CDZ Is it time for Socialism in the U.S.?

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I'm not; I was being a little sarcastic. But the wealthy benefit from a lot of socialist policies written just for them, whether the 'right' wants to admit it or not. 'The Corporate Personhood' scam is a major example.

That's not socialism. Businesses do not benefit from anything Socialist.

 

[TGN]

We've had all things that Orwell warned of of Nineteen Eighty-Four since 2002. It's not like there are any boogeymen left to scare people with. It will happen gradually.

Remember that Orwell was a socialist. What you didn't read the quote in the OP? The all-powerful dictatorship in his novel 1984 was a oligarchical state where a privileged few assumed absolute control not a socialist society based on popular or social ownership as Orwell witnessed during the Spanish Civil War.

 

[norwegen]

Socialism infiltrated the United States government in the Progressive Era. Passions, more than reason, motivated Teddy Roosevelt to invoke the Sherman Anti-trust law against J.P. Morgan and others, and he would have signed a universal healthcare bill.

As we've become accustomed to the passions and prejudices of our public officers and judges rather than the disinterested virtue of their forbears, we have invited, by degrees, the rule of the magistracy over the people and a contempt for our natural law traditions and constitutional principles.

The leftist wet dream is nearly complete. The people are sufficiently conditioned; the Unites States is ready for socialism.

 

[Arianrhod]

If you ask anyone who's been living under socialism for a decent span of time, or has studied history, they'd tell you 'no'.

If you ask anyone who has never experienced it, and doesn't study history at all they would tell you 'yes'.

Whereas if you ask someone who doesn't know that the U.S. functions on a blend of capitalism and socialism, you'll get an uninformed answer.

 

[jasonnfree]

No, I'm not; I was being a little sarcastic. But the wealthy benefit from a lot of socialist policies written just for them, whether the 'right' wants to admit it or not. 'The Corporate Personhood' scam is a major example.

That's not socialism. Businesses do not benefit from anything Socialist.

Sure they do. The last bank bailouts are a good example. They ran the economy like a casino, and when everything came crashing down, they were bailed out by the taxpayers. It doesn't get any more socialist than that. Privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

 

[Mac1958]

"Is it time for Socialism in the U.S.?"

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

A socialist is giving Hillary a run for her money as we speak.

Perhaps you could just answer the question instead of, uh, your usual stuff.

Give it a try.
.

 

[jasonnfree]

NO. It's time for America to give up on this ridiculous idea that EVERYONE deserves a vote no matter how stupid, disinterested, univested, and un-American they may be. It's time to rewrite the voting provisions in the US Constitution to allow ONLY land-owning, educated (high school grad), and competent (yearly exam required) CITIZENS to vote

Then maybe we should put some qualifications on politicians too.

 

[Arianrhod]

"Is it time for Socialism in the U.S.?"

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

A socialist is giving Hillary a run for her money as we speak.

Perhaps you could just answer the question instead of, uh, your usual stuff.

Give it a try.
.

Democratic socialist. Kindly indicate what in Sanders' tenure in Congress you consider "socialist."

 

[Mac1958]

Between Kshama Sawant's reelection to the Seattle council and the phenomenal popularity of the Sanders campaign it seems many in the U.S. electorate are now more opened minded to the idea of overtly socialists candidates. What can we expect in the future? Also there seems to be some dispute over what socialism is. Some might define it as state control over production and distribution while others describe it as either social or workers' control. Whichever, how do you define it and what developments do you expect for the future?

George Orwell gave his own first-hand observation of socialism in action during the Spanish Civil War description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

Economic systems exist on a continuum, and we're clearly moving towards a social democracy. The question is, assuming we continue on this course, how far we'll go on that continuum.

A Cuban/Venezuelan socialism? No. A German/French social democracy? I'd guess we'd be there within 12 to 15 years on our present course.
.

 

[Mac1958]

"Is it time for Socialism in the U.S.?"

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

A socialist is giving Hillary a run for her money as we speak.

Perhaps you could just answer the question instead of, uh, your usual stuff.

Give it a try.
.

Democratic socialist. Kindly indicate what in Sanders' tenure in Congress you consider "socialist."

Agreed. Democratic socialist. And the poster could have simply made that distinction and provided commentary, as I did.
.

 

[justaguy]

I lived in Eastern Europe, after the fall of the USSR; the older folks wanted the "old system" back; the youth were clammering for Western ideology and access to Economic courses at the local University. Lets hope the youth of the future will want to revert back to the US, pre Socialism, cos thats the only hope we have to save American culture. You have to experience Socialism in order to appreciate how bad it can get

 

[jasonnfree]

Socialism for the top 1% has been so wildly successful ever since Lincoln and the Republicans imposed it on the nation that it's only natural for the other 99% to want it for themselves, so why not? they've made it look pretty good. Big business likes it; just look at the amount of investment they've poured into Red China, viet Nam, Mexico, and other socialist countries.

Ohhh, you're a Bernie Sanders supporter. That explains everything. Yes, Sanders did say that, and as usual, he's a delusional old man. He also said that Verizon didn't pay taxes... then they released their tax records. He also references the "Hands up, don't shoot" myth, and the Man Made Climate Change myth.

No, I'm not; I was being a little sarcastic. But the wealthy benefit from a lot of socialist policies written just for them, whether the 'right' wants to admit it or not. 'The Corporate Personhood' scam is a major example.

Corporate personhood is basically a trade union for big business. If more right wingers understood this, they'd quit adoring and worshipping corporations, many of which pay no taxes at all.

 

[westwall]

Between Kshama Sawant's reelection to the Seattle council and the phenomenal popularity of the Sanders campaign it seems many in the U.S. electorate are now more opened minded to the idea of overtly socialists candidates. What can we expect in the future? Also there seems to be some dispute over what socialism is. Some might define it as state control over production and distribution while others describe it as either social or workers' control. Whichever, how do you define it and what developments do you expect for the future?

George Orwell gave his own first-hand observation of socialism in action during the Spanish Civil War description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

Socialism by itself is an untenable system. Just as capitalism unfettered is likewise. The best system, that helps the majority of the people, is a healthy mix of socialism AND capitalism.

 

[jasonnfree]

I lived in Eastern Europe, after the fall of the USSR; the older folks wanted the "old system" back; the youth were clammering for Western ideology and access to Economic courses at the local University. Lets hope the youth of the future will want to revert back to the US, pre Socialism, cos thats the only hope we have to save American culture. You have to experience Socialism in order to appreciate how bad it can get

FDR's socialism helped a lot of people, saved a lot of farms. Big business failed big time back then. There's probably a lot of people posting anti socialism on forums who would be in the streets if it weren't for social security and medicare, both of which are socialism. We need a mix of both free market and government.

 

[TGN]

Socialism is the means to control the majority, by a few, promising a Utopia that doesn't exist. If the US wants to follow that path then by all means knock yourselves out.

No that's oligarchy which according to this report is what we now have in the U.S according to this Princeton study:
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...95a.pdf&code=0e2542c3010db5e0ae713db408d36660

There's a reason Soviet Russia prevented/prevents anyone from leaving the country. If they allowed people to leave, there would be very few people left for the government to treat as property. There's a reason people aren't allowed to talk about it there, it's because if you asked any Russians, they would tell you how awful it is. No, it is never time for Socialism. That's like asking "is it time for cancer?".

And yet many have contended that USSR was State Capitalist rather than socialist. It even had some private enterprise as made possible by Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) which he introduced during the Tenth party congress of 1920:

"The New Economic Policy was universally referred to as NEP, and the 'privateers' who flourished under it were known as 'Nepmen'. It was a form of mixed economy, with an overwhelmingly private agriculture, plus legalized private trade and small scale private manufacturing." An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove

And during the 1930's there were the Stakhnovites who used Taylorist and competitive methods to achieve records in production.

Much of this seems unknown to some of the posters in this forum. They seem very opinionated but not particularly well-informed or nuanced in their views. Are you proud of yourselves?

And now there's Marinaleda, touted as a success story:

 

[320 Years of History]

"Is it time for Socialism in the U.S.?"

One cannot expect ‘clean debate’ when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

My thoughts fall into the same vein. I would have had something to say, but the thematic ambiguity of the title, the inaccurate representation of Sen. Sanders as a socialist, and most notably the OP positing that there is uncertainty of what socialism is, when the only way one can be uncertain about that is to have not bothered to find out, dissuades rational discourse and heartily invites an orgy of indignant myopic speculation compelled by ineffable cognitive onanism.

• A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
  
• The Politics of Market Socialism
• Why Socialism Failed
  
• What Exactly is a Socialist Economy? | Investopedia
  
• Socialism and Democracy -- Essentially a bibliography

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is now a time for evaluating how a transition to a Nordic model form of socialism can exist here in the USA but it will require both parties participating to avoid the kind of debacle we had with the ACA.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Whereas if you ask someone who doesn't know that the U.S. functions on a blend of capitalism and socialism, you'll get an uninformed answer.

Thanks for your example of an uninformed answer, I'll just copy your post for future socialist threads.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Whereas if you ask someone who doesn't know that the U.S. functions on a blend of capitalism and socialism, you'll get an uninformed answer.

Thanks for your example of an uninformed answer, I'll just copy your post for future socialist threads.

What is uninformed about his answer? We do run on a blend of socialism and capitalism.

The Too Big Too Fail Banks and the poor operate on socialism and the rest of us work under capitalism, more or less.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And yet many have contended that USSR was State Capitalist rather than socialist. It even had some private enterprise as made possible by Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) which he introduced during the Tenth party congress of 1920:

"The New Economic Policy was universally referred to as NEP, and the 'privateers' who flourished under it were known as 'Nepmen'. It was a form of mixed economy, with an overwhelmingly private agriculture, plus legalized private trade and small scale private manufacturing." An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove

And during the 1930's there were the Stakhnovites who used Taylorist and competitive methods to achieve records in production.

Much of this seems unknown to some of the posters in this forum. They seem very opinionated but not particularly well-informed or nuanced in their views. Are you proud of yourselves?
[/MEDIA]

Market Socialist, actually, and they did that because they didn't want to give up all of the power socialism gave the government, but also realized that full Socialism was impossible if they wanted a half decent economy. So, they added a little bit of Capitalism to it, resulting in a vastly superior economy, at least compared to what they had before, while not actually giving up Socialism. If it weren't for their Revolution and Civil War, they'd have probably just kept exactly what they already had, rather than changing it slightly.