More social democrat probably is best description of me. As a youngster j would say socialist and I'm still considerably to the left politically but I'm not so sure about Clause IV as I was then.
Original Clause IV text
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
@OldBrit “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
I do not trust any document that talks about what is equitable. They are insidious. Normal people do not talk about what is just and what is fair, especially when it comes to politics and economics. It isn't right. It is a snake that is full of poison and is going to bite.
Socialist is a word than MAGAts and extreme righties want to use to denigrate Democrats. Real democrats are not socialists. We are capitalists who believe that capitalism needs more controls because our existing laws favor the wealthy and unequally funnel money to them (who by the way own the lawmakers).
You only need one example to demonstrate that what I said is true: The top 144 individuals in America own more wealth than the bottom 155,000,000 people.
@houseonfire Why are you asking me that? I'm a liberal and a capitalist. I don't think socialism prevents people from making money though. In America we have some controls on our form of capitalism but I believe we need more.
Since you seem to be interested you should do some research and answer your own question and let us know what you find.
I the sense that there are many social programs I believe should be the responsibility of the government, yes. I guess Social Democrat might be the closest definition, even though that is so rarely used a phrase here in the US. I believe it it the responsibility of the government to do for people what they cannot do for themselves.
@ChipmunkErnie The government are not part of the joint effort. They use money from the taxpayer to fund government administrations we do not need, education that does not educate, research we do not want, and other projects no one has asked for. Western governments also use it to import foreign peoples.
Im a democratic socislist. Socialism to me is a system that looks out for the best interests of everyone. Basic needs of society (citizens) come first. Food shelter education child care utilities and clothing. If everyones' needs were met, war\defense wouldnt be necessary. War funding (and interest on past military funding) is the largest part of the U.S. federal budget after social security (retirees). Therefore socialism would cut the military and use the savings on infrastructure and meeting the needs of citizens. Based on polling the most needed improvements could be evaluated maybe yearly. Instead politics and war funding. Military + interest (22+6%=28%), and social security (17%) . That means 45% of the federal budget is accounted for by those two.
@emiliya needs being met is not the same as everything they want. You work to earn to buy what you need. Food water shelter are requirements. Medical and child care are needs. I desire entertainmemt; do i need streaming services? Not for survival! Scarcity and distribution of resources causes conflict. Therefore if all needs are met why fight? Simple. You seem to be focused on the envy side. Having more than or being "better off". If you have what you need what is there to be disatisfied enough about to go to war over? Religion? Procreation? Property?
@jehova History shows us that your view is a very naive one. Others do not share it. What is a need to one man may not be a need to you. What is enough for you may not be enough for another man.
@emiliya and history tells us greed is human and capitalism\"free market" is exploitation of the lowest rung in society for profit. Again needs and wants are not the same needs are what is required to survive. A human "needs" food water and shelter. Wants are just that unneeded desire. Immature individuals think the internet or a luxury car are needs. Spoiled. So its all what we are accustomed to. Im "happy" satisfied being single in my family house i eat have water have a bed all the clothes i need. What do i lack for that would leave another dissatisfied.
I believe in social programs, but not Socialism. I believe a good government "does for the people what the people can not do for themselves collectively." Hence feeding the poor, including making sure underprivileged children do not go to bed hungry.
if I think about it I guess I am. he works, I don't, he gives me money, a place to live, health care, food clothing and a car to drive. I clean house, cook and take care of the kids. maybe I should stop identifying as an American-Italian and relate as an Illegal alien
@saragoodtimes no, you are a stay home wife. Not the same. Socialism is a specific political philosophy that has become made into a position of hate for the radical right who have no idea why some socialism is part of modern society for it to function for the good of the people
Encourages complacency at best and pure lazy at its worst. As one quick comparison. Say in school the class is total socialism which means all get the same grade. The top ones start out working hard and score high but still receive the same grade as the under achievers and the ones who do nothing. So, some are getting fair grades for doing nothing and the ones working hard also get the same grade. So, finally you get little to no effort from anybody as why work hard and get the same outcome as ones who do nothing. Simple, also socialism will work until you run out of other people's money..
Of course. The voters should design their own economy and their own communities using their own resources, for the benefit of everyone. That's socialism That's got to include the welfare of individuals.
@ididntknow China. Failure is for the West! You don't want socialism. You don't want change. Taiwan, Ukraine and Israel getting arms today! Name all the populations who don't mind as long as they're getting a good cut - that's the West!
No , we have some socialist type programs in the USA but we are still mainly capitalists Socialism to me is no private enterprise and the state owns or controls all means of production
@JimboSaturn communism follows socialism for sure, and for the record....
socialism is an economic and political system where all means of production are owned and controlled collectively or by the state, with the aim of eliminating private property and ensuring that goods and services are distributed based on need rather than profit. In this system, the government typically makes all decisions regarding production and distribution to promote equality and meet the basic needs of the population.
@FreeSpirit1 Where did you get that definition, because it's incorrect. Socialist countries all over the world have free markets and private enterprise. That IS NOT the definition of socialism.
Socialism is full democracy. It's democracy, not just of the government, but of all big corporations. That's what Marx and Engels meant when they said the workers should control the means of production.
@BohemianBabe You say you are happy to pay more taxes to the government. Why don't you give the money to charity? Or set up your own bus fare fund charity? Why not give it to an individual?
@emiliya Wie ich schon sagte, identifizieren sich die Armen nicht als Sozialisten, da die meisten Menschen nicht wissen was Sozialismus ist. Aber wenn du den armen Durchschnittsbürger fragst: Sind Gewerkschaften gut oder schlecht? Sie werden sagen: gut. Wenn du sie fragst, ob die Gesundheitsversorgung ein Menschenrecht ist, werden sie ja sagen. Wenn du sie fragst, ob die Öffentlichkeit wesentliche Dienstleistungen kontrollieren sollte, werden sie ja sagen. Die Menschen unterstützen sozialistische Politik, auch wenn sie sich nicht als Sozialisten bezeichnen.
Ich spende zwar für wohltätige Zwecke, aber wie ich schon sagte, systemische Probleme erfordern systemische Lösungen. Ich kann für wohltätige Zwecke spenden, aber das wird die Armut in einem ganzen Land nicht beseitigen. Das kann nur durch den Einsatz der Regierung erreicht werden.
On a basic level the public ownership of the means of production and control of the economy and society. Democracy that is actually democratic. Not an elected monarchy.
A decenralized command economy that works for the majority not a tiny minority of oligarchs.
A society where teaching children sharing is caring is not lying to them.
A society where basic needs for survival are non negotiatbles.
A society were education is valued not actively discouraged unless it makes someone else profit.
Hell, no! Socialism is a failed system that exploits the workers, and offers no hope of improvement or advancement, while enriching the few at the top.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
This is from the original source, published in 1848.
It's not about what socialism is to any individual. Socialism does away with the concept of the individual.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
We've seen examples of Socialism in the last century.
(Mods: Not ONE single insult here. Nothing personal whatsoever. Nothing racist. Just facts.)
@samueltyler2But socialism does not include mass murder, where did you find that in any dictionary?
Actually, history disagrees with that ignorant statement.
Just look at the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Most frequently, the states and events which are studied and included in death toll estimates are the Holodomor and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union, the Great Chinese Famine and the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China, and the Cambodian genocide in Democratic Kampuchea (now Cambodia). Estimates of individuals killed range from a low of 10–20 million to as high as 148 million.
@Arantxa Madre mía! I know it is French. I replied with an insult in Spanish. The languages I know are Hebrew, Russian, Spanish, and English. I speak well in German.
I have no desire to speak French. I have never learned French, although I understood the nonsense you wrote.
@Arantxa Es una versión diluida. Piensa en Andrew Tate, pero con un poco menos de músculo y un poco más (no mucho) de humildad. Es lo mismo, sea como sea. No tengo tiempo para el gobierno. Los gobiernos son abusivos, especialmente los gobiernos occidentales europeos que mienten. Estados Unidos, Hungría, Rusia y Bielorrusia parecen ser la única esperanza para los pueblos europeos, y en cierta medida los gobiernos mediterráneos.
