Why The Left Loves Socialism

[Coyote]

Thread has been cleaned of a 13-post exchange of insults...let's discuss the topic please.

 

[yiostheoy]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

The military is a fascist socialism.

Everybody eats in the mess hall. Everybody.

Everybody gets health care.

Everybody gets retirement.

Nobody has any say except the Admirals and Generals.

We don't get to vote on the leader of our company.......

I admire your idealism and thank you for your service Moonglow .

But 1 million military votes is mostly symbolic.

Hell Hillary had a couple of million more votes than Donald and it did her no good either.

 

[yiostheoy]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

^^^ this is the common mythology of the GOP, Tory, Far Right John Birchers.

They just don't want to pay taxes.

They are greedy to the gills.

It is a vice.

 

[Moonglow]

I believe Liberals like Socialism as opposed to our Republic because in a Socialist State, you have FREEDOM FROM RELIGION as opposed to The US which has Freedom of Religion.

Liberals tend to be Atheistic and Amoral, so Socialism would appeal to them for that reason.

This is also why they continually attack Religious Freedoms here in this country.

That is actually more of a symptom of socialism rather than a cause. Karl Marx laid out the blueprint for establishing a socialist state and the first and foremost rule was to eliminate religion. You can't have people believing in anything greater than the state. If you kill religion, people have no choice but to turn to the state. So this becomes a necessary objective of all socialists.

Again... the OP is focused on why people like the socialist concept. I believe it is because they lack confidence in their own ability to compete.

There are several types of socialism, too bad you can't tell the difference to enhance your"story"...

 

[Moonglow]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

^^^ this is the common mythology of the GOP, Tory, Far Right John Birchers.

They just don't want to pay taxes.

They are greedy to the gills.

It is a vice.

And for some reason they think that US citizens in the US never paid taxes before the Volstead Act passed, which caused income taxes had to be enacted to cover the loss of taxes on booze...

 

[Moonglow]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

The military is a fascist socialism.

Everybody eats in the mess hall. Everybody.

Everybody gets health care.

Everybody gets retirement.

Nobody has any say except the Admirals and Generals.

We don't get to vote on the leader of our company.......

I admire your idealism and thank you for your service Moonglow .

But 1 million military votes is mostly symbolic.

Hell Hillary had a couple of million more votes than Donald and it did her no good either.

It was merely a statement to prove that the military is not a republic, nor a democracy..

 

[Boss]

There are several types of socialism, too bad you can't tell the difference to enhance your"story"...

Yes, and I believe, in all forms of socialism, it is attractive to people who fear they can't compete as individuals. Having a lack of confidence in their abilities, they seek the safety of the collective.

 

[Boss]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

^^^ this is the common mythology of the GOP, Tory, Far Right John Birchers.

They just don't want to pay taxes.

They are greedy to the gills.

It is a vice.

Well, you can probably find over a thousand threads here arguing the merits of Socialism to one degree or another. Or arguing what IS and ISN'T Socialism. The focus of the OP was NOT that.... it is merely to discuss Why The Left Loves Socialism. So we're really not interested in your cheerleading for Socialism or brow-beating of Capitalism here. I think we're all clear on the fact that some people love Socialism and some don't. The purpose of this thread is to examine WHY certain people tend toward a Socialist viewpoint.

When all you can really do is spew out hatred and generalizations backed by platitude, you've not done anything but to show that you are simply closed-minded and bigoted to any other idea opposed to your own.

 

[bt404]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

^^^ this is the common mythology of the GOP, Tory, Far Right John Birchers.

They just don't want to pay taxes.

They are greedy to the gills.

It is a vice.

Well, you can probably find over a thousand threads here arguing the merits of Socialism to one degree or another. Or arguing what IS and ISN'T Socialism. The focus of the OP was NOT that.... it is merely to discuss Why The Left Loves Socialism. So we're really not interested in your cheerleading for Socialism or brow-beating of Capitalism here. I think we're all clear on the fact that some people love Socialism and some don't. The purpose of this thread is to examine WHY certain people tend toward a Socialist viewpoint.

When all you can really do is spew out hatred and generalizations backed by platitude, you've not done anything but to show that you are simply closed-minded and bigoted to any other idea opposed to your own.

There's never been a system that's been purely "socialist" or purely "capitalist." People on these boards love to throw around these terms even though everyone has their own personal definition of them....no wonder why constructive discussion without resorting to the ad hominem is impossible here.

The thing is no country in the modern world is purely socialist or capitalist. Take the United States for example. During its "golden age"--the 50s-70s--there were a lot of socialist policies. The G.I Bill for instance provided WWII veterans with college education, housing, and healthcare. This subsequently led to a rise in consumer spending. Hence, why everyone was able to afford nice amenities like T.Vs and washing machines. In fact, a lot of the technology we enjoy came entirely from the Pentagon--the chips in our phones, computers etc. The state heavily subsidized high-end technology for military purposes. So to say "socialism" never works is to disavow all the "socialist" programs that allowed America to build its middle class...

But let's take a "communist" country like Stalin's Russia. There was very little "socialism" there. Socialism, as defined by thinkers like Marx and Luxemburg, is the democratic ownership of the means of production. Meaning, important industries vital for the maintenance of a healthy civilized society (like natural resources or helath care) would be controlled by citizenry. Russia was a ONE-party state, controlled by a few oligarchs who filled their pockets with the profits that ought to have gone to the people (sounds a little like the U.S today, doesn't it?).

Personally, what attracts me to socialism isn't that it will allow "everyone to be equal" and so on...what attracts me to socialism is that it will allow everyone to able to have the BASIC needs so that they CAN compete and contribute to societal "progress."

We should also bear in mind that our definition of "progress" is also erratic. For some, "progress" involves the hoarding of wealth. For instance, in Dubai right now, a good deal of the population live in virtual poverty. However, there are a few really rich oil magnates that are able to finance indoor ski resorts, over-the-top island hotels, and ridiculously expensive skyscrapers (which simply exists to store financial capital) so that rich tourists can come and give them more money...if that's ones idea of progress then so be it....For others, "progress" is how well we take care of our population as well as how many opportunities there are for that population. To go back to the United States in the 50s. The reason why it was a golden age wasn't because televisions were invented. It was because EVERYONE was able to afford a television and so on....

And ONE more thing....I have a feeling that most Americans are frightened of what they think is "socialism" because they're scared that "capitalism" = markets. In other words, they think that without "Capitalism" we wouldn't be able to enjoy our endless varieties of cereals, television sets, cars, clothing brands, and so on. Here's the thing: markets can still exist in socialist systems....

All in all, while markets (and certain aspects of Capitalism) do indeed spur growth (sometimes), it would be puerile to mark off "socialism" entirely as a brand of Bolshevik Communism.

 

[Boss]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

^^^ this is the common mythology of the GOP, Tory, Far Right John Birchers.

They just don't want to pay taxes.

They are greedy to the gills.

It is a vice.

Well, you can probably find over a thousand threads here arguing the merits of Socialism to one degree or another. Or arguing what IS and ISN'T Socialism. The focus of the OP was NOT that.... it is merely to discuss Why The Left Loves Socialism. So we're really not interested in your cheerleading for Socialism or brow-beating of Capitalism here. I think we're all clear on the fact that some people love Socialism and some don't. The purpose of this thread is to examine WHY certain people tend toward a Socialist viewpoint.

When all you can really do is spew out hatred and generalizations backed by platitude, you've not done anything but to show that you are simply closed-minded and bigoted to any other idea opposed to your own.

There's never been a system that's been purely "socialist" or purely "capitalist." People on these boards love to throw around these terms even though everyone has their own personal definition of them....no wonder why constructive discussion without resorting to the ad hominem is impossible here.

The thing is no country in the modern world is purely socialist or capitalist. Take the United States for example. During its "golden age"--the 50s-70s--there were a lot of socialist policies. The G.I Bill for instance provided WWII veterans with college education, housing, and healthcare. This subsequently led to a rise in consumer spending. Hence, why everyone was able to afford nice amenities like T.Vs and washing machines. In fact, a lot of the technology we enjoy came entirely from the Pentagon--the chips in our phones, computers etc. The state heavily subsidized high-end technology for military purposes. So to say "socialism" never works is to disavow all the "socialist" programs that allowed America to build its middle class...

But let's take a "communist" country like Stalin's Russia. There was very little "socialism" there. Socialism, as defined by thinkers like Marx and Luxemburg, is the democratic ownership of the means of production. Meaning, important industries vital for the maintenance of a healthy civilized society (like natural resources or helath care) would be controlled by citizenry. Russia was a ONE-party state, controlled by a few oligarchs who filled their pockets with the profits that ought to have gone to the people (sounds a little like the U.S today, doesn't it?).

Personally, what attracts me to socialism isn't that it will allow "everyone to be equal" and so on...what attracts me to socialism is that it will allow everyone to able to have the BASIC needs so that they CAN compete and contribute to societal "progress."

We should also bear in mind that our definition of "progress" is also erratic. For some, "progress" involves the hoarding of wealth. For instance, in Dubai right now, a good deal of the population live in virtual poverty. However, there are a few really rich oil magnates that are able to finance indoor ski resorts, over-the-top island hotels, and ridiculously expensive skyscrapers (which simply exists to store financial capital) so that rich tourists can come and give them more money...if that's ones idea of progress then so be it....For others, "progress" is how well we take care of our population as well as how many opportunities there are for that population. To go back to the United States in the 50s. The reason why it was a golden age wasn't because televisions were invented. It was because EVERYONE was able to afford a television and so on....

And ONE more thing....I have a feeling that most Americans are frightened of what they think is "socialism" because they're scared that "capitalism" = markets. In other words, they think that without "Capitalism" we wouldn't be able to enjoy our endless varieties of cereals, television sets, cars, clothing brands, and so on. Here's the thing: markets can still exist in socialist systems....

All in all, while markets (and certain aspects of Capitalism) do indeed spur growth (sometimes), it would be puerile to mark off "socialism" entirely as a brand of Bolshevik Communism.

First up to the plate, I want to address this statement:
There's never been a system that's been purely "socialist" or purely "capitalist."

I would like to further add, there is no such thing as "pure" social systems of any kind other than, perhaps some isolated totalitarian dictatorships. Even then, there is usually a black market or underground movement. It's inherently impossible for groups of humans to forge purity into a system of any kind. So this is what we know as a non-sequitur argument.

Secondly, you make distinctions of various policies as being "socialist" that aren't socialist in the governing context we're discussing. Benefits for veterans are something which falls under the Constitutional responsibilities of our government's enumerated powers. If you are allowed to make this distinction, then virtually ANY form of government can be called socialist. Since we can intellectually say that all governments are not socialist, this too becomes a non-sequitur argument.

Personally, what attracts me to socialism isn't that it will allow "everyone to be equal" and so on...what attracts me to socialism is that it will allow everyone to able to have the BASIC needs so that they CAN compete and contribute to societal "progress."

And if you read the OP and the summary of the movie, you realize this explains exactly why the farmer favored his brand of democratic socialism. It is seen as virtuous and noble... we're all in this together... one for all and all for one. In the end, he admitted it was because he was insecure. He didn't have confidence in his own abilities and he feared his family would discover their own individuality and become independent, leaving him to fend for himself. He preferred having them all work together because it ensured his own security. That's basically what you are saying here. You're afraid "societal progress" will suffer if individuals work for their own self-fulfillment.

Now, when you say "basic needs" it's not clear to me what you mean. Because every person's basic needs are different depending on the individual. It's when we start trying to define this as a monolith that applies to everyone there is a problem. You might believe health care is a basic need and I might think I can take care of my own health. You may think clothing is a basic need and I may think I can make my own clothing. Furthermore, your supposition that you must have these whimsical "basic needs" met before you can compete is nothing more than an excuse for your inability to compete. It plays right in to my argument this is why you love socialism. Do you think 17th century pioneers who came to America with nothing but the shirts on their back had their "basic needs" met? Of course they didn't, but they build the nation and thrived. It's YOUR responsibility to meet your basic needs, not mine.

 

[bt404]

Socialism has never worked....and never will. Econ 101

It actually does work for a while. In the movie it worked very well for a while. Like I said, it was proudly considered virtuous and noble... democracy in action... everyone working together for the common good of the group. What it ultimately did was crush individuality and sense of self-accomplishment.

The Left will proudly showcase the European countries in Scandinavia as these marvelous examples of socialism working... and they will work for 20-30 years in some cases. Eventually, even they will fail.

When you crush individuality and the sense of self-accomplishment, you crush the human spirit... and it's all downhill from there. We know this from experience, the historical record is rife with examples. Trouble is, the Socialists refuse to accept the truth and continue to make excuses for their dismal track record... oh, there was corruption, or this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, or that was the problem but we've FIXED it now... and every generation or so, they trot out a new incarnation of the same failed idea.

^^^ this is the common mythology of the GOP, Tory, Far Right John Birchers.

They just don't want to pay taxes.

They are greedy to the gills.

It is a vice.

Well, you can probably find over a thousand threads here arguing the merits of Socialism to one degree or another. Or arguing what IS and ISN'T Socialism. The focus of the OP was NOT that.... it is merely to discuss Why The Left Loves Socialism. So we're really not interested in your cheerleading for Socialism or brow-beating of Capitalism here. I think we're all clear on the fact that some people love Socialism and some don't. The purpose of this thread is to examine WHY certain people tend toward a Socialist viewpoint.

When all you can really do is spew out hatred and generalizations backed by platitude, you've not done anything but to show that you are simply closed-minded and bigoted to any other idea opposed to your own.

There's never been a system that's been purely "socialist" or purely "capitalist." People on these boards love to throw around these terms even though everyone has their own personal definition of them....no wonder why constructive discussion without resorting to the ad hominem is impossible here.

The thing is no country in the modern world is purely socialist or capitalist. Take the United States for example. During its "golden age"--the 50s-70s--there were a lot of socialist policies. The G.I Bill for instance provided WWII veterans with college education, housing, and healthcare. This subsequently led to a rise in consumer spending. Hence, why everyone was able to afford nice amenities like T.Vs and washing machines. In fact, a lot of the technology we enjoy came entirely from the Pentagon--the chips in our phones, computers etc. The state heavily subsidized high-end technology for military purposes. So to say "socialism" never works is to disavow all the "socialist" programs that allowed America to build its middle class...

But let's take a "communist" country like Stalin's Russia. There was very little "socialism" there. Socialism, as defined by thinkers like Marx and Luxemburg, is the democratic ownership of the means of production. Meaning, important industries vital for the maintenance of a healthy civilized society (like natural resources or helath care) would be controlled by citizenry. Russia was a ONE-party state, controlled by a few oligarchs who filled their pockets with the profits that ought to have gone to the people (sounds a little like the U.S today, doesn't it?).

Personally, what attracts me to socialism isn't that it will allow "everyone to be equal" and so on...what attracts me to socialism is that it will allow everyone to able to have the BASIC needs so that they CAN compete and contribute to societal "progress."

We should also bear in mind that our definition of "progress" is also erratic. For some, "progress" involves the hoarding of wealth. For instance, in Dubai right now, a good deal of the population live in virtual poverty. However, there are a few really rich oil magnates that are able to finance indoor ski resorts, over-the-top island hotels, and ridiculously expensive skyscrapers (which simply exists to store financial capital) so that rich tourists can come and give them more money...if that's ones idea of progress then so be it....For others, "progress" is how well we take care of our population as well as how many opportunities there are for that population. To go back to the United States in the 50s. The reason why it was a golden age wasn't because televisions were invented. It was because EVERYONE was able to afford a television and so on....

And ONE more thing....I have a feeling that most Americans are frightened of what they think is "socialism" because they're scared that "capitalism" = markets. In other words, they think that without "Capitalism" we wouldn't be able to enjoy our endless varieties of cereals, television sets, cars, clothing brands, and so on. Here's the thing: markets can still exist in socialist systems....

All in all, while markets (and certain aspects of Capitalism) do indeed spur growth (sometimes), it would be puerile to mark off "socialism" entirely as a brand of Bolshevik Communism.

First up to the plate, I want to address this statement:
There's never been a system that's been purely "socialist" or purely "capitalist."

I would like to further add, there is no such thing as "pure" social systems of any kind other than, perhaps some isolated totalitarian dictatorships. Even then, there is usually a black market or underground movement. It's inherently impossible for groups of humans to forge purity into a system of any kind. So this is what we know as a non-sequitur argument.

Secondly, you make distinctions of various policies as being "socialist" that aren't socialist in the governing context we're discussing. Benefits for veterans are something which falls under the Constitutional responsibilities of our government's enumerated powers. If you are allowed to make this distinction, then virtually ANY form of government can be called socialist. Since we can intellectually say that all governments are not socialist, this too becomes a non-sequitur argument.

Personally, what attracts me to socialism isn't that it will allow "everyone to be equal" and so on...what attracts me to socialism is that it will allow everyone to able to have the BASIC needs so that they CAN compete and contribute to societal "progress."

And if you read the OP and the summary of the movie, you realize this explains exactly why the farmer favored his brand of democratic socialism. It is seen as virtuous and noble... we're all in this together... one for all and all for one. In the end, he admitted it was because he was insecure. He didn't have confidence in his own abilities and he feared his family would discover their own individuality and become independent, leaving him to fend for himself. He preferred having them all work together because it ensured his own security. That's basically what you are saying here. You're afraid "societal progress" will suffer if individuals work for their own self-fulfillment.

Now, when you say "basic needs" it's not clear to me what you mean. Because every person's basic needs are different depending on the individual. It's when we start trying to define this as a monolith that applies to everyone there is a problem. You might believe health care is a basic need and I might think I can take care of my own health. You may think clothing is a basic need and I may think I can make my own clothing. Furthermore, your supposition that you must have these whimsical "basic needs" met before you can compete is nothing more than an excuse for your inability to compete. It plays right in to my argument this is why you love socialism. Do you think 17th century pioneers who came to America with nothing but the shirts on their back had their "basic needs" met? Of course they didn't, but they build the nation and thrived. It's YOUR responsibility to meet your basic needs, not mine.

You make distinctions of various policies as being "socialist" that aren't socialist in the governing context we're discussing. Benefits for veterans are something which falls under the Constitutional responsibilities of our government's enumerated powers. If you are allowed to make this distinction, then virtually ANY form of government can be called socialist.

There is no real difference between socialist policies and socialist governance. Socialism involves the collective allocation of resources to fund public projects/policies. So, in a sense, you're correct in saying that virtually all government have some socialist policies in some form or another. Hence, why I don't think "socialism" should be demonized in the way it is by those who still wallow in Red Scare paranoia. If we are part of an organized society, then we've already been socialized/collectivized (though the degree of collectivization varies from country to country and from system to system).

He preferred having them all work together because it ensured his own security. That's basically what you are saying here. You're afraid "societal progress" will suffer if individuals work for their own self-fulfillment.

Actually, I think self fulfillment works hand in hand with "societal progress." It all depends on what you mean by "self-fulfillment." For some, fulfillment is attaining money to buy a new flat screen T.V. or a brand new Lexus or a yacht. For others, it's designing a building, creating a piece of art, playing an instrument, participating in sports etc. So I'm not "afraid" that societal progress will suffer if individuals work for themselves. But regardless of definition, most Americans are not working for "self fulfillment" right now. Most people are struggling just to pay rent/mortgage. We are the richest nation in the world yet we are ranked almost highest amongst OECD countries in terms of wealth inequality as well as child poverty (20 percent of all American children grow up under the poverty line).

You might believe health care is a basic need and I might think I can take care of my own health. You may think clothing is a basic need and I may think I can make my own clothing.

That's great that you can take care of your own health. There are a lot of people who can't (and not all of them are "lazy"). Are you saying that a child born in poverty deserves lesser-quality healthcare than a child born to rich parents? If we both agree that we should create a system that encourages everyone to "compete"--or rather, start at the SAME starting line and then go from there--then healthcare would be a necessity.

Furthermore, your supposition that you must have these whimsical "basic needs" met before you can compete is nothing more than an excuse for your inability to compete. It plays right in to my argument this is why you love socialism. Do you think 17th century pioneers who came to America with nothing but the shirts on their back had their "basic needs" met? Of course they didn't, but they build the nation and thrived. It's YOUR responsibility to meet your basic needs, not mine

So healthcare is whimsical? Housing is whimsical? You presume that everyone starts off at the same starting line and that it's all a matter of who runs faster from there. I return back to the statistics of child poverty. For the sake of argument, let's say that yes, all those poor people who gave birth to those children in poverty are irresponsible, lazy, entitled etc. How would not providing for those impoverished make things better. If anything, ignoring child poverty would lead to another generation of impoverished adults who would most likely make those same mistakes. It's a cycle, you see? We can either swallow up our pride and try to end it or we can keep it going....

Also, you presume that I love socialism because I'm trying to excuse my "inability to compete", even though you know nothing about me. Resorting to the personal will get us nowhere. It's as if I just said that you love capitalism (or whatever it is you believe in) because you're trying to excuse your "selfishness." See where I'm getting at?

The comparison between 17th century pioneers having "nothing but shirts on their backs" and 21st century society doesn't work at all, genocide of the indigenous population aside...one shouldn't compare themselves with the achievements of religious fanatics four hundred years ago. You say it's YOUR responsibility to meet your basic needs. Sure, I think everyone already knows that. It would be kind of patronizing to assume, once again, that poor people are just sitting there waiting for other people to give them their basic needs. They key responsibility for any civilized society in the modern world is to ensure that people CAN FULFILL their responsibility to meet their basic needs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is it possible to love socialism and be a business owner?

 

[Boss]

So, in a sense, you're correct in saying that virtually all government have some socialist policies in some form or another. Hence, why I don't think "socialism" should be demonized in the way it is by those who still wallow in Red Scare paranoia.

Again, we have to remain consistent in context. You are calling things "socialist" that might have common attributes with socialism but that's not what we're discussing in a governing societal policy context. Enumerated in our Constitution are certain powers granted to government on behalf of the people... that's not Socialism in the context we are discussing. You can argue these are "socialistic" in nature, I have no argument against that but these things are agreed upon by civilized society and by the very nature of government itself.

This thread is not to demonize Socialism, it is to examine why some people tend to embrace socialist policy. I'll let Socialists debate the merits of their system in one of the thousand other threads here. Everyone knows how I feel about Socialism, everyone knows how you feel about it. To me, that's a pointless discussion.

Actually, I think self fulfillment works hand in hand with "societal progress." It all depends on what you mean by "self-fulfillment."

This is interesting. You think self-fulfillment works hand in hand but yet, you feel compelled to dictate what is and isn't acceptable fulfillment. See... I reject this. Self-fulfillment, by it's very definition is defined by self... not by you. We don't go by your arbitrary criteria. We're each individuals who are satisfied by different things. You don't get to determine what fulfills me and I don't get to decide what fulfills you.

But regardless of definition, most Americans are not working for "self fulfillment" right now. Most people are struggling just to pay rent/mortgage.

I would argue that your rent/mortgage is part of your own self-fulfillment. I may be content living in a van by the river.... you may not want to live in a van by the river. And guess what... people always struggle somewhere. This is the go-to argument for all Socialists and it fails because no amount of Socialism will ever end people struggling.

So healthcare is whimsical? Housing is whimsical? You presume that everyone starts off at the same starting line and that it's all a matter of who runs faster from there.

No, I think the idea of "basic needs" is whimsical. You can't define universal basic needs in terms of something that fits every individual because we all have different wants, needs and desires. And yes, in a free constitutional republic, everyone starts off at the same starting line. Some get an immediate advantage because of the work and effort of their parents. People are dealt all kinds of advantages as well as disadvantages throughout life and there is no way to make everything fair for everyone always.... just not something realistic in this universe. This is why it's often called Utopian.

If anything, ignoring child poverty would lead to another generation of impoverished adults who would most likely make those same mistakes. It's a cycle, you see? We can either swallow up our pride and try to end it or we can keep it going....

Well nothing you can ever do will end child poverty, mainly because children are (for the most part) incapable of earning wealth. So what you really mean is that we should somehow subsidize their parents, which is morally wrong because it enables their parents to continue making the same poor decisions which led them to impoverished lifestyles to begin with. And again, I will ask you, what did 17th century pioneers do about this? Surely, there were many children raised in poverty who grew up to be successful somehow. You see, the human spirit is strong. When people have the motivation to succeed and the freedom to do so, they often will succeed. Sometimes being raised in poverty is the single biggest motivator there is.

Also, you presume that I love socialism because I'm trying to excuse my "inability to compete", even though you know nothing about me. Resorting to the personal will get us nowhere.

I'm not trying to be personal, I just think that's the gist of why most people embrace socialism. When we cut to the chase, that's what it amounts to. You lack confidence in your ability to compete with others. And it's NOT your inability, it's your PERCEIVED inability. Every person is capable of achievement if they apply themselves. Some people don't believe they can, it's too hard, the deck is stacked against them, it's all society's fault so society needs to rectify this by providing your "basic needs".

The comparison between 17th century pioneers having "nothing but shirts on their backs" and 21st century society doesn't work at all...

Sure it does! Why doesn't it? The principles remain the same. You want something, you have to work for it. Nothing is provided to you for free and you're not entitled to anything. When you work for something and earn it you gain a sense of self-accomplishment and pride, you're happier and more fulfilled as a human being. Happier people make a happier society.

Sure, I think everyone already knows that. It would be kind of patronizing to assume, once again, that poor people are just sitting there waiting for other people to give them their basic needs.

Yet, that's exactly what you lobbied for earlier. You even used the poor children to tug at my heartstrings. You somehow believe it's society's responsibility to provide these mystical "basic needs" which can't really be defined, so that people have a "chance in life". That's nonsense.

They key responsibility for any civilized society in the modern world is to ensure that people CAN FULFILL their responsibility to meet their basic needs.

And we do this better than any society on the planet with a free enterprise system, free market capitalism and a constitutional republic.

 

[Moonglow]

In an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace this weekend, President-elect Donald Trump suggested that his administration would have to put a major tax on companies that relocate to other countries and then sell their goods in the US like "we're a bunch of jerks."

"What about the free market," Wallace asked.


"It's the dumb market," he responded.

Trump says the free market is ‘dumb’ — but Argentina offers a cautionary tale

 

[Boss]

In an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace this weekend, President-elect Donald Trump suggested that his administration would have to put a major tax on companies that relocate to other countries and then sell their goods in the US like "we're a bunch of jerks."

"What about the free market," Wallace asked.


"It's the dumb market," he responded.

Trump says the free market is ‘dumb’ — but Argentina offers a cautionary tale

Sorry, this thread is not about Donald Trump. Stick to the topic please.

 

[Political Junky]

the USSR had ranks

Their military wasn't a socialist organization.

BS .. USSR was Communist.

 

[Boss]

the USSR had ranks

Their military wasn't a socialist organization.

BS .. USSR was Communist.

Yes, their government was. Their military wasn't. No military is communist or socialist ...or democratic. You will learn this the instant you step off the bus at boot camp.

Now, can we get back to the thread topic?

 

[Political Junky]

the USSR had ranks

Their military wasn't a socialist organization.

BS .. USSR was Communist.

Yes, their government was. Their military wasn't. No military is communist or socialist ...or democratic. You will learn this the instant you step off the bus at boot camp.

Now, can we get back to the thread topic?

Perhaps you should read about Socialism.

 

[Boss]

Perhaps you should read about Socialism.

I have. Been studying it my whole life. Socialism, in one form or another, is responsible for more than 150 million deaths and counting. That's an irrefutable fact but we're not here to discuss the merits of Socialism, we're discussing why some people embrace Socialism as a matter of governmental policy.

Silly kindergarten-style arguments about the military being "Socialist" is nonsense. It's an attempt to derail the thread topic with something goofy and superfluous. No military in the world (regardless of government) operates as a Socialist system.... NONE! PERIOD! End of discussion!

 

[bt404]

So, in a sense, you're correct in saying that virtually all government have some socialist policies in some form or another. Hence, why I don't think "socialism" should be demonized in the way it is by those who still wallow in Red Scare paranoia.

Again, we have to remain consistent in context. You are calling things "socialist" that might have common attributes with socialism but that's not what we're discussing in a governing societal policy context. Enumerated in our Constitution are certain powers granted to government on behalf of the people... that's not Socialism in the context we are discussing. You can argue these are "socialistic" in nature, I have no argument against that but these things are agreed upon by civilized society and by the very nature of government itself.

This thread is not to demonize Socialism, it is to examine why some people tend to embrace socialist policy. I'll let Socialists debate the merits of their system in one of the thousand other threads here. Everyone knows how I feel about Socialism, everyone knows how you feel about it. To me, that's a pointless discussion.

Actually, I think self fulfillment works hand in hand with "societal progress." It all depends on what you mean by "self-fulfillment."

This is interesting. You think self-fulfillment works hand in hand but yet, you feel compelled to dictate what is and isn't acceptable fulfillment. See... I reject this. Self-fulfillment, by it's very definition is defined by self... not by you. We don't go by your arbitrary criteria. We're each individuals who are satisfied by different things. You don't get to determine what fulfills me and I don't get to decide what fulfills you.

But regardless of definition, most Americans are not working for "self fulfillment" right now. Most people are struggling just to pay rent/mortgage.

I would argue that your rent/mortgage is part of your own self-fulfillment. I may be content living in a van by the river.... you may not want to live in a van by the river. And guess what... people always struggle somewhere. This is the go-to argument for all Socialists and it fails because no amount of Socialism will ever end people struggling.

So healthcare is whimsical? Housing is whimsical? You presume that everyone starts off at the same starting line and that it's all a matter of who runs faster from there.

No, I think the idea of "basic needs" is whimsical. You can't define universal basic needs in terms of something that fits every individual because we all have different wants, needs and desires. And yes, in a free constitutional republic, everyone starts off at the same starting line. Some get an immediate advantage because of the work and effort of their parents. People are dealt all kinds of advantages as well as disadvantages throughout life and there is no way to make everything fair for everyone always.... just not something realistic in this universe. This is why it's often called Utopian.

If anything, ignoring child poverty would lead to another generation of impoverished adults who would most likely make those same mistakes. It's a cycle, you see? We can either swallow up our pride and try to end it or we can keep it going....

Well nothing you can ever do will end child poverty, mainly because children are (for the most part) incapable of earning wealth. So what you really mean is that we should somehow subsidize their parents, which is morally wrong because it enables their parents to continue making the same poor decisions which led them to impoverished lifestyles to begin with. And again, I will ask you, what did 17th century pioneers do about this? Surely, there were many children raised in poverty who grew up to be successful somehow. You see, the human spirit is strong. When people have the motivation to succeed and the freedom to do so, they often will succeed. Sometimes being raised in poverty is the single biggest motivator there is.

Also, you presume that I love socialism because I'm trying to excuse my "inability to compete", even though you know nothing about me. Resorting to the personal will get us nowhere.

I'm not trying to be personal, I just think that's the gist of why most people embrace socialism. When we cut to the chase, that's what it amounts to. You lack confidence in your ability to compete with others. And it's NOT your inability, it's your PERCEIVED inability. Every person is capable of achievement if they apply themselves. Some people don't believe they can, it's too hard, the deck is stacked against them, it's all society's fault so society needs to rectify this by providing your "basic needs".

The comparison between 17th century pioneers having "nothing but shirts on their backs" and 21st century society doesn't work at all...

Sure it does! Why doesn't it? The principles remain the same. You want something, you have to work for it. Nothing is provided to you for free and you're not entitled to anything. When you work for something and earn it you gain a sense of self-accomplishment and pride, you're happier and more fulfilled as a human being. Happier people make a happier society.

Sure, I think everyone already knows that. It would be kind of patronizing to assume, once again, that poor people are just sitting there waiting for other people to give them their basic needs.

Yet, that's exactly what you lobbied for earlier. You even used the poor children to tug at my heartstrings. You somehow believe it's society's responsibility to provide these mystical "basic needs" which can't really be defined, so that people have a "chance in life". That's nonsense.

They key responsibility for any civilized society in the modern world is to ensure that people CAN FULFILL their responsibility to meet their basic needs.

And we do this better than any society on the planet with a free enterprise system, free market capitalism and a constitutional republic.

You say this thread is not about demonizing socialism, yet the only case you make for why people like me agree with Socialist elements are because we are just too insecure with ourselves to compete with others. That's a huge deductive leap you make there as well as a pretty premature value judgement. Left or right, I think most of us believe that we are part of a greater good or in some ways contributing to some greater good (though that greater good will vary from person to person). But I'm going to assume that, for example, you believe that you are doing your part in society by partaking in a job or industry that helps propel the economy forward, hence keeping the "machine" that keeps things civilized moving forward, whilst utilizing your "natural" comparative advantage. What I'm trying to get at is that whether one is socialist, capitalist, or mixture of both, people want to believe that they are helping, in some way, to move society "forward" (again, what "forward" is will vary). If you want to limit this discussion as to WHY people tend to lean towards socialism, at its very CORE, it's the same reason why certain people tend to lean towards capitalism, for the reasons I stated above.

Overall, the basis of your argument is twofold.

One: that one should work to get ahead in life. Nobody's disputing this. So I can disregard any "counter points" you make to me about that since I never once implied that people should just sit around all day doing nothing.

Two: that whenever one is pointing out ever-increasing wealth inequality, childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world), one is essentially blaming society. Would you say that abolitionists in the 19th century are blaming society when they point out the intrinsic inhumanity of slave labor? You're right that it would be overly idealistic to claim that we could just snap our fingers and fix poverty and so forth. But is one not at least entitled to attempt to limit poverty? We do NOT need to have a fifth of our adolescent population in poverty.

The social ills we have right now are not unfixable. There IS a way to create a system that would allow everyone to participate and utilize their comparative advantages. By claiming that things are all good right now is utopian, and only retards the process of trying to understand and perhaps discover ways in which people like you and me can work together to improve society.

You even used the poor children to tug at my heartstrings. You somehow believe it's society's responsibility to provide these mystical "basic needs" which can't really be defined, so that people have a "chance in life". That's nonsense.

I'm not trying to pull any "heart strings." I'm pointing out a FACT: twenty percent of the adolescent population in the United States live below the poverty line. How you feel about that is up to you. I believe it is society's responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity (which isn't the same as 'everyone being equal' or some strawman like that). If helping others achieve equal opportunity has no effect on YOUR life, then I fail to see why you are so adamant in making sure people don't achieve that equal opportunity....And before you go on to say that it DOES affect your life in that it'll be at someone's expense (presumably yours), I don't think it has to be that way. If you want to go on further with that discussion, we can and hope we do.

Before delving deeper, I think you and I would agree that it would be best if we define our terms before going forward. Otherwise, again we'd be talking in cross-purposes.

What's your definition of "progress"--is it a society that ensures the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people? I'm genuinely curious as to what conservatives (assuming you are one) think "progress" is? Furthermore, what is your definition of "work"--is it just a thing we do 8 hours a day to gain abstract purchasing power to buy coffee machines?