Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
60
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

60 Views
Message 1 of 12

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

We keep arguing over terms like capitalism, communism, and socialism. We also use these terms randomly to describe what we are talking about.  

 

I want capitalism with rules like Germany has  and I want socialism like Canada and Norway practice it.  Let's try emulating the winners for a change. 

 

Done. 


Fantastic idea! Norwegeans are the "happiest people on Earth" largely because they decided ALL the people would benefit from the huge wealth derived from North Sea Oil, giving their average citizen an income equivalent to $84,000 for an American. Our wealth is much greater and more diverse, but the same approach would produce the same results here.

 

As for Germany, the biggest difference in our economies is the way the Government regulates compensation. They have strict laws governing everything from paid leave and working conditions to how executives can be rewarded and how jobs can be moved. The result is they too have surpassed Americans in real wages and are far above Americans in their "satisfaction" with life.

 

Please note that both those countries are DEMOCRACIES and have been for a very long time, and neither has any noticable number of citizens looking to move to America for a better life.


Germany has two major political parties. Norway has a multi-party system. You are calling for a one-party system here. That is dangerous.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
60
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
78
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

78 Views
Message 2 of 12

@Richva wrote:

We keep arguing over terms like capitalism, communism, and socialism. We also use these terms randomly to describe what we are talking about.  

 

I want capitalism with rules like Germany has  and I want socialism like Canada and Norway practice it.  Let's try emulating the winners for a change. 

 

Done. 


Fantastic idea! Norwegeans are the "happiest people on Earth" largely because they decided ALL the people would benefit from the huge wealth derived from North Sea Oil, giving their average citizen an income equivalent to $84,000 for an American. Our wealth is much greater and more diverse, but the same approach would produce the same results here.

 

As for Germany, the biggest difference in our economies is the way the Government regulates compensation. They have strict laws governing everything from paid leave and working conditions to how executives can be rewarded and how jobs can be moved. The result is they too have surpassed Americans in real wages and are far above Americans in their "satisfaction" with life.

 

Please note that both those countries are DEMOCRACIES and have been for a very long time, and neither has any noticable number of citizens looking to move to America for a better life.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
78
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
86
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

86 Views
Message 3 of 12

@Olderscout66 wrote:

Let's cut to the chase: Both Communism and Socialism are nothing but words the Republicans have used to freighten their base into accepting Oligarchy since 1917. Because of this Total Emersion in BS, Republicans can no longer think rationally about either concept, and insist on repeating the lies they were fed by their GOPerLords, none of which relate to the real world or its problems.

 

What we need to debate is CIVILIZATION, and what we want from ours. First a simple definition: Civilization is people organizing to provide for themselves COLLECTIVILY what they cannot obtain INDIVIDUALLY.

 

In the beginning, the people exchanged their talents and used barter, but for the past 10,000 years or so, MONEY is the grease that allows the gears to turn and the machine to run.

 

The entire debate hinges on just TWO questions:

 

First question: What do We want from our civilization?

Second question: How do we get what we want?

 

I'll suggest we all want FREEDOM, and we know from History the best, perhaps only, way to get it is by FREE AND OPEN ELECTIONS WITH ALL ADULTS PARTICIPATING.

We get it by eliminating cheating - like Gerrymanders and voter suppression laws that exclude groups from having an equal voice in the process, and since neoRepublicans are the ones doing the Gerrymandering and voter suppression, they gotta go for Freedom to happen.

 

Next we probably want PHYSICAL SECURITY, which we get with police and a military. But cops and soldiers don't produce readily marketable goods or services, so we need to find a way to pay for our security, and that means a Strong ELECTED government supported by TAXES which ought to extract an equal SACRIFICE from all citizens, which is opposed by Republicans, so to make it work, they gotta go.

 

Then comes a whole raft of laws defining how we are to behave in our dealings with eachother - laws to prevent fraud, intimidation, swindles, inferior/dangerous products, unsafe working conditions and all those other things your momma hoped you wouldn't do. But for this to do any good, you have to have a Government that is dedicated to seeing such laws are enforced, and Republicans have no interest in enforcing anything that interfers with PROFITS, so once again, they gotta go for the system to work.

 

And finally we need to decide what we ALL want from the economic engine our civilization creates - things we cannot provide for ourselves but feel as human beings we have a right to. Education, health care, excellent infrastructure, especially schools, recreation, natural beauty, a safe environment, a marketplace of ideas free from deception and deceit. Once more, these are things Republicans do NOT think Americans are worthy of, so to get the benefits we must remove the obstruction and GOPers gotta go.

 

Thing is, until 1981, we were well on our way to obtaining ALL of this, but Reagan's taxscam removed the TAXES that were paying for our wonderful, best-in-the-World Civilization and replaced that Eden with a couple hundred billionaires and the worst schools and health care of any industrialized Nation - the only place you can lose EVERYTHING because your child gets sick., the only place whre workweeks are getting LONGER, the only place where income inequality is GROWING and the only place where you find REPUBLICANS.

 

Want things to be as good as they were in 1980?

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER

 

 


No, they are not just words. They define a political philosopy clearly spelled out by Karl Marx. Granted certain elements have been given other names over the years, the original meanings remain.

 

How did the Republicans get involved in Oligarchy in 1917? Or is that just one more of "those facts" like all of your obsessions with the Reagan tax cuts and that horrible word "profits" (Karl Marx hated profits too).

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
86
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
90
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

90 Views
Message 4 of 12

@Richva wrote:

We keep arguing over terms like capitalism, communism, and socialism. We also use these terms randomly to describe what we are talking about.  

 

I want capitalism with rules like Germany has  and I want socialism like Canada and Norway practice it.  Let's try emulating the winners for a change. 

 

Done. 


True - words do get bandied around. However, the ten planks offered by Marx do pretty much define the Progressive Movement. That by itself tells a story regardless of the title assigned.

 

Also, a poster who thinks that the government should own all the money and decide who gets what (that poster exists here) pretty much self-labels.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
90
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
106
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

106 Views
Message 5 of 12

Let's cut to the chase: Both Communism and Socialism are nothing but words the Republicans have used to freighten their base into accepting Oligarchy since 1917. Because of this Total Emersion in BS, Republicans can no longer think rationally about either concept, and insist on repeating the lies they were fed by their GOPerLords, none of which relate to the real world or its problems.

 

What we need to debate is CIVILIZATION, and what we want from ours. First a simple definition: Civilization is people organizing to provide for themselves COLLECTIVILY what they cannot obtain INDIVIDUALLY.

 

In the beginning, the people exchanged their talents and used barter, but for the past 10,000 years or so, MONEY is the grease that allows the gears to turn and the machine to run.

 

The entire debate hinges on just TWO questions:

 

First question: What do We want from our civilization?

Second question: How do we get what we want?

 

I'll suggest we all want FREEDOM, and we know from History the best, perhaps only, way to get it is by FREE AND OPEN ELECTIONS WITH ALL ADULTS PARTICIPATING.

We get it by eliminating cheating - like Gerrymanders and voter suppression laws that exclude groups from having an equal voice in the process, and since neoRepublicans are the ones doing the Gerrymandering and voter suppression, they gotta go for Freedom to happen.

 

Next we probably want PHYSICAL SECURITY, which we get with police and a military. But cops and soldiers don't produce readily marketable goods or services, so we need to find a way to pay for our security, and that means a Strong ELECTED government supported by TAXES which ought to extract an equal SACRIFICE from all citizens, which is opposed by Republicans, so to make it work, they gotta go.

 

Then comes a whole raft of laws defining how we are to behave in our dealings with eachother - laws to prevent fraud, intimidation, swindles, inferior/dangerous products, unsafe working conditions and all those other things your momma hoped you wouldn't do. But for this to do any good, you have to have a Government that is dedicated to seeing such laws are enforced, and Republicans have no interest in enforcing anything that interfers with PROFITS, so once again, they gotta go for the system to work.

 

And finally we need to decide what we ALL want from the economic engine our civilization creates - things we cannot provide for ourselves but feel as human beings we have a right to. Education, health care, excellent infrastructure, especially schools, recreation, natural beauty, a safe environment, a marketplace of ideas free from deception and deceit. Once more, these are things Republicans do NOT think Americans are worthy of, so to get the benefits we must remove the obstruction and GOPers gotta go.

 

Thing is, until 1981, we were well on our way to obtaining ALL of this, but Reagan's taxscam removed the TAXES that were paying for our wonderful, best-in-the-World Civilization and replaced that Eden with a couple hundred billionaires and the worst schools and health care of any industrialized Nation - the only place you can lose EVERYTHING because your child gets sick., the only place whre workweeks are getting LONGER, the only place where income inequality is GROWING and the only place where you find REPUBLICANS.

 

Want things to be as good as they were in 1980?

VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP IN NOVEMBER

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
106
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
109
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

109 Views
Message 6 of 12

We keep arguing over terms like capitalism, communism, and socialism. We also use these terms randomly to describe what we are talking about.  

 

I want capitalism with rules like Germany has  and I want socialism like Canada and Norway practice it.  Let's try emulating the winners for a change. 

 

Done. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
109
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
120
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

120 Views
Message 7 of 12

@umbarch64 wrote:

Forgive me if I cut this at the wrong place - it was getting a bit convoluted .

Umbarch said Merits and Demerits of a defined concept in its pure form can be discussed.  rk knows that.  Umbarch also said many times before that apples and oranges should not be mixed. 

 

In reality, the USSR was a perfect example the desire to get to that "workers paradise".

 

At no time did the USSR meet the criteria of defined Communism.

Agreed - and that is the point. Giving too much power to the Central government on the theory that it will just fade away at the right time is impractical and dangerous 

Because (as Marx intended) the path was total control by the government (supposedly the representative of "we the people"). And history shows that the USSR is exactly what can be anticipated by the centralization of power.

 

Marx considered totalitarianism is a necessary step along the way.  ALL 'ownership' was to reside IN the State until the process WAS complete.

 

WHEN the State is no longer necessary, both State and Government representing the State will 'wither away'.  None of the iterations of 'steps along the way' are Communism.

Agreed - it is that seeking of the Communist goal that sets up the enslavement of the people.

 

It was that exact understanding of history that was the basis of the thinking if our Founding Fathers. Along the lines of a posters "bottom line" - they understood history and designed a new form of government intended to avoid the realities of the past.

 

The signers of the Declaration of Independence stated a 'concept' to be achieved.  A noble concept worthy of the effort to fulfill.  The preamble to the Constitution restates that concept, somewhat revised, but still there.  The Constitution and Amendments take a stab at implementing those concepts.  The concept is not yet complete. Wisely, the founders did not see fit to vest decisions to be made along the way in one man, one party, one religion, or one viewpoint.  I think I'm accurate.  I think rk is not...deliberately so.

You left out one thing in your "wisely" thought - too much power in the hands of the government itself.


 


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
120
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
139
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

139 Views
Message 8 of 12

@rk9152 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

 Many words but the point seems to be here:

Rk makes a valid point about Marx.  Trouble is, the defined concept never materialized so the actual end consequences can never be evaluated. Yet he sees fit to equate the real with the imaginary. The equivalency does not exist.  Any claim that it does is false until proven true, not the other way around as rk would conveniently have it be.  

 

 

No, he does not equate the real with the imaginary. He looks at the real world to see what really has happened and warns against the reality of the cause. 

 

Well....Yes, rk does equate and conflate the real with the imaginary.  And for purpose.  Once again...Communism is a concept in and of itself.  The concept is NOT reality until completed...a 'fait acompli'.  It has not been completed.  It may never be completed.  It doesn't exist.

 

The variants, including the USSR,  are 'snap-shots in time.  Their reality may be evaluated only on the basis of their fact, not conflated with any other.  They may be compared with the concept in terms of how well each individually fulfills that concept.  Good and bad are a different and highly subjective topic.  Each instance is an individual occurance, none precisely the same.

 

The same is true of Socialism. Socialism, as defined, also does not exist in fact.  It does exist in Marxist theory as an imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.  A step on the way to the concept of Communism. 

 

As he has pointed out, Marx (like many sincere neoMarxists) was a decent man who really wanted what was best for the people but was naive. And that brings us to the point of "it never happened so we can't evaluate it".

 

Umbarch said Merits and Demerits of a defined concept in its pure form can be discussed.  rk knows that.  Umbarch also said many times before that apples and oranges should not be mixed. 

 

In reality, the USSR was a perfect example the desire to get to that "workers paradise".

 

At no time did the USSR meet the criteria of defined Communism.

 

Because (as Marx intended) the path was total control by the government (supposedly the representative of "we the people"). And history shows that the USSR is exactly what can be anticipated by the centralization of power.

 

Marx considered totalitarianism is a necessary step along the way.  ALL 'ownership' was to reside IN the State until the process WAS complete.

 

WHEN the State is no longer necessary, both State and Government representing the State will 'wither away'.  None of the iterations of 'steps along the way' are Communism.

 

It was that exact understanding of history that was the basis of the thinking if our Founding Fathers. Along the lines of a posters "bottom line" - they understood history and designed a new form of government intended to avoid the realities of the past.

 

The signers of the Declaration of Independence stated a 'concept' to be achieved.  A noble concept worthy of the effort to fulfill.  The preamble to the Constitution restates that concept, somewhat revised, but still there.  The Constitution and Amendments take a stab at implementing those concepts.  The concept is not yet complete. Wisely, the founders did not see fit to vest decisions to be made along the way in one man, one party, one religion, or one viewpoint.  I think I'm accurate.  I think rk is not...deliberately so.


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
139
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
154
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

154 Views
Message 9 of 12

@afisher wrote:

    Sadly, some of the ignoblers are so afraid of reality, that they resort to distraction and mindless questions to make conversation impossible.    That is by design.      

     They have another amusing tactic, which they bury by responding to multiple posts within a thread individually.   They then insert a statement and a few entries later they then seek to distract by challenging their own statement.    It is quite a hilarious tactic to observe.     

     They have now upped the game, by posting a thread and then challenging their own thread.   

 

     This is also being played out on the international stage.    Israel attacks and drops bombs, outrage follows.    Then Israel attacks the writers of outrage - ignoring the topic and even more strange is that they challenge authoritarians just like themselves.   

 


An extensive (albeit inaccurate) analysis of ignobelers. Any thoughts on Socialism/Communism/etc.??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
154
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
158
Views

Re: Definitions Matter...Socialism-Communism-Whatever

158 Views
Message 10 of 12

@umbarch64 wrote:

 Many words but the point seems to be here:

Rk makes a valid point about Marx.  Trouble is, the defined concept never materialized so the actual end consequences can never be evaluated. Yet he sees fit to equate the real with the imaginary. The equivalency does not exist.  Any claim that it does is false until proven true, not the other way around as rk would conveniently have it be.  

 

 

No, he does not equate the real with the imaginary. He looks at the real world to see what really has happened and warns against the reality of the cause. 

 

As he has pointed out, Marx (like many sincere neoMarxists) was a decent man who really wanted what was best for the people but was naive. And that brings us to the point of "it never happened so we can't evaluate it". In reality, the USSR was a perfect example the desire to get to that "workers paradise". Because (as Marx intended) the path was total control by the government (supposedly the representative of "we the people"). And history shows that the USSR is exactly what can be anticipated by the centralization of power. 

 

It was that exact understanding of history that was the basis of the thinking if our Founding Fathers. Along the lines of a posters "bottom line" - they understood history and designed a new form of government intended to avoid the realities of the past.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
158
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors