[roymurdock]

> I won't buy socialism in any possible form and any interpretation even from world famous scientist

This is a pretty ridiculous statement.

Do you believe in taxation? Do you believe there are some things that a collective organization of people can do better than an individual - be that organization a family, village, private company, or a federal government? OK, then you buy into and support the premise of socialism.

Socialism/capitalism isn't binary. Don't be arbitrarily afraid of either word or concept, but do be afraid of either extreme, as extremes are always untenable. Moving towards "socialism" by increasing taxation on the ultra-wealthy is a move to restore balance and guide us away from one extreme which has gained in popularity in the past 30 years.

I'm 23 and I live in the US. The fear surrounding terms like socialism/communism to this day, even with my generation, amazes me. My peers have learned to use these terms as an insult without knowing exactly why they are insulting - they just feel a vague sense that socialism is "un-American".

I get that we had to turn on the propaganda machine full blast during the cold war as the threat of nuclear extinction is no laughing matter. But with programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. making up such a huge portion of our federal budget, maybe it's time to rethink our hatred and out-of-hand fear of simple terms that we use to talk about ownership and wealth redistribution.

[greggyb]

> Socialism/capitalism isn't binary.

This is correct.

> Moving towards "socialism" by increasing taxation on the ultra-wealthy

This is not a move toward socialism.

Socialism is defined by communal ownership of the means of production and exchange. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the same. These terms are specific in meaning, as they are jargon in the field of economics.

I'm not particularly interested in engaging in a political or economic debate right now, so I'm not trying to pass judgment on what is good or bad, but if you're going to make a post about people mischaracterizing a concept while doing so yourself.

Ninja edit: That capitalism and socialism are often seen in combination with other particular social and economic arrangements does not in any way make these things a component of socialism or capitalism.

[ende]

>Moving towards "socialism" by increasing taxation on the ultra-wealthy is a move to restore balance and guide us away from one extreme which has gained in popularity in the past 30 years.

What you just described is not socialism, or even approaching socialism. It could be best described as social-democracy, which is a completely unrelated concept. Socialism would be banning private enterprise in favor of direct state ownership of the economy.

That's why people have an aversion to the word, because it's an awful concept. Not because of some irrational fear.

[lastyearman]

I may be completely wrong on this one but isn't social-democracy a sort of compromise between socialism and capitalism? So I wouldn't call it entirely unrelated.

[ende]

You're not wrong. Where proper socialism seeks to supplant capitalism (and property law) through the power of the state, social democracy instead seeks to exist within the basic capitalistic framework while attempting to curbe its perceived social injustices through state intervention into the market economy and provisioning of social welfare services.

In some respect it's a compromise; mostly in that many of Europe's social democrats emerged from discredited hard core socialist parties. American social democrats, on the other hand, emerged out of a split with liberalism and ironically kept the name.

The distinction is important though. Social democracy in practice translates to simple fiscal policy. Actual socialism would imply a complete overthrow of our judicial and legislative systems.

[greggyb]

Whether it is a compromise does not alter the defining characteristics of capitalism and socialism, those being private ownership and communal ownership, respectively, of the means of production and exchange.

These terms are not used as in the vernacular but are precisely defined pieces of economic jargon.