Clearing Things up. Socialism, the scientific theory

[KrisGreen]

I’m a socialist. A lot of millennials don’t fully know what they are talking about. They are fed by the far left media and they swallow it. What they think of usually is then government funding people needs with funding. That’s so far from the meaning. Of course the left media feeds it so false information spreads.

If you read existentialism and study Hegel along with Marx, you’d know that socialism is a social structure and mode of production. Socialism is not a “system” of hand outs or paychecks either. It took me over a decade to reread every piece over and over to TRULY get it.

It’s a scientific theory, as the mode of production and social era changes every hundreds to thousands of years. First we had primitive communism. The mode of production of resources were produced as a group to survive. The second mode of production was pure slavery. Following that we had feudalism, which gave the human race the most freedoms at the time. Capitalism is the 4th social era, and has ways to go, as it’s still fairly young. It’s given the human race more liberties then any structure in history. Its flaws are only BEGINNING to surface. When money and selling become obsolete, it will be due to something more efficient or to where even the rich won’t want it as a curse.

Each structure implodes upon itself looking at history. Burning and destroying things isn’t going to solve problems like it did ending feudalism. The socialist revolution is a revolution of the soul and mind, not the government making some “big change.” There would be no central government and possible not a congress. Society becomes what we shape it to be, just like our personal livers.

At first credit and inevitable global debt was a scientific theory. People thought it was rubbish as long as nations ran their economies efficiently. Karl Marx predicted much that has come true. As time goes on what he truly meant is unraveling.

There IS NO definite answer to what socialism is, but it has never existed on this planet. Only misconceptions and misinterpretations. Generation X already has their definition of socialism burned into their mind, and informing them will rarely penetrate unless they have an open mind. Throwing money at people for entitlement programs and calling that socialism makes me wanna lose my mind. The USSR was never a communist entity in any shape or form. The Soviet Union was something philosophers call “State Calitalism.” The government took over peoples lives and acted as one sole capitalist on the global scale, People in denial of the Capitalism’s flaws often say it’s because we are socialist or a corporate society. I wanna bang my head against the wall when I hear this shit.

Socialism in theory would be a resource based economy. Socialism CAN NOT be implemented as the far left but jobs in congress are preaching. They’re idiots when it comes to this. The human race would by driven by social needs, not commerce. It’s a very complex theory and not something I can explain in a full thread. Plus those who already have an opinion would lose their attention span. People ask how would the world know the value of something without money. It’s so ingrained that one doesn’t realize something has a value because it’s being SOLD. When things aren’t sold, our perception of value will change.

People scratch their heads and ask HOW?! It’s a theory but the theory of social evolution has so far been consistent.

If anyone truly is intrigued by what I’ve said and not throw nasty attacks calling me ignorant or stupid, please respond.

 

[Pierresro]

First off Socialism is not communism not even close it is the way governemtns in Netehrlands and that whole area work. A retired person in those counrtie receives a decent motnhly salary it is similar but better than THE USA etc

 

[frankfrank]

Maybe the OP is right about there never having been a socialist nation (which, as I read into it, he means 100% socialist), and that may be true...but nearly every nation in the world has SOME socialism in its governing infrastructure. There are simply things that government can do better than the marketplace can - and I mean a LOT of things. By and large, though there is still some motivation for bureaucrats (etc.) to get their own benefits or enrich themselves or empower themselves from government socialist programs, government-run programs by and large sidestep the motivation for extreme and rapacious profits which, indeed, would put those programs in danger.

Consider, for example, the MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of Company pensions which workers contributed into for 20, 30, 40 years...and, when they retire, their pensions have been stolen by a corporation deciding to "reorganize" or having forced workers to invest most or all of their retirements into company stocks which tank and become worthless when the company goes into bankruptcy, etc. Now, THAT is capitalism at work...and, when these things happen, there are always a couple or a few very fortunate people who walk away pocketing millions or even billions of dollars. Money STOLEN from hundreds, or thousands, or more workers.

Of course these same greedmonsters (for whom no number of billions of dollars in their Cayman Islands bank accounts is "enough") want to get their goddam grubby hands on our Social Security - yes, presumably just throwing much of it into the legal gambling casinos that go under names like "The Dow" and "Wall Street," and OF COURSE the stock markets would simply skyrocket in anticipation of all these trillions of dollars coming in. So, those dollars would go in to buy stocks at unparalleled-in-history extreme high prices (Dow 40,000?). From there, there's nowhere to go but down. How well is THAT going to work out for people depending on Social Security for their retirement 18 years from now, especially because they already lost their corporate pensions in a merger or bankruptcy?

There are so many things that are part of the "public commons" where there is no model that can improve on socialism. Can you imagine that there would have been three Interstate Highways in WYOMING, or that many millions of people in the "boonies" would actually have electricity if there weren't government subsidies and/or downright-socialist programs in place? Having public education is basically a socialist program...can most of us even imagine being required to home-school all of our children? Or, can most of us imagine the horrific costs of sending our children to PRIVATE schools, starting from kindergarten to graduation? Oh, of course there's grants (or, as proposed by Republicans, vouchers)...for SOME...not all. Oh, WAIT: A lot of those aids are also socialist. Never mind. As the school nazi says, "No education for you!" [SEINFELD reference here...]

I feel that the U. S. healthcare system needs to be socialist. Having the population in good health is of interest to ALL PEOPLE, and to the health of the nation as a whole. Outcomes in the USA are rather dicey at best, and by far the most expensive healthcare system on Earth and, as a result, the overall health of this nation as a world entity is being grievously harmed. Much of the continued domination of the USA in world affairs is by BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA - the near-endless amount of funding for the Pentagon affords to buy the most and extremest bestest bombs and aircraft carriers, and United States corporations have extended tentacles all over the world and they run their overseas operations (partly, at least) in accordance with American laws, which are often exploitative and reckless. Not to say there isn't precedent - it is almost universal in human history, but the USA is currently the most extreme practitioner of this. We're not even the worst...think about examples from the MIDDLE of the last century such as the Belgian Congo, Japan in China a little earlier, Hitler, etc.

And Pierresro is absolutely right - "Socialism is not communism" - NOT EVEN CLOSE. Socialism presumes an organized government of some kind, to administer the programs, and regulations to assure that the distribution and allocation of the resources involved, is done as a benefit to all.

Communism works, but ONLY IN SMALL(ish) GROUPS. I don't think there are any countries out there which are following the true communist models - here's looking at you Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Laos...Cuba may be the closest model currently worldwide?? I think communism has trouble working at any level that exceeds, say, a tribal village. Doesn't the true model of communism actually eschew government? Where there's a group of people who live by having votes of consensus, and where the means of production mostly means (perhaps) things such as building shelter, using tools, and acquiring/raising/harvesting food all for the good of the community to be shared...isn't that communism? The food is harvested (or killed) and it goes into the communal "food bank" - "communism" derives its meaning from that, right?

As soon as the group becomes large enough and/or dispersed enough, and there are elections that start taking place, and a bureaucracy begins to form, and decisions are made by somebody far away who is entirely inaccessible to nearly everybody, can communism even continue to exist? The problem with communism as I understand it, is that there is no such thing as "checks and balances" of any kind - in effect, the fox guards the chicken coop. At that point the idea of communal resources and activities being beneficial to ALL people within the defined area of the population/peoples involved, falls apart (I think). Though they don't have nor pretend to have this form of government, I think even a place like Monaco is too large for communism, because even its population is large enough that "representatives" of some kind are necessary - whether it's a king, a duly-elected president, or whatever - and the ordinary people no longer have a real voice.

"Post Quick Reply" MY ASS...this one took a while, lol!!!!

 

[ballcaphair]

^ I bump you up top with a kiss. You deserve it. Sincerely do come again.