CDZ Is it time for Socialism in the U.S.?

[GaryDog]

I see, so you're a child who is guessing about life, and has met hardly any poor people.

I see, so you're an adult, guess about life. It's okay, still not the first person I've met that thinks they're wise just because they're old.

They should similarly restrict your access to message boards, frankly, because you're quite good at spreading misinformation and falsehoods.

I could say the same to you. Spreading the misconception that people need money to be redistributed by the government, rather than help getting a job, if even that.

Just because someone can afford $60 per month for a cell phone (a necessity these days) doesn't mean they have the $500 or so it takes just to pay for food, clothing, and personal care for an average person, per month, or the $1500+ it takes for a family of 4.

60$ for food is a lot, where do you shop? I'd say California, but that's even more expensive... maybe New York? It must be a Democrat-run state, because those do tend to have REALLY high cost of living, given the unreasonable numbers you're throwing around.

Poverty is poverty. The fact that someone's situation, on the surface, doesn't resemble the Dickensian version of poverty your parents have trained you to expect doesn't mean they are not poor, not struggling, and not in dire need of assistance. Unless you've lived on your own, managed a budget without a parental safety net, and experienced the day-to-day struggle of living with little means, you should really shut up.

My parents don't pay any attention to politics, I've studied politics mostly independently. Your version of "assistance" doesn't actually assist people, it just makes them government reliant. They need jobs, not to suck hint tit off the government, as you'd have everyone do. Truly poor people ask for work, lazy people ask for money and food. You sound exactly like every Liberal ever, just assuming that everyone is incapable of helping themselves, claiming that businesses are somehow to blame for our pitiful excuse for poverty, then attacking those businesses, decreasing the amount of jobs we have, then redistributing money from said businesses, causing cost of living to rise, and people to grow more reliant on the government.

One day, hopefully, you will NOT understand true poverty. At least not first-hand. I have. I promise you, even if you have a couple hours per night with a used flatscreen you picked up for $50, you won't feel rich because of it.

Highly doubt that every welfare recipient with a flatscreen TV bought it used. If they did, and they really are poor, you'd think they would put it towards something else. Like their apparently gajillion dollar cost of living.

Offhand, what are the round numbers of families on public assistance who own flat-screen TVs? You post as if you have the data; I'd like to see them.

More importantly, who the hell cares?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Offhand, what are the round numbers of families on public assistance who own flat-screen TVs? You post as if you have the data; I'd like to see them.

More importantly, who the hell cares?

Apparently in 2005 poor people were pretty well off, and those conditions have been steadily improving. Go figure.

 

[Arianrhod]

I see, so you're a child who is guessing about life, and has met hardly any poor people.

I see, so you're an adult, guess about life. It's okay, still not the first person I've met that thinks they're wise just because they're old.

They should similarly restrict your access to message boards, frankly, because you're quite good at spreading misinformation and falsehoods.

I could say the same to you. Spreading the misconception that people need money to be redistributed by the government, rather than help getting a job, if even that.

Just because someone can afford $60 per month for a cell phone (a necessity these days) doesn't mean they have the $500 or so it takes just to pay for food, clothing, and personal care for an average person, per month, or the $1500+ it takes for a family of 4.

60$ for food is a lot, where do you shop? I'd say California, but that's even more expensive... maybe New York? It must be a Democrat-run state, because those do tend to have REALLY high cost of living, given the unreasonable numbers you're throwing around.

Poverty is poverty. The fact that someone's situation, on the surface, doesn't resemble the Dickensian version of poverty your parents have trained you to expect doesn't mean they are not poor, not struggling, and not in dire need of assistance. Unless you've lived on your own, managed a budget without a parental safety net, and experienced the day-to-day struggle of living with little means, you should really shut up.

My parents don't pay any attention to politics, I've studied politics mostly independently. Your version of "assistance" doesn't actually assist people, it just makes them government reliant. They need jobs, not to suck hint tit off the government, as you'd have everyone do. Truly poor people ask for work, lazy people ask for money and food. You sound exactly like every Liberal ever, just assuming that everyone is incapable of helping themselves, claiming that businesses are somehow to blame for our pitiful excuse for poverty, then attacking those businesses, decreasing the amount of jobs we have, then redistributing money from said businesses, causing cost of living to rise, and people to grow more reliant on the government.

One day, hopefully, you will NOT understand true poverty. At least not first-hand. I have. I promise you, even if you have a couple hours per night with a used flatscreen you picked up for $50, you won't feel rich because of it.

Highly doubt that every welfare recipient with a flatscreen TV bought it used. If they did, and they really are poor, you'd think they would put it towards something else. Like their apparently gajillion dollar cost of living.

Offhand, what are the round numbers of families on public assistance who own flat-screen TVs? You post as if you have the data; I'd like to see them.

More importantly, who the hell cares?

Those who think people are poor because they're lazy and they deserve to be punished?

 

[GaryDog]

I see, so you're an adult, guessing about life. It's okay, still not the first person I've met that thinks they're wise just because they're old.

I don't think I'm wise because I'm old, I think I'm more informed than you on this topic based on what you're typing.

I could say the same to you. Spreading the misconception that people need money to be redistributed by the government, rather than help getting a job, if even that.

EVERYONE has money redistributed by the government. Not just welfare recipients. What do you think taxes are for?

60$ for food is a lot, where do you shop? I'd say California, but that's even more expensive... maybe New York? It must be a Democrat-run state, because those do tend to have REALLY high cost of living, given the unreasonable numbers you're throwing around.

This would be easier if you could read. $60 per month was my rough (rock bottom) estimate for a cell phone plan. My numbers for food, personal care, clothing, miscellaneous living expenses come from the IRS collections standards, i.e., the amount the IRS is willing to let you spend on life before they request a penny in back taxes.

For one person, it's $570. For a family of 4 it's $1509. National Standards: Food, Clothing and Other Items.

My parents don't pay any attention to politics, I've studied politics mostly independently. Your version of "assistance" doesn't actually assist people, it just makes them government reliant. They need jobs, not to suck hint tit off the government, as you'd have everyone do. Truly poor people ask for work, lazy people ask for money and food. You sound exactly like every Liberal ever, just assuming that everyone is incapable of helping themselves, claiming that businesses are somehow to blame for our pitiful excuse for poverty, then attacking those businesses, decreasing the amount of jobs we have, then redistributing money from said businesses, causing cost of living to rise, and people to grow more reliant on the government.

Yes, I'm sure your parents are ACLU lawyers who stump for Bernie, that's why you think evolution and poor people are mythical conspiracies propagated by evil liberals who hate Jesus.

I don't believe and never said businesses are to blame for poverty. I never said and don't assume everyone is incapable of helping themselves. You have a ton of unfounded, cartoonish stereotypes in your head for a person who is left-leaning. Welfare (Or TANF, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families") is not only critical to a family falling on hard times, but it's critical to our economy. It's not an issue of hating business, wanting to buy votes with handouts, or believing people are lazy and stupid by nature. Matter of fact, that last label is most definitely more commonly used by conservatives to label welfare recipients (nevermind the fact that red states take in far more federal money than they pay).

Highly doubt that every welfare recipient with a flatscreen TV bought it used. If they did, and they really are poor, you'd think they would put it towards something else. Like their apparently gajillion dollar cost of living.

I don't care if they made a one-time $500 expense toward an HD TV. That $500 isn't the difference between most families being categorized as "impoverished" or not.

Adults are talking, sweetie. Go play.

 

[Arianrhod]

Offhand, what are the round numbers of families on public assistance who own flat-screen TVs? You post as if you have the data; I'd like to see them.

More importantly, who the hell cares?

Apparently in 2005 poor people were pretty well off, and those conditions have been steadily improving. Go figure.

The Heritage Foundation...go figure. They didn't gather these data themselves. Where do you suppose they found the original sources?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I don't think I'm wise because I'm old, I think I'm more informed than you on this topic based on what you're typing.

That's a common misconception adults have, "You're a kid, so I'm better informed than you". I know more than most adults.

EVERYONE has money redistributed by the government. Not just welfare recipients. What do you think taxes are for?

Paying government employees, funding government agencies, and funding government programs. We have far too many of each.

This would be easier if you could read. $60 per month was my rough (rock bottom) estimate for a cell phone plan. My numbers for food, personal care, clothing, miscellaneous living expenses come from the IRS collections standards, i.e., the amount the IRS is willing to let you spend on life before they request a penny in back taxes.
For one person, it's $570. For a family of 4 it's $1509. National Standards: Food, Clothing and Other Items.

Sounds like most people don't know how to save their money. I figured that was the problem to start with.

Yes, I'm sure your parents are ACLU lawyers who stump for Bernie, that's why you think evolution and poor people are mythical conspiracies propagated by evil liberals who hate Jesus.

They don't even know who Bernie Sanders is.

I don't believe and never said businesses are to blame for poverty. I never said and don't assume everyone is incapable of helping themselves. You have a ton of unfounded, cartoonish stereotypes in your head for a person who is left-leaning. Welfare (Or TANF, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families") is not only critical to a family falling on hard times, but it's critical to our economy. It's not an issue of hating business, wanting to buy votes with handouts, or believing people are lazy and stupid by nature. Matter of fact, that last label is most definitely more commonly used by conservatives to label welfare recipients (nevermind the fact that red states take in far more federal money than they pay).

It's critical for neither, again, there are programs for getting people interviews and helping them write resumes. People can earn their money themselves, and they don't need the government for that.

I don't care if they made a one-time $500 expense toward an HD TV. That $500 isn't the difference between most families being categorized as "impoverished" or not.

I do, that's not a necessity, it's not necessary for their survival, they clearly aren't that bad off if they're thinking of TVs and game consoles.

 

[320 Years of History]

Offhand, what are the round numbers of families on public assistance who own flat-screen TVs? You post as if you have the data; I'd like to see them.

More importantly, who the hell cares?

Apparently in 2005 poor people were pretty well off, and those conditions have been steadily improving. Go figure.

Surely you don't measure "well off-ness" by the gizmos a person/household has? "Well-off-ness," wealth, is a matter of how much wealth/money one has and controls. Trinkets, widgets and gizmos such as those noted in the chart above are not a reflection of wealth; they are a reflection of how one has chosen to spend the money one has. In some cases, it's a reflection of how much money someone else was willing to spend on another individual, such as may be the case when one's parent's send one to college and provides one with tuition, housing, board, a computer, car, money to spend, etc. That kid may appear to be well off, but s/he is not. They are fortunate, not well off.

 

[GaryDog]

I don't think I'm wise because I'm old, I think I'm more informed than you on this topic based on what you're typing.

That's a common misconception adults have, "You're a kid, so I'm better informed than you". I know more than most adults.

EVERYONE has money redistributed by the government. Not just welfare recipients. What do you think taxes are for?

Paying government employees, funding government agencies, and funding government programs. We have far too many of each.

This would be easier if you could read. $60 per month was my rough (rock bottom) estimate for a cell phone plan. My numbers for food, personal care, clothing, miscellaneous living expenses come from the IRS collections standards, i.e., the amount the IRS is willing to let you spend on life before they request a penny in back taxes.
For one person, it's $570. For a family of 4 it's $1509. National Standards: Food, Clothing and Other Items.

Sounds like most people don't know how to save their money. I figured that was the problem to start with.

Yes, I'm sure your parents are ACLU lawyers who stump for Bernie, that's why you think evolution and poor people are mythical conspiracies propagated by evil liberals who hate Jesus.

They don't even know who Bernie Sanders is.

I don't believe and never said businesses are to blame for poverty. I never said and don't assume everyone is incapable of helping themselves. You have a ton of unfounded, cartoonish stereotypes in your head for a person who is left-leaning. Welfare (Or TANF, "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families") is not only critical to a family falling on hard times, but it's critical to our economy. It's not an issue of hating business, wanting to buy votes with handouts, or believing people are lazy and stupid by nature. Matter of fact, that last label is most definitely more commonly used by conservatives to label welfare recipients (nevermind the fact that red states take in far more federal money than they pay).

It's critical for neither, again, there are programs for getting people interviews and helping them write resumes. People can earn their money themselves, and they don't need the government for that.

I don't care if they made a one-time $500 expense toward an HD TV. That $500 isn't the difference between most families being categorized as "impoverished" or not.

I do, that's not a necessity, it's not necessary for their survival, they clearly aren't that bad off if they're thinking of TVs and game consoles.

Ok, like I said, run along sweetie.

 

[TGN]

My thoughts fall into the same vein. I would have had something to say, but the thematic ambiguity of the title, the inaccurate representation of Sen. Sanders as a socialist...

The point about the Sanders campaign is that it reintroduced the S-word into the mainstream political discourse, something probably not seen in earnest since the time of Eugene Debs. BTW, you didn't say anything about Sawant.

...and most notably the OP positing that there is uncertainty of what socialism is...

Look at some of the replies to this thread. There's plenty of indication that some people don't really know what Socialism is. Counters your notion right there.

 

[dblack]

Principled socialism would be better than the corporatism we're diving into head first.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

My thoughts fall into the same vein. I would have had something to say, but the thematic ambiguity of the title, the inaccurate representation of Sen. Sanders as a socialist...

The point about the Sanders campaign is that it reintroduced the S-word into the mainstream political discourse, something probably not seen in earnest since the time of Eugene Debs. BTW, you didn't say anything about Sawant.

...and most notably the OP positing that there is uncertainty of what socialism is...

Look at some of the replies to this thread. There's plenty of indication that some people don't really know what Socialism is. Counters your notion right there.

You're correct, he's being represented as a Socialist when he's a Communist.

A failed ideal that Liberals don't want to give up on, because they can achieve absolute power over a nation with it.

 

[2aguy]

Between Kshama Sawant's reelection to the Seattle council and the phenomenal popularity of the Sanders campaign it seems many in the U.S. electorate are now more opened minded to the idea of overtly socialists candidates. What can we expect in the future? Also there seems to be some dispute over what socialism is. Some might define it as state control over production and distribution while others describe it as either social or workers' control. Whichever, how do you define it and what developments do you expect for the future?

George Orwell gave his own first-hand observation of socialism in action during the Spanish Civil War description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

No...I like stores that are full of food and toilet paper.........

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Between Kshama Sawant's reelection to the Seattle council and the phenomenal popularity of the Sanders campaign it seems many in the U.S. electorate are now more opened minded to the idea of overtly socialists candidates. What can we expect in the future? Also there seems to be some dispute over what socialism is. Some might define it as state control over production and distribution while others describe it as either social or workers' control. Whichever, how do you define it and what developments do you expect for the future?

George Orwell gave his own first-hand observation of socialism in action during the Spanish Civil War description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

no


/thread.

 

[Kristian]

No in the U.S. I expects me.
Socialism is not biggest specie.
Last 25 year in earth.
Well done dealing yeah right.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Between Kshama Sawant's reelection to the Seattle council and the phenomenal popularity of the Sanders campaign it seems many in the U.S. electorate are now more opened minded to the idea of overtly socialists candidates. What can we expect in the future? Also there seems to be some dispute over what socialism is. Some might define it as state control over production and distribution while others describe it as either social or workers' control. Whichever, how do you define it and what developments do you expect for the future?

George Orwell gave his own first-hand observation of socialism in action during the Spanish Civil War description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

The jobless economy that the Robotics Revolution is ushering in is going to make some form of 'Nordic' Socialism a minimum level of socialism over the next twenty years as jobs simply disappear. IF comparisons to urban job markets during the heyday of slavery is any valid comparison, then we will see jobs performed by people reduced to about 15% of the total number of jobs.

Americans are too tied to their sense of their career validating who they are for this to go smoothly, even if we have Nordic Socialism and a Universal Basic Income for everyone.

Interesting times are acomin'.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you ask anyone who's been living under socialism for a decent span of time, or has studied history, they'd tell you 'no'.

If you ask anyone who has never experienced it, and doesn't study history at all they would tell you 'yes'.

There's a reason Soviet Russia prevented/prevents anyone from leaving the country. If they allowed people to leave, there would be very few people left for the government to treat as property. There's a reason people aren't allowed to talk about it there, it's because if you asked any Russians, they would tell you how awful it is. No, it is never time for Socialism. That's like asking "is it time for cancer?".

Those are unsuccessful forms of socialism.

Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland have successful Socialist governments that are basically capitalism with a thick layer of socialism on top.

We will have to do something as millions more people lose their jobs over time due to the Robotics Revolution or we will have some very violent uprisings.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If you ask anyone who's been living under socialism for a decent span of time, or has studied history, they'd tell you 'no'.

If you ask anyone who has never experienced it, and doesn't study history at all they would tell you 'yes'.

There's a reason Soviet Russia prevented/prevents anyone from leaving the country. If they allowed people to leave, there would be very few people left for the government to treat as property. There's a reason people aren't allowed to talk about it there, it's because if you asked any Russians, they would tell you how awful it is. No, it is never time for Socialism. That's like asking "is it time for cancer?".

Those are unsuccessful forms of socialism.

Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland have successful Socialist governments that are basically capitalism with a thick layer of socialism on top.

We will have to do something as millions more people lose their jobs over time due to the Robotics Revolution or we will have some very violent uprisings.

The robotics revolution will never be a true problem, as long as businesses are allowed to keep expanding. If businesses as a whole replace their workers, they lose their consumers. For every job that is replaced with robots, there are more consumers that stop making money for it, actually costing that business part of their consumer base. If workers are replaced entirely by robots, businesses lose all consumers entirely, effectively making the act useless.

Calling those places "successful" is a stretch. Even now, our free-market capitalist country is doing better than theirs, and furthermore, it's just a stop on the road to socialism. Politicians there will want more and more, and eventually, they'll trick the citizens into getting it. You'll watch as Socialism takes hold, and just like every failure, socialism will destroy their country. They have to pull it out by the root before it's too late.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you ask anyone who's been living under socialism for a decent span of time, or has studied history, they'd tell you 'no'.

If you ask anyone who has never experienced it, and doesn't study history at all they would tell you 'yes'.

There's a reason Soviet Russia prevented/prevents anyone from leaving the country. If they allowed people to leave, there would be very few people left for the government to treat as property. There's a reason people aren't allowed to talk about it there, it's because if you asked any Russians, they would tell you how awful it is. No, it is never time for Socialism. That's like asking "is it time for cancer?".

Those are unsuccessful forms of socialism.

Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland have successful Socialist governments that are basically capitalism with a thick layer of socialism on top.

We will have to do something as millions more people lose their jobs over time due to the Robotics Revolution or we will have some very violent uprisings.

The robotics revolution will never be a true problem, as long as businesses are allowed to keep expanding. If businesses as a whole replace their workers, they lose their consumers. For every job that is replaced with robots, there are more consumers that stop making money for it, actually costing that business part of their consumer base. If workers are replaced entirely by robots, businesses lose all consumers entirely, effectively making the act useless.

But that is the direction that the Robotics Revolution is going in, thus the need for us to get control of our government from the multinational corporations and take care of this rising problem beforehand.

Calling those places "successful" is a stretch. Even now, our free-market capitalist country is doing better than theirs, and furthermore, it's just a stop on the road to socialism. Politicians there will want more and more, and eventually, they'll trick the citizens into getting it. You'll watch as Socialism takes hold, and just like every failure, socialism will destroy their country. They have to pull it out by the root before it's too late.

Median income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2013, Gallup published a list of countries with median household income, based on a self-reported survey of approximately 1000 adults from each country.[1] Using median, rather than mean income, results in a much more accurate picture of the average income of the middle class since the data will not be skewed by gains and abnormalities in the extreme ends. The figures are in international dollars using purchasing power parity and are based on responses from at least 2,000 adults in each country, with the data aggregated from 2006 to 2012. Below is a list of the top 30 countries. The figures are before deduction of taxes and social contributions.

Top 30 nations in Median personal income

1

Norway ....................19,308
2

Sweden ...................18,632
3

Luxembourg ............18,418
4

Denmark ..................18,262
5

Finland ....................15,725
6

United States ..........15,480
7

Canada ...................15,181
8

Australia ..................15,026
9

Netherlands ............14,450
10

Germany ...............14,098
11

France ...................12,445
12

United Kingdom ....12,399
13

Austria ..................12,284
14

New Zealand ........12,147
15

South Korea .........11,350
16

Japan ....................10,840
17

Belgium .................10,189
18

Hong Kong ..............9,705
19

Slovenia ...................8,656
20

Ireland ......................8,048

I am not sure why Iceland is not listed in that list, since it has a per capita income similar to that of Denmark. It has no significant natural resources, and has made do with geothermal and large use of cement. Economy of Iceland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I suspect that Pew might have simply overlooked it.

The point is that the Nordic model of socialism is out performing our own economy in individual income by about 20%. We will need to adopt something like this to handle the jobless economy of the future.

 

[anotherlife]

The Nordic socialism like all socialism is based on a fully monolithic society. The US and many EU nation states are far from monolithic. But as done in the last 100 years in many countries in Europe, the socialists can run just another genocide, to start this deal, and they can do that in the US too.

 

[Kristian]

The Nordic socialism like all socialism is based on a fully monolithic society. The US and many EU nation states are far from monolithic. But as done in the last 100 years in many countries in Europe, the socialists can run just another genocide, to start this deal, and they can do that in the US too.

No and no. Absolute no deal with the U.S.
We are not the new Soviet with real Socialism.
Socialism in Democracy are better in the U.S.