Dachshund wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:07 pm
Dachshund wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:23 pm
A socialist an individual who believes that the state should own the means of production.
No, technically, "Communism" is the word referring to ownership
. The concept of 'socialism' relates to whether management of a government should
or should not
act to make laws that regard setting up systems of social supports of individuals regardless of ownership and often in light of the unfairness of those who DO OWN to prefer to act as PRIVATE GOVERNMENTS unaccountable to the people for their welfare. The conservative mindset is to believe that they have some intrinsic 'right' to the Earth by fiat of CLAIM of what is one's own by some force of Nature (usually via some god) to favor them uniquely.
What you figure a government should
do is to act as the MEDIUM OF those who OWN uniquely by serving only to protect the presumed 'right' of claims of what is one's own. You don't like laws that LIMIT your means to use the power of inheritance, limits upon HOW much you own, nor laws that demand you treat others fairly BY whatever power you hold over others. That is, you want the benefits of the power you hold over people but without the liabilities Of those same people. So you are against laws that force tax dollars go towards the general health and well-being of people based upon differences of ownership. Conservatives DO favor the kinds of 'socialism' that forces blind obedience and respect of those who 'own'. They favor a transfer of the socialism to be run by voluntary organizations, like churches, as any burden or cost associated with advancing one's power are the fiscal liabilities to ownership capitalizing (opportunities of exploiting people's differences of power regardless of fairness).
(I have more to say but have to go for now. Later)Governments have to serve ALL people, not just those with established power of ownership. Ownership itself is a privilege that can't ignore the very people as a whole to permit you that as some right.
NO ! Incorrect ! "Communism" was the quasi-religious, "eschatological" term Karl Marx coined (no one else) to describe the utopic society that would, he firmly believed, follow the socialist society ( the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat") at the end of history. For Marx, Communism and Socialism were entirely different "balls of wax".
As for the rest of your slippery leftist hogswash I will deal with it tomorrow.
Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
The opposing concepts about ownership is "Communism" versus "Capitalism". Regardless of the various definition sources of "socialism", this concept describes any ideal of a party that believes the government's function is to provide laws that aim to direct society to favor EACH member of society in some class. Thus, Communist government favors the whole the class. For a "National Socialist" type, as those who believe in formulating a very particular society for a subset of the whole, "the Nationalist" [For WWII Germany's Nazis, the Class is ONLY the 'Native
or Aboriginal' of German blood.]
In today's society, "socialism" is about setting up essential services for all when in government. This entails ownership of essential things like public roads and waterways, education systems, utility companies and communication infrastructure BY THE PEOPLE. The essentials if or when 'owned' by select subsets of people,in contrast, where profit (or power through it) is their private motive first and foremost, makes those who 'own' them have an absurd power to exploit others, especially where these become monopolized. The compassion of the strict capitalist is SELFISH and thus not something relevant to the interest of a management system for all (a 'government'). In other words, the means of the strict capitalist is to OPTIMIZE their OWN, regardless of its effects upon those that are NOT theirs.
And please don't mistaken me for some type you have in mind of the socialist. I am arguing here without bias for nor against, even where I may share certain socialist leaning preferences. I think politics is somewhat fucked because it cannot ideally work in any system where values are involved in making laws. There is always bias. BUT when I hear from those like yourself act with your own apparent disgust of the "socialist", I am only able to interpret you as having some STRONG SELFISH interest to make government itself to be 'privately' of your own. That's dictatorial. Note that Communism fails for the nature of this to creep in. Marx only proposed it because he couldn't determine how you could get to the ideal 'communist' society. It is ironic that both (or all?) extremes share certain common behaviors when in practice. Note that both the National Socialist and the Communists were derived from idealizing a society with NO GOVERNMENT! Their means of getting to this anarchy and how they imagine people to become may differ, but their intents were to mean well (at least for those they thought were worthy of love, of course.)