+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: General Social Media & Marketing Forums (/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Social Marketing (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Will the liberals who accuse me of not knowing what socialism is please furnish a definition of it? (/thread-43828.html)
- tweetypotpie1 - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
Last week some liberal accused us conservatives of not knowing the definition of socialism. I asked them to explain what capitalism isn't.
Ex: The government taking money from one group of people and giving it to another like AIG, the auto companies, and who ever else that they thought deserved it. Is that capitalism?
I had more than that and of course the liberal are going to think I'm stupid because I couldn't explain what it is. I know what it isn't. It ain't capitalism. Anything else will not do.
Look, someone can have sh*t cooking on the stove, but unless you have tasted it, all you can say is "It ain't Steak". I just don't want to find out what the foul smell and taste of socialism is like. GIVE ME STEAK EVERY DAY!
- drumsolo44 - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
my GOD!!
your avatar!!!
Spy magazine, Hillary photoshopped onto the body of a dominatrix.
YOWZUH!!!
i LOVED that issue!!!
- Pro Con - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
That happens to me too. I can't use the words socialism and USSR in the same sentence without being told that I don't understand socialism. Typically I get "socialism is not communism" often in all caps. I would agree, socialism is not communism but then the USSR never reached communism did they. They were in fact socialists at the time of their demise.
I think the liberals who incorrectly correct me are only interested in their agenda which is to promote the European-style welfare state.
Didn't we come to America to get away from the way Europeans do things?
Ollie North's Gold:
Your definition covers the bases well. Did you write that? Nice job writing or finding it, whichever you did.
EDIT
Greg J.
Excellent analogy which could certainly be used and even expanded. For example, anyone who has ever been to recess knows that teacher-monitors are ineffective at keeping the environment safe. The only thing that works is having parents that raise self reliant children.
I gave you a thumbs up even though we are ideologically opposed.
- syntax - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
I think you understand the word, but lack historical facts. The previous administration were the ones who socialized the banks. Obama has time and time again stated he does not want to run the banks or the vehicle industry. If Bush would not have run this country into the ground economically we wouldn't have this problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ3-CC2FRLQ&feature=related
- Steve K - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
Socialism is the transition stage of Capitalism moving to Communism. So long as the ruling class is still allowed to maintain their businesses the middle class can remain employed and the subclass can still be fed. Once the ruling class get tired of producing for no financial rewards or at a reduced rate of return they cease to work to produce and they too start to live off the state. At this time the system breaks down having no intelligent ruling class leaders in charge of production. Incompetents are now in charge and production breaks down and quality approaches unacceptability. Without production the subclass starts to run out of necessities and become a security problem. The security forces then have to be built up to protect the sinking middle class. Usually by this time chaos develops and all is lost. Socialism is always short lived. Read History!
- Michael - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
socialism is funded on the believe that the wealth must be redistributed. basically that works kind of like robin hood take from the rich and give to the poor. second in socialism their is limited free market also government runs big business while small businesses are still run by citizens. in other words higher taxes less things to buy and a larger public sector. although socialism is built on good fundamentals; helping the poor it simply doesn't work because debt overloads the system and an economic apocalypse happens.
- andrew w - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
My definition of Socialism comes from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. I think it is safe to say that they knew a bit more about it than the writer of the definition in Merriam-Webster.
so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsÅ-shÉ™-ËŒli-zÉ™m\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
------------------
I completely disagree with this definition.
Socialism and communism are the same thing.
Socialism takes the control of running society out of the hands of bosses and places it in the hands of ordinary people.
The Bolsheviks used the slogan "all power to the soviets". The Russian word "soviet" simply means "council" - i.e. they wanted councils of workers and peasants to be in control of the running of their industry and agriculture.
Marx and Lenin said that under socialism the state would "wither away". In the beginning, it would be necessary to have a state structure, but as socialism took over from capitalism, there would be less and less need to keep crime in check, for example, as there would be less poverty. Eventually, under advanced socialism, there would be an egalitarian, anarchic society where everything was naturally shared.
This happened in Catalonia, all too briefly, during the Spanish Civil War. In Barcelona, money was briefly abolished and everyone was paid instead using vouchers based on how many hours they had worked, i.e. everyone got the same. Unsurprisingly, this was very popular with the poor! (source 1)
However, because that heroic movement was built on anarchism and not socialism, it failed to get rid of the bosses' system completely and Franco was allowed to regain control. The result was a bloody fascist dictatorship for 40 years.
In Russia, sadly, the gains of the revolution were destroyed by the monstrous regime of Stalinism. This is what many people think of as socialism.
Read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia", Lenin's "The State and Revolution" or Trotsky's monumental 3 volume "History of the Russian Revolution".
- homegirl - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
Personal observation based on living in Western Europe for 17 years. A dictionary definition is not the same as social democracy in application. Have you ever been to Europe, it would be a highly educational experience for you, try it.
- Tim D - 11-19-2012 02:43 AM
That is always how the liberals respond if you mention socialism. The sad thing is, most of them don't understand what is happening right before their eyes. Many liberals think socialism is a fire department and an army.
What we have right now is the road to socialism...it is called Statism. (Below is a link for the liberals)
Regardless of what you call it: Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Statism...etc. It all leads to the same place TYRANNY.
STATISM-http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Statism