‘Hopey-Changey’ Framing of Socialism is Dangerous in the Extreme
Another sodahead discussion on defining socialism:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating common market paradigms often based in state, internationally merged corporations and collective ownership which addresses the administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals through theories of egalitarian distribution and regulation of wealth………so this is the wikipedia definition….pls highlight your points of contention…..egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities?…… common market paradigms?…..thank you
Egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities. Common market paradigms.
Nice, pleasant terms. Who wouldn’t want to believe in the promise of such a wholesome, kumbaya society. The problem with phrases and descriptions such as those is that they are simply non-specific, vague and ambiguous at best. Nothing more. The problem with framing an argument or discussion about socialism is that for each person their own point of view defines it differently. You may see equality and freedom from injustice, while I may see unfair practices giving opportunity to ‘who’ someone is rather that ‘what’ someone does. Who wouldn’t want an end to socio-economic distress and imbalance? But the reality is what it is… "… inequality of some kind will always be a characteristic of the human condition." W. J. Stankiewicz
Simplified? Taking, by mandate, from those that do and giving to those that don’t, and won’t, will never GROW a strong, healthy, productive society; it will never stimulate the economy, education, health care or technological advances. In a mixed liberal/conservative/capitalist society where the poor and sick are cared for, where the middle class is allowed to make their own decisions and the successful and affluent are allowed to function as producers and economic catalysts is a society that can be healthy, potent and beneficial to everyone. The key, imo, is a centrist approach. There must needs, of course, be some redistribution of wealth to care for those who CANnot (not WILL not) care for themselves. Anything more and it then becomes the elite ‘deciders’ making decisions for ‘the masses’. Forced (so-called equal) redistribution, forced or mandatory compliance in some dream of an egalitarian utopian society, will merely grease the skids and hasten the death of America.
No one wins when collectivism or excessive liberal socialism replaces individuality no matter how pleasantly it is explained or defined.
NDMY7jfdwhnyR
[Reply]