What the hell is socialism? Someone please define it!

[Blue_Chill]

-We have RWers saying any form of wealth distribution is socialism.
-We have DUers saying anything the public does for the common good is socialism.
-The dictionary I am told is wrong about socialism.

So exactly what the hell does socialism mean?

[Nederland]

1. Socialism

Socialism is a word. Like all words, it is defined by how people use it. For most people therefore, socialism is "a system whereby the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government."

[Olivier]

5. Isn't it communism ?

So what is the difference between the two systems ?

[Styles]

15. Communism doesn't exist

Communism is a system completely controlled by the government. In practice, it can't exist because of external trade forces. Instead, it is actually a communist goaled system.

Socialism is a system controlled by the people. So technically, any country that has an elected government (as opposed to a dictatorship or imperialship) is a socialist country.

Communist goaled governments are (in fact) elected by a group of people who have been educated to study their government. If the current government is flawed, they will choose a replacement, who is then elected (or not elected) by these watchers. Whenever it is broadcasted on the news that only one polition has ran for government in a communist goaled country, it is simply because they did not screw up, and did their job well enough, not because they are a dictatorship.

Communist goaled countries are often described as socialist because the government revolves around the goal of supporting its people instead of corporations (as opposed to capitalism).

Bet you didn't learn that in school =) I only know it because I was breifly engaged to a woman in China who was studying politics and law there.

[Dirk39]

26. That's historical wrong...

In Marxism and before, communism is a system without any government at all, which, according to Marx, would have to be prepared by socialism. Even the Leninists and Stalinists never called the Sovietunion and the warsaw-pact states "communist".
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Ein]

40. Lenin called it Marxism.

What is the difference b/t Communism and Marxism?

In his biography I swore I have read his goals of attaining a Communist end (besides the Menshevik deal), but you're right, he usually referred to himself as a Social-Democrat, or at least associated with groups by that title.

[sushi]

50. Communism

is extreme socialism. There's no incentive if you want to "move up in the world" by working very hard. Anything extreme is not good.
On the other hand, I think Capitalism, as practiced by the first world countries, has gone too far. What the world needs is a happy medium. Rewards for those who work hard, and at the same time those who can't work because of chronic illness, extreme disability, etc., are taken care of.

[Blue_Chill]

7. defined by how people use it?

that makes for a complete breakdown of language.

[Nederland]

12. No

What makes for a complete breakdown of language is when people think that they can chose any meaning for a word they want. For example, if I were to argue that the definition of the word blue was wrong, and that blue actually referred to the color you think of as red, that would be a complete breakdown of language. The minute you believe that you can just alter the defition of words without regard to how the rest of society uses those words is the minute you will cease to communicate effectively with the rest of society.

This is not to say that the meaning of words doesn't change. Sixty years ago, a very small number of people used the word gay to mean homosexual, but for the vast majority the word gay meant happy. For some time, the people that used the word gay to mean homosexual were misunderstood by the rest of society and would have to go through to tedious process of explaining what they meant. In time, the larger society picked up the alternate meaning until the original meaning of happy is probably viewed as quaint by most people.

The question is simple: do you want to argue about the meaning of words or do you want to debate the merit of ideas. If the debate over ideas is more important to you, why not simply use words in a manner that most people will understand?

[Dirk39]

28. Agree...

it's true to some extent, but it's rather history that allows you to use a word or to give it a new meaning. But history defines the meaning much more. Noone today - even if you're a marxist or whatever - can use the word "communism" without evocating Stalinism and Leninism and he or she has to comment on this, to give an example. What about a lesson in historical materialism, Nederland:-)
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Mairead]

35. Sure. And for the majority of USAians, even within my lifetime

(and I'm not that old) 'Negro' was a word that was commonly understood to refer to a class of individuals who were not really, truly, fully human or deserving of the same rights as other humans.

Now that definition is used only by a minority. Does that mean Black people have changed their nature meanwhile?

[JanMichael]

2. Why the distress?

Surely it isn't all that important to you, no?

I'm not trying to be a prick but why the intense curiousity?

[Blue_Chill]

8. Because it annoying

That someone can say anything they want about socialism and you can't argue with it because they switch the meaning on you to suit their argument.

[Pillowbiter]

3. Isn't wealth distribution communism?

erg

[bryant69]

4. Socialists vs Communists

One definition is a softer form of Communism--socialists want government control over the economy, but unlike Communists they work towards their goals through Democratic means, legally. The "innovation" of Lenin was that a small revolutionary cadre could force Socialism on a nation; this innovation is known as communism now.

But both words to change meaning with the wind, as I'm sure you know.

[Zuni]

13. I agree

to me a communist is a marxist-leninst---an authoritarian revolutionary. A socialist is a social democrat.

[damnraddem]

17. Just as it was a change in meaning as applied by the Leninists.

When Marx wrote of socialism and communism, he meant two different stages in what he saw as a reformed society of the future. He wrote extensively on the wrongs of the past and of his day, what was to be overthrown; but he was a bit hazy on the future -- necessarily, as he recognized. He did argue that socialism meant control of society by those who produced, workers, and was somewhat definite about what he meant by worker; but that tied him to his time -- Marxists since have argued about who was a worker (so whether workers made up a third of an industrialized population, or 90% of it), because that has changed with society and its economy. But the essential for Marx was that workers would control (socialism) and that this in turn would lead to a further-reformed society (communism). This could only happen after there was thoroughgoing capitalism, which had swept away feudalism, created a large working class, and thoroughly developed the economy.

Lenin had grown impatient with the workers, and was a bit of a control freak, so developed his view of the 'vanguard party' that would represent the interests of the workers in overthrowing capitalism and in guiding society through socialism to communism. His bunch, the minority in the Russian Revolution, managed to take control there -- in a country that was not a developed, capitalist country, fully expecting developed countries (principally Germany) to follow suit. They didn't, so the Leninists found themselves in control of a backward economy. They managed to hold to power, despite a determined counterrevolution funded by most of the developed capitalist countries; and tried a variety of approaches to guiding that economy to develop -- heretofore seen as the task of capitalism. They described their efforts as socialism (note: control over workers, not workers' control) and the society they were building as communism. It didn't take long for the bureaucrats in control to claim that what they guided was, indeed, communism, just not yet the wonderful communism of the future. Some on the left have theorized that what they built was not communism, nor socialism, rather a form of state capitalism -- the state acting as the capitalist.

Well, there's my vulgar version -- a more-adequate treatment would take longer and greater study. And I didn't even label the various Internationals! ;-) However, an important point is that big-C Communists did not and do not see Communism as simple redistribution of income; most historical socialists did not either; but many of the remnants of soft socialism (what's left of the 'Social Democrats') have tended to see it that way.

[hunter]

21. I think yer a socialist

Yer sentences and paragraphs, though vulgar, are very long and dense.

You took a lot of history in college, right? Your profs wore dark ugly suits and they chain smoked.

Jus' teasin' so ignore me. I be one o' them sissy soft socialists, and not much of a historian.

Peace

[Dirk39]

31. This is wrong!

Lenin never used the term "communism" this way. They were or claimed to be communists, but they never described communism this way. But I think you've mentioned one of the most important evolutions in the history of the socialist and communist movements: while Marx always was a radical democrat and convinced that the working class would have to make their revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviki introduced a kind of elite that is doing the revolution for and instead of the working class and educates and leads them.
Greetings from Germany,
Dirk

[David Zephyr]

6. Read Marx's Communist Manifesto

That's the first place anyone should start in a sincere desire to understand socialism. Don't let others explain it for you. Go to the source.

[damnraddem]

18. True, the source of the major stream of socialist thought ...

of the Nineteenth and into the Twentieth Centuries. There were always other streams of socialist thought, however; and the meanings changed over time along with society, the economy, and politics.

Further, the Communist Manifesto was a political pamphlet dashed off during the revolutions of 1848. Marx worked for decades thereafter defining his system of thought. So, the Manifesto is a good starting place for a grounding in Marxism; but it cannot by itself provide a grounding in what has since been meant by socialism and communism.

[Mairead]

33. No, sorry, that's like saying the first place to go to learn about

psychology is Freud's writings. He was not in any way representative of all of psychology or even all of psychotherapy. He was the founder of one school of thought, no more.

Similarly with Marx. He was the founder of one school of socialist thought, no more.

[David Zephyr]

36. Please.

And what are the other "schools" of socialist thought.

And where would you recommend the "first place to go" would be? I'm really curious. Please expand. I'll be here waiting here.

[Mairead]

38. Well, thanks to Feanor, this could be a good starting place

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/lecture_notes/introduction/intro_about_soc.htm

It lists many of the schools of socialist thought.

[David Zephyr]

42. Communist Manifesto.

Sorry. Your "site" is a plethora with articles from even the likes of Thomas Sowell, of all people!

It's obvious that you're not being serious. You did not have a "starting place" of your own, but were quick to post in a contrarian way...to pick an argument. I'm glad you were able to somehow find someone to help you with your argument, though.

Please note that my post used the word "sincerely" if you would read it.

The Communist Manifesto has long been my recommendation for anyone truly wanting to learn about socialism. It provides a vital historical and motivational rationale behind the birth and rise of socialism. It also is an easy read and it is directly from Marx himself.

Have you read any of Marx's works?

As Damnraddem posted above, "the Manifesto is a good starting place for a grounding in Marxism." Naturally, I agree with Damnraddem's following statement as well: "it cannot by itself provide a grounding in what has since been meant by socialism and communism."

My response was to the author of this thread, Blue_Chill. I typically assume that people like Blue_Chill was sincere in his question in the beginning of the thread. My answer was to him. You should address your thoughts to him, not me.

Peace.

[Ein]

43. I think you are right.

It was not just the work of Marx and Engels, as the intro states it was ratified by a international group of Communists.

"To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages."

[David Zephyr]

44. Thanks. Great Quotation You Have From Noam, By the Way.

Well, thanks. Certainly, the Manifesto is not the only place someone could or should go to learn about Socialism, but I've found that it certainly has been very helpful over the years.

I would also add "Revolution Betrayed" by Leon Trotksy to the list, but then once one begins making "lists" it becomes less helpful. I might brag here that I own a First Edition of "Revolution Betrayed" which is dear to me.

Thanks for your input.

[Ein]

45. Have you read alot into that period?

I haven't read, but rather heard, that Trotsky loved to watch warfare up close, often ending up standing in the middle.

What is the subject matter of "Revolution Betrayed"... I gathered the impression that Lenin's advocation of a dictatorship bothered Trotsky to at least a minimal degree, so I wonder?

Paraphrase of one exchange that comes to mind, I believe it was during one of the first congresses:

Trotsky: But what you advocate is a dictatorship?

Lenin: It is the only way.

Thanks.

[David Zephyr]

48. Trotsky.

I will contact your inbox. Nice meeting you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Trotsky Was A True Believer

who wanted a worldwide revolution and Stalin wanted revolution in one country. Stalin settled their doctrinal dispute by having a pickaxe put in Trotsky's head....

[Terwilliger]

65. I believe he was publically executed

the architect of the Revolution didn't like the bullshit it was being turned into, so they shot him

Stalin didn't want a revolution...Stalin wanted oligarchical corporatism. If only he'd lived to see the US now! :eyes:

[Mairead]

57. What are you talking about?

The page to which I pointed you distinguishes several schools of socialism, including Marxist, anarchist, and Fabianist. What's wrong with that?

And I'm sure that if you're a Marxist you like to use the Manifesto as an introduction -- most Marxists would! But Marxism is not the sum or substance of socialism. It is, as I stated, one school of thought, one rather narrow doctrine bound, like Freudianism, to its time, place, and class.

[rock]

9. The dictionary I am told is wrong about socialism.

Well, I'm telling you it's right, but that it usually gives a technical definition based on specific ploitical movements. In it's everyday sense, it is used to mean doing things that are good for society. It may mean simply pooling our resources. If you don't go to extreme and do it for everything (keep it moderate like concerning health care and the environment) it sounds okay to me.

[uptohere]

10. Its been defined

Reference Marx.

People are a little lazy about looking up terms to describe what they think so they pick something they think is close and use that insted. Its foolish and causes problems (like we need problems) but so it goes.

[shatoga]

11. IF U've signed your house & car over to gov't U R a socialist

If you still believe in private ownership of property,
you are not a socialist;

except in the warped minds of neo-cons...

Who have combined the worst aspects of Nazism and Communism into neo-conservatism.
"Unification" under Reverend Moon....the neo-con god.

Who has declared himself the messiah.

(& is worshipped by republican leadership)

[damnraddem]

20. To Marx, to socialists in the original since, the house & buggy (pre-car)

were irrelevant to the matter (although essential to one's life). The issue was who controlled the means of production. True, that in turn affected who owned houses and individual transport; but redistribution of simple property (consumer goods, houses, and so on) was seen as secondary and an outcome, not as an objective.

By the way, to Marx, and other socialists, things like social security (seen in a wider context than our program, including health care or coverage, some income assurance for some, death benefits, and so on) was one of a long list of reforms demanded, not itself socialism.

[tabasco]

23. Baloney

Canada is socialist. Socialism simply implies a government that uses significant resources to secure the health and welfare of the population across the board. A society in which the population contributes as a whole for the benefit of all. Wealthy people might not need the government social benefits, but they live in a society with low crime and good health.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Canada Is A Higly Developed Welfare State

like France, the UK , and Germany....

They have features of socialism but they are not socialist countries according to Marxist theory....

[damnraddem]

14. Whose? The biggest debates on this have been among socialists.

To many, it is control of society and economy by those who do the work. Workers' control. This was what Marx wrote about in theory, whether or not it was what he supported in practice. Some redistribution of wealth was called for, seen as an interim reform but not in itself part of socialism.


To anarchists, it meant socialist libertarianism (before the L word was hijacked by capitalist libertarians): control of society and workplaces by workers, with the state smashed and obliterated.

To some, those who built regimes claimed to be socialist, it was control of society and economy by a state controlled in turn by a 'vanguard' that claimed to represent the workers' interests -- e.g., who knew 'what was best' for the 'people.' They called themselves Marxist-Leninist, although their connection to Marx was a bit strained. Many found this definition a bit self-serving. Some of them went to Gulags.

In all of these formulations, the big deal was who controlled the 'means of production,' not who had what goodies, the former seen as generating the latter.

To some, it meant capture of political control in the name of workers, with the votes of workers and others who would ally with workers. This political control was then to be exercised in order to improve the conditions of workers, which meant some degree of direct redistribution of wealth, but much more about giving workers more control in society and the economy, so that they could improve their own plights. In this approach, the 'means of production' were more to be regulated, with only some to be directly government-run. This corresponds with Labor parties in the first half of the Twentieth Century.

To some, it has meant little more than provision of social benefits to the populace and some redistribution of wealth, and some regulation of the means of production. Labor parties in Europe today represent the remnants of this approach. It has sometimes been embraced only in very mild form by the Democratic Party in the U.S. -- or rather, some of its reforms have, but not the core socialist theorization.

Was or is socialist practical, practicable, desirable? Well, you didn't ask that.

[hunter]

16. Private Ownership / Public ownership...

I believe roads, national parks and forests, the health care system, retirement systems, public energy utilities, public schools, and a few other things should be owned "by the people, for the people." In that sense I am a socialist.

Companies that manufacture things like cars and computers, or grow things, like food or fiber, or mine things, like coal or copper, or sell things, like groceries or building materials, should be private but regulated in such a way that they are not harmful to the common good. Labor and environmental protection laws are very important.

If private companies are unable to provide necessities such as food or housing or jobs for all citizens it is the obligation of the government to do this.

I'm very left-wing Catholic in my outlook, and if anyone wants to call me a "socialist" I am not offended. Much of what is good about the United States is the result of socialism. We just don't like to call it that. I think we like "progressive" better. Yeah, that's it, I'm progressive!

[Terwilliger]

19. Jesus Christ defined socialism

"LOVE ONE ANOTHER!"


John 15:12


http://www.leeellis.com/Jesusquotes.html

[damnraddem]

22. Woody Guthrie, a nonorthodox Communist, wrote:

"Jesus Christ was a man,
an honest working man,
a carpenter true and brave.
He told all the rich
to give their money to the poor,
so they laid Jesus Christ in his grave."
(much more)


But Woody was more a populist than an orthodox Marxist.

(Edited to make the 'much more' show up -- damn HTML.)

[Mairead]

34. Yes, exactly. Woody was a vernacular socialist/commie, not a disciple

of any given doctrine.

[uptohere]

24. "whats love got to do with it ?"

Socialism is about who owns the means to production.

Social humanism might be thought of as being your brother's keeper but thats not socialism.

[Terwilliger]

41. socialism is about doing unto others

not some abstract economic concept

[uptohere]

52. you get Karl Marx to back you up on that and I'll buy it

until then its social humanism and the two terms are not interchangable.

[Terwilliger]

54. I see...so why do they call insurance against the future "social security"

did Marx invent it?

[uptohere]

67. Don't speak russian, so I can't translate

thus I don't know if this is a term he coined or one that got assigned by whoever DID translate it into english.

Be that as it may, he defined the governmental model that has become "Socialism" whether it was correct to co-opt the word "social" or not. Once defined and published, it's meaning is set.

Security generally means arms and might too, how does that tie into the program either ?

Now lets get this straight, I'm Christian and I'm all over being my brother's keeper and loving him as I love myself but thats not a political model. That notion can be incorporated into a political model but its not a part of the one called "Socialism".

[Mairead]

39. Even before him:

"Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour, for if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.”

Ecclesiates 4:9-10

The very basis of socialist civilisation: mutual support in adversity

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Socialism=Collective Ownership of the Means of Production

and a planned economy... It is the rejection of Adam Smith's "hidden hand".....

Adam Smith argued that the best way to provide for the common good is for each individual to pursue his own self interest." It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their self interest. We
address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our neccessities but of their advantages."

Marx rejected this narrow self interest when he opined "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. In other words we would work as hard as we could and share the results of our hard work with each other.

Here's Friedrich Engels on a planned economy,"The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production from the hands of the bourgeoise, into public property. By this act the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible..."

[mlawson]

29. Ding, ding!!!

As an Econ teacher, I would give you an A+ for that....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. My Favorite Contemporary Economists Are

Paul Samuelson* and Paul Krugman... I used to like Lester Thurrow alot but history has not been kind to his predictions...






*I know Paul Samuelson is like ninety years old ...I am a neo-Keynesian and I like my socialism lite...


P.S. I'm interested where a Economics Professor on a left leaning bulletin board stands on the best prescription for the economy...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Here is a highly informative webpage

despite its annoying background image:

About the term Socialism
Classification of Economic Systems

[Mairead]

37. That page on socialism is indeed very nice!

[Nicholas_J]

46. I suppose

going to a dictionary of POLITICAL SCIENCE, would be a better source than the OPINIONS of a bunch of RIGHT WINGERS.

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

YOu might suggest that since they have a right wing persepctive, that their definition is not neutral and therefore suspect.

[friendofbenn]

47. the problem is if your taking marx's definition

then your ignoring the last 150 years of history and development.to me democratic government is socialistic in nature (even if its current form is to authoritarian for my liking). you only have to look at the u.s libertarian party to see that the rich dont really think government is enhancing their interests.

"we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" there was obviously a disclaimer in there somewhere that ive missed

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. democracy is a political system

socialism is an economic system

[w4rma]

49. capitalism/socialism, democracy/monarchy - extremes of two axis on a graph

capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism)
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fired department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

[billbuckhead]

51. It's where the state controls markets as opposed to laisse-faire markets.

But then who controls the state? Plutocrats? Warlords? The People? Religious leaders?

[hunter]

53. So Blue_Chill, satisfied?

Oh my goodness...

This discussion reminds me of the few times I attended university Socialist Meetings in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties.

It also reminds me of all those guys who reenact civil war battles and then spend hours arguing about who did what to who and how and when.

It's the same sort of talk that goes on at the hairdresser, you know, with a different subject, but it's always who did what to who and how and when.

It's very human, but I think that Britney kissing Madonna, as might be discussed at the hairdresser's, is much less hazardous to the average human's health than economic theories embraced by authoritarian regimes. Marx and Lenin left a whole lot of wreckage in their wake.

All in all, I don't think it matters what the official economic model of a place is so long as it is honest and not enforced by fear.

Bush is a very most crappy leader because his powers arise from the fears of Americans. It's not quite so explicit as the fears employed by the Stalins, or the Hitlers, or the Saddam Husseins of this world, but yes, it's all about fear.

There are so many models to base an economy on. Perhaps the exchange of flowers and kisses and hugs. Perhaps the exchange of gifts. Perhaps a very elaborate network of family ties and trade relationships...

But no, no, no, we have to wallow in such filth as "means of production" or "monetary policy" or "wage slavery" and all those other endless forms of monkey crap, flinging it here, flinging it there.

Caesar's face was on a coin, a dirty coin, and Jesus could feel the sting of every horror that coin had witnessed; the starving kids, the sex for money, the blood for money.

I'm gonna get out of this place, maybe go read something by Ursula K. Le Guin. "Always Coming Home" might do. Here, check it out:

http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ach/index.html

Peace be with you all

[BonjourUSA]

55. This discussion isn't current.

The communism is dead. Cuba and North Korea are still under this economic form. Even China has moved into capitalism (its political organisation will change soon).

For example, France (and all the european countries) has a social-democracy development. French people is strongly defending this state organization even if it's very expensive. High welfare and medical levels but also high level of public services (if I live in mountain, in a lost place, the state must bring me electricity and phone, my bill will be the same as in the center of Paris). The counterpart : half of my income is "pumped" (taxes and social contributions)É I think that's too much.

[Dirk39]

59. capitalism is mortal...

I rather see our political organisation resembling the one in China than the other way round. Social democracy have given up on neoliberalism.
The average(!) life-expectancy-rate in the former Soviet-Union is 5 years lower than it was, when they still had the leninist-stalinist kind of "socialism". But you even compare Cuba and North Korea?!
I really don't get this, even the ideology and brainwashing that's going on in Europe and the USA is resembling Stalinism more than any type of classical western democracies of the past.
While it reveals more and more that capitalism, while being extremely productive, can't guarantee the majority of the people a good life, while more people dying every single year than during the whole WWII including the Shoa and the Gulags. While the social democratic experiment has just miserably failed and the last two decades have shown how impressed the ruling classes were by the simply existence of an alternative - much more than the left, you have nothing to say but "communism is dead"?
I still don't understand, what was going on in the heads of the western elites, but it just seems clear to me, that after they've won the cold war and destroyed the Soviet Union, they started a brutal class-war and try to reverse and deconstruct all the "gifts" they offered the western working class as a kind of soft war against communism.
Guten Tag,
Dirk

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Russia Is One Example

but it's not fair to say welfare state capitalism has failed cuz it's not working well there....

It takes years to build a liberal democracy and welfare state....


Also, it's interesting that you bring up Korea... Before the Korean war, the North Koreans were actually more industrialized than the South... Now looking at the two countries... South Korea has a per capita GDP that rivals Italy and Spain and they are eating grass in North Korea...

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, welfare state capitalism might not be perfect but it is better than all the other economic systems.

[Dirk39]

68. "It takes years to build a liberal democracy and welfare state"...

Did you visit Europe during the last 10 years or so, or did you really follow, what's going in in Blairs' England, Schröders' Germany and in France?
It might even take decades to build it up, but they can't destroy it fast enough.
And 15 years should be enough, the money is there anyway. They don't want to build it up. And I think that mafiosis like Putin couldn't care less. He played in Key-Role in money-washing during the privatisation of Russia, when he was a mayor in ST. Petersburg. Check what "SPAG" did! And he was a KGB-agent since 1975.
(source: "Newsweek" september 3, 2001)
Putin and SPAG

And for me, there are only two possibilities when it comes to the social democratic parties in Europe:
1. They are corrupt
which I doubt in general. There might be some corrupt key-figures like Schröder, Fischer, Blair etc. (corruption might be the wrong word, it's not about money, it's about belonging to the elite, media-presence, symbolic-capital (Bourdieu).
2. Under the given circumstances, they can't do anything else, and they don't have the guts, to really offend the ruling classes and rather destroy our societies.

And esp. in Germany, this is extremely sad, 'cause it's not just about a better capitalism with a social-net. It's attacking all the lessons the Nazi-times should have taught us, even the economic elite.

Greetings from Germany,
Dirk

[emad]

58. Blind leading the blind,

...in my experience.....

[Fescue4u]

62. Contribution according ability.

Benefits according to need.

[killbotfactory]

63. It's whatever the republicans don't like...

Like "evil","commie", or "liberal".

[userdave2061]

64. An ideal system where everyone is equal

Except for the leaders of the people and they are extra-equal and get all they can spend, eat and lay.

[BonjourUSA]

66. The logic of the communism system is simple :

The people cannot rebel against itself since it controls. The rebel is thus a traitor with the cause of the people. (dictatorship of the proletariat)