Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution where the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.

A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists.

My question:

How will President Hillary and Billy Bob Clinton turn this country into a socialist country and not throw their property and finanical holdings into the pot to be distributed equally? Can the leaders of this country, the rich included, Corporate America) Maintain a two tier system in which we, the former middle class are governed by a socialist doctrine but they, are still operating within the frame work of a free enterprise system?
As I listen to Hilary, well, as much as I can stand it, I wonder how she will pull this off. I have a suspicion that it has already been planned out.

tomder55

I should take Hillary Rotten's suggestion and not deal with hypotheticals.

Socialism frequently dissolves into oligarchy . State ownership reduces even further the number of elites the pie has to be sliced for. The Clintonistas will be in a perfect position to exploit a radical shift toward mandated socialism.

The bigger concern however is what the First Philanderer will do with all his spare time.

N0help4u

Sure! Didn't Russia have a two tier system and keep what could have been the middle class in poverty?
And look at Gore and his Inconvenient Lie where he can have a carbon footprint that would make Bigfoot envious, BUT he expects US to ride bikes to work even though we work 10 miles down a parkway or highway that forbids non motorized vehicles.
So your answer is it is the old double standard.

ETWolverine

It seems fairly obvious to me that Hillarious Rotten Clintoon plans on creating such an environment as Magprob describes slowly and methodically. Oh, they won't call it Socialism, they rarely do. They will justify it as taking from the rich to give to the poor, which will actually be taking from the middle class to give to the poor. It will be done slowly, first by calling for govenment intervention to prevent "unfairness" (as defined by them, of course), and then more will be done in the name of "protecting children" (from what nobody will say). And eventually it will be done to punish the rich for being rich.

It's already happening.

Clintoon has called for universal health care in order to solve what she sees as an "unfairness" in the system of treating the poor for their medical ailments, even though universal government health care will do nothing to improve medical care for the poor.

She has proposed the SCHIP program in the name of protecting children, even though it does nothing of the sort.

And she has on a number of occasions called for taxing oil companies and pharmaceutical companies to be taxed for what she has described as "unreasonable" levels of earnings... in essence calling for them to be punished for making money legally.

Of course when she calls for taxing the rich, she doesn't mean herself or any of her peers. After all, she's just a "poor public servant".

So we don't have to look too far to see what Hillarious Rotten Clintoon is planning. It's all right there in the open for us to see.

Elliot

excon

Hello:

So, the sniveling has begun.... Hee hee hee.

excon

Dark_crow

Democracy and Religion is certainly as splintered as Socialism, so to dismiss it on that basis would be senseless folly. Thomas Paine once alluded to the concept that, in one respect, he was not a member of only one community, but rather all communities. It seems clear enough to me that his reason for believing so is because all communities, to one degree or another, affect one another. In the very broadest of terms “a community is a social group of organisms sharing an environment…” Hence, the very reason for government, geographical boundaries, and politicians; that is, to intermediate between all the various communities.

Socialism is not a political system it is an economic system that assumes equality the better way in which communities can share the wealth that is created from the natural world. That one community has no more right to one part of the natural world than another. Capitalism on the other hand is an economic system that assumes superiority is the better way in which communities can share the wealth created from the natural world and that some communities do have more right than others because of that superiority.

magprob

So with Socialism Hillary will determine how much I get and in Capitalism it is between me and my broker. I like my broker better. Oh Mr. Schwab! Come here you blantent little Capitalist you!

Dark_crow

The better question is would Hillary be needed in a socialist economy, certainly your broker wouldn’t, nor the fees paid to him need be spent.

Skell

Name calling. How grown up of you fine intelligent men!

PorkChopLarue

The definition of socialism changes over time. Originally it meant no government intervention in the economy (other than land grants to railroads in return for bribes). This worked well for the 19th century agricultural economy, albeit with periodic economic crashes that impoverished everyone. As the country industrialized, people got tired of crashes and created the Federal Reserve. They got tired of industry putting cats and dogs into sausages or creating price-gouging monopolies and created a broad regulatory structure (you can test this by saying, we don't need an FAA because it's in Airlines' self-interest to fly safely-this is the approach Uganda takes). When Republican Bible thumpers crashed Wall Street and the world economy in 1929, there was a move to have government do more to stabilize the economy and to provide services for the elderly, the sick, and the unemployed. Republicans called this socialism in the 1930s but I don't see many of them giving back their social security or medicaid checks these days, nor does Sarah Palin giving back the billions the feds pump into Alaska's economy every year. The Republica answer to t the question is that it is socialism when the money goes to someone else, it's good government when it goes to me.