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.

Don't worry about that.
I'll try to respond before the week is up, despite being a bit busy and ill.

Daddio's posts are ok.
Michel has done the best so far to counter her answers.
There are CLEAR errors and Dena, you are re-hashing misunderstandings you stated when you used to post.
Maybe we can get Gary to come on and talk about "the matrix" again. It really fits.

P.S.-I'm not a socialist, but I'd sure rather people get straight what they are fighting against.

---

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

ALL HAIL Government Bureaucracy. We bow to the Omnipotent One's. They KNOW what is best for The People, The Masses, The Unwashed. That is what Socialism, at best, becomes. At worst...

Hardly, given that they don't make the rules. They only follow them. Honestly, the history of Western state building progress is the history of an expanding bureaucratic system. It brings stability to a political system and it empowers the government. Its the sole reason why sovereign nations can technically exist.

My guest will be showing up in a coupe of hours so I will not be able to post again until saturday at the earliest. I am not ignoring you, just very busy.

---

The Government Bureaucracy doesn't make the rules?

In what Universe?

This universe. Its the legislative part of government that makes the rules. The Bureaucracy simply implements and executes the rules, provided thats their task.

Its NOT the Laws that matter. The Legislator's Just Pass the Laws, which are very general.

THEN: The Army of Regulator's write Thousands of Regulations regarding EACH Law. Ultimately Forcing ALL people to bend to their will.

That is how it works in The Real World.

Government OF The Regulator's, BY The Regulator's, and FOR The Regulator's.

ALL HAIL The Government, and Their Unelected Regulator's. WE understand they have Superior Knowledge and Insight, over The People, The Masses, and The Great Unwashed.

No they don't

Ah, but now you are talking about regulators. Regulators are not your typical bureaucrats. They are part of special agencies empowered by law to take care of a very specific policy field according to their own insights. Those regulators generally consist of experts in the specific policy field they are supposed to be regulating. So yeah, when it comes to their policy field, they generally do have superior knowledge and insights than your average Joe.

Also I get the feeling you are, at least to some degree, complaining about bureaucratic procedures that bureaucrats love so much and that annoys a lot of people. Those aren't so much as laws as they are the way the organization operates. Literally every organization that consists of more than one person has them. It really wouldn't matter if you have a government organization or a free market enterprise, both are to some degree bureaucratized.

Ok, I'll join in.

Definition of 'Socialism':

Social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica. (emphasis added by me).

This is the broad, general definition of socialism. There are many variations on 'socialism', and most nations (perhaps all nations) on Earth have at least some socialist elements in their governments/economies (including the USA, we started out as a mixed economy (with some socialism, but mostly capitalism) and have been slowly but steadily moving towards the pure socialist end of the spectrum ever since).

Perhaps a better term to use instead of 'socialism' would be 'authoritarianism', since having the government control at least some sections of the economy by necessity removes personal freedom to the extent of the amount of control.

The paragraph above does make my point.

Your 'understanding' of Power controlling you, and every other Individual's Decisions, and Individual's Rights, is disturbing.

Power NEVER stops its Historical attempt to destroy the Individual, for the 'Good of Society' and the Safety of the Individual.

This is why ALL modern day attempts to save the Individual from him/her self (not other's) will have to end the destruction of individual rights. For their own good, of course.

That is why the Modern Rise of this Army of Regulator's (Experts?) must be resisted.

No, bureaucratic procedures are part of organizational behavior and has nothing to do with regulators. Without bureaucratic procedures, an organization would just be chaos, as every individual member of the organization would have no defined job and no defined rules to operate within. Chaos would ensure and the organization would fail and fall apart. So organizations create specific tasks for people to perform, set up ways to check on their employees and make people accountable for their work and are thus able to control themselves and remain cohesive.

Now these regulators. All they do is set up rules within a specific field to which all players must abide and in a number of cases they also act as the referee and decide when players have broken the rules. Does that diminish individual freedom? Yeah sure, every rule diminishes individual freedom to some degree. Is that a bad thing? Of course not, its a simple fact that unchecked individual freedom can be very damaging to everyone else. The law that says you can't murder anybody technically diminishes individual freedom, but who here is stupid enough to argue that individuals should have the freedom to murder other people? Rules that regulated the financial industry also put severe restrictions on what banks could do and thus diminished freedom. But again, for good reason, as those same banks proved the moment those restrictions were lifted and they managed to crash the economy. Regulations on waste disposal also limits peoples freedom where they can dump all their waste. Is that a bad thing? No because without those rules we would dump even more waste into our rivers and forests and pollute this world even more.

Yes, regulators have the ability to restrict freedom. Is that a bad thing? No, not really, provided those regulators are experts that know the facts and are in the best position to judge the common good against the limitations on our freedom.

Sorry, but we as a species need rules because without them we simply cannot be consistently trusted to do the right thing for others and ourselves.

Definition of 'Socialism':

Social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Major you get many points, that is the only attempt to give a definition.

Perhaps a better term to use instead of 'socialism' would be 'authoritarianism', since having the government control at least some sections of the economy by necessity removes personal freedom to the extent of the amount of control.

And IMO you lose points for being off topic.

---

“Socialism in practice ends up with two classes of people, the haves and the have not.”

Where is your evidence of this statement?
Replace first word with capitalism; is there a difference to your claim?

“We are seeing the United States government evolve in to this form of socialism and the proof is the Washing[ton] 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.”

Have you been there?
Where are your supporting links?
My Dad lived there from 1997 to 2013. My Uncle and his family have been there since 1982. Not in government, though. I have a sense of what many people there are like; well-educated and hard working.

“About a third of the people are receiving some form of welfare from the government.”

In D.C. or around the country? In either case, where are your supporting links?

“Common core is proving to be a way to control our thinking.”

Prove your statement, as well as see below regarding education.
For this statement, as with the “New Math” post-Sputnik, I get a kick out of people who were in school at the time saying they didn’t get math because of the reform when, in fact, the reforms were not country-wide by any means. It was barely implemented before it was scrapped! (If you wish me to locate support for this claim, I’ll look it up again.)
So, not being in K-12, but dealing with results, I will claim, “Common Core” is a plan, barely beginning, not implemented across the country in full as of yet and so I find your claim … what, non-sequitur?

“The IRS is controlling elections by eliminating the opposition's voice.”

As time goes by, this may or may not be true, but I suppose some of you will think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and, when a Republican is president again, won’t be too upset if the IRS gives upstart liberal groups too much scrutiny.

“The EPA is controlling land use and the economy with carbon dioxide restriction.”

Hmmm, I guess lots of people are affected by this in their daily lives and that’s it really crippling our country’s businesses that have chosen to stay here. Or, not. Did you hear about the politician that criticized … which company was it, CVS? … for not sending most of their business overseas? I guess because them doing so would’ve been an embarrassment for Obama, this Republican was willing to call them traitors for keeping an American business in the U.S.A. How ridiculous!

“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.”

Forced to contribute to liberal causes? What?!? This certainly requires a supporting link. The uproar over such a thing would be most likely far louder and far wider than Hobby Lobby seeking exemption to a part of the A.C.A.! Think about it. We get news from each other on this site, or friends of various beliefs and political leanings on social media sites. I have plenty of friends on the “right” of my somewhat center standing and no one in person or online has mentioned that banks are forced to contribute to liberal causes.

All your comments about what’s going on in the U.S.A. … sorry, but I think if we are moving away from the Republic … or Democracy (I know, I know, you want the first and rue the last 90 years), then we are moving towards fascism or feudalism.

Now, we get to where you really address the question! Please concentrate the bulk of your responses, Dena and others, to my following responses and only to my responses above if you can somehow link the topics.

“Russia applied Marx's teachings with a even more damaging result.”

Yes. Yes, they did. And, without re-reading the thread, I believe Michel (Мишель) has already addressed this. But, I will re-iterate; Marx wanted socialism to be applied to an industrialized country! The Russia of the time of Tsar Nicholas was not industrialized or it was barely beginning. One piece of evidence I provide is the book “Nicholas and Alexandra”. (It paints Tsar Nicholas II as mostly a tragic figure. If I recall correctly, it gives a good description of what the country was like, Nicholas’ strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures and how Alexandra (Oleksandra? Sasha?) was drawn in by Rasputin in trying to help her hemophiliac son. Rasputin is a clear example of a figure from a pre-industrial society. In any case, so, small wonder socialism (actually, it was communism they got, see below) failed.

“Germany attempted it and we had WWII.”

Wrong. Again, Michel addressed this, but I’ll say it again, Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist or communist. I believe I have posted before, why was the USSR allied with us and not Germany if they were both socialist countries? I suspect Hitler and his cronies knew exactly what they were doing when they chose their name. including the Germanic equivalent word of “socialist” to hide what they truly were.

Some of us have stated in posts over the years here that socialism and fascism (or communism and fascism) are diametrically opposed.

Gary may have given us a better way to express things in the discussion. Rather than a one-dimensional spectrum, he has talked about putting things in a two-dimensional matrix, where one direction includes one extreme as totalitarianism. (Gary, post in this thread!)

I have listened to folks like Glenn Beck who must be willfully equating socialism (communism) with fascism simply because both had/have the totalitarianism aspect and I suspect to deliberately confuse their listeners/watchers. (As an alternative to Gary’s matrix, another way I view it is to tie negative infinity and infinity together in the one-dimensional spectrum/number-line and that point of gluing is where the extremes have become totalitarianism. Also note that socialism is not communism. Communism is the totalitarian extreme of socialism. Anyway, with the two extreme points glued, maybe they start to seem the same, and just as bad, but they were not arrived at by the same routes.)

“Socialism almost destroyed England until they moved away from it.”

I get a kick out of readers of “1984” that did/do not realize that Orwell was a socialist. So, yes, there’s one piece of evidence socialism got a fair hold in England. Whether it nearly destroyed them or whether they did/are move/moving away from it are claims that require supporting links. As our UK posters have talked about, surveillance of the public has increased greatly, for a longer amount of time than here in the USA (or they’ve been aware longer). That points towards totalitarianism. Is it towards fascism or communism, though?

Many posts in the thread have talked about stealing from the hard-working individuals and giving to the lazy ones. I wish I had my copy of his book with me. (I had to read it in college. More on that below.)

One, to the best of my recollection, it was Marx’s belief, right or wrong, that the great majority of people want to work! If I am remembering correctly, then does that surprise you? (By the way, even if he said that, again, his belief could’ve been wrong or the implementation of socialism was never implemented as he suggested. I’m not going to sit here and type out some claim, let alone trying to justify it that “Socialism will be tried correctly somewhere and work this time.” As I said, I am not a socialist.)

Does the following also surprise you? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need[s]”. You left out half of that and focused on the “lazy masses”. (My phrase in quotes.) If my recollections are correct, does it change how you follow up with comments about what socialism is? If so, how? If not, why not???

“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.”

For how you finished this paragraph, see my last two paragraphs. This seems to be a wonderful statement to discredit a person, but, again, you have not provided us supporting links, just two claims.

(Are you also trying to suggest he was gay or bi with the phrase “man friend”?)

A few years after I read “The Communist Manifesto”, I read Limbaugh’s “The Way Things Ought to Be” and “See, I Told You So!” (This probably surprises many of you. If you’d like to know the story behind why, I’ll tell you. Again, this should be evidence towards my somewhat centrist stance.)

Given that Limbaugh had already been on the air a number of years (his TV show was only on the air maybe a year, and yes, I did watch some of it, too), I am willing to bet he was able to churn out those two books fairly quickly. I do not think much of what he said was new. Some of it we may have agree with. What took maybe a little time was adding his sensationalistic spin on it; throwing in a word like a femin4z1 here and there, for example. (Another attempt at conflation of two different things.)

Have you ever tried to write something of significant length? Not a post here; not a 20 page paper for a high school or college class which requires mostly synthesis of the ideas of others and maybe a little opinion at the end and with no original research to report? (I no longer consider reading and synthesizing research; that is a literature search and synthesis.)

I am willing to bet Marx needed time freed up in order to write because what he wrote was pretty radically new. See how well you do working 40, or even 80! hours a week and producing a new original work. You might need some NoDoze … oops, 5-Hour Energy for that, these days, and we know that stuff is junk.

“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.”

I mentioned above I had to read “The Communist Manifesto” in college. It was my junior year. All students there took 3 core courses in the first 3 years and the third year was on the 1850s or so on and how the works developed then did or did not shape things as we saw them in 1989 or 1990. The professor I had that 3rd year was an open socialist.

Have you been to college? Either way, what makes you think professors are not argued against, particularly when it is a course on history or political science and the topic is socialism? You think all those poor college age students that went to Germany in the late 1800s were “sucked in”, apparently? Oh, come on! You really think there weren’t people among that group of students that wouldn’t debate/argue just like you do now and that such students do not exist today? At times, there may not be enough of them, but they are there! Sometimes they are legion! And often, whatever the size of the group, at least a few speak up!!! I have seen it from both sides and it does not even have to be in classes like history or political science. I think you seriously need to reconsider and revise what was happening in the USA and around the world in the 1880s to 1920s or so and what direction it has sent us in, or at least the strength of the movements.

‘Nuff said for the moment.

P.S.-betreger, please don't be so literal about my opening post. Defining it depends on what Marx actually first said. If socialism should be an enemy, known thine enemy, not what Glenn Beck claims about your enemy, right?

P.P.S-Dena, what you posted over the past few years seems to indicate the power of someone like Glenn Beck over your high school education, which I am sure was nowhere near as liberally influenced as you might claim, based on what seems to be your age range.

---

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

Keyboardism.

Yep.

Get Social.

Pound till ya drown.

' '

---

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

Michel, it would seem Clyde is trying to lead you off topic.
As he is or was a police officer, he was or is a person in a position of a great power/authority. I advise you to consider: we should not trust police officers simply because that is the job title. Power corrupts and they have power, plus guns and tazers. Let their history of words and deeds speak for them.
In the meantime, be very wary of the Clyde. He has admitted he is posting for fun, not serious important discussions during his semi-retirement.

---

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

Keyboardism.

Yep.

Get Social.

Pound till ya drown.

' '

u da mensch. post on, brouddy. ur insight on dis one dazzled meh eben mo DAN USUAL.

razzle dazzle tango

---

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

Keyboardism.

Yep.

Get Social.

Pound till ya drown.

' '

u da mensch. post on, brouddy. ur insight on dis one dazzled meh eben mo DAN USUAL.

razzle dazzle tango

Sarge, to quote a line from Star Treck, you "have gone beyond where man has gone before".

---

Don't be jealous that I look this good.

Get a haircut !!

LOL

Don't be jealous that I look this good.

Get a haircut !!

LOL

Totalitarianists insist on uniformity. The pdf here is not uniform and the likelihood of that occurrence in the next 3 months = 0.

Now, please read and response to my long hair ... er, long post.

---

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

Yes, regulators have the ability to restrict freedom. Is that a bad thing? No, not really, provided those regulators are experts that know the facts and are in the best position to judge the common good against the limitations on our freedom.

Regulator's SHOULD have the ability to restrict Freedom? No.

Expert's are Superior ethically, morally, or fairer than any one else? No.

Your trust in those in Power, has been Historically proven wrong, time and time again.

Trusting those running a Socialistic form of Government/Economic System will also prove disastrous.

Once 'they' get power: There will be no way, without violence, to rid yourself of them.

I find it a bit odd, hearing this from an ex police officer. You are basically arguing against having a police.

Michel, it would seem Clyde is trying to lead you off topic.
As he is or was a police officer, he was or is a person in a position of a great power/authority. I advise you to consider: we should not trust police officers simply because that is the job title. Power corrupts and they have power, plus guns and tazers. Let their history of words and deeds speak for them.
In the meantime, be very wary of the Clyde. He has admitted he is posting for fun, not serious important discussions during his semi-retirement.

My Police Career, which you have an Obsession, and ALWAYS mention - is less than 50% of my adult working career.

Sarge...

I haven't responded to your multiple PM's to me, for a simple reason.

You are the Classical 'shoot the messenger' when losing an argument, as your above post shows.

In one of many-many-many of my Post's, I did say it was 'for fun'. Please don't continue you Classic Left/Right Wing Misinformation Campaign against other's.

Can a Left/Right Wing 'Believer' discuss the issues?

In my experience...

A man who LOVES George Carlin can't be bad:)

Michel, it would seem Clyde is trying to lead you off topic.
As he is or was a police officer, he was or is a person in a position of a great power/authority. I advise you to consider: we should not trust police officers simply because that is the job title. Power corrupts and they have power, plus guns and tazers. Let their history of words and deeds speak for them.
In the meantime, be very wary of the Clyde. He has admitted he is posting for fun, not serious important discussions during his semi-retirement.

My Police Career, which you have an Obsession, and ALWAYS mention - is less than 50% of my adult working career.

Sarge...

I haven't responded to your multiple PM's to me, for a simple reason.

You are the Classical 'shoot the messenger' when losing an argument, as your above post shows.

In one of many-many-many of my Post's, I did say it was 'for fun'. Please don't continue you Classic Left/Right Wing Misinformation Campaign against other's.

Can a Left/Right Wing 'Believer' discuss the issues?

In my experience...

A man who LOVES George Carlin can't be bad:)

Clyde is a classical assumer, as Gary has so aptly shown on multiple occasions.
Until people on multiple fronts (i.e., including outside this "supposed forum" (ha ha, now I sound like Batter Up!)) describe me in the same way at least 3 times (triangulation), I shall ignore Clyde's character assassination of me. I shall also recognize he lacks a sense of humor.

P.S.-he also like to talk about the tactics of a person losing an argument, which is high-larry-us, given the opening post asked a question and then the o.p. has only made one post debating the response(s) and no one has addressed the issues in that response. Anywhom, I'm gonna go take a Prevacid now.

P.P.S.-it is also high-larry-us to describe 5 to 8, approximately, as multiple. It's more than a few, but nothing like his exaggeration. He has also not been PMd since he was plonked. His post being responded to was only made visible by someone not plonked that quoted it. The forum developers should really upgrade based on our plonk lists, eh?

---

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

Oops, I see he was posting as I modified and PPsed some more. I'm sure he'll want to go back and read my additions as he is obsessed with every post I make. Yes, that's the price of me being too sexy for my shirt. Anyway, thankfully, his newest post plonk/invisible to me. I hope the rest of my thread shall remain Clyde-quotes free. :)

---

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

A man who LOVES George Carlin can't be bad:)

Clyde is a classical assumer, as Gary has so aptly shown on multiple occasions.
Until people on multiple fronts (i.e., including outside this "supposed forum" (ha ha, now I sound like Batter Up!)) describe me in the same way at least 3 times (triangulation), I shall ignore Clyde's character assassination of me. I shall also recognize he lacks a sense of humor.

P.S.-he also like to talk about the tactics of a person losing an argument, which is high-larry-us, given the opening post asked a question and then the o.p. has only made one post debating the response(s) and no one has addressed the issues in that response. Anywhom, I'm gonna go take a Prevacid now.

P.P.S.-it is also high-larry-us to describe 5 to 8, approximately, as multiple. It's more than a few, but nothing like his exaggeration. He has also not been PMd since he was plonked. His post being responded to was only made visible by someone not plonked that quoted it. The forum developers should really upgrade based on our plonk lists, eh?

Sigh... (Suck in Swedish)
Personal attacks...
Who are interested to read all that postings?
Boring.
It is so easy to ignore all that postings.
Why do you dont use PM instead?
Last resort is to x-mark that postings.