41–50 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
One difference is that the sharing is opt-in. You don't have to give up all your stuff, just to be "in". When it's part of a government, it's not optional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will…
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism.
For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. Einstein lived long enough to see how Stalinism worked out; he outlived Stalin. On the other hand, by some definitions Norway is socialist and things seem to have worked out pretty good there. This kind of discussion is pointless: everyone uses "socialism" to mean whatever they think it should mean and then argues. It's like a b…
> On the other hand, by some definitions Norway is socialist and things seem to have worked out pretty good there. Anything works with a small population of Scandanavians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One difference is that the sharing is opt-in. You don't have to give up all your stuff, just to be "in". When it's part of a government, it's not optional.
Some would argue that when it's your God, it's also not opt-in. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing this out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
> Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35. If you're suggesting that we should accept something because it is in the Christian Bible, you're suggesting that we should accept anything in said bible. (Why? Because your argument for that thing applies to everything in said bible.) Moreover, surely you accept everything in said bible.
Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure time for the individual. I…
Unions have pretty much put a stop to the automation of most industries.
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. Einstein lived long enough to see how Stalinism worked out; he outlived Stalin. On the other hand, by some definitions Norway is socialist and things seem to have worked out pretty good there. This kind of discussion is pointless: everyone uses "socialism" to mean whatever they think it should mean and then argues. It's like a b…
The general idea of socialism is the forced redistribution of wealth or property, which pretty much doesn't change in all of the different versions of socialism.
I consider massive taxes to pay for government programs a form of socialism (taxes that go above and beyond the basic funding of a nation/country. IE: fire, police, roads, schools). As these taxes get bigger and bigger, the wealth distribution becomes equal and it starts to really become more of a communist system.
It seems to me that the people that don't want it called 'socialism' want to hide the fact that it's exactly that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some would argue that when it's your God, it's also not opt-in. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing this out.
No really, I mean that there was never a rule (by God or the local church) that this sharing was mandatory. The members of the church did this spontaneously. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ananias_and_S...
Here's some important things to think about: First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and authoritarian ways. Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate successfully in the global market. If socialism is publi…
As I see it, the fundamental flaw in socialism always boils down the facts that a) a great many people like power and won't willingly give it up, b) these are the people who historically wind up in control of political structures (including unions), and c) as Dame Thatcher observed, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. Einstein lived long enough to see how Stalinism worked out; he outlived Stalin. On the other hand, by some definitions Norway is socialist and things seem to have worked out pretty good there. This kind of discussion is pointless: everyone uses "socialism" to mean whatever they think it should mean and then argues. It's like a b…
This should be posted at the top of every political discussion, in my humble opinion.