Is socialism in the future ?

Historically the most effective examples of communism have been religious in nature. Religious communes practice a far purer form of communism than any country has attempted. I remember reading about one convent where not only were the nunns not allowed to have any personal property but they weren’t even allowed to sleep on the same cot every night for fear that they would become attached to it.

Filetofspam, A. there has been NO historical sucess stories of communist governments B.The fact that you claim “anything the government does can be called socialism” is not only false, but it is also one of the most uneducated things I have ever heard anyone say about the topic.

Many religious orders do take vows of poverty, such as Franciscans and Dominicans. However, that consists of people freely choosing to give up their right to private property, much as they choose to give up their right to have a spouse.

The Exhortation from the Holy Father that I mentioned “Christifidelis Laici” (Lay members of Christ’s faithful people) deals specifically with the laity rather than the religious, and affirms a right to private property. Remember, John Paul II was from Poland, and saw the destruction and abuse that accompanied Communism. He wrote that Exhortation in the 1980s when Communism, particularly in Russia was still in the forefront of thought and policy.

The bottom line is that any attempt to fully realized Marx’s understanding of what society will become still has to deal with the Catholic Faithful, and the understanding that the Chuch has promulgated throughout the centuries.

I’m curious, Who was proven wrong and was too “Big” to admit it?

Anything the government does could be called socialism. In general the term socialist is used to describe programs that someone doesn’t like..

Subsidies to industry are rarely called socialism. Aid to famers is rarely called socialism. Funding our defense is rarely called socialism. Entitlement programs that are designed to help individuals are derided as socialist though.

Much the same way that nobody is actually for free markets. Corporations have well paid lobiests who work to steer every government policy in favor of their business and industry. Whenever someone tries to change government policy to help ordinary citezens all the same people say that doing so goes against the “free market.”

The only disciplined voices against socialism are libertarians. Most other conservatives only want to limit certain types of socialism.

Most industrialized countries are more socialized than the US. England, France, Germany, and Scandinavia all are. Long term my guess is that eventually the US will nationalize and socialize more things. The turn to the right since Reagan will probably eventually swing the other way when most people realize that decades of “prosperity” have largely passed them by and now they can no longer afford medical care, college for their kids, and a comfortable retirement.

The most Catholic countries in the world: Italy, Ireland, Spain, Mexico, and France are all much farther left than the US.

Agreed increasing socialism all the way to its extreme of communism would be a pretty tough sell. The RCC has not opposed any nation taking partial steps in that direction by socializing or nationalizing industries or services.

As they say, capitalism is the most efficient way to generate wealth but the least efficient at distributing it while communism is the least effecient at generating wealth but the most efficient at distributing it. One thing I’ve long argued is that our sanctions against Cuba have effectively guaranteed that they would remain communist. When a nation is that poor communism is survival much like the concept of private property goes away when plane crash survivers pool resources for their mutual survival.

I highly doubt that America will ever go Socialist, but it would be an excellent battle won for the American public. Much as thedude said, the rich own America, not the poor. There is no strength in population numbers anymore, only strength in dollar numbers. The more you have, the more control you have over the government, over the people, over other countries, over the Constitution. Sadly, America will never go Socialist. Sad as it is, the rich see that there is too much to lose. They don’t want to pay 40% tax on their income, distribute the funds equally. They are quite greedy to have million dollar houses with 10 bedrooms, six cars, earning millions a year while millions go hungry every single day within this nation. No, never Socialism, always Capitalism. Greed is why we will never be Socialist. A terrible monitary system is why we will never be Socialist. The few is why we will never be Socialist.

Definition:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

If by some freak happenstance this country turns to socialism, heads will roll. I just pray you socialists haven’t succeeded in banning guns by then, because if you think guns are ‘barbaric’ in this ‘modern day in age’, imagine a revolution without the clean and precise use of firearms. We’d be forced to use power tools and sports equipment - anything we can get our hands on, as well as just our plain old hands. Killing a person like that takes more thought and effort, not to mention it would be a rather painful way to die. THAT would be barbaric.

Caffeinetripp, you are a very scary person. I would thoroughly enjoy it if you moved out of America and took you socialist Nazi ideas to somewhere where they are actually in place, and leave our country alone.

Since the main danger of any prospect of ‘socialism’ being established in the USA came during the Cold War, when the old communist USSR was seen as a real threat, and since that threat has been removed with the collapse of communism, why on earth are people in the USA still talking as if the threat is as real as ever?

A lot of what you regard as ‘socialism’ in the States wouldn’t be given that label here. It would be regarded as economic or social liberalism - and I do realise that ‘liberalism’ is also a dirty word in the States, whereas ‘over here’ it doesn’t have any of that ‘threat’ status, even among fairly right-wing politicos.

Still, I suppose the seemingly inevitable election of Hilary Rodham Clinton to the post of President will usher in some social ‘liberal’ reforms of a type that are guaranteed to inflame diehard rightists in the States. Those same reforms would seem pretty small beer over here.

And, let’s not forget, more than 1/2 of the richest 1% of the population that make a ton of money (hedge fund managers) pay 15 - 25% tax from capital gains, not the 35% tax that Bush set up.

So, how socialist is that, when those are the guys lining the pockets of the democrats? :) Not very.

filletofspam: Thank you for the clarification of your opinion…Take care !!

For some reason I can’t type two “I”s next to each other on this computer. That was a letter from John Paul 2

amblessed: social security is socialism: Government collectivism and distribution of wealth. The military is socialism: collectivism and distribution of goods (military force). I stand by my thesis that everything that the government does is a form of socialism and the word is only used to oppose government programs that help individuals rather than national prestige, corporations or industry. Many people who claim to be free market or laizzez faire capitalists have no problem with corporate welfare; they only oppose helping individuals.

kamex: there is little in the constitution about economics. There is nothing in the constitution that says we should be capitalist, socialist or communist. Our corporatly owned media and propoganda from the cold war makes Americans think in terms of Democracy vs. Communism. Democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, plutocracy, etc. are political systems. Capitalism, socialism, communism, collectivism, etc. are economic systems. There are brutal dictatorships that are ideologically capitalistic and there are democratic countries who’s economic ideology is socialism. Durring our cold war we backed several totalitarian governments merely because they were anti-communist and we opposed and overthrew several democratic governments because they leaned to the left. America’s capitalist ideology seems to be stronger than its democratic ideology. While the NAZIs called themselfs socialists their movement was not grouneded in economic socialism, they were rabidly nationialist, capitalist, anti-communist (among other things).

The US will probably move in the Socialist direction in the future, but the nation will not ever get to be a totally socialist state as you describe it above. Marx himself described the movement towards socialism as a gradual phenomena that would occur after the world had been fully industrialized and the workers through off their oppressive overlords. History has altered our perspective of what is actually possible.

The Russians overthrew their oppressive government before the industrialization happened, leaving their communist leaders in a bind, becuased they had promised the people the world and didn’t have the means to deliver, so they clamped government control on what resources they did have, and the government members who controled them became corrupt, lording the power over the common man. Also people with marketable skills (ex. brain surgeon type) either left the country to seek their forntunes elsewhere, or were forced into staying by the government.

The Russain (and Chinese for that matter) experiment teaches us that a purely Socialist government cannot survive as long as there is international competition for resourses. The capitalist economy thives off of competition, sometimes to the detriment of the people. Socialism offers no proper reward for a job well-done, therefore it can’t truly compete.

That being said, the world is moving in the direction of popular entitlements such as welfare, socialized medicine etc. and the result is yet to be seen, although the US will probably follow suit at some point. The general trend is away from the old libretartian “I want the government to defend my shores, deliver my mail, and leave me the Hell alone” mentality and more towards the idea that the government will involve itself in the distibution of weath, goods and services.

Finally, (I hate to bring this part into debate), the US will never attain the Marzist ideal because of the presence and necessity of religion. Until the Marxists come up with a cure for the human condition, religion will always be necessary. Marx himself refered to religion as the opiate of the masses, but in its absence, society makes opium its religion. People could argue that religion is merely escapism, but the point is that people in the world feel like they need to escape, whether its through religion or another means. Some would ask why the religious presense makes Marxism impossible. The answer is that some religions (namely Catholicism) affirm that each person has the right to personal property, a home, work and family (see John Paul II Post Synonal Apostolic Exhortation “Christifideles Laici”). As long as there are Catholics who hold to the teachings of the pope (and there always will be), Marx’s ideal will never be fully possible.