2010 US Census Report

[chri'stina 190]

If by "country" you mean "government", then the answer is no.

We do not live by government permission. A government is the servant of the people,

not its master.

Wouldn't the info provided better help the government serve the people?

[SMR 368]

Some people should be made to study political ideology. Socialism and fascism are miles apart. Is it the fact that the Nazis called themselves National Socialists that confuses them?

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.

Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

In theory they are different although not really miles apart. It is sometimes argued that ultra-left wing politics tends towards socialism and ultra-right wing politics tends towards fascism. However, the fact that these systems are supposedly at opposite ends of the political spectrum clouds the reality that they contain many common elements.

Socialism simply calls for the general ownership of means of production and other assets. In the real world, this requires some person or group of people ("the government") to direct and control the use of these assets. The exact implementation of this government is varied and thus socialism splits into many subsets. Fascism goes farther in many aspects but shares the general basis that the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution (the only necessary characteristic of socialism). Thus, it could be argued that fascism is a subset of socialism.

Although, in socialism the assets could be controlled democratically in theory, in practice they never have been. Some modern countries have implemented pseudo-socialist governments where individuals still own the means of production but that production is taxed to pay for a large array of social services. But this really isn't theoretical socialism.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that every time in history that the government has directly owned most of the economy, the result has been totalitarianism. That is, in practice, there has not been a lot of difference between socialism and fascism. Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same coin. One may have been all the way to the right, the other all the way to the left, but the spectrum seems to have come full circle.

I realize that many will say that Stalin wasn't really a socialist. While I believe he was, my point is that there are no real world examples of a government that owned the means of production and distribution but did not encroach on basic freedoms in much the same way as fascism.

On a side note, I believe the modern American political spectrum runs between Socialism and Anarchy as the ultra-left and ultra-right endpoints, respectively. Fascism, or any real tendency towards it, is in not really part of the American right wing (or any major part of American politics), but rather, at most, a splinter off the basic political spectrum heading in an orthogonal direction.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Except my name. Why do they need to know my name for what seems to be otherwise anonymous survey?

i've wondered that too. and felt like sending them a copy of the local phone book where it asked for my home phone number.

[mawilson 2,133]

Wouldn't the info provided better help the government serve the people?

Sure, which is why I don't think it's bad - only where they ask for personal info (Name, Phone number, etc)

[Nagishkaw 510]

i've wondered that too. and felt like sending them a copy of the local phone book where it asked for my home phone number.

You could always ruin their internetz.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

You could always ruin their internetz.

you don't see the information online, do you?

[lucyrich 20]

Those people who don't fill out their census form are doing a disservice to their local community.

Yes, but they're simultaneously doing a service to the rest of the nation.

If the count in my community is disproportionately high, my community will receive a disproportionate share of Federal tax dollars for various services, and will receive a disproportionate share of representation in Congress and in my state's legislature. Likewise, if my community's count is low, then we lose Federal dollars and lose legislative power.

But getting the overall nationwide count up does NOT actually create wealth or power. And having a low count doesn't reduce our nation's wealth or power. The census count doesn't change the size of the pie, it just changes how it gets divied up.

When people refuse to be counted, they don't reduce the nation's wealth or power, but they allow Federal wealth and power to be distributed to the other communities which are more fully counted. Hey, that's quite noble, spreading wealth and power around to all the rest of the USA except their own local community.

[NickD 202]

i've wondered that too. and felt like sending them a copy of the local phone book where it asked for my home phone number.

Forgot that too, adding my phone number to the end of the form, really didn't memorize the form, just filled it out in a couple of minutes, it's gone now, mailman took it. Said they wanted your phone number if they had any questions, maybe like.

Are you really NickD?

Are you really that age?

Are you really white?

Is your home actually paid off?

Is this really your phone number?

You are living alone with your wife? What, no girlfriends?

Never asked about my dog.

[Richard90027 1]

It's not about racial divide. To get money for ESL classes, Jobs Training program, etc...Some places has a large portion of Hispanics or Spanish speakers than others. If they are not counted. It'll take years to get a grant to open a ESL school or even federal loans for them open a Jobs Training Program center.

When it's time the US has equal population of this race or that race, there won't be a need to ask those questions.

Why should we have to pay for ESL anyway?????

[Scott & Lai 12]

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.

Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

In theory they are different although not really miles apart. It is sometimes argued that ultra-left wing politics tends towards socialism and ultra-right wing politics tends towards fascism. However, the fact that these systems are supposedly at opposite ends of the political spectrum clouds the reality that they contain many common elements.

Socialism simply calls for the general ownership of means of production and other assets. In the real world, this requires some person or group of people ("the government") to direct and control the use of these assets. The exact implementation of this government is varied and thus socialism splits into many subsets. Fascism goes farther in many aspects but shares the general basis that the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution (the only necessary characteristic of socialism). Thus, it could be argued that fascism is a subset of socialism.

Although, in socialism the assets could be controlled democratically in theory, in practice they never have been. Some modern countries have implemented pseudo-socialist governments where individuals still own the means of production but that production is taxed to pay for a large array of social services. But this really isn't theoretical socialism.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that every time in history that the government has directly owned most of the economy, the result has been totalitarianism. That is, in practice, there has not been a lot of difference between socialism and fascism. Stalin and Hitler were two sides of the same coin. One may have been all the way to the right, the other all the way to the left, but the spectrum seems to have come full circle.

I realize that many will say that Stalin wasn't really a socialist. While I believe he was, my point is that there are no real world examples of a government that owned the means of production and distribution but did not encroach on basic freedoms in much the same way as fascism.

On a side note, I believe the modern American political spectrum runs between Socialism and Anarchy as the ultra-left and ultra-right endpoints, respectively. Fascism, or any real tendency towards it, is in not really part of the American right wing (or any major part of American politics), but rather, at most, a splinter off the basic political spectrum heading in an orthogonal direction.

Excellent post

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, it certainly highlights why there is a lot of confusion, for sure the poster is certainly confused.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Whats the penalty for lying on a census form? And is "proto-human" okay for race?

[SMR 368]

Well, it certainly highlights why there is a lot of confusion, for sure the poster is certainly confused.

You spend a lot of time telling people that they need to get an education and calling people confused and ignorant. I would be interested to see you explain the distinction between fascism and socialism. In particular, I would be interested to hear an example of an actual real-world government that implemented socialism as I defined it(that is the dictionary definition of socialism) and yet maintained a free, representative government.

Theoretical distinctions are great. I understand the theoretical distinctions. My point is that there has been little actual difference when these systems are implemented.

Edited March 19, 2010 by SMR

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm sure you would. The reality is however, that a message board is not a good place for conducting classes.

I will say this, simply saying that you believe something to be true does not actually make it true.

As to real life examples, real life necessarily precludes pure ideology. I think the most that can be said in this circumstance, is that when you allow an elite to rule without any form of popular representation those are the times when society is worst served. America under Obama is not heading in that direction, and any suggestion that it is is simply fear mongering or ignorance.

[SMR 368]

I'm sure you would. The reality is however, that a message board is not a good place for conducting classes.

I will say this, simply saying that you believe something to be true does not actually make it true.

As to real life examples, real life necessarily precludes pure ideology. I think the most that can be said in this circumstance, is that when you allow an elite to rule without any form of popular representation those are the times when society is worst served. America under Obama is not heading in that direction, and any suggestion that it is is simply fear mongering or ignorance.

I'm not asking for a class. A couple sentences would suffice. But your answer is clear. In practice, the application of socialism has never led to a government that is meaningfully different than a fascist government.