Debateful

What is Socialism?

We often here conservatives accusing liberals of being socialists. But what does it mean? Is it really synonymous with the left? Or is it more then that?

Well, Wikipedia says “Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community”

Now, what does that mean? It means that in a Socialist society, the wealth of the nation is redistributed, or spread out, by the community. Pretty simple.

Now, let’s look at what liberalism is. Again, Wikipedia:
“Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.”

And, because it will come up later, let’s look at what Conservatism is. Wikipedia:
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs.”

In other words, it’s the idea of looking to the well being of the peoples freedom. Again, simple concept.

Let’s compare the two.
Personal freedom.
Redistribute wealth.

Huh. Is it just me, or are those two at odds? Redistributing wealth would hurt personal freedom, wouldn’t it? It would be taking economic freedom away.

Okay then, let’s take a closer look at socialism

Socialism is a political system. Like Democracy, a Republic, a Monarchy, or any other kind. Like the different types of political systems, it has its variations. Communism, National Socialists, etc. Not all Socialist governments are leftist. National Socialism, one of the more famous examples being the Nazis. Now, looking at what we know about Nazis, they wanted to promote what they saw as their old traditions, and get rid of those that did not conform, we see a correlation with Conservatism. That correlation is the strong belief in tradition. This would dispel the myth that all Socialism is the same as Liberalism.

“What about the fact that all liberals are socialists” That too is untrue. Not all liberals want to redistribute the wealth. If it was that way, wouldn’t all rich liberals be giving away their wealth? Since they don’t, that would be proof that not all liberals are socialists.
So, in conclusion: Because not all socialist governments are liberal governments, saying that all socialists are liberals is inaccurate. Because, obviously, not all liberals are socialists, calling all liberals socialists is silly.
Not all liberals are socialists, not all socialists, and the same is true for conservatives and socialists. Socialism is a system that can encompass both the left and right.

I hope I have dispelled some myths about socialism and liberalism and conservatism. Thank you for your time.
-Saigio

Sources
Liberalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Conservatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Socialism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Interesting read Saigio, you have given me some things to think about. I have to agree that not all liberals are socialists, however I find that a great many do hold to the basic tenets of socialism.

Dispelled myths, eh?

I would be interested for someone to point to one aspect of today's libs or their policy which is not a promotion of socialism.
That would be the best place to start.

IMO, modern liberalism is the embodiment of classic Marxism, or even the new refuge of disenfranchised Communists.
This has not always been the case, but it sure seems like it is now.

I agree with the title of this thread.

Liberals believe in capitalism. They believe that individuals should own and control their businesses and ways of production as long as they follow some basic rules (for example, you have to pay your employees at least minimum wage). Socialists, on the other hand, don't believe the individual should have this power. Socialists believe that everyone should have a say in how things will be run, and the individual doesn't have the power to make decisions on their own.

The way I see it is a liberal will fight for basic human rights and necessities (for example, everyone should have affordable access to health care), but they are okay with one person living in a shack whereas a rich person has multiple mansions. A socialist will fight for basic human rights and take it even further. They are not okay with anyone living in a shack while another person lives in mulitiple mansions. They want to distribute all wealth.

So min wage is your distinction between liberalism and socialism????
Don't get me pissed!

You want nothing more than taking away the fruits of others labor.
You are are Marxist and you ought to be ashamed.
The likes of you will be crushed under the same hammer and sickle you wield.
It's happened before and shall happen again!

preserva Wrote:So min wage is your distinction between liberalism and socialism????

Find where I said "the difference between liberalism and socialism is minimum wage."

Not sure how I missed this awesome thread but I have to agree. Often the labels placed on politics are less about actual idealogy and more about accusations and the labelling itself can often be a form of attack.

I would personally say I have libertarian views in most aspects of economics. I have some neoconservative views with international policy. I have some socialist views when it comes to the extremely wealthy or powerful (especially corporations). I do think companies like Wal-Mart should be obligated to do more for the country and have a responsibility to the nation. I believe unchecked capitalism eventually leads to monopolies and corruption. However you need balance and we shouldn't stifle new ideas and growth (for the most part).

I also want to directly comment on the so-called "liberals"...while I whole heartedly agree that not all liberals are socialists I will say bluntly that I think liberals are hypocrits (as most people are). As you say...often liberals speak about the poor yet VERY often these liberals who are popular and speak out are incredibly wealthy. People like Rosie "stupid [censored]" O'donnell or even Clooney. Then there are those self-proclaimed activists like Susan Sarandon that just piss me off. Using their celeb status to tell others how to behave.

Lab, Lab, Lab....Walmart?
Obligated to do more for the country?
Like what?
They already provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, provide goods and services at very affordable prices and fuel our economy.
What else do you want them to do, singlehandedly bail out medicaid?
Welcome to America.
You worry me when you sound like lefty who wants to tear up the constitution, allow gov to steal profits and usurp private industry all in the name of class warfare, psudosocialism and the redistribution of wealth.

Spirit Wrote:

preserva Wrote:So min wage is your distinction between liberalism and socialism????

Find where I said "the difference between liberalism and socialism is minimum wage."

I don't know...made it up.
But what about you giving me some examples of modern liberal policy which does not reflect a socialist agenda?
Still waiting...

labrocca Wrote:I also want to directly comment on the so-called "liberals"...while I whole heartedly agree that not all liberals are socialists I will say bluntly that I think liberals are hypocrits (as most people are). As you say...often liberals speak about the poor yet VERY often these liberals who are popular and speak out are incredibly wealthy.

What's wrong with incredibly wealthy people speaking about the poor? People who are popular and have a large public have access to a lot of money. If a middle class or a poor person tried to speak out about the poor, only a small, localized band of people would listen at best. Though I do agree with you that a lot of liberals are hypocrits. There are a lot of hypocrits everywhere in politics, which is ones of the reasons its so hard to figure out who really stands for what.

preserva Wrote:Lab, Lab, Lab....Walmart?
Obligated to do more for the country?
Like what?
They already provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, provide goods and services at very affordable prices and fuel our economy.

They do provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, and many of them are overseas. As for the jobs they provide here, the working conditions are often terrible. The people are paid minimum wage with little or no benefits, and Wal*Mart has gotten in trouble repeatedly for doing things such as making people work over time with no pay, or not giving them any breaks. What would you rather be faced with -- low prices and a poor, unstable job/no job or higher prices and a stable job?

I don't think Wal*Mart should be taken over by the government or told what to do, because that wouldn't be right either. It's not like it is a monopoly. It's just an extremely profitable business that has made some unfair decisions as far as their employees go. The only thing that should be done is it should be regulated so that it doesn't get away with illegal activity like making people work over time with no pay. It should be required to provide at least minimal benefits as well.

preserva Wrote:But what about you giving me some examples of modern liberal policy which does not reflect a socialist agenda?
Still waiting...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "modern liberal policy" and how it is different from what was described in the first post of this thread. I think you must think that all modern liberal policy is about is redistributing wealth.