Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, Feb 12, 2016.
Once again another post that fails to understand the real issues.
Actually, this one has some merit.
When I was in high school I noticed that the suburb I grew up in was basically a little socialistic city. This was a suburb with an area of only 8 square miles and about 40,000 population. Besides the fire and police departments and the public schools, they had:
City owned water treatment plant
City owned municipal liquor stores (two)
City owned municipal swimming pool
City owned municipal indoor skating/hockey rink
City owned museum
City owned nature center
City owned library (independent of the county system)
City owned trash removal service
That cartoon could be 20 panels large and contain the alphabet soup federal agencies created under FDR in the 1930's. That's where socialism really got a foothold in the U.S.
It has none. The issue is not simply government control, although that is almost always a bad thing, it is about nationalization. controlling things at the Federal level. Most government control should be kept as local as possible. This is the founding of this country. Liberals do not have but one answer which is Federal control. They do not believe in freedom they are fascists at heart.
And then there is the matter of the first two panels being dated before the word socialism entered the English language.
You are correct.
And none of that has anything to do with Socialism.
There are two types of Socialism. Classic Socialism and Democratic Socialism.
Classic Socialism places the means of production and distribution (IE industry) in the hands of government.
Democratic Socialism places the means of production and distribution in the hands of the private sector with government limits and oversight with development often being financed by government.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are in the hands of the private sector and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Laissez Faire Capitalism ("Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state) is unregulated industry. There are two ways that a government typically is tempted to interfere with the economy. The first is through the initiation of force, and the second is through socialized industries. Neither of these activities are aligned with the proper role of government, and are both unacceptable.
Social Security is not Socialism for the government does not control the means of production. The employers and employees produce the trust fund accounts which are distributed. It is a form of Democratic Socialism. Private production with government limits and oversight.
Even Obamacare is not Socialism. The government does not control the means of production (the healthcare industry). It is Democratic Socialism as it is subject to government limits and oversight.
All which you listed are examples of Democratic Socialism, not Socialism.
Correct. The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what would later be labelled "utopian socialism".
But the concept dates back to the late 1600s and early 1700s after the industrial revolution, and prior to that the idea of public ownership has existed since the time of Plato and Aristotle (400-300 BC).
I would also add that socialism is about social control of private property and distribution of income. An example of that would be forcing people to take their income to buy a service or product so that in doing so it would benefit others who will or could not buy it for themselves. This is an indirect means of taking from the income of some and redistributing it to others.
Also, an example of socialism is to confiscate private property and redistribute it to someone else because it could be taxed at a higher rates in their hands. This is the abuse of imminent domain.
Which has nothing to do with socialism. M-Kay...
Correct. What you were describing was not Socialism. It is Democratic Socialism. There is a HUGE difference.
As long as you are going to be pedantic, I will point out that yes, there is a difference, but you said one had NOTHING to do with the other. Both involve state controls of industries and commerce.
One involves the state ownership and control of the means of production and distribution and the other involves the private ownership of the means of production and distribution.
The Village of Solvay, NY owns and operates its own Electric company
Which class of Socialism would you put the SEC?
Yes, and both involve state regulations and controls, perhaps even quotas, as during the FDR years.
With the exception of a few utilities owned by municipalities (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power comes immediately to mind) Socialism does not exist in the US. But Democratic Socialism has been predominate since the opening days of the 20th century.
The EPA, Department of Labor, OSHA, FDA, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (oversees banks), FDIC, NHTSA (autos and trucks), etc., etc., etc., as well as, as you pointed out, the SEC are all examples of government oversight of privately held industry.
Boy, are you for separation of church and state, or should government seize that, too?
TCassidy - did you think I meant the Security and Exchange Commission
I was was asking you about Solvay Electric Company ----
My first sentence was "With the exception of a few utilities owned by municipalities."