What is the difference between a socialite and a socialist?

Updated on : January 21, 2022 by Matthew Russell



What is the difference between a socialite and a socialist?

What is the difference between "vision" and "television"?

A member of high society is a famous rich person famous for hanging out with other famous rich people. The Kardashians are an example of people who could be considered "socialites".

A socialist, on the other hand, is someone who defends some variety of socialism, a political ideology that defends social property or control of the productive economy.

Socialist. It is a political word. You can be a socialist, fascist, communist, etc.

Rather than become a socialist, I discovered that I was a socialist.

When I was young in Mexico, my school environment was basically Marxist in one approach or another, communism (which in the United States is mixed with "socialism", I hope that is not your case, I am not a communist or a Marxist, and in fact, I'm quite critical of his approach) was the basic belief of my teachers and classmates in general.

Of course, I saw that there was a great injustice in my environment and in the world, a horrible poverty. And it was also obvious that the Randian explanation that all rich people are hardworking and smart

Keep reading

Rather than become a socialist, I discovered that I was a socialist.

When I was young in Mexico, my school environment was basically Marxist in one approach or another, communism (which in the United States is mixed with "socialism", I hope that is not your case, I am not a communist or a Marxist, and in fact, I'm quite critical of his approach) was the basic belief of my teachers and classmates in general.

Of course, I saw that there was a great injustice in my environment and in the world, a horrible poverty. And it was also obvious that the Randian explanation that all the rich are hardworking, intelligent and superior and that all the poor are lazy, foolish or inferior does not explain reality as we see it. People are born into poverty and there are social and political pressures that make it too difficult to get out, just like being born rich grants you privileges even if you are as dumb and brutal as Donald Trump. Some people come out of poverty, but many cannot, and it is not their fault. So injustice seemed to be a real enemy, and its form was poverty, lack of food, clothing, hope, education, health, and the opportunity to be part of their society.

But I was never able to follow the Marxist vision. In the first place, the basic philosophical principles (the Hegelian dialectic that indicates that change occurs in the struggle between thesis and antithesis that produces a synthesis) seemed silly and did not explain the real processes of the world, physical, chemical, social or social . political. It was so vague that it could be applied to everything, but it was useless to do so. Likewise, the materialist historical part of Marxism seemed too simplistic: yes, the economy is an essential factor in the development of societies, but no, it cannot be considered the only or the most relevant in all cases, factors such as religion or patriotism or mere hatred are in many cases much more powerful to move a society. Plus, the authoritarian idea behind the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat did not seem like a good idea. Too much power in too few hands leads to corruption.

I remember asking (a teacher or friend, I don't remember): “If a shipment of televisions arrives at a factory in Cuba or the USSR, which workers receive them? The best, most productive, and caring high-quality workers, even if they don't align with the party, or workers with lower qualifications, but who faithfully follow the party line? ”. The answer was, of course, that no worker is really qualified if he does not follow the ideas of the party, which is why the televisions were for the politically correct and not for the best. I felt that this was contrary to the basic idea of ​​a meritocracy.

Meritocracy implies that absolute equality is impossible, but it provides a reasonable basis for inequality. And I also saw that the fight for absolute equality was a waste of time, since the goal is unattainable. What was a better goal? That inequality should never be so great as to imply that some people in society have to live without the basics of food, clothing, education, and dignity, and that a strong meritocracy would allow people to improve themselves through work. So while my Marxist friends and teachers were determined to end wealth, I thought it best to end poverty. In a reasonably just society (Scandinavian countries come to mind) where people live without fear of misery, disease and exclusion, it really matters less if a part of the population is enormously rich, but it matters a lot in a poor country where it is not possible. feed your children.

I was also a great reader of Bertrand Russell and his criticisms of the USSR, especially after his visit to Lenin, were simply too reasonable to dismiss.

So if I didn't like the system as it was and I didn't like the communist solution offered by the rebels I admired (and who my friends were), was there any alternative? I found that alternative in democratic socialism, in the idea of ​​reform through legislation, of empowering people through policies and institutions that could produce changes throughout society, the idea of ​​progressing as a community without violence and in a free democratic game of ideas, where wealth is reasonably redistributed through fiscal measures so that everyone pays their fair share and social policies target those who need it most (Randians who screw up this scheme still buy insurance, and this arrangement it's no different than simple car insurance). I saw how this played out on the NHS in the UK, in the state oil company in Norway, in public education in many countries, in social safety nets ... and in the process I found out that all of this was what I was thinking about. was very much in line with the thoughts of democratic socialists, social democracy, the Socialist International and its dozens of parties around the world, Savage and Social Security in New Zealand, Palme and the unions, Lord Atlee and the mixed economy, the Willy Brandt's SPD renouncing Marxism and stating: "Private property of the means of production can claim the protection of society as long as it does not hinder the establishment of social justice." It seemed reasonable, it didn't shoot people, and the results were real. the Socialist International and its dozens of parties around the world, Savage and Social Security in New Zealand, Palme and the trade unions, Lord Atlee and the mixed economy, Willy Brandt's SPD renouncing Marxism and affirming: “The private property of the means of production can claim the protection of society as long as it does not obstruct the establishment of social justice ”. It seemed reasonable, it didn't shoot people, and the results were real. the Socialist International and its dozens of parties around the world, Savage and Social Security in New Zealand, Palme and the unions, Lord Atlee and the mixed economy, Willy Brandt's SPD renouncing Marxism and stating: "The private property of the means of production can claim the protection of society as long as it does not hinder the establishment of social justice." It seemed reasonable, it didn't shoot people, and the results were real.

So I became a democratic socialist with a license. Am I 100% in agreement with my party or with the Socialist International? Of course, no. But it still seems like the best bet to achieve a better, happier and freer society, which is a noble goal.

A libertarian believes in individual freedom, a socialist does not.

A socialist believes in a collective. You do what the group or its representative says, for the benefit that they believe will be better for society in general. We work and give them, or they take, the money to redistribute or use as they see fit.

They feel entitled to take what you have earned or produced to give to others, for education or welfare, etc. Socialists in the United States are pushing to take taxpayer money to provide health care for everyone. Socialists have seized much of the private property rights. Now an accessory

Keep reading

A libertarian believes in individual freedom, a socialist does not.

A socialist believes in a collective. You do what the group or its representative says, for the benefit that they believe will be better for society in general. We work and give them, or they take, the money to redistribute or use as they see fit.

They feel entitled to take what you have earned or produced to give to others, for education or welfare, etc. Socialists in the United States are pushing to take taxpayer money to provide health care for everyone. Socialists have seized much of the private property rights. Now, a property owner must obtain permission from the government to change any use of his private property; Zoning, permits, and the like. Drug laws and other laws that restrict freedom are accepted for the good of society.

Libertarians believe they own their own bodies. That slavery is wrong. That forcing others to meet other people's standards is wrong.

Libertarians believe in voluntary cooperation versus forced cooperation. If something is right on their mind, they should be able to follow it.

In a libertarian world, if you like Israel you can contribute to it, if you like the Palestinians you can contribute to them, if you prefer sea turtles you can contribute to that, if you like education you can contribute to that, if you want by giving brochures, you can do that, if you like to teach others to work for what they get, you can do that or you can do a little of everything or something else.

In the socialist world, money is taken from him and spent to support what the government or the collective wants to spend it on. You keep enough to keep you working and incentivized and they get the rest for their favorite projects.

Socalism is often said to be freedom. It is a false freedom where freedom is replaced by the freedom to vote and submit to the will of the majority. The farmer with the dairy cow gets a vote, the townspeople get their votes. It's a steak dinner for everyone. Everyone is surprised that the farmer no longer produces milk. The farmer has no freedom of choice or rights to his property even though he got his vote.

In the libertarian world, everyone can work to make their own cake or bake their loaf of bread, like the little red hen in the children's story. They can exchange it or a part of it with others. You can share it as your conscience dictates. They did it. It is theirs to share or exchange or eat or whatever they want.

In a socialist world, the cake someone else made is taken and divided as a socialist wish. They get their slice of the cake by taking it from someone else instead of making one.

Socialist societies are much less productive. The great believers in socialism began to understand better when they saw the difference in the results.

When Boris Yeltsin went shopping in Clear Lake 1 of 10 In September 1989, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. See more photos of In September 1989, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. See more photos of the foreign leader in an American grocery store ... © Houston Chronicle 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's supermarket after touring the Space Center Johnson. Between tasting free samples of cheese and on September 16, 1989, Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets made an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between trying free samples of cheese and produce and staring at frozen food selections, Yeltsin wandered the aisles at Randall nodding in amazement. © Houston Chronicle 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between trying free cheese samples and September 16, 1989, Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between trying free samples of cheese and produce and staring at frozen food selections, Yeltsin wandered the aisles at Randall nodding in amazement. © Houston Chronicle 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between tasting free samples of cheese and on September 16, 1989, Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets made an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between trying free samples of cheese and produce and staring at frozen food selections, Yeltsin wandered the aisles at Randall nodding in amazement. © Houston Chronicle 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between tasting free samples of cheese and on September 16, 1989, Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets made an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. Between trying free samples of cheese and produce and staring at frozen food selections, Yeltsin wandered the aisles at Randall nodding in amazement. © Houston Chronicle 09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of fellow Soviets paid an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. At the check-out counter,

The socialist phrase 'they pretend to take care of us and we pretend to work' was understood.

Russia and China began to implement more capitalism (freedom) and their countries have progressed.

Libertarianism is freedom, capitalism is economic freedom. Libertarians are free to cooperate or not.

Socialism is a matter of government control. It is a forced solution. A one-size-fits-all approach controlled by the government. It has leveling effects by taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful.

The film 'The Grapes of Wrath' was used in the USSR as a propaganda film to show how bad America was. Then people noticed that even many of the poor in America had cars. 'UPS'

The chaos of liberty and liberty are far more productive than government control of socialist systems.

With freedom there are often spectacular failures and successes. Failed companies die and are replaced by successful ones.

Under socialism, failures persist and are supported by government, nostalgia, and "it's terrible" to let that fail. Successes are hampered by taxes to support the long drawn out death of companies that are no longer viable.

Of course, those topics might require volumes to go into more detail. That is an overview of the differences.

Many of the current laws that hamper capitalism, those that limit liability and hinder those claims, etc., have brought about a system that limits competition and accountability. That must be fixed. The failures attributed to capitalism are often due to those ill-thought-out solutions or not-so-bright and brilliant ideas.

Well, I became a socialist at the end of 2018. There are many factors that led me to become one.

I didn't have many strong political views at first, but I always tended to sympathize with my mother's political views, which seemed to coincide with those of the current Democratic Party. I just thought that making our economic system kinder, smoother, and more regulated would help solve problems related to people's well-being.

Soon my Russian phase arrived. As you may have learned from my previous posts, I have been interested in learning about different countries and other languages. Two

Keep reading

Well, I became a socialist at the end of 2018. There are many factors that led me to become one.

I didn't have many strong political views at first, but I always tended to sympathize with my mother's political views, which seemed to coincide with those of the current Democratic Party. I just thought that making our economic system kinder, smoother, and more regulated would help solve problems related to people's well-being.

Soon my Russian phase arrived. As you may have learned from my previous posts, I have been interested in learning about different countries and other languages. Two years ago, my interest focused on Russia. I was fascinated by its rich culture, its long history, the language. For me, it had a certain mystery that was missing in the previous countries that I had fallen in love with, Italy and France, although more popular and loved all over the world. However, I initially wanted my Russian phase to be peaceful and apolitical. how were my Italian and French phases. The reason is that Russia is seen as a very controversial country in the US, and more and more people, especially from the party my family supports, are starting to see it again as an "evil empire", especially after the elections of 2016. That completely devastated me,

However, I unexpectedly got into the most controversial and polarizing part of Russian history that I never thought I would examine too deeply: the Soviet period. I had been drawn to its general aesthetic: who wouldn't love art, literature, and certain pieces of music that evoke working-class solidarity, heroism, and hope for a new future? However, I had already seen, out of curiosity, a horrifying documentary about how Stalin instigated (?) The Holodomor and voluntarily collaborated (?) With Hitler during World War II. He had seen several articles and comments on YouTube videos that pointed to this terrifying, yet discredited statistic: "Communism has killed 100 million people."

But he was still curious if the Soviet Union was just bread lines and gulags, or if its leaders were only concerned with gaining power for themselves under the mask of justice. So I decided to read a biography about Lenin. Although it was still painted quite negatively in the book, I found in Lenin a wonderful genius and passionate visionary who courageously dedicated his revolutionary years to improving the lives of the common people of Russia. Finally, I wanted to find the roots of the ideology that Lenin adopted, so I went to the bookstore and bought a copy of the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels.

I read the Manifesto initially just to learn about a different perspective on the capitalist system, but eventually I began to agree with many of the points given in the pamphlet, and also very surprised and dejected by what it had to say. The Manifesto, along with some other books and news articles, helped me realize that many of the injustices in society are just the consequences that the capitalist system has brought. Exploitation, wage slavery, inequality, unemployment, poverty, war, destruction of the environment, etc. Eventually I began to notice this inequality in my daily life.

And although my family and I were having a relatively good time under capitalism, I began to notice this inequality more often while traveling through the rich and poor neighborhoods of my city. Today I really don't want to support a society that sustains itself by exploiting people from all over the world. Capitalism is commonly thought to create prosperity for everyone, but this is not the case, as much of the world's wealth is based on slavery and poverty in other parts of the world, especially third world countries. It has fostered greed, selfishness and competition between neighbors. Then I realized that simply reforming the status quo to help ordinary people, as the Democratic and Republican parties are doing right now, is not enough.

I also read more and watched a lot of educational videos from some left-wing YouTubers and some people who had actually lived there about what everyday life was like in the USSR and many of the other countries aligned with the Soviet Union. It was surprisingly much better than what they taught me. There, of course, there were flaws, such as censorship, shortages, and lack of freedom to travel. Of course there were horrors, it wasn't pure. But at least everyone was guaranteed free and affordable housing, education and health care. Literacy was through the roof and there was more gender equality. There was almost no homelessness or unemployment. His detractors affirm that "socialism could not innovate"; well that means the Soviet Union was not able to industrialize in two decades instead of two centuries, or the launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957. Or that Cuba could not create the vaccine against meningitis-B in 1988. And if socialism “makes everyone equally poor”, that means that China would not have taken 800 million out of its own people out of poverty first. Also, there is a reason why 60% of Russians miss the Soviet Union.

Even my homeschool teacher (who is Cuban) and my Russian teacher who lived in the USSR, who do not necessarily support that ideology, acknowledge these points. Watching funny memes, reading more communist literature, and much later reading Quora helped educate myself even more on this topic. I am still trying to learn more about how it works and about the different sub-ideologies within socialism / communism as I am relatively new to politics and different political ideologies.

I think my views will eventually change as I get older, but for now, I'm pretty sure I'm a communist. I believe that ownership of the means of production is better when it is collective rather than in the hands of a few elites. Workers of the world, unite!

There are already six no answers here. Ignore them.

A socialist believes that the best thing for the economy is to be managed by the state. The thread has been swallowed that the state must, can and will take care of all our needs. He really believes that. This is a charmingly optimistic view of human nature, but naive and flawed. The state apparatus has to be operated by fallible men and somehow they see their own interests as truly important and the wishes of others as essentially frivolous, of low priority, and of less importance than the needs that they themselves prioritize. They then claim that the needs of

Keep reading

There are already six no answers here. Ignore them.

A socialist believes that the best thing for the economy is to be managed by the state. The thread has been swallowed that the state must, can and will take care of all our needs. He really believes that. This is a charmingly optimistic view of human nature, but naive and flawed. The state apparatus has to be operated by fallible men and somehow they see their own interests as truly important and the wishes of others as essentially frivolous, of low priority, and of less importance than the needs that they themselves prioritize. Then they affirm that the needs of society are like this and like this, and lo! - you lose. This is fair. If you complain, you are basically a traitor. Expect discipline, possibly bodily, possibly even capital. Enemy of class!

A capitalist does not exist. Marxist theorists claim its existence, but not a single man in all of history can be named who fits the scheme. There are no capitalists, like Yetis, no Bigfoots (Bigfeet? Ask JRR Tolkien for clarification here), no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairies (Teeth Fairies?) No "ordinary" fairies to dance on the head of a pin, no there are demons, there are no demons, there is no Satan, there is no God, neither Dieu nor Maitre - wait a mo 'there are teachers, I myself am one, but you get the point - the poetic world of politix is ​​full of mythical figures; the average man, with his half wife and a half, 2.4 children and a dog, who votes half this way, half of her, and abstains frequently ...

There are idiots who pride themselves on proclaiming their socialist allegiance. They are also the only people who can see any capitalists. No one I have ever met has told me, "I am a capitalist." It is not a self-reported term. It is not a proclaimed ideology. Only its critics speak of it, as only Christians speak of the Devil Incarnate. It is the negative reflection of what a "good" socialist wants to see himself represent, just as a Christian takes De Imitatio Christi as his guide and seeks to cast out the Devil: the poor fool convinces himself that the Devil really exists; as the socialist does the evil capitalist.

Hence questions like this. Growing up. Get a life.

It is difficult to differentiate between socialists and progressives on the current political spectrum in the United States, in large part because, today, both are tendencies that lie to the left of the center to varying degrees. They are also difficult to differentiate because there is such a wide variety of socialists and the label "progressive" has historically been used in very different ways. While most socialists can also easily be described as progressives, not all progressives are socialists.

Socialists

Socialism is a set of economic, social, and political ideas that emerged in the early nineteenth century as a critique of indu

Keep reading

It is difficult to differentiate between socialists and progressives on the current political spectrum in the United States, in large part because, today, both are tendencies that lie to the left of the center to varying degrees. They are also difficult to differentiate because there is such a wide variety of socialists and the label "progressive" has historically been used in very different ways. While most socialists can also easily be described as progressives, not all progressives are socialists.

Socialists

Socialism is a set of economic, social and political ideas that emerged in the early nineteenth century as a critique of industrial capitalism. There were several early proponents. Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), a French theorist of what would become the field of political economy, coined the term "socialism," which was used by Auguste Blanqui, Wilfred Owen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and others. until Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels classically defined an entire economic, social and political theory. That was not the end of socialist origins and I refer you to David McLellan's excellent 1998 work, Marxism After Marx, as a way to get a workable overview.

The largest and largest group of American socialists today are the Democratic Socialists. Many aided Bernie Sanders' insurgent campaign for president in 2016. Historically, they are based on the former Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Party of America, founded in 1877 and 1901 respectively, which represented the ideas of socialism before the revolution of 1917 in Russia. Today, picking up on American heritage and certain Western European influences, its largest group is the Democratic Socialists of America, whose members tend to be part of the Democratic Party. Other groups include Socialist Alternative and Social Democrats USA. Usually,

The historical groupings that are tiny and politically insignificant in the United States are the Marxist-Leninists, also called communists, and various separatists such as the Trotskyists and Maoists. They all adopted some form of Marx's ideas as interpreted by the first socialist leader of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin; some cling to the revisions of Leon Trotsky, a critic of Lenin's successor who had to flee the USSR, and of the Chinese leader Mao Tse Tung, who adapted Marxism-Leninism to the culture of his country. The Marxist-Leninists are represented by the Communist Party of the United States; The Trotskyists once had a somewhat larger group, it was the Socialist Workers Party, which split in recent years;

Progressive

Progressivism is not and never has been a complete system of ideas; as the word on which it is based, progress, means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Historically, there was a US progressive movement, a Progressive Party, a breakout of the Republican Party in 1912, all of which had their heyday in the era of handlebar mustaches and horseless bronze carriages, also known as the He was Progressive. At that time it was a rural middle class reformist political movement that initially fought against the growth of large corporations, industrial pollution, and corruption in American politics. In 1916, the three main presidential candidates claimed to be "progressives." His main achievements were antitrust laws, child labor laws, food and pharmaceutical regulation, establishment of national parks.

In 1948, Vice President Henry Wallace started a new Progressive Party as a left-wing alternative to the two main parties, opposing the resurgence of Red Scare tactics and Cold War policies. Many liberals and some unions denounced the Progressive Party as allegedly controlled by the Communists. The party died when Wallace got just 2% of the vote.

Over the years, "progressive" became something of a "false flag" political label for hard-line leftists aligned with the Soviet Union. Although the so-called progressive ideas prevailed in some sectors of the Republican Party until 1980, Ronald Reagan's conservative movement ended its support in the Grand Old Party.

However, "progressive" was also gradually being accepted as a liberal nickname for members of the Democratic Party who favored racial equality, social programs, a move away from war, and support for environmentalism. Today, the Green Party is the only political organization that clearly fits the general agenda. The Center for American Progress, founded by President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta, is a nonprofit think tank that tends to embrace these ideas.

The first question of politics is always: "Who owns what?" Footnote 1, and the most important battle is between authoritarians, who believe that various groups own (and therefore can control) everyone and everything, and libertarians, who believe that, first, you are the owner of you and second, you are the owner of the things it produces.

Socialism is one of the many authoritarian marks. Footnote 2 They differ from other authoritarians in that they argue that "everyone" owns everything (except, in some features, their toothbrush).

The difficulty with everyone owning everything is that

Keep reading

The first question of politics is always: "Who owns what?" Footnote 1, and the most important battle is between authoritarians, who believe that various groups own (and therefore can control) everyone and everything, and libertarians, who believe that, first, you are the owner of you and second, you are the owner of the things it produces.

Socialism is one of the many authoritarian marks. Footnote 2 They differ from other authoritarians in that they argue that "everyone" owns everything (except, in some features, their toothbrush).

The difficulty with everyone owning everything is that there are like a thousand trillion things, and there are like a thousand trillion things that can be done with everything. How can everyone make all the decisions about each action for each thing?

Different socialists suggest different subgroups and procedures to facilitate everyone's decisions about everything, but any solution becomes unwieldy. In practice, socialism becomes an oligarchy, where a small group of rulers (perhaps elected by a "Workers Council", which in turn is elected by everyone) owns everything and everyone.

This limitation of practical implementation does not intimidate the socialists' goal that everyone owns everything. They postulate that their small group of rulers will differ from all other oligarchies in that their oligarchy will not be made up of selfish or reckless men, but will be made up of supermen (much like them) who altruistically, omnisciently and prophetically control everything to the greatest good. of all the others.


Footnote 1: "Ownership" here means who has effective control over the object.

The main objects discussed for the property are generally:

  • Who is the owner of your body, so that you can decide what you can and cannot do with it?
  • Who owns your job, so you can decide how, with whom, and what you can work on?
  • To whom do your associations belong, so that they can decide with whom and do what you can or cannot do?
  • Who owns your property, so that you can decide what you can and cannot do with whatever your body has worked to create?

The main concern of socialists is who owns their property (that is, their past jobs that produced that property). <0976>


Footnote 2: Other authoritative marks include:

  • Monarchy: a king owns everything
  • Oligarchy: a class of lords owns everything.
  • Fascism: a government, operating through fully controlled companies, owns everything. <1283>
  • Democracy: everyone owns everything
  • Autocracy: the single government is transmitted to a party so that it owns everything.

See related:

0976: What gives me the right to own my property?

1088: Can a socialist society be free?

0993: How could socialists and libertarians coexist?

1283: Does Fascism Allow Free Enterprise?

0927: Why are Americans so afraid of socialism?

0924: What happens to the social democracy?

1243: How would you convince a socialist to become a libertarian?

1358: What do you think about small, localized and decentralized left governments (eg, Anarchosocialism)

1344: Is it possible to have both a small government and a communism?

0607: How does the free market beat centrally planned and controlled economies?


→ More Essays on <Socialism> by Dennis

→ Return to Dennis' Libertarian Essays <Table of Contents>

<, Socialism,>

The German Workers' Party (DAP, Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was founded in 1919 for German boys to meet and bond over two issues: German nationalism and anti-Semitism.

In July of that month, Private Adolf Hitler was appointed by German military intelligence to infiltrate the DAP and find out what it was doing. Hitler decided that he quite liked the atmosphere of German nationalism and anti-Semitism in the DAP and asked to join.

Once he entered, Hitler became one of the DAP's most active and popular speakers. In 1920, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSD

Keep reading

The German Workers' Party (DAP, Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was founded in 1919 for German boys to meet and bond over two issues: German nationalism and anti-Semitism.

In July of that month, Private Adolf Hitler was appointed by German military intelligence to infiltrate the DAP and find out what it was doing. Hitler decided that he quite liked the atmosphere of German nationalism and anti-Semitism in the DAP and asked to join.

Once he entered, Hitler became one of the DAP's most active and popular speakers. In 1920, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP, Nazionalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), later known as the Nazi Party.

He did not do this because he believed in socialism. Post-World War I Germany was a highly divided place and people were drawn to extreme positions.

The NSDAP was on the extreme right.

On the extreme left was the Communist Party of Germany (KPD, Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands), one of the natural enemies of the NSDAP.

In the center-left was the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD, Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), which was an enemy of both the KPD (because the KPD wanted a communist revolution) and the Nazi Party (because the SPD was not aggressively nationalist or anti-Semitic).

However, the Nazis wanted to attract more members, so they incorporated the word 'socialist' in their name so that disgruntled German workers who did not want to be communists, but were not enthusiastic about the relatively moderate SPD, would do so. join them instead.

The Nazis were able to do this because their early rhetoric had a strain of populist, anti-business, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, which matched very well with their own anti-Semitism and tendency to portray capitalism as in the hands of the Jewish people. .

Once the Nazis began to gain support, they stopped speaking out against business so as not to scare off wealthy backers. When the Nazis came to power, they practiced zero tolerance with any self-described socialists and the SPD was banned by the Enabling Act of 1933. The KPD had been banned a couple of weeks earlier.

The ideology of the Nazis was theirs, a toxic form of nationalism with corporatist elements, belligerent imperialist tendencies, racism, and a very prominent strain of anti-Semitism. He did not have time for the basic idea of ​​socialism, that is, social property and democratic control of the means of production. He rejected the notion of class conflict in favor of loyalty to the state and supported the workers only as long as they were working to support what the party itself defined as the national interest. For most of its life, the Third Reich was preparing for or operating a war economy, so we will never know what it would have been like if it had not been bent on conquering foreign territories and subjugating any population it deemed racially inferior. .

National Socialism is the type of Austro-German fascism that controlled Germany for 12 years, generally called by the abbreviation Nazism. It was a dictatorship that used extreme nationalism as a fundamental principle and used the word "socialist" in its name to co-opt naive people during a period when many Germans admired the former Soviet Union. Nazism was noted for pointing to the Jews as the source of all of Germany's failures and defeats (indeed, all of the failures in history) and for valuing the Germans above all others. Modern American Nazis have reappeared as part of what is euphemistic

Keep reading

National Socialism is the type of Austro-German fascism that controlled Germany for 12 years, generally called by the abbreviation Nazism. It was a dictatorship that used extreme nationalism as a fundamental principle and used the word "socialist" in its name to co-opt naive people during a period when many Germans admired the former Soviet Union. Nazism was noted for pointing to the Jews as the source of all of Germany's failures and defeats (indeed, all of the failures in history) and for valuing the Germans above all others. Modern American Nazis have reappeared as part of what is euphemistically called the "alt-right," generally pushing for an extreme nationalist authoritarian system similar to that of Nazi Germany, but generally more focused on racism against dark people (although it generally still includes anti-Semitism). .

Democratic socialism can range from a capitalist system with socialist traits (as Bernie Sanders uses the term) to a fully socialist country with a democratically elected government. I don't think there has been a real example of the latter at the national level, but most Western countries, including the United States, fall somewhere on the “democratic socialist” spectrum, with some functions funded by the government.

I look at the responses you've gotten so far and I see the repetition of the "true Scotsman" fallacy: non-socialists trying to define "true socialism" away from those of us who would define ourselves as social democrats, democratic socialists, or simply socialists. .

In the beginning, back in the 19th century, socialism was proposed as a form of social ownership of the means of production in the belief that this would solve all problems. Thus, Marx and Engels suggested that this ideal could not be achieved unless democracy is eliminated and a "dictatorship of

Keep reading

I look at the responses you've gotten so far and I see the repetition of the "true Scotsman" fallacy: non-socialists trying to define "true socialism" away from those of us who would define ourselves as social democrats, democratic socialists, or simply socialists. .

In the beginning, back in the 19th century, socialism was proposed as a form of social ownership of the means of production in the belief that this would solve all problems. Later, Marx and Engels suggested that this ideal could not be achieved unless democracy is eliminated and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is established. When Lenin put it into practice, this meant a Party dictatorship and the "social property" of the means of production became state property, this was labeled communism. Add to this a planned economy (planned production and planned market) and you get what the world got: gray, poor, repressed societies, cronyism disguised as party politics, the persecution of dissidents and the annulment of proclaimed fundamental rights and freedoms. by the Enlightenment.

In the second half of the 20th century, many socialist parties (most of which had been followers of Marxist thought) had to confront the fact that Marxism was not what it claimed to be, neither scientific nor the path to social happiness. Marx was wrong in many respects (one of them the theory of value, yes, work creates wealth, but there are many other elements that go into this creation), the result of his ideas was appalling and socialism should develop and enrich the Enlightenment rather. to oppose her and her freedoms and rights. The Social Democracy rejected Marxism from 1959 (German Socialists), giving a new direction to the Socialist International to which most of the Social Democratic parties are affiliated.

The _ideals_ are the same as those of the 19th century: social justice, public services, equal opportunities (this implies health and education and nutrition), fighting poverty and defending workers and the rest of society from the excesses of capitalism, stop them while preserving their virtues: competitiveness, innovation, personal fulfillment and recognition.

So, socialism regulates the economy and social relations to achieve a just society within a capitalist economy and a system of representative democracy. It reserves some activities for the government because they are too socially relevant to be in private hands (such as utilities, water, energy and sanitation), it promotes unionism and a progressive tax system that allows the government to redistribute a part of the wealth. in the form of services (the richest people will bear a higher cost of public health and education, while the poorest will be their beneficiaries), a solid welfare state. His enemy is poverty, not wealth, and he defends basic freedoms and human rights.

As it emerged in a conversation in recent days: if workers, those who earn the least, are protected by society and have decent housing, health, education, food for children and dignity, and if consumers are duly protected from the practices unethical. business, so socialists don't care who gets ridiculously rich.

That is "real socialism" today, as practiced by socialist parties in the developed world in opposition or in government.

"Democrats," like members of the Democratic Party, may be socialists (considering that there is no viable Social Democratic party in the United States), but the party itself is a classical liberal group.

People complain about the definition of socialism because the socialist mind believes that the word "socialism" means everything that is fashionable and successful. The rest of the world knows that “socialism” has a real, dictionary definition that describes objective criteria that can be applied.

There is not a single "successful" country in the world that is socialist by dictionary definition. The Nordic countries are not socialist, period. The governments of Sweden, Finland and Norway collectively own only a small portion of Scandinavia's means of production. Calling Scandinavia socialist in or

Keep reading

People complain about the definition of socialism because the socialist mind believes that the word "socialism" means everything that is fashionable and successful. The rest of the world knows that “socialism” has a real, dictionary definition that describes objective criteria that can be applied.

There is not a single "successful" country in the world that is socialist by dictionary definition. The Nordic countries are not socialist, period. The governments of Sweden, Finland and Norway collectively own only a small portion of Scandinavia's means of production. Calling Scandinavia socialist to fit into an agenda, just to be able to say that "socialism" is effective in Scandinavia, is completely dishonest.

What your question is implying is that antisocialists object to the definition of socialism, because it is successful, and that antisocialists are being less than honest about it. That is the exact opposite of the truth.

Socialists object to the definition of socialism because socialism has never, ever, succeeded, but the idea is romantic, and socialists are in the unenviable position of trying to convince others that this system with a horrible track record is actually preferable to the system with the best track record. Socialists are in a position to try to convince the masses to trade their Porche for a Pinto and then pay a hefty premium on top of the trade-in. The only way to do that is to lie and get all the slimy salesman tactics out of the book. In this case, the idea is to pervert the definition of socialism until it means almost nothing.

To say that welfare states in countries with high taxes and redistribution are "socialism" is not an "objection", it is a blatant, blatant and unmistakable lie. It is the redefinition of racism "power plus prejudice" applied to the economy. This socialist lie was designed to muddy the waters. After all, if the definition of socialism doesn't change, how could socialists hide their record from uninformed young people who still don't know any better?

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.