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.
I'm not sure because none of this is coherent but I think the problem is that you don't understand the definition of statism.
I could be wrong because nothing you say even has common understanding among traditional indoctrination (which I at least can readily identify).
We are not talking about indoctrination, we are talking about words definitions.
While "socialism" has a well-defined base ("ownership of means of production"), statism does not have it. It's very vague term that was originally intended to describe Soviet Union (and, to some extent, FDR-era USA) political and economical system. It usually refers to the growing role of a centralized (in case of USA - federal) government in running political and/or economic affairs. Pretty much "define-nothing" definition.
Over the years the "statism" meaning drifted towards "state-decides-all", but again, it's not a correct definition; it's just a partial case of a much broader subject. I agree that the term is better not to be used due to very vague description and lack of common agreement on what it is.
As I said, "socialism" never really existed (at least as the only economy system in some state).
The best way to describe former SU and current China is "state capitalism" (do not confuse with "statism"; they are close, but not the same).
As usual, it's kind of biased and incomplete, but nonetheless, gives some basic understanding.
BTW, I think you'd be surprised that "planned economy" differs quite substantially from "command economy", and neither one is a requirement for "socialism".
And that is the exact problem I'm pointing out - people don't know meanings of the terms they use.
We are not talking about indoctrination, we are talking about words definitions.
While "socialism" has a well-defined base ("ownership of means of production"), statism does not have it. It's very vague term that was originally intended to describe Soviet Union (and, to some extent, FDR-era USA) political and economical system. It usually refers to the growing role of a centralized (in case of USA - federal) government in running political and/or economic affairs. Pretty much "define-nothing" definition.
Over the years the "statism" meaning drifted towards "state-decides-all", but again, it's not a correct definition; it's just a partial case of a much broader subject. I agree that the term is better not to be used due to very vague description and lack of common agreement on what it is.
As I said, "socialism" never really existed (at least as the only economy system in some state).
The best way to describe former SU and current China is "state capitalism" (do not confuse with "statism"; they are close, but not the same).
As usual, it's kind of biased and incomplete, but nonetheless, gives some basic understanding.
BTW, I think you'd be surprised that "planned economy" differs quite substantially from "command economy", and neither one is a requirement for "socialism".
And that is the exact problem I'm pointing out - people don't know meanings of the terms they use.
Ok, well, we don't agree on anything. Good talk though.
Ok, well, we don't agree on anything. Good talk though.
You sure can have your own ideas on words meanings, but here is the best illustration of what I'm talking about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgsing
What an ignorant statement. All those horrible socialist programs like unemployment insurance, veterans programs, Medicare and Social Security.
Let's also call military, police and firefighters "socialism" since they are absolutely no different than the above - they are also funded from the same source - taxes, they are obligatory, run by government (local of state/federal), are non-profit, etc.
Capitalism is the only system where people outside the top 1% can win....and by win I mean not starve. Literally everything else is awful. Now there can be discussion as to what type of capitalist system to use, but those who want to overthrow capitalism are advocating for mass murder and starvation because that's what you'll get literally every time.
The bolded comment is key here. I agree that Capitalism is the best system, but there is a very fine line between ethical capitalism and unchecked capitalism. What we have now, with our current leadership, is a move toward unchecked capitalism, which oddly has the potential to turn into a form of socialism if we're not careful. If we put too much power in the hands of the few, they will control all, and everyone else will be forced to live on the teet (or starve).
The result of unchecked capitalism can ALSO be mass murder and starvation. Like many things, the extremes of the two very opposite systems can look very similar.
You sure can have your own ideas on words meanings, but here is the best illustration of what I'm talking about:
Let's also call military, police and firefighters "socialism" since they are absolutely no different than the above - they are also funded from the same source - taxes, they are obligatory, run by government (local of state/federal), are non-profit, etc.
Do you see my point now about words meanings?
I don't agree with any of your definitions.
You were wildly off on "statism".
It isn't traditional "off". You actually got communism's definition correct up there somewhere.
That's an outlier though as communism is actually a mental condition as explained by Marx.
Surprised no lefties have chimed in with claims that socialism works, while using capitalist countries with big social safety nets (Nordic model) as "proof". They are probably too busy harassing Americans for wearing a hat they don't like. The opposite of anything productive.
.
That's because those aren't socialist countries. (Duh!)
Really? Dems, like who? I don't know any who favor actual Socialism (TM), with the possible exception of the Bern, who's never had to live under it, and whom we all know to be an idiot. The noise that some, predominantly young, Dems and progressives are making in favor of "socialism" is actually about capitalism with a social safety net. As anyone in Sweden, Norway and Denmark will tell you (and as the King of Denmark told The Bern in no uncertain terms), social democracy and Socialism are two very different things, and never the twain shall meet.
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.
