Why do some people hate what they fear (Socialism)?

[Nikitn]

I'm kind of curious.. What is fundamentally wrong with socialism?

Today, the Socialist countries are the richest and most productive in the world. Free healthcare, free education (up to university), decent workdays and many types of welfare (child welfare etc).

You seem 2 think that 90% of people live on unemployed welfare in Socialist nations.. this is wrong. A person gets welfare only if he agrees 2 accept any job he is offered, if he can't find 1 himself in a few months or so.

Ofc the major problem is bureaucracy, but it is definitely worth it.

+ Socialists (btw, back in the early 20th century, socialists were communists who wanted a Marxist utotopia through democratic means) liberated the civilized world with democracy during the 20th century.

You agree or disagree?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There is currently no socialist country in the world

I take it you mean countries with more social policies?

[Nikitn]

Social democracies

[Claudius Gothicus]

Social democracies

Social Democracies are slightly left applications of the Social Liberalism theory.

I don't see your socialists countries anywhere in the map if you ask me. Ohh you mean Cuba, well it's doing great ehh?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Social Democracies are slightly left applications of the Social Liberalism theory.

I don't see your socialists countries anywhere in the map if you ask me. Ohh you mean Cuba, well it's doing great ehh?

He means countries that have social policies such as welfare and largely free health care and free schooling.

[Claudius Gothicus]

He means countries that have social policies such as welfare and largely free health care and free schooling.

The theory is called Social Liberalism, gradually started to develop through the late 19th century and made it's grand appearance after Roosevelt's New Deal.
Some very influential Socially Liberal thinkers... Emile Durkheim, Alfred Fouillee, John Stuart Mill, T.H. Green, John Maynard Keynes etc.

He's renaming ''socialist'' countries which adopt more socially aware variants of capitalism.

[Nikitn]

Social Democracies are slightly left applications of the Social Liberalism theory.

I don't see your socialists countries anywhere in the map if you ask me. Ohh you mean Cuba, well it's doing great ehh?

We have a different definition then. Anyway read about the history of Social democratic parties. All of them were "democratic Communists/Socialists" during the early 20th century.

About Cuba: Considering how they have survived collapse of USSR (USSR was main exporter to Cuba), how they have been embargoed by USA, and every US company (and no company is allowed to sell Cuba products that the company has used some American company's lisence to make) they are doing great. Just look at their neighbours.

And yeah, I remember someone saying on this forum, that UN HDI estimate of Baptista Cuba was not far away from todays Central African HDI.

[Claudius Gothicus]

To make an intent against your arguments is a Quixotesque's enterprise, but I'm going to do it anyways.

We have a different definition then. Anyway read about the history of Social democracies. All of them were "democratic Communists/Socialists" during the early 20th century.

1) What's early 20th century? 1910's? 1930's? 1940's?

2) The very fist state that implemented social policies that can be labeled as a ''primitive'' form of Welfare State(which is what you are talking about) started in Imperial Germany with Otto Von Bismarck a known CONSERVATIVE, want some examples? here they are A) Health Insurance Bill of 1883, B) Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, C) Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889.

3) During the first decade of the XX century social policies were implemented in Britain by the LIBERAL PARTY in the form of A) In 1908, the Children and Young Person's act, B) 1905 Unemployed Workmen Act and the 1909 Development Fund, C) National insurance act 1911, D) Mines act 1908, etc.

I could go on and on, Keynes policies for example(which was the brains behind solving the crack) were followed by F.D.R.'s government through the implementation of the New Deal.

About Cuba: Considering how they have survived collapse of USSR (USSR was main exporter to Cuba), how they have been embargoed by USA, and every US company (and no company is allowed to sell Cuba products that the company has used some American company's lisence to make) they are doing great. Just look at their neighbours.

Yeah sure, and the Communist party of Cuba making a highly structured and planned economy that doesn't allow for the great economic areas of Cuba to be fully exploited doesn't have anything to do with the Island stagnating. An embargo is an embargo, I'm not going to deny that but with the new reforms approaching let us see if even under the pressure of an embargo Cuba's economy doesn't revitalize itself.

[Dr. Croccer]

1) What's early 20th century? 1910's? 1930's? 1940's?

2) The very fist state that implemented social policies that can be labeled as a ''primitive'' form of Welfare State(which is what you are talking about) started in Imperial Germany with Otto Von Bismarck a known CONSERVATIVE, want some examples? here they are A) Health Insurance Bill of 1883, B) Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, C) Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889.

That had more to do with fears that Socialists would gain popular support than any sense of ideology.

3) During the first decade of the XX century social policies were implemented in Britain by the LIBERAL PARTY in the form of A) In 1908, the Children and Young Person's act, B) 1905 Unemployed Workmen Act and the 1909 Development Fund, C) National insurance act 1911, D) Mines act 1908, etc.

Which were copies of the German policies, for very much the same reasons.

Who doesn't want a fairer society?

''Wanting'' isn't the same as ''doing''.

[Strelok]

A lot of people have no idea what socialism is, especially on this board.

Social democracies

Well, yes, that's more accurate. For your original post and for reference I'll point out a distinction between the two.. A social democracy at it's base is a mixed economy with the capitalist means of production that may or may not tend to aim to be more 'fairer'. Socialism in it's prime tenants is the abolition of private property and the mutual management of the means of production. Democratic socialism is similar to social democracy but without the capitalist means of production. I'm not specifically addressing you here, but to anyone who is reading.

Mainly because Liberals confuses ideological socialism (anything egaliarian) with socialist economics (collectivisation), and use the argument that anyone who wants a more fair society is a Communist.

I hope by liberals you mean neo-liberals here.

[Dr. Croccer]

Those aren't socialist. A social democracy at it's base is a mixed economy with the capitalist means of production that may or may not tend to aim to be more 'fairer'. Socialism in it's prime tenants is the abolition of private property and the mutual management of the means of production.

No, that's the Marxist definition of the system of Socialism. Socialism in the sense of ideology predates it and is the correct term.

I hope by liberals you mean neo-liberals here.

I refer to all them savages.

[Strelok]

No, that's the Marxist definition of the system of Socialism. Socialism in the sense of ideology predates it and is the correct term.

What I was directly saying had exactly do with the tenants of Socialism as an ideology and not viewing it as a system. If I was doing otherwise I might have cited more 'important' details or trends within the socialist school of thought. The part of my citation for the definition of Socialism, the more relevant part, is the first sentence of my citation, which provides three sources for itself. What is this predating definition of Socialism that you proclaim if I may ask? What exactly do you mean by Marxist definition? Defined by Karl Marx? A common trend in definition from Marxists? The citation I linked had three sources for it's claim of what Socialism is, which is the first sentence. To end my boatload of questions which might constitute a fallacy, how do you figure that the former, older definition is 'correct' over the one I linked?

I refer to all them savages.

They're completely different ideologies, though. Liberalism in it's modern definition is left-wing afilitation and also with a certain trend in social policies dealing with tolerance usually. neo-liberalism would have to do with right-wing free market economics. The modern characteristic of a liberal is less likely to do what you proclaimed they do.

[Dr. Croccer]

What I was directly saying had exactly do with the tenants of Socialism as an ideology and not viewing it as a system. If I was doing otherwise I might have cited more 'important' details or trends within the socialist school of thought. The part of my citation for the definition of Socialism, the more relevant part, is the first sentence of my citation, which provides three sources for itself. What is this predating definition of Socialism that you proclaim if I may ask? What exactly do you mean by Marxist definition? Defined by Karl Marx? A common trend in definition from Marxists? The citation I linked had three sources for it's claim of what Socialism is, which is the first sentence. To end my boatload of questions which might constitute a fallacy, how do you figure that the former, older definition is 'correct' over the one I linked?

Because it's older and simply better. Marx himself refered to the old, pre-existing Socialist groups. The term itself was used first to refer to reformers like Robert Owen, Comte de Saint-Simon and Pierre Leroux. Their main intent was to create an egalitarian society, to varying degrees.

They're completely different ideologies, though. Liberalism in it's modern definition is left-wing afilitation and also with a certain trend in social policies dealing with tolerance usually. neo-liberalism would have to do with right-wing free market economics. The modern characteristic of a liberal is less likely to do what you proclaimed they do.

I'm talking in definitions of the civilized world, not the colonies.

[Enemy of the State]

Collectivists didn't have a monopoly on the world socialism in the beginning though. There was the mutualist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker, who both called themselves socialists. Marx ended up overshadowing them though. A shame their ideas died out, read up on Mutualism, it's really interesting.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Because Americans follow an agressively individualistic policy that celebrates predatory economic impulses. Not only they are as blatantly materialistic as others (ie economic success is the best success), but they also feel that in the only true and perfect world, the man who wants to stomp the others and pursue his own priorities without regard to anyone but himself must do so without impediment.

Then we have Bernie Madoff, and other common figures that provoke economic crises when they take this sort of outlook to its last necessary consequences, and of course we have people blaming the Government for it. In America, if there's anything wrong, blame the Government for it.

[Enemy of the State]

It is the means, not the ends, that most people have a problem with.

[Marechal Ney]

In my opinion, the whole Stalinism/Maoism/Castroism sect isn't true socialism (though the latter is closer than the rest), they are actually state capitalist. They just replace the force oppressing the proletariat with government, instead of the bourgeoisie.

Although there are not any true "socialist" countries in the world today, there are some that have plenty of socialized institutions (France is a good example). The main argument against those countries is that their economies have been destroyed by socialism. The thing is, France has never really been that much of a supreme economic power since World War One, or earlier depending on your definition of supreme. France is going through a massive debt crisis right now perhaps to some degree due to its socialized policies, but mostly just because it doesn't have the economic strength to sustain itself. Its the same reason why the 40 smallest US states should never secede from the union, as their economies would utterly collapse without the support of their bigger neighbors. In this analogy, California, New York, and Texas represent the world's big countries where all the wealth is concentrated. Sadly, no major power (again, saying that the USSR/PRC weren't truly socialist) has adopted any real form of Marxism, so there is no good working example.

Now hopefully, if the EU becomes more formalized as an entity, socialism can have another chance now that we know to avoid the state capitalists.

And actually, there was once, to some degree, a Socialist country. That was Chile under Allende in the early 1970s before he was overthrown by the US, although he was most certainly not radical.

The reason why people are so anti socialist without understanding what it is they hate is, to some degree, residue from McCarthy's Reign of Terror. Today I talked to a strongly anti-socialist reactionary who had never heard of the Communist Manifesto and couldn't name a single tenant of Socialism...needless to say, these guys are awfully common.

One of the better examples of how the American public is so embittered towards socialism but actually benefits from it without understanding how occurred at a local level. The Post Office said that a few mailboxes (our neighborhood has brick mailboxes) were not high enough for standards, and thus the five offending ones needed a $1200 fix made to them. The neighborhood association decided to have all the households pay a small amount of the cost. The thing is, many, many people in this neighborhood are reactionary, and the vote on whether to have the pay divided, one of the most socialist things you can do at a local level, was unanimously approved. What hypocrisy! Social Darwinism is bad; I disagree with reactionaries, but at least they used to be able to NAME reasons why they don't like Socialism and recognize examples of it in their lives. Americans just hate that word, but they don't know what it means (other words that Americans often use without knowing what they mean: vigilante, fascism, communism, Progressive, Conservative, Liberal, philosophy, Muslim, and often war. Some groups are better than others on various words, but if everybody in this country learned the definition of all those and accepted the definitions, they would be rather amazed at how foolish they were). Until they learn, the US is just going to have to live with people slinging the word around as an insult.

[dogukan]

In my opinion, the whole Stalinism/Maoism/Castroism sect isn't true socialism (though the latter is closer than the rest), they are actually state capitalist. They just replace the force oppressing the proletariat with government, instead of the bourgeoisie.

at last

[Nikitn]

I believe the excellent welfare system safeguards the economy and keeps the populance productive and happy. Just because Greece and so on failed due 2 stupid management doesn't really prove anything.

And trust me: post 1956 Soviet Union there was very real socialist social structure and pure state capitalism (and of course a centralized economy doesn't work for a peaceful consumer oriented economy).

Stalinist USSR... There was more about exploiting people to build the state. Also, the rulers had little to fear from the populance, as the population was under a very hard boot.

PS: Materialism is pretty important everywhere in Europe, today. I've heard that it is THE important thing in the US though.

[Dr. Croccer]

Mainly because Liberals confuses ideological socialism (anything egaliarian) with socialist economics (collectivisation), and use the argument that anyone who wants a more fair society is a Communist.