Now that we have quite a few people on record saying that NOBODY is pushing Socialism...

[dblack]

Yes. You're always "free" do defy the dictates of government, and you're free to pay the price. It sounds like you're one of the folks who thinks tax incentives and mandates are somehow different. They're not. If you authorize government to do one, you've authorized them to do the other - they are essential the same thing with differ PR.

But we're talking about owning and controlling the means of production.

Nope...we're talking about "regulating"

To you that's socialism. OK fine. How much socialism do we require?

I'm curious, what's the point in regulating something if not to control it?

 

[basquebromance]

my fellow democrats, my fellow republicans, my fellow americans: we won world war 2 in three years. it took us 20 years and we still havent rebuilt the World Giant Center after 9/11...THAT'S the difference between freedom and socialism!

 

[SandSquid]

While the government does not decide on prices of crops and livestock, they subsidies the farmers/ranchers to keep the price in a certain range, never letting it veer too far up or down.

But, that is not owning the means of production. It's certainly not a purely free market, but the farmers/ranchers still own the means of production.

Yes they do. When the government decided that farmers specifically get money handed out to them from the rest of Americans money to stay in that business and that business only.

A farmer decides to start making clothing instead of crops he loses 100% of those government payoffs.

And of course when it comes to specific crops, the government will buy large amounts of them from the farmers that make those specific crops to redistribute as they see fit throughout the country. Or passes laws that specific crops must be used in what consumers purchase (ethanol).

 

[Dana7360]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

If that Amendment passed the military would stop existing.

The cost of food would skyrocket.

So many forms of socialism in our nation will have to stop.

Especially that wall you people want so badly. That's socialism.

Thank goodness your silly idea will never happen. No politician would ever write that bill.

I can't believe we have such people like you in our nation.

 

[Dana7360]

According to the above definition Regulation constitutes socialism, so by that definition the United States has been socialist for a very, very long time.

well I guess that would depend on what you mean by "regulate" in that description.

If by "regular" you mean put out some rules for safety, that would not be controlling the means of production. If by "regulate" you mean government decides who can own the means of production and what they can do or how much they can make, that is a completely different concept.

Owning and controlling.

"Regulating" means government regulation. That's socialism.

Any Amendment outlawing "socialism" would also outlaw regulation. Is that what you advocate?

It would have to repeal the existing Commerce Clause in the constitution that gives government the power to regulate commerce.

What the OP is suggesting is ridiculous and would never happen.

 

[danielpalos]

According to socialists in the modern world, not cold war dinosaur GOP dupe world, we will be socialists if we had universal healthcare.

When government pays the bill and decides on prices, government is in control of the means of production.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is more market friendly by solving for a simple poverty of capital in our Institution of money based markets.

Unemployment is for those who are suddenly unemployed through no fault of their own. I.E. when a business goes out of business, or is only a seasonal business. And it can only be collected for a short period of time and the person collecting it has to prove they're actively looking for another job. The last time I heard, here in NC, they had to go on 5 interviews a week. they do so through the unemployment office and it's documented. And finally, it's really hard to even get it because even when you should automatically qualify for it, it can be refused.

The Poor are not "worth equal protection of the law" under our form of Capitalism?

is it any wonder why we believe more in socialism.

 

[dblack]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

If that Amendment passed the military would stop existing.

I don't see why. Defense is specifically called out by the Constitution as a responsibility of government.

The cost of food would skyrocket.

Why do you say that?

So many forms of socialism in our nation will have to stop.

Yep. I think that's the point!

 

[Dana7360]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

If that Amendment passed the military would stop existing.

I don't see why. Defense is specifically called out by the Constitution as a responsibility of government.

The cost of food would skyrocket.

Why do you say that?

So many forms of socialism in our nation will have to stop.

Yep. I think that's the point!

The military is 100% pure socialism. The constitution would have to be changed to remove the part that says we are to have a military. Then the military would have to be sold off to private companies.

The reason food would skyrocket is because of the socialism that we use to regulate the production of food in our nation. Farmers and ranchers are paid to not grow certain crops. Ranchers are allowed to graze their cattle on federal land for pennies. trump just gave farmers 12 billion more in socialism this past fall because his tariffs have destroyed farms. The whole farm bill is nothing but socialism for farmers. Without the socialism that farmers get, the price of the food you eat will skyrocket.

Yes I know that's the point and the point is very unconstitutional and stupid.

Which was my point.

 

[dblack]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

If that Amendment passed the military would stop existing.

I don't see why. Defense is specifically called out by the Constitution as a responsibility of government.

The cost of food would skyrocket.

Why do you say that?

So many forms of socialism in our nation will have to stop.

Yep. I think that's the point!

The military is 100% pure socialism.

It's really not. Defense is one of the key purposes of government. It's not an arbitrary "means of production". It should never be owned by private interests. Much like the criminal justice system should never be "outsourced" to private interests. These are the reasons we have government.

The reason food would skyrocket is because of the socialism that we use to regulate the production of food in our nation. Farmers and ranchers are paid to not grow certain crops.

Apparently you don't realize that the purpose of these policies is to keep prices artificially high. Seriously, look it up.

Ranchers are allowed to graze their cattle on federal land for pennies. trump just gave farmers 12 billion more in socialism this past fall because his tariffs have destroyed farms. The whole farm bill is nothing but socialism for farmers. Without the socialism that farmers get, the price of the food you eat will skyrocket.

Trump is a quasi-socialist, no doubt. But no, the price of food would not skyrocket without state tinkering.

 

[Bleipriester]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

Moronic.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Implementation of real Socialism would require nationalization of every industry, and confiscation of all real property (most importantly, farms), for full implementation.

These would be prohibited by the First, Tenth, and Fifth Amendments.

You bet your ass it would require a "Constitutional Amendment" to move forward with Socialism. Actually, a whole new Constitution would be in order.

But first, I would like someone to identify a country where the quality of life IMPROVED after implementation of Socialism.

It almost destroyed Sweden.
Despite the left, in particular Bernie consistently trying to hold up Sweden as an example of how socialism works - Sweden is not a socialist county. It is actually a more free market system than the semi-closed system in America.
From the 1950's - 80's Sweden was a socialist country. And it showed. Long bread lines, a bankrupt government, and hordes of unemployed government dependents. But that changed. Swedish people voted for conservatives which resulted in the government selling corporations to private individuals, they privatized a great deal of the pensions system, private groups revitalized industries and finance.
The result was dramatic rise in employment, dramatic drop in welfare roles and a pension system that is the envy of the world.
Sweden embraced free markets and is now better off than most.

Sweden is more socialist than we are

Nordic model - Wikipedia

But again...we're talking about degrees...not whether

A non point.
Yes Sweden, primarily because they support no real military and don't spend much in global aid/UN etc... yes they have more social programs than the U.S. But that hardly makes them a socialist country. Far from it. Again, it is when the Swedish people voted out socialism and welcomed a free market system that they became the envy of Europe.

 

[danielpalos]

Implementation of real Socialism would require nationalization of every industry, and confiscation of all real property (most importantly, farms), for full implementation.

These would be prohibited by the First, Tenth, and Fifth Amendments.

You bet your ass it would require a "Constitutional Amendment" to move forward with Socialism. Actually, a whole new Constitution would be in order.

But first, I would like someone to identify a country where the quality of life IMPROVED after implementation of Socialism.

It almost destroyed Sweden.
Despite the left, in particular Bernie consistently trying to hold up Sweden as an example of how socialism works - Sweden is not a socialist county. It is actually a more free market system than the semi-closed system in America.
From the 1950's - 80's Sweden was a socialist country. And it showed. Long bread lines, a bankrupt government, and hordes of unemployed government dependents. But that changed. Swedish people voted for conservatives which resulted in the government selling corporations to private individuals, they privatized a great deal of the pensions system, private groups revitalized industries and finance.
The result was dramatic rise in employment, dramatic drop in welfare roles and a pension system that is the envy of the world.
Sweden embraced free markets and is now better off than most.

Sweden is more socialist than we are

Nordic model - Wikipedia

But again...we're talking about degrees...not whether

A non point.
Yes Sweden, primarily because they support no real military and don't spend much in global aid/UN etc... yes they have more social programs than the U.S. But that hardly makes them a socialist country. Far from it. Again, it is when the Swedish people voted out socialism and welcomed a free market system that they became the envy of Europe.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not capitalism.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not capitalism.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but...ok.
...socialism doesn't have anything to do with it either.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW - when you want to shut up a progressive leftist...start talking about Sweden. They get quiet.
Mostly because they thought Sweden was socialist, it's what they have been led to believe. It's what the carrot sticks have been telling them.
But then they find out that the reason Sweden became as economically sound as they are is when they actually voted socialism out. And then they learn how bad Sweden was in the 50's-80's...and socialism was the cause.
They stop talking.

 

[danielpalos]

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not capitalism.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but...ok.
...socialism doesn't have anything to do with it either.

in right wing special pleading fantasy, You are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not capitalism.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but...ok.
...socialism doesn't have anything to do with it either.

in right wing special pleading fantasy, You are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Yeah...so...once again some non-nonsensical ramblings.
Are you stoned or something?
Right wing...are you referring to me, or someone else?
I guess in your world if someone points out something you don't like - they are right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not capitalism.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but...ok.
...socialism doesn't have anything to do with it either.

in right wing special pleading fantasy, You are Always right simply for being on the right wing.

Yeah...so...once again some non-nonsensical ramblings.
Are you stoned or something?
Right wing...are you referring to me, or someone else?
I guess in your world if someone points out something you don't like - they are right wing?

only the right wing, never gets it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are public sector means of production.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

You mean like this?

Or this?

Do you know the difference?

I ask because most RWNJs do not.

 

[dblack]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

You mean like this?
View attachment 247917

Yup.

 

[Oddball]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

The truly bogus part is that Conservatives pretend not to be able to distinguish the two - and they repeatedly use arguments against the conservative definition as justification to stop the liberal definition.

"Democratic socialism"....As though saying "chocolate covered" before "dog turd" transforms a chunk of shit into a Snickers bar.