Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[Iceweasel]

You are quite correct. Correlation does not equal causation. However, one of the basis of how we grow our knowledge base is by finding correlations (positive or negative) and then investigating the reasons as to why to see if there is a direct cause, indirect cause, or just an arbitrary correlation.

So, if you don't agree with indicating correlation between success and causation then you must also disagree with the OP, that pointing to examples where socialism has failed (China, the USSR, etc.) is NOT reason to believe that socialism doesn't work. Furthermore, you keep bringing up technologies and pointing out that they are primarily privately owned...okay? Does that mean that are free of the pressures of the governmental and economic structures that surround them? If you answer "yes" to that question you may want to go back to university (public or private, they both teach the same material), since I'm sure that the OP, who does at least have an education (public or private, since they both teach the same material), realizes that such an assumption is quite asinine.

Your posts are like word salads. Can you speak more directly, rather than the effeminate method of passive/aggressive games?

My point, Poindexter, is that the private sector funds the public sector. The more government demands of the private sector the more difficult it gets to survive. So you end up with one of two things, state ownership of socialism or state control over favored businesses of fascism.

We've always had government and military, roads, ships, etc. So to you that means we were founded as a socialist nation. That's wrong.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

I've never mentioned social programs? If you were to ask me, and it seems that you are, then I would say that our forms of socialism are most apparent in our educational system, highway system, and general utilities structure (which isn't directly owned by the government, but highly regulated and granted monopolies free from market competition).

When did I say you didn't mention social programs? Are you stoned? The people pay government to get the roads built, government hires private contractors, and you understand that as an example of socialism? You've been had.

You realize that socialism, by definition, is when the government owns and administrates a means of production, distribution of goods, or a service right?

So, you are saying that the government doesn't own the roads just because they were contracted out to private companies to be built? By that logic, we also don't own any military armaments, because all of our weapons and weapons systems have been built by private contractors. Let me clue you in...the government doesn't actually do a lot of the things we call on it to do...it contracts it out to private corporations to get it done, but retains ownership and direction over the output. Pointing towards how something was built rather than who owns its, dictates its terms for construction, or funds the means of its production is NOT a counterargument at all.

You asked me that when it was my fucking point? What's wrong with you?

I didn't say government doesn't own the roads because private companies built them. You can't read! In this country, the people own the government. We can change it the way we see fit. As propaganda grows and more power they take the less possible it gets.

obamacare was a huge step in this direction. Private companies will have a more difficult time as more and more is mandated until we have a single payer government run system. Once they control your health, they own you.

I'm actually unsure as to whether you are a troll, an extreme liberal, or just somebody without a basic college education.

Whether or not you want to argue that the people own the government is irrelevant, socialism doesn't deal with who owns the government, but what the government owns (and does with what it owns if you want to expand upon socialistic theory, but let us limit the definition to its base form for sake of simplicity). If you actually believe that the US doesn't have socialistic programs, all you simply have to prove is how the US government doesn't have ownership or responsibility for our highway system and I will entertain your argument. Remember, this has nothing to do with who "owns", funds, agrees / disagrees with, etc. the government. It simply has to deal with what the government, itself, has control over.

I'm positive you are a dumb asshole trying to be smart. It isn't working.

Socialism doesn't deal with who owns the government? LOL. You don't understand words, they fucked you up big time. I don't really care what you entertain, you've proven yourself to be dense, can't follow a simple conversation if you don't agree with it and are completely lost about how important it is for a free people to own government and what it actually means. The fact that we have social programs doesn't mean they are socialist or examples of socialism. You need to sue your school district.

 

[Never3ndr]

Your posts are like word salads. Can you speak more directly, rather than the effeminate method of passive/aggressive games?

My point, Poindexter, is that the private sector funds the public sector. The more government demands of the private sector the more difficult it gets to survive. So you end up with one of two things, state ownership of socialism or state control over favored businesses of fascism.

We've always had government and military, roads, ships, etc. So to you that means we were founded as a socialist nation. That's wrong.

Ahh, I apologize if the cadence of my prose and my verbosity has caused frustration upon the taxed limits of your mind. Let us speak simply:

The US is primarily capitalist (I've never stated otherwise).

The US has socialistic structures in place (I've pointed to examples, which you have yet to refute).

Having socialistic structures doesn't make you a socialist nation (I've never even said this).

Get it Simple Jack?

 

[Boss]

Certainly not, but maybe, just MAYBE, our knowledge base and level of understanding of governmental and economic systems HAS progressed since the 1970's and is being taught IN ADDITION to historical knowledge.

Again... Socialism is always reinventing itself because it continues failing. This has been happening with Socialism for more than 200 years. Every new incarnation is supposed to be better. Like I said, Mao reinvented Stalinism, Pol Pot reinvented Maoism... it's just that it never works. It has to keep being reinvented in a "new improved" incarnation.

However, the spirit of your argument is that "socialism is bad" and "why doesn't the new generation realize this?" Under this spirit I literally gave you one of the best statistics for human development, the HDI, and asked you why socialistic structures are apparent in 9/10 (or 10/10 if you want to count the US) of the top 10 countries? If socialism, on its broad strokes, is a bad idea...then why is it working?

Again... In an isolated country with no immigration or real mobility... where people are confined to their homes 10 months out of the year due to climate and everyone is accustomed to having the same meager lifestyle, they are happy with Socialism... they've never known of anything else. Sure, you get free medical care and free education but you can't own property and you pay most of your wages in taxes.

These things you keep calling "socialistic structures" in our country, are not Socialism. They are constitutionally-enumerated powers of government our framers built in to our system because they realized free market capitalism couldn't effectively handle them. It has nothing to do with "socialistic systems are better" because they often are NOT better. They are clunky and inefficient but they are more effective than leaving it to free market capitalism to sort out.

Maybe, just maybe, socialism HAS evolved past your understanding of it that was taught four decades ago.

But that's the thing... Socialism is constantly evolving. It has to evolve because it keeps failing. This goes back over 200 years, not just the last 40. Maybe, just maybe... you are being brainwashed the way others have been brainwashed in history to believe in something that isn't going to work any better than the previous version?

Socialism only works on paper... in theory. It doesn't work in practice because human incentive is killed. You can't aspire to something greater because there is nothing to aspire to. You become mired in discontent and the realization that life will never be any better. You see... it CAN'T be... you can't have upward mobility of class in a Socialist system because that wouldn't be fair to all. So... everyone makes $15/hr. whether they flip burgers, dig ditches or operate on brains. Everyone lives in a shoe box whether they mop floors or research cures for cancer.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm positive you are a dumb asshole trying to be smart. It isn't working.

Socialism doesn't deal with who owns the government? LOL. You don't understand words, they fucked you up big time. I don't really care what you entertain, you've proven yourself to be dense, can't follow a simple conversation if you don't agree with it and are completely lost about how important it is for a free people to own government and what it actually means. The fact that we have social programs doesn't mean they are socialist or examples of socialism. You need to sue your school district.

Ahh, perhaps I have been misled then. Could you then, kind sir, point me in the direction of the political literature that you are referring to that examines closely how socialism deals directly with who owns the government. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't interested in reading up on the subject which, I admit, I've never been exposed to.

 

[Never3ndr]

Certainly not, but maybe, just MAYBE, our knowledge base and level of understanding of governmental and economic systems HAS progressed since the 1970's and is being taught IN ADDITION to historical knowledge.

Again... Socialism is always reinventing itself because it continues failing. This has been happening with Socialism for more than 200 years. Every new incarnation is supposed to be better. Like I said, Mao reinvented Stalinism, Pol Pot reinvented Maoism... it's just that it never works. It has to keep being reinvented in a "new improved" incarnation.

However, the spirit of your argument is that "socialism is bad" and "why doesn't the new generation realize this?" Under this spirit I literally gave you one of the best statistics for human development, the HDI, and asked you why socialistic structures are apparent in 9/10 (or 10/10 if you want to count the US) of the top 10 countries? If socialism, on its broad strokes, is a bad idea...then why is it working?

Again... In an isolated country with no immigration or real mobility... where people are confined to their homes 10 months out of the year due to climate and everyone is accustomed to having the same meager lifestyle, they are happy with Socialism... they've never known of anything else. Sure, you get free medical care and free education but you can't own property and you pay most of your wages in taxes.

These things you keep calling "socialistic structures" in our country, are not Socialism. They are constitutionally-enumerated powers of government our framers built in to our system because they realized free market capitalism couldn't effectively handle them. It has nothing to do with "socialistic systems are better" because they often are NOT better. They are clunky and inefficient but they are more effective than leaving it to free market capitalism to sort out.

Maybe, just maybe, socialism HAS evolved past your understanding of it that was taught four decades ago.

But that's the thing... Socialism is constantly evolving. It has to evolve because it keeps failing. This goes back over 200 years, not just the last 40. Maybe, just maybe... you are being brainwashed the way others have been brainwashed in history to believe in something that isn't going to work any better than the previous version?

Socialism only works on paper... in theory. It doesn't work in practice because human incentive is killed. You can't aspire to something greater because there is nothing to aspire to. You become mired in discontent and the realization that life will never be any better. You see... it CAN'T be... you can't have upward mobility of class in a Socialist system because that wouldn't be fair to all. So... everyone makes $15/hr. whether they flip burgers, dig ditches or operate on brains. Everyone lives in a shoe box whether they mop floors or research cures for cancer.

You keep talking about how socialism has continuously evolved ... you do realize that our current representative democracy is a distant evolution of the democratic theory that Greek states were ruled by right? You do realize that evolution is a good thing and can both improve upon already working structures as well as change a failing structure to a working one.

Now, I'm not sure whether or not you believe in evolutionary theory, and I'm not here to argue the matter. However, let us both assume that we both believe this theory. Now, in this theory the basic understanding is that man has evolved from primate. Does that mean that if I make an assumption about the primate that it automatically extends to man? There are similarities, for sure...both have shown basic tool usage for instance. However man, the evolution of primate, can do somethings that primates cannot...for example live in climates of extreme cold (think Siberia or far northern Canada). Man can also write, build complex living structures, and, oddly enough, wears some form of cloth around his body consistently.

Why do I bring this up? Well, as a point that you cannot, and should not, make assumptions on the evolution of something based upon what it evolved upon. Even if you look at a more concrete, modern example...computers. Are we to assume that computers cannot create 3D animated features simply because early computers took up the space of an entire room and could barely do arithmetic? We have clear evidence otherwise.

I don't disagree that socialistic structures are clunky and oftentimes inefficient. I actually agree full-heartedly. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the US does have socialistic structures in place. I'll simply pose the same example to you that I have posed to the other poster, the US owns and operates the US highway system, which is a socialistic structure as it is owned, administered, and funded by the government. Prove that the US does NOT own the highway system to disprove this basic point. Whether or not you want to reach into the Constitution or not doesn't matter...socialism, like capitalism, is a way something operates...not what has or has not given something power. The only way to disprove the highway system is a socialistic construct to clearly indicate that the US does not own or is not responsible for the highway system.

I feel as you never even read my original reply. Let me reiterate, in it I clearly state, "Now, I am, undoubtedly a fan of a more capitalistic-leaning structure as I am a firm believer in meritocracy" I am not here to argue whether or not the US should be socialist. I am simply pointing out that there are indications that socialism is not necessarily a complete failure in its every iteration, and that the US, itself, maintains some structures consistent with the actual definition socialism.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm positive you are a dumb asshole trying to be smart. It isn't working.

Socialism doesn't deal with who owns the government? LOL. You don't understand words, they fucked you up big time. I don't really care what you entertain, you've proven yourself to be dense, can't follow a simple conversation if you don't agree with it and are completely lost about how important it is for a free people to own government and what it actually means. The fact that we have social programs doesn't mean they are socialist or examples of socialism. You need to sue your school district.

Ahh, perhaps I have been misled then. Could you then, kind sir, point me in the direction of the political literature that you are referring to that examines closely how socialism deals directly with who owns the government. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't interested in reading up on the subject which, I admit, I've never been exposed to.

When did I refer to political literature. There is something seriously wrong with you. I think your problem is that you haven't been taught critical analysis and adhere to literature and dogma. Look up what socialism actually means and explain how a privately funded social program is socialism.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm positive you are a dumb asshole trying to be smart. It isn't working.

Socialism doesn't deal with who owns the government? LOL. You don't understand words, they fucked you up big time. I don't really care what you entertain, you've proven yourself to be dense, can't follow a simple conversation if you don't agree with it and are completely lost about how important it is for a free people to own government and what it actually means. The fact that we have social programs doesn't mean they are socialist or examples of socialism. You need to sue your school district.

Ahh, perhaps I have been misled then. Could you then, kind sir, point me in the direction of the political literature that you are referring to that examines closely how socialism deals directly with who owns the government. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't interested in reading up on the subject which, I admit, I've never been exposed to.

When did I refer to political literature. There is something seriously wrong with you. I think your problem is that you haven't been taught critical analysis and adhere to literature and dogma. Look up what socialism actually means and explain how a privately funded social program is socialism.

In your mind, privately funded must mean privately owned I'm assuming. That is simply not the case. Let us look at an example of how ownership / funding actually works:

Let us say, that you are an investor in a major corporation, let's say General Electric. Now, let us say that you have privately donated or invested $3 million dollars in GE and, (and this is an absurdity, but we will assume this for the case of this example) let us say that all your funds went directly into the R&D, production, and distribution of a product, in this case let us say a new washing machine. Now, does it follow that you own the rights to the new washing machine? No. Does it matter how the funding was generated when considering the ownership, distribution, or profit margins of the washing machine? No.

What is the purpose of this example? It is to show (in a simple manner for Simple Jack) that how something is funded, is completely irrelevant to who owns something or how it is operated. Using this understanding, how something is funded is irrelevant to whether or not something is or is not. Whether you stole the money, earned the money, or was donated the money is irrelevant to how you spend the money. Similarly, who gives the government money has nothing to do with what the government does with that money nor what the government does or does not own.

So, simply, a privately-funded socialistic structure is simply one where the government owns and operated (or is responsible for) something while receiving funds from the private sector. While the wording is a bit off (privately-funded generally indicated businesses, but you use it with the understanding of the public, or so it seems), but the highway system, which you still haven't refuted, is an excellent example of such a structure.

 

[Boss]

You keep talking about how socialism has continuously evolved ... you do realize that our current representative democracy is a distant evolution of the democratic theory that Greek states were ruled by right? You do realize that evolution is a good thing and can both improve upon already working structures as well as change a failing structure to a working one.

Not really. Our unique system was developed using a variety of philosophies... Greek democracy being but one. The ideas of Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Rousseau... The Magna Carta.. The Ten Commandments... LOTS of ideas from various sources. All brilliantly put together in a system that has been the greatest governmental system ever devised by man.

Why do I bring this up? Well, as a point that you cannot, and should not, make assumptions on the evolution of something based upon what it evolved upon.

I make all my determinations about Socialism based on historic events and what Socialism has wrought on humanity. Tens of millions of dead people. Genocide. Wars. Corruption. Totalitarian tyranny. Each time, brought to us by a "new improved" brand of Socialism.

I don't disagree that socialistic structures are clunky and oftentimes inefficient. I actually agree full-heartedly. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the US does have socialistic structures in place.

Again, what you are referring to as "socialistic structures" are actually enumerated powers granted to government by the framers. They are only "socialistic" in the sense they are handled collectively for us all by the central government. Now, Socialist government was an option for our founding fathers... they could have very well established this nation as a Socialist system but they rejected that concept in favor of a new idea... individual freedom and liberty through self-governance and free enterprise, free market capitalism. It had never been tried before and many people thought it couldn't be done.

 

[Never3ndr]

You keep talking about how socialism has continuously evolved ... you do realize that our current representative democracy is a distant evolution of the democratic theory that Greek states were ruled by right? You do realize that evolution is a good thing and can both improve upon already working structures as well as change a failing structure to a working one.

Not really. Our unique system was developed using a variety of philosophies... Greek democracy being but one. The ideas of Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Rousseau... The Magna Carta.. The Ten Commandments... LOTS of ideas from various sources. All brilliantly put together in a system that has been the greatest governmental system ever devised by man.

Why do I bring this up? Well, as a point that you cannot, and should not, make assumptions on the evolution of something based upon what it evolved upon.

I make all my determinations about Socialism based on historic events and what Socialism has wrought on humanity. Tens of millions of dead people. Genocide. Wars. Corruption. Totalitarian tyranny. Each time, brought to us by a "new improved" brand of Socialism.

I don't disagree that socialistic structures are clunky and oftentimes inefficient. I actually agree full-heartedly. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the US does have socialistic structures in place.

Again, what you are referring to as "socialistic structures" are actually enumerated powers granted to government by the framers. They are only "socialistic" in the sense they are handled collectively for us all by the central government. Now, Socialist government was an option for our founding fathers... they could have very well established this nation as a Socialist system but they rejected that concept in favor of a new idea... individual freedom and liberty through self-governance and free enterprise, free market capitalism. It had never been tried before and many people thought it couldn't be done.

I agree, our system is an amalgamation of different philosophies. However, it is undeniable that the Greek states were one of those philosophies from which we evolved. Similarly, modern socialism doesn't have to be a direct evolution concerning only past socialist societies, it can also incorporate many different philosophies to find a better working solution for the governance of its people. This is one of the core reasons why blanket stating that "socialism = bad" is such an untenable position to defend.

I don't disagree with what has been done in the past under socialistic structures. However, with that mentality, you must also hate all Christians. Christianity has, by far, destroyed more lives and suffocated knowledge more than any religion that I've ever heard of. But maybe, just MAYBE, modern Christianity has evolved...maybe into something that is wonderful to rejoice in believing...but under your logic that cannot be the case simply because what was done in the past.

Uhhh, the concept of socialism wasn't developed until the early - mid 1800's. Correct me if I am wrong, but we were founded in the late 1700's. How, exactly, was an idea that wasn't even developed, an option?

 

[Iceweasel]

In your mind, privately funded must mean privately owned I'm assuming. That is simply not the case. Let us look at an example of how ownership / funding actually works:

Let us say, that you are an investor in a major corporation, let's say General Electric. Now, let us say that you have privately donated or invested $3 million dollars in GE and, (and this is an absurdity, but we will assume this for the case of this example) let us say that all your funds went directly into the R&D, production, and distribution of a product, in this case let us say a new washing machine. Now, does it follow that you own the rights to the new washing machine? No. Does it matter how the funding was generated when considering the ownership, distribution, or profit margins of the washing machine? No.

What is the purpose of this example? It is to show (in a simple manner for Simple Jack) that how something is funded, is completely irrelevant to who owns something or how it is operated. Using this understanding, how something is funded is irrelevant to whether or not something is or is not. Whether you stole the money, earned the money, or was donated the money is irrelevant to how you spend the money. Similarly, who gives the government money has nothing to do with what the government does with that money nor what the government does or does not own.

So, simply, a privately-funded socialistic structure is simply one where the government owns and operated (or is responsible for) something while receiving funds from the private sector. While the wording is a bit off (privately-funded generally indicated businesses, but you use it with the understanding of the public, or so it seems), but the highway system, which you still haven't refuted, is an excellent example of such a structure.

Privately funded buildings and programs doesn't mean privately owned. You see words that aren't there and don't see ones that are. The point was the people ultimately own government and can vote in what they want to do. You can't do that in a socialist system, the state owns you. I don't know why that is so hard.

You example is a little weird, if you are an investor you own stocks in the company and share the profits.

Highways are publicly owned and we are the public. If the state decides to charge tolls the people can vote the idea away. In a democracy, government is a caretaker. Roads and infrastructure are one of the basic functions of said government. Like I said before we've always had government buildings and roads so you think we were founded as a socialist nation. That's bullshit, many founders were businessmen and knew full well what capitalism was doing for us.

We got so successful England wanted a bigger slice of the pie and the founders said "nope". The other difficulty you face is how capitalism has been demonized while socialism was being white washed.

 

[bendog]

The kids should be mad as hell. I got out of college with a liberal arts degree in 1976 with no loans, and worked in auto repair, const and driving a truck for years until I went back for masters and a doctorate, for which I did borrow about 20K.

 

[Iceweasel]

modern socialism doesn't have to be a direct evolution concerning only past socialist societies, it can also incorporate many different philosophies to find a better working solution for the governance of its people. This is one of the core reasons why blanket stating that "socialism = bad" is such an untenable position to defend.

Says who? You can't rebadge socialism any way you want and then claim any objection to your interpretation is indefensible. Socialism means a specific thing, what the left ALWAYS does is play cutsy with words, he who controls the language controls the people. Socialism is state ownership and control. That's the end game.

I don't disagree with what has been done in the past under socialistic structures. However, with that mentality, you must also hate all Christians. Christianity has, by far, destroyed more lives and suffocated knowledge more than any religion that I've ever heard of. But maybe, just MAYBE, modern Christianity has evolved...maybe into something that is wonderful to rejoice in believing...but under your logic that cannot be the case simply because what was done in the past.

That makes no sense. And you've never heard of Islam. Interesting.

Uhhh, the concept of socialism wasn't developed until the early - mid 1800's. Correct me if I am wrong, but we were founded in the late 1700's. How, exactly, was an idea that wasn't even developed, an option?

The concept of a few controlling all trade has been around for a very long time. Socialism simply replaces a king with dictator.

 

[Boss]

You keep talking about how socialism has continuously evolved ... you do realize that our current representative democracy is a distant evolution of the democratic theory that Greek states were ruled by right? You do realize that evolution is a good thing and can both improve upon already working structures as well as change a failing structure to a working one.

Not really. Our unique system was developed using a variety of philosophies... Greek democracy being but one. The ideas of Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Rousseau... The Magna Carta.. The Ten Commandments... LOTS of ideas from various sources. All brilliantly put together in a system that has been the greatest governmental system ever devised by man.

Why do I bring this up? Well, as a point that you cannot, and should not, make assumptions on the evolution of something based upon what it evolved upon.

I make all my determinations about Socialism based on historic events and what Socialism has wrought on humanity. Tens of millions of dead people. Genocide. Wars. Corruption. Totalitarian tyranny. Each time, brought to us by a "new improved" brand of Socialism.

I don't disagree that socialistic structures are clunky and oftentimes inefficient. I actually agree full-heartedly. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the US does have socialistic structures in place.

Again, what you are referring to as "socialistic structures" are actually enumerated powers granted to government by the framers. They are only "socialistic" in the sense they are handled collectively for us all by the central government. Now, Socialist government was an option for our founding fathers... they could have very well established this nation as a Socialist system but they rejected that concept in favor of a new idea... individual freedom and liberty through self-governance and free enterprise, free market capitalism. It had never been tried before and many people thought it couldn't be done.

I agree, our system is an amalgamation of different philosophies. However, it is undeniable that the Greek states were one of those philosophies from which we evolved. Similarly, modern socialism doesn't have to be a direct evolution concerning only past socialist societies, it can also incorporate many different philosophies to find a better working solution for the governance of its people. This is one of the core reasons why blanket stating that "socialism = bad" is such an untenable position to defend.

I don't disagree with what has been done in the past under socialistic structures. However, with that mentality, you must also hate all Christians. Christianity has, by far, destroyed more lives and suffocated knowledge more than any religion that I've ever heard of. But maybe, just MAYBE, modern Christianity has evolved...maybe into something that is wonderful to rejoice in believing...but under your logic that cannot be the case simply because what was done in the past.

Uhhh, the concept of socialism wasn't developed until the early - mid 1800's. Correct me if I am wrong, but we were founded in the late 1700's. How, exactly, was an idea that wasn't even developed, an option?

Well I don't believe it's an untenable position because of past history we can go by. The record of Socialism is paved with the bodies of the dead that can't be denied. If you read up on the history of Socialism, it began along about the same time of our founding. It was the reason behind the French Revolution. These ideas were in their infancy but were definitely being debated at the time of our founding. Admittedly, it wasn't until Marx in the mid 1800s that Socialism caught on as a popular movement. Still, the tenets of what would become the Socialist movement were considered by our founders and they simply wanted something in the opposite direction, away from centralized authority and embracing of individual liberty.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Uhhh, the concept of socialism wasn't developed until the early - mid 1800's. Correct me if I am wrong, but we were founded in the late 1700's. How, exactly, was an idea that wasn't even developed, an option?

If you are a right wing yahoo like the two you are arguing with, your facts mean nothing. They have their own facts.

These two don't understand that socialism resulted from the excesses and abuses of capitalism.

And that the recent resurgence in socialist ideas is again the result of abusive capitalism.

And that if you are going to have one, you will have some of the other.

But watch out for weasels. They get mean when you put them in a corner.

 

[Wilbur Right]

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil... I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

— Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949[300]





What a dummy that Albert was e h boss?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Hey boss, did capitalism fail those workers who lost jobs, homes and savings, through no fault of their own, during the last economic disaster?

And did capitalism fail them again because they haven't been able to recover what they lost?

 

[Agit8r]

They have a positive view of it because social democracy is what the rest of the "Free World" has.

There's no such thing as "democratic" socialism. North Korea is a "Democratic Republic" but it means absolutely nothing. When the government takes control of it, you've given up your freedom to control it through the free market and there is no "democracy" about it anymore, the government votes for you.

Boss, totalitarian governments screw up people's views of socialism/communism because the only way to choke communism down people's throats is to, well, choke it down their throats. It is contrary to human beings' survival instinct to grab all the goodies they can and hold on to them tight. You are thinking of communism when you talk of the government taking over means of production. Socialism is an economic system where some of the individual wealth is shared, and there is not reason it can be democratically run. Many countries have adopted socialism with no intention of turning into a communist society.

Again, you are welcome to search the Internet for "The Worker's Party" and "The People's Republic" and you'll find that totalitarian government always starts with the misconception it's about the people, the worker, the underclass. It's seldom brought in by cramming anything down your throat... it comes with great enthusiasm and exuberance, as a salvation, a promise for a better life.

The thing is, nobody running for president on a major ticket is promoting planned economy. One candidate is promoting improving upon our present mixed economy system, to make it somewhat more equitable. Hardly a radical notion.

 

[auditor0007]

They have a positive view of it because social democracy is what the rest of the "Free World" has.

There's no such thing as "democratic" socialism. North Korea is a "Democratic Republic" but it means absolutely nothing. When the government takes control of it, you've given up your freedom to control it through the free market and there is no "democracy" about it anymore, the government votes for you.

Of course there is you nitwit, and it's practiced throughout the vast majority of democracies on this planet. BTW, North Korea is not a democracy, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Well you are more than welcome to go look it up... They call themselves a "Democratic Republic" and proudly speak of their "democratic socialism."

Dictatorships are not democracies. North Korea is a dictatorship, no matter what they call themselves. You just make yourself look stupid when you try to assert that North Korea is a democracy. Go back to school for God's sake.

 

[auditor0007]

The socialism of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, and others of that ilk have nothing to do with democratic socialism. Only stupid people think these are the same thing and try to promote them as being the same thing. Please tell us about the horrors of socialistic France, Norway, Denmark, Britain, Italy, and Israel, just to name a few. Please tell us how the people of these countries are being controlled by tyrannical dictators and tell us of their failed system of socialism. What a dipshit.

Well sure they do... that's why I wonder when we stopped teaching World History. The People's Republic... The Worker's Party... Socialism always comes dressed as your friend. It's there to make your dismal life better if you'll only submit your freedoms to it.

Now there are certain isolated circumstances where Socialism works.. in Scandinavian countries with little or no immigration, a sub-freezing climate 10 months out of the year, tight-knit communities where people are content with whatever they have and don't really aspire to have more... just keep the vodka flowing and the heat on... Socialism works as well as it does in your local Homeowner's Association. It's when you attempt to try it with a diverse and dynamic population that problems occur.

Almost every country in Europe would be considered social democracies along with Japan. You're a twit.