I aɪ – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahy] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation pronoun, nominative I, possessive my or mine, objective me; plural nominative we, possessive our or ours, objective us; noun, plural I’s.
the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
(used to denote the narrator of a literary work written in the first person singular).
1 reference results for: Socialism
Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is 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 with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers’ councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments.
The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late–19th century working class movement. During this period, the term “socialism” was first used by European social critics, who spoke against capitalism and private property. Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, wrote that socialism would be achieved through class struggle and a proletarian revolution. Marxism has had a lasting influence on most branches of socialism.
Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and revolutionaries and Marxists and non-Marxists. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies, while libertarian socialists advocate cooperative worker ownership of the means of production. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that controls all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange. Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers’ councils.
Above are two words with their definitions, each word is extremely important, one of the two words will define our next four years. We, in the United States of America, have an election coming up, and we have to decide who is in control of our own lives. The Government or ourselves, is it “I” or “Socialism”?
The question should have you enraged; you should be on fire with this question. Often time’s people will use the bible to justify a more socialistic point of view:
Brother’s keeper, Am I my
A saying from the Bible’s story of Cain and Abel. After Cain had murdered his brother Abel, God asked him where his brother was. Cain answered, “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?”
· Cain’s words have come to symbolize people’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers” in the extended sense of the term. The tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility. (See Good Samaritan, Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Love your enemies.)
Problem with that is, it asks the individual not the government, it states “I” not “Them”. It is an individual’s responsibility to care for his/her brother/sister, not the governments. Sure the government has a roll, they need to set the tone of the nation, allow individuals to contribute and help as they, as individuals, see fit. Then the government should establish safety nets for the few that may be left behind.
America has a strong, and well known, tradition of taking care of our own and that of the worlds. Statistics show, and prove, that Americans will and do give to the poor, and down trodden, when the free market allows for it, not only here in the USA, but globally (read “Who really cares” by Arthur C. Brooks http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216) for the facts on this issue.
Somehow Americans have gotten in to this bad habit of deferring all social issues to the government, who, based on past performance, have not done a great job of caring for our nation. Our social system has created a society of “Give me” and “You owe me” instead of one of hard work and individual social responsibility. We have allowed the easy road of letting others do our bidding take over. With each new government entitlement, we create a generation of dependency, one that does not allow for nor does it encourage, individuals to become self-reliant.
I know in my heart that all are well intended, and the overall goal is to help those who need it, but the result is one of dependency. We have become a nation of no self-reliance.
We can look almost anywhere and see examples of this. The current mortgage crisis is one example. The federal government mandated that more low income families be afforded home loans, created programs to offset the cost with government incentives to the mortgage companies, allowing them to loan money to people who could not afford the home. The end result, tons of home loans in foreclosure; sure it can be argued that Wall Street along with the companies involved where and are greedy. And I will give you that, no problem is the result of one singular action, but the basic fact that the government allowed this, pushed for this and created a false housing boom with sub-prime loans is an example of a socialistic point of view. Let’s redistribute wealth, create an “equal” playing field.
There is nothing equal about it; it is a system of rewords and punishments based on money. The more I have the more I am punished. The system has never worked; history has proven that, time and time again. The Soviet Union, the largest experiment in history failed. The workers had no incentive to work hard, or with quality. No reason to innovate to imagine and dream. The government provided the same reward regardless of the actions of the workers.
The free enterprise system of economy provides the incentives to innovate and dream, and the possibility of a reward. The redistribution of wealth removes that incentive creating a society of “give me” and “you owe me”. We, as parents, teach our children not to act in that manner, yet as adults we demand it.
This election is pivotal; it will define America not just for the next four years, but for the next generation or two. We are about to decide who will lead this great nation of ours, will we turn the corner and head towards a more socialistic society, or will we correct our path and head in the direction of individual responsibility.
Neither candidate is perfect, each has their positive and negative aspects, but the underlying philosophy of each will determine our destiny creating a system of government that will favor one system over the other; do we really want to risk the generations yet to come, do we really want to create a more dependent society, or do we want to take control of our own lives, and truly become “Our Brothers Keepers” or allow the government to become our “Big Brother”.
This election is truly a turning point for us all, it truly is a historical election, not because we may have our first black president or first female vice-president, both are historical, but the history books will record this election as the election that redefined America as either the new socialistic society and the death of freedom, or as the election that Americans chose freedom once again.
Read, learn and vote this November, let your voice be heard, but please think past this small moment in history to the history of our generations yet to come. How will your vote affect them, will they know a better America because of your vote? Will they have the freedom to create, to dream, or will the government do that for them. Will they be able to work hard for the American dream, or will they take what is given to them.
Our faith as Catholics and Christians requires us to take part in this election, we have a responsibility to select our government and forge our own future, and this election will determine if generations to follow will have the same basic rights.