Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[bripat9643]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

See there is democratic control, I live in a parlamentary democracy.It's also not stagnant every election cycle depending on who gets to be in power the argument shift from greater state control to less; For instance atm in the governement the right wing has taken control. Causing a more business friendly set of rules. Hollowing out our social programs a bit. Next cycle it will probaly shift again. Having said that our most rigt wing politician would still be on the left of Obama to put a name on it.

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

See there is democratic control, I live in a parlamentary democracy.It's also not stagnant every election cycle depending on who gets to be in power the argument shift from greater state control to less; For instance atm in the governement the right wing has taken control. Causing a more business friendly set of rules. Hollowing out our social programs a bit. Next cycle it will probaly shift again. Having said that our most rigt wing politician would still be on the left of Obama to put a name on it.

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

You just made my point. Both those countries are/where communist. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist for instance, I'm very sure he doesn't suggest to pray to the ghost of Lenin. He just tries to make ppl see that there is something more possible then the capatilism without restrictions system wich is in place now. But its exactly the fact that socialist and communist apperently mean the same thing to large segments of the population that prevents any rational discussion on the subject. All the republicans have to do is use the word socialist and the picture that springs to mind for most ppl is bread lines, economic stagnation, tanks driving over peacefull protesters,etc. And that's the great lie.

Communism is just socialism by people who were serious about it. Canada and New Zealand are no more "socialist" than the USA. The people who don't know what the hell the term "socialist" means are the ones who go around cheering Bernie Sanders and claiming they believe in socialism.

 

[Never3ndr]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

Did you even read what I wrote? We are talking about socialism, but, being as there are different forms of socialism, it would be incorrect to say that we are talking about those, particular, forms of socialism (at least in this discussion on the benefits / pitfalls of socialism). It is like if we are talking about squares, and you bring up an example of a rhombus and use that to counter the argument about squares...it may or may not be wrong...but the argument itself isn't valid and doesn't pertain to our talk about squares. Similarly, you can't talk about a form of socialism nobody is referring to and use it to counter what we are actually discussing here (the benefits / pitfalls of modern socialism and socialist programs). That literally makes no logical sense (now if you want to sound like a crackpot...keep going...you are doing a great job).

That would be true if I haven't explicitly said that the US is capitalist with socialistic structures to support that framework in previous posts...as I believe I stated in that post by saying that those countries have "exceptionally large socialist programs" rather than saying they were 100% socialist...perhaps you should read what was written first.

Finally, I'm glad you brought up the index of economic freedom. An excellent example FOR socialistic structures. You see, governmental structures like property rights, open trading borders, education, and giving the largest percentage of the population the opportunity to succeed are things that all benefit business. This is why you see countries with stronger socialistic programs doing better than the US on that index. They look to decrease wage gaps and give a greater portion of their population a chance to contribute. By doing so, they experience greater business prosperity and economic growth. Just because you have a socialistic structure (like education, roads, healthcare, etc.) it doesn't necessarily follow that you restrict businesses or economic freedoms. IN FACT, properly implemented, socialistic structures can greatly benefit business and give a better opportunity for economic freedom.

 

[regent]

Are there any countries on this earth that has one and only one textbook economic system? Most are mixtures with some systems dominant. Did the USSR have some types of capitalism?

 

[EriktheRed]

Are there any countries on this earth that has one and only one textbook economic system? Most are mixtures with some systems dominant. Did the USSR have some types of capitalism?

They did allow some low-level private enterprise.

 

[bripat9643]

Are there any countries on this earth that has one and only one textbook economic system? Most are mixtures with some systems dominant. Did the USSR have some types of capitalism?

What do you think that proves?

 

[georgephillip]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

 

[bripat9643]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

 

[Preacher]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. The People's Revolution... The Bolsheviks... The Killing Fields... Any of that ringing any bells to Millennials? As it stands, the Death Toll for Socialism worldwide stands at around 150 million, conservatively speaking. And that's for deaths that we know about... there are probably that many more that we will never know about. It is a dangerous and devastating political ideology that you need to be aware of and pay attention to what happens, how it works, what the inhuman and horrific results have been.

Oh, I know... YOU favor a different KIND of Socialism! It's not your Grandaddy's Socialism! But guess what? It's ALWAYS a different kind! Every incarnation of Socialism comes repackaged in a "new and improved" version that will certainly work THIS time! Mao recreated Stalinist Socialism, Pol Pot recreated Maoism. There is always a "better" version of Socialism... that's because there has to be... it keeps failing.

You see, the thing is... I don't really think Millennials have thought this through. The things that you hold near and dear... the grande mocha frappuccino at Starbucks... the latest version of the iPhone or music device... all those things go bye-bye in a Socialist system, you don't have time for that anyway, you have to remain productive. Things like going to the movies or concerts... that becomes a once a year kinda thing, maybe... if you work really hard and save for it. In fact, the coming and going pretty much has to stop altogether because you can't afford it anymore.

Art, music, movies... all things creative that you have known and loved... all goes away because there is no room for creativity and thinking anymore, you must remain committed to becoming a more productive worker. You don't believe me? Well, in Russia, if you look at the art and buildings from their Imperial era, (pre-socialist)... they were colorful and very artistically creative... look at art and buildings following the revolution which brought Socialism and it turns to brown dull colors, uninspired architecture. Creativity is killed for the Greater Good, you see? You'll have the same modest little shoe box home like everyone else and you can't really "own" property anymore... you can't afford to buy it. However, it will always seem as though the Socialist ruling class is able to afford these things, but they are making all this wonderful Socialist Utopia possible, so it's to be expected, right?

The really bad thing is whenever you discover this Socialism isn't really all that it's cracked up to be.... think of Windows Vista... The thing is, you can't revert to previous version... there is nothing there anymore. You have to destroy the free market capitalist system in order to actually implement this wonderful new version of socialism... so there's that. You're just stuck with it until enough people are willing to shed blood and start a revolution. That probably isn't going to be the Millennial generation but I assume at least a few of you will have children and presumably they'll produce grandchildren. At some point, that will be the only way to get back to what we once had... a vibrant free market, free enterprise, capitalist system.

A system, incidentally, which has proven successful everywhere it has been tried. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. We've been around 247 years, give or take... China has us beat by a few thousand years. We're relative babies in terms of nations.... yet we're the #1 World Superpower. That is the result of our system which is precious and unique... and most importantly, IS NOT SOCIALISM!

Okay, to the Granola Liberals.... You know how you've been instructed to argue that if you carry a Social Security card you're literally a "card-carrying socialist!"? You're being intentionally misled... and again, I have to wonder when we stopped teaching American History.... Constitutionally-enumerated powers of Congress? Promote the General Welfare? Any of that ringing any bells, Millennials? These things like Social Security and Roads/Bridges, etc... they all fall under Constitutionally-enumerated powers of the government that are built into our NON-Socialist system. They are NOT Socialism. There might be some similarities as they are often done as a "collective" and it seems this lines up with Socialism but it's not Socialism at all. There are a set of things you can find in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which grant government the powers to handle certain aspects of government on behalf of everyone. It's not because government can do it more efficiently or even "better" in all cases, but the framers realized there were certain things the free market capitalist system couldn't do effectively because the incentives were all wrong. A free market capitalist military? What, we're gonna hire mercenaries? So there are these certain set of things the framers realized the government needed the power to handle and those are the Enumerated Powers. It's NOT Socialism.

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

As we've watched in horror as one incarnation of Socialism after another has failed in shocking fashion. Genocide. War. Starvation. Complete collapse of civilization and death. As the policies fail the ruling class attempts to hold on to their power and that's when things really start becoming very ugly. Corruption is widespread and rampant, totalitarian tyranny is inevitable. It's all documented in the history books that we're apparently not using anymore in schools.

And hey, maybe it's not all the Millennial's fault... maybe it's the parents as well... The other day, a friend of mine who has a son that is a Millennial, was reviewing his options for after high school... His parent was steering him toward going to technical school instead of pursuing an academic degree. Buckle down, learn a good trade and be a good little Socialist worker. Don't dream big... don't worry your little head about being wealthy or successful... we know you're not that smart... besides, you're wanting to do that "music career" thing and live in a tiny house, right?

Yep sure did. Problem is we see capitalism in its current form doing NOTHING to benefit us and EVERYTHING to benefit the 1%.

 

[georgephillip]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

How many millions of human beings has capitalism murdered since 1945?

Start with Korea in 1950.

 

[Michelle420]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. The People's Revolution...

You mean communism?

 

[forkup]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem to have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

 

[oreo]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. The People's Revolution... The Bolsheviks... The Killing Fields... Any of that ringing any bells to Millennials? As it stands, the Death Toll for Socialism worldwide stands at around 150 million, conservatively speaking. And that's for deaths that we know about... there are probably that many more that we will never know about. It is a dangerous and devastating political ideology that you need to be aware of and pay attention to what happens, how it works, what the inhuman and horrific results have been.

Oh, I know... YOU favor a different KIND of Socialism! It's not your Grandaddy's Socialism! But guess what? It's ALWAYS a different kind! Every incarnation of Socialism comes repackaged in a "new and improved" version that will certainly work THIS time! Mao recreated Stalinist Socialism, Pol Pot recreated Maoism. There is always a "better" version of Socialism... that's because there has to be... it keeps failing.

You see, the thing is... I don't really think Millennials have thought this through. The things that you hold near and dear... the grande mocha frappuccino at Starbucks... the latest version of the iPhone or music device... all those things go bye-bye in a Socialist system, you don't have time for that anyway, you have to remain productive. Things like going to the movies or concerts... that becomes a once a year kinda thing, maybe... if you work really hard and save for it. In fact, the coming and going pretty much has to stop altogether because you can't afford it anymore.

Art, music, movies... all things creative that you have known and loved... all goes away because there is no room for creativity and thinking anymore, you must remain committed to becoming a more productive worker. You don't believe me? Well, in Russia, if you look at the art and buildings from their Imperial era, (pre-socialist)... they were colorful and very artistically creative... look at art and buildings following the revolution which brought Socialism and it turns to brown dull colors, uninspired architecture. Creativity is killed for the Greater Good, you see? You'll have the same modest little shoe box home like everyone else and you can't really "own" property anymore... you can't afford to buy it. However, it will always seem as though the Socialist ruling class is able to afford these things, but they are making all this wonderful Socialist Utopia possible, so it's to be expected, right?

The really bad thing is whenever you discover this Socialism isn't really all that it's cracked up to be.... think of Windows Vista... The thing is, you can't revert to previous version... there is nothing there anymore. You have to destroy the free market capitalist system in order to actually implement this wonderful new version of socialism... so there's that. You're just stuck with it until enough people are willing to shed blood and start a revolution. That probably isn't going to be the Millennial generation but I assume at least a few of you will have children and presumably they'll produce grandchildren. At some point, that will be the only way to get back to what we once had... a vibrant free market, free enterprise, capitalist system.

A system, incidentally, which has proven successful everywhere it has been tried. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. We've been around 247 years, give or take... China has us beat by a few thousand years. We're relative babies in terms of nations.... yet we're the #1 World Superpower. That is the result of our system which is precious and unique... and most importantly, IS NOT SOCIALISM!

Okay, to the Granola Liberals.... You know how you've been instructed to argue that if you carry a Social Security card you're literally a "card-carrying socialist!"? You're being intentionally misled... and again, I have to wonder when we stopped teaching American History.... Constitutionally-enumerated powers of Congress? Promote the General Welfare? Any of that ringing any bells, Millennials? These things like Social Security and Roads/Bridges, etc... they all fall under Constitutionally-enumerated powers of the government that are built into our NON-Socialist system. They are NOT Socialism. There might be some similarities as they are often done as a "collective" and it seems this lines up with Socialism but it's not Socialism at all. There are a set of things you can find in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which grant government the powers to handle certain aspects of government on behalf of everyone. It's not because government can do it more efficiently or even "better" in all cases, but the framers realized there were certain things the free market capitalist system couldn't do effectively because the incentives were all wrong. A free market capitalist military? What, we're gonna hire mercenaries? So there are these certain set of things the framers realized the government needed the power to handle and those are the Enumerated Powers. It's NOT Socialism.

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

As we've watched in horror as one incarnation of Socialism after another has failed in shocking fashion. Genocide. War. Starvation. Complete collapse of civilization and death. As the policies fail the ruling class attempts to hold on to their power and that's when things really start becoming very ugly. Corruption is widespread and rampant, totalitarian tyranny is inevitable. It's all documented in the history books that we're apparently not using anymore in schools.

And hey, maybe it's not all the Millennial's fault... maybe it's the parents as well... The other day, a friend of mine who has a son that is a Millennial, was reviewing his options for after high school... His parent was steering him toward going to technical school instead of pursuing an academic degree. Buckle down, learn a good trade and be a good little Socialist worker. Don't dream big... don't worry your little head about being wealthy or successful... we know you're not that smart... besides, you're wanting to do that "music career" thing and live in a tiny house, right?

Most of their teachers and definitely they're professor's never told them this.

SOCIALISM
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill



If Bernie Sanders became the nominee of the Democrat party--election night would look something like this. Just move the blue over to New Hampshire & Vermont and color the rest of this country RED. This country is center, it always has been, it always will be. It will never elect far left or far right candidates, much less a candidate that is out there campaigning on free college tuition, and expanding Federal Government spending by 40%, when we're already 19 trillion in RED ink.

Reagan v Mondale 1984

 

[bripat9643]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

How many millions of human beings has capitalism murdered since 1945?

Start with Korea in 1950.

Capitalism murdered South Korea?

 

[bripat9643]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

 

[georgephillip]

According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass.

Maybe it's time hasn't arrived yet? Marx badly underestimated the state's ability to save capitalism from itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't eventually go the way of feudalism?

 

[georgephillip]

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

How many millions of human beings has capitalism murdered since 1945?

Start with Korea in 1950.

Capitalism murdered South Korea?

According to some accounts, the USAF murdered one in three civilians living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War. Can you imagine the profit margin on all those bombs?

 

[bripat9643]

According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass.

Maybe it's time hasn't arrived yet? Marx badly underestimated the state's ability to save capitalism from itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean it won't eventually go the way of feudalism?

The time for contradictions and 4 sided triangles will never arrive. Socialism will never work.

 

[bripat9643]

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

After capitalism comes...

You still here, Andy?

Capitalism doesn't murder its own citizens, numskull. Communism does, by the millions.

How many millions of human beings has capitalism murdered since 1945?

Start with Korea in 1950.

Capitalism murdered South Korea?

According to some accounts, the USAF murdered one in three civilians living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War. Can you imagine the profit margin on all those bombs?

How many did the North Koreans and the Chinese murder?

 

[forkup]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

You're talking about socialism, and that includes the USSR and communist China. Any claims to the contrary only show that you don't know jack shit about economics.

Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries. Canada and New Zealand are rated higher than the United States on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, at least since Obama ascended the throne, anyway.

Calling the USA "capitalist" and calling these other countries "socialist" only demonstrates that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that you're probably a little of both.

First of all I don't like to be called dishonest nore do I particulary like to be called ignorant. I've studied economics both in school as afterwarths and large parts of this post have been spend on the definition of socialism. I'm also pretty well versed in history if I do say so myself. We seem do have different ideas about what socialism is. You chose to call only countries with a totalitarian governement system socialist, I include social democraties in the term socialist. Let's leave aside who is correct, because we both are and we both are also wrong.

Then you are either dishonest or ignorant. The European welfare states are only a smidgen more socialist than the United States. Some of them are in fact less socialist.

You don't want to call them what they really are, which is a welfare state, because that just doesn't sound very appealing, so you call them "social democracies," which is a deliberately meaningless and misleading.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then try being honest. Socialists always lie. Always.

We aren't both correct. To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do.

Well in this post you apperently called me a socialist 'Socialists always lie', at the same time you called the country I live in not socialist 'Canada, Norway and New Zealand are capitalist countries.' I asume those countries include mine since our system is simular. And then you end with this'To simultaneously believe and not believe a given proposition is something an honest rational person simply can't do'. Now if you feel you've been consistent there that's fine but i actually find this entire thing a bit ironic.