Socialism. We need it America......... For now

Obamacare
Mericare
Social security
Welfare
Food stamps
Mediacaid...

 

Can you give me a concise definition of socialism?

 

Complete utter nonsense and an insult to Ayn Rand.

 

While I agree with leftcoastconsevative yet I'll provide you the answer you're looking for.

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned and managed, or controlled by the government.

2. A political movement advocating or associated with this system.

3. In Marxist theory the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

4. An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels.

**Definition is courtesy of The World Book Dictionary**

 

Incorrect. Typical though, a true american banality.

 

Why did you exclude the other two definitions? Are you a Fox News contributor?

 

Most modern societies are a combination of socialism and capitalism.

America is no exception. It's only a question of where along that balance of the two we need to be.

 

Excellent post, may you assist in the spread of socio capitalism to build better Nations and a better world. I am proudly partaking in this glorious endeavor myself.

 

Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. You're going for a mixed economy comment, which is a reference to the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy). That is just comment over capitalism

 

The wise one has spoken.

 

Socio capitalism suggests that the aims and goals of capitalism and socialism are not entirely antagonistic to one another. The poster you quoted was of course refering to a mixed economy. While the two are of course seperate systems, the poster was promoting a more flexible state to work with, and in turn encourage the efficiency of free market institutions while allowing for certain protections and regulations to secure the welfare of all. I typically do not attempt to speak for others however I am confident in this representation.

 

We need socialism? You complain about a 'down' economy (stock markets been doin pretty good. current DOW:12,169.65) and you wish to replace it with socialism? You do know socialism cannot work right? It doesn't work.

 

Instead of just the 10% of population having a guaranteed income, cradle to grave, the whole population should have at least a cradle to grave minimum yearly allotment, say $3000 per single individual. That is a compromise between the one argument that says poverty should be unpleasant, and the other argument, based on the Preamble to the Constitution, that government must provide for the general welfare.

Taxing the upper 10% another Trillion dollars will raise their contribution relative to their share of GDP to about 20% of their total GDP (10 Trillion), or 2 Trillion dollars.

That 1 Trillion dollars then is divided evenly among 300 or so million US citizens, which is approx. $3000 per individual per year.

If that does not stimulate the economy, nothing will. Its certainly better than just bailing out bankers and loansharks, and millionaires, who do nothing but return to their practice of usury, and investment in illusionary derivatives (gambling on numbers).

 

What right do you have to force other people to work for you?

 

Socialism got us here. More socialism is like bleeding a Great White Shark bite victim.

_

 

The same right, as the 10% who force me and the other 90% to work for them., while most of their income is from interest on their control of and ever more lopsided share of GDP.

The needs of the struggling many, outweight the desires of the decadent few.

 

Other two definitions? You didn't expect me to get the revisionist definitions written and sold by the Progressives? No sir, this is out of a book printed in the 1950s, no revision here.

What are you? A Daily Kos drone?

 

Last I checked businesses don't force me to work for them.

 

Nice counter with the Daily Kos, but both defintitions I refer to predate the 1950's. They predate the progressive movements inception. They do start with socialism though.

 

Not all of us can live in the woods, and completely independent. I have tried, but all the land is owned either privately, or by government, and neither will allow a person to build something from nothing, or even set up camp there for very long.

I have come as close as possible to living off the grid, but still, there is restriction on my movement. One has to have insurance, and licenses for an RV, and because the Oil Cartel controls energy policy, solar cells are out of reach economically.

 

Yes, we need a socialist. No, it has nothing to do with what you described... which is straight up fascism.

 

Capitalists and socialists have more in common than, say, fascists and socialists... but they're not even remotely complementary philosophies. Socialism isn't about government control. At all.

 

You work for THEM and THEY PAY YOU. What you are asking for is a free handout. It doesnt matter if you think they have too much money. It is still their money, and you have no right to it.

 

One can argue if government control is what socialism is all 'about' in the same way one can argue whether or not the pursuit of money is what capitalism is 'about', but that's what it ends up as and one must then argue about the affects of this. In this way the policies of socialists and fascists, depending upon the breed of socialist, are quite similar.

For definition 1. the federal government certainly interacts with major industries, and controls a few depending upon what you define as industries, but by this definition it has been socialist for a long time, as are most countries, and the word uses a lot of its meaning, drawing a large divide between what those who, for instance, call themselves socialists, as opposed to those who call themselves liberals, which warrants distinct qualification of the extent of socialism.
Definition 3 is obviously not the case in america
Aspects of definition 4 have come to pass, but certainly not the extent of what it suggests. Equality and collective control are certainly not a part of it, investment is in large part controlled by the government and there's something less than a competitive environment.
So by this logic I contend that if America is 'socialist' then it has been for a very long time and the word loses most of its meaning as anything derogatory, just as I did in a thread about America being fascist. You can argue it is, but it is a rather meaningless word if it can be thrown around so lightly.

 

Not so. Fascists propose giving everything over to the state, socialists propose giving everything over to the community.

I'll see your bad definition and raise you a better one;

"so·cial·ism
  socialism pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

Unless you're going to really try to defend the idea that the government adequately represents the interests of the community as a whole, clearly the original claim was wrong.