0
votes

Socialism: What’s All The Fuss?

posted April 10, 2009 - 12:31pm
Socialism: What’s All The Fuss?

First of all, I need to let you know that I am politically ignorant. I do not study politics, I do not follow politics, but I hear about politics. I hear the name-calling and accusations of political parties against each other and of the public against the government. I have even thrown out my opinions of some issues. They may be perceived as juvenile opinions by most, however, they are the opinions of the uninformed, and I am sure I am not alone.

So there you have it, my political confession and with my ignorance I ask, what is all the fuss about socialism?

Are we not already a socialistic country to a large extent? I ask this even with my limited understanding of what socialism is. From what I have read socialism is:

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism)

With this definition, as far as California goes… the climate may be nice, but the government, from the State, to the County to the City meets this definition. Of course, all these governments refer back to the Federal Government in reference to; any statute found to be in contradiction of the Federal Government, the federal statute takes precedent. (This is paraphrased of course)

In California, if you own your own business, you have a mountain of paperwork for the city, the county, the state and the federal government, all asking the same thing but on a different form, which boils down to; how much of the money you earn do we get?

Let’s see, to operate a business cities require a business license, once that is filed, you receive a yearly form to fill out asking how much money you made in that city, of that amount they want their cut. Then the county steps in or if you are not governed by a city they are first in line. The county asks for their cut, not to mention the expense and forms during the year for permits for building, plumbing, manufacturing, etc. Then of course the State steps in. They ask for their cut of your profits, they also demand that you pay for government control of how you run your business. They have their own licenses that must be paid for and other requirements to be met, depending on the type of business you run; Contractors’ license, environmental rules and regulations, Vehicle registrations, smog requirements, gasoline taxes, rules on how the gas must be formulated, etc. All these rules and regulations give control to the government, then at the end of the year or quarterly, we give away a portion of out profits. So, do we really own our business or does the government? It goes even deeper than money in some cases, the governments set rules of operation, what times you can conduct certain types of business, which roads you may drive on, what types of products you may deliver and who you may deliver it to. Not to mention the rules governing whom you may sell to, other businesses or public, depending on the forms you fill out.

As far as land goes, you do not own it, you pay rent on it. It is called property tax and you may only do on your property what the government permits. Of course, then along came the homeowner associations, the “private communities” that have a whole new set of rules to follow and monthly “dues” to pay for living on the land within its dominion.

So, from a politically ignorant Californian, what is all the fuss about with socialism and Obama?

Sign up here to Post a comment

MJ Dakota's Xombyte



Comments

political sanity?

Hi Martin, as you say, ironic that the starting premisses of Marxism and libertarian-anarchism are almost the same. Indeed, anarcho-syndicalism is not very far from communism - in theory, that is, rather than the communist dictatorships that sprang up. However, I think the logical arrows of consequences are crucially different: in anarchism social benefits are a consequence of personal freedom and choices; in socialism/communism personal fulfilment is a consequence of social order. The latter may be true as a political theory of ant colonies, but has now been proved to be wholly inaccurate for humans. I have not had to live under communism, but half my family has so we have had intimate knowledge of how the system operates in reality. The biggest lie is that of social equality. Under communism there are still the haves and have-nots; it's just that politics is the only game in town. Heads of industries are political appointments, university professors are political appointments, anything that moves does so only under political power. To maintain the facade that this is an egalitarian system the political class cannot pay itself huge sums of money, instead they reward themselves with the same lifestyle of the wealthy: the country mansion, the villa by the sea, the pick of the best food (rather than queueing for bread at 5am only to find it sold out by 7am and you're still in line), unrationed petrol, and so on. If you step out of line such privileges are removed and given to the next apparatchik - no money need change hands, just keys and permits. Are the USA and Europe heading in that direction from the other side, just as Russia and China are abandoning large parts of their communist experiments? Is there any way to stop this? Well, the problem in the USA (and the UK) is that the democratic system being used results in the winning party having a disproportionately high majority compared to the popular vote. Apologists insist that strong government is good - how good was it for you? I think the only route is to do like some of the minority parties in Europe have done, like the Greens, and start at the grassroots level. Get people elected who you trust, from county level through to state. The main aim should be to make Congress representative of the popular vote. Does this lead to weak governments? In the USA you don't really elect a government, you vote for a president who then picks his own unelected government officials. Without congressional support the president has to rule through executive orders - a slippery slope to dictatorship (just do a search of what kinds of laws are being passed by executive orders). But congressional pluralism might at least result in some sanity and logic coming back into politics. Oh, if only! Join Xomba Here

Just trying to learn

Thank you Champagnedreams. I hope that my questioning will help others to understand as well as myself. MJ - Sending happy thoughts and Smiles! Avatar: Betrayal and Retribution http://www.valkyrieart.com/Poser1.html

Brilliant

Absolutely brilliant. Thoroughly enjoyed your article. Make a lot of money writing on Xomba. Join Xomba here. View My Profile.

Make a lot of money writing on Xomba. Join Xomba here. View My Profile.

Thank you AAT2

Although Martin did not assume incorrectly, thank you for the definitions. I will add a bit more to that for the context of this post... The politicians are the Haves; the ones who own the power and control of their lives because of money and inflict this control over the ones who Have Not, those who do not have the money, the power or control of their lives. The control is not there becauase the haves are taking it and their money. MJ - Sending happy thoughts and Smiles! Avatar: Betrayal and Retribution http://www.valkyrieart.com/Poser1.html

The Accepted Definition of the Haves and Have Nots

Don't apologise for assuming incorrectly. The accepted definition is the Haves are owners, monied and in control of their lives and the Have Nots don't own, don't earn and have no control of their lives.

AndAnotherThing2 writes COMEDYand is Xomba's first featured HISTORIAN

Exactly what is meant

That is exactly what I meant. The politicians versus the people. The politicians tend to forget how they got there and think they are invincable. Granted they have gotten away with a lot that the average citizen hasn't, but it tends to catch up to them come election time. I think that when it comes time for seante or congress, the candidates are in for some hard lessons and they will have to work to get the votes. I also see a bit of a shake up as far as recalls of officials. People just aren't going to let the government do as they wish for too much longer. MJ - Sending happy thoughts and Smiles! Avatar: Betrayal and Retribution http://www.valkyrieart.com/Poser1.html

Total Socialism

Glad you liked it:) altough it's not my brainchild... I agree total socialism, as in communism, will never come to America. But once the ball starts rolling it can cause a lot of damage along its path. I live in a social democracy myself and it functions like a self-fulfilling prophecy where one failed government initiative leads to another accompanied with ever expanding bureaucracy. Luckily for the US you're a constitutional republic, that should in principle make it easier to prevent the progress of socialism, in Norway we have parliamentarism which essentially means majority rule, and that's a bad thing for liberty as the parliament can pass just about any law as long as there's a majority in favor. There are of course different degrees of socialism but all variations strive towards the same ultimate end, which is the utopian classless society in which, as Marx put it, the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, ironically this is the starting point of classical liberalism/libertarianism. Socialism in all it's forms will always strive to achieve that end. I'm not sure I got that part about the 'haves' and 'have nots'... Sorry:| English is not my native language:) I assume the 'haves' represents the politicians and government and 'have nots' represents the general public in this context?

Awesome Martin!

I like that lesson, no innuendo, no hidden, 'buts'. Simple facts that are easy to follow. Even though I believe socialism is here, to some extent, I still feel that I should do my best, whether or not Tom, Dick and Harry do, I feel obligated for myself. I also think that somewhere within my blinders I don't believe that total socialism will come to the US. It will be a fight to keep it out, but I just don't think it will happen. I would venture to say that the 'haves' are trying to scare the competition into being lazy so they can have more. It's a cut-throat society. Instill fear and laziness in population and go about your way with your nose in the air. Only the 'have-nots' have something the 'haves' tend to ignore, spirit and the will to survive. When the chips finally settle a bit, I think the 'have-nots' will suprise the 'haves'. Hope that makes sense. MJ - Sending happy thoughts and Smiles! Avatar: Betrayal and Retribution http://www.valkyrieart.com/Poser1.html

A Lesson on Socialism

You're welcome:) Here's another lesson on socialism for you;) An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked - and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer for all, for society. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. He said that all grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone was given a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who hadn't studied much for the first test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren't motivated to study hard again, and they decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed .... and the professor told them that the socialism they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed.

Yes it is already here

The real problem is that it isn’t only the President, he is a small part of the equation under normal circumstances. We now have a congress that is more aggressive than the President himself. Congress has been and will continue to try and get a hold of our children at earlier ages than before. Congress has the NEA on their side in most instances who are “in the tank” with most of these socialist ideals. Once you have the children indoctrinated into thinking about “social justice” it’s only a matter of time before you have the majority thinking the way government wants them to. They no longer have the ability or desire to think for themselves and they’ve lost the ability to analyze a situation on any common sense terms. The future of a society that thinks on these terms is now totally reliant on someone to tell them how they are “supposed” to think, i.e. government. The reason America has remained strong for so many years is because of the checks on government that were put into the US Constitution. That is why we have three branches of government, this is why some bills can only originate in the House while others can only originate in the Senate. This is why a two party system has worked for so long. What we are seeing now is an ever increasing number of indoctrinated people who have become politicians and are starting to force their agendas through at light speed. Take a look at Obama’s campaign, that by the way still hasn’t ended, all this talk about change and the likes. I have to say that the Republicans over the last 6 years went way too far and totally lost their conservative roots, but look at the Democrats now. Just look at the response the “TEA Parties” are getting from the media in the last couple days. You don’t see anything but criticism, name calling and denial that Americans are not going to stand for this garbage. MSNBC has got to be the absolute worst of those in their criticism. It is their 1st amendment right to disagree, but when Keith Olberman can’t accept that this is a grass roots movement. He along with the so called Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow have been calling them tea bagging parties. Look up the definition of tea bagging and tell me how anyone can take these two seriously at all. When liberals find themselves up against a wall, they always turn to name calling and derogatory remarks because they can’t understand why something is happening. "Peace through strength,weakness only invites aggression" Ronald Regan

"Peace through strength,weakness only invites aggression"
Ronald Regan

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member