Bitcoin Forum

Apparently socialism (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/16/socialism-most-looked-up-word-2015-merriam-webster-bernie-sanders) is the most looked up word of 2015.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

ps. for those that don't know, you needn't bother looking it up as you have practicaldreamer at hand.

This is socialism (Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution of old) :-

            "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."


The means of production are, basically, land+labour+capital.


Its interesting, anyhow, that the US is looking up socialism - I suppose it already has a good idea what libertarianism means.

Blame some center-left US presidential candidate for calling himself "socialist", and debated of whether he really is or just pretends to be, and what the true definition of "socialist" is, and how an American could dare to, and what about Hollande, Pasok or PSOE... ;)

Any wonder? Perhaps now Americans will come to learn there is a difference between socialism and communism.

Not a bad thing if people are learning about politics. Looking up the word doesn't mean they agree  :)

TBH I'd be all for doing away with the word altogether. Too many perceived negative connotations for too many gullible people, bound up in the chains of their overlords values, norms and beliefs (and who, incredibly, are honoured to think that they are their own).

I'd maybe call it, simply, "Sharing" - no "ism" involved.

We could maybe get a good 10 years out of "Sharing" before that word too is smeared, slandered, mocked, crucified, ridiculed, undermined, bullied and shat upon beyond all recognition, thereby rendering it completely useless.

Then we could call it something else.


It wouldn't matter - the idea is the same.


"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Problem is that some political have become so abused, corrupted, confused + devoid of clear meaning through time as to be best worth discarding altogether.

i know what for the reason it is , people replace democracy with a better political system.. the answer is socialism..

I had a discussion about this with someone the other day, they had exactly this misconception, but I wasn't 100% sure what the difference is.

As far as I can tell, the way Marx talked about it anyway, is that socialism is a logical step towards communism, but not the same thing.

Socialism involves the sharing of economic resources fairly between the population, whereas communism includes this, but also involves breaking down the class system itself. With communism, the workers actually own everything, and are paid based on their need rather than the work they've done. But with socialism, they are instead paid based on the work they've done, and the state owns everything.

Am I thinking along the right lines? I find it a little complicated if I'm honest...

It will be just curiosity, when Ron Paul came along I found myself looking up Libertarianism and eventually Anarchism many student now aren't taught a thing about what I'd call real politics, they're only taught it in the context of what's mainstream, so they'll likely have never heard of Socialism before.


That's correct to an extent, Socialism and Communism in general revolves around controlling the means of production, in short they both want to control the factories, the infastructure, we all use or rely on, on a daily basis. The differences between Socialism and Communism are what methods they use to achieve that. I don't know about Socialism being about being controlled by the state, I'm not sure about that, but Communism definitely is about the state, this is why you see so many self-declared Communist states devolve into a dictatorship because that's pretty much what they're advocating but they make it sound nice by claiming wealth will be redistributed and everyone will be better off.

What's very interesting though is a lot of self-proclaimed Socialists and Communists you'll find at universities and so on have absolutely no fucking clue about this, they're just all about taxing the rich and think that by all of a sudden taking over the government everything's going to fix itself, they have no real knowledge of what their own ideology is about. I happen to know this because I went onto a supposedly left wing Anarchist subreddit and they pretty much displayed that, the left seems to be entirely co-opted by feminists now that only care about gender or identity politics and attacking people over trivial bullshit.

I am shocked, amazed, and encouraged that for once I didn't have to be the one to explain this to people here. Great summary of socialism. On a related note, Marx actually wrote about feminism in his original writings and used that ideology as one of his groups of "disaffected masses" to control legions of "useful idiots" to spout his Marxist ideologies under cover of activist groups which are really more about socialism than activism on the subject they claim to support. In effect Marx created feminism as it is known today as a social movement.

the way i see it, socialism is more of an economic model that revolves around the idea of equal distribution of resources (as we know). communism however, i see it as a societal / government model that implements socialism as its economic policy / base for decisions. I make this distinction on the basis that a society or government is composed of two main parts: a political model, and an economic model. as we know, communism does employ the ideals of socialism as its economic model, but in conjunction with a controlling, central political model to accompany it (either based on a single, absolute ruler, or the elite few), resulting in a government controlled, equal distribution of resources to the public. The two of course, go hand in hand.

If you actually go read some of Marx's original writings, he himself describes socialism as a means for delivery of communism.

Republic > Democracy > Marxism > Socialism > Communism

It's quite simple, communism defines a state as machine of oppression. Unlike socialism, communism is introducing a concept of stateless society. That's why frequently used term of "communist state" is an oxymoron by definition. ;)

Maybe in fantasy ideology land communism as a state is an oxymoron, but every communism that has existed has been state communism where profits are privatized and debts are socialized. The communist ideology might claim to want to be stateless, but that doesn't magically make it so. It is a flawed ideology that caters to all the base instincts of common men promising the world and delivering only strife.

Socialism, communism and such ideologies are spreading thanks to MSM brainwashing (and probably to pollution and water fluoridation), naturally these people have to research their latest belief system, while issuing and supporting conservative (or sometimes even semi-fascist) bills in defence of the establishment leftist politicians have to recall what they were originally up for. So there are many-many reasons why people googling socialism :).

I'm guessing that you're referring to either Czechoslovakia or China or Soviet Union, these were/are socialist republics. And this fact is easy to check at wikipedia.org.

Could you provide at least one reference to "communism that has existed"? I'm asking because I don't remember any state of this kind.

Implying Bernie Sanders is really a socialist  ::)
Hell, he isn't even really a democratic socialist, and even they don't want to move the means of production from capitalists to workers.

At most Bernie is a Social Democrat, but calling himself that won't get him votes. His base mostly comprises of wannabe anti-capitalists who are really just capitalists that don't understand the difference between Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, and Socialism.

Is this the part where you tell me no true communism has ever existed? I see in general by your posts in this section you are a reasonably intelligent person, but you are wrong on this one. As a result I am not going to bother insulting your intelligence, but rather suggest you reexamine the historical record of attempts at communism and weigh the pros and cons of the results to other systems of ideology/government/economics, because neither socialism or communism are effective forms of any of those things, unless the effect you seek is destruction of civil society while the oligarchs suck the remaining bits of capital from the charred remains.

https://i.imgur.com/zu0rTzH.jpg]https://i.imgur.com/zu0rTzH.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/BmHkJKL.jpg

At least it's not selfie, butt-hurt, nerdgasm, mansplaining, pwnd, thigh gap, totes, or Kardashian.

Next to the search results could leave photos of some politicians of my country laughing. I think people confuse socialism with freedom.

Socialism has been branded as a bad political ideology, at least here in the States.  This has been nothing more than brainwashing the government put on civilians to get them "pumped up" for a war (WWI, WWII, etc.).  So it's no surprise that most of the older generation are hesitant at liking a democratic socialist, such as Bernie Sanders.

As someone who typically sees the world should work more on the slightly right side of the political spectrum, and have always loved Ron Paul's teachings; I personally think it's gotten to a point where I hate any -ism ideology.

Capitalism, Communism, Libertarianism............ insert whatever political ideology

These ideologies where created and written by people in such a time, where it has become completely irrelevant to today.  We know we don't have unlimited resources, which goes against capitalism... we know Communism tends to lead to a strong handed leader who takes over everything in a bad unfunctional way... we know Libertarianism wont work because some of the ideas suggested in the U.S. constitution are a little outdated and could be reorganized and reworded, which people would NOT like....

I'm all for Math&Science-ism, or maybe Utopianism... the ideology that we make, produce, and live accordingly to what is the most optimal for all of life.

I remember the first time I watched the last Zeitgeist movie "Moving Forward", it just all made sense to me.  If any of you guys haven't watched it yet, take like an hour of your time to watch the (longish) ending to this great documentary.

https://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w?t=1h30m6s

Gee, as someone who does not like Sanders, I thought it was just because he was a loser of a politician who was eminently unlikeable. 

Who would have thought?  It's all because he's a commie?

How come I like Putin then?

Because he's not a commie or like Putin at all... He claims to be a "democratic socialist" which pertains to a different ideology.

I guess he isn't the most charismatic guy either... old, wrinkly, Bernie... You'd be surprised how much support he's gotten with the younger liberal voters though.

id have to read those writings before i were to comment on that, but i can see what youre getting at.

my view, the term 'democratic socialist' refers to his belief or view on how a government should be ran. i posted earlier about how i viewed government as made up of two models, a political and economic model. sanders' view is that a country should be ran democratically, as it is being done so now (more or less) through representative democracy. however, he believes that there should be a socialist framework for how the economy should run, with the government handling production / distribution with a socialist economic model (the public sector prevalent as opposed to the private sector being prevalent, ie capitalism).

communism would refer to the combination of a oligarchical or monarchical government system coupled with a socialist economic system (communist russia). i can also see why sander's economic views are appealing to a lot of people; capitalism has essentially trampled the economic system of the US (1%, all that stuff), and people are willing to look to something different even if they may not know much about it (they hear socialism and they immediately jump to sickle and hammer communism), and its not out of the realm of possibility either. i think thats the major reason why people support trump: theyve had enough of sophisticated - sounding politicians accomplishing nothing, and want to see the polar opposite in power to see if they would get something, anything done to better the country.

You are right but socialism will never be widespread political system.. democracy will be replaced a racist political system.

So the choices are socialism or racism? Please. Pat yourself on the back some more commies.