[séamuis]

Perhaps and then it follows one could say the same about capitalism. I see it as a broader definition.

Social - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As a species we are social and I doubt that we would exist on this planet in any number without "socialism". The barn raising, the interstates, the Hoover dam, even the US military is socialist.

social and socialism are two different things. while I agree that the definition is broad, you can't describe socialism with the definition of social, because then you fall outside of the economic definition that is socialism. how you advocate that economic ideology through politics is also a part of socialism, and there it can become broad, corrupt and in truth nothing about socialism. this is why I always make sure its said that socialism is in fact an economic ideology, not a political one. but I agree with you, all of these things are social and in an economic sense socialist. thats why I always scratch my head at people who say that including socialism leads to things like nazism, because this country has been practicing and balancing socialist economics for a very long time. some could even argue since the birth of the nation.

[ihasa]

Yes, I agree. The final product looked nothing like the socialist labor movement that it began as. A population of people in need of leadership were amazing quick forfeit their rights to a charismatic leader. They believed that government could protect them and better their lives. They bought into the class warfare and the hate speech. They identified a different 1% as their root of their problem. Comments like "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." were echoed then just like they are today. Class warfare is a dangerous game. Socialism tend to lead to a concentration of power. That is a dangerous thing. I said in the original post that I think socialists are well meaning people who's hearts are in the right place, but the people who seek power often have very different motives.

... The good news, though, is that socialism hasn't lead to an unnacceptable concentration of power in the social democracies that have developed since WW2. In fact most are less centralised than they were in the 1950s, as the 'command and control' postwar governments have increasingly devolved power and privatised what were once public industries. The reality is that rather than being on a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, the social democracies of Europe, Canada and Australia are becoming more free-market capitalism orientated (and this is a change that has occurred during both left and right wing governments), while preserving social welfare structures where demonstrably benficial e.g. health.

They bought into the class warfare and the hate speech.

This is what I term 'populism' - an appeal to sentiment that cuts both ways, whether it's scapegoating of the rich, or of welfare scroungers, immigrants, minorities... The key (in my opinion) is having a well informed electorate that will be suspicious of attempts to manipulate them with diversionary or scapegoating tactics.

[Wheatfield]

Now you are descending once again into playing with labels in a way which leads to utter nonsense. Fascists were opposed to Liberalism in both the Adam Smith and modern sense of the word. You can just as meaningfully link movements by playing 6 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

Yuuuuuuuuummmmmmm....... Bacon.........

[riff]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. [...]

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy.[7] In contrast, anarchism and libertarian socialism propose direct worker's control of the means of production and oppose the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production.

Perhaps the terms socialist and socialism are so vague as to have no real meaning anymore. I really do not see much difference between helping an old lady across the street and supporting the Canadian medicare system.

[séamuis]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Perhaps the terms socialist and socialism are so vague as to have no real meaning anymore. I really do not see much difference between helping an old lady across the street and supporting the Canadian medicare system.

I could argue this to be very, very true. and on that note, what is so scary about it? why are we talking about hitler and nazi's?

[Winder]

This is what I term 'populism' - an appeal to sentiment that cuts both ways, whether it's scapegoating of the rich, or of welfare scroungers, immigrants, minorities... The key (in my opinion) is having a well informed electorate that will be suspicious of attempts to manipulate them with diversionary or scapegoating tactics.

In the 70's a black economist at UCLA pointed out that less than 1/2 of the money spent by what at the time was our Dept of Health, Education, & Welfare reached the people it was intended to help. The majority went to pay the salaries of the predominately white middle-class government employees. So who was really benefiting?

Prior to the 1930's and the Great Society the percentage of black 2 parent families was almost identical to white families. What changed? Nearly 60% of black children are born into single parent homes.
Economists have demonstrated repeatedly that the Davis-Bacon Act that established minimum wage in this country had a negative impact on young black workers while the predominately older white union workers of the time benefited significantly. Is it any wonder that labor unions spend millions on lobbying for higher minimum wages. They used a government social program to reduce competition for their labor by establishing a price floor.

I bring these up to demonstrate that government social programs in this country do not have an impressive record of helping the intended demographic. I can't speak for the success of Canadian programs, only for what we have experienced here. We have a long history of starting programs in the name of social equality that over the long term have had a negative impact on that population. We can point to trillions of dollars spent, but to what improvement? Maybe Canada gets better results, and I hope they do.

Right now the largest corporate supporter of our new Healthcare legislation is Walmart. A company with a terrible record for employee benefits who last year announce they would no longer offer part-time employees healthcare coverage (the majority of their employees). They have been very supportive of the bill. Why? Has Walmart turned a new leaf? Have the become benevolent? Walmart pays and average of $3,500 - $3,800.00 per employee for healthcare. The government penalty for not offering healthcare coverage to your employee's is $2,000 per employee. Walmart employs 2.1 million people. How much money does Walmart stand to gain by dumping employees onto the taxpayers? Who is really going to benefit from this legislation?

[Wheatfield]

I could argue this to be very, very true. and on that note, what is so scary about it? why are we talking about hitler and nazi's?

Because some of us hear the term National Socialist Party, and pick up on two things: Socialism and Naziism, and decide they are one and the same.

Socialism tend to lead to a concentration of power.

Would this be like the concentration of power in the USA (the 1%)? While we are seeing it as being a dangerous thing, I'm not seeing really strong socialist leanings in the USA. What I am seeing is a very strong slide to the right, which is where Naziism rides on the political spectrum.

Did someone say that the right wasn't trying to introduce more government control over our lives? Has that person looked at some of the more draconian laws that are being passed, or at least having the attempt made?
Does the term "State Rape" ring a bell?
Here in Canada, our (what passes for) right wing government has legislated a private company's employees (Air Canada) back to work rather than allow them to legally go on strike. These people don't work for the government and have absolutely no duty towards the government regarding their work.
Is that not government introducing more control on our lives?

[redrockcoulee]

Because some of us hear the term National Socialist Party, and pick up on two things: Socialism and Naziism, and decide they are one and the same.


Would this be like the concentration of power in the USA (the 1%)? While we are seeing it as being a dangerous thing, I'm not seeing really strong socialist leanings in the USA. What I am seeing is a very strong slide to the right, which is where Naziism rides on the political spectrum.

Did someone say that the right wasn't trying to introduce more government control over our lives? Has that person looked at some of the more draconian laws that are being passed, or at least having the attempt made?
Does the term "State Rape" ring a bell?
Here in Canada, our (what passes for) right wing government has legislated a private company's employees (Air Canada) back to work rather than allow them to legally go on strike. These people don't work for the government and have absolutely no duty towards the government regarding their work.
Is that not government introducing more control on our lives?

No it is not. If it was introducing more control on our lives it would have ordered Air Canada to settle. Instead its orders were to the employees. Regs and laws on companies is socialism and govt control, on individuals is liberty and safety.

[eddie1960]

No it is not. If it was introducing more control on our lives it would have ordered Air Canada to settle. Instead its orders were to the employees. Regs and laws on companies is socialism and govt control, on individuals is liberty and safety.

let's be more accurate, this is just another event in the long history of the Harper government's ions to weaken unions. the Right in Canada has gotten very aggressive in trying to weaken unions. Toronto's idiot mayor and his brother just go into negotiations refusing to budge and stay there. they don't negotiate in good faith. Air Canada doesn't negotiate in good faith because they know the Harper government will for the employees to the table. In the past if a company didn't negotiate in good faith they could expect arbitration which would frequently cost them more than if they had just reached a negotiated settlement. Workers rights that were hard won and took years to acheive are being rapidly stripped away. Then I here people bitch about unions while they sit in jobs that have benefits that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the unions past fights.
When we had a strong Middle class we had strong unions that contributed to the middle class. the middle class is rapidly disappearing and that is directly tied to movements to stop unions and crush the existing ones.
It's a sad state of affairs.The widening gap between the rich and poor that goes along with this decline is a root cause of things like the occupy protests (honestly I'm surprised that took so long to develop)
The right will argue the benefits and wages aren't sustainable, but reality is that saved money is going into the pockets of the rich and widening the income gap. that is not sustainable

[GeneV]

Because some of us hear the term National Socialist Party, and pick up on two things: Socialism and Naziism, and decide they are one and the same.

Or more specifically, some of us are led to do so by opinion generators on the right. Right winger Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about it, and windbags like Limbaugh spout the word "Nazi" for liberals at every opportunity.

[stevewig]

Or more specifically, some of us are led to do so by opinion generators on the right. Right winger Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about it, and windbags like Limbaugh spout the word "Nazi" for liberals at every opportunity.

Here is where we need to have the utmost sympathy and understanding for newcomers on the political scene, because the whole political scene is awash with words and jargon that no longer mean what they were intended to mean and where words that were intended to describe certain philosophical or economic ideas now have been distorted to mean the opposite.

The RIGHT has won the propaganda war and with a vengeance such that the masses now believe that white means black.

(Example: "Obama is a Socialist" is now widely believed to the point that people are genuinely puzzled when you deny this "FACT".)

[eddie1960]

Here is where we need to have the utmost sympathy and understanding for newcomers on the political scene, because the whole political scene is awash with words and jargon that no longer mean what they were intended to mean and where words that were intended to describe certain philosophical or economic ideas now have been distorted to mean the opposite.

The RIGHT has won the propaganda war and with a vengeance such that the masses now believe that white means black.

(Example: "Obama is a Socialist" is now widely believed to the point that people are genuinely puzzled when you deny this "FACT".)

Every time I hear that i cringe. nothing could be further from the truth. In many ways in the rest of the world he would be considered a conservative

[audiobomber]

Every time I hear that i cringe. nothing could be further from the truth. In many ways in the rest of the world he would be considered a conservative

Obama is definitely to the right of Canada's Conservative Party leadership (our most right-leaning political party, for you non-Canadians). If someone were to call Prime Minister Harper a Socialist, he'd be considered some sort of fringe radical.

[ihasa]

The ACA will not interfere with anyone's freedom of religion though Metaglypto. People can choose the elements of a healthcare plan which they want. An employer would not be able to limit the elements of healthcare available to his employees though. This is right, because religion is an individual matter. Religious institutions such are exempt, employers who are religious but employ people of all faiths and none are not, and it is none of their business what their employees choose in terms of healthcare decisions. Should a Jehovahs Witness employer decline to cover blood transfusions?

Contraception Controversy Overblown: States settled issue, ACA just follows suit

[metaglypto]

Should a Jehovahs Witness employer decline to cover blood transfusions?

You are confusing human rights and civil rights. Blood transfusions can be, and most often are, lifesaving procedures. Abortion may or may not be a lifesaving procedure. If a doctors opinion is to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother, then it is a human right, and trumps civil rights. If the abortion is a form of birth control (contraception), it violates some religious institutions beliefs which are protected under the First Amendment.