I understand socialism as government owning the means of production and presiding over a command economy. That means government controls the economy. That has worked poorly where it has been tried. However, other people posting to OLO seem to mean something other than that by socialism.

I expressed my hopes at Obama’s presidency and another poster replied as follows.

“Obama will not be the saviour of the US. He is too socialist. He is putting the US into more debt.”

The business cycle depends more on the private sector of the economy than on government actions. Capitalist nations will have bad years and good years depending on the business cycle. It makes sense to have a tax policy accumulating surpluses during the good years so that government can provide necessary services during the bad years. Howard managed to accumulate surpluses so Australia can now operate through the bad years. Rudd has to operate with a deficit since the business cycle precludes generating a surplus.

On the other hand Bush cut taxes by an unreasonable amount during the good years such that Obama has to drive the country even further into debt during bad years to provide the services he promised during his campaign.

Regardless of who is in power countries must operate at a deficit when the economy is in a downturn to minimise the suffering of the citizens.

There is nothing socialist about deficit financing. Sometimes it is necessary.

The word, socialism, is used loosely. How do you define socialism?

Dear David f,

I realize that some people equate socialism
with the previous Soviet-style socialism. They
think of it as being akin to communism.

However, I think of socialism as a system that
aims to create social equality
through a centrally planned economy.

The state takes ownership of strategic industries
such as railways, airlines, mines, banks,
telephone systems, medical services, et cetera.
Extensive welfare services
are provided such as for example - college education,
medical services, subsidised public housing...

I've read somewhere that socialist economies may
distribute wealth more evenly than capitalist
ones, but they are less efficient at creating
wealth in the first place, and they are also more
bureaucratized and less productive.

One definition I've heard is -
"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
Communism is the equal distribution of poverty."

Most people equate Communism with Socialism or Marxism.

The basic family unit is a socialist model as is the structure of of tribes, and these are probably the only methods that best guarantee mutual survival of their members.

We in Australia have a form of socialism.
Nothing like what is intended by the word but in part we are socialist.
And socialism was even in the words of Starlin the enemy of communism.
To say Obama is socialist is a spotlight on America today, attempts to introduce a health system like ours or England's is called socialism.
Our health , education, social welfare, unemployment system, so very much is far better than that country's yet it is called socialism?
The current financial crash was bought about by American greed, the opposite to socialism.
It is my view the future will never see a true socialist future but our system is here to stay.

How long is a piece of string? Much of the debate on these issues seems to come down to that sort of imponderable question.

I'm happy to have the term "socialism" apply to the sort of Gov't handouts that are designed to ensure people don't suffer too badly if they fail to properly secure themselves to life's ladder. Such things as unemployment benefits, disability pensions, supporting parent payments, aged pensions for those without adequate personal resources. I'm also happy to see it apply to measures that are designed to assist the State by improving productivity and health of individuals, such as public healthcare and education.

Where I draw the line is at the public support of the lifestyles of those who are well able to support themselves. It is patently absurd to me when an average family, earning an average income, can pay no net tax, yet can have sufficient funds to spend up on a new car every few years, a new tv each time there is a new model, and so on. Those are luxuries and should not be paid for by the State.

In terms of State intrusion into private business, there used to be a clear distinction between socialist gov'ts and more right-wing ones. The Howard years shower that is no longer the case, with State intrusion, data collection and surveillance becoming ever-greater. Individuals can be significantly disadvantaged by failing to do the things that the Gov't insists are necessary to gain access to the largesse being handed out to the undeserving, which leads me to the conclusion that the handouts are largely there to act as an incentive to hand over one's information, which can then be "mined" for things useful to the bureaucracy.

[cont]

They also act to reduce opposition to the data-collection and manipulation, which was once very strong in this country. It's a thin end of the wedge", leading even as we speak to police being granted powers to enter homes without the knowledge of the occupiers for the purpose of establishing surveillance and the power to listen in, once again with no knowledge of the parties, to private phone, internet and other electronic comms.

How long before were told "if you want your "new plasma tv bonus" you'll have to accept the camera and microphones linked to Central Records it comes with, which of course, no one will ever abuse. Honest people have nothing to hide"?

It may come as a surprise to some reading the above to know that I've identified myself as socialist for most of my life. It saddens me that every time there is a socially-justified Govt measure, it is linked to other measures designed to place greater power and control in the hands of bureaucrats. Many of the programs need little supervision other than a capacity to check ID, yet they have massive, bloated bureaucracies grown around them, usually staffed by people who are expressly absolved from personal accountability for decisions they may make.

I think it is not how we define socialism because socialism has already been defined. It is more about how we can use the best of socialist principles within a social democracy.

Belly is right about the way the socialist tag is bandied about whenever anyone tries to implement a government health care system which is what happened to Hilary Clinton in the US and will probably happen to Obama. The hope is that in this different economic and poitical climate Americans may be more open to socialised healthcare. The interest of big business will always be looming in the background so it will be an interesting venture and one to watch in the US.

Socialism is a word that whips up hysteria for no apparent reason, those same people who cringe at the idea of socialised health appear to be oblivious to the fact that other government services like police, fire and emergency services are all administered by governments.

To me the aspects of socialism we should embrace are ones that work in opposition to the latest fad of socialising debt and privatising profit. Socialising debt appears to be one aspect of socialism that the fat cats have no problem with because it works in with the whole greed principle.

As far as Australia goes, we are a social democracy and that means we exist within a capitalist system side by side with the benefits of a strong community support structure, albeit one that is not perfect and can aways be improved.

It is nice to agree with Antispectic for a change and I agree with him that the socialist part of our heritage should not include middle class or corporate welfare. A well balanced system should not need these structures particularly while the poorest (age pensioners, disabled etc) continue to be put at the back of the queue.

After all that, in short I see socialism relative to Australia as being about access to opportunity, free education based on merit, assistance/care for the disadvantaged and most importantly, a reduction in the disparity of incomes (distribution of wealth)

david f,
I AM A SOCIALIST BUT my socialism has nothing to do with " government controls the economy" what you call socialist economic system in realy is communist system
It is truth that many times communists use the word socialist to describe the communist system, It truth that some crazy dictator call their self socialist, as Cantafiin in Lybia, It is truth that new conservatives, right extremists use the word socialist and mean communist and they call socialist any progresive person, any liberal person, any human right activist, any one who desagree with their unfair, non democratic policies, It is truth that in agglo saxon world the word socialist mainly has the meaning of communist even for members and officers of the Labor Parties althougt the Labor parties from UK and Australia are full members of the socialist international.

The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. It currently brings together 170 political parties and organisations from all continents

List of the members of Socialist International
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

Read here the
DECLARATION of PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31

Read here the
ETHICAL CHARTER THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=24

I AM VERY PROUD TO BE SOCIALIST.
socialism and socialist is not what others says about us but what we say how we act as socialists for the socialism!.
The socialist international is the oldest international political organization and it have played the most important role for our rights, for our democracy, for our civilizations from the industrial revolution until now.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Foxy,

I have worked for both government and large corporations. I have heard many times people talking about government bureaucracy and private efficiency.

It is my observation that corporate bureaucracy is pretty much the same whether it is in a government department or a corporate department. In both cases people in management build empires, advance their cronies and put their private interests over that of the organisation. Their chief concern is not to advance the interest of the institution whether its interest is to make a profit in the case of the private corporation or to serve the public in the case of a government department. Where an individual or family owns a business the owners concern themselves with making a profit. However, most corporations have executives who may be primarily concerned with advancing their own interests.

Social insects such as the bees and ants are apparently solely concerned with the interests of the hive or nest. That is not true for humans.

In my opinion corporatisation is a great problem, and it is irrelevant whether the corporation is government or privately owned. In small business putting one’s need above the needs of the business has a fairly certain punishment since the business will go under. In a large corporation producing goods and services much of what could be profit go to the management drones. It is ridiculous that a corporation operating at a loss should give large bonuses or golden handshakes to CEOs. In the United States such bonuses have already rewarded executives whose contribution has been to get government money from the stimulus package to support an enterprise they have bankrupted.

I am amazed that socialism and corporate capitalism have worked as well as they have.

Dear Wobbles,

The structure of tribes varies widely. Marx created the myth that tribal societies live in primitive communism and that that is the natural state of humanity. He relied on the work of Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 – 1881), an American ethnologist, anthropologist and writer, who studied the Seneca. Marx made several glaring errors.

(continued)

(continued)

Marx extrapolated from Morgan’s study of the Senecas to assume all tribal people live the same way. They don’t. The Kwakiutls of British Columbia were a very acquisitive society with a well-defined class structures and a great disparity of wealth and power. There were slaves and very wealthy men. One of the features of the Kwakiutls is the potlatch festival where wealthy men would entertain other wealthy men and display their wealth. During the feasting blankets and canoes would be burned to show they had so much that there could destroy wealth. The recipient of the hospitality would then be obliged to entertain his host at a future date. This would require him to accumulate wealth for his display. The Senecas led in primitive communism, but the Kwakiutls were much more acquisitive and wasteful than our society. However, the Marxist myth prevails even among those who don’t follow him.

Another error is to assume that tribal societies live the way our ancestors did. Tribal societies have been on earth as long as we have and have developed customs and rituals that it is reasonable to assume are as different from their ancestors as ours are from our ancestors.

A third error extending beyond tribal conditions is to see history as an orderly procession of various well-defined stages.

I see Marxism as pseudo-Christianity. Original sin is the advent of private property. The myth of a Garden of Eden is primitive communism as exemplified by the Senecas. The battle between good and evil sees the exploiting classes as evil and the working classes as good. The second coming is the eventual triumph of communism, and the classless society represents the millennium. A quasi-supernatural figure in the form of Historical Necessity directs the process. One big difference is that the Christian commitment to violence in the form of the Crusades, countless massacres, the Wars of the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and other obscenities is accompanied by protestations of love, and the Marxist commitment to violence is not accompanied by similar nonsense. The Marxists are more honest about their commitment to violence

pelican, antiseptic I agree with all your posts here.
I am in part a socialist, but the points made are the reason its only in part.
Let us not get carried away with the thought Labor is a socialist party, yes quote our party but look truly at us, we are not such a party.
Remember until recently we owned post office and telephone services much more.
The failure of capitalism, that is what it is, will not bring about a social Utopia, it may bring about a better more caring world.
A thousand times a thousand descriptions of socialism exist we may never get an answer to this thread but it is interesting.

pelican
I am very sorry,my deep apologies.
I provoked you hard, twice last weeks. I think that you are a Union or an ALP beaurocrat. I wanted to see your reaction, for me your ideas sound good enouph! SORRY!

david f,
You are a GOOD SURPRISE, a big surprise! I was sick from D.Tceny, Bush etc and last months with the big croocks, (CEOs).
It is good for us to have an American progresive person(WHAT A PROGRESIVE PERSON!).
I do not know, I can not put you to a special group of progresive people but sure you are very different from most of us, you seem very good!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Many socialist make their money from capitalism and then adopt a new conscience which insist others don't follow their own hypocrisy. They then try and legislate for others not to reach their own living standards achieved by capitalist made money.

The USSR and other "communist" countries were nothing more than state capitalism. Instead of bosses and investors owning the factories etc the government did. People were certainly no better off than people in capitalist countries. Not much different to a dictatorship actually.

Socialism is generally against the private ownership of the means of production. A quote I like about socialism (cant remember where from)
"the watch on your arm belongs to you: the watch factory belongs to the people.

Capitalism is failing because of its inherent exploitative and unfair nature and will always revert to the rich getting richer and more and more monopoly corporations with total power over their employees and many times their customers.

Socialists are also divided and subject to infighting. Certain groups of socialists sadly seem to hate other socialists more than they hate capitalists. Some say we should keep the current system minus some of the excesses. The Scandinavians like this kind of socialism. Other groups want revolution and headchopping. Others still believe in a slow and steady progression towards socialism sometimes with "direct action" but not rebellion.

Socialism is a confused and discredited (in the minds of the public) system that needs a new name and a modern update. More talk about equality of opportunity, the benefits of socialised medicine, education and community welfare and less talk of workers, factories and class struggle. All rather irrelevant in the modern age.

davidf,

"Tribal societies have been on earth as long as we have and have developed customs and rituals that it is reasonable to assume are as different from their ancestors as ours are from our ancestors."

I would have thought that our own ancestors were actually tribal societies.

Wobbles wrote: "I would have thought that our own ancestors were actually tribal societies."

Dear Wobbles,

That was the point of my remark. We cannot make judgments about our tribal ancestors by examining the tribal societies of today. Modern tribal societies and ourselves both have tribal ancestors. They are different from their tribal ancestors, and we cannot assume they are like our tribal ancestors.

Socialism is like fascism. It is where a small group - the intellectual elite - think they know whats best for the masses. They ignore evolutionary processes and human behavior. Free markets, as opposed to our present corrupt system, allows groups to develop and evolve resulting in ideas that can never be conjured up by one so called elite group.

Thus socialism/fascism is a cancer and it must be defeated at all costs

In my view, socialism is a broader issue, it is not just about economics, it is about defining what is the "unit of life".

Bees and ants have no life of their own - they live for their hive. So are the cells of our body: each contributes the maximum they can for the larger whole, while the larger body makes every effort to give them what they need, materially.

In between one can finds the nuclear family, the extended family, the tribe, the club, etc.

So, socialism is the belief (and its enforcement) that our life as individual humans is undeserving unless it is combined and coordinated with a very large number of people (called "society"), or in one extreme, even all of them.

Although often the case, socialism is not necessarily concerned with distribution of wealth: the Nazis for example called themselves "national-socialist", and so were the Japanese very coordinated and controlled, and so are the Chinese today, even while they are allowed to become very rich (and very poor) and pay very little taxes.

The link between socialism and poverty is due to the fact that coordination on a large scale, while perfect for bees, ants and the cells of our body, is unnatural for humans and therefore consumes so much energy that not much is left. This is besides the feeling of helplessness apathy and despair for anyone who believes that they deserve to have a life of their own. Even when material poverty is not evident, emotional and spiritual poverty are common.

"Socialism" is the term trotted out by wingnuts to describe any government action or policy with which they disagree. When such government actions or policies are aimed at improving the lot of socially disadvantaged or for environmental reasons it often becomes "socialism by stealth".

Speaking of which, where's old Col when you need him?

mikk
"less talk of workers, factories and class struggle. All rather irrelevant in the modern age"
You like capitalists! No word against them!
Do you think workers destroyed the international economy, the international financial system?
Do you think that CEOs, used taxpayers money about $18 billions of dollars for their bonus and private airplanes because they care for workers?
Do you thinks capitalists move their business to poor non democratic countries, of cause workers fighting for more and not because in theses countries there are no unions, (if any one speak for workers rights goes direct to prison,)no health and safty laws, no environment protection laws, no limits for capitalists?
I like your jokes mikk.
You did not write anything that workers are moving backward last decades, that they lose one right after the other, that the current financial crisis caused from aggresive, irrisponsible, uncontroled capitalists!
mikk,
Last years the Union movement is losing members and power not only in Australia but worldwide, especialy in Angllo -Saxon world.
Do you know why? because some "progresive" people have closed their eyes to capitalists aggresion! because some "progresive" people opened the back doors and windows to capitalists, because some "progresive" people instead to turn their arrows to capitalist they permanetly target workers.
Thomas Jefferson (The founder of The Democratic Party in USA) had right when he said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Also Franklin D. Roosevelt had right when he said "If I were a worker in a factory, the first thing I would do would be to join a union"
But in our days, why workers to become member of the unions when people like you avoid to tell anything against capitalists?
I see your righ foot in the capitalists side and your left foot on the air!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Yuyutsu
Humans are not like the animals, we first plan and after realise our plan. We have plans, goals not like the ants.
It is wrong to believe that sosialism is against or ignore the individuals in the name of general benefits, in the name of the all.
Socialism is a deep democratic movement, a movement which respect and promote the human rights because it respect and support and promote individuals rights.
What real the socialism try to do is to overpass, to minimize the difference between the benefits, interests from the all and the unit, between the human societies and individual humans.
Humans can not exists as individuals and society can exist withought individuals.
Our goal is to promote the interest of the society and individuals simultaneously.
We do not turn society or individuals against each other, we try to improve with democratic way the understanding and cooperation of both sides for the mutual benefits.
For us society and individuals are the two sides from the same coin
We are deep humanists with ful respect and love to individuals.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

dear david f,
socialism; a political and economic theory which advocates that the comunity as a whole should own and control the means of production, distrobution and exchange
2 policy or practice based on this theory.
social engineering; the use of socialogical principles in aproaching social problems.
sociology; the study of the development structure, and funcioning of human society.
I hope this is a help

Hi Antonios
Sorry if I gave out the impression I support the capitalists. Far from it as I am a proud libertarian socialist who despises everything about capitalism from its exploitation of workers to its destruction of the environment and mindless ideology of endless growth.

But after numerous debates and arguments with fellow socialists about how to change the world I am despairing of the blinkered dogma they throw up to support various positions. Things like the obsession some have with marx or engels or trotsky. Hardly beacons of modernity are they? Where are our modern up to date socialist thinkers. We can hardly expect marx to have any answers to the problems with todays media or environmental worries. Sure they have their theories and such that are still relavant especially regarding work/labour/capital but the world has changed a lot since their day and personally I think relying so heavily on them does socialists no good at all. We need to think and write and capture the publics attention just like marx et al did 150 years ago. With todays economic climate it just may work.

Also another part of the socialist movement I have issues with are the fence molesters that we see at protests against apec, wto etc. Fighting with the police thugs and destroying property is not the way to endear yourselves to the public. Where are the non violent protesters willing to take a beating from the uniformed goons and show them for the hired killers of the capitalist elites that they really are? Once people saw little old ladies getting their heads bashed in then maybe they would begin to question things rather than be content with "bread and circuses". I believe in direct action but we must not stoop to their level. A free society cannot come about by force or violence. Revolution just changes the oppressors and makes everyone fearful. Will I be next they ask

continued (stupid word limit)

We give the capitalists their power and we only have to say NO I will not go along with this and if we all did it they would fall. One thing I think that has been missing in socialist circles for some time is the notion of solidarity. The atomisation of society was a key tactic of the capitalists and they have succeeded mightily. We need to speak strongly of solidarity and the success we can have if we all join together and co operate. Pity it only happens when there is a disaster theses days.

I did not focus on the capitalists and their failings because this is a thread about socialism. Capitalists have abused and degraded our planet and the stupidest thing is that they themselves will be just as badly affected as the rest of us. They have exposed themselves and now is our chance to strike back and show socialism as a more viable and fairer system than capitalism. All it needs are the voices pointing out the glaring flaws in their ideology and the will to take a stand.

These are just a few things I meant by my previous comments.

dear a.symeonakis,
which part of the theory respects democracy and individuals human rights. is it the political part or the echonomic part.for it failed on both counts in the former United Socialist Soviet Republic.

Socialism is where 30% of the population have to work their guts out, in industry, to support,

30% of the population, who sit on their buts, doing nothing worthwhile, in government offices.

30% who sit on their buts, at home.

&

10% of the population, who are all ready dead, or have returned to their country of origin, to sit on their buts, doing nothing, on Oz pensions.

Hang on a minute, that what happens now.

Hi Antonious

I did not notice any provocation. I can however put your mind at rest. I do not work for a union or the ALP. I have no problem with union or ALP bureacrats - they have a job to do - but I cannot claim to be one.

CJ

What you say is valid - any program that sounds remotely inclusive is labelled by its detractors as socialist in the hope that the old reds under the beds paranoia will raise its head and scare away anyone with an open mind.

Can I add that including some of the benefits of socialist thought in a capitalist system does not mean that one does not value the role of enterprise and the importance of incentives. It is about controlling excesses and encompassing a model of fairness with a pragmatism that ensures the system works.

The thread continues to be full of interest, C J Morgan is quite right.
But so are others, the rubbish conservatives throw around is harmless compared to actions of some Socialists.
The red herring, voters do not vote for Labor because it is too right wing.
And do not join unions for the same reason, clearly wrong.
John Winston Howard, hardly socialist got one in three workers to vote for him.
Unionists too, the young are not full of socialist zeal, uninterested in politics most would not know who is who.
Try being a true left party, as the greens are, then tell me why they can never govern, they never ever will.
Part socialism is entrenched in our way of life, but a mix seems the most popular to me.

Belly
In terms of income and lifestyle, many of the old working class have moved into the middle classes including trades and construction workers. The old stalwart socialist is a dying breed which is why I laugh whenever the old Conservative guard start rabbiting on about the socialist ALP. The ALP has never been a real Socialist Party in the true sense. The voices from the ALP Left Faction was small and powerless even in the 70s and 80s.

Australia has become more middle class so the old class struggle has become less relevant that is how Howard managed to obtain the traditional working vote. Howard was also good at playing on fear - fear of terror, fear of immigrants, fear of socialists and fear of unions. Not to mention his old fear mongering standby of economic management.

Even myths can be spun or exagerrated by the political machine into perceived 'truths'.

REAL STORY
One time at the end of the 1974, a sheferd (Sotiros)from my vilage (North East Greece)with many children lost all his sheeps from an unkown desease. He asked the local authorities for support but they ignored him. He came to me to write a letter to minister for agriculture and asked for support.
I wrote a letter where I noticed his family conditions, his financial condition after the lose of the sheeps and informed him (the minister) that the local authorities ignored the sheferd.
Some weeks later Sotiros came to me and said me that he took a letter from the minister and informed him that the government will support him and soon he will receive money.
One week later he came to me ungry and said me that he did not like "the money from a communist" and said me that he will not accept the money!
I tried to explain him that I am not a communist but a socialist and the money was not from me but from Greek taxpayers but he did not like to listen to me. I left Greece and later when I return to to my vilage and he saw me, he run to me thanked me for the money he took (he changed mind and took the money!)of cause my letter and said me that he became a socialist!
People at begin worry when they hear the word socialist but soon understand that we are not what the others said them about us.
It is not only the international organization who called sosialist (International) but also the European Party called Sosialist, not labor, not social-democratic. There is a problem in Australia with the world socialist but therre are many migrants from other countries who are used with this word and I hope the rest of the people to understand what we mean with the word socialist.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

GovernmentsAreTheProblem,

I think that if you look up the definition of Fascism, you'll find it's pretty close to Corporatism, depending on how it's imposed and how it's governed and it's very different from socialism.

The Corporatised West has been politically drifting toward a type of fascism for some time.

It's interesting that the current financial meltdown is the outcome of failed Corporatism but even those responsible are looking toward a socialist solution by having the public sector bail them out.

Last years, the president of the Socialist International is the George Papandreou, the president of the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK)
Few years before in an interview about the communist party of china he said that officials of the communist party of china asked the Socialist International to become member of the SI but they rejected of cause the violation of democracy and human rights.
In many countries in Europe the relasions between socialists and communists are very bad. In Greece the communists have better relasions with conservatves than with socialists. One time communists and conservatives created a coalision government to fight the socialists.
It is big lie if anyone think that socialists are communists but equaly it is a big lie if anyone think that socialists are the tale of capitalists.
It is truth that some times some parties, member of the socialist International, in specific issues are worst from many conservatives,as the Labot Party from UK for the war in Iraq or for the extension of working hours in European Union, the Greek conservative government was against them because they was very hard against the workers and the Greek government did like to seem so conservative! BUT even then if you check the total benefits for the most people(workers, farmers, small-midle business etc) you will find that these parties are much beter than the conservatives.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Richie 10
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR COMMUNISTS, IT IS VERY CLEAR (My english is not good!)IT FROM MY TEXTS.
It is seemed that you did not read them.

Dear A Symeonakis,
If you disown your brother that doesn't change the fact that he is still your brother. I am sorry I ofend you BUT the previous U.S.S.R was part of the brotherhood of Socialism whether you chose to believe or disbelieve doesn't change the facts

How do I define socialism?
With a lot of care. And why would I bother it is a concept only.
Like all philosophies it exist in abstact only (including communism and capitalism). Show me a complete/pure example And I have it and potentially the pointee justifiably raided by the drug squad.
There are no pure working examples at any level in the world least of all Australia. There are do have perversions there of and most of them are in the minds of Hasbeen and ilk.
Ps I know a few good books if anyones interested in its actual definition.

Richie 10
Communists are much closer to onservatives than with socialists!
You and communists scare from the labors, You and communists scare from democracy, You and communists violate the human rights You and communists use the war to increase your power, both of you violate the international law and do not care at all for the environment.
If you call the commmunists brothers from me (you said that) then fasists and Nazi are your brothers
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear A Symeonakis,
If you care to read some of my posts I am on the side of truth. This doesn't make me perfect just forgiven. My understanding came from the Oxford modern English Dictionary and If we can't trust it then we are in real trouble because anything means whatever you want it to, and anarchy reigns.

Socialism has led to more bloodshed in history than all religions (including Catholic and Islam) put together. Lenin regarded violence as justified when trying to eliminate 'religion'. The ideology fails to acknowledge any higher power thus bringing out the worst of human nature. That is why socialist today think they can murder unborn babies by the truckload and never have to answer to anyone. They are disconnected from the real world and sit in ivory towers pronouncing some form of intellectual or moral superiority failing to see the murderous intent of their own heart. They did twist science to back up their dogmas as does the deluded Dawkins. Pol Pot was another good example of the self righteous socialist.

Runner;
Factually wrong try again.

Since when did facts ever get in the way of a good runner rant?

Runner that is rubbish, nothing new but rubbish.
Pelican I agree, with every word.
Richie ten, please understand Socialism was never meant to be related to communism.
Communism took its name but never its intended path.
Karl Marx knew and said publicly socialism was the enemy of communism, remember the great number of definitions for socialism.
As pelican said, workers are no longer always poor, we have better lives and are prepared to work to improve them, socialism has been blackened, it needs a new name and new boundary's to attract more than minority support.
Australia has much more stable government than Greece AS and it is never likely even the Greeks who live here what pure socialism.
While it was a childhood dream for me it can not work, self interest like it or not, is the fuel that drives mankind.

One of the contributors to this string suggested a dictionary definition of socialism. A dictionary is useful to me for finding the meanings of furze, bosky and other words that come up in my reading that I am not familiar with. For words in common use a dictionary reports usage. I started the string because I wanted to know how people posting to OLO define the word, socialism. That is more up to date than the dictionary definition. It apparently is somewhat different than the way I define socialism. However, meaning is defined by the way most people use a word not the way I use it.

When a definition becomes too broad it is useless. Some people define socialism in terms of what they favour or are against. If socialism and capitalism have both political and economic meanings they are no longer useful words as they has been stretched too broadly. I understand socialism and capitalism to describe economic systems and to have minimum political implications. It must have some because economics and politics affect each other. We can have a capitalistic dictatorship such as Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party in its rise to power had a socialist component. However, Gregor Strasser who led that wing was purged after Hitler came to power and Nazi Germany was a state where I.G. Farben, the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, Krupp and other powerful German Corporations supported the Nazi party. Nazi Germany was a corporate capitalist state. The USSR was a socialist state by my definition of socialism since the government owned the means of production.

However, the political systems of the two countries were very much alike. Both were single party dictatorships without either freedom of expression or an independent judiciary. Even Socialist Realism, the official Soviet approved art, was quite similar to the Nazi approved art. Both were confined to representational styles and themes that would exalt the official ideology. To equate the political form of the Soviet state with socialism is no more legitimate than to equate the political form of the Nazi state with capitalism.

Corporations distort the democratic process by their economic power in capitalist democracies, and governments distort the democratic process by their economic power in socialist democracies.

This string also has mentioned the market. The free market is belief rather than reality. Adam Smith, the great economist, wrote the Wealth of Nations (WON) which developed basic market theory.

A free market operates under the conditions:

1. There is a commodity that is roughly the same regardless of who produces it.

2. No producer or consumer is big enough to affect the market.

The only market that approaches that model is the market for agricultural commodities such as the trade in grain. However, such entities as the Australian Wheat Board destroy that market.

In WON there is much wisdom containing the failings of the market and the necessity for government regulation.

WON about capitalist conspiracies:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.”

WON about excessive profits and complaining about paying wages:

Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

WON on capitalist propaganda:

They [general public] have commonly neither inclination nor fitness to enter into combinations; and the clamour and sophistry of merchants and manufacturers easily persuade them that the private interest of a part, and of a subordinate part of the society, is the general interest of the whole.

Hasbeen said
"Hang on a minute, that what happens now."

Brillant Hasbeen. I cant wait for the next revolution to kick some socialist butt.

Antonios,

Your good intentions are not in doubt. I appreciate that.
But the results of good intention which is not accompanied by wisdom are not good.

Trying to do others good by assuming what's good for them and acting on it, has a name: "paternalism". Paternalistic actions may at best bring prosperity and material good, but cannot bring contentment and spiritual well-being. Individuals are content when they progress towards what they want by their own efforts, not if it is just given to them from outside. Socialism embraces paternalism. It is a material approach to life (so is capitalism), and can at best bring material advantages.

You are a proud democrat, but democracy is not such a great thing, only a compromise: "demo-cracy" mean "people-rule", but this is still "ruling": the majority imposes its laws over minorities. Do you like other people's rules being imposed on you? then why would you want to impose your will on others only because you are in the majority and they are in the minority? according to democracy you have that right, but the bottom-line upon which this "right" is based, is might: "might is right".

Human rights are not something to talk about: if you respect them, simply don't touch others. Also, don't invent a proliferation of man-made "rights" (then look chivalrous because you fight for them): human-rights are natural.

If you truly respect another, leave them alone. Do not impose your unsolicited "society" on them. OTOH, if the real issue is that you are concerned about your own safety - go ahead and protect yourself, but then call a spade a spade and don't cover it up by lofty ideas that make you seem like a saviour (same for capitalists: if you want to obtain more resources by stripping them off others, then call spade a spade, at least you will be honest).

You wrote:

"Humans can not exists as individuals and society can exist withought individuals."

IF that is the case (is it?), then I see no value in humans existing as non-individuals and no use in societies existing without individuals.

Ahmen Yuyutsy,
well eaid .Gods word is very simple but to the prideful
it is nonsence. If the proud interlectual continue to shift the benchmark on the meaning of words they will get themselves so confused and lost that they will believe anything that the antichrist presents. Sad but true. For they gulibly swallowed the Y2K2 bug just like the emperors new clothes.

Yuyutsu
"Humans can not exists as individuals and society can exist withought individuals."
Ii is missing the not (the right is "society can not exist withought individuals'"
Richie 10, Ahmen Yuyutsy
Cristians, Muslims, and other religious people have something very common.
They promise to the victims on this planet a paradise in an other (face) world, instead to lead them against the system, which victimize them.
You are very good tool in the hands from any unfair establishment.
Of cause religious leaders have awarded for their role from the establishment!
If you can not live withought a God then keep your God and your religious FAR from the politics. We have to solve real problems, big problems, urgent problems and there is not times to discuss for gosts and myths!
There are other threads where you can discuss this kind of interests
My interests are simple and clear, as what will happen with all these labors who will lose their job, many millions world wide, how they will pay the Bank for their house, the rent for their home, will they have enouph money to buy food? what about their children will they continue school or not? how many people will become homeless? how many children will die from hungry? What political and social problems will create the current financial crisis? how we can avoid in the future this kind of problems?
Yoy see theire is so much pain, so many problems on this planet!
For you it is easy, You do not care at all for THE REAL PROBLEMS FROM THE REAL PEOPLE you weast your time with your fantasies.
If you do not like to support the people in needs at least try to avoid to weast the time from people who are ready to do something to support the people in needs.
When we speak for socialism we speak for a way, the best way of solving or avoid problems.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Antonios,

Unfortunately, society CAN exist without individuals: it may for example consist of ants or robots. But then, why support it?

You wrote: "so many problems on this planet!"

then you go about frantically trying to fix them one by one, but in fact all those problems boil down to one: MATERIALISM. This is where pain comes from.

Just as you cannot fight fire with fire, you cannot fight materialism with more materialism. The problems you listed are all from the perspective of how to preserve our materialistic society: they are man-made and of no interest to me.

For example:

"what will happen with all these labors who will lose their job" - they will have more time on their hands, which they could use for more important non-material gains.

"how they will pay the Bank" - they won't, poor banks...

"will they have enouph money to buy food?" - so much for the use of money, which nobody seems to have enough of anyway. People and animals were eating millenia before money was invented.

"their children will they continue school" - no, they will become free, unoppressed, unincarcerated, and won't need to sit long hours to learn how to function in this materialistic society.

"how many people will become homeless?" - we all are born homeless and die homeless. Many of us have unhappy homes, in which case better be homeless.

"how we can avoid in the future this kind of problems?" - cut down on greed. Find contentment at the spirit-level, not in the material.

I am happy to support people in needs - the people, not their false needs.

I am surprised that you claim to believe in democracy (I don't, as previously explained), yet want to keep our Richie out of politics.

"If you can not live withought a God" - impossible, there is no life without God, there is nothing outside of God. God is the basis of reality - not money.

Dear A Symeonakist,
How can man provide the answer from within himself when he is the cause of the problem.
Way back in the olden days when I was a boy a man's word was his bond. Way before lawyers who make a living helping you break your word became the majority of the politicians of all persuasions. my mother and grandmother were busy teaching me that the only thing of value you carry through this life is your name and your word and your intregity or hyprocy puts the value you place on it.
You get your name from your father and my father was busy dreaming big dreams how socialism was going to save the world and destroy All knowledge of God .As a result he was an angry younc man Who let perceived hyprocy steal his joy. And followed the flesh in the matter of disipline of his children so if we annoyed him watch out.
As a result my concept of God our heavnly father was way of the mark.
When my world collapsed and I had no one else to turn to in desperation I cried out to him and Jesus showed up and taught me again the importance of words. So be careful what comes out of your mouth and who you choose to follow. My father was a good man but he followed the wrong guide all his life and ended up lost. He chose to turn from the truth for the perceived hyprocy of his bible bashing father instead of following the God of Love his mother and wife represented.

Richie 10
I am very sorry but I am the person to discuss religious issues because I am non religious.
If your religious help you , make you stronger in dificult times the follow it, if it support you mentaly follow it.
I remind you what jesus said, "I was hangry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me water, I was in prison and you visit me..." You see in Jesus teaching was very much love for any human, do not forget it!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear A Symeaonakis,
Thank you. 1 final point don't let other's hyprocy spoil your future. The love is God is much bigger than we can comprehend. So if you don't understand or accept what I am telling you don't reject it out of hand just put it on the shelf and take it down when you need it.