Conservatives are Socialists

[Boss]

The only possible way I could see a conservative being a socialist is for that person to be so far right that he eventually merges with the radical left.

This is because you are interpreting "socialism" as totalitarian Marxism or Communism. That's not what I am talking about. Any system that is centrally-controlled by government, which is there to provide a collective benefit for us all, is a "socialist" system. The military, for example. Every conservative I know of believes in having a strong military.... do you believe it should be privatized or operated by corporations?

We credit Eisenhower (R) with our wonderful interstate highway system, but this idea was not his. It comes from the National Socialists of Germany under Hitler. It is a socialist system. Most conservatives are appreciative of the interstate highway system, we don't hear many of them clamoring for repeal on that. And it doesn't mean we are Nazis.

The point is, socialist systems can and do work under the financial backing of free market capitalism and economic free enterprise. The conservative philosophy should restrict these things to what we need and not what we want. Even a degree of nationalized needed health care is obtainable, if it is done correctly. The current plan isn't going to work, but if we first tackled the cost-effectiveness of health care by introducing more competition and capitalism and removing government regulation and constraint, it is possible to have a limited "socialist" system to provide health care for those who need health care. To some degree, this is precisely what we did with Medicaid.

The problem is, liberal socialists are ideologues. They've taken socialism to a whole new level. They embrace the failed ideology of the Marxists and Communists and believe we can make this system work, even though it has failed every time it has been tried. To a socialist ideologue, the line between need and want is unclear and undefined. A want becomes a need. Socialism can never provide everything we want. Only free market capitalism can do that.

 

[Geaux4it]

Jut because the government pays for something does not make it socialism.

Nope- Just makes them the pusher man

-Geaux

 

[Wildman]

Could Boss have possibly lost his mind? What the hell, man? How can he possibly explain this argument? It appears to completely fly in the face of conventional wisdom and is a contradiction of terms. How can Conservatives be Socialists? Well, this is what we shall examine in this OP.

First, let's clarify a few things. Socialism as we know it, is an ideology. It is the notion that top-down government control of things is more beneficial to the people than private sector control. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a way of thinking, a philosophy rather than ideology. It is the belief in pragmatic time-tested solutions which have proven to provide results. Therefore, a Conservative can indeed believe in pragmatic socialistic remedies for particular problems, if the socialistic remedies are effective and work.

We often hear liberals chortle about roads, police, fire departments, snow plows... all being "socialist" yet widely supported and embraced by all in society, including Conservatives. This is true, and I will add a few more things as well; our military, Supreme Court, Congress, and the Constitution itself. All of these things are "socialist" in that, they deal with the collective as opposed to the individual or private sector.

So what is the Conservative beef with Socialism? Well, it's the ideology itself. It is the false belief that any and all things are better under a socialistic system. Some things are better but some things are not. Many things, particularly regarding our freedom and economy, are better handled through private enterprise, free markets, respectful of individual liberty. Conservatives believe this because history has proven them to be true. Some socialist measures work precisely because free market capitalism enables them to work.

Let's take the fire departments for example. Governments don't just assume the role of providing protection against fires. Communities get together and raise revenue through mutual taxation to fund a fire department. There has to be private sector capitalism happening first, to enable a tax base by which a portion can be used to fund a fire department. If there is no private sector capitalism happening, where does the money come from to pay the firemen or buy equipment?

The same thing can be said of roads, police, schools and snow plows. Without the capitalist engaging in free market trade, there is no tax revenue to fund these things. So a purely socialistic society cannot work because governments have no means of income production. We know this is true because of history, it was attempted under Chairman Mao Zedong in China. He believed that society could share the burden of production for a centralized government who would ensure everyone was cared for adequately without the need for capitalism. The experiment resulted in dismal failure and the deaths of over 50 million people.

What happens is "human nature." Without capitalism, the people who are supposed to be providing the means of production become demotivated. There is no reward for working harder. It becomes the motivational goal to simply do what is required and remain alive. Because there is no capitalistic push or drive, this eventually results in shortfalls and the people discover there is not enough to go around. Meanwhile, those who are in charge of distribution have full access to resources and they tend to look out for number one. Over time, the system devolves into two classes: The Ruling Class Elite and the Peasant Class.

As people, we have needs and wants. A "need" is something that is required, a "want" is something that is desired. They are two different birds. A free market capitalist free enterprise system, which the Conservatives believe in, can provide the financial underpinning for those things which general society needs. This is where "general welfare" comes in. Those things which we can all agree are needed by all, that benefit all of us in society, and we can use tax revenues to collectively pay for and handle without much burden to the individual. Yes, that is socialistic, but there is nothing wrong with it.

The problem is when socialistic ideology spills over from our "needs" to our "wants" and attempts to provide cradle-to-grave entitlement. It's the pollyannish thinking that we can somehow give everyone everything their hearts desire and the wealthy can somehow pay for it all. Since the wealthy obviously have a finite amount of wealth, this road has a dead end at some point. Besides, the wealthy are mostly motivated by capitalism, and when you begin providing everyone with everything their hearts desire, you effectively kill capitalist motivation. Why work hard and earn wealth when everything is being given to you? If your needs have been met and you have no wants, then there is little to motivate you.

Conservatives are Socialist, in that they do believe in certain measures to ensure societal needs are met, but they believe this is better accomplished through free market capitalism, generating economic prosperity and growth, producing capitalist revenue which can be used collectively to handle those needs. It is through the freedom of capitalism that we believe it is possible to have limited socialist systems to cover these needs. Not only do conservatives believe it is better, we believe it is ultimately the only thing that works.

what a load of BULLSHIT !!

 

[Wildman]

Verdict overturned.

you do not have a 60% majority to over turn any verdict.

as Granny in "Blazing Saddles" said, "up yours, ******" .... ...

 

[USNavyVet]

Jut because the government pays for something does not make it socialism.

The government doesn't pay for anything, they have no means of earning income. They collect revenue from the people in the form of taxes or tariffs, regulatory fees or fines. That money can then be used to pay for things that collectively benefit all, which is in essence, a socialist concept.

Now some people are misinterpreting what I've said here. I did not say Conservatives are Marxists. The Marxist form of Socialism is largely what Conservatives are opposed to because it doesn't work. This is the idea of wealth redistribution and socialist systems designed to move us toward communism.

Variations of this idea have been tried since the mid 19th century and all have failed. The proponents just repackage the same ideas under different terminology and try it again.

Free market capitalism, on the other hand, has always proven successful. It works. This doesn't mean that no socialist system can ever work. Some certainly do work with the support of a vibrant free market capitalist system. It's how the US managed to have the largest military in the free world.

Sure the government collects our tax money and uses it for more than to pay for the government to exist but that does not mean it is socialism. There are things the government should pay for, such as street lighting which is a public safety issue. That is not socialism. That is something that is not economically feasible for the individual and therefore our tax dollars pay for it. To think that roads are socialism is completely idiotic. Those darn ancient romans and their socialist roads all over the place.

 

[Boss]

Sure the government collects our tax money and uses it for more than to pay for the government to exist but that does not mean it is socialism. There are things the government should pay for, such as street lighting which is a public safety issue. That is not socialism. That is something that is not economically feasible for the individual and therefore our tax dollars pay for it. To think that roads are socialism is completely idiotic. Those darn ancient romans and their socialist roads all over the place.

Maybe a better way to say it is, it's not Socialism but it IS socialist. Read my OP again. I go to great lengths to delineate the difference between Socialism: The Ideology and socialistic systems.

Regardless of whether there is a public safety issue regarding street lights, money is collected and used to benefit the collective. In the simplest terms, this is a socialist concept. That is not being idiotic, that is being honest. Roads are not socialism, they are socialist. The fact that Romans practiced socialist methods before the ideology of Socialism was born, is irrelevant. These socialist ideas and concepts were the basis for the ideology of Socialism.

Let me make something clear before too many of you get wound up, I am not here advocating Socialism or claiming that Conservatives are really Socialist ideologues. That is an argument that modern liberals like to throw at Conservatives while defending their failed ideology. I am arguing that socialistic systems are sometimes beneficial and can work for the betterment of mankind... IF they are supportable by a vibrant free market capitalist system. Roads, police, fire, snow plows, schools, street lights, military... all very good examples of this. But without free enterprise and free market capitalism, these systems can't support themselves.

 

[Boss]

Verdict overturned.

you do not have a 60% majority to over turn any verdict.

as Granny in "Blazing Saddles" said, "up yours, ******" .... ...

I don't need a supermajority to overturn the verdict of an idiot. My vote plus the irrefutable evidence presented was more than enough. Of course, your ignorance keeps you from seeing that, as demonstrated by your inability to actually read the posts as well as your most recent racial slur.

 

[FJO]

I drink lots of ice cold beer in order to lose weight, because it takes my body lots of calories to bring that beer up to the temperature of my body.

The logic in the OP is exactly like that.

 

[editec]

All this is nothing more than quibbling over the meaning of a word.

Which this board dearly loves to do since it gives clueless morons the sense that they have valid opinions about things of whch they know practically nothing.


According to most of the self proclaiming conservatives (sometimes Libertarians) socialism is any government behavior they personally disapprove of.

How convenient for them, eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1][2] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[3] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[4] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[5]
Verdict overturned.

Not in the slightest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jut because the government pays for something does not make it socialism.

Exactly.

 

[USNavyVet]

Sure the government collects our tax money and uses it for more than to pay for the government to exist but that does not mean it is socialism. There are things the government should pay for, such as street lighting which is a public safety issue. That is not socialism. That is something that is not economically feasible for the individual and therefore our tax dollars pay for it. To think that roads are socialism is completely idiotic. Those darn ancient romans and their socialist roads all over the place.

Maybe a better way to say it is, it's not Socialism but it IS socialist. Read my OP again. I go to great lengths to delineate the difference between Socialism: The Ideology and socialistic systems.

Regardless of whether there is a public safety issue regarding street lights, money is collected and used to benefit the collective. In the simplest terms, this is a socialist concept. That is not being idiotic, that is being honest. Roads are not socialism, they are socialist. The fact that Romans practiced socialist methods before the ideology of Socialism was born, is irrelevant. These socialist ideas and concepts were the basis for the ideology of Socialism.

Let me make something clear before too many of you get wound up, I am not here advocating Socialism or claiming that Conservatives are really Socialist ideologues. That is an argument that modern liberals like to throw at Conservatives while defending their failed ideology. I am arguing that socialistic systems are sometimes beneficial and can work for the betterment of mankind... IF they are supportable by a vibrant free market capitalist system. Roads, police, fire, snow plows, schools, street lights, military... all very good examples of this. But without free enterprise and free market capitalism, these systems can't support themselves.

Using government to benefit everyone equally is not limited to socialism and that's where the problem lies. Pretending that helping everyone is only socialism is not true and for the most part is not really part of socialism. The general welfare clause of the Constitution when it was written meant to that laws and regulations should benefit everyone, not a select few. Our founding fathers were not socialists and neither are most things socialists claim to own.

 

[mudwhistle]

So at what point did you relate Conservatives to socialism? Can you write something more concise and "to the point" so we may examine your argument?

He did. You just needed to read it.

He should have put a question mark in the title.

 

[Contumacious]

The only possible way I could see a conservative being a socialist is for that person to be so far right that he eventually merges with the radical left.

Didn't scumbag "conservative justice" Roberts merge with the left when he approved Obama Hellcare?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Jughead]

The only possible way I could see a conservative being a socialist is for that person to be so far right that he eventually merges with the radical left.

Didn't scumbag "conservative justice" Roberts merge with the left when he approved Obama Hellcare?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

I know. I had my doubts when president Bush nominated him. Unlike justice Thomas who has proven his conservative credentials.

 

[Boss]

Using government to benefit everyone equally is not limited to socialism and that's where the problem lies. Pretending that helping everyone is only socialism is not true and for the most part is not really part of socialism. The general welfare clause of the Constitution when it was written meant to that laws and regulations should benefit everyone, not a select few. Our founding fathers were not socialists and neither are most things socialists claim to own.

But you are not "using government to benefit everyone equally" because government has no earned income. You are using the income tax revenues and assorted other gains from the individuals of society to do things which benefit the collective. Sorry, but that IS socialist. The general welfare clause, whether you believe the liberal or conservative definition, is a socialist concept. You are almost getting to my point when you argue that laws and regulations (or general welfare) shouldn't benefit only a few. I agree with this 100%.

This is precisely why Socialism as an ideology fails. There is virtually no way to ensure an equal distribution of anything to the collective. Some will always benefit more while others benefit less. A socialist idea can be an efficient way to ensure specific needs are met for the society as a whole. The problem is, liberals have conflated need with want and desire. Instead of the socialist idea merely providing for a need, it is expected to provide for wants and desires, and that isn't possible in a capitalist free market society. This is why the socialists attack capitalism.

I know a lot of conservatives. I don't know any who think we shouldn't have social safety nets of some kind to help those in need. I don't want poor people to starve or disabled vets to suffer. And I don't have a problem with a socialist system to address those needs. What I am opposed to is Socialism: The Ideology, where wants and desires replace needs. I have an obligation as good citizen and upstanding member of society, to contribute tax revenues so that our government can provide aid for those in need. Sure, it's socialist, but that's okay. The thing that is not okay, is the ideology which seeks to take my money to provide for the wants and desires of others. That's not government's place nor is it mine.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Only ignorant, brainwashed ugly Americans you guessed it Pub dupes immediately go to communism as the meaning of socialism. The rest of the world recognizes that today socialism means well -regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Works a helluva lot better than a banana republic, what the greedy idiot rich new bs GOP seems to want...

''We're all socialists now''- Finland's PM when O-Care passed.

Do you ever communicate on these forums in manner that would be passable (a C or C+) in a college level essay?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The only possible way I could see a conservative being a socialist is for that person to be so far right that he eventually merges with the radical left.

Which is precisely what happened.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
He may be talking about a great portion of the fake conservatives/neocons/RINOS, in which case he is entirely correct.

I've had Neocons nearly assault me in a Dunkin Donuts when I tricked them into admitting that they were the same as Progressives, with their own logic and realization

Is that right? With their own logic and realization? Whatever that means.

It's called the Socratic Method.

Basic wiki summary:

Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

I have them declare why they find Progressives detestable and why the repudiate the ideology. Then I make them admit that their ideology is actually no different, and I do it in a rather clandestine manner. I let them sow the seeds of their own demise, while they don't even realize it. Then I sprinkle some fertilizer and the flower blooms, with a sickle for the stem, and hammers for the petals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Using government to benefit everyone equally is not limited to socialism and that's where the problem lies. Pretending that helping everyone is only socialism is not true and for the most part is not really part of socialism. The general welfare clause of the Constitution when it was written meant to that laws and regulations should benefit everyone, not a select few. Our founding fathers were not socialists and neither are most things socialists claim to own.

But you are not "using government to benefit everyone equally" because government has no earned income. You are using the income tax revenues and assorted other gains from the individuals of society to do things which benefit the collective. Sorry, but that IS socialist.

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

The general welfare clause, whether you believe the liberal or conservative definition, is a socialist concept

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?