Am I a socialist?

I am not totally against people making a profit, but there are things that should not be run for profit, like hospitals, schools, prisons, fire departments, police departments. I also support a big social safety net, that would include more social security payments, universal healthcare, better benefits for the poor, etc.

If this is not socialism, what else would haev to be added to that list to make it socialism?

 

Do you care if you're a socialist or not?

 

No, I'm just wondering if this is what socialism is.

 

I suppose one definition is "running a society with reference to social issues and not just economic notions".

The Socialism label is considered an "insult" by many in the US.
In the USSR the phrase was mixed with Communism.
Most left sided European governments are termed Socialist.
Altho that slimeball Tony Ball would wriggle around when asked about the phrase (he was basically a career Conservative pretending to be a Labour politician).
The Russian Bolsheviks were orginally called "Social Democrats".
In the West, Social Democrat means a less left Socialist.
So its all tricky to define.

I think Socialism has to include the concept of equal opportunities ie the idea that the best jobs and positions should be open to everyone.
Also, it should be against things like croneyism and the idea that you can have an idle rich living off inherited untaxed billions while others have to work for a living.
And the idea that society should exist (!) and consider the needs of everyone not just powerful, lobbying multinationals.
Finally, its gotta have concepts like fair wages for all.

 

I think socialism as a word is just used to vilify, because of many reasons but mostly to attack the OTHER group for not being “american” enough. Whatever that is. Everyone in our country enjoys govt instituted and ran programs and is in a sense socialism. I would think so. We have public schools, interstate highways, Emsa ambulance services, firefighters, and many other needed services paid for by the whole. To try and label yourself or fall into one group is the part I think you should reconsider. I am a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian, and I believe in socialist services too. Take every issue, research, and then make up your mind on that ONE issue. To give yourself a title or identify with one group entirely is exactly why we cant have a reasonable discussion in this country and only serves to set boundaries you as a human being can never comfortably or with any inelegance live in.

 

Blair.

 

Hi,
You are social if you care others, if some thing is going wrong than it hurts you than you are social, if you help needy person than you are social.

 

Not quite what is being talked about here, brother/sister.

 

you have every right to be a socialist , whatever you decide it's up to you

 

Socialism is a less extreme version of communism. It entitles people to more benefits, but a lot of countries who use this form of government really have trouble with many people taking advantage of the system. For some reason having incredible welfare and work problems as well as free healthcare isn't good enough for some people, so they decide to do as much as possible to get out of working.

 

The problem is that there has not yet been a successful socialist regime so far in this world.

And that socialism is misunderstood due to the mixing of government and economics...that formula being, imo, the source of all our ills whether communist, capitalist, or socialist.

Socialism is when the 'means of production' is owned by the people (public and shared).
Capitalism is when the 'means of production' is owned by private individuals.
Communism is when the 'means of production' is owned by the government.

 

Socialism is a great idea which has inspired me most of my life. I continue to believe that socialist values,at all levels of society, will be required if humanity is to meet all its looming challenges & survive. Like all of the great ideas ,however,it relies upon human nature to evolve enough to be equal to those ideals.

Socialism is as subject to corruption as any political movement. Also ,I believe that it has to develop ,strategicly, with the times. Marx layed a great foundation but future generations have to develop its principles & interpretations to meet changing demands while staying true to socialisms core values.

A key weakness in the socialist concept,I'd say, is the issue of individuality ,which has never been satisfactorily addressed. The theory has been that a level of selflessness would be achieved that would solve the issue. Some individuals are more creative,inventive,curious & talented as well as more industrious than the others, are they to be rewarded the same as those less so? Is it humane or just to deny individual self expression in the supposed interests of the majority & who will make that decision?

There are so many lessons to be learned from the experience of attempting socialism in the 20th Century. I'd say its future is best seen as a fluid 'work in progress' tied to certain fundermental principles,rather than a fixed doctrine set in stone.

 

This paragraph seems like nonsensical gibberish to me, every sentence jumps all over the place.

What is, "the issue of individuality"? You make random observations about it without defining what it is.

 

The first two posts in the thread pretty much cover my politics... and I tend to think of myself as a generally socialistish person...

But I'm not sure I can agree with this:

Firstly, have we ever truly had a 'socialist' society of any sort? Britain in the 1950s might have come relatively close in terms of social justice, things being run for the good of the many (including, good lord, the financial industries) as a general rule of thumb ....

Secondly... That whole who owns the means of production thing... er... the people, the public, ARE private individuals. So by your definition, socialism and capitalism are the same thing.

Not sure I agree with the basis of the definitions anyway, but thought I'd point it out (I may not be sure if I'm socialist, but I am deffo a pedant!).

:2thumbsup:

 

The first post doesn't describe socialism, the second post doesn't describe anything.

The definitions were stated in the simplest terms possible so that the mildly interested could get a rough understanding of the differences between the systems. If you're going to cut each economic system down to 12 words, that would be the easiest way to state it.

Here's an example of Capitalism:
-One individual owns 100 restaurants.
-Each restaurant has 20 employees and one manager.
-The manager oversees the 20 employees as they cook, serve, clean, and do whatever else needs to be done to run the business.
-The owner does none of the actual labor in any of the 100 restaurants, but because he owns all of them, he receives 100% of the money that is made by all of them.
-He then redistributes the money to the workers, but keeps as much of the money as he wants.
-So if a restaurant made $1,000, the owner gets the entire $1,000. Then, he might pay the manager $40, each of the workers are paid $23, and the owner keeps $500 for himself even though he did none of the work.

Here's the same example, but it takes place within a socialist system:
-There are 100 restaurants.
-Each restaurant has 20 employees and one manager.
-The manager oversees the 20 employees as they cook, serve, clean, and do whatever else needs to be done to run the business.
-The workers and the manager bring home 100% of the money that is made, because they did all of the work.
-So if a restaurant made $1,000, the manager might bring home $60, and each of the workers would bring home $47.


A better way to define them would probably be:
In Socialism, the workers control the means of production.
In Capitalism, a small group of private individuals control the means of production.

 

How do you work that out?

Because you have added 'the workers control the means of production' does not mean you have given a description of 'socialism'.

Would you like to try again?

 

But thats the way the American Right wants to think Socialism is about.
Communism is all State owned. But you have many types of Communism - including those with private enterprise. Most forms of Communism actually reward the most hardworking, talented etc.

You can have a Socialist working in financial markets. He can be a billionaire
and still be a Socialist. (Warren Buffett lives very modestly, and is against people inheriting huge sums of money. But he controls many billions of dollars).The issue isn't necessarily who makes the decisions, but how social issues are considered. And seeing that no-one is exploited or enslaved.

Social Democracy is often a form of Socialism. Even a form of Communism.
What its saying is that the idea that the "market solves everything" is a lie from those who were born with/ got/ stole huge sums of money to manipulate things for their own ends instead of the many.

The fact is that, economics can only ever be part of a story. Governments need to look at social issues and not hand control to someone who inherited billions by fair or foul means.

 

I was just giving an example of how the workers receive 100% of the profits. The specific numbers themselves have no significance.

The simplest possible definition of Socialism is that the workers control the means of production. (this is the main thing separating it from capitalism)

I gave an example that further described what this means, and what it might look like. I compared it to capitalism to show what the major difference is between the two.

How about you tell me what's wrong with my definition, rather than just telling me to try again.

 

-I was talking about Socialism, not Communism.
-No where did I make any indication that everyone is paid equally in Socialism.
-The American right thinks of Socialism as a welfare state, which it is not.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Whether or not Warren Buffett is a socialist says nothing whatsoever about socialism. His personal worldview and his standard of living don't change the fact that he is very wealthy. He became that wealthy by taking full advantage of the capitalist system.

He would not control billions of dollars if we lived in a socialist country. No one would.

You lost me. How is this directly related to what we are talking about.

What.

I'm not sure what point you're getting at. I think you might be arguing "Republican vs. Democrat", not "Capitalism vs. Socialism".

 

Isn't it the case the 'profit' is evenly/equally distributed (in your e.g)?

Why would the manager receive $60 and the 'worker' $47?
In your figures there is a 'surplus'.

All you said was that there was a disparity in wages.

You are trying to define it when there are multiple variations.

The only thing I know is: everybody pays for everybody else.