Do you think it's a good idea to have socialism instead of Capitalism? Socialism is more for the good of people, I think. Everyone's equal-there all at the same level. But with Capitalism it's kind of an every man for themself kind of thing. What do you think? Do you think America would be better off being Socialist?

From where I'm sitting, America is becoming more and more socialistic all the time ...with the passing of each bill in congress, with each decision of the Supreme Court, the "American Way" is being slowly undermined in favor of the citizens getting something for nothing! Socialism. Or worse, taking from some to give to others! Another form of socialism ...liberalism!

Baron Max

Isn' it the other way around Max? When was the last time the government tried to do something socialist? National healthcare by Bill Clinton? How many years was that ago? and it was torpedoed.

The last time? Why, Spurious, it was giving all that money to the people who had a little storm and wrecked their town .....you must remember that ...New Orleans, I believe was the name of the town.

But, Spurious, any controls on free enterprise is "socialistic" and the USA is loaded-down with such controls. Welfare is "socialistic". Federal funding of school systems is "socialistic". ...... Need I go on?

Baron Max

God Bless Globalization. :rolleyes:

- N

The last time? Why, Spurious, it was giving all that money to the people who had a little storm and wrecked their town .....you must remember that ...New Orleans, I believe was the name of the town.

But, Spurious, any controls on free enterprise is "socialistic" and the USA is loaded-down with such controls. Welfare is "socialistic". Federal funding of school systems is "socialistic". ...... Need I go on?

Baron Max

WARNING: Some ridiculous and silly statements are following now:

Free enterprise? Why is there a trade embargo with cuba? Surely communist economics can't outcompete a pure capitalist one?

Any control on free enterprise is socialistic you say. A scenario: A man has been working for the same company for years. But infortunately he has an accident with one of the machines at work. He loses one of his arms and dirties the machine with blood and flesh. In fact he is still stuck in the machine. The worker is now a nuisance to free enterprise. Can the owner of the factory or machineshop now,

get out his chainsaw and cut away the now useless worker?

Would that improve American society?

Cuba is a whole can of worms for me, because I don't understand
why we hate them and yet stilll buy from China. I guess because
China has more trinkets that we want.

At any rate, Amewrica reached it's socialistic peak during the 1940's
and has been sliding down into a morase of capitalism ever since.

People suffer under communism and under capitalism in the same
manner, corrporate owners and dictators are equally the bane of a
free society. When you recognize that only moderation allows for
maximal freedom, you realize why every free country necesarily has
a certain degree of socialism.

When you recognize that only moderation allows for
maximal freedom, you realize why every free country necesarily has
a certain degree of socialism.

True. But then there's the question of "...to what degree of socialism"? "...a certain degree of socialism" doesn't exactly say much, does it?


Any control on free enterprise is socialistic you say.

Well, thank you ...at least we have THAT out in the open! :)


A man has been working for the same company for years. But infortunately he has an accident with one of the machines at work. He loses one of his arms and dirties the machine with blood and flesh. In fact he is still stuck in the machine. The worker is now a nuisance to free enterprise. Can the owner of the factory or machineshop now, ...get out his chainsaw and cut away the now useless worker?

No. He should call the paramedics to remove the guy, then hire another worker to take his place and get the shop up and running as soon as possible.

The injured worker's insurance should take care of him adequately ...if he was smart enough to buy insurance. If not, then his family and friends should take care of him. If they don't, ...? ...well, it seems that no one wants him or loves him, huh? ...including all of his friends!

Baron Max

weve already got it

The idea of Socialism had its big day in America in the early part of the 20th Century, about 1910-20--read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle" about the Chicargo stockyards and the work conditions there. It's a novel (I read it about 40 years ago) yet it tells more truth about the conditions than a lot of true books. I believe it was written about 1920ish.

Do you think it's a good idea to have socialism instead of Capitalism?
Do you think you should live at home all your life and be financially supported by your parents, or do you think you should get your own place, get a job and actually support your own sorry ass?

Are you up for going out on the Savannah to hunt game at some risk to your person, or up only to stay safe back at the cave with the other women?

Are you up for going out on the Savannah to hunt game at some risk to your person, or up only to stay safe back at the cave with the other women?
personally i prefer to eat my peas out of the can with a fork.

"...a certain degree of socialism" doesn't exactly say much, does it?

No, and that's the problem. Who is to decide how much restraint is necessary on free enterprise in order to preserve the rights of the individual? Asking the government to preserve those rights is self-contradictory. The citizen simply becomes beholden to an authority that can rescind those rights at any time.

Restraint on extremist behavior, whether capitalism, religious fundamentalism, lawlessness or environmentalism, can only be properly exerted by individual citizens. I think this is why the Wild West has such a popular hold on the imagination of Americans. The rugged individualist protecting his own and living on his own terms is a good metaphor for liberty. Individuals need to take action - waiting for government or the justice system to do it is a fool's hope.

Individuals need to take action - waiting for government or the justice system to do it is a fool's hope.

Hear ye! Hear ye!

Excellent comment ...and straight to the heart of the matter of government.

Baron Max

....any controls on free enterprise is "socialistic" and the USA is loaded-down with such controls. ....Does that thinking apply to your local electric company? True you could buy your own generator to back up your investment in wind and direct solar systems, so the local power company could only charge you 6 or 7 times the current rate.

I assume you think it "good value" to avoid "US loaded down by socialistic controls" even if you must pay much more for your electricity. Is this assumption correct or false?

I also assume you opposed the REA - which brought power to the country dwellers by making city folks pay for these uneconomic long power lines. We should make every one live in dense urban areas, if they want power at less than a 10 fold increase in the electric bill and we must do away with public service commissions if we want to escape the evil of government's controls.

BTW - where do you want to live - inter city of in the country? I am sure you do not expect others to help pay cost of providing your electric service if you chose the country side, do you?

rant on:

It's kind of ironic that people use the anology 'parasite' most often in conjunction with socialism, while they should be doing it with capitalism. For instance, people abusing the system of social welfare.

In Socialism everybody is part of this big society where everybody does it's thing and everybody has it's role. Everybody is the same. And everybody is taken care of by society.

In capitalism everybody is part of this big society where everybody does it's thing andeverybody has it's role. However there is a small subset of parasites who will suck everybody dry and make them work for them. They are big fat monsters sucking up all the substance of the majority. Only they are taken care of by society. The rest is free game.

Conclusion: A few people 'abusing' (or using) the system of social wellfare will use much less resources of the society than the capitalist upper layer of rich and powerful people. People tend to forget this. Therefore on average the average guy is better off in a socialist system. If you are part of the happy few you better off in a capitalist system.

If we regard society as a whole then we cannot conclude simply that capitalism is better for the people. I've heard many times people saying the US has the highest GDP and such. How can that be, because I see so many poor and very poor people every day? The standard answer: these people are lazy, stupid, black, etc. Or could it be that there are so many poor in the US because there is hardly any socialism? And capitalism is unchecked?

rant off

Let me give an example:

1. Bill Gates fucks over a few people and becomes the master of DOS and Windows. He becomes the richest man on earth by selling these Operating Systems to us. He doesn't know what to do with all his money (huge big ass profits made over the backs of you) so he starts giving to charity. Apparently that makes him a social man

Reality check:
Lower the price on your OS and other products. Give back the money you stole from the average guy.

2. Linus Torvald develops Linux with other people. They make it open source and give it to the world. He tries to stay out of the lime light.

Now let us be honest. Is capitalism really better in this case? Who is the fat parasite in this case?

Microsoft is an Antenna of NSA (''National'' Security Agency) in my oppinion.

every device connected to xp will give information(serial numbers, etc) to Microsoft for marketing. what is the next step? ''uploading'' personal data from camera's?

Conclusion: A few people 'abusing' (or using) the system of social wellfare will use much less resources of the society than the capitalist upper layer of rich and powerful people.

Spurious, if you don't have any statistical data to back up that statement, then ...well, it's nothing more than you claimed it is ....just a "rant".


In Socialism everybody is part of this big society where everybody does it's thing and everybody has it's role. Everybody is the same. And everybody is taken care of by society.

And it would seem, in the reality of it, that people are FORCED to do their thing in order to pay for all of those services. Socialism would fold in a minute if people just quit working ...if they were permitted, of course! The reality of socialism is much different from the idealism of it.

In the other post, you gave Bill Gates as an example of the excessiveness evident in capitalism. However, just as an exercise, ask yourself ......did Bill Gates force anyone to buy his product(s)? If no one had bought the products, we would never have ever heard of Bill Gates. And that's true, by the way, of millions of people just like Gates in a capitalist system ...they try and fail by the millions. In a socialist system, they have no incentive to even try.

Baron Max

Look at Scandinavia and weep because you do not yet have socialism .....
Free education even in universities, free hospitals,doctors, social welfare that USA can only dream of, hardly any corruption, not only equality but even equal opportunities .....
Freedom, democracy and very strong economy ..........

Just start weeping ..........

Democratic socialism has total freedom - nobody forces anyone to work .....

Socialism is a hybrid between communism and capitalism - taking the strong free market economy from capitalism and combines it with sharing the big surplus out to the people of the society .....

But still keeping freedom and democracy ...... it actually works ....

Spurious, if you don't have any statistical data to back up that statement, then ...well, it's nothing more than you claimed it is ....just a "rant".


'One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993).'

'When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). '

'The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108).'

I assume now that less than 40% of the population is on wellfare. Eat that Baron.

see also:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-75.pdf

edit-

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6090_ch2.htm

in 1999 about 2.5% of the population was on welfare.

But, Spurious, you were making a comparison between socialism and capitalism. Thus to actually show that your conclusion is valid, you must compare the same numbers in socialist nations of the world ...preferrably ones similar in size, etc to the USA. Otherwise your numbers have little or no bearing on your conclusion.

Also, the number you cited for welfare is, I believe, ONLY for what's termed "direct welfare" ...ie, no including other forms of government handouts and community help/services.

People should help people ....governments shouldn't force other people to give to charities that they don't want or like.

Baron Max

'One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth.

'When he was worth $40 billion, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was worth more than the bottom 110 million Americans (the bottom 40 percent of the population). '

'The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108).'

I assume now that less than 40% of the population is on wellfare. Eat that Baron.

Well, I don't know if I can eat it or not, but.....

Spurious, try a little exercise for me and you'll see that the numbers you've cited above mean very little unless taken out of context -- as you've done!

Spurious, take all of that wealth that you've so graciously supplied above ...take it from those few rich bastards and divide it equally to all of the citizens of the nation. Then tell me how wealthy all of those people have become. And tell me how many of those below the poverty level are now above the poverty level.

You might also, just for grins and fun, consider that if you took all of Bill's money, including his companies, etc, then checked to see how many people would be out of work and without a paycheck. And that's just Bill's contribution ....what of all those other wealthy bastards???? :)

Baron Max

Why do you think everybody is on wellfare in socialist countries? Where did you get that idea? I could pull up numbers of for instance finland but it will not really change the numbers much. After all, the very rich in capitalist US will still have much more than the wellfare abusers in any socialist country.

Spurious, take all of that wealth that you've so graciously supplied above ...take it from those few rich bastards and divide it equally to all of the citizens of the nation. Then tell me how wealthy all of those people have become. And tell me how many of those below the poverty level are now above the poverty level.

'The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent. (Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World, p. 108).'

Take the income of the top ten percent of americans. Give it to your 40% poorest of your citizens and you suddenly doubled their income.

I would think that is quite something.

But you don't seem to think so I gather. Maybe because you are in the top 1% of richest americans?

spermlessmonkey,

The top one percent of Americans receive more income than the bottom 40 percent.
Stating the obvious is easy. How does the claim prove your intellectual superiority over others?

Take the income of the top ten percent of americans. Give it to your 40% poorest of your citizens and you suddenly doubled their income. I would think that is quite something.
I would think thieves in my house are dead thieves, and your redistriubution scheme is intellectually risky, if not genetically dead-ended.

every device connected to xp will give information(serial numbers, etc) to Microsoft for marketing. what is the next step? ''uploading'' personal data from camera's?

No, not cameras; that's what the Xbox 360 does. No joke.

- N

To Baron Max;

Did you miss my post yesterday (16 dec at 11 minutes past the hour) or
Are you just ignoring it because it exposes you lack of consistency?

Socialism would be for the benefit of the bottom 90% of americans. The other 10% can go fuck themselves else where. The reason why socialism has not been successful in the past is because of capitalists. Now on to my proposal: devide america into 2 (proportionally of course,), 1 for people who want to live under capitalism, and 1 for people who want socialism. That way there would be less conflict between the 2.

Does that thinking apply to your local electric company? True you could buy your own generator to back up your investment in wind and direct solar systems, so the local power company could only charge you 6 or 7 times the current rate.

If one wants electric power, then one should live in a location where it's provided. If one wants to live out in a cave, then why should he expect that an electric company should string wires all the way out to his cave for the same rate as someone next door to the power plant?????


I assume you think it "good value" to avoid "US loaded down by socialistic controls" even if you must pay much more for your electricity. Is this assumption correct or false?

Who owns the power-generation plant and facilities? And why should they be forced to provide power to anyone? If Joe lives a gazillion miles away, why should his power cost the same as Mike's, who lives right beside the generator?


I also assume you opposed the REA - which brought power to the country dwellers by making city folks pay for these uneconomic long power lines. We should make every one live in dense urban areas, if they want power at less than a 10 fold increase in the electric bill and we must do away with public service commissions if we want to escape the evil of government's controls.

For a gazillion years, farmers in outlying areas have done without the same convienences that city dwellers enjoyed .....why should that change? If the farmer wants city services, then he should move to the city.


BTW - where do you want to live - inter city of in the country? I am sure you do not expect others to help pay cost of providing your electric service if you chose the country side, do you?

No, I don't expect others to pay for something that only I enjoy. That's not only ridiculous, it's stupid and assinine!

And, yes, Billy, I didn't actually see your post ......so I've now answered it. Although from all that I said earlier, I can't believe that you couldn't see how I'd respond??

Baron Max

Socialism would be for the benefit of the bottom 90% of americans. The other 10% can go fuck themselves else where.

And just where would the money come from for that bottom 90%? Since the top 10% are busy fuckin' themselves, they wouldn't have time to make any money so as to pay taxes to the government ....so where would the government get the money to pay the lazy 90%?

Baron Max

To Baron Max:

Thanks for the answer. I must admit you are consistent in your stated views, not what I expected, but you did not tell if you live in the city or near the end of one of those long power lines that the city dwellers are helpng to pay for.

To Baron Max: ..., but you did not tell if you live in the city or near the end of one of those long power lines that the city dwellers are helpng to pay for.

I didn't say because I didn't think it was any of your business, nor would it have changed my post or my opinions.

Baron Max

I didn't say because I didn't think it was any of your business, nor would it have changed my post or my opinions. Baron MaxYou were more informative when offering a map of your coffee cans in the back yard. :)

You were more informative when offering a map of your coffee cans in the back yard. :)

...LOL! That's cause lots of 'em contained Claymore mines, pointed upward toward the face of the digger! Hit it wrong, and 10,000 little ball bearings fly out at a damned high rate of speed into the face of the digger. :)

Baron Max

To Baron Max:
Back closer to, if not on, thread:

I am not contending that it is a major part of France's current social unrest, but the French school system, which must be much to your liking, may contribute a small, minor part to that problem.

Following is part of today's NYTimes homepage you may find interesting. It is part of reason why I like federal funds supporting equal educational opportunities:

"...Nothing represents the stratification of French society more than the country's rigid educational system, which has reinforced the segregation of disadvantaged second-generation immigrant youths by effectively locking them out of the corridors of power.

While French universities are open to all high school graduates, the grandes écoles - great schools - from which many of the country's leaders emerge, weed out anyone who does not fit a finely honed mold. Of the 350,000 students graduating annually from French high schools, the top few grandes écoles accept only about 1,000, virtually all of whom come from a handful of elite preparatory schools.

Most of the country's political leaders, on both the right and the left, come from the grandes écoles. President Jacques Chirac and his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, studied at the National School of Administration, which has produced most of the technocrats who have run France for the last 30 years. Two opposition leaders, François Hollande and Laurent Fabius, did, too.

"It's as if in the U.S., 80 percent of the heads of major corporations or top government officials came from Harvard Law School," said François Dubet, a sociologist at the University of Bordeaux. ..."

I suspect that the loss, via underdevelopment, of so many good brains stuck in poor person's bodies may be a significant part of the reason why France has produced few significant advances in last 100 years. The flip side of this is also why Japan, China, and even to some extent, India will lead the world in this century. They value broadly-based, federal-supported education but even there some are "more equal than others", especially in Japan.

PS the claymores did not get me - I did not trust you, but strange to tell, I do like you - you can think for yourself, not very common now days, and have a rye, if sometimes sick, sense of humor. :cool:

It(the article) is part of reason why I like federal funds supporting equal educational opportunities:

In my opinion, the federal government has absolutely NO BUSINESS in the school systems of the USA! In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even the state government has no business in the school system in the regions of that state.

A school should be supported by the taxpayers of that region/area/county/or whatever it is ....if it can't afford to fund it's own school system, then the people have fucked up and should move to a better area. We have a horrible tendency in the USA to believe that we have the right to stick our damned meddling noses into everyone else's business!! Where is that permitted in the Constitution?

We seem to want to try so damned hard to make everyone exactly the same, like androids or robots, while at the very same time, we tout individualism! How damned foolish is that? The little kid from the farm in Iowa just wants to be a good little farmer, why should we force him to take school courses that he doesn't want, nor his parents want him to take? ..even if he could be the next world's greatest scientist!?

The federal government, and all of the idiotic politicians, forcing their views onto the general public is not very nice!

Baron Max

spermlessmonkey,
Stating the obvious is easy. How does the claim prove your intellectual superiority over others?You seem to have been so busy name-calling that you missed what he actually said. He not only said the rich have more money than the poor, he said the rich have more than 40 times as much as the poor. That's not necesarily obvious without numbers to back it up. It's also not particularly bad, IMHO.

I'd be OK with knowing that a good portion of individuals have 40 times more money than me. It does disturb me a bit knowing that people in the top 1% actually have more than 400 times as much money as me.

But it doesn't bother me for myself, because I chose to enter teaching knowing I'd be poor. It does bother me for my friends in industry who are being left wihout the retirement they earned over 30 years in order to support the habits of the rich. Theivery of any sort upsets me, but especially when it is of the poor by the rich.

It's more the theivery than the actual disbalances of capitalism that I object to.

In my opinion, the federal government has absolutely NO BUSINESS in the school systems of the USA! In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even the state government has no business in the school system in the regions of that state.
A school should be supported by the taxpayers of that region/area/county/or whatever it is ....if it can't afford to fund it's own school system, then the people have fucked up and should move to a better area. We have a horrible tendency in the USA to believe that we have the right to stick our damned meddling noses into everyone else's business!! Where is that permitted in the Constitution?
We seem to want to try so damned hard to make everyone exactly the same, like androids or robots, while at the very same time, we tout individualism! How damned foolish is that? The little kid from the farm in Iowa just wants to be a good little farmer, why should we force him to take school courses that he doesn't want, nor his parents want him to take? ..even if he could be the next world's greatest scientist!?I am no "beading heart" liberal and you are no simple "red neck." I favor good educational opportunity for all within the interior of a tariff zone (Call it a country to be clear.) but like you, damned if I want my tax dollars supporting potential economic competitors.

I think we both agree that the extremes of our positions are ridiculous. Even if you think it unfair for childless old couple to be taxed to support local school of no direct benefit to them, you probably do not think all schools should be closed and only the parents pay for "home schooling." I assume this, as it would be silly for each parent to provide lab equipment, library full of books etc. even if economically feasible.

I do not want UN taxing everyone to provide all humans with equal education opportunity. Thus, neither of us is "pure" in our positions, but we sure disagree as to what should be or is the optimum the size of the school tax support district.

200 years ago, I would have opposed federal funding of schools as most people would die in the state they were born and thus it was highly unlikely that the poor schools in Arkansas or West Virginia (my birth and public school states) would adversely effect the economy of Ohio or Utah, etc. This has all changed. Ohio and Utah can expect that people from many different states (or your smaller districts) will populate "their" states. Well educated, adaptive and mobile workers are a hugh asset to a modern society.

It just makes good economic sense to develop all the brainpower within the country, same as any other resource. In fact, in this day and age brainpower is the most important resource any advanced country has.

I have stated it before, but just to be perfectly clear, I do not want the federal government, the state government, the county government, the neighborhood committee or any other group, other than professional educators, to determine what is taught or how. If most in teachers in the "Bible belt" want ID nonsense in their texts, I would think it sad, and not live there, but not try to stop them. I have enough faith in the eventual emergence of rational thought in at least professionally trained educators to believe most real stupidity will be eliminated if they are in charge, but I am quite certain that politicians will require whatever they think the majority of their voters want in the textbook to be there.

Summary, for the economic benefit of the country, in a very competitive world, where brainpower is the most important "natural resource," I agree - get the dam self-serving politicians out of the school curriculum. Or as you would put it: Everybody but educators should keep their noses out of the school curriculum (you and me included) and the schools, all of them, should be well funded - they make the country's future.

With that, I rest my case. (I will not argue with you more.) I think your native intelligence and ability for independent thought (if you do some on this) may eventually provoke a change in your views, I certainly can not, if you are too rigid to do so. That was my best shot anyway - hope you do not just duck it.

And just where would the money come from for that bottom 90%? Since the top 10% are busy fuckin' themselves, they wouldn't have time to make any money so as to pay taxes to the government ....so where would the government get the money to pay the lazy 90%?

Baron Max

1. where are your references that claim socialism makes people lazy.
2. the top 10% actually make most of their money by speculating (source -upside down world -refs in the back). That is paper money.
3. Where are your references that in socialist countries everybody is paid by the government as is insinuated in above statement.

spermlessmonkey,

Stating the obvious is easy. How does the claim prove your intellectual superiority over others?

I would think thieves in my house are dead thieves, and your redistriubution scheme is intellectually risky, if not genetically dead-ended.

I don't see myself declaring intellectual superiority. That and the name change you have given to me leads me to believe that you have currently a stick up your ass. I think you would do the world a favour if you remove the stick out of your ass before you post.

ps.
Use gloves or wash your hands (hint- afterwards).

1. where are your references that claim socialism makes people lazy.

Where did I make that claim???


2. the top 10% actually make most of their money by speculating (source -upside down world -refs in the back). That is paper money.

Huh? So is that to say that rich people actually DON'T make lots of money? If so, then none of your claims about rich people making so much more money than poor people doesn't make any sense, do they?


3. Where are your references that in socialist countries everybody is paid by the government as is insinuated in above statement.

Hmm, isn't that the very premise of "socialism"? ...that people will be provided all of the necessary items for comfortable existence? If not, what the fuck do YOU think "socialism" means?

Baron Max

Huh? So is that to say that rich people actually DON'T make lots of money? If so, then none of your claims about rich people making so much more money than poor people doesn't make any sense, do they?
Speculation means that people 'take' money from someone else. They don't produce anyting useful. They don't make anything. The money is made by other people, but they collect it.




Hmm, isn't that the very premise of "socialism"? ...that people will be provided all of the necessary items for comfortable existence? If not, what the fuck do YOU think "socialism" means?

People have interpreted socialism in different ways. The same for capitalism. Here is a small list from wikipedia:

Branches of socialism
A chart of some branches of socialism. Note: This chart seems to simplify the evolution of socialism into anarchism and "authoritarian socialism." This is a contentious point made by some anarchists who view most strains of Marxist socialism to be inherently authoritarian
Enlarge
A chart of some branches of socialism. Note: This chart seems to simplify the evolution of socialism into anarchism and "authoritarian socialism." This is a contentious point made by some anarchists who view most strains of Marxist socialism to be inherently authoritarian

Since the 19th century, socialist ideas have developed and separated into many different streams. Notable ideologies that have been referred to using the label "socialism" are:

* African socialism
* Libertarian socialism
o Anarchism
+ Anarcho-syndicalism
+ Anarcho-communism
o council communism
o autonomist Marxism
* Christian socialism
* Islamic socialism
* Communism (see also Marxism)
* Democratic socialism
* International socialism
* Syndicalism
* Utopian socialism
* Guild socialism

The socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition can generally be further divided into:

* Castroism
* Council communism
* Hoxhaism
* Juche
* Angka
* Left communism
* Leninism
* Luxembourgism
* Mao Zedong Thought or "Maoism"
o Gonzalo Thought
* Marxist humanism
* Stalinism
* Trotskyism
* Situationism

Several forms of "socialism" are considered by those further to the left to be reformist or revisionist. These include:

* Austromarxism
* Evolutionary socialism
* Fabianism
* Social democracy
* Popular Socialism
* Yellow socialism
* Socialism with Chinese characteristics and other forms of market socialism
* Bernsteinism
* Kautskyism
* Titoism
* Labor Zionism


I guess we should get more specific on what kind of socialism we are thinking of before we can continue this discussion. I was actually limiting my thoughts on the topic of socialism to the economic situation.


As in the realm of ideology, there is no single consensus on what it means for a particular economic system to be "socialist". However, all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class.

I can safely stand behind that.

I do not agree with the classic definition of socialism:


Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.

A state cannot be trusted with too much power. A state should exist to serve the people, not to be in power. There is a difference in that. That's why I can never bother to read the likes of Marx.

Therefore I would like to say that when I am talking about socialism I am talking about a society that is based on the Finnish state system of social welfare. Not everything is state controlled perse, but the state stabilizes society by providing a network of social security and social protection. This model doesn't prevent effective corporate enterprise (Nokia is not Japanese). Nor does it prevent emphasis on technology. Au contraire, the Finnish society is very technology minded and stimulates the development of high technology industries. In short there is indeed a happy middle between socialism and capitalism, a society that can be on the forefront of both social security and private competiveness. This happy middle I am for instance missing in the USA.

I do not agree with the classic definition of socialism:

Well, that's just cute as hell, ain't it! Okay, you argue about what you think "socialism" is and I'll argue about what I think it is, then we'll have a really informative, enjoyable discussion, huh?


A state cannot be trusted with too much power.

And yet you want to give them even more power??? Then you say, "A state should exist to serve the people, not to be in power." Duh? What the fuck are you talking about now?

If they have the power to "serve" the people, then they also have the power NOT to "serve" the people ....and that can be a pretty damned powerful power, wouldn't you say? If the state cuts off someone's food, water and electricity, that person just might be in a world of pain. Yet you don't call that power???

Baron Max

Actually the US government seemed to have more power (over their citizens) than the Finnish government.

Well, that's just cute as hell, ain't it! Okay, you argue about what you think "socialism" is and I'll argue about what I think it is, then we'll have a really informative, enjoyable discussion, huh?

I explained to you how i would define it and that there isn't a single interpretation of socialism. You are just crying here for the sake of crying.

Now you explain your definition of capitalism.

Without definitions there is no discussion possible because we will not know what we are talking about.

You are just crying here for the sake of crying.

No, just pointing out the flaws in your posts/arguments.

Baron Max

In this case there wasn't a flaw. See previous post.

Look at Scandinavia and weep because you do not yet have socialism .....
Free education even in universities, free hospitals,doctors, social welfare that USA can only dream of, hardly any corruption, not only equality but even equal opportunities .....
Freedom, democracy and very strong economy ..........

Just start weeping ..........

Yeah, that sounds nice. I mean about socialism, not about Scandinvia.

Yeah, that sounds nice. I mean about socialism, ....

Who is going to pay for it all? And worse, what if people just quit working because they no longer have to? Why should they work when everything is free for the asking? Where will the money come from?

Baron Max

Who is going to pay for it all? And worse, what if people just quit working because they no longer have to? Why should they work when everything is free for the asking? Where will the money come from?
Baron Max

A doctor would get paid more then a garbage man, and a person that doesn't work would get paid less then garbage man. You still need to make money. You still have to work to make a living for yourself. When you go to College you still have those expensive books too buy, you still have food to buy. The government isn't that helpful.

A doctor would get paid more then a garbage man, and a person that doesn't work would get paid less then garbage man. You still need to make money. You still have to work to make a living for yourself.

Ahh, so someone is actually forcing the people to work under socialism, huh? That must be so, because you said, "You still have to work..." So who's forcing them to work and, more importantly, if they don't, do they still get food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc? And if so, where does the money come from for those services? ...from those who work???

Baron Max

Ahh, so someone is actually forcing the people to work under socialism, huh? That must be so, because you said, "You still have to work..." So who's forcing them to work and, more importantly, if they don't, do they still get food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc? And if so, where does the money come from for those services? ...from those who work???

Baron Max

Oh geez, you have to work to make money. You don't get free food, clothing, and housing. They don't pay for your medical care though. If my dad decided to stop working the government isn't going to do everything for us. My dad still has to work inorder to pay rent, pay the phone bill, food, etc...