* except for publically funded, government operated; police departments, refuse collection, postal service, public schools, public libraries, metro transport, regional trains, the subway, state and federal highway agencies and many other all-American 'socialist' institutions .
Thanks to Danimo for inspiring this post.
16 comments:
Roland, you really need to surround yourself with more intelligent people.
Law enforcement-patently not socialist, garbage collection-not a federal program, schools-decidedly broken, but not constitutionally covered, all methods of public transportation-supposedly self-supporting, so NOT socialist, federal highways-completely unconstitutional.
NONE of these programs are evidence of socialism at all, either, except to people that do not understand that socialism is, by definition, government ownership and control of industry.
The next one that the anti-fact crowd will come up with shall be the military is a socialist program. Please, tell your friends to learn something, just ONE THING, before they speak. Then they will not look so dumb to normal people.
Ah, my dear Deux Chiens, I believe it is you who does not fully appreciate what socialism is - PUBLIC ownership. There was this chap called Karl Marx (you might have heard of him) who wrote that the people should own industry to prevent fat cats getting rich off the worker's toils.
So the examples I've given - like the 'public company' MTA, which controls public transport in New York - are valid examples of REAL socialism. It's a PUBLICLY OWNED company just like 'socialist' British Rail was in Britain.
There's no rule that says socialist institutions can't be profitable/self sustaining. In fact, if you knew anything about socialism (sadly, no conservative actually seems to) you'd know that that was the point of them.
Where I live, a decidedly 'socialist' democrat state, some refuse collection is done by teams and trucks owned and operated by the local government; socialist.
Public libraries - owned and operated by state and local government; socialist.
Public schools; socialist.
Anything that is owned and operated by the government is 'publicaly owned' (because, via our vote, we supposedly have power over it) and by it's very definition socialist.
Conservatives who accuse Obama of socialism simply don't understand what it is and IGNORE the fact that America is, in many respects, just as socialist as some European countries!
By the way - not advocating socialism. Doesn't work very well in my opinion. Just showing up how daft some of these ridiculous bumper stickers are.
Roland, while it is great that you actually believe that government ownership is "public" ownership, in a socialist country, the government doesn't ANSWER to anyone but government. Do you see your utter misrepresentation?
The public transportation in NY is supposed financed by the USERS' fees that they pay. Of course, it loses money, so therefore the difference is made up in taxes. Do you see your utter misrepresentation there?
Where the trash is collected by gov't, ONLY the people that use that service pay additional taxes on their water bill or whatever to pay for that service. Do you see your utter misrepresentation there?
I agree that libraries have devolved into a money hog on the system, however most collect money at the local level to "help" with their financing and thousands were financed by the donations from Carnegie.
Public schools are SUPPOSED to be paid for with local property taxes, only since LBJ's administration has the federal gov't been involved. And the lunch program is where they made that power grab. The Department of Education is only 29 years old. Jimmy Carter started it.
Facts, Roland.
"The public transportation in NY is supposed financed by the USERS' fees that they pay. Of course, it loses money, so therefore the difference is made up in taxes."
so, um... socialist, then.
You have no understanding of what socialism is, so let me break it down for you:
"state or cooperative ownership and administration"
You seem to believe that socialist entities HAVE to be funded by the taxpayer. NOT TRUE.
You seem to believe that socialist entities HAVE to be unprofitable. NOT TRUE.
The only criteria for something to be considered socialist is that it is owned by the state or a cooperative.
You local coop farmer's market? Socialist, bub.
Socialist companies and organisations are MEANT to be self sustaining and profitable. The fact that they're not means they fail - by socialist criteria as well as capitalist.
You have drunk the kool aid and spoon-fed yourself too much of the right wing's retarded propaganda. They simply DON'T or CAN'T comprehend what socialism ACTUALLY is. We live in a 'mixed economy' with a blend of private and public industries.
This isn't rocket science, Two Dogs. This is stuff you can find in any text book or history book you care to open.
Roland, first things first, socialism is GOVERNMENT ownership of industry. It is nothing else, but that. It is not a philosophy like Marx opined, it is simply government ownership of industry.
A farmer's co-op, where farmers get together to market their produce in a common location is NOT socialism. It is not.
There has never been, in the history of socialism, a single profitable enterprise. Whether by design, or whether by happenstance, it does not matter. Socialism does not produce a profit ever, in anything.
By your very, very wrong definition, EVERYTHING is socialism. For me to make a profit in my business, I require a cooperative with another party. This is true in any endeavor, profit is made and business is conducted between two or more parties, your idea of "cooperative." Your very wrong definition of socialism is just silly and hopefully you can see that.
You have drunk the Kool-Aid of the anti-intellectual crowd that makes all attempts to redefine words. Sorry, you are wrong, but I am certain that you will not recognize that.
You wrote: "socialism is GOVERNMENT ownership of industry."
Er... NO. No it's not. No, it's very clearly not, because the people who INVENTED socialism said it wasn't. And they should know since they INVENTED THE CONCEPT.
Socialism is: "state or cooperative ownership and administration"
YOU are the one redefining socialism, because you think you know what it is - but you don't!
You have an idea of what you think it is in your head and my attempts to show you what socialism REALLY is (by, you know, showing you it's dictionary definition, referencing Karl Marx, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon and Robert Owen) is not RE-defining it. It's 'defining' it. As in, telling you what it is.
Perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica would be good enough for you:
"Social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."
Financial and Investment Dictionary:
"Political-economic doctrine that, unlike Capitalism, seeks a cooperative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the government or collectively by the people."
Colombia Encyclopedia? "general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management."
I'm not making this up, Two Dogs. I'm presenting cold, hard, clinical evidence that proves my point.
Again, "By your very, very wrong definition, EVERYTHING is socialism."
Let's leave it at that, you cannot see the truth even though the glaring contradictions of your beliefs are screaming it at you.
But, type this into Google: "define: socialism"
The VERY first words after it completes its search are these: "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry."
Just saying.
"define socialism" came up with "NOUN: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Google fail, apparently. It agrees with me!
Besides, just because something's top google ranked, it doesn't mean it's true. You used to google 'miserable failure' and it would come up with Goerge Bush's biography!
Obviously, you need Google lessons.
Verbatim from Google, top of page:
Definitions of socialism on the Web:
* a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
* an economic system based on state ownership of capital
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
From Princeton, no less!
That's one definition against my five or six, but fair play -
Post Office, state owned = socialist.
My local refuse trucks, owned by township = socialist
Library, owned by township = socialist
Erm... Still seems to support my theory...
But seriously, Two Dogs. You can't base your argument off ONE internet definition, when I've given you Karl Marx's version, Britannica's... Half a dozen that explain that 'socialism' is a broader church than what you think it is.
You're being deliberately obtuse to rile me up, you naughty dawg!
Going through the list:
Police departments (and other law enforcement) have to be government run, as they rely on powers only the government has.
Refuse collection is privately run, at least around here. (Under a "competitively" bid contract... scare quotes due to the mob.)
The postal service is a government sponsored corporation, not part of the government. Unfortunately, it's largely protected from competition.
Public schools and libraries shouldn't be government run.
The MTA is a government sponsored corporation.
There's a big difference between what you have listed here, and what Obama is doing. Everything you've listed has a geographic component to it, which tends to mean a natural monopoly, and little to no competiton.
(Exception: The USPS has competition from UPS and FedEx. But they compete in tangental markets, as they're forbidden from delivering non-urgent mail.)
Compare this to Obama nationalizing the auto industry. There, we have a competitive industry where many companies are doing reasonably well (Ford, Toyta, etc.) and some (due to poor choices) are doing poorly (GM, Chrysler). It seems a little unfair... and a lot socialist... for the government to take over a competitive industry like that.
I'll also note that it is correct to oppose increasing socialism, even we were unable to stop other areas from being taken over by the government.
ron, i'm glad i could inspire you in some small way. ^_^ together maybe we can rid the world of all political bumper stickers; no one wants to see *anyone* else's agenda on their way to school, work, or play! i can at least see the purpose of campaign stickers, annoying as everyone's (but mine) are. ;P
two dogs, please don't insult my intelligence without a long look in the mirror. as a matter of fact, DON'T insult my intelligence. your arguments are circular and petty. we're not arguing *how* or *why* these things are socialist; we're saying they *are*. period. so if you wanna be so "american," then don't ever call 911, send your kids to public education programs (even if they're subsidized by community offerings), or check out a free book from the library. no single political ideology encompasses the actual goings-on in a society of our size. it is just not feasibly possible, sorry.
and everybody: PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SOCIALISM" AND A "SOCIALIST" CONSTRUCT!!!
{{ d a n i m o }}, it is not possible to insult your intelligence.
and that is why I'm *not* a conservative, but a libertarian. Vive le freedom!
Post a Comment