CDZ What is socialist thinking ??

[beagle9]

If a president wanted to have his lawmakers create legislation in order to set aside one month (4 weeks) in the winter time (pick your days in the month to use by temperature forecast), and all in order that people get relief in their living quarters from huge electric bills due to heating cost, is that socialism ???

Example: This would be for said month, and/or days chosen within the month, that would see temps drop to levels where people find themselves choosing to be extremely cold or to not be cold over the cost of affording their groceries for that week or month ???? So I ask is this socialist thinking if a president were to pursue such a thing in America ??

The same could apply for a peak summer "month" where temps do reach extreme life threatening conditions also.

I just think about poor people who would have to tell their children that they will have to be cold or miss some meals if they turn up the thermostat to be warm during some of the coldest days in the winter or through some of the hottest days in the summer.

Most of my thinking is along the lines of "yes" we need to keep a system that encourages and incentivises growth, responsibility, and positive outcomes in families always, and we should continue to do it through such a system as we have been successful with over these years here.

However, can't we help the poor better without it demeaning them, humiliating them, destroying them, and crippling them for years to come in America ???

Not talking about adding to the dependency by those who would exploit the helping hand given them in which we have seen also done in the past, but we should just target better the needs in order that the children aren't suffering due to their being brought into this world by no choice of their own.

Some essentials in life are nessesary, but we shouldn't take this humanatarion proposed thinking, and to then turn it into "dependency" or free stuff as we have seen so much of as a result of within the past.

How to help the poor without us becoming a socialist country is the question that should always be pondered and studied agreed ?

 

[Moonglow]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

 

[williepete]

is that socialism ?

No.

You've heard of "bait and switch"? Socialism is the bait that a few ruthless psychopaths use to sway the ignorant, gullible, envious, loser class in order to gain control over them. Once the psychopaths have control and the masses are disarmed, they rob the society blind. Then the gloves come off and you get firing squads and gulags.

Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth 4.2 billion. She's never had a job in her life.
Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman | Daily Mail Online

Rinse and repeat. Some people never learn.

Definition:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property


b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition of SOCIALISM

 

[beagle9]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

Ok, but stay on topic.

 

[beagle9]

is that socialism ?

No.

You've heard of "bait and switch"? Socialism is the bait that a few ruthless psychopaths use to sway the ignorant, gullible, envious, loser class in order to gain control over them. Once the psychopaths have control and the masses are disarmed, they rob the society blind. Then the gloves come off and you get firing squads and gulags.

Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth 4.2 billion. She's never had a job in her life.
Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman | Daily Mail Online

Rinse and repeat. Some people never learn.

Definition:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property


b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition of SOCIALISM

Thanks for the answer No in your post.

Yes, it can get out of hand if not careful.

 

[Moonglow]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

Ok, but stay on topic.

Fascism is a form of socialism, you stay on topic and stop telling people to stay on topic.

 

[Muhammed]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

Ok, but stay on topic.

Fascism is a form of socialism,

Not really. Fascism is merely the one and only means to force socialism on the people.

 

[Pete7469]

It's a lack of thinking.

No rational person can conclude that collectivizing production produces positive results, at least not as far as within a group of people who aren't 100% committed to the cause.

I've been in a single restaurant that collectivized tips, all the staff shared the take at the end of the day, but they all did their part to make the experience of the customer something that would lead to maximum gratuity and the customer was briefed about the objective in advance in order to encourage generosity.

Every other attempt at collectivization has failed. If everyone at the low end isn't committed and giving a full effort, production suffers and disenfranchisement fractures the relationship between workers and managers. It's proven beyond a doubt. It's a human experiment that has been thoroughly documented and the results are always a failure, unless your objective was genocide and mass starvation. (Bed wetters call that "progress, I don't)

In order for humans to work as a collective, you have to eliminate individual desires for a higher standard of living. You basically need people to function as drones, or ants.

Even mice can not be given everything they need without having to make an effort without a disaster developing.



Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Moonglow]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

Ok, but stay on topic.

Fascism is a form of socialism,

Not really. Fascism is merely the one and only means to force socialism on the people.

Capitalist socialism is fascism, just like capitalist communism was Stalin's baby and is also socialist in nature.

 

[beagle9]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

Ok, but stay on topic.

Fascism is a form of socialism, you stay on topic and stop telling people to stay on topic.

What is the point you are making in respect to my OP ? If not careful you will piggyback a miriad of issues on to one simple question and issue being spoken about here.

Is helping the poor within reason "socialism" ??

 

[Pete7469]

What is the point you are making in respect to my OP ? If not careful you will piggyback a miriad of issues on to one simple question and issue being spoken about here.

Is helping the poor within reason "socialism" ??

Turdglow not being anything more than a bed wetting troll can not see the difference.

Government can not and should not be involved with "helping" the poor, beyond perhaps collecting voluntary donations, contracting private individuals to perform relief operations, and providing oversight to ensure the funds are spent efficiently and not enriching people who are supposed to be motivated by results. Even then you will find people who will corrupt any system put in place in order to undermine it for a variety of reasons, personal or political.

That's why I believe the effort should be in the hands of private or religious organizations and people concerned with helping the poor can choose who do donate or volunteer for.

Helping the poor should not be political.


.

 

[beagle9]

What is the point you are making in respect to my OP ? If not careful you will piggyback a miriad of issues on to one simple question and issue being spoken about here.

Is helping the poor within reason "socialism" ??

Turdglow not being anything more than a bed wetting troll can not see the difference.

Government can not and should not be involved with "helping" the poor, beyond perhaps collecting voluntary donations, contracting private individuals to perform relief operations, and providing oversight to ensure the funds are spent efficiently and not enriching people who are supposed to be motivated by results. Even then you will find people who will corrupt any system put in place in order to undermine it for a variety of reasons, personal or political.

That's why I believe the effort should be in the hands of private or religious organizations and people concerned with helping the poor can choose who do donate or volunteer for.

Helping the poor should not be political.


.

Should government then incentivize private charities and/or companies if willing to participate in order to protect the general welfare of the American citizens who may not have been dealt a hand that is secure as another, and this when it comes to basic life saving nessesities like heating and cooling 2 months out of the year in order to save lives ??

Can government truly separate itself competely or should it always play a role in these things, but within reason ?

 

[Moonglow]

I have no problem helping those in need but bankers are not needy or poor yet get relief from the govt. This is fascism which I do not like.

Ok, but stay on topic.

Fascism is a form of socialism, you stay on topic and stop telling people to stay on topic.

What is the point you are making in respect to my OP ? If not careful you will piggyback a miriad of issues on to one simple question and issue being spoken about here.

Is helping the poor within reason "socialism" ??

Your theory is about Fabian socialism in a capitalist nation to help out the working poor from the ups and downs of an industrial society and unstable economic periods..

 

[Moonglow]

What is the point you are making in respect to my OP ? If not careful you will piggyback a miriad of issues on to one simple question and issue being spoken about here.

Is helping the poor within reason "socialism" ??

Turdglow not being anything more than a bed wetting troll can not see the difference.

Government can not and should not be involved with "helping" the poor, beyond perhaps collecting voluntary donations, contracting private individuals to perform relief operations, and providing oversight to ensure the funds are spent efficiently and not enriching people who are supposed to be motivated by results. Even then you will find people who will corrupt any system put in place in order to undermine it for a variety of reasons, personal or political.

That's why I believe the effort should be in the hands of private or religious organizations and people concerned with helping the poor can choose who do donate or volunteer for.

Helping the poor should not be political.


.

The govt. shouldn't be helping out the wealthy either but have done as such for one hundred and fifty years.Religious organizations discriminate and are hardly able to handle the needs of a nation especially in rural areas the US govt. is more efficient at relief..

 

[Pete7469]

Should government then incentivize private charities and/or companies if willing to participate in order to protect the general welfare of the American citizens who may not have been dealt a hand that is secure as another, and this when it comes to basic life saving nessesities like heating and cooling 2 months out of the year in order to save lives ??

Can government truly separate itself competely or should it always play a role in these things, but within reason ?

That's REALLY tough to answer.

So many variables.

When it comes to people who are truly needing assistance through no fault of their own, what sort of asshole can blow that off and not feel some empathy? ( I would assert a certain profile but it's not called for here)

Then you have bullshit artists who are "needy" because they're addicts, convicts, or just fucking liars.

Than you have assholes who will embezzle or defraud honest efforts to provide assistance. The cost of oversight is probably equal to the cost of providing assistance to actual deserving cases. I'd like to believe the majority of people who get involved in charity work do so with good intentions.

As a nation I think we've lost our moral compass because the concept of a spirit or soul in humans that would either be rewarded or punished in the end of life for their deeds has been marginalized. Again I would assert what sort of piece of shit is responsible, but it's not necessary for those who are aware anyway.


.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I support communism in certain situations, I support socialism in certain situations and I support forms of democracy in certain situations.

Smaller populations like family clans can do quite well under communism. But as populations grow and the personal connection to others is diminished, a more democratic form is more natural and thus more successful.

 

[Pete7469]

I support communism in certain situations, I support socialism in certain situations and I support forms of democracy in certain situations.

Smaller populations like family clans can do quite well under communism. But as populations grow and the personal connection to others is diminished, a more democratic form is more natural and thus more successful.

 

[william the wie]

is that socialism ?

No.

You've heard of "bait and switch"? Socialism is the bait that a few ruthless psychopaths use to sway the ignorant, gullible, envious, loser class in order to gain control over them. Once the psychopaths have control and the masses are disarmed, they rob the society blind. Then the gloves come off and you get firing squads and gulags.

Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth 4.2 billion. She's never had a job in her life.
Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman | Daily Mail Online

Rinse and repeat. Some people never learn.

Definition:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property


b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition of SOCIALISM

Thanks for the answer No in your post.

Yes, it can get out of hand if not careful.

It will get out of hand. Politicians like to take a cut of everything

 

[Tehon]

If a president wanted to have his lawmakers create legislation in order to set aside one month (4 weeks) in the winter time (pick your days in the month to use by temperature forecast), and all in order that people get relief in their living quarters from huge electric bills due to heating cost, is that socialism ???

Example: This would be for said month, and/or days chosen within the month, that would see temps drop to levels where people find themselves choosing to be extremely cold or to not be cold over the cost of affording their groceries for that week or month ???? So I ask is this socialist thinking if a president were to pursue such a thing in America ??

The same could apply for a peak summer "month" where temps do reach extreme life threatening conditions also.

I just think about poor people who would have to tell their children that they will have to be cold or miss some meals if they turn up the thermostat to be warm during some of the coldest days in the winter or through some of the hottest days in the summer.

Most of my thinking is along the lines of "yes" we need to keep a system that encourages and incentivises growth, responsibility, and positive outcomes in families always, and we should continue to do it through such a system as we have been successful with over these years here.

However, can't we help the poor better without it demeaning them, humiliating them, destroying them, and crippling them for years to come in America ???

Not talking about adding to the dependency by those who would exploit the helping hand given them in which we have seen also done in the past, but we should just target better the needs in order that the children aren't suffering due to their being brought into this world by no choice of their own.

Some essentials in life are nessesary, but we shouldn't take this humanatarion proposed thinking, and to then turn it into "dependency" or free stuff as we have seen so much of as a result of within the past.

How to help the poor without us becoming a socialist country is the question that should always be pondered and studied agreed ?

Helping people in need does not make one a socialist, even if done collectively. It is called being charitable.

 

[Pete7469]

The people who administer charitable organizations are a piece of shit? That seems harsh, even for you.

The people who administer charitable institutions can not take money from my employer before he pays me, with a threat of lethal force for non-compliance.

That's what makes the sort of "charity" you promote the refuge for pieces of shit who aggrandize and empower themselves at the expense of the poor and those forced to sacrifice.

I recall discussing such issues with you, and I don't believe you're the sort who is mindlessly devoted to collectivism. You do seem to have put some independent thought into your beliefs. I vehemently disagree with your conclusions and the history of mankind is the evidence I submit to defend my assertions.




.