Why Socialism would be very difficult to adopt in the U.S.

[Sun Devil 92]

Is Social Security socialism?

No, it's a Socialist ideal.

And a false hope.

But, in reality it has some socialist components.

But is not socialist.

 

[nat4900]

And a false hope.

But, in reality it has some socialist components.

But is not socialist.

The above, probably stated by a right wing, Reaganomics evangelical.......Go figure.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why Socialism would be very difficult to adopt in the U.S.

1. Socialism sucks.

 

[bripat9643]

What difference does that make? When has anyone ever voted to allow the state to confiscate their property?

Eminent Domain
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their police power. The FIFTH Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken.

When the government confiscates all productive enterprises, it isn't going to pay "just compensation." It couldn't possibly pay the owners a fair price for their property. And under eminent domain the people vote to let the state take someone else's property, not their own. The conversion to socialism would require the state to take control of all businesses and all farms. That is never going to be accomplished without bloodshed.

You are just willfully ignorant. Socialism does not control the means of all production. That would be communism. Socialism requires societies to provide a well regulated framework in which private enterprise can prosper, including education for all of the population so that businesses have workers who are capable and useful, health care so that disease and illness don't devastate the population, a strong military for the defence of the nation, and a system of laws and courts to handle disputes and criminals.

The US is already a socialist country. But conservatives are so opposed to socialist ideas that they have strangled the benefits with expensive means tests, so that, like health care, massive amounts of money are wasted on making sure no one is getting a benefit they don't qualify for. Drug testing of welfare recipients being a prime example.

It's hysterical the way you leftwing morons keep insisting that socialism is a form of capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

Is Social Security socialism?

Yes.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism would be difficult to adopt in the USA because armed citizens would rise up and throw the puke socialist traitors in prison!

If only that were true.

 

[regent]

Is Social Security socialism?

No, it's a Socialist ideal.

And a false hope.

But, in reality it has some socialist components.

But is not socialist.

Many Republicans called FDR's Social Security program communistic when FDR suggested the program. Of course Republicans called every Democratic program communistic since Marx gave the world the name, "Scientific Socialism." Marx's program was to be the training ground for communism. The Soviets tried Scientific Socialism for a short time and it didn't work, so they dumped it. But it did give Republicans their battle cry for almost a century now: "socialism is communism." In actuality Marx did not like most socialism except his.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, there are many reasons why socialism is an anathema for many Americans....mostly in the right wing political sphere.

First, we are a nation that spews the rhetoric that we "love peace", but the reality is that we are neo-colonists (the euphemistic term for regime changers) we spend an inordinate amount of tax dollars on defense/offense (just listen to Carly Fiorina's speeches) and any country that has succeeded with socialism seldom indulges in war.

Second, we are so multicultural and multi-ethnical that most middle class (and poorer class) white skinned folks openly state, "I will NEVER be willing to give my hard earned money to those mooching darkies.)

But most of all, we could never easily become "socialists" (although many morons on the right think that Obama has already made us such)...because the term is hugely misunderstood by the uneducated masses who would willingly pay huge amounts of money to some private entity for a particular service, and bitch and moan when taxed by the federal government for that same service.

Interesting post.

I have several issues with it, though.

First, Socialism isn't about process...it's about ends. The same with capitalism.

America is about process as much as it is ends.

There is a big big difference.

You're dead wrong. They are both about process. Capitalism isn't concerned with which products a people want. It's about the best way for the population to get them.

Why would I debate this with you ?

You just said what I did.

"The best way for the population to get the products they want" is about process. You said capitalism is not about process.

You really don't know what you're saying, do you?

 

[francoHFW]

Of course, there are many reasons why socialism is an anathema for many Americans....mostly in the right wing political sphere.

First, we are a nation that spews the rhetoric that we "love peace", but the reality is that we are neo-colonists (the euphemistic term for regime changers) we spend an inordinate amount of tax dollars on defense/offense (just listen to Carly Fiorina's speeches) and any country that has succeeded with socialism seldom indulges in war.

Second, we are so multicultural and multi-ethnical that most middle class (and poorer class) white skinned folks openly state, "I will NEVER be willing to give my hard earned money to those mooching darkies.)

But most of all, we could never easily become "socialists" (although many morons on the right think that Obama has already made us such)...because the term is hugely misunderstood by the uneducated masses who would willingly pay huge amounts of money to some private entity for a particular service, and bitch and moan when taxed by the federal government for that same service.

Because it hasn't worked anywhere else. And don't say Europe...the only way they can pay for their socialism is by having the U.S. pay for their military defense.

It works fine in Europe except when your idiot GOP heroes wreck the world AGAIN- they'er ALL happier than us. They spend 2/3 as much as us on defense, again thanks to your a-hole defense dept crony Pubs, dupe.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Drug testing of welfare recipients being a prime example.

Agree with almost all you stated in your post.....And regarding the selected citation (above), please bear in mind that the requirement for drug testing welfare recipients was instigated by folks (like Scott, governor of FL) who saw a means of great profits under the guise of "indignation"

This is an oldie, but a goody! Watch this. lol

Poor Pee-Ple

 

[bripat9643]

Is Social Security socialism?

No, it's a Socialist ideal.

And a false hope.

But, in reality it has some socialist components.

But is not socialist.

Many Republicans called FDR's Social Security program communistic when FDR suggested the program.

And they were right.

Of course Republicans called every Democratic program communistic since Marx gave the world the name, "Scientific Socialism."

And they were right.

Marx's program was to be the training ground for communism. The Soviets tried Scientific Socialism for a short time and it didn't work, so they dumped it. But it did give Republicans their battle cry for almost a century now: "socialism is communism." In actuality Marx did not like most socialism except his.

The only distinction between socialism and communism is the amount of brutality your willing to employ to implement your schemes.

Socialism doesn't work, period, no matter what the flavor.

 

[bripat9643]

Is Social Security socialism?

There is a socialistic component to it.

But it is not socialism according to the more common definition.

Of course it's socialism.

 

[francoHFW]

What difference does that make? When has anyone ever voted to allow the state to confiscate their property?

Eminent Domain
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their police power. The FIFTH Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken.

When the government confiscates all productive enterprises, it isn't going to pay "just compensation." It couldn't possibly pay the owners a fair price for their property. And under eminent domain the people vote to let the state take someone else's property, not their own. The conversion to socialism would require the state to take control of all businesses and all farms. That is never going to be accomplished without bloodshed.

You are just willfully ignorant. Socialism does not control the means of all production. That would be communism. Socialism requires societies to provide a well regulated framework in which private enterprise can prosper, including education for all of the population so that businesses have workers who are capable and useful, health care so that disease and illness don't devastate the population, a strong military for the defence of the nation, and a system of laws and courts to handle disputes and criminals.

The US is already a socialist country. But conservatives are so opposed to socialist ideas that they have strangled the benefits with expensive means tests, so that, like health care, massive amounts of money are wasted on making sure no one is getting a benefit they don't qualify for. Drug testing of welfare recipients being a prime example.

It's hysterical the way you leftwing morons keep insisting that socialism is a form of capitalism.

Socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism, DOLTS, is fair, well-regulated capitalism. Ay caramba, MORONS.

 

[bripat9643]

Is Social Security socialism?

There is a socialistic component to it.

But it is not socialism according to the more common definition.

And what is that more common definition?

This is pretty close (from what I know)

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[4][5] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

the next sentence does make this pronouncement:

There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.

Which means what I call "common" really may only mean it is what I am used to.

Can't say.

That's total bullshit. In practice, "social control" always means government control. There simply is no other way for society to control the means of production.

Here's the bottom line: socialism is government control of the means of production. Any other claims are pure moonshine.

 

[bripat9643]

What difference does that make? When has anyone ever voted to allow the state to confiscate their property?

Eminent Domain
The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their police power. The FIFTH Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken.

When the government confiscates all productive enterprises, it isn't going to pay "just compensation." It couldn't possibly pay the owners a fair price for their property. And under eminent domain the people vote to let the state take someone else's property, not their own. The conversion to socialism would require the state to take control of all businesses and all farms. That is never going to be accomplished without bloodshed.

You are just willfully ignorant. Socialism does not control the means of all production. That would be communism. Socialism requires societies to provide a well regulated framework in which private enterprise can prosper, including education for all of the population so that businesses have workers who are capable and useful, health care so that disease and illness don't devastate the population, a strong military for the defence of the nation, and a system of laws and courts to handle disputes and criminals.

The US is already a socialist country. But conservatives are so opposed to socialist ideas that they have strangled the benefits with expensive means tests, so that, like health care, massive amounts of money are wasted on making sure no one is getting a benefit they don't qualify for. Drug testing of welfare recipients being a prime example.

It's hysterical the way you leftwing morons keep insisting that socialism is a form of capitalism.

Socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism, DOLTS, is fair, well-regulated capitalism. Ay caramba, MORONS.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's positively hysterical the way you dumb turds keep insisting that socialism is capitalism!

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism would be difficult to adopt in the USA because armed citizens would rise up and throw the puke socialist traitors in prison!

That's communism, brainwashed function moron.

OMG the projection is epic. Nobody is talking about communism stupid.

Except the dupes like you...Socialism is democratic, communism NOT. Socialis is just fair capitalism with a safety net. Here we have shytte socialism, thanks to greedy idiot Pubs and their chumps like you.

Socialism is "democratic" only when it's really capitalism. That's all you've said. The reality is that the term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron.

 

[bripat9643]

E

Is Social Security socialism?

There is a socialistic component to it.

But it is not socialism according to the more common definition.

And what is that more common definition?

This is pretty close (from what I know)

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[4][5] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

the next sentence does make this pronouncement:

There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.

Which means what I call "common" really may only mean it is what I am used to.

Can't say.

Communism is pure socialism. Pure anything suqs. Call it social democracy or democratic socialism if you can't join the real world, dupe.

Why don't you just call it capitalism? You've already admitted that's what it is.

 

[2aguy]

Of course, there are many reasons why socialism is an anathema for many Americans....mostly in the right wing political sphere.

First, we are a nation that spews the rhetoric that we "love peace", but the reality is that we are neo-colonists (the euphemistic term for regime changers) we spend an inordinate amount of tax dollars on defense/offense (just listen to Carly Fiorina's speeches) and any country that has succeeded with socialism seldom indulges in war.

Second, we are so multicultural and multi-ethnical that most middle class (and poorer class) white skinned folks openly state, "I will NEVER be willing to give my hard earned money to those mooching darkies.)

But most of all, we could never easily become "socialists" (although many morons on the right think that Obama has already made us such)...because the term is hugely misunderstood by the uneducated masses who would willingly pay huge amounts of money to some private entity for a particular service, and bitch and moan when taxed by the federal government for that same service.

Because it hasn't worked anywhere else. And don't say Europe...the only way they can pay for their socialism is by having the U.S. pay for their military defense.

It works fine in Europe except when your idiot GOP heroes wreck the world AGAIN- they'er ALL happier than us. They spend 2/3 as much as us on defense, again thanks to your a-hole defense dept crony Pubs, dupe.

Dipstick...they can spend so little on defense because we protect them. Wait till they have to face Putin with their tiny militaries and we won't be there to keep them safe.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, the meanings and applications of various words change over time, socialism isn't what it used to be, it is now applied differently. The red scare still affects the idiots though.

What you mean is that commiemscumbags like you are trying to change socialism's image by lying about it.

Err, it doesn't matter what a word used to mean or how you want to apply it to make a point, socialism, in the first world, is used to reference things like universal healthcare, publicly owned railways, etc.. This is how it is applied, if you can't understand that, what a shame. Keep living in fear.

Bripat just makes up his own definitions if the generally accepted and documented ones don't support his views.

"Accepted" by whom? Certainly they aren't accepted be credible economists.

 

[bripat9643]

Is Social Security socialism?

No, it's a Socialist ideal.

And a false hope.

But, in reality it has some socialist components.

But is not socialist.

Of course it's socialist.