Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Everyday Socialism

Ok, I'll bite....which ones are true Americans and which are not? We can't have this debate without definitions.

Q: Why did the tea party patriot miss the anti-tax meeting?

A: She was too busy driving on taxpayer-funded roads, sending her kids to public school, living in a safe neighborhood, drinking clean water, breathing clean air, enjoying public parks, using public lands, buying safe products, eating inspected food, and enjoying countless other services funded by tax dollars.

Q: Why did the tea party militia fail to stop the spread of socialism?

A: Because they forgot to write “Ready, Aim, Fire!” on the palms of their hands.

Is private ownership antithetical to socialist principles? As Ardy previously noted, because there are many "definitions" of socialism, it is difficult to discuss it in depth. logan prefers the narrow, capital "s" version of the term, which others would discuss as state-socialism, as contrasted with libertarian and other "socialisms." I suppose one could distinguish "socialism" from other "collectivist" endeavors like fire, police and national protection by limiting the concept strictly to state ownership - but then we get into another sticky wicket, as we discuss ownership and communal endeavors. Does the "domestic product" represent the"means of production" of the largest "collective" - the nation? Is taxation merely a means of redistribution of wealth or does it have other, independent purposes? I sympathize with logan's concern that the label "socialist" has been coopted as an epithet by those who oppose any social good (except, perhaps, the forced promotion of christian values).

I tend to prefer consideration of the broader approaches that Pondering described - small "s" socialism, which can embody myriad approaches to the "means of production" and "general welfare" elements of social betterment. In the narrowest sense, none of our national policies are socialist at all - with the exception of national parks and mineral rights, I suppose, as the national government doesn't "own" much productive "means." Many are "collectivist" and "redistributive." Collected in the form of taxes, and distributed by benefits and systems for public betterment. How then do we distinguish "government" from "socialism"? When a mutual insurance company collects premiums and distributes benefits according to need, is that fairly described as "socialist", or is there a better conceptual term to be applied? Any collection of humans that work together is "social" in that it involves a grouping of humans, but doesn't that also include contracts and corporations? Is every "pooling of resources" socialistic?

So, it is a difficult topic to pin down, but I'm enjoying the pinning. What is the essence of social-ism?

As my previous post demonstrates, I have more questions than answers, and being a ponderer, that is a good thing. When I write a story (the great American novel and all), I often don't have any idea what the characters are going to do, or say - I just put them in a situation and see what develops. My threads here are developed the same way. I have a notion, put it out there, and see how it develops.

In this case, I was trying to put more meat on the bones of the concept of "socialism." Too often it is used as a label to stifle discussion rather than expand thought. When I think of "socialism", though, I tend to think in terms of "social good" rather than "economic organization" (the political-economic construct I think of as "capital s" Socialism, confined and constricted by convention). I envision the smaller-scale constructs of its origins, and the broader concepts of "doing good for others, together." I do recognize, as logan pointed out, that it can become a trap. "Conservatives" pounce upon those "do-gooder" instincts to dismiss me with the "Socialist!" (always with an exclamation point!) label. In the political context, logan is absolutely right. MY notions are no more "socialist" than their radical views are "conservative."

What I love about RR is my ablility to bring unformed thoughts here amongst a group of fellow travelers who express themselves so well, and respectfully. Thanks, guys!

Again I agree with your analysis NWP, the conservative right always use the words socialism and socialist whenever they are trying to beat down something that disagrees with their ideology.

To suggest that the our roads are a socialist endeavor will receive the immediate response that gas taxes pay for roads (just happened to me the other day). What about the guy who walks or bicycles down the road? Is he or she getting a free ride?

The term is used to create fear that if one is to endorse anything they disagree with, that it will lead to full blown communism in the US. But, there I go trying to get inside the head of a nutter.

Happily, that's a simple question.

True Americans are Almighty-fearing, Freedom-loving people who run businesses (small and large) or farms or strive to one day do so. They abhor the thieving Federal Government, realizing that the aim of those in control of the Frderal Govrnment is to take from the worthy and give to the takers either directly or by regulating how one does business.

Every True American can easily identifying their brethren and their enemies.

Because of all the propagandical thoughtlessness that goes into using words as weapons, we get many oddly asymmetrical oppositions, like capitalism vs socialism.

Premise; humans are inherently social animals.

If you think about socialism, as has been presented in recent posts, to refer to the obvious predilection of humans to be social animals, as opposed to solitary animals - and to think about capitalism (as I do) that it refers, in the most general way, to the use of money to facilitate the trading of goods and services - then it is not in any way rational that capitalism is in opposition to socialism.

As social beings, we need ways to interact, and capitalism is one tool. It does not need to be the only tool in the kit, however, and to attempt to write a book with a sledgehammer is not recommended.

Freedom is an interesting concept related to humans as social beings. A person can only be just so free and still function socially. I think that the term usually connotes freedom from oppression, as in not having someone else tell me what I can do, or can't. I think the freedom equation depends heavily upon the responsibility factor; i.e., less oppression requires more willing responsibility.

That's the limit of my thoughts for the day, I have a very pressing capitalistic engagement to attend to...

Thx for sharing such interesting thoughts Troll

Troll's comments provoked me to wonder what it is about the term socialism that provokes such a primal fear. After all, as Troll pointed out, humans are fundamentally social beings. So some degree of "socialism" is inevitable.

So why the fear of socialism? Perceived loss of freedom does seem to be an important part of the equation, although IMO it is does not capture the whole dynamic.