Politics and Religion

View: Tree | Flat

Obviously - to the point of 'SO???"

Posted 5/28/2012 at 2:12:29 PM

Send message
Reviews: 16
Obviously it is not "socialist" to have police or a military.  That is obvious from the fact that non-socialists nations have those institutions.

As for the rest, it is a question of degree.  No country has ever been 100% socialist, capitalist, or communist.  There were private farms and businesses in Russia and Mao's China and in Imperial England, which may have been one of the most "capitilists" states, the government controlled some functions.

When the government controls 10% and the rest is private it is more capitalist.  Inch it up to 20% and it is increasingly socialiast.  Keep going.  Get the point?

Also, it can be done without "owning."  The private sector can control and own Nike, and the state can leave it private, but regulate to the extent where it has real control.  That decreases the capitalistic nature of the society.

If the governemnt controls 23% of society, to use a random, hypothetical number, and then takes over an industry that accounts for 14% of the country, it has become more socialist.

Ironically, the crowd that wants government to keep its hands off of women's bodies, is willing to hand over control of their bodies to the government.   The person who controls the purse, controls who gets the money and how it is spent.


Posted By: willywonka4u
It is not socialist to have a police force or a military. It's not socialist to have a post office or social security either.

If instead of having Nike shoes we had Uncle Sam shoes, then THAT would be socialist. If you abolished private property on top of that, THAT would be communist.

Socialism does not equal having a government that does something.

When the PEOPLE say they want a military, a police force, a post office, and social security, that is not socialism. That is DEMOCRACY.


Current Thread