General Discussion

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)

23. Historically, it's been just that tripping up attempts at socialism.

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 11:05 PM

Nov 2013

An elite group of people gain control of the government and impoverish the rest of the population. I prefer a Social-Democracy because it has safeguards for the less fortunate, but also contain leaders so that those leaders don't enrich friends and family.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

192 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

so what is exactly wrong with socialism? [View all] Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 OP

Here's a great piece for a local historian PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #1

Great add, PeaceNikki. freshwest Nov 2013 #43

quaint idea--trust in authority BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2013 #68

sociialism doesn't mean authority Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #71

I paraphrased that from the article. BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2013 #76

Well see, that's where Marx and Engels come into play........ socialist_n_TN Nov 2013 #133

no argument there! BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2013 #138

Thanks PeaceNikki. Amazing the number of folks right here in Wisconsin who have no clue ... Scuba Nov 2013 #113

There's nothing wrong with socialism. Oakenshield Nov 2013 #2

The fear factor, public enemy, 'reds under the beds' etc. Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #3

They do equate socialism with communism, but even then I believe they are making a huge error... rwsanders Nov 2013 #53

exactly Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #60

We can lay blame on the Soviets for putting "Socialist" in their name gtar100 Nov 2013 #121

Not a thing unless Moliere Nov 2013 #4

+1 Wealthy parasites and wannabes are the only ones who should be hating it. idwiyo Nov 2013 #12

It depends on how socialism is defined. Laelth Nov 2013 #115

Is it necessarily state ownership? Or are there other types of socialism? eomer Nov 2013 #134

I actually went to wikipedia to bone up on this. Laelth Nov 2013 #135

Right, I was going off on a different tangent than your main point. eomer Nov 2013 #142

I think the term "State" in these definitions ..... oldhippie Nov 2013 #136

Yes, that makes sense. eomer Nov 2013 #143

The concern is equally low standards for everyone... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #5

Well, socialism has high standards Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #6

In theory .. Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #22

yes some organizations are better than others Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #26

Well, we've already tried the lassez-faire thing for a few decades, and the result is ~20% nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #81

Unregulated capitalism stinks, indeed. Laelth Nov 2013 #124

Albert Einstein and Jesus Christ were both socialists. Pass it on. JEFF9K Nov 2013 #7

K & R Thinkingabout Nov 2013 #11

Einstein helped bring us nuclear weapons and energy FrodosPet Nov 2013 #13

Jesus Hates fags? PatrynXX Nov 2013 #25

Old man Phelps is a bad speller Thor_MN Nov 2013 #48

God is GREAT! FrodosPet Nov 2013 #49

Well said. JEFF9K Nov 2013 #179

It wasn't Einstein's fault! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #28

That is not accurate at all. zeemike Nov 2013 #29

You are correct FrodosPet Nov 2013 #45

^^^THIS^^^ alittlelark Nov 2013 #72

+1 uponit7771 Nov 2013 #166

Yes! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #18

Nothing. Everything is right about it. Every damn thing. idwiyo Nov 2013 #8

If by "socialism" you mean Social Democracy, or something like it, I'm inclined to agree. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #88

Soviet-style "communism" was not communism or socialism. idwiyo Nov 2013 #110

I have no argument with any of that, honestly. Sounds like paradise. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #111

The only thing wrong with state socialism is its propensity toward cronyism. joshcryer Nov 2013 #9

Financial industry among others dreamnightwind Nov 2013 #14

Well regulated, yes. joshcryer Nov 2013 #15

Black market economies are not what is destroying this planet - eom dreamnightwind Nov 2013 #17

It can be regulated Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #31

All you need is a government printing money and regulating interest rates. joshcryer Nov 2013 #105

socialism works well for all services free at the point of use Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #20

Historically, it's been just that tripping up attempts at socialism. bluestate10 Nov 2013 #23

Why does it have to be a choice between pure socialism and pure capitalism? MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #46

Capitalists do not have the ethos of prosperity and redistribution Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #55

Exactly. Things don't have to be the way they are now, but they don't have to be like the U.S.S.R. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #90

Think you are jumbling economic and political systems - TBF Nov 2013 #116

I think it's a choice between cronyism and fairness, myself. joshcryer Nov 2013 #106

IOW, public goods are GOOD, but not everything is a public good n/t eridani Nov 2013 #112

I make a point to defend socialism every chance I get. Curmudgeoness Nov 2013 #10

Probably because the Nazis had socialism in their name although Cleita Nov 2013 #16

Adolf Hitler purged the Marxists from the NSDAP DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #40

And the Soviets did it with communism. libdem4life Nov 2013 #54

I liked this post Rider3 Nov 2013 #19

Do you still? Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #21

Poster probably meant "rec'd" as they are listed under it. kentauros Nov 2013 #32

Thanks! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #35

I'm still working on that hippie art colony. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #98

Eventually I'll learn arc-welding. kentauros Nov 2013 #102

Nothing is wrong with it :) Marrah_G Nov 2013 #24

Yeah! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #27

Mostly the fact that we seem to lack it Scootaloo Nov 2013 #30

People don't really know what it is Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #33

My experience? Scootaloo Nov 2013 #37

It's like my knowledge of the NFL Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #39

You might be a socialist if: ErikJ Nov 2013 #34

I think that we need to educate people Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #36

Not a thing DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #38

When we think back to Romney and his USSR! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #41

If not genes, then propaganda DissidentVoice Nov 2013 #42

It's great for social needs, not so good for private needs seveneyes Nov 2013 #44

Depends on what private needs you have? Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #47

What are the "private needs" that are impinged upon by Socialism? Maedhros Nov 2013 #52

I believe seveneyes is speaking of systems like the Soviet Union. Enthusiast Nov 2013 #118

You are correct seveneyes Nov 2013 #126

Most of us on DU Enthusiast Nov 2013 #139

Acknowledged seveneyes Nov 2013 #140

yes Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #171

The Soviet Union was more "totalitarian" than it was "socialist." Maedhros Nov 2013 #156

We agree on that.....nt Enthusiast Nov 2013 #162

Here they come! RosettaStoned77 Nov 2013 #50

When I cam to this country I was shocked that republicans were actually RED!!! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #63

Same here. RosettaStoned77 Nov 2013 #92

The only thing wrong with socialism is the people who have run it Warpy Nov 2013 #51

Socialism only moves slowly because it is prevented from doing so by big bad US corporations/repubs Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #56

I always found it odd that SOCIAL Security and Medicare ... spin Nov 2013 #57

Republicans use socialist services Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #89

Our collective amygala has been trained to hate and fear it, but not define it. arcane1 Nov 2013 #58

So what's wrong with socialism? - "Nothing" say the people of Seattle who just elected a Socialist OutNow Nov 2013 #59

Great! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #62

If socialism is so great, there must be many thriving, prosperous, socialist countries, Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #61

Well if the corps weren't in control, yes! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #65

Right. Oakenshield Nov 2013 #66

LOL. If Sweden, Denmark and Norway are socialist countries, Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #74

Scandinavia is not exactly socialist Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #77

Scandinavia is plenty closer than we are anyway. Oakenshield Nov 2013 #100

These countries are a lot nicer to people in need Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #172

All of which have thriving free market economies that embrace capitalism. Nt hack89 Nov 2013 #83

What does that have to do with socialism? ZombieHorde Nov 2013 #108

True - capitalism is required to generate the wealth needed to make socialism work hack89 Nov 2013 #129

Sweden? Denmark? May not be "pure" socialism but no one said they had to be... nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #95

I'm just fine with Sweden and Denmark. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #96

It's the kind of "socialism" I would tend to favor, anyhow. Can't speak for anyone else. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #97

I'm with you..............nt Enthusiast Nov 2013 #119

Absolutely MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #114

Wrong. Enthusiast Nov 2013 #120

This country is pretty socialist when you get right down to it treestar Nov 2013 #141

Workers do not control the means of production, so not entirely Socialist. [n/a] Maedhros Nov 2013 #158

True, though tell that to a right winger treestar Nov 2013 #161

I'm routinely appalled by the widespread lack of knowledge Maedhros Nov 2013 #170

Right, because multinational corporations would ever allow that to happen. NuclearDem Nov 2013 #174

I use their buzzwords to make them think: freshwest Nov 2013 #64

Socialism is about people and ownership Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #69

Our water is supplied by the City and the reservoir and pipes are maintained by the city Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #173

anything that does not directly profit the already rich is anathema to the GOP and... yurbud Nov 2013 #67

Unfortunately we have some Democrats like that Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #70

I bought that until the health care debate and constituents in those red states... yurbud Nov 2013 #163

Pure Socialism assumes a better human nature than actually exists--at least in meaningful quantities Gore1FL Nov 2013 #73

No, governemnt should not get out of the way but.. Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #78

There are good points, and bad points to every political system. Savannahmann Nov 2013 #75

"Socialist Governments tend to be right on the verge of dictatorships" Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #82

Agreed without reservation. Savannahmann Nov 2013 #99

Socialism can suck for rich people, Jamaal510 Nov 2013 #79

How do you know that theywould have to have higher taxes? Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #91

Because that's Jamaal510 Nov 2013 #94

Nothing, per se. It's actually the best of the lot. DeSwiss Nov 2013 #80

There is noting wrong with any utopian system, even socialism Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #84

Can you explain to me how capitalism has NOT spun out of control? TBF Nov 2013 #117

I didn't post on that economic system called Capitalism as it wasn't in the OP Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #167

I think you are confusing communism with socialism or something else Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #178

In liberalism, economic rights are the right to work and to profit from it, whether with your hands Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #181

Capitalism is a sub sect of judaism Rain Mcloud Nov 2013 #85

who said the wealthy are handpicked by God? Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #87

It is a repeated theme in the Bible. Rain Mcloud Nov 2013 #101

What happened to the separation of state and religion ? Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #149

What's wrong with Socialism? ReRe Nov 2013 #86

Ahhhhh! Keep your hands off my medicare you socialists! RosettaStoned77 Nov 2013 #93

Good! Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #103

Nothing. Starry Messenger Nov 2013 #104

We need socialist policies for basic human needs and protections... inelastic demands. HijackedLabel Nov 2013 #107

^^^^^^^^ questionseverything Nov 2013 #154

Nothing. ronnie624 Nov 2013 #109

Well, you're right. Enthusiast Nov 2013 #123

It's unAmerican. sibelian Nov 2013 #122

One day when 50%+ population wants socialism Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #148

It's unAmerican. LWolf Nov 2013 #125

Well, you know what they say... GladRagDahl Nov 2013 #127

Ah yes, Ms Thatcher....... socialist_n_TN Nov 2013 #165

No, that's not what she implied. GladRagDahl Nov 2013 #189

The only "Problem" is that the super rich lose all their power. Taitertots Nov 2013 #128

What do you mean? FreeJoe Nov 2013 #130

There is not a 100% capitalist country nor a 100% Socialist country Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #147

This is a great example of why I typically avoid Socialism discussions FreeJoe Nov 2013 #177

Not a damn thing. 99Forever Nov 2013 #131

+1 Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #146

Imagine that all fast food restaurants were run by the US Postal Service FarCenter Nov 2013 #132

That's a far fetched definition Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #145

Government is likely better able to own and operate restaurants than healthcare or banking FarCenter Nov 2013 #150

nothing is 100% pure Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #155

I'd love to see fast food chains disappear altogether 2banon Nov 2013 #152

Yes, have it your way for under .50 Starry Messenger Nov 2013 #187

So many people own their home or a business... fadedrose Nov 2013 #137

Depends upon how you define socialism Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #144

Rec for Excellent Discussion! 2banon Nov 2013 #151

conversation riverwalker Nov 2013 #153

They can still make it work without oil money Joel thakkar Nov 2013 #188

I think it would only work on a small scale. PlanetaryOrbit Nov 2013 #157

Well that's a silly question. It's NOT fascism of course. Lodestar Nov 2013 #159

welcome to DU gopiscrap Nov 2013 #169

Thanks for the welcome! n/t Lodestar Nov 2013 #190

you're welcome, hope we can learn from you and you us gopiscrap Nov 2013 #191

it follows jesus more closely. pansypoo53219 Nov 2013 #160

I don't think Jesus would have liked capitalism Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #175

It Sure Trumps Capitalism On Steroids - For About 99% Of Us colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #164

I'm not converted... brooklynite Nov 2013 #168

Worked for whom? YoungDemCA Nov 2013 #182

Name a country that has successfully implemented a socialist economic structure? brooklynite Nov 2013 #183

Define "success" YoungDemCA Nov 2013 #184

I've been more of a fan of anarchism. NuclearDem Nov 2013 #176

Great - send me your computer and TV set, will you? brooklynite Nov 2013 #185

Cute. NuclearDem Nov 2013 #186

Not a thing. PowerToThePeople Nov 2013 #180

The big secret no one wants to discuss is Blue_Tires Nov 2013 #192