Why do people not understand socialism ? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15228065
So, looking at many threads in this forum, people clearly dont understand what socialism is.

Thats puzzling, because socialism is very easy to understand.

The bible states:

Mark 12, New King James

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.


The second law demands altruism. A society which is based on altruism is called socialism.

Atheists have come up with more worldly definitions. Like socialism is when nobody is held dependent and nobody is exploited.

Still this concept is important enough even for atheists that more secular definitions became necessary.

I dont get why any of this is hard to understand.
#15228068
They choose not to understand it. It is willful ignorance because they need someone to blame for the ills of the world, and since they choose not to understand it, 'Socialism' is the new Bogey-Man.

Negotiator wrote:Atheists have come up with more worldly definitions. Like socialism is when nobody is held dependent and nobody is exploited.
Since Christianity is not the ONLY religion, it has nothing to do with religion. Even you choose not to understand it, and thus demonize it. :knife: The "Greater Good" is not limited simply to your religion. You might actually find it's a poor example, actually.

Socialism
- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I highlighted the part that most people ignore, when looking at Socialism, as it can be a very healthy check and balance against Crony Capitalism.

Crony Capitalism

- an economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials.
Last edited by Godstud on 18 May 2022 12:18, edited 1 time in total.
#15228069
Negotiator wrote:So, looking at many threads in this forum, people clearly dont understand what socialism is.

Thats puzzling, because socialism is very easy to understand.

The bible states:

Mark 12, New King James

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.


The second law demands altruism. A society which is based on altruism is called socialism.

Atheists have come up with more worldly definitions. Like socialism is when nobody is held dependent and nobody is exploited.

Still this concept is important enough even for atheists that more secular definitions became necessary.

I dont get why any of this is hard to understand.


It's necessary to conceal the truth so the sheeple can be shorn.

The vested interest in society from time immemorial the 1% have used lies to control society,.
#15228070
Americans under Reagan. Lots of people don’t know shit due to proletarization. Their existence is narrow and short in the day to day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/15/constitution-confuses-most-americans/47e6691c-e42b-4276-8adb-ec1b24539954/
By Ruth Marcus
February 15, 1987
NEW ORLEANS, FEB. 14 -- Americans are woefully ill-informed about the content and meaning of the Constitution, according to a national survey released today.

The poll of 1,004 Americans found that only a bare majority knew the purpose of the 200-year-old document was to create a federal government and define its powers; that 59 percent were unaware that the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution; and that nearly half believed the Constitution contains the Marxist declaration, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
#15228105
It's critically important, though, that 'socialism', however imagined for the future by the individual, be thought-of in relation to *capitalism*, in the present.

There's a real light-mindedness, I've seen, where it becomes like a *trivia* question, like 'Why did the Titanic sink', or something.

Like 'Whatever happened to that socialism thing from the 20th century?'

Capitalism, in the present, is what invites / spurs a critique, and then people can go from there in terms of what they think would be *better*.

TLDR: Pro-socialism isn't enough -- one also needs to be anti-capitalism.
#15228167
Negotiator wrote:So, looking at many threads in this forum, people clearly dont understand what socialism is.

And you are clearly one of them.
Thats puzzling, because socialism is very easy to understand.

If you possess and know how to use a good dictionary.
The bible states:

Mark 12, New King James

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.


The second law demands altruism. A society which is based on altruism is called socialism.

No it isn't. Look in a dictionary.
Atheists have come up with more worldly definitions. Like socialism is when nobody is held dependent and nobody is exploited.

Also news to lexicographers.
Still this concept is important enough even for atheists that more secular definitions became necessary.

I dont get why any of this is hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand. What's apparently hard is choosing to understand.
#15228168
Godstud wrote:Socialism
- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I highlighted the part that most people ignore, when looking at Socialism, as it can be a very healthy check and balance against Crony Capitalism.

Source? The highlighted part makes the definition invalid, as every capitalist democracy has such regulation.
#15228170
ckaihatsu wrote:It's critically important, though, that 'socialism', however imagined for the future by the individual, be thought-of in relation to *capitalism*, in the present.

No it isn't. It's far more important to understand both capitalism and socialism from first principles.
Capitalism, in the present, is what invites / spurs a critique, and then people can go from there in terms of what they think would be *better*.

And not fall for the false dichotomy fallacy that says socialism is the only alternative.
TLDR: Pro-socialism isn't enough -- one also needs to be anti-capitalism.

It is not enough to be anti-capitalism. One must also be anti-socialism.
#15228171
No, @Truth To Power, it does not invalidate it. That you say that only shows your absolute ignorance of what Socialism is.

Socialism is NOT Communism. You are confusing the two because you WANT to.

See Willfull Ignorance.

Both communism and socialism advocate public control of the means of production, although socialism allows for the continued existence of capitalism in some parts of the economy.

What Is Socialism?
Socialism encompasses a broader spectrum of political beliefs but shares communism's emphasis on a fair (if not necessarily equal) distribution of wealth among citizens, as well as public ownership of the means of production (though not necessarily all of them). In that sense, socialist programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism in a society, which is less likely in a true communist system. Socialists may or may not see a communist system as their end goal.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... ialism.asp
#15228173
Negotiator wrote:So, looking at many threads in this forum, people clearly dont understand what socialism is.

Thats puzzling, because socialism is very easy to understand.

The bible states:

Mark 12, New King James

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.


The second law demands altruism. A society which is based on altruism is called socialism.

Atheists have come up with more worldly definitions. Like socialism is when nobody is held dependent and nobody is exploited.

Still this concept is important enough even for atheists that more secular definitions became necessary.

I dont get why any of this is hard to understand.


Any time you'd like to invite a bunch of homeless people into your house to live with you, feel free.
#15228176
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's critically important, though, that 'socialism', however imagined for the future by the individual, be thought-of in relation to *capitalism*, in the present.



Truth To Power wrote:
No it isn't. It's far more important to understand both capitalism and socialism from first principles.



Sorr', brah -- capitalism and socialism are *not* compatible, no matter what the dentist office brochure said.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Capitalism, in the present, is what invites / spurs a critique, and then people can go from there in terms of what they think would be *better*.



Truth To Power wrote:
And not fall for the false dichotomy fallacy that says socialism is the only alternative.



Think about it *economically* -- how is *valuation* supposed to take place -- ?

By *commodification*, even into people's own *lives* (capitalism), by bureaucratic-elitist administration (Stalinism), or by the workers themselves, 'co-administratively', over everything in the world (communism).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
TLDR: Pro-socialism isn't enough -- one also needs to be anti-capitalism.



Truth To Power wrote:
It is not enough to be anti-capitalism. One must also be anti-socialism.



Knee-jerk reflex -- ?

(You mean anti-*Stalinism*, which is understandable, but no one would really call for a *standing elite* over the long-term.)
#15228177
BlutoSays wrote:
Any time you'd like to invite a bunch of homeless people into your house to live with you, feel free.



Red herring -- those are *different scales*, so one's own *lifestyle* isn't a *qualifier* for one's politics (within reason, of course).
#15228179
Godstud wrote:No, @Truth To Power, it does not invalidate it.

Yes it does.
That you say that only shows your absolute ignorance of what Socialism is.

No, it shows I am choosing to use the English language correctly rather than change definitions to suit a dishonest agenda.
Socialism is NOT Communism. You are confusing the two because you WANT to.

No I'm not. Communism is abolition of private property. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production (sometimes thought to vest in the community, sometimes in the workers).

See Willful Ignorance.
Both communism and socialism advocate public control of the means of production, although socialism allows for the continued existence of capitalism in some parts of the economy.

No it doesn't. Private ownership and collective ownership are mutually exclusive.
What Is Socialism?
Socialism encompasses a broader spectrum of political beliefs but shares communism's emphasis on a fair (if not necessarily equal) distribution of wealth among citizens, as well as public ownership of the means of production (though not necessarily all of them). In that sense, socialist programs and policies can exist alongside capitalism in a society, which is less likely in a true communist system. Socialists may or may not see a communist system as their end goal.

See? Ownership, not just regulation.
#15228181
ckaihatsu wrote:Red herring -- those are *different scales*, so one's own *lifestyle* isn't a *qualifier* for one's politics (within reason, of course).


According to you, but who cares what you think.

I EARN my private property, so it is a qualifier. You spouting off on a forum about your marxist dreams isn't a *qualifier*.
#15228182
No. You have a very simplistic version of what Socialism. To you it's all or nothing, or black and white, which is simply NOT THE CASE.

Regulation of Capitalism is one of the key facets of Socialism, and is why China can be classified as Socialist, not Communist. Chinese economy is Capitalist with Socialism regulating it.

Nothing would be Socialism OR Communism if we went by your personal interpretation, @Truth To Power.

Your grasp of the English language is quite poor, evidently. I posted a few definitions that you cannot seem to grasp.

Oxford Dictionary

Socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... e&ie=UTF-8

@BlutoSays You THINK you have ownership of your property, but the government can take it from you if they want to. See Eminent Domain.
#15228184
ckaihatsu wrote:Sorr', brah -- capitalism and socialism are *not* compatible, no matter what the dentist office brochure said.

They are as compatible as heads and tails: two opposing sides of the same thing. Capitalism and socialism are the two opposite faces of exactly the same counterfeit coin: refusal to know the fact that there is an essential economic and moral difference between owning the fruits of one's labor and owning others' rights to liberty. Socialism insists that the factory owner is as much a parasite as the landowner, while capitalism insists that the landowner is as much a contributor to production as the factory owner. Both refuse to know the fact that classical economics -- and physiocracy before it -- conclusively established: the factory owner is a producer, the landowner a parasite.
Think about it *economically* -- how is *valuation* supposed to take place -- ?

As value is what something would trade for, its measurement can only occur in a market.
By *commodification*, even into people's own *lives* (capitalism), by bureaucratic-elitist administration (Stalinism), or by the workers themselves, 'co-administratively', over everything in the world (communism).

Gibberish, Marxist, Silly.
Knee-jerk reflex -- ?

Long practice.
(You mean anti-*Stalinism*, which is understandable, but no one would really call for a *standing elite* over the long-term.)

I don't mean Stalinism. I mean what I say.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 19 May 2022 02:59, edited 1 time in total.
#15228185
BlutoSays wrote:
According to you, but who cares what you think.



*Ice* daggers.... (grin)


BlutoSays wrote:
I EARN my private property, so it is a qualifier. You spouting off on a forum about your marxist dreams isn't a *qualifier*.



Yeah, I think someone's own *professed* politics, albeit subjective / their-own, *tends* to be a strong 'qualifier' / determinant for what they'll do, politically. Sure, it's *politics*, so there's some wiggle-room, but it's not *that* elastic, rhetoric-vs.-positions.

Your shit is your own, no one's disputing that, so please, just lower the drawbridge already -- (!)

And, tasty:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
January 6 Hearings LIVE

There are two or more Secret Service agents seate[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Putin has to be stopped hard, in a way he and his[…]

So why were people still being killed en masse as[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

@Drlee Even if the majority votes (at amy leve[…]