RE: American Socialism

RE: American Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (7/21/2012 5:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Maybe the classic definition that I am seeing isnt the right one. Perhaps you can help me out with one that we can use that might better fit what I am trying to get across? Im sure you know what I am referring too. I see very little ihn the US that isnt socialistic in some form, to be honest. Socialism defined: is govt. ownership of the means of production and that requires a majority ownership to fit. Almost all of these all these answers are incorrect as the govt. Only 'owns' Fannie, Freddie, because the govt. assumed their debt (receivership in bankruotcy...in effect) to the benefit of investors. The treas. never received any profits from them and are described as GSE Govt. sponsored enterprises and in fact socialized (subsidized by guarantee) mortgage investment called warehousing which is what they were and still are. If they are socialism, it is socialism for the rich like TARP. Amtrak is one service that the govt. owns and not much else as owning TVA, a utility and under the same market benefits and burdens as any local utility...is also NOT socialism. Govt. agencies are not socialism, govt. sponsor does mean socialism. There exists almost NO socialism in the US as defined. Farming, banking, wall street, ethanol, crops, oil...now there's your socialism.

Politesub53 -> RE: American Socialism (7/21/2012 5:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: A State working as a corporation for the benefit of all. I may be wrong but i think thats what Thompson was getting at, and if so, I agree with him. So that is your definition of socialism? No, I mean social as against socialism as currently defined. Capitalism working for the good of all. Socialism as most people would define it, but working in a market economy....... I know what I mean even if no one else does....lol

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/21/2012 6:05:28 PM)
quote: Socialism defined: is govt. ownership of the means of production and that requires a majority ownership to fit. Almost all of these all these answers are incorrect as the govt. Only 'owns' Fannie, Freddie, because the govt. assumed their debt (receivership in bankruotcy...in effect) to the benefit of investors. The treas. never received any profits from them and are described as GSE Govt. sponsored enterprises and in fact socialized (subsidized by guarantee) mortgage investment called warehousing which is what they were and still are. If they are socialism, it is socialism for the rich like TARP. Amtrak is one service that the govt. owns and not much else as owning TVA, a utility and under the same market benefits and burdens as any local utility...is also NOT socialism. Who competes against "local utility"? It is a government monopoly. That is socialism. It is not private enterprise. It is not free enterprise since who is allowed to compete? quote: Govt. agencies are not socialism, govt. sponsor does mean socialism. There exists almost NO socialism in the US as defined. Farming, banking, wall street, ethanol, crops, oil...now there's your socialism. I have read this through a few times and each time it comes out as self contradictory. Wanna try again????

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/21/2012 6:09:33 PM)
quote: A State working as a corporation for the benefit of all. I may be wrong but i think thats what Thompson was getting at, and if so, I agree with him. There is an interesting book "looking backward from the year 2000" by edward bellamy. It discusses this very concept as you have so clearly seen. The book was written in 1887. It is available on line free from the guttenberg project.

Politesub53 -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 3:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: A State working as a corporation for the benefit of all. I may be wrong but i think thats what Thompson was getting at, and if so, I agree with him. There is an interesting book "looking backward from the year 2000" by edward bellamy. It discusses this very concept as you have so clearly seen. The book was written in 1887. It is available on line free from the guttenberg project. Thanks for the info.

PeonForHer -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 3:36:28 AM)
FR Re those definitions of 'socialism': way back, lost now in history, the term was coined primarily to emphasise the 'social' rather than the 'individual'. It wasn't till later that socialism became a term to describe what was believed in by people who had horns on their heads and hooves instead of feet.

PeonForHer -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 3:43:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 No, I mean social as against socialism as currently defined. Capitalism working for the good of all. Socialism as most people would define it, but working in a market economy....... I know what I mean even if no one else does....lol Terms like 'social democracy' and 'the mixed economy' come to mind, PS. But the USA has surprisingly little of a concept of those, from what I've seen. The post war Butskellite consensus here, of (roughly) social democratic thinking and one nation Tory thinking, seems to be almost impossible to explain to the average US readership.

Moonhead -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 4:06:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: A State working as a corporation for the benefit of all. I may be wrong but i think thats what Thompson was getting at, and if so, I agree with him. There is an interesting book "looking backward from the year 2000" by edward bellamy. It discusses this very concept as you have so clearly seen. The book was written in 1887. It is available on line free from the guttenberg project. It's also a very stodgy, late Victorian read, unfortunately. Wasn't Bellamy's emphasis more on the arts and craftsy elements of his society than its workings on a political level, though? I know Ruskin was very taken with it, and I think Bentham was a fan as well.

tazzygirl -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 7:13:32 AM)
So its everyone's opinion, basically, that there are few to no socialistic associations in the US.

lemarquis2 -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 8:02:21 AM)
giving a definition of "socialism" not only in an economic sense (which obviously seem the only thing most think about) would really help because "Government owned business or industry" has nothing to do with it, or the building of pyramids in Egypt, the roads of the Roman Empire, or mercantislistic manufacture of gobelins in 17th c. France or porcelain in the 18th c. have all been signs of socialism. By the way the dictionary definition posted is definitely incomplete - maybe not in that "dictionary" but in meaning and content ... It seems "socialism" has been used a bit excessively as a hate-word in the context of many discussions on these boards - discussing or combatting the term without knowledge of its meaning does not make much sense anyway.

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 9:51:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: A State working as a corporation for the benefit of all. I may be wrong but i think thats what Thompson was getting at, and if so, I agree with him. There is an interesting book "looking backward from the year 2000" by edward bellamy. It discusses this very concept as you have so clearly seen. The book was written in 1887. It is available on line free from the guttenberg project. It's also a very stodgy, late Victorian read, unfortunately. Wasn't Bellamy's emphasis more on the arts and craftsy elements of his society than its workings on a political level, though? I know Ruskin was very taken with it, and I think Bentham was a fan as well. I found the lexicon to be dated but hardly stodgy. It was a quick read for me, just a few hours. The first few chapters are the set up for the exposition of what his "rip van winkle" character finds in the socialist future. What he finds or rather has explaned to him is not the arts and crafts you speak of but the nuts and bolts of a socialist society.

Moonhead -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 11:49:41 AM)
Yeah, but the arts and crafts stuff is treated as the framework for a sustainable left leaning society, is it not? That isn't really surprising given the attitudes of a lot of the people who were involved with that.

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 12:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Yeah, but the arts and crafts stuff is treated as the framework for a sustainable left leaning society, is it not? That isn't really surprising given the attitudes of a lot of the people who were involved with that. The book's approach is quite the opposite. If you are interested you should give it a look.

Moonhead -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 12:49:48 PM)
It's a long time since I read it. Maybe I'm confusing it with something else or misremembering. I was sure that was the highly rusticised future one?

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 12:55:32 PM)
Should you read it, I would be interested in discussing your opinions on it?

Karnikula -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 4:52:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Can't speak for polite, but a corporarist system where the state is run by commerical interests sounds a lot more like fascism than socialism to me. I'm not a poli-sci major but that matches my understanding also. And I also have to admit that while I think the greed motive is nice and dependable I also think I don't want to live in a society where that is the only measure which matters. That is capitalism without "regulation". It is placing greed above any other consideration. You're mistaking capitalism for hedonism. Hedonism is amassing material worth for its own sake. Capitalism is creating and trading things of equal value via a monetary system. It's very productive and supplies for everyone who is willing to participate. (Participating = creating value via your own body and mind). The current system is just terribly corrupt and plain illegal (think about how bank works and who's controlling the money flow, it SHOULD be the state and thus, finally by the states people). I'll be reading more on that topic very soon, a friend of mine is currently hobby-studying the teachings of a german economy professor.

Politesub53 -> RE: American Socialism (7/22/2012 4:55:49 PM)
Indeed many creative people of the time thought arts and crafts could be seen as a way of the poor helping themselves to earn a living. William Morris and others among them. Lets not lose sight of the fact that many capitalists of the day also set up philanthropic foundations for the same reason. Elizabeth Gurney (Elizabeth Fry of Gurney/Barclays banking families) started doing much the same even before Victoria came to the throne.

gungadin09 -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 12:02:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl How many ongoing organizations that are considered socialism can you name that are alive.. and some thriving... in the US currently... The corn and dairy industries? Do those count? Pam

Real0ne -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 12:09:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So its everyone's opinion, basically, that there are few to no socialistic associations in the US. they are agencies in the US

Real0ne -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 12:13:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Govt. agencies are not socialism, govt. sponsor does mean socialism. There exists almost NO socialism in the US as defined. Farming, banking, wall street, ethanol, crops, oil...now there's your socialism. nothing in america is "pure", if you look for pure you will never find it. However they have the power to create it outside the government sphere exactly like the federal reserve and the unlawful debt based monetary system we have. Its government all right they just found away around it the letter of the law while in complete violation of the spirit of the law and it is treason none the less. Like its illegal to kill someone with a gun so they use a knife to get around it.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875