Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned, usually by the government. Whereas the United States has several airlines that are owned by airline corporations, a socialist society might have one government-owned airline.
The most important goal of socialism is not the pursuit of personal profit but rather work for the collective good: the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual. Because of this view, individuals do not compete with each other for profit; instead they work together for the good of everyone. If under capitalism the government is supposed to let the economy alone, under socialism the government controls the economy."
Just an example... Hitler and the Nazis. They were collectivists.
"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." -Hitler, speaking at Bueckeburg, October 7, 1933
Hitler directly espoused subjucating the individual to benefit the collective society. That's collectivism... socialism.
Just an example... Hitler and the Nazis. They were collectivists.
"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." -Hitler, speaking at Bueckeburg, October 7, 1933
Hitler directly espoused subjucating the individual to benefit the collective society. That's collectivism... socialism.
2. Once again, no; Hitler was not a socialist. Socialism’s main goal is worker owned and worker managed production without authority infringing on the rights of self-organization. Marx suggested government ownership of production so it could be come public/ Not for profit, but he never went as far as suggesting the state take over control of production. That was why the only known example Marx pointed to was the Paris communes, not an authoritarian model that distributes production to everyone else.
2. Once again, no; Hitler was not a socialist. Socialism’s main goal is worker owned and worker managed production without authority infringing on the rights of self-organization. Marx suggested government ownership of production so it could be come public/ Not for profit, but he never went as far as suggesting the state take over control of production. That was why the only known example Marx pointed to was the Paris communes, not an authoritarian model that distributes production to everyone else.
Socialism is communally owned property and/or production, whether being worker owned or via the state. Both are different forms of socialism. Basically all forms of socialism in existence go the state owned route and the state offers communal benefits in exchange.
If demand increases, then production (from an increase in membership) should happen. Furthermore any technological improvement in production would be shared by the syndicate as there is no competition for that knowledge by states or companies.
So many problems with your logic. Anarchy and socialism both ignore simple basic human desires. Every economic model can fulfill peoples basic needs. But, humans also have desires and wants. Humans are naturally competitive and greedy, both anarchy and socialism ignore that. Humans need an outlet for our desires, and capitalism succeeds at that, and thats why every country in the world is some variation of capitalism. Humans are also greedy and if given an inch will take a mile, thats why we created the state. Anarchy will never work because humans wont always voluntarily agree. In fact, humans dont agree on much at all.
An authority will always arise, even if you dont want to call it the state.
Yes, he was. Anyone who subjugates the individual to benefit the collective society is a socialist. As I posted from the college textbook...
"The most important goal of socialism is not the pursuit of personal profit but rather work for the collective good: the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual."
It is extremely socialist to strip assets from one group to give to another.
=InformedConsent;52911926] Yes, he was. Anyone who subjugates the individual to benefit the collective society is a socialist. As I posted from the college textbook...
"The most important goal of socialism is not the pursuit of personal profit but rather work for the collective good: the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual."
It is extremely socialist to strip assets from one group to give to another.
Nothing in that quote proves your point. Concern about people you live amongst affect what actions you take. None of that means state welfare (where the state funds everything).
Having worker managed production were production is agreed upon, and everyone gets a say is the root function of socialism. Like I said before, state ownership is used to make the means of production public, not to have it managed by an outside power (the state).
Authoritarian models with socialist principles always turn to a command economy, which is not socialism.
So many problems with your logic. Anarchy and socialism both ignore simple basic human desires. Every economic model can fulfill peoples basic needs. But, humans also have desires and wants. Humans are naturally competitive and greedy, both anarchy and socialism ignore that. Humans need an outlet for our desires, and capitalism succeeds at that, and thats why every country in the world is some variation of capitalism. Humans are also greedy and if given an inch will take a mile, thats why we created the state. Anarchy will never work because humans wont always voluntarily agree. In fact, humans dont agree on much at all.
An authority will always arise, even if you dont want to call it the state.
Greed can only be tempered by human limits. You can always (and have the freedom to) produce excess luxuries for yourself, but without the concept of private ownership (invisible control) extending an individuals power beyond their mental/physical abilities.
If People don’t want to work with others, they can. But if they do, they must be social and agree with production principles with the aforementioned purpose.
Yes, it does. You just don't want to acknowledge it. That's on you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
