| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Adam
Guest
|
Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are controlled by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I'm claiming Flint is Socialist but I have heard the claim made. I'm curious if anyone has thoughts on this. |
|
|
Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:09 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I guess what the definition doesn't give you is "Does it really work?" or "Does it work the way the definition says it does? and "How does that apply to Flint?
First off. Socialism doesn't work. Many of the early pilgrims believed that they were moving to America to form a Utopian society. Where everybody had a job that benefited the community as a whole. Didn't work. Turned out to be a poor incentive. The attitude became, "why should I work for someone else to enjoy the fruits of my labor?" Thus, Some didn't work as hard as others and there where shortages.
"Does it work the way the definition says it does? Nope, Capitalism, doesn't work the way they say it does either. But, were not talking about that. What actually happens with socialism is you end up with the Elite few being the "have's", and a society that doesn't want to work because government provides. The "have not’s" end up with the "Bare Minimum" while the elites have all the power and dole out money or favors form the public coffers. (This does sound a lot like Flint).
How does that apply to Flint? Flint is not a city, nor is any that I know of, a socialist city. Nor is any city I know of one were the community works for the city (per say). Flint is representative government as in all of the US. Run by Elitists, more interested in their own self advancement, (power or money) Instead of representing the will of the people.
Just look at this whole ombudsman issue. Here we had a City Council that believed it knew better than the people, that we didn’t need an Ombudsman. With the help of the Mayor. They began a campaign to undermine the office and the election process. With the deceptive wording on the ballot.
Now the electorate, won! Yes, WE WON! Or did we? They have now turned the whole process into a bad joke. It has become a circus. First, they didn’t want to listen to the “will of the people” so we had to organize to make sure we were heard.
So now, they are willing to defy the charter, defy the will of the people, and turn this into a mockery. In order to prove, that we obviously were wrong. We the people do not know what is best for us. And to prove it. They will drag this appointment out to further “liberal interpretation” of the charter that they can. By, dragging out the appointment. By voting for extortionist 154 times. Because, they consider this a political pay off appointment.
Thus defining themselves’ as Elitist’s.
So is Flint Socialist? Depends on the real definition. By the en.wikipedia.org definition, NO. But if you take it at its practical definition. YES! A majority of “Have not’s” Looking for to the Elitist’s to solve their problems. |
|
|
|
Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:41 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
