Socialism is the reason why America can't have nice things. Socialism is also the ultimate trigger warning in American politics, and the ultimate strawman. Mostly though, debates about socialism should really be debates about social democracy, for which I point to the Wiki definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
I'l stop in the other thread, and just stick to this one. The first thing I'd say about referring back to Marx is that Marx was not the only or even the first socialist. He's certainly one of the brightest stars in the socialist constellation and he's certainly useful to reference, but I don't think that means we have to define 'socialism' as whatever Marx said it was. That's what Marxism is. Same with the Bolsheviks. They may have been the first to try to execute on a real socialist country, but that doesn't mean we have to accept what they made as the definition of socialism. On the stock market, yes it sounds funny to call the examplar of capitalism socialist (but maybe not so funny considering that Marx thought capitalism would develop into socialism and then into communism). But, it is. Or, it is proto-socialist, since we don't currently use it that way but could theoretically. The stock market is how we've commoditized ownership and made it liquid and tradeable. If you wanted to socialize ownership of the means of production without the known weaknesses of government ownership and central planning (anti-competitive, lack of meritocracy, lack of entrepreneurial incentive), how else could you possibly do it? The point about reducing class inequality is fair, because that was and is the point of socialism. But, I don't think everyone 'having the same' is necessarily required for something to be called socialism. I think the essential component is to break the monopoly on abnormal profits that is enjoyed by the elites. Elites had this benefit by earning returns on investments instead of wages for work. If everyone is earning returns on investments (possibly in addition to wages for work), that monopoly is broken. You can still have winners and losers in the stock market and you can still have wealth and poverty. That's probably an inadequate answer for some socialists. That's also why I don't really think socialism is an adequate solution.
Democratic Socialism, National Socialism....no matter what you put in front of "Socialism" it's still a bad idea.
I bet there would be plenty of Americans, including Republicans that would be happy to be living in a country like Denmark, if they ever get to experience it. They have no idea what it is like to live in a "socialist" country today.
Is this just random question time? If so, do you like rice? If the moon were made of cheese would you eat it? What's your favorite planet?
The reason why child labor laws were adapted in the first place in the birthplace of capitalism was because of Marx and his socialistic ideas. Marx argued for, among other things-- Setting yourself up in a corner where anything with the name socialism is stigmatized is a pretty bad idea, and demonstrates rigid thinking ignorant of history. one might even say you need political trigger warnings.
That's pretty much a stretch but it's not a surprise that a Socialism apologist would spout propaganda like that. I'm sure in your mind the only people against child labor were Socialists and Communists but that is divorced from reality.
Yeah it's like they think they've found 2 tiny specs of prime rib in a giant pile of crap that will allow them to declare the whole pile palatable. Even if you consider Denmark to be Socialist, it's a tiny country with a population less than the Houston Metro Area......and the little illegal immigration they get threatened their entire system so they have had to enact measures to be incredibly strict about who enters their country. It's just not something you can compare to the reality of America.
To put it in perspective, Denmark was in crisis over 33k illegal immigrants, if we make that similar in scope to the US it would be 170k illegal immigrants there....and that's based on an 11 million number in the US which some think is low.
Forget what? Anybody who proposes 55% tax rates and universal health care/education/basic guarnateed income in the US in 2016 is going to be labeled a socialist, even in non-extreme circles What is a true "socialist" program then? If it's just nationalizing the oil industry or something like that then I guess fine. But the term as commonly understood in everyday parlance tends to incorporate way more.
Socialism , Marxism ,social justice can be simply viewed as: Robin Hood (stole ) or (Took) the money from the wealthy to distribute it for those in needs . Stole v. Took is subjective to your own opinion, but what im certain about it ,is that governments are way less efficient in collecting the money and distribute it than the fictional hero
It should be pointed out that Marx's ultimate goal was for the state to go away after it first corrected inequalities. Then a stateless system of cooperation and organization would follow with the production controlled by the labor, etc. The Bolsheviks, obviously, did not follow that. Just like Napoleon wasn't really a Republican.
I like this analogy as the question is finding an honest Robin Hood.... Politicians in general are money grubbing liars so I don't really trust em much. Socialism is believing that the Sheriff of Nottingham will distribute the money appropriately.
Ditto. I'd say as well a system in which things like health care, prescription drugs, and the prison system are not for profit industries.
Bobby doesn't know this but he was an employee of a socialist program called the Department of Defense.
