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.
Is it really Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or even Bernie Sanders? Is it Europe? Is it anyone who has a D beside their name?
"A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government".
That is a pretty solid definition of socialism above. Essentially you have a centralized public again usually government or government board that owns not the economic production but the control and distribution of that.
Using that definition Biden or Harris would not follow a strict socialist policy as they are not seeking ownership from corporations and controlling their product. A true socialist place would see the governing body or some public group owning say Pepsi, Facebook, Parler, Nestle, etc., and then controlling their means. A true socialist place would outlaw private property and everything would be public or subjected to public and or government control.
An example would be that say the government of Sweden will demand or take over Pepsi and say instead of making soft drinks you will now make masks and the government will take over the entire operation and distribution of those masks.
Simple Group Think is not enough to be considered Socialism.
The corporate model that the West uses even in those countries that everyone thinks are true Socialists would never allow for true Socialism to take control.
Here's what my dictionary says: socialism -- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
You may claim that those two definitions are the same. But they are not. Your definition blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary--i.e. "community" as opposed to "government" (or collective, which implies coercion as does "government").
The difference as traditionally accepted is that "socialism" is generally coercive and administered by a government that polices those indentured under the "socialism" label. On the other hand, if the system is voluntarily entered into, with no coercion via a government or the collective involved, that would generally be called a "co-op" or "cooperative society."
I don't know if your slight was intentional in an attempt to "soften" the definition of socialism, but there is the difference.
As for Europe, there are no socialist nations. There are capitalist nations with very high tax rates to fund a welfare state. The truly socialist nations in Europe ceased to exist not long after the Berlin wall came down.
Now mind you, I'm not saying there are no repressive governments in Europe, only that they are not repressive in administering socialism. There needs to be a new term for those sorts of states because they still are capitalistic, but more repressive than a true free market and having very much higher tax rates. The element of coercion is definitely there. It's not cooperative at all. Maybe a blanket term of "coercive government" could apply to all of them in whatever degree. Of course, our own government is coercive as well... just not as much as the governments that are popularly called "socialist" in Europe.
Is it really Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or even Bernie Sanders? Is it Europe? Is it anyone who has a D beside their name?
"A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government".
That is a pretty solid definition of socialism above. Essentially you have a centralized public again usually government or government board that owns not the economic production but the control and distribution of that.
Using that definition Biden or Harris would not follow a strict socialist policy as they are not seeking ownership from corporations and controlling their product. A true socialist place would see the governing body or some public group owning say Pepsi, Facebook, Parler, Nestle, etc., and then controlling their means. A true socialist place would outlaw private property and everything would be public or subjected to public and or government control.
An example would be that say the government of Sweden will demand or take over Pepsi and say instead of making soft drinks you will now make masks and the government will take over the entire operation and distribution of those masks.
Simple Group Think is not enough to be considered Socialism.
The corporate model that the West uses even in those countries that everyone thinks are true Socialists would never allow for true Socialism to take control.
"The government" and "the communist as a whole" are vastly different concepts, almost antonyms.
Here's what my dictionary says: socialism -- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
You may claim that those two definitions are the same. But they are not. You definition blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary--i.e. "community" as opposed to "government" (or collective, which implies coercion as does "government").
The difference as traditionally accepted is that "socialism" is generally coercive and administered by a government that polices those indentured under the "socialism" label. On the other hand, if the system is voluntarily entered into, with no coercion via a government or the collective involved, that would generally be called a "co-op" or "cooperative society."
I don't know if your slight was intentional in an attempt to "soften" the definition of socialism, but there is the difference.
As for Europe, there are no socialist nations. There are capitalist nations with very high tax rates to fund a welfare state. The truly socialist nations in Europe ceased to exist not long after the Berlin wall came down.
Now mind you, I'm not saying there are no repressive governments in Europe, only that they are not repressive administering socialism. There needs to be a new term for those sorts of states because they still are capitalistic, but more repressive than a true free market and having very much higher tax rates. The element of coercion is definitely there. It's not cooperative at all.
Probably Welfare State or Safety Net Capitalism would be a good name perhaps Capitalism with strings attached would be some alternative names for some of our European nations. In school, the term Welfare State was thrown around to describe several European nations. I would argue a bit with the claim that it is purely involuntary. In situations where a full transition to Communism occurred then it would be involuntary , but the culture overall in Europe tends to support their style of government and most people tend to elect those who support that style of governance. Are there people against that in those places, yes, but it doesn't seem to In a democratic style of government, is it really involuntary if the people keep voting it in?
The big socialist push was during the GWB administration, when they wanted to privatize social security and invest it in the stock market. That would have given the feds a seat on the board of directors of many corporations, and control over the means of production.
The push nowadays is toward a welfare state, because of the 10 million unemployed Americans and the 40% of Americans who are behind on their housing payments.
It doesn't matter what it means and it doesn't matter that the people who use it don't know what it means. It's become a general insult for anyone even slightly to the left of the speaker. The people who throw it around have no intention of having a serious political discussion.
Communism. red flags that is a communist government. Censorship of free speech.
A one voice only allowed in the media and press and must be pro one voice government. A totalitarian voice of one. No freedom to think other than what is printed or said on Communist state media.
A police state. This is the FBI that has gone political and will only support the one political side .
Confiscation of Guns.. for the children's sake..
Regulations and Mandates dictating that all must do this or that. No freedom of choice.
Violence against the opposing side to quell that other voice of a free thinker .
Extreme threats of violence if one dare to oppose that one way to think.
Brain washing with propaganda on a daily basis to confuse and go against all common sense thinking. Those in power will make all the choices for you.
Using hate as a tool . In the book 1984 the powerful uses hate to keep those in allegiance to the one cause.
All these are tools of Communism. I recognize quite a few used today .
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.
