive that old Karl ever was.

Perhaps you should and you would realize how utterly idiotic it is to say that Nazism is an offshoot of socialism. The two have nothing in common. Oh yeah, it has 'Socialism' in its name, but North Korea is technically the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. Only a complete idiot would argue that North Korea is a democracy or a peoples republic.

As I have said before, it is evil to steal from another and that is the basic premise of socialism. Use the government and the power of the people to steal from those who have. An unequal tax is nothing more than the ability for the have nots to steal from the people who have. An equal tax is the only way to prevent this type of theft.

Right, it is. But taxation isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered. Do you honestly think that people who made it in life did so entirely on their own power? Rich and successful people got to where they are with the help of the government. Loads of help of the government. What help you wonder? Well what do you need to be successful? An education? Right, government provides education. You need to be safe as well, safe from violence and crime. Government protects you. And once you have a business, you need rules that protect your business. Rules that ensure your idea can't just be used by someone else. Rules that enforce the contracts you sign so you can't be screwed over. Rules that ensure your office doesn't collapse on your head. You need infrastructure, roads, power, water, rails, ports or airports, internet and telephones to do business. Government takes care of that, either by building it or by ensuring that the ones who build it allow you to use it in a fair manner (think internet neutrality). All who are successful have found ways to make the most use of the things society has provided them, and once they are successful, the government, the legal representative of society, demands that you pay something back to society, to the people that helped you get to the top, so others after you also have a fair shot at it.

But you call it theft when the government taxes you? Heh, in that case the only thief here is you.

It has nothing to do with learning the correct meaning of socialism. It has to do with not learning the history of the movement. When Karl Marx died, he was a real popular fellow. He had a total of about half a dozen mourners. However, these half a dozen mourners changed the world by going forth and spreading the word. In Russia they gave us communism. In Germany they gave us National socialism, In England they gave us Fabian socialism. There are a few more countries that I haven't traced the history out on yet but they were far more productive that old Karl ever was.

Perhaps you should and you would realize how utterly idiotic it is to say that Nazism is an offshoot of socialism. The two have nothing in common. Oh yeah, it has 'Socialism' in its name, but North Korea is technically the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. Only a complete idiot would argue that North Korea is a democracy or a peoples republic.

Perhaps my history lesson went over your head. Communism is an offshoot of socialism. It's what happens when you try to impose socialism on a country that lacks the ideal of property rights. That's why socialism turned into communism in China, Russia and North Korea. Yes it doesn't fit into that nice little theory of government, but it's what happens when you try to change people in a direction they aren't prepared to change to. We live in the real world and theories often break when applied to the real world.

As I have said before, it is evil to steal from another and that is the basic premise of socialism. Use the government and the power of the people to steal from those who have. An unequal tax is nothing more than the ability for the have nots to steal from the people who have. An equal tax is the only way to prevent this type of theft.

Right, it is. But taxation isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered. Do you honestly think that people who made it in life did so entirely on their own power? Rich and successful people got to where they are with the help of the government. Loads of help of the government. What help you wonder? Well what do you need to be successful? An education? Right, government provides education. You need to be safe as well, safe from violence and crime. Government protects you. And once you have a business, you need rules that protect your business. Rules that ensure your idea can't just be used by someone else. Rules that enforce the contracts you sign so you can't be screwed over. Rules that ensure your office doesn't collapse on your head. You need infrastructure, roads, power, water, rails, ports or airports, internet and telephones to do business. Government takes care of that, either by building it or by ensuring that the ones who build it allow you to use it in a fair manner (think internet neutrality). All who are successful have found ways to make the most use of the things society has provided them, and once they are successful, the government, the legal representative of society, demands that you pay something back to society, to the people that helped you get to the top, so others after you also have a fair shot at it.

But you call it theft when the government taxes you? Heh, in that case the only thief here is you.

I never said that taxes should be eliminated completely. The problem is when the less well off have the power to take an excessive amount from the rich. A head tax would be the most fair, but one tax rate for everybody would work as well. In this country at one point at one point in time, there were people who payed no taxes and other who were in the 90% bracket. The people who were paying little or no taxes were determining what the the rich would pay.

At one point in time in the United States, you couldn't vote if you didn't own property. Property was easy to come by so the only people who didn't vote were the ones who didn't apply themselves. As single tax rate would punish everybody equally and eliminate government programs that were only wanted by a few. Popular programs would have the taxes to pay for them.

Now no name calling! I can think of a few to call you but I am refraining from doing so.

---

A head tax would be the most fair,

Now how would that work, when 20% of the population earn less than what would be their share of government expenditure in the US.

Now how would that work, when 20% of the population earn less than what would be their share of government expenditure in the US.

It is very obvious, that proposal is an attempt to end poverty, as a society we don't want people to be poor. Using the carrot and stick method the tax system should reward the wealthy which will create even bigger incentives for all to acquire wealth. Naturally it follows the the poor should be punished so they will have a greater incentive to escape their misery.
The beatings should continue until morale improves.

---

Naturally it follows the the poor should be punished so they will have a greater incentive to escape their misery. The beatings should continue until morale improves.

Being unemployed depends on yourself. No one else.
It is because you are not looking for enough work per day.
Therefore, we at the employment office decided to reduce your compensation.

Now how would that work, when 20% of the population earn less than what would be their share of government expenditure in the US.

It is very obvious, that proposal is an attempt to end poverty, as a society we don't want people to be poor. Using the carrot and stick method the tax system should reward the wealthy which will create even bigger incentives for all to acquire wealth. Naturally it follows the the poor should be punished so they will have a greater incentive to escape their misery.
The beatings should continue until morale improves.

I said fair, I didn't say it would provide anywhere the amount of money the government is consuming today. Before 1913 and the 16th Amendment the government was able to get by on sales taxes and the sale of land. One sales tax personally know of is they put a sales tax on photographs to pay for the civil war. The most common sales tax was on alcohol which people payed willingly. The first problem is our government spends far to much money. The second problem is that people will spend money freely if it doesn't come out of their pocket. People are far more careful if it comes out of their pocket.

---

Perhaps my history lesson went over your head. Communism is an offshoot of socialism. It's what happens when you try to impose socialism on a country that lacks the ideal of property rights. That's why socialism turned into communism in China, Russia and North Korea. Yes it doesn't fit into that nice little theory of government, but it's what happens when you try to change people in a direction they aren't prepared to change to. We live in the real world and theories often break when applied to the real world.

Yeah except that when you take a closer look at those countries history you will find that property rights were a thing in all of them. Nor is communism the automatic result of existing in those countries. Communist parties and movements exist everywhere, including in countries where property rights are very much a commonly held ideal.

No, Communism happens in places where there are no viable moderate forces that can coopt some of the communist demands and merge them with liberal and capitalist demands. This is why the first communist revolution started in Russia of all places, a pre industrial dump. There were no moderate forces that blunted the communist movements, just an opposite extreme. Where as in Western Europe, all communist failed because by and large they were deemed as to radical but where there was space for a moderate movement. One that took a good deal of the communist grievances without calling for the armed revolution and the violent overthrowing of the government. A party the opposition could deal with in a more peaceful manner.

I never said that taxes should be eliminated completely. The problem is when the less well off have the power to take an excessive amount from the rich. A head tax would be the most fair, but one tax rate for everybody would work as well. In this country at one point at one point in time, there were people who payed no taxes and other who were in the 90% bracket. The people who were paying little or no taxes were determining what the the rich would pay.

At one point in time in the United States, you couldn't vote if you didn't own property. Property was easy to come by so the only people who didn't vote were the ones who didn't apply themselves. As single tax rate would punish everybody equally and eliminate government programs that were only wanted by a few. Popular programs would have the taxes to pay for them.

Now no name calling! I can think of a few to call you but I am refraining from doing so.

A single tax rate would immensely favor those who are rich while it immensely hurts everyone else. Poor people have far less financial space when it comes to how much they can afford to pay in taxes while those who earn more really can easily afford to pay a million more without it ever hurting their financial position in a significant way. The country is already in a situation where the 1% owns a disproportionate amount of the countries wealth and a single tax rate for everyone would only help to further increase this difference.

And sure, it is entirely possible that at some point people overdid the whole progressive tax system. But that doesn't mean the idea behind it is bad.

But, in today's world, isn't it true that at least 50% of those who are close to the median household income level, are at best, it the situation of having no spare cash after all the essentials are paid for.

Which would be made worse by your suggestion of a flat rate head tax. Surely it would be better to cut the taxes of these people as any extra they received would be spent and therefore support the local economy and generate more sales taxes.


I cannot find it now but a recent report said that on the UK's inheritance tax, only payable when the total estate value is greater than £325,000 (~$500,000), 75% of that paid to the tax man was by the top 10% or so. And in most cases, if you employ a good accountant soon enough, the bill can be drastically reduced.

Dena.

Define socialism.

You'll probably be wrong, so most of us will ignore this thread. :)

Have at it and have fun!

Well the fact is so far Dena has failed to give a definition, several of sort of related examples and a couple which are off topic but no definition.

---

My alter-ego Daddio has looked into defining all of the ISM's

What good would a singular definition be?
The USA is heading towards Capitalist Feudalism.
Russia is becoming a Capitalist Autocracy.
China a Capitalist Socialist Plutocracy.

Whatever the Europeans have they're the only ones taking Democracy seriously.

Good observations and totally off topic. This thread asks for a definition.
Daddio has an idea but he does not define anything he only describes a few things. IMO poor form for a university professor.

---

Whatever the Europeans have they're the only ones taking Democracy seriously.

This is convoluting issues, socialism is an aspect of economics, democracy deals with political organization.

---

Socialism 'Is' Any Society Run By Social Media.

Social Media Determines All Rule, Law, Justice, Price, Strata, etc etc etc.

The Most 'Posts' or 'Other' Named Characters of Certain Amount, in A Given Period, 'Is' The 'Determination' For The Nation.

Keyboardism To Rule.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!