Salon.com: "America is Ready for Socialism!" (Didn't we fight against Socialism in WW II?)

[regent]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go. In fact, if one looks carefully even the supermarkets seem regulated and think of how efficient they would be deregulated. And traffic laws, and making children go to regulated schools, when will it ever end?

 

[danielpalos]

Fear of mob rule isn't a good excuse to give power to corporations and to ignore the will and needs of the people.

The only power corporations have is the power government gives to them. Corporations only exist by the edict of government. A corporation is an artificial entity which exists nowhere but in law. Law is created by government.

If your wish is to constrain corporations, then reduce government - which is the only power corporations have.

It is also a mistake to assume less government power means people will have power or freedom. We gave the government the power to educate everyone and it has helped empower millions of our citizens to become significantly more than what they would be without it.

Mostly bullshit. Government indoctrination creates pliant subjects, but rarely produces anyone capable of critical thought or analysis. Look at the institutions of "higher learning" where thought is openly forbidden in favor of politically correct dogma. A society of indoctrinated sycophants spouting falsehood from a Howard Zinn corruptions of history is hardly and "educated" society.

In our modern society the government has a large role in ensuring that people have power, not only to help those individuals but to help our economy as a whole. Whether you want to admit it or not we are all in this together.

Our government ensures that people have no power.

A free society depends most on the balance of power. A failure to recognize the importance of the balance of power is what leads nations towards desperation and tyranny. That is the true lesson of Germany and of Russia.

Business is war.

A free society cannot exist under socialism. Freedom is expressed through the ability of one person to trade goods, effort, time, and knowledge to another persons in exchange for something of value. Take this away - as socialism does, and there can be no freedom.

Socialism is nothing more that the recasting of Feudalism, expounded by the Feudal Lords intent upon regaining power. The stupid are open the the message of trading liberty for the promise that others will care for them. Many would rather die that take responsibility for themselves. Socialism is the promise that the masters will care for the proles, who are relieved of the burden of thought or responsibility. Bureaucrats are simply Barons who manage a fiefdom on behalf of rulers of the state - the kings and queens who rule with absolute power. The structure of Socialism is the same as the feudal structure. When people cannot own property, they are themselves the property of their masters.

Socialism starts with a Social Contract such as our Constitution.

 

[Bombur]

Fear of mob rule isn't a good excuse to give power to corporations and to ignore the will and needs of the people.

The only power corporations have is the power government gives to them. Corporations only exist by the edict of government. A corporation is an artificial entity which exists nowhere but in law. Law is created by government.

If your wish is to constrain corporations, then reduce government - which is the only power corporations have.

It is also a mistake to assume less government power means people will have power or freedom. We gave the government the power to educate everyone and it has helped empower millions of our citizens to become significantly more than what they would be without it.

Mostly bullshit. Government indoctrination creates pliant subjects, but rarely produces anyone capable of critical thought or analysis. Look at the institutions of "higher learning" where thought is openly forbidden in favor of politically correct dogma. A society of indoctrinated sycophants spouting falsehood from a Howard Zinn corruptions of history is hardly and "educated" society.

In our modern society the government has a large role in ensuring that people have power, not only to help those individuals but to help our economy as a whole. Whether you want to admit it or not we are all in this together.

Our government ensures that people have no power.

A free society depends most on the balance of power. A failure to recognize the importance of the balance of power is what leads nations towards desperation and tyranny. That is the true lesson of Germany and of Russia.

Business is war.

A free society cannot exist under socialism. Freedom is expressed through the ability of one person to trade goods, effort, time, and knowledge to another persons in exchange for something of value. Take this away - as socialism does, and there can be no freedom.

Socialism is nothing more that the recasting of Feudalism, expounded by the Feudal Lords intent upon regaining power. The stupid are open the the message of trading liberty for the promise that others will care for them. Many would rather die that take responsibility for themselves. Socialism is the promise that the masters will care for the proles, who are relieved of the burden of thought or responsibility. Bureaucrats are simply Barons who manage a fiefdom on behalf of rulers of the state - the kings and queens who rule with absolute power. The structure of Socialism is the same as the feudal structure. When people cannot own property, they are themselves the property of their masters.

Unless you are proposing we get rid of corporations completely then corporations will have power. Government power can be used to limit that power. To limit the government's power over corporations is to increase the power of corporations. Your logic is kind of silly. I hope you weren't serious.

Calling public education "mostly bullshit" is not founded in reality. Public education is far from perfect but there is no denying the benefits both economically and socially education has on the population.

Our government doesn't ensure that people have no power. Such a statement is paranoid nonsense. Try harder.

A free society depends on a lot of things. Not just the magical hand of the markets.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Unless you are proposing we get rid of corporations completely then corporations will have power. Government power can be used to limit that power. To limit the government's power over corporations is to increase the power of corporations. Your logic is kind of silly. I hope you weren't serious.

Once again, corporations have zero power without government. What do you imagine the EVILE corporations doing? Forcing consumers to buy their product? How would they do this? Absent a mandate from government in the form of "Buy health insurance (thus benefit George Soros through his Blue Cross holdings) or the IRS will get you," what could force a consumer to buy goods from a corporation? Obviously, nothing could. The corporation has no power and is at the mercy or consumers. If consumers will not buy their product, the corporation fails.

AH but you scream, reciting talking points from a Soros hate site, "what about monopolies?" "Without government, corporations will form monopolies," which is ignorant bullshit. No monopoly can be formed, much less maintained, without the express collusion of government. Say Bob, and hated Republican who only cares about money plots to create a monopoly to be the only supplier of milk. He buys all of the dairy farms in the region and charges $40 a gallon for milk while cackling "Muhahaha" to his poster of Adam Smith...

Except Mustafa from the next county over looks at the situation and finds that he can deliver out of town milk for $5 a gallon and still make a good profit. So what do does Bob do? What power does his evil corporation have?

Well, none at all. He could threaten Mustafa, but Mustafa would just file a criminal complaint with the Sheriff (and here is the trap.) So what could he do? You say, "he bribed the sheriff," which is government. Without government - there isn't a damned thing he can do. Corporations have ZERO power -none. The only way corporations can engage in coercive behavior is through the government.

Calling public education "mostly bullshit" is not founded in reality. Public education is far from perfect but there is no denying the benefits both economically and socially education has on the population.

The intent of public education at this time is to create pliable members of society who obey the state without question. Public education does a splendid job fulfilling it's role. But these are not "educated" individuals with the power to reason, these are serfs who are trained to blindly obey. Thought is severely repressed, particularly in higher education.

Our government doesn't ensure that people have no power. Such a statement is paranoid nonsense. Try harder.

A free society depends on a lot of things. Not just the magical hand of the markets.

What power is it that you imagine the people have? The vast majority of people want the Southern border closed, yet it remains open through both democrat and Republican governments. So what power do people have? The vast majority of people want Marijuana legal, yet the federal government continues to raid business in states that have authorized medical Marijuana. So what power do the people have?

A free society depends on many things, but rests on a foundation of the free exchange of goods and services between people. Destroy the foundation, the rest falls.

 

[Bombur]

[

Unless you are proposing we get rid of corporations completely then corporations will have power. Government power can be used to limit that power. To limit the government's power over corporations is to increase the power of corporations. Your logic is kind of silly. I hope you weren't serious.

Once again, corporations have zero power without government. What do you imagine the EVILE corporations doing? Forcing consumers to buy their product? How would they do this? Absent a mandate from government in the form of "Buy health insurance (thus benefit George Soros through his Blue Cross holdings) or the IRS will get you," what could force a consumer to buy goods from a corporation? Obviously, nothing could. The corporation has no power and is at the mercy or consumers. If consumers will not buy their product, the corporation fails.

AH but you scream, reciting talking points from a Soros hate site, "what about monopolies?" "Without government, corporations will form monopolies," which is ignorant bullshit. No monopoly can be formed, much less maintained, without the express collusion of government. Say Bob, and hated Republican who only cares about money plots to create a monopoly to be the only supplier of milk. He buys all of the dairy farms in the region and charges $40 a gallon for milk while cackling "Muhahaha" to his poster of Adam Smith...

Except Mustafa from the next county over looks at the situation and finds that he can deliver out of town milk for $5 a gallon and still make a good profit. So what do does Bob do? What power does his evil corporation have?

Well, none at all. He could threaten Mustafa, but Mustafa would just file a criminal complaint with the Sheriff (and here is the trap.) So what could he do? You say, "he bribed the sheriff," which is government. Without government - there isn't a damned thing he can do. Corporations have ZERO power -none. The only way corporations can engage in coercive behavior is through the government.

Calling public education "mostly bullshit" is not founded in reality. Public education is far from perfect but there is no denying the benefits both economically and socially education has on the population.

The intent of public education at this time is to create pliable members of society who obey the state without question. Public education does a splendid job fulfilling it's role. But these are not "educated" individuals with the power to reason, these are serfs who are trained to blindly obey. Thought is severely repressed, particularly in higher education.

Our government doesn't ensure that people have no power. Such a statement is paranoid nonsense. Try harder.

A free society depends on a lot of things. Not just the magical hand of the markets.

What power is it that you imagine the people have? The vast majority of people want the Southern border closed, yet it remains open through both democrat and Republican governments. So what power do people have? The vast majority of people want Marijuana legal, yet the federal government continues to raid business in states that have authorized medical Marijuana. So what power do the people have?

A free society depends on many things, but rests on a foundation of the free exchange of goods and services between people. Destroy the foundation, the rest falls.

Corporations have power in all markets they take part in. Government has stepped in when corporations have failed to sell a safe product, to not harm the environment, to ensure their worker's safety, to ensure their worker's are not coerced or harassed and more, to ensure the corporations pay their taxes, to ensure that corporations do not manipulate markets, to ensure that they don't collude with one another, to ensure that they are truthful to their own investors.

That is just off the top of my head. So you say "nothing" and reality says you are woefully wrong.

Your comments about education demonstrate a level of paranoia and ignorance that is troubling. Considering you were totally wrong in your last point it seems to me that your entire world view is fueled by ignorance and paranoia. Education can help both of those problems.

The southern border is guarded. It is kind of comical to hear you praise the free trade of goods when in the next sentence you complain about immigration which is largely a result of market forces where the government struggles to stop them. You are not even consistent with your extreme world view.

 

[Camp]

Scholars from across the globe have debated the various interpretations and definitions of both socialism and fascism. The OP seems to have his own interpretation and definition and figures he is smarter and more knowledgeable than all those scholars. It would be helpful if he could refer his interpretation and definition to a school of thought propagated by some of these scholars, but as you have pointed out, he prefers the one propagated by the clueless right that you mention.

Mussolini Doctrine of Fascism
"Ne indiviui fuori della stato, ne gruppi. Percio il fascismo e comtro il socialismo,"
"Outside the state there can be neither individuals nor groups. Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism"

If there can be no individuals, there can be no Capitalism.

You seem unable to grasp the meaning of what Mussolini, the creator and inventor of fascism had to say about the comparison of Fascism and Socialism. It doesn't fit your opinion and view, so you are ready to say you know more about fascism than Mussolini knew about it.

 

[dblack]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go.

What laws regulate these boards?

 

[regent]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go.

What laws regulate these boards?

Are you suggesting only laws can be used to regulate and not rules?

 

[dblack]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go.

What laws regulate these boards?

Are you suggesting only laws can be used to regulate and not rules?

The only regulations the libertarians complain about are those that are coercive (i.e. laws). Voluntary self regulation via rules systems is a great way to manage things.

 

[dblack]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go.

What laws regulate these boards?

Are you suggesting only laws can be used to regulate and not rules?

The only regulations the libertarians complain about are those that are coercive (i.e. laws). Voluntary self regulation via rules systems is a great way to manage things.

To clarify: what I'm saying is that when libertarians complain about over-regulation by government, they're not saying there should be no rules. We're just say that most rules don't need to be laws enforced by government. As the 'regulation' on this board proves, most communities can police themselves fine with minimal laws.

 

[Bombur]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go.

What laws regulate these boards?

Are you suggesting only laws can be used to regulate and not rules?

The only regulations the libertarians complain about are those that are coercive (i.e. laws). Voluntary self regulation via rules systems is a great way to manage things.

To clarify: what I'm saying is that when libertarians complain about over-regulation by government, they're not saying there should be no rules. We're just say that most rules don't need to be laws enforced by government. As the 'regulation' on this board proves, most communities can police themselves fine with minimal laws.

In reality corporations get caught doing all sorts of bad things even with laws.

 

[regent]

We must remember corporations are people, they cry when hurt, get abortions, and on occasion get caught breaking itty bitty rules like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

 

[ElmerMudd]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

======================================
Our government has always been a blend of capitalism and socialism. Neither ideology works in it's purest form.
What is funny is those who oppose capitalism do not have a problem embracing the capitalist form of our government when it benefits them and those who oppose socialism have no problem embracing the socialist forms of our government when it benefits them.

 

[ElmerMudd]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

======================================
Our government has always been a blend of capitalism and socialism. Neither ideology works in it's purest form.
What is funny is those who oppose capitalism do not have a problem embracing the capitalist form of our government when it benefits them and those who oppose socialism have no problem embracing the socialist forms of our government when it benefits them.

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

======================================
Our government has always been a blend of capitalism and socialism. Neither ideology works in it's purest form.
What is funny is those who oppose capitalism do not have a problem embracing the capitalist form of our government when it benefits them and those who oppose socialism have no problem embracing the socialist forms of our government when it benefits them.

 

[dblack]

I say deregulate these boards and see how much smoother things go.

What laws regulate these boards?

Are you suggesting only laws can be used to regulate and not rules?

The only regulations the libertarians complain about are those that are coercive (i.e. laws). Voluntary self regulation via rules systems is a great way to manage things.

To clarify: what I'm saying is that when libertarians complain about over-regulation by government, they're not saying there should be no rules. We're just say that most rules don't need to be laws enforced by government. As the 'regulation' on this board proves, most communities can police themselves fine with minimal laws.

In reality corporations get caught doing all sorts of bad things even with laws.

Yep.

 

[dblack]

We must remember corporations are people, they cry when hurt, get abortions, and on occasion get caught breaking itty bitty rules like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Corporations are legal constructs, created by government.

 

[jasonnfree]

Socialism, progressivim, it's all euphemisms for one thing: Communism.

We fought it for 44 years. We fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam, and indirectly, we are still fighting Communism today.

Where do you think the majority those weapons used to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were manufactured? Places like Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East are bristling with weapons, guess where the majority of them were manufactured?

Let's see if anyone knows the answer to this question.

You say 'we are still fighting communism today'. If that were really so, we wouldn't have built up red china to the point where they are becoming a more powerful economy than ours. All this is really what's good for corporate profit . Offshoring jobs to commie red china and fighting wars in the middle east for corporate profit. This country could have easily gotten by without the oil from the middle east. Even today, one of USA's major export is refined gas and other byproducts of oil. This is what our foreign policy is all about. When we're told "we're fighting for our interests over there" this simply means corporations' interests. By the way, if you're an American citizen traveling abroad and get into trouble, you're on your own. Don't expect uncle sam to ride to the rescue.

 

[Bombur]

We must remember corporations are people, they cry when hurt, get abortions, and on occasion get caught breaking itty bitty rules like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Corporations are legal constructs, created by government.

Corporations are groups of people that enter into a "legal construct" that is authorized by the government.

The government acts more like an authorizing body than a creating one.

 

[MisterBeale]

Fascism is about as far as you can get from socialism politically. The Nazis just threw in the word "Socialist" in their title to appeal to working class people at the time. They exercised very few socialist programs.

False. It was truly a redistributive system.

Hitler's Handouts
Inside the Nazis' welfare state
Hitler s Handouts - Reason.com
Using a farrago of previously unpublished statistics, Aly describes in detail a social system larded with benefits —open only to Aryan comrades, naturally. To “achieve a truly socialist division of personal assets,” he writes, Hitler implemented a variety of interventionist economic policies, including price and rent controls, exorbitant corporate taxes, frequent “polemics against landlords,” subsidies to German farmers as protection “against the vagaries of weather and the world market,” and harsh taxes on capital gains, which Hitler himself had denounced as “effortless income.”


Aly demonstrates convincingly that Nazi “domestic policies were remarkably friendly toward the German lower classes, soaking the wealthy and redistributing the burdens of wartime.” And with fresh memories of Weimer inflation, “transferring the tax burden to corporations earned the leadership in Berlin considerable political capital, as the government keenly registered.”


For instance, at the outset of war Nazi economists established a “wartime tax of 50 percent on all wages” that applied only to the wealthiest Germans. In the end, Aly writes, “only 4 percent of the population paid the full 50 percent surcharge.” In occupied Holland, administrators dramatically raised taxes to fund an “anti-Bolshevik campaign,” while some Dutch companies paid upward of 112 percent of profits in tax.

 

[dblack]

We must remember corporations are people, they cry when hurt, get abortions, and on occasion get caught breaking itty bitty rules like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Corporations are legal constructs, created by government.

Corporations are groups of people that enter into a "legal construct" that is authorized by the government.

The government acts more like an authorizing body than a creating one.

mkay.