Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Socialism

I suppose we can start a new thread on socialism. A few of you have attributed many of the economic freedoms and opportunities we enjoy today to the virtues of socialist movements in America. I frankly say: "Horse Hockey!!!!"

The United States has achieved economic superpower status (and has been able to provide an extremely high standard of living for its citizens accordingly) due to free market capitalism - not socialism.

Had socialism been the dominant economic system of the United States in its history, we'd be just another unstable, struggling nation - in fact, we'd probably be a gaggle of nations - in the American hemisphere.

Socialist nation-states all have one thing in common. They FAIL!

» paper_turtle - Socialism

In response to Socialism posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Brian wrote
A few of you have attributed many of the economic freedoms and opportunities we enjoy today to the virtues of socialist movements in America.
.
In the "Christian Nation" thread I said;
reform regarding the workplace and what constitutes a decent wage were helped--greatly--by the early communist/socialist movement.
.
I stand by that. If you refer to Wickipedia on the following topics you will find general information which tends to support my contention. I will search for more specific sources.
.
Communism (under early)
Religious Communism
eight hour day
Labor Unions in the United States
.
The Religious communism article is very interesting--even though it fails to mention the Amana Coommunity (New York and Iowa, circa 1840-1850--and source of Amana refrigerators, BTW).
.
Had socialism been the dominant economic system of the United States in its history . . .
.
I said it had contributed, *not* that it was dominant. Many different movements and ideologies contributed to development of America, economically, politically, and socially. Communism and socialism were only two of them.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Socialism

In response to Socialism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
This is going to be fun.
.
You are soooooooo wrong on this one, Brian. Soooooooooo wrong.
.
:)
.
In fact, this one is going to show that your idea of the Main Man theory of American History--the Prime Mover Theory--is wrong as well.
.
I think we can kick it off with the advent of Jesus when he came against the priesthood for the way they had been abusing the people by putting a yoke on them they wouldn't bear themselves. What did he say--that it would have better for them had they not been born?
.
Pariticpants should gain a little knowledge, for example, of the 1912 presidential elections in the U.S.A. Who were the participants; Taft, Debs, Wilson, and Roosevelt? How on earth did a socialist like Debs get in there? How could he have possibly received any votes?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - But, Main Men

.
But, main men are important in that they become the embodiment of the larger and more significan masses.
.
Joe Hill was such a man, wasn't he?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Terms and distinctions

Let me be clear. I understand a "socialist" as someone who essentially believes the central government should conrol the economy to insure certain outcomes, including a generally equal distribution of wealth and resources.

And a "Communist" is one step more radical than that. He believes that the government should basically OWN all of society's resources and businesses. Socialists want government control. Communists want government ownership. Everything is held in COMMON - hence, communist!

LIBERALS believe in government management of the economy, with the goal of fairer distribution of wealth and assets in mind - but they stop short of calling for outright government ownership and/or control.

I willingly acknowledge that LIBERALS have made some good contributions to America's free market system. But I think you all are overstating the positive influence of socialists and communists.

» paper_turtle - Terms and distinctions

In response to Terms and distinctions posted by BrianTubbs:

Brian,
.
please read the Wickipedia articles I listed. At least read the one on Religious Communism.
.
But I think you all are overstating the positive influence of socialists and communists.
.
Again, all I said was that socialism/communism ***contributed to*** the reforms in labor. Many other isms and ideologies also contributed. Contributed--NOT was a major factor.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - What We Are

In response to Terms and distinctions posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The terms and distinctions have to be understood so we know what we are.
.
What's involved here are five different ideas; democracy, socialism, anarchism, capitalism, and communism.
.
America was never a anarchist, socialist, communist, or a capitalist nation--but it is a democratic republic. That's for starters in this thread. Let's not get started here with a framing that precludes our outcome. In a democratic republic, the people elect representatives that serve the interests of the people. We are not a pure democracy; more so, we are a republic which means we have a government that represents the people.
.
By the end of the ninteenth century, capitalist influences had taken control of our representative form of government to the extent that--pretty much--the major thrust of our economy served the selfish interests of the upper crusts of society. Laws favored business rather than the people. Trusts were running away with our economy; child labor was a national shame; employment benefits for workers were nearly unheard of; working conditions were whatever made money for capital investors; the government supported management by calling out troops and military strength to put down labor unrest; laws were passed that put men in prison for exercising free speech.
.
Now! That was the situation out of which the labor movement grew and it grew with the steady and unrelenting support of socialist and communist agitators and activators. Without those forces, very few benefits would have been won. FDR was forced to acquiese to the demands of the people as the situation had gotten so far out of hand.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Define The Terms

.
We can define the terms.
.
1. Democracy, the people govern directly.
2. Republic, representatives of the people govern
3. Democratic Republic, the people elect the representatives who govern on their behalf.
4. Communism, the people own the means of production and the government operates as a republic but is controlled by a board of experts
5. Socialism, the government can be nearly any kind and it provides the people with a broad variety of social services.
---------------
Off the top of my head. But, you can define these terms more clearly if anyone likes.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Define The Terms

In response to Define The Terms posted by pink101:
.
I forgot to include anarchy that is a system in which there is no effective government control of society.
.
Generally, a republic is designed after Plato's ideas on the same. You can read his treatise on the subject. In its purist form, it lends itself quite readily to communism. Most communist countries are republics.
.
A pure democracy would have the people vote on every issue rather than using a representative form of government. Literally impossible to carry out in a system larger than a several thousand people.
.
A pure socialism is one in which government owns the capital; whereas, socialist refers to a system in which government owns certain means considered vital to the interests of the people such as our Social Security system. Another instance could be when the government owns title to and or controls all vital resouces such as coal, water supplies, oil, healthcare, etc. and where the benefits are fed back into the economy on behalf of the people in general.
.
A capitalist system is one in which the means of production, distribution, and marketing are owned by capital that is controlled by private interests and in which profits are retained by capital and not shared with the people except that the products are made available through sale at a profit.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Socialism

In response to Socialism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Now, we can begin with your first post, Brian.
.
The United States has achieved economic superpower status (and has been able to provide an extremely high standard of living for its citizens accordingly) due to free market capitalism - not socialism.
.
And, that IS the point, is it not?
.
How was that economic superpower status achieved? Your statement almost makes it sound as though the capitalists were altruistic when they began to make money from the efforts of their hard work. Can you address the situation that underlays your comment here? What caused them to decide to provide that "high standard of living" to the citizens? Why did FDR decide to implement the reforms he established during the 1930s?
.

-- posted by pink101