What is Socialism?

.... to learn more about the true goals of socialism of ALL forms, go to:

http://www.nsm88.com

I'm not a socialist, but I know a crock of shit when I smell it. Socialists are not nazis.... Hitler called his form of facism 'National Socialism' which is just as much a joke as Israel calling itself a 'Democracy.'

Stop spreading your filthy propoganda here... everyone knows that is a bunch of facist lies ...

If it's so obvious that this is a "crock of shit" and "lies", why do you feel the need to explain it away?

Not everyone uses their ability to think so they are confused sometimes by the lies that are spread. When I see one, I merely point it out.

National Socialism was bassically the exact opposite of real Socialism. I find it amusing that you people actually believe this kind of propoganda.

Socialism is a system designed to empower the working class, and give equal rights to everyone. It also aims to solve the problems that Capitalism has gotten us into as a society.

National Socialism is a facist system designed to repress the working class, and give rights only to those is in power.

Obviously they are not the same thing... duh.

Yep, socialism is the system which was extremely successful in the USSR for seventy years, so successfull that Josef Stalin has emerged as the most accomplished mass murderer of the 20th century with more than 10,000,000 russion people dead at the end of his reign. The USSR was also as backward on human rights, agriculture (many millions of soviet citizens died of hunger during the comunist ara) and medical care. Socialism is such a successful system that russia has formed into a bagger, requesting the western (and capitalist) world for donations.

For more proof of socialism 'accomplishments' check out the situation in China and North Korea.

>Not everyone uses their ability to think ....

Do you hear that? Just in case you can't think for yourself, there are people like "not a socialist" and "duh" (likely the same) who will think for you. The Thought Police are out in force. Beware!

Let's take a look at what Webster's has to say about socialism:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Under socialism there's no need to control your thoughts. Your just not allowed to have any that aren't owned by the government.

so enlightening. Is that what your rightwing professors are teaching you in school? Or did you learn that in boot camp? Aside from a few delusional Stalinists, noone belives that Russia was/is truly socialist. That's like saying the US is a democracy. haha Take your disinformation campaign elsewhere.

the USSR was most certainly socialist. Unless Che thinks they actually practiced communism. Or is that what your kindergarten teachers are tellilng you.

If it works well its socialism. If it doesn't its facism.

State ownership is state fuc*ing ownership. It doesn't matter what the intention of the state is.

Now maybe if you actally believed a government with all economic power in its hands could be a nice, understanding, non-corrupt government then maybe your strange definition of socialism could appear. Personally I wish I could be as believing and trusting as you seem to be. I think goverments, even without economic power has trouble being nice, understand and non-corrupt.

The old USSR called itself- the govt. and economic system- communist. Moreover, regardless of what they called themselves, the lack of "private property" or the "free market" does not in any way mean they were genuinely communist or progressive. The govt. was as corrupt as the US govt. Quit kissing your professor's ass by believing everything he/she say's.

well, someone could argue that capitalism is structurally or institutionally flawed because by design, a few people will gain control of huge amounts of resources, and over this monopolies will develop, and the 'one person-one vote' ethic of democracy will be subverted because these powerful people will be able to control the whole process. The criticism of liberals or 'reformists' comes because they would like to merely adjust or reform the bad edges of capitalism by creating a social net for people who can't compete, such as the mentally ill and the disabled and the old and victims of racism (and we can see that racism etc. still occur despite whatever libertarian ideologues argue about this not being possible because it isn't rational to be prejudiced against competent workers).

In the same sense, socialism is institutionally flawed because it permits a vanguard to take control of the process and to subvert democracy and invites authoritarian techniques for dealing with dissent and people who don't want to work with the system. Even if you argue that the USSR wasn't 'real' communism, communists seriously have to offer a more convincing reason for why every single country where communism has been tried has turned into such a human rights disaster, and why the same thing won't happen if it is tried again.
Just because capitalism and communism are deeply flawed by design doesn't mean that there aren't dozens of other possibilities of more democratic and just systems which could exist.

"Just because capitalism and communism are deeply flawed by design doesn't mean that there aren't dozens of other possibilities of more democratic and just systems which could exist."

Brianisim will lead the masses to a brighter new future where all people wil live in cheap afforadable housing that conforms to MY taste.
The monatary system will be scrapped in favor of trading cards with my likeness and statistics on back. (gum not included) These will be traded for liqour and ciggeretts but NO FOOD. Food is the opium of the masses, and speaking of masses, no more religion. Only Brianisim will be permitted ..well? Who's with me?!?!!?

Get back to work. Don't you have some documents to be shredding or overpriced stocks to get rid of?

Hey Che,
I never called the USSR Communist or Progressive and it doesn't matter what they called themselves. You were the one defending them. They were socialist in the strict sense of ownership by the state. Corrupt government has nothing to do with ecomonic system, you should listen a bit to your teachers (not sure if you had a professor anywhere) and understand these differences.

I'm certainly not defending the Stalinist regimes. I am saying there is nothing inherently socialist about state ownership. That's just bull. If that was the sole condition, then Napoleon can be considered socialist for nationalizing the tobacco industry. He wasn't socialist, of course. Marx said it himself. The issue isn't who "owns" the property as much as it is how much the workers are involved and actually benefit. Workers were not in control in Russia.

I disagree Che. I lean more towards Webster's definition. Socialism is ownership by the state. And yes, Napolean is recognized as running the beginning of a socialist state although much of the "continental system" was still run by oglopoly (sp)

What you are looking at is a sub set of that. Maybe its the socialism form you believe in but its not socialilsm as defined just about anywhere.

Ownership by labour in your definition is more like a wild form of United Airlines.