You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #7: I am not so much a mystery maybe as I am literal. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-26-13 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I am not so much a mystery maybe as I am literal.
Edited on Tue Nov-26-13 03:07 AM by No Elephants
The classic, short version definition of socialism is government's owning the means of production.

For example, I don't think we have socialized medicine simply because the 99% is given free or truly affordable access to medical care via government intervention, including health insurance that we purchase (if we can afford to purchase) from government, instead of purchasing from private insurane . I think that gives us a more human(e), just and enlightened society than the law of the jungle gives us. Also a more economically workable society for both employers and employees, but I don't think that would give us socialism. I think we have socialist medicine only when government owns and controls the hospitals, doctor's offices, etc.

I also don't think we have socialism simply because govenment scoops money out of paychecks for pensions and then scoops money out of pensions for Medicare.

I don't see Western Europe as a group of socialist nations because they make some things available to citizens free or at low cost or sliding scale rates.

My fellow student--the one mentioned in my prior post-- was very much talking about government's owning the means of production. And his statements were the ones that I was reacting to.

I think a government trying to gain control of the means of production (going socialist) has to nationalize (some might say confiscate) places of business because GE, for one, is not simply going to hand the government the keys to the shop(s) and neither are the owners of any other industry.

What you say about the right is coincidental In my perception, it's the right that calls everything "socialism," rather than using the word narrowly, as the dictionary defines it. That makes it easier for them to smear programs that use tax dollars for the benefit of the 99% and to laughably call Obama a "socialist."

If you think about all the zanyzillions and years our government and media devoted to discrediting socialism, the RW now has it way to easy to smear every program that benefits the 1% as Socialist, whether it involves government ownership of the means of production, or not.

What definition of the term "socialism" are you using?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC