i use the term "socialism" lose in correspondence with what the majority assumes socialism to be. according to their definition, socialism is when the government provides goods or services pubically rather than private firms. in this respect, then police force would be privitized so only those who have the money would report a crime and most people would get off with murder, etc, national security would be a non-issue as nation is a collective, education would be privitized so only the children who grew up in rich families could afford education and thus be able to read and write. thus crime rates would soar, people would fear from their lives, the majority of people would be ignorant as they are unable to go to school, and basically it would be a complete mess. this is the opposite of socialism. i would rather have socialism then pure unregulated capitalism, which implies anarchy.
There’s some problems with your definition of state socialism. Nothing would be privatized, including the police force and education. You said it yourself "…the government provides goods or services publicly rather than private firms."
I’m opposed to state socialism, and I agree that the outcome would be horrible. I’m just correcting your definition. It’s not that a state calling itself "socialist" couldn’t privatize certain services, they certainly could, and probably would, but they would no longer be consistently socialist.
Pure, unregulated capitalism is not anarchism. The only people who claim so are the so-called "anarcho-capitalists." All other anarchists reject capitalism on the grounds that it creates unnecessary and unjustified disparities in wealth and requires hierarchical relationships in the workplace. Since anarchists are reject oppression and unjustified authority, they also reject capitalism. Most anarchists are non-statist socialists who support some kind of participation in workers’ councils by free association.
People love socialism! People LOVE public roads, public parks, public beaches, free air, public water, they love having their food inspected so they don’t die from poison, etc. Its amazing how well people have been programmed/propagandized against socialism. Its just a word. Yet people are so terrified of it they’d rather settle for a health care system that can drop them as soon as they get sick, and charge them horrendous amounts of money, than get good health care like the rest of the people in the industrialized world get. Oh well,human nature, I guess.
References :
I think you have mixed social obligation with socialism. The government provides education, national security, national infrastructure and legal enforcement. Socialism goes way beyond social services. It aims to make all people equal regardless of any characteristic, treating all people like they were one. I agree I would not support anarchy, but I’m no fan of socialism either. Even though we have issues in this country, it still beats other choices of places to live for me.
References :
Think over your question and then reask, you make no sense.
References :
I think a lot of anti-socialists would disagree with your definition. Speaking for myself, as a free-market conservative, I believe in limited government, not the absence of government. Socialism worries capitalists because it constantly seeks more government. It also promotes government as the solution to issues that, in a federal system like the U.S., should be handled by state and local governments. Part of the appeal of federalism is that it acts as a check against any attempt to create an omnipresent central government.
References :
i think anarchism wouldnt be as bad as many people believe. Most people i think would continue on with their lives, happy they dont have to pay taxes anymore.
After a period of complete insanity, many of those who are evil would find their demise. I know what i would do to protect my stuff and my family and my friends.
My friends would all do the same, so i don’t have any true fears about it.
As for dump people everywhere, we have an education system in which many people don’t even graduate. Alot of kids drop out, and college isn’t excatly cheap.
I know my children would be well educated, as i wouldn’t allow them to not be. If i had to teach them myself, i would, and fell i could do better then most of our public schools.
Socialism gets a bad rap for whatever reasons, but im pretty flexible when it comes to dealing with things.
References :
People love socialism and hate dictatorships.
If there was a way to separate the two in the public mind, people would eat it up.
Good public roads, quality public schools, good health care, police, fire departments, and everything else for public good are all socialist ideas.
It is a shame that all of the socialist nations thus far have had terrible dictators who don’t actually believe in socialism.
When the U.S.S.R. began, it was a socialistic democracy, it was only until the totalitarian views of Stalin took over that it became the regime people know it as now.
Things happened the same way in Cuba.
Either way, I believe in freedom, and I believe with the ideals of anarchism, but I accept that it is not possible whatsoever, even less so than socialism. Too bad.
References :
anytime I see the term anarchism, I turn to the animal kingdom and see how its worked for them
sadly it’s not reality
To hit your points one by one
no need for government providing goods and services
no need for private firms either
no need for protection
no need for education just common natural sense
My mate would prefer me over your weak controlled and protected other
and the strength would be shown in our offspring
as the weak dependant like yourself died out
strength in evolution? strength in nature? agree?
dependency is so weak
even in the "human kingdom"
References :
In a pure socialism system everybody is equal, as long as in if this socialist system the leaders aren’t all powerful and corrupt.
It worked quite well for the American Indian. Most elected their chiefs for a period of time and as in the Cherokee Nation, the women were the heads of family or clan and were often elected to be chief. Each person had their duties and the strength and well being depended on their contributions to the clan. All fared equally, in good times and bad.
Now if this could be managed among the American people and our leaders would listen to the people, it would work, but we couldn’t have the strong government we have now. Each village, town, city, county, state would have to have their leaders and each would have to have an equal voice. It will not work when there is greed and corruption at the top levels as we have in DC. They pretend to listen and then go ahead with their own agenda.
This is not socialism nor Capitalism. It is a crime and has stolen our trust and faith in our leaders.
References :
There’s some problems with your definition of state socialism. Nothing would be privatized, including the police force and education. You said it yourself "…the government provides goods or services publicly rather than private firms."
I’m opposed to state socialism, and I agree that the outcome would be horrible. I’m just correcting your definition. It’s not that a state calling itself "socialist" couldn’t privatize certain services, they certainly could, and probably would, but they would no longer be consistently socialist.
Pure, unregulated capitalism is not anarchism. The only people who claim so are the so-called "anarcho-capitalists." All other anarchists reject capitalism on the grounds that it creates unnecessary and unjustified disparities in wealth and requires hierarchical relationships in the workplace. Since anarchists are reject oppression and unjustified authority, they also reject capitalism. Most anarchists are non-statist socialists who support some kind of participation in workers’ councils by free association.
References :