What does socialist mean to you.

[jolee65]

What does the socialist world look to you ?

Discribe what it looks like, in your eyes.

[KristofferUmfrey]

What does the socialist world look to you ?

Describe what it looks like, in your eyes.

Where a government forces the average citizenry to have "all things common", while they and their rich buddies hoard cash and make intrusive laws that restrict peoples freedoms.

[bytor2112]

Isn't socialism an addiction to going to partys and socializing to much?

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Socialism is when the government, and not the private sector, owns the means of production and distribution. I like using dictionary definitions like this because dictionaries reflect common usage, putting us all on the same page, so to speak, rather than getting confused by someone's personal (and often wacky), non-standard usage.

DH

[KristofferUmfrey]

Socialism is when the government, and not the private sector, owns the means of production and distribution. I like using dictionary definitions like this because dictionaries reflect common usage, putting us all on the same page, so to speak, rather than getting confused by someone's personal (and often wacky), non-standard usage.

DH

I guess that does away with the whole "in your eyes" part of the question.

[jolee65]

And thank you , KU

you personally , please.

[john doe]

France.

[Palerider]

The Gov't will own and run everything.....

[applepansy]

What it looks like? It looks like what America is becoming now that some of the banks are owned by the government. It won't be long before everything is owned by the government and when that happends we are no longer free.

[Traveler]

Socialism is when the government, and not the private sector, owns the means of production and distribution. I like using dictionary definitions like this because dictionaries reflect common usage, putting us all on the same page, so to speak, rather than getting confused by someone's personal (and often wacky), non-standard usage.

DH

I would change your defination just a little and say:

Socialism is when the government, and not the private sector, is the primary means of controlling the means of production and distribution.

The Traveler

[Islander]

I would change your defination just a little and say:

Socialism is when the government, and not the private sector, is the primary means of controlling the means of production and distribution.

The Traveler

Thank you Traveler. You can also include in the definition: A socio-political system where the "collective good" (to be defined by the state) is all the most important and the individual does not retains any rights and lives and exist at the mercy of the state. Where laws are the means by which the self appointed state dispenses fear, intimidation and punishment wholesale. There is no right to effective defense and the state is the facto infallible. Where you are guilty until proven otherwise (which is never). A system where ideological dissent is punishable by incarceration or death. Where truth exists ONLY as an extension of the spoken philosophical standpoint of the government.

We arrive there by two primary ways: armed insurrection or the slippery slope (degradation and slow erosion of laws and rights).

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I would change your defination just a little and say:

Socialism is when the government, and not the private sector, is the primary means of controlling the means of production and distribution.

The Traveler

Fair enough.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

You can also include in the definition: A socio-political system where the "collective good" (to be defined by the state) is all the most important and the individual does not retains any rights and lives and exist at the mercy of the state. Where laws are the means by which the self appointed state dispenses fear, intimidation and punishment wholesale. There is no right to effective defense and the state is the facto infallible. Where you are guilty until proven otherwise (which is never). A system where ideological dissent is punishable by incarceration or death. Where truth exists ONLY as an extension of the spoken philosophical standpoint of the government.

We arrive there by two primary ways: armed insurrection or the slippery slope (degradation and slow erosion of laws and rights).

Thank you for providing such a good example of why I like to use the dictionary definition--yours is a little "out there" and loaded with all kinds of baggage that doesn't necessarily belong.

I have family from or currently living in Western European nations that some of you would undoubtedly consider to be "socialist" countries. However, they don't consider themselves to be socialist nations because the government is not the primary owner or controller of the means of production and distribution. When they think "socialist," they think former USSR, Cuba, or China. As it happens, those Western European nations are also democratic, have large and thriving private sectors, and enjoy the same level of freedom we do.

You can make up your own definition of "socialism" and put that label on various countries or political candidates if you like, but that doesn't make it true.

Just for kicks and grins, how about if I redefine the word "celebrity?" My new definition of "celebrity" is a person who is known to more than ten people outside his or her immediate family. Congratulations! I'm a celebrity! Anybody want my autograph?

DH

Edited January 24, 2009 by HEthePrimate

[AngelLynn]

And what about places in Europe where it's sort of a pseudo-socalistic type society. Not exactly pure socalism but not exactly capatalistic either. It's sort of a quasi form of it.

It is a limitation of business and the free market by Government. That is the tradtional defintion that I go by.

[Guest Godless]

In my view, socialism is the implementation of policies to promote social equality and break down the barriers of class and wealth. It favors individual prosperity over corporate wealth. It opposes free-market economics. True socialism would put the means of production into the hands of the working class, not the government.

[Dr T]

I admire the notions of socialism with the community and sharing of resources but watching the world try it tells me that it never works.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

And what about places in Europe where it's sort of a pseudo-socalistic type society. Not exactly pure socalism but not exactly capatalistic either. It's sort of a quasi form of it.

You are right--that would be a mixed economy, and many nations have that sort of arrangement. Not actually socialistic because the government isn't the primary owner, but it does play a role in regulating the market, etc.

It is a limitation of business and the free market by Government. That is the tradtional defintion that I go by.

There is no government on earth that does not interfere to one degree or another with its economy, if only to collect taxes. Here in the US, some enterprises are actually owned by the government (like the Postal Service), while others are privately owned, but are subject to some government regulation (like factories have to comply with safety regulations). But most businesses are privately owned and we conduct our trade quite freely. Various European countries have higher levels of government ownership or regulation, but are still mostly free market, while others cross a certain line into socialism. Even in socialist countries, as long as they're democratic, I have no problem with it--if that's what their citizens want to do, they're free to do it. If they eventually decide to vote in a more capitalistic-minded government, they could do that, too. In fact, we've seen a bit of that already, in places like the UK, where in recent years they've moved towards more privatization.

DH

[Islander]

In my view, socialism is the implementation of policies to promote social equality and break down the barriers of class and wealth. It favors individual prosperity over corporate wealth. It opposes free-market economics. True socialism would put the means of production into the hands of the working class, not the government.

That is a Utopia. It has never happened so I question it would be an accurate definition and/or representation of socialism

[DigitalShadow]

That is a Utopia. It has never happened so I question it would be an accurate definition and/or representation of socialism

There has never been a utopia but there is still a word for it and a valid definition. I think there have been a lot of failed implementations of socialism, but I don't think those instances define the word or what the original intent was.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Thank you for providing such a good example of why I like to use the dictionary definition--yours is a little "out there" and loaded with all kinds of baggage that doesn't necessarily belong.

I have family from or currently living in Western European nations that some of you would undoubtedly consider to be "socialist" countries. However, they don't consider themselves to be socialist nations because the government is not the primary owner or controller of the means of production and distribution. When they think "socialist," they think former USSR, Cuba, or China. As it happens, those Western European nations are also democratic, have large and thriving private sectors, and enjoy the same level of freedom we do.

You can make up your own definition of "socialism" and put that label on various countries or political candidates if you like, but that doesn't make it true.

Just for kicks and grins, how about if I redefine the word "celebrity?" My new definition of "celebrity" is a person who is known to more than ten people outside his or her immediate family. Congratulations! I'm a celebrity! Anybody want my autograph?

DH

A pro-choice Socialist Mormon. Just the kind of person Pres. Benson warned about.

[Moksha]

I have noticed a divide between members of this forum who are Jell-O belt right-wingers on social issues and members who live in countries outside the United States, who enjoy the social benefits accorded them in their counties. So I would suggest that ideology is influenced by our milieu.

[Elgama]

the definition will be determind by where you live for example the American definition of Liberal is for me weird - for its merely centre politics, socialism is anything to the left of that, and conservatism to the right of that...... for me the Eastern Block Countries were never called Socialist they were referred to as Communist. Just like countries who were facist rather than Conservative.

When President Benson was referring to socialism it was aimed at countries in the Eastern Block which for me wouild be communist not socialist.

Personally I appreciate what the Boer War, WWI and WWII brought to my country by way of social consciousness that a government has a place in taking care of its people

-Charley

[bytor2112]

In my view, socialism is the implementation of policies to promote social equality and break down the barriers of class and wealth. It favors individual prosperity over corporate wealth. It opposes free-market economics. True socialism would put the means of production into the hands of the working class, not the government.

Policies implemented by the government.....would put the means of production into the hands of the working class? If the government mandates through policy, how are they removed from the picture, or are they? Who exactly are the working class? I am intrigued.....tell me more.

[Palerider]

Usually here in the States....socialist means higher taxes are coming....:)

[Islander]

There has never been a utopia but there is still a word for it and a valid definition. I think there have been a lot of failed implementations of socialism, but I don't think those instances define the word or what the original intent was.

It has never existed, that is precisely my point. I was responding to the poster that idealized the workers paradise and the equality and communal prosperity. It does not exist.

You also walk on thin ice here with your own interpretation of "failed implementations." The Soviets do not see their socialism as failed. In fact, they blamed Gorbachev for dismantling seven decades of social gains and military might. Current trends in soviet government points to a desire to revert to socio-communist administration and executive functioning. They see this strategy as the only way to regain their former glory, military power and political influence. For them democracy has been a total disaster, some insiders believe.

As far as the original doctrine; Marx and Engels used the Gospel as a blue print but excised any and every reference to God and spiritual life. They replaced it with reference to total devotion, alliance, faith, conscience, dedication, sharing, equality, brotherhood and similar terms but ONLY as it relate to the total submission and obedience of the individual to the state. This "perfect society" (socialism-communism) cannot and will never exist, for the altruistic ideals it expresses can only be ascertained as we desire to serve God because we understand our relationship to Him. The only perfect society: Zion.

The rest of those theologies that claim such lofty goals are nothing but a counterfeit.