Exactly how does socialism work? - A novice seeks to underst

[truthseeker]

I'm new here and do not claim to be anything politically speaking (if forced to I guess I'm independent). I've read quite a few posts off of this BB but haven't seen, unless I missed it, a thread that gives socialism's principles and how it expects to maintain these. I'll ask questions (and hopefully others will) about socialism and hopefully we'll get some replies. Just for starters why socialism over capitalism?

[Fires of History]

First, you need to read up on Socialism's principles, the ideas of Communism, and the immense variety within the two before we can have any real discussion about 'why Socialism over Capitalism.' There is an abundance of information all over the internet to answer your initial questions about the basic principles. Also, it is essential you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, available at any library or bookstore, or read it online HERE (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)

As one of my philosophy professors had posted on his office door, "Answer your questions in advance so I can help you more."

These should also help get you started:

The Socialist Page: Questions and Answers (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/)

Many Shades of Socialism (http://www.the-wood.org/socialism/)

Marx To Mao (http://www.marx2mao.org//)

Marxist Archive (http://www.marxists.org/)

People's Page (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5549/)

[Lardlad95]

also since you are seeking truth you must discover which form of socialism appeals to you socialism(modern socialism), communism, marxist. You should really try and find as many leftist parties as you can so you can discover which suits you.

Alot of people think its all the same but socialism is a very complex thing

[truthseeker]

i appreciate the links. should give me something me to do in my times of boredom. expect a few questions in the near future.

[RGacky3]

I think Norway has the best form of socialism, just look at how Norway is run

[RedRevolutionary87]

how about reeding the manifesto, that would explain alot

[Fires of History]

Truthseeker,

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your searching, and your questions. It's just easier for you to read the basics yourself since they are out there, and then see what really great questions come up then :)

[Nateddi]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=12&topic=163 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=12&topic=163)

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:30 pm on April 19, 2002)

[truthseeker]

so doesn't socialism, any kind, try to enforce that selfishness is wrong?

[Lardlad95]

its not selfishness, selfishness is when people who have don't want to help those who don't have. Socialism doesn't always steal people's land. And in fact some form of socialism allows people to own private buisness...but that buisness is regulated so that it doesn't grow to like say the size of microsoft. But for the most part buisness is owned and run by the people. Except for industries which are owned by the government

[truthseeker]

what exactly is wrong with microsoft? if a company has the advantage to grow, why not? so what you're saying is that companies are really owned by no one in particular but by the whole? where does self liberty take in? enforcing "unselfishness" is actually legislating morality, yes?

[truthseeker]

please forgive the typos... "What is a nation? In common usage, a nation is considered to be a geographical area under the jurisdiction of a single government that isn't a subdivision of a larger government. The government assumes responsibility for the defense of the geographical area nad makes all decisions regarding armed conflict with outsiders. If there were no government, there'd be no nation. And if there were no nation, there'd be nothing to defend. If that sounds too simp;e, think about it. No aggressor conquers a nation by overcoming every single inhabitatnt and occupying every part of the geographical area. It would be far too expensive to do so. Instead, the aggressor applies force against the country until the governmetn of that nation surrenders. Then the aggressor takes over the existing governmental machinery to enforce the occupation. If no such machinery existed, how could it enforce the occupation? Hitler coulnd't ahvfe conquered Europe without the help provided by the governments of the occupied nations. Would he have sent every one of his Nais into Norway to police all the Norwegians? If he had, who would have been left at home to police the Germans? That doesn't mean that aggression would stop if there were not governments. But the aggression would be no more formidable than the examples we've already covered. Hydrogen bombs and other modern tools of war are effective only when they can be used to pressure governments. Enemy rulers have nothing to gain by destroying U.S. property and people - except as ameans of pressuring the government ot surrender. Otherwise, the more they destroy, the less value to them in conquering the nation. If there were no federal government in the U.S., the Communists would have to conquer fifty different state governments - which would be far more difficult. But what if there were no state governments? Then they'd have to conquer every town separately. But what if there no town governments - no governments at all? Then they'd have to make over 200 million separate conquests - and use millions of their own policeman to set up new governments. Obviously the answer to the threat of communism (or any other enemy) is not a stronger government to defend us but just the opposite. We'd be far safer if there were no government to conquer. It's surprising how many "national issues," problems that "cry out" for government intervention, wouldn't even exist if there no governments. The dictators of the world woul dhave always operate in coutnries where there was a sstrong respect for government. The prevailing European awe of the state has produced an nedless number of tyrants, wars, and low standards of living. And now that generations of Americans have been tuaght that governments are vital to their well-being, present-day Americans are afflicted with all the problems that invariably result from big government. Such a trend has developed over many lifetimes; it won't be reversed within ours."

[Al Fidai]

thank you for this info,i am a muslim and believe that following the Shariah is the ultimate way,but until then i would take socialism anyday,i beleive that capitalism is incompatable with islaam.

thank you for the knowledge............The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend