Socialism

[danielpalos]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

 

[ESay]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Well, I will tell you frankly that I am with them with this regard (not sure about the former, but definitely with the latter).

I live in a country where the vast number of people is indoctrinated by a Soviet mentality. And of course we have the general welfare (formally) as the legacy of those times. It is a complete disaster.

 

[danielpalos]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Well, I will tell you frankly that I am with them with this regard (not sure about the former, but definitely with the latter).

I live in a country where the vast number of people is indoctrinated by a Soviet mentality. And of course we have the general welfare (formally) as the legacy of those times. It is a complete disaster.

Lousy management? Our supreme law of the land is clear. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Andylusion]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

In what way? We have social security. How is that any different? We have Medicare and Medicaid, and government funded free clinics in nearly every county in the nation. How is that any different?

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

The General Welfare Clause, is not a power of the government. The general welfare clause is a limitation on the government.

The point of the general welfare clause, was to prevent special interest groups from gaining political favor in government, at the expense of the tax payer.

The requirement is that government policy only be..... for the general welfare. Meaning, you can't have one group paying for the benefits given only and exclusively to another group.

For example, taxing the young, to pay for the exclusive benefit of the old, is a violation of the general welfare clause. Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, every single program designed to tax one group, to pay for another group, is a violation of the general welfare clause.

General welfare, was never a "free for all" power of government, to do anything and everything they wanted under the guise of being for the General Welfare.

If you think about it logically, there would be no need for a constitution, if you just had a government with unlimited power to do anything it wants under the General Welfare. You can logically exterminate the Jews, if you believed that would be for the general welfare of the nation, with that kind of unlimited power. You can have the NSA spying on all Americans 24/7, if that was for the general welfare.

General Welfare is a limit on government power, that all actions must be equally benefiting everyone. Such as law enforcement. Such as interstate commerce. Such as defense of the nation.

 

[ESay]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Well, I will tell you frankly that I am with them with this regard (not sure about the former, but definitely with the latter).

I live in a country where the vast number of people is indoctrinated by a Soviet mentality. And of course we have the general welfare (formally) as the legacy of those times. It is a complete disaster.

Lousy management? Our supreme law of the land is clear. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And lousy management too, of course. It is a complex problem.

About the passage of the Constitution. You know, interpretation may differ significantly depending on the point of view. The first thing that cought up my attention was 'wording'. The common defense must be 'provided for', but the general welfare must be 'promoted'. These words have different meaning, don't they?

Second. What is general welfare? Does it mean that all people should have equal income, or that every person should have guaranteed minimum income? If yes, then what level of this income should be and who should decide about it?

Does general welfare include free healthcare? If yes, what standards of this will be, the term limits of providing medical help? Who will decide on it and who will pay for it?

In my opinion, the general welfare is not about free stuff giving around here and there. It is more about equal opportunities and the possibility to realize oneself in different fields one would choose.

 

[ESay]

In what way? We have social security. How is that any different? We have Medicare and Medicaid, and government funded free clinics in nearly every county in the nation. How is that any different

That is why I said the US was shifting in this direction. My point was that European countries from 1950s chose the model of 'social' state. The government is the main provider of social benefits. It doesn't mean that there are no private clinics and pension funds. But they mostly exist 'in addition to'.

 

[danielpalos]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Well, I will tell you frankly that I am with them with this regard (not sure about the former, but definitely with the latter).

I live in a country where the vast number of people is indoctrinated by a Soviet mentality. And of course we have the general welfare (formally) as the legacy of those times. It is a complete disaster.

Lousy management? Our supreme law of the land is clear. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And lousy management too, of course. It is a complex problem.

About the passage of the Constitution. You know, interpretation may differ significantly depending on the point of view. The first thing that cought up my attention was 'wording'. The common defense must be 'provided for', but the general welfare must be 'promoted'. These words have different meaning, don't they?

Second. What is general welfare? Does it mean that all people should have equal income, or that every person should have guaranteed minimum income? If yes, then what level of this income should be and who should decide about it?

Does general welfare include free healthcare? If yes, what standards of this will be, the term limits of providing medical help? Who will decide on it and who will pay for it?

In my opinion, the general welfare is not about free stuff giving around here and there. It is more about equal opportunities and the possibility to realize oneself in different fields one would choose.

About our Constitution. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way. The words used by our Founding Fathers matter. The preamble is what our Founding Fathers told us to do with our Constitution. Yes, both terms, promote and provide are employed in regard to the general welfare but only provide is used for the common defense.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency. Why not resort to Pareto Optimal solutions instead of political pandering? We should be solving economic problems instead. Equal protection of the laws is in our federal and State Constitutions.

We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday via Constitutional means using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

 

[ESay]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Well, I will tell you frankly that I am with them with this regard (not sure about the former, but definitely with the latter).

I live in a country where the vast number of people is indoctrinated by a Soviet mentality. And of course we have the general welfare (formally) as the legacy of those times. It is a complete disaster.

Lousy management? Our supreme law of the land is clear. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And lousy management too, of course. It is a complex problem.

About the passage of the Constitution. You know, interpretation may differ significantly depending on the point of view. The first thing that cought up my attention was 'wording'. The common defense must be 'provided for', but the general welfare must be 'promoted'. These words have different meaning, don't they?

Second. What is general welfare? Does it mean that all people should have equal income, or that every person should have guaranteed minimum income? If yes, then what level of this income should be and who should decide about it?

Does general welfare include free healthcare? If yes, what standards of this will be, the term limits of providing medical help? Who will decide on it and who will pay for it?

In my opinion, the general welfare is not about free stuff giving around here and there. It is more about equal opportunities and the possibility to realize oneself in different fields one would choose.

About our Constitution. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way. The words used by our Founding Fathers matter. The preamble is what our Founding Fathers told us to do with our Constitution. Yes, both terms, promote and provide are employed in regard to the general welfare but only provide is used for the common defense.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency. Why not resort to Pareto Optimal solutions instead of political pandering? We should be solving economic problems instead. Equal protection of the laws is in our federal and State Constitutions.

We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday via Constitutional means using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

Well, I am far from being an expert about American Constitution and can't keep meaningful discussion about it. As I can understand, the Americans have varying opinions how to interpret this or that passage.

I can only offer my opinion about what the general welfare should be. In my view, the main principle on which it should be based is fairness. If a healthy working-age person demands benefits at the cost of a hard-working one - that isn't fair. If some bureaucrat will have a right to decide what medical treatment standards are better for me - that isn't fair. And so on.

I dont exclude the fact that some people will need a state support. And for these purposes there should be certain state funds. But it should be rather exceptions.

 

[danielpalos]

Sweden is by definition a quasi socialist country, however, when one examines the internal framework they soon discover the myth of their brand of socialism. It mirrors a largely private sector based economy, no longer the fairy tails of to 70’s through 1995. Milton Friedman documented the change in several studies and they adopted many If not all of his solutions. The USA is not ready to sit at the table and have a grown up discussion because basically most of the politicians would not be re-elected.

Sweden's economy is what is known as a "Welfare State", with basic private industry being augmented by social programs. The USA, Canada and UK have the same makeup, as do Germany and Russia, Norway and Denmark. The only true socialist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

I think it is a little bit exaggerated to put the US on the same scale with, for example, Norway and Russia in this regard. Welfare State as it perceived in Europe has little to do with the model adopted in the US. But now the US is shifting in this direction, it seems.

Providing for the general welfare of our (nation-)State is in our federal Constitution.

Oh, I see. And how has it been realized on practice? As far as I am aware, the US don't have state health care and pension systems as European countries do.

Right wingers only believe in the general warfare not the general welfare.

Well, I will tell you frankly that I am with them with this regard (not sure about the former, but definitely with the latter).

I live in a country where the vast number of people is indoctrinated by a Soviet mentality. And of course we have the general welfare (formally) as the legacy of those times. It is a complete disaster.

Lousy management? Our supreme law of the land is clear. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And lousy management too, of course. It is a complex problem.

About the passage of the Constitution. You know, interpretation may differ significantly depending on the point of view. The first thing that cought up my attention was 'wording'. The common defense must be 'provided for', but the general welfare must be 'promoted'. These words have different meaning, don't they?

Second. What is general welfare? Does it mean that all people should have equal income, or that every person should have guaranteed minimum income? If yes, then what level of this income should be and who should decide about it?

Does general welfare include free healthcare? If yes, what standards of this will be, the term limits of providing medical help? Who will decide on it and who will pay for it?

In my opinion, the general welfare is not about free stuff giving around here and there. It is more about equal opportunities and the possibility to realize oneself in different fields one would choose.

About our Constitution. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way. The words used by our Founding Fathers matter. The preamble is what our Founding Fathers told us to do with our Constitution. Yes, both terms, promote and provide are employed in regard to the general welfare but only provide is used for the common defense.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency. Why not resort to Pareto Optimal solutions instead of political pandering? We should be solving economic problems instead. Equal protection of the laws is in our federal and State Constitutions.

We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday via Constitutional means using existing legal and physical infrastructure.

Well, I am far from being an expert about American Constitution and can't keep meaningful discussion about it. As I can understand, the Americans have varying opinions how to interpret this or that passage.

I can only offer my opinion about what the general welfare should be. In my view, the main principle on which it should be based is fairness. If a healthy working-age person demands benefits at the cost of a hard-working one - that isn't fair. If some bureaucrat will have a right to decide what medical treatment standards are better for me - that isn't fair. And so on.

I dont exclude the fact that some people will need a state support. And for these purposes there should be certain state funds. But it should be rather exceptions.

I am referring more to equal protection of the laws. What you bring up could be dealt with via the concept of community standards unless there is a more optimum State or federal standard.

 

[verker]

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.

Think USSR had no socialism ... only communism of government !!!

 

[Staidhup]

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.

Think USSR had no socialism ... only communism of government !!!

Actually a Fascist Oligarchy based on Marx’s manifesto.

 

[Senter]

Think USSR had no socialism ... only communism of government !!!

Yes, for a while the USSR had a communist party ruling. During that time the USSR experienced some of the fastest development of society (income, education, medical care) ever seen.

But the various "definitions" of socialism I've seen in this thread miss the mark entirely. I have been an advocate of socialism for over 50 years. That stands as my "credentials".

Now, first, we must face the truth that the USA has for the last 70 years or so, adhered to a policy of continually spreading anti-communist, anti-Marxian, anti-socialist propaganda. RW ideologues have created a virtual taboo against discussion of any of it. Their primary strategy has been to create an environment in which simply raising the question of whether socialism my offer anything useful, is immediately met with comments intended to make that person feel like it must have been a stupid question, so people either don't raise the question, or they take the side of anti-socialism so they can feel "accepted".

One other strategy is so common that it has showed up several times in this thread, and that strategy is confusion. Normally, the technique is to look at the USSR and what they did and had, declare that to be "socialism" or "communism" and then itemize its faults. And what did the USSR do? It did what Lenin recommended in several speeches, the one on the NEP being one of the better-known ones. He recommended or suggested that due to the low level of development of Russian industry, production, and technology it may be beneficial to organize the new society under a regime of "state capitalism" (his words) for a while. He also said that it may then be necessary at some time in the future to carry out another revolution to transition to socialism. So state capitalism was established. The state owned the businesses and industry and the population supplied the workers to work for the state and to perform as instructed by the state.

The US propaganda machine looked at this and declared THAT was "socialism". Dictionaries produced by capitalist publishers took up the challenge quickly and we can easily find dictionaries today which say socialism is a system in which "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Wrong. That is propaganda that describes state capitalism. It is designed and intended to confuse us, thereby disarming us and steering us away from socialism by substituting state capitalism.

 

[Invisibleflash]

You may be correct, at least from a historical perspective.

However, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source / authority on anything.

Have you ever tried to join and edit / improve an article?

I have.

If you dare disagree with the bias / philosophy of the editors there, your edits will be quickly removed.

I gave up on this place. Have not posted in ages. Too much censorship.

But, I concur about Wiki. Terrible!

And OP...it IS socialism 'of sorts'...in a capitalist America.

...back to lurking.

 

[Senter]

So now let me continue and finish the post I left above an hour ago. "What is socialism?" That is the question that remains.

The difference between socialism and every other major system the world has seen is that all the others have a system of boss and worker. The worker produces more than he alone needs or can use, and the boss keeps the rest to do with as he chooses.

This has been the relationship in all slave societies (slaves vs master), feudal societies (lord vs serfs), and capitalist societies (employer vs employees). Once capitalism took hold, employees began considering, studying, and planning for a society in which there is no such relationship; a society in which workers produce and own and manage their work and production for the good of all society.

So the line that divides capitalist society from socialist society is the employer/employee relationship. In capitalism it exists; in socialist society there is no such relationship. So a system in which workers are employed by, directed by, managed by THE STATE is not socialism.

Far too many people today seem to be lacking some essential element of humanity. They object that they don't want to pay for others who don't work. Fact is that every society through history without exception had/has a section of the population that works and a section that doesn't, in addition to a sizable section who works but doesn't produce anything for use by anyone. But just think of the US population. The working population totals about 157 million people. But the entire population is 330 million. That 157 million who work provide for the rest of us, the total being TWICE as many as those who produce. And they include children, the elderly, the disabled, firefighters, police, the military, and many, many more who do not produce anything for any market or for use by others.

Socialism is no different in providing for those who don't work. But what it does..... ––I should say "what it would do" since it doesn't exist and hasn't existed ..... ––is that it would provide a structure, a means, of those who produce to democratically and collectively decide what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits. It could do this because it would create the first society ever... ––since the communal societies of American Indians.... ––in which the relationship of boss and worker is gone. Here is one video on this....

 

[Doc7505]

Of course, you claim that if Socialism comes next to America this time it will succeed even though every time Socialism takes over a nation/country it is devastating, genocidal and destroys the majority and only serves the few at the top.

 

[Senter]

Elsewhere I said RWers aren't capable of recognizing how well propaganda has washed their brain of any logic.

Imagine the proof of that when one of them REFUSES to engage me in a conversation about the contents of my post #32 right above, BUT issues a "Disagree" evaluation. LOL!!!!! Pathetic.

 

[Senter]

Of course, you claim that if Socialism comes next to America this time it will succeed even though every time Socialism takes over a nation/country it is devastating, genocidal and destroys the majority and only serves the few at the top.

See? There you have it folks. The American taboo. EXACTLY as I described, rather than asking questions to gain an understanding of why I said what I said, Doc instead tries to stop the discussion cold with a ready-made BS propaganda statement just stating "how evil socialism is". And because he is so brainwashed, his knowledge of socialism consists entirely of BS propaganda. Beyond that he would only prove he knows NOTHING. LOL!!!

 

[Doc7505]

Lousy management? Our supreme law of the land is clear. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Name one Marxist Socialist country that has not subjugated their own and enslaved them.

 

[initforme]

There is no program or policy that has a hint of socialism in america. All this panic for nothing. Fake news, just like the fake labor shortage.

 

[surada]

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term is often misused in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are elements of a welfare state but they are not socialism. Socialism requires group ownership of the means of production, usually controlled by a central government.
In true socialism, there is no private industry. The USSR had socialism(not Communism) and so did Communist China until the 1980s. Communist is the name of a political party.

Social Security and Medicare aren't welfare.