Socialism vs Statism

[Redrose]

From Dictionary.com:


Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Collectivism as opposed to Individualism.


Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

They both threaten individual freedoms. IMO Obama is guilty of both. His writings attest to his advocacy of both.

The point being, under the Obama Administration, we are losing our individual freedoms.

[Green Arrow]

1) Everybody is a collectivist unless you are a nihilist. If you donate to charity or toss a penny to the beggar on the street, guess what? Collectivism. You CAN have both collectivism and individualism at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

2) Obama's writings may profess some remote and minor connection to socialism, but his actions are not socialist in the slightest. A REAL socialist would not have the backing of Goldman Sachs and pass legislation that benefits big business at the cost of workers.

3) Socialism as it was originally created is opposed to the state, so socialism and statism cannot, by definition, coexist.

[1751_Texan]

Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

The word "extensive" is subjective...but this sounds like any government that has ever been.

Ever since the dawn of time, there has been someone or some group in charge of the tribe. Man is a social animal and there were clear advantages to living in the group. If people feel that there are more advantages to separatist existence...that does not change our tribe tradition.

Those that have true freedom and true liberty of their liking, live an a autonomous lifestyle outside the group. Can't have it both...can't have total freedom and live autonomously and enjoy the blessings of the group.

[kilgram]

From Dictionary.com:


Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Collectivism as opposed to Individualism.


Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

They both threaten individual freedoms. IMO Obama is guilty of both. His writings attest to his advocacy of both.

The point being, under the Obama Administration, we are losing our individual freedoms.
And also you lost individual freedoms under Bush family, Clinton and Reagan.. But how some of them were of the yours, you didn't protest :)

Too much partisan. But yeah, continue believing in your fairies.

And your post has no sense.

Socialism, is just the ownership of the means of production. It does not restrict any kind of individual freedom. Is more, in socialism with a freer society, the individuals are freer than in any other system.

[Green Arrow]

Also, probably the most important point, but you can't define political philosophies with a dictionary. The definitions are always far too vague and simplistic.

[Libhater]

1) Everybody is a collectivist unless you are a nihilist. If you donate to charity or toss a penny to the beggar on the street, guess what? Collectivism. You CAN have both collectivism and individualism at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

What balderdash! Of course we can have both collectivism and individualism at the same time, for that's what we have now under the failed leadership of the socialist Obama. Charity isn't collectivism. Your interpretation of collectivism could very well be associated with Hillary's "It takes a Village" or "It takes a collective Village", while I would be perfectly content with living my life as an 'Individual' in my little secluded and segregated enclave.

There really is little difference between collectivism, progressivism, socialism, statism, leftism, communism and totalitarianism. Its all a matter of degrees before one morphs into another. And we know by watching, reading and or experiencing history that none of these lefty isms have ever worked, and in fact they have been responsible for most of the human carnage during the 20th century up to today.

[Green Arrow]

What balderdash! Of course we can have both collectivism and individualism at the same time, for that's what we have now under the failed leadership of the socialist Obama. Charity isn't collectivism. Your interpretation of collectivism could very well be associated with Hillary's "It takes a Village" or "It takes a collective Village", while I would be perfectly content with living my life as an 'Individual' in my little secluded and segregated enclave.

There really is little difference between collectivism, progressivism, socialism, statism, leftism, communism and totalitarianism. Its all a matter of degrees before one morphs into another. And we know by watching, reading and or experiencing history that none of these lefty isms have ever worked, and in fact they have been responsible for most of the human carnage during the 20th century up to today.

I'm using words for what they actually mean. You should try it some time.

[Chris]

From Dictionary.com:


Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Collectivism as opposed to Individualism.


Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

They both threaten individual freedoms. IMO Obama is guilty of both. His writings attest to his advocacy of both.

The point being, under the Obama Administration, we are losing our individual freedoms.


We live under a statist system, definitely. One example of that is detailed in The Nation’s $100 Billion Regulations Tab (http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/21/the-nations-100-billion-regulations-tab/):


What does President Obama’s “Year of Action” mean, exactly? The answer is more than $100 billion in regulatory burdens so far this year, putting the nation on track for $200 billion by year’s end. This is what “using his pen and his phone” means for countless manufacturers, energy producers, and consumers who routinely must pay the bill for costly new rules.

Behind the nation’s regulatory tab are the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), accounting for more than $88 billion of total costs, the vast majority of the total.

On an annualized basis for these agencies...

Are we socialist? No, not strictly speaking as originally conceived as public ownership of property, the means of production. But the term has always had broader meanings of government control in the form of regulatory redistribution of wealth--the was the meaning back in the 1940s when Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom. And that leads to rent seeking of political favors by the wealthy to escape it. Thus the corrupt collusion of government and business we have today. When you see Obama sidestepping the Constitution and Congress, you have to wonder how far away from hayek's predictions we are.

[Libhater]

I'm using words for what they actually mean. You should try it some time.

While you seem to be hung up on semantics, I prefer to lump all those leftisms into one giant anti/un American barrel of turds that has done nothing but give Americans and America itself grief. If there comes a time when you can give us anything positive from any of those failed and destructive leftisms--then be sure to highlight them for us all to see.

[kilgram]

While you seem to be hung up on semantics, I prefer to lump all those leftisms into one giant anti/un American barrel of turds that has done nothing but give Americans and America itself grief. If there comes a time when you can give us anything positive from any of those failed and destructive leftisms--then be sure to highlight them for us all to see.
Worker rights, civil rights of the blacks...

[Libhater]

Worker rights, civil rights of the blacks...

It seems to me with those civil rights for blacks, that the laws involved went overboard to the point of where we now see a reverse discrimination as its being played out in the form of quotas and affirmative action policies that project the dumber or the less experienced black above those that truly have the qualifications for a specific job. Much of the black population today is dependent on big government to get them through the day. I don't see where these civil rights for blacks gave them anything to cheer about, for they'll always have a Jessie Jackson or an al Sharpton race baiting every perceived injustice till they get their whine of the day settled in a liberal court.

You'll have to tell me about these worker rights, for the last time I checked liberal policy has given us a woeful unemployment rate with no projected uptick in sight. Workers don't need rights--what they need are jobs.

[donttread]

From Dictionary.com:


Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Collectivism as opposed to Individualism.


Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

They both threaten individual freedoms. IMO Obama is guilty of both. His writings attest to his advocacy of both.

The point being, under the Obama Administration, we are losing our individual freedoms.


By way of practical definition socialism is where the state owns production, here " production owns the state. I call that what it is Corporatism and it is more destructive to free markets and freedom than all the socialist put together

[Chris]

By way of practical definition socialism is where the state owns production, here " production owns the state. I call that what it is Corporatism and it is more destructive to free markets and freedom than all the socialist put together

I think, at least originally, socialism meant group or collective ownership of the means of production. That works small scale, farmer and rancher cooperatives come to mind. But it doesn't scale without the need for government to settle disputes and disagreements that inevitably over the use of common resources.

Our system is not one where production owns the state, for it that were so there'd be no need for the huge lobby industry involved in rest seeking political favors. It may have once been claose to that, but certainly not since passage of the 16th amendment after which government has had direct access to any wealth is wishes to redistribute.

[Bob]

From Dictionary.com:


Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Collectivism as opposed to Individualism.


Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

They both threaten individual freedoms. IMO Obama is guilty of both. His writings attest to his advocacy of both.

The point being, under the Obama Administration, we are losing our individual freedoms.

To show the advance of socialism, consider these two periods of time

1850 Government played no role in crops
2014 Government is deeply involved with crops. From land use rules to what one may put on crops to rules even on storage and transport.
1850 You want a new home and intend to get a good man to build it. You simply do it.
2014. You first find an architect who must be licensed who will deal with licensed people to build it. You will pay steep fees just to construct it that are not part of the building. School and park fees for example.
1850 You stepped up onto the wagon or carriage to go to other places.
2014 You enter the auto that the Government allows. You at this point still get to choose the color. The systems of the car were chosen for you by the Government in that they were approved systems. You will use a government approved road to pass government approved road signs and so on.

Today you have been directed by your government in so many ways the list is simply staggering.

To those of us fighting for small government, perhaps by the time our grandkids get old, it could happen.

Hell, lets use the boat to fish

You use a Government approved boat to use a government approved launching site to use water you get permits to fish. If you happen to have a oil spill, though tiny, per government law you must inform them and suffer punishment of some sort.

Some will say it is statism. Well, statists do use socialism.

[Chris]

Well, statists do use socialism.

Sure, and some use capitalism. Consider the Chinese and their state capitalism.

[Green Arrow]

Some will say it is statism. Well, statists do use socialism.

They also use capitalism, like Pinochet.