Another Thread About Socialism, But Better

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Liberty and individuality is always a better alternative IMO
Some people dont want to take care of themselves. To that i say, "to each their own"
They certainly arent deserving of my labor.
For the actual helpless? We could do something on a smaller scale.

Even if it means paying a lot more on healthcare insurance collectively speaking?

A person would be hard pressed to prove the govt isnt the reason costs are so high to begin with..

 

[miketx]

View attachment 207815

Great! So can we get to the bottom of who is advocating for the abolition of private property and government ownership of production and distribution?

Because I'm not really seeing that being advocated.
.

Advocating a socialist United States is advocating that.

You do realize most are advocating for a "democratic socialism", such as in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Germany, right?

Those are not socialist countries by definition.
.

They are Social Democracy, indeed they aren't real Socialists because they mostly have economic Capitalist free markets.

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

 

[Mac1958]

Great! So can we get to the bottom of who is advocating for the abolition of private property and government ownership of production and distribution?

Because I'm not really seeing that being advocated.
.

Advocating a socialist United States is advocating that.

You do realize most are advocating for a "democratic socialism", such as in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Germany, right?

Those are not socialist countries by definition.
.

They are Social Democracy, indeed they aren't real Socialists because they mostly have economic Capitalist free markets.

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

Well, you're under no obligation to understand words you use, I guess.

I'd think most people would want some accuracy, but I guess some don't.
.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Advocating a socialist United States is advocating that.

You do realize most are advocating for a "democratic socialism", such as in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Germany, right?

Those are not socialist countries by definition.
.

They are Social Democracy, indeed they aren't real Socialists because they mostly have economic Capitalist free markets.

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

Well, you're under no obligation to understand words you use, I guess.

I'd think most people would want some accuracy, but I guess some don't.
.

I actually strive for Right-Wing Socialism, rather than Left-Wing Republicans, Democrats, and Social Democrats.

I mean, how can we stop outsourcing jobs in mass, and hiring illegal immigrants in mass without some kind of override by the government?
AKA SOCIALISM.

Whether it's Founding Fathers stripping them of the Corporate charters,Fascist Councils, or just throwing them behind bars.

Interference in the market is a good thing to stop the Corporate bastards from hiring foreigners over Americans.

 

[miketx]

Advocating a socialist United States is advocating that.

You do realize most are advocating for a "democratic socialism", such as in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Germany, right?

Those are not socialist countries by definition.
.

They are Social Democracy, indeed they aren't real Socialists because they mostly have economic Capitalist free markets.

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

Well, you're under no obligation to understand words you use, I guess.

I'd think most people would want some accuracy, but I guess some don't.
.

I don't give a damn what those other countries do so long as they leave us alone! What is so hard for you to understand about that?

 

[Mac1958]

You do realize most are advocating for a "democratic socialism", such as in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Germany, right?

Those are not socialist countries by definition.
.

They are Social Democracy, indeed they aren't real Socialists because they mostly have economic Capitalist free markets.

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

Well, you're under no obligation to understand words you use, I guess.

I'd think most people would want some accuracy, but I guess some don't.
.

I don't give a damn what those other countries do so long as they leave us aloI wne! What is so hard for you to understand about that?

I was just trying to help you understand the words you're using.

But you've said you don't care, so I know not to do that now.

This is strange territory for me.
.

 

[miketx]

They are Social Democracy, indeed they aren't real Socialists because they mostly have economic Capitalist free markets.

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

Well, you're under no obligation to understand words you use, I guess.

I'd think most people would want some accuracy, but I guess some don't.
.

I don't give a damn what those other countries do so long as they leave us aloI wne! What is so hard for you to understand about that?

I was just trying to help you understand the words you're using.

But you've said you don't care, so I know not to do that now.

This is strange territory for me.
.

No all you are doing is spinning a trolling like all libs do here. Trying to pretend you are so smart and we are all so dum. lol

 

[Some Guy]

People on the right have blunted what "socialism" has traditionally meaned. Like how the left has really demeaned the terms "nazi" and "racist" and such... no different really. The definition of "socialism" is just sharing the costs and benefits equally of something among a certain group of people. For example, nuclear families are "socialist." Mom and/or Dad go to work to earn money and that money is socialized among the entire family for everyone's equal benefit.

Naturally, if you're advocating for "socialism" as an economic system, you're saying that all the value earned by the entire system would be equally shared among everyone within that system. So if the whole system generates $20 trillion yearly, then the 330 million people are all making about $60k regardless of what value they're adding to the system. That's the simplest way of thinking about it.

Any "system" could be socialized. I think it really depends on the system, but moreso, how much investment each person has in the well being of all the others involved. That's why socialism on a large scale always fails, and why it's such a good system on the small scale (family).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thankfully we have no signs of it. I hear the term thrown around a lot but it doesn't exist here not is it any kind of threat to ever appear in the us.

I think the naysayers believe all civil service is socialism, and think - police, fire, the military and all local, state, federal and special district employees - are examples of socialism.

They've been told that unless there is a profit motive, the work done by such workers is creeping socialism, and the first steps toward Marxism and a totalitarian state.

And yet they've voted for or support an authoritarian whose idea of leadership is megalomania.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Liberty and individuality is always a better alternative IMO .

Simply taking on a policy issue and yelling "liberty and freedom" at it isn't really a policy..I usually see people like yourself never really have any policy proposals because most of you could care less about policy, just saying words that makes you feel better.

Some people dont want to take care of themselves. To that i say, "to each their own"
They certainly arent deserving of my labor..

Those lesser people don't deserve it is a popular mantra in opposition to policies that help everyone -- but we would gladly shoot ourselves in the foot if we think those lesser people get to benefit too

What makes corporations deserving of more tax cuts at your expense?

For the actual helpless? We could do something on a smaller scale.

Yea, that's still socialism...

Liberty and freedom are policies
Corporations shouldnt get welfare. Im ok with tax cuts. I will almost always support people keeping more of THEIR money
Sure it is. But by smaller scale, i meant on a lot smaller scale than what we have now. Liek where only the helpless use it.

Ok, let me try this again...

Let's take health insurance -- did you know that talks of a national healthcare system first started back in 1912 with Teddy Roosevelt? Was he a communist socialist? Later Truman tried something similar -- he was trying to address the issue of more and more Americans not being able to afford health care (yes, even back then).

So a compromise was struck, they would provide national healthcare for those over 65 only instead of for all Americans like the socialist dictators Teddy and Truman tried -- since it was basically impossible for seniors to get affordable coverage, they were basically dying due to not being able to afford to live -- Liberty and Freedom may be good names for health insurance companies, but they were not actual policies

The policy that worked best was Medicare -- which is why it is still the most popular form of healthcare for 50 plus years and counting.

You tell me how liberty and freedom will keep overhead costs below 7% like Medicare does?

 

[initforme]

We have no socialistic policies in this nation. Why all this fus?

 

[Mac1958]

Correct!

Unfortunately, American conservatives don't appear to recognize that distinction.
.

We don't care! Just leave us the hell alone!

Well, you're under no obligation to understand words you use, I guess.

I'd think most people would want some accuracy, but I guess some don't.
.

I don't give a damn what those other countries do so long as they leave us aloI wne! What is so hard for you to understand about that?

I was just trying to help you understand the words you're using.

But you've said you don't care, so I know not to do that now.

This is strange territory for me.
.

No all you are doing is spinning a trolling like all libs do here. Trying to pretend you are so smart and we are all so dum. lol

I didn't think that understanding the difference between socialism and social democracy was all that complicated.

Okay, I'll drop it.
.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats have been toying with socialism since FDR was elected about the same time the German socialist party gained power. Woodie Guthrie was touring hobo camps during FDR's Great Depression and spouting Marxist slogans trying to unite the workers. Guthrie and FDR are celebrated today by the idiotic left. What does it take for people to wake up to the democrat party's lurch to socialism when they almost ran a socialist for president last go round?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Liberty and individuality is always a better alternative IMO
Some people dont want to take care of themselves. To that i say, "to each their own"
They certainly arent deserving of my labor.
For the actual helpless? We could do something on a smaller scale.

Even if it means paying a lot more on healthcare insurance collectively speaking?

A person would be hard pressed to prove the govt isnt the reason costs are so high to begin with..

They aren't -- health insurance tells you that they are to justify their business model which is to skim as much of your money off the top to pay themselves large bonuses -- that is the problem with for profit insurance and that is why senior citizens will fight you in the streets if you ever talk about privatizing their Medicare

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Democrats have been toying with socialism since FDR was elected about the same time the German socialist party gained power. Woodie Guthry was touring hobo camps during FDR's Great Depression and spouting Marxist slogans trying to unite the workers. Guthry and FDR are celebrated today by the idiotic left. What does it take for people to wake up to the democrat party's lurch to socialism when they almost ran a socialist for president last go round?

But, didn't FDR achieve the fastest economic growth of any 20th Century U.S.A President?

Yes, I'm personally not too thrilled about FDR for Yalta Conference throwing Central Europe to the Soviets, Lend-lease aid to Soviets, or being involved in the Dresden Firebombing.

But, his economic policies seem to stimulate economic growth fairly well, no?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Democrats have been toying with socialism since FDR was elected about the same time the German socialist party gained power. Woodie Guthrie was touring hobo camps during FDR's Great Depression and spouting Marxist slogans trying to unite the workers. Guthrie and FDR are celebrated today by the idiotic left. What does it take for people to wake up to the democrat party's lurch to socialism when they almost ran a socialist for president last go round?

Teddy Roosevelt and Truman were not socialists, progressive, but not socialists

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Democrats have been toying with socialism since FDR was elected about the same time the German socialist party gained power. Woodie Guthrie was touring hobo camps during FDR's Great Depression and spouting Marxist slogans trying to unite the workers. Guthrie and FDR are celebrated today by the idiotic left. What does it take for people to wake up to the democrat party's lurch to socialism when they almost ran a socialist for president last go round?

Teddy Roosevelt and Truman were not socialists, progressive, but not socialists

Actually, Teddy Roosevelt's interference in the Capitalism market, by splitting up big business like Standard Oil, is actually presumably Socialism.

It's government control over free-market Capitalism AKA Socialism.

Just this is a rather minor Socialist tendency, rather than deep Socialist tendencies like say Lenin, or Stalin had.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Both Roosevelt's were Socialists, FDR more so, in that he had the economy well regulated during his regime, especially the war economy which drastically pushed for government regulations of the economy for the war effort.
(Socialism for sure)

The funny thing is back then the Southern states collectively speaking had no problem with Democrat Socialists like FDR.

 

[Votto]

It seems more and more people are throwing around the "S" word for the purpose of fearmongering -- and from what I have seen in these threads is that not many people know what democratic socialism is --- so instead of going into a long dissertation about what it is..


Instead, I just want to ask people here to tell me if there is any policy, program or anything else currently in use that is "socialist" -- if so, what is it and what would be a better alternative?

The term socialist has been bastardized. When asked about socialism, Bernie Sanders just points to countries like Denmark. However, the government does not own industry there, do they.

No, he is just using the term socialist to mean higher taxation and government regulation, and not the true sense of the word socialist, where the government owns everything, like in Venezuela and North Korea, etc.

Having said that, Obama leaned left like Bernie, and look what the economy did. It slowly went to sleep with the GDP going down each year. However, with Trump the GDP is finally over 4% again since 2014.

Having higher taxes and government regulation hampers down an economy, something the US can ill afford with an exponentially increasing debt of $20 trillion plus and climbing.

All the Left wants to do though is give us more "free" things.

This is sheer fiscal insanity.

 

[TNHarley]

Liberty and individuality is always a better alternative IMO
Some people dont want to take care of themselves. To that i say, "to each their own"
They certainly arent deserving of my labor.
For the actual helpless? We could do something on a smaller scale.

Even if it means paying a lot more on healthcare insurance collectively speaking?

A person would be hard pressed to prove the govt isnt the reason costs are so high to begin with..

I know. Its crazy high. That doesnt prove healthcare was cheaper before the govt got involved.