Is socialism an inevitable future?

[Steelplate]

Take Communism, as an example.....if you want it to work, you have to have a perfectly selfless society who doesn't care about having more than someone else.

No it takes the point of a gun pointed at the populace.

no it doesn't. It may end up that way....but it starts out as a noble idea...a society where everyone works together and shares the spoils equally. It doesn't work....neither does Reaganomics....neither does pure Capitalism, Socialism, or any other kind of "ism". To be married to one ideology exclusively, without flexibility is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Steelplate]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

 

[Ava]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

Their lifestyles should not be the taxpayer's burden, nor the government's business.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

smh

 

[Steelplate]

I don't think you can have a combo of capitalism and socialism, once the gov't starts owning certain industries then you're on the way to the end of capitalism. Lots of disaffected folks with the capitalistic system, but really it's more an issue of poor governance. Won't matter what your economic model is, if your gov't is corrupt then you're still going to end up with a very unequal distribution of wealth and income.

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

Their lifestyles should not be the taxpayer's burden, nor the government's business.

I believe you are wrong. In order to have a healthy economy...you need both producers and consumers. Producers will get very, very wealthy and consumers(who generally work for producers) will buy the vast majority of the goods and services that are created by producers and their employees. It's not an either/or proposition. They are very much intertwined.

If the producers refuse to trickle down to the point that our Nation suffers, then they should be forced to. Labor Unions used to have this role, but they've been virtually destroyed in the private sector....so now the mantle is passed on to the government....Unfortunately, the way our electoral system is set up, big business runs the show. They control both parties and the only reason that the Dems even give lip service to the little guy is....Union donations to their campaign coffers.

Given the history of big business in this country, do you really believe that if we keep on giving them breaks, cutting services to the everyday people, and let them have more and more power and control, that they will do right by the country and it's people?

Sorry, I don't. I think they will gladly take those breaks, accept that power and control, and rule our citizens with an iron fist. The only thing they fear is our policy if one person/one vote. So they try and convince the little guy to vote in their favor. How do they do this? You know how.

Look, I want them to be rich....heck, I'd like to be rich...but crazy amounts of wealth at the expense of the viability of my own country? No way. I love this country too damned much. It shouldn't come down to a choice between programs that keep people from starving in the street and some billionaire's 10th mansion.

If they aren't willing to trickle down....then it really leaves us no choice, does it? You know as well as I do that all 400 million of us can't become rich. There are always going to be winners and losers....with the vast majority of us falling into the latter category. The question is, How far down do we let the losers fall? What is acceptable to you?

 

[Avatar4321]

There is nothing inevitable about socialism. And Thank God for that!

 

[Wiseacre]

First of all, I think you are exaggerating the extent of the inequality in this country. We ain't talking about that many millionaires and billionaires, according to the 2009 IRS data we've got about 79,000 people who earned a million or more dollars that year. And approx 54,500 of them were between one and two million. So whoopdedoo, 25,000 people or so out of 320 million? So fucking what? How much more money do you think you can squeeze out of these people before they stop doing what they're doing or just leave?

I know our system is far from perfect. But it is the system that has lead us and many other developed countries to the most prosperity ever enjoyed in world history. By several orders of magnitude. I say again, the problem is not capitalism, but poor governance. We re-elect people who fucked us over and then bitch about what goes on. How crazy is that? Both political parties have engaged in crony capitalism that is shameful, dishonorable, and will lead to our distruction. And you want more of this? More gov't, higher taxes?

 

[Avatar4321]

You hate OWS right, the only people in the country actually speaking out for fairness, equality, and to have justice of the Wall street criminals...your brain is broken, while you are defending the very people who are killing you...

you make me ashamed to be of the same species as you, seriously

The only people in the country actually speaking out for fairness, equality, and justice? and what does the Occupy movement know about fairness, equality, and justice? They're main argument is they are entitled to things that other people work for, but they shouldnt have to work because they are special. How is that fair? How is that equal? How is that just?

Mobs don't create fairness. They don't treat people equally. and they sure aren't just. Just laws and moral people do. There is a reason we have a court system and why we dont just round up the "criminals" in our community and sentence them to mob justice.

 

[Ava]

sure you can. private ownership with government playing watchdog to protect the little guy. The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens.

I'd rather focus on the little guy for a minute. Progressives have been talking about a "living wage"for some time now and Conservatives have been asking for a number. I don't think it's as easy as that.

What I would consider a "living wage" would be enough to have one parent working and the other stay home with the kids and be able to pay basic bills, keep a roof over their heads, and keep the family clothed and fed properly...perhaps, if they are especially frugal...save enough to help their kids through college and have a little for their old age...obviously, this minimalist lifestyle would be a choice. If that same family wanted a more comfortable lifestyle, the second parent could work according to their own personal needs.

But what we have today is both parents working and still falling behind, racking up debt because stuff breaks and they don't have the cash to pay up front, and falling further and further behind the eightball. It's happening way to often to dismiss it as simply people being irresponsible....it's systematic. in short....they don't have a choice.

Their lifestyles should not be the taxpayer's burden, nor the government's business.

I believe you are wrong. In order to have a healthy economy...you need both producers and consumers. Producers will get very, very wealthy and consumers(who generally work for producers) will buy the vast majority of the goods and services that are created by producers and their employees. It's not an either/or proposition. They are very much intertwined.

If the producers refuse to trickle down to the point that our Nation suffers, then they should be forced to. Labor Unions used to have this role, but they've been virtually destroyed in the private sector....so now the mantle is passed on to the government....Unfortunately, the way our electoral system is set up, big business runs the show. They control both parties and the only reason that the Dems even give lip service to the little guy is....Union donations to their campaign coffers.

Given the history of big business in this country, do you really believe that if we keep on giving them breaks, cutting services to the everyday people, and let them have more and more power and control, that they will do right by the country and it's people?

Sorry, I don't. I think they will gladly take those breaks, accept that power and control, and rule our citizens with an iron fist. The only thing they fear is our policy if one person/one vote. So they try and convince the little guy to vote in their favor. How do they do this? You know how.

Look, I want them to be rich....heck, I'd like to be rich...but crazy amounts of wealth at the expense of the viability of my own country? No way. I love this country too damned much. It shouldn't come down to a choice between programs that keep people from starving in the street and some billionaire's 10th mansion.

If they aren't willing to trickle down....then it really leaves us no choice, does it? You know as well as I do that all 400 million of us can't become rich. There are always going to be winners and losers....with the vast majority of us falling into the latter category. The question is, How far down do we let the losers fall? What is acceptable to you?

There is no "we." There is only you and your choices. You are playing into the class warfare smoke and mirrors. It is the wealthy that has those people you mention, even eating, at this point.

 

[Steelplate]

First of all, I think you are exaggerating the extent of the inequality in this country. We ain't talking about that many millionaires and billionaires, according to the 2009 IRS data we've got about 79,000 people who earned a million or more dollars that year. And approx 54,500 of them were between one and two million. So whoopdedoo, 25,000 people or so out of 320 million? So fucking what? How much more money do you think you can squeeze out of these people before they stop doing what they're doing or just leave?

I know our system is far from perfect. But it is the system that has lead us and many other developed countries to the most prosperity ever enjoyed in world history. By several orders of magnitude. I say again, the problem is not capitalism, but poor governance. We re-elect people who fucked us over and then bitch about what goes on. How crazy is that? Both political parties have engaged in crony capitalism that is shameful, dishonorable, and will lead to our distruction. And you want more of this? More gov't, higher taxes?

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[Avatar4321]

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of big government. The solution is limited government. The more the government is involved in picking winners and losers in the market, the more cronyism there is.

 

[Steelplate]

Their lifestyles should not be the taxpayer's burden, nor the government's business.

I believe you are wrong. In order to have a healthy economy...you need both producers and consumers. Producers will get very, very wealthy and consumers(who generally work for producers) will buy the vast majority of the goods and services that are created by producers and their employees. It's not an either/or proposition. They are very much intertwined.

If the producers refuse to trickle down to the point that our Nation suffers, then they should be forced to. Labor Unions used to have this role, but they've been virtually destroyed in the private sector....so now the mantle is passed on to the government....Unfortunately, the way our electoral system is set up, big business runs the show. They control both parties and the only reason that the Dems even give lip service to the little guy is....Union donations to their campaign coffers.

Given the history of big business in this country, do you really believe that if we keep on giving them breaks, cutting services to the everyday people, and let them have more and more power and control, that they will do right by the country and it's people?

Sorry, I don't. I think they will gladly take those breaks, accept that power and control, and rule our citizens with an iron fist. The only thing they fear is our policy if one person/one vote. So they try and convince the little guy to vote in their favor. How do they do this? You know how.

Look, I want them to be rich....heck, I'd like to be rich...but crazy amounts of wealth at the expense of the viability of my own country? No way. I love this country too damned much. It shouldn't come down to a choice between programs that keep people from starving in the street and some billionaire's 10th mansion.

If they aren't willing to trickle down....then it really leaves us no choice, does it? You know as well as I do that all 400 million of us can't become rich. There are always going to be winners and losers....with the vast majority of us falling into the latter category. The question is, How far down do we let the losers fall? What is acceptable to you?

There is no "we." There is only you and your choices. You are playing into the class warfare smoke and mirrors. It is the wealthy that has those people you mention, even eating, at this point.

class warfare? nothing but a buzzword. I believe there is class warfare....perpetrated upon the working people by by the Conglomerate....it's just getting to the point where the working people are starting to complain....and what do they call those complaints? class warfare. They spin it to make enough people think that they should be grateful for the shitty wages, no benefits and our insanely expensive cost of living...because it benefits them....it's an investment...a marketing campaign.....nothing more.

 

[IGetItAlready]

This whole topic leaves me wondering why progressives still hide behind the word "progressive".

These people were bold and courageous in the '80s. Told us what they were about and how they intended to achieve their goals. They lost and found their chic communism suddenly unpopular and they appeared to go away for a while.
Now they're back but they're also deceptive and dishonest aside from rare instances like this thread in which they come so close to being totally honest.

If you truly believe in what you say you stand for it. What's with all the hiding behind words?

 

[Ava]

I believe you are wrong. In order to have a healthy economy...you need both producers and consumers. Producers will get very, very wealthy and consumers(who generally work for producers) will buy the vast majority of the goods and services that are created by producers and their employees. It's not an either/or proposition. They are very much intertwined.

If the producers refuse to trickle down to the point that our Nation suffers, then they should be forced to. Labor Unions used to have this role, but they've been virtually destroyed in the private sector....so now the mantle is passed on to the government....Unfortunately, the way our electoral system is set up, big business runs the show. They control both parties and the only reason that the Dems even give lip service to the little guy is....Union donations to their campaign coffers.

Given the history of big business in this country, do you really believe that if we keep on giving them breaks, cutting services to the everyday people, and let them have more and more power and control, that they will do right by the country and it's people?

Sorry, I don't. I think they will gladly take those breaks, accept that power and control, and rule our citizens with an iron fist. The only thing they fear is our policy if one person/one vote. So they try and convince the little guy to vote in their favor. How do they do this? You know how.

Look, I want them to be rich....heck, I'd like to be rich...but crazy amounts of wealth at the expense of the viability of my own country? No way. I love this country too damned much. It shouldn't come down to a choice between programs that keep people from starving in the street and some billionaire's 10th mansion.

If they aren't willing to trickle down....then it really leaves us no choice, does it? You know as well as I do that all 400 million of us can't become rich. There are always going to be winners and losers....with the vast majority of us falling into the latter category. The question is, How far down do we let the losers fall? What is acceptable to you?

There is no "we." There is only you and your choices. You are playing into the class warfare smoke and mirrors. It is the wealthy that has those people you mention, even eating, at this point.

class warfare? nothing but a buzzword. I believe there is class warfare....perpetrated upon the working people by by the Conglomerate....it's just getting to the point where the working people are starting to complain....and what do they call those complaints? class warfare. They spin it to make enough people think that they should be grateful for the shitty wages, no benefits and our insanely expensive cost of living...because it benefits them....it's an investment...a marketing campaign.....nothing more.

You're as entitled to your opinion and sense of reasoning as I am to mine, and I don't argue opinions, so I am saying ***Bygones*** to this thread.

Thanks for your civility. You're a good guy!

 

[Steelplate]

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of big government. The solution is limited government. The more the government is involved in picking winners and losers in the market, the more cronyism there is.

Then stop demonizing unions that used to do what government is forced to. Did they get too big, go too far? yep....but they helped maintain a decent standard of living before they got too big for their britches. truthfully? When Reagan came on the scene...they needed a smack in the face...they were hurting American business. But it's gone so far in the other direction that the average person is struggling just to make it, let alone purchasing goods and services at the level needed to keep the economy rolling.

 

[Wiseacre]

First of all, I think you are exaggerating the extent of the inequality in this country. We ain't talking about that many millionaires and billionaires, according to the 2009 IRS data we've got about 79,000 people who earned a million or more dollars that year. And approx 54,500 of them were between one and two million. So whoopdedoo, 25,000 people or so out of 320 million? So fucking what? How much more money do you think you can squeeze out of these people before they stop doing what they're doing or just leave?

I know our system is far from perfect. But it is the system that has lead us and many other developed countries to the most prosperity ever enjoyed in world history. By several orders of magnitude. I say again, the problem is not capitalism, but poor governance. We re-elect people who fucked us over and then bitch about what goes on. How crazy is that? Both political parties have engaged in crony capitalism that is shameful, dishonorable, and will lead to our distruction. And you want more of this? More gov't, higher taxes?

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Yes, but that 3.1 million number of millionaires is based on total assets, my number is based on AGI in one year, 2009. Are you by chance suggesting we tax assets in addition to income? Boy howdy, the exodus of wealthy people outta here would be something to see. Banana republic time.

Re cronyism, they're doing it to us because we let 'em get away with it. Not enough of us are informed, and too many are getting subsidized by the gov't and won't vote to change the system. One of the reasons why I like the TPers so much is because it is a grass roots uprising against the wasteful spending. Give 'em less money, they got less to waste. Hopefully it'll change into a movement for better, more effective and efficient gov't that promotes more competition and more opportunities. I don't think we need to subsidize that, but we do need to change the rules somewhat. We need to be sending more assholes to prison for bilking the public or cheating investors.

 

[Steelplate]

There is no "we." There is only you and your choices. You are playing into the class warfare smoke and mirrors. It is the wealthy that has those people you mention, even eating, at this point.

class warfare? nothing but a buzzword. I believe there is class warfare....perpetrated upon the working people by by the Conglomerate....it's just getting to the point where the working people are starting to complain....and what do they call those complaints? class warfare. They spin it to make enough people think that they should be grateful for the shitty wages, no benefits and our insanely expensive cost of living...because it benefits them....it's an investment...a marketing campaign.....nothing more.

You're as entitled to your opinion and sense of reasoning as I am to mine, and I don't argue opinions, so I am saying ***Bygones*** to this thread.

Thanks for your civility. You're a good guy!

thanks for yours as well. I know I can be a Dick sometimes over in the other forums...but I prefer not going to that level.

 

[Vidi]

I always laugh when I read about how socialism is a complete failure.

Its obvious people who say such things have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Socialism is a blanket term for an myriad of various types of socialism.

Which version of scoialism do they mean?

Mutualism?
Syndicalism?
Utopian?
Communism?


They also often forget that many countries today are socialist democracies, like England, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands.


Making blanket statments about how a LARGE category of different government types ALWYS fail is as hilarious as it is inaccurrately myopic.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Fact is, the US is socialist. Many of you who screech about various "ists" haven't a clue whet you're talking about. You blather on and on about hating "socialism" but drive on state maintained highways, send your kids to state maintained schools, call tax paid cops and if your house was on fire, you'd forget all about socialism.

...I think you are exaggerating the extent of the inequality in this country...

From what I've read, that would be impossible.

From one who does NOT get it

This whole topic leaves me wondering why progressives still hide behind the word "progressive".

These people were bold and courageous in the '80s. Told us what they were about and how they intended to achieve their goals. They lost and found their chic communism suddenly unpopular and they appeared to go away for a while.
Now they're back but they're also deceptive and dishonest aside from rare instances like this thread in which they come so close to being totally honest.

If you truly believe in what you say you stand for it. What's with all the hiding behind words?

Utter and complete nonsense.

 

[Steelplate]

First of all, I think you are exaggerating the extent of the inequality in this country. We ain't talking about that many millionaires and billionaires, according to the 2009 IRS data we've got about 79,000 people who earned a million or more dollars that year. And approx 54,500 of them were between one and two million. So whoopdedoo, 25,000 people or so out of 320 million? So fucking what? How much more money do you think you can squeeze out of these people before they stop doing what they're doing or just leave?

I know our system is far from perfect. But it is the system that has lead us and many other developed countries to the most prosperity ever enjoyed in world history. By several orders of magnitude. I say again, the problem is not capitalism, but poor governance. We re-elect people who fucked us over and then bitch about what goes on. How crazy is that? Both political parties have engaged in crony capitalism that is shameful, dishonorable, and will lead to our distruction. And you want more of this? More gov't, higher taxes?

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Yes, but that 3.1 million number of millionaires is based on total assets, my number is based on AGI in one year, 2009. Are you by chance suggesting we tax assets in addition to income? Boy howdy, the exodus of wealthy people outta here would be something to see. Banana republic time.

Re cronyism, they're doing it to us because we let 'em get away with it. Not enough of us are informed, and too many are getting subsidized by the gov't and won't vote to change the system. One of the reasons why I like the TPers so much is because it is a grass roots uprising against the wasteful spending. Give 'em less money, they got less to waste. Hopefully it'll change into a movement for better, more effective and efficient gov't that promotes more competition and more opportunities. I don't think we need to subsidize that, but we do need to change the rules somewhat. We need to be sending more assholes to prison for bilking the public or cheating investors.

I'd prefer not to tax ANYONE excessively....but if those at the top would rather outsource, hide assets, and not properly compensate employees to the point where subsidization is necessary to keep people trim suffering and to maintain (somewhat) the consumer driven economy we have created....what choice is there?

Don't forget....these big multinational corporations are not only taking jobs away from Americans, they are also creating new markets for their goods....making the American people less necessary for their success. It's a huge double whammy that is really hurting this country. I find it dishonorable....and that's putting ut as civilly as I possibly can.