Socialism

1) What is is exactly?
2) Why is it so "bad"?
3) What makes Obama one?

Because news doesn't really tell you anything.

It's characterized by the goverment owning the means of production, it's considered bad because it means the government controlling industry, and Obama isn't one.

Well then, why do people say he is one?

(I knew he wasn't, i just wasn't sure why or how people came to that conclusion)

And why wouldn't the government have control over production anyways?

People say he's one because of the bailouts using tax money to give to industry among other things, but they don't quite seem to realise that this is far from socialism.

The government can regulate production, but if it were to control it then industry wouldn't be privatized, and as such capitalism would effectively cease to exist.

People say he's one because of the bailouts using tax money to give to industry among other things, but they don't quite seem to realise that this is far from socialism.

So then... why...

>_>

I'm guessing socialism is the new communism? Someone better resurrect McCarthy.

It's taken you this long to realise it's a second red scare?

I already knew that. I just didn't know what socialism was. Also didn't know that conservatives didn't know either. I just hoped they had an actual reason for thinking Obama was socialist.

check out this essay by Albert Einstein, it's quite interesting.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

I think socialism is a good balance to capitalism, in that regard I am not opposed to it. But I would rather have the private sector operating business.

Most people don't know **** about what socialism is. However, the conservative media has made a huge deal about how socialism makes baby Jesus cry for three decades now, so if members of flagrantly conservative news outlets call something "socialist," whether it actually is or not, people start pitching fits because they don't understand the basics of logical argument or broad economic systems. And people on the other side know that these people are ****ing morons, but they don't know how to articulate themselves, so all they can do is call them ****ing morons. That's why all the discussion of healthcare reform was a joke.

FAKE EDIT: Can be edited for coherence when sober if need be.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I think socialism is a good balance to capitalism, in that regard I am not opposed to it. But I would rather have the private sector operating business.

Same here, but I'd rather see some control in things that the private sector already has control in such as food production, utilities, and yes, even health care. If there is to exist a robust working force, than having some regulation in the basic necessities for healthy living will help keep the workforce strong.

As far as people calling Obama a socialist, they're just under the whole Red-Scare bull**** from the 20's and 50's and don't even know what real socialism is. These people need to have their right to vote stripped, because they are really a blow to democracy as well as common sense.

Socialism is the idea that the government should ensure equal access to necessary resources and services, as well as wealth. It is designed to combat some of the injustices of capitalism, where access itself is often an object of competition. Its main engines are social interventionism (universal healthcare) and economic planning (prevention of wasteful spending).

It differs from communism, which means government ownership and control of all means of production and all property. And it is NOT the logical next step, although all communist societies aim to fulfill the goals of socialism as well.

Well, hopefuly I wont be blamed for my ignorance as long as I make it clear that I am aware of it. Despite being familiar with the term, I don't really know what it means other than a generalised idea, and rushing to Wikipedia for life support was only of little help.

I suppose I think that people should have control over the economy in a more organised, collective fashion. But it also depends on the nature of Governments and the reality of how true a democracy can be. I would love to live in a transperant society where votes counted and common people had the will to organise themselves collectively, politically. There is alot of waste and exploitation around us that I think could be destroyed by common sense... in my dreamworld.

^The above (of my own) comments are probably irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Nox

Same here, but I'd rather see some control in things that the private sector already has control in such as food production, utilities, and yes, even health care. If there is to exist a robust working force, than having some regulation in the basic necessities for healthy living will help keep the workforce strong.

We actually have a good bit of regulation in the way of the food industry, the DOA is a big part of that industry. (DOA right? Or am I think of something else?) I don't know what department manages regulations of utilities, but I would imagine the government has established guidelines for utilities as well. I think some industries require regulation, some require nationaliztion, and some require being left the hell alone.

As far as people calling Obama a socialist, they're just under the whole Red-Scare bull**** from the 20's and 50's and don't even know what real socialism is. These people need to have their right to vote stripped, because they are really a blow to democracy as well as common sense.

Well, nationalized healthcare is socialist in nature, however, that isn't what Obama is pushing, but that is what everyone is claiming he is pushing.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

We actually have a good bit of regulation in the way of the food industry, the DOA is a big part of that industry. (DOA right? Or am I think of something else?)

I don't know what department manages regulations of utilities, but I would imagine the government has established guidelines for utilities as well. I think some industries require regulation, some require nationaliztion, and some require being left the hell alone. [/quote]
Ithink it's the FDA that's incharge of regulating the food industry, at least as far as sale and consumption is concerned.

I don't know what department manages regulations of utilities, but I would imagine the government has established guidelines for utilities as well. I think some industries require regulation, some require nationaliztion, and some require being left the hell alone.

Really, all of our industries require some degree of regulation just to make sure everyone is playing by the rules. full on nationalization wouldn't work for a lot of industries (like the banks) but we do need to have someone keeping an eye on things so we don't wind up in this situation again.

Well, nationalized healthcare is socialist in nature, however, that isn't what Obama is pushing, but that is what everyone is claiming he is pushing.

and that's what tripped up Harry Truman.

Socialism is just the new 'scary' word that people are using to demonize Obama and (to a lesser extent) any plans for universal healthcare for poorer people. Word tactics is all.

Originally Posted by Tyras

Ithink it's the FDA that's incharge of regulating the food industry, at least as far as sale and consumption is concerned.

Thats what I was thinking of.

Really, all of our industries require some degree of regulation just to make sure everyone is playing by the rules. full on nationalization wouldn't work for a lot of industries (like the banks) but we do need to have someone keeping an eye on things so we don't wind up in this situation again.

Exactly.

I'd be all for socialism, if it was less government involved.

That's the thing about systems of government. Contrary to what most people believe, capitalism did work at one point, until the federal reserve act came in and had its regulations come to a screeching halt. Now that it's unregulated, corporations get away with selling subpar products so that can make more money in the long run with it breaks, lawsuits are absurd and out of control, and an ongoing list I need not to explain.

However, if I had to choose between Socialism with less Government or Regulated Capitalism, I'd probably go with the former. Most higher class citizens hate this idea because they (of course not all of them, but plenty) only care about their money, and feel their being "punished". If I were richer, I can honestly say that I would not mind giving money to people who needed it more than me. That being said, since government takes in that money, who knows where that money is really going?

and one more thing, does it not get under one's skin when people distinguish the rich as "hard working citizens" and the poor are considered "lazy/trash"? Because from what I see in most people who hate socialism, that's how they look upon the matter.

Originally Posted by -Link-182-

and one more thing, does it not get under one's skin when people distinguish the rich as "hard working citizens" and the poor are considered "lazy/trash"? Because from what I see in most people who hate socialism, that's how they look upon the matter.

that's dangerous thinking there. Those hedge fund managers who sit around and fool with money all day deserve every cent of their untold millions. if that woman in her 50's didn'twant to be busting her ass seven days a week at McDonalds then she shouldn't have decided to be poor!

Originally Posted by Tyras

that's dangerous thinking there. Those hedge fund managers who sit around and fool with money all day deserve every cent of their untold millions. if that woman in her 50's didn'twant to be busting her ass seven days a week at McDonalds then she shouldn't have decided to be poor!

I rest my case. It's really sad that the poor are now frowned upon and considered "trash" just because they're born into a lower-class family.