• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism is NOT the same as social programs.

Rainman05

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ok.

So I will try with this thread to defund some of the stupid notions regarding preconceptions of what SOCIALISM and SOCIAL PROGRAMS (pensions, healthcare, education, etc) are because they are 2 different things. Yes, I know this won't be about american government spending and debt but it is about government spending on a general level throughout the western world on what is important to having a modern society. So please leave the thread HERE.

So lets start off with some differentiation.

A social program =/= socialism and a lot of social programs =/= socialism.
Socialism =/= Communism though it is a way which facilitates communism entering and taking power.
Government spending =/= a social program.
welfare state =/= socialist state.
European nations =/= socialist nations.

Most social programs that you see today.. and most laws that are passed with a social idea in mind, are the product of LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES and NATIONALISTS. So lets see who figured them out first:
(in the mid-to-late 1800s)
Universal healthcare -> conservative.
Disability and accident pensions -> conservative
Social security -> conservative
These and a few more were the inventions of Otto Von Bismark of Germany. The first time they were ever made in the world. Amazing isn't it? A conservative figured them out. You know why they can NEVER be called SOCIALIST measures? Because Bismark held socialism in such disdain that he enacted ANTI-SOCIALIST laws the first chance he got.

Lets move on. Early XXth century. In England.
Free school meals -> liberal
Shorter work hours and job security -> liberal
health insurance -> Liberal
Agricultural subsidies -> liberal
Public libraries -> liberal.
Coal mining regulations -> liberal

Lets not forget who enacted social reforms for equality and such. How about voting rights for women. Did the socialists do it? No, they didn't. It was either liberals or conservatives depending on the country... liberals did it in Finland first if I remember correctly in early XXth century.

So. Socialism hasn't give us nothing in terms of free healthcare, social security, pensions, state sponsored education, shorter work hours, job security, contract negotiation etc. It did popularize the notion of unions, especially public sector unions.... and its big brother, communism, popularized the idea of "food stamps" or vouchers for people to collect their quotas of food and supplies by standing hours in line. But other than that. No. Nothing.

So to call such programs socialist programs is to do what the socialists want you to do and that is to give them credit for good things that they did NOT give to the world. So don't do it.
 
Oh, one more thing. So when you listen to morons like Bill Maher here:



Please remind yourself that he is speaking out of his ass and has absolutely no idea what reality is. He is just speaking for the sake of speaking.

Oh, and another thing. The terms LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE and SOCIALIST up there are from the EUROPEAN political model, not the US one. So Republican =/= Conservative and Democrat =/= Liberal or Socialist.
 
Rainman05 said:
Oh, one more thing. So when you listen to morons like Bill Maher here:



Please remind yourself that he is speaking out of his ass and has absolutely no idea what reality is. He is just speaking for the sake of speaking.

Oh, and another thing. The terms LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE and SOCIALIST up there are from the EUROPEAN political model, not the US one. So Republican =/= Conservative and Democrat =/= Liberal or Socialist.
Click to expand...


i thought conservative meant one who conserves, not one who wastes trillions on illegal wars. likewise, i thought liberal meant one who values liberty, not one who desecrates the 2nd amendment. i think these terms need to be updated to reflect reality:

we'll call republicans warservatives
and we'll call democrats gungraberals
 
I'm a big fan of Bryan Cranston, I wasn't aware he was on the Bill Maher show, and I'm glad I didn't watch the entire show. Hearing my favorite actors and musicians talk about politics always ruins it for me.
 
AD IUDOCIUM said:
tax chart as %gdp
Click to expand...
What's your point? Lower tax countries like Australia still manage to create and maintain social programs like Medicare, pensions, better unemployment support program etc.
 
roflpublican said:
i thought conservative meant one who conserves, not one who wastes trillions on illegal wars. likewise, i thought liberal meant one who values liberty, not one who desecrates the 2nd amendment. i think these terms need to be updated to reflect reality:
Click to expand...

Liberals seems to have been corrupted in American politics, they are more like what is called a Social Democrat (not to be confused with Democratic Socialism) in the UK and A/NZ. We have liberals who tend to be somewhat conservative but in favour of individual liberty, sorta like but not really like a Libertarian.
 
Stewart said:
Liberals seems to have been corrupted in American politics, they are more like what is called a Social Democrat (not to be confused with Democratic Socialism) in the UK and A/NZ. We have liberals who tend to be somewhat conservative but in favour of individual liberty, sorta like but not really like a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

i don't think it's just liberals, i think our whole political process has been corrupted, and this race between two super-rich i-like-being-in-the-corporate-pocket candidates exemplifies it.
 
Every time I see that person from Minny. I think of "we need to really help Indians (country) after all look what we did to them. (read native americans)
 
roflpublican said:
i thought conservative meant one who conserves, not one who wastes trillions on illegal wars. likewise, i thought liberal meant one who values liberty, not one who desecrates the 2nd amendment. i think these terms need to be updated to reflect reality:

we'll call republicans warservatives
and we'll call democrats gungraberals
Click to expand...

The propblem is that the Repuiblican party has become just as liberal as the Democrats. They serve the same Masters.
 
Stewart said:
Liberals seems to have been corrupted in American politics, they are more like what is called a Social Democrat (not to be confused with Democratic Socialism) in the UK and A/NZ. We have liberals who tend to be somewhat conservative but in favour of individual liberty, sorta like but not really like a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

True conservatives are abandoning the Republican party and becoming Libritarians.
 
blaxshep said:
True conservatives are abandoning the Republican party and becoming Libritarians.
Click to expand...

Well that fits nicely into your political beliefs doesn't it. Conservativism and Libertarian aren't the same thing, but whatever.
 
Stewart said:
Liberals seems to have been corrupted in American politics, they are more like what is called a Social Democrat (not to be confused with Democratic Socialism) in the UK and A/NZ. We have liberals who tend to be somewhat conservative but in favour of individual liberty, sorta like but not really like a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

/agree
American Liberals seem to fit in somewhere between European Social-Democrats and Social-Conservatives, whereas the Republicans seem to be somewhere between Religious-Conservatives and Fiscal Liberals.
 
Rainman05 said:
Lets move on. Early XXth century. In England.
Free school meals -> liberal
Shorter work hours and job security -> liberal
health insurance -> Liberal
Agricultural subsidies -> liberal
Public libraries -> liberal.
Coal mining regulations -> liberal
Click to expand...

In terms of 20th Century England, a good deal of the social programs relating to areas such as health, better working conditions and regulation of industries such as coal mining were down to the Post-War Socialist Labour Government, which formed the National Health Service and took industries like Coal Mining away from the private sector and in to nationalised hands with new and better conditions and regulations. :)

However I do agree that Social Reform and Social Programs were still viewed as part of the responsibility of Government and Society long before Karl Marx started writing his Marxist theories and ideology. Prior to socialism many social reforms were demanded by religious groups and the Victorian's were great Social Reformers, although the advent of further Poor Laws, Soup Kitchens, Work House and other such institutions as portrayed in the works of Charles Dickens were not always welcome reform and were often more to do with easing the burden of conscience among polite Victorian Society than bringing an end to all of societies hardship and social ill. It also should be noted that it was always in the interest of the nation to have a healthy population in order to work in industry and agriculture and also in terms of fighting wars. :shock:

BBC - History - British History in depth: Beneath the Surface: A Country of Two Nations


The National Health Service - 1948

 
Last edited:
HK.227 said:
/agree
American Liberals seem to fit in somewhere between European Social-Democrats and Social-Conservatives, whereas the Republicans seem to be somewhere between Religious-Conservatives and Fiscal Liberals.
Click to expand...

The fiscal liberals seem to falling to the Libertarians lately.
 
well golly gee if its not socialism when someone puts a gun to your head and takes your money and gives it to someone else (well they keep some for themselves too doncha know) then what is it?
 
Rainman05 said:
So to call such programs socialist programs is to do what the socialists want you to do and that is to give them credit for good things that they did NOT give to the world. So don't do it.
Click to expand...

Socialism isnt new, its just a new term on something thats been going on for millenia. So its accurate to call 18th century europeans socialist, and its accurate to call modern liberals socialist. The US in general is socialist. You may call these programs good, but I dont. Social programs promote apathy and sloth. They encourage govt tyranny and theft of property.
 
jonny5 said:
Socialism isnt new, its just a new term on something thats been going on for millenia. So its accurate to call 18th century europeans socialist, and its accurate to call modern liberals socialist. The US in general is socialist. You may call these programs good, but I dont. Social programs promote apathy and sloth. They encourage govt tyranny and theft of property.
Click to expand...

Oh the insights of libertarianism!

Now capitalism means socialism and economic and political theory is reduced to meany government doing bad things so adolescent menchildren can't do what they want when they want it.

You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to figure out what's behind libertarian "theory".
 
The Progressives all think the state is the greatest thing until they too are herded into the gulags
but by then it is far to late for the rest of us to even care, oddly enough they are the one's that never make it out...
 
AngryOldGuy said:
well golly gee if its not socialism when someone puts a gun to your head and takes your money and gives it to someone else (well they keep some for themselves too doncha know) then what is it?
Click to expand...
taxation iirc

; )
 
without representation?
 
Rainman05 said:
Ok.

So I will try with this thread to defund some of the stupid notions regarding preconceptions of what SOCIALISM and SOCIAL PROGRAMS (pensions, healthcare, education, etc) are because they are 2 different things. Yes, I know this won't be about american government spending and debt but it is about government spending on a general level throughout the western world on what is important to having a modern society. So please leave the thread HERE.

So lets start off with some differentiation.

A social program =/= socialism and a lot of social programs =/= socialism.
Socialism =/= Communism though it is a way which facilitates communism entering and taking power.
Government spending =/= a social program.
welfare state =/= socialist state.
European nations =/= socialist nations.

Most social programs that you see today.. and most laws that are passed with a social idea in mind, are the product of LIBERALS, CONSERVATIVES and NATIONALISTS. So lets see who figured them out first:
(in the mid-to-late 1800s)
Universal healthcare -> conservative.
Disability and accident pensions -> conservative
Social security -> conservative
These and a few more were the inventions of Otto Von Bismark of Germany. The first time they were ever made in the world. Amazing isn't it? A conservative figured them out. You know why they can NEVER be called SOCIALIST measures? Because Bismark held socialism in such disdain that he enacted ANTI-SOCIALIST laws the first chance he got.

Lets move on. Early XXth century. In England.
Free school meals -> liberal
Shorter work hours and job security -> liberal
health insurance -> Liberal
Agricultural subsidies -> liberal
Public libraries -> liberal.
Coal mining regulations -> liberal

Lets not forget who enacted social reforms for equality and such. How about voting rights for women. Did the socialists do it? No, they didn't. It was either liberals or conservatives depending on the country... liberals did it in Finland first if I remember correctly in early XXth century.

So. Socialism hasn't give us nothing in terms of free healthcare, social security, pensions, state sponsored education, shorter work hours, job security, contract negotiation etc. It did popularize the notion of unions, especially public sector unions.... and its big brother, communism, popularized the idea of "food stamps" or vouchers for people to collect their quotas of food and supplies by standing hours in line. But other than that. No. Nothing.

So to call such programs socialist programs is to do what the socialists want you to do and that is to give them credit for good things that they did NOT give to the world. So don't do it.
Click to expand...

This is just semantics, most of the social-democratic reforms were done by labor and socialist and social democratic parties that adhered to an ideology of socialism, and in the US, FDR was pressured by many socialist groups.

This is just you not liking a word ...
 
jonny my boy, you may indeed be onto something there ;)
the ideas on which this country was founded are not only forgotten
they are openly mocked by the vast majority of society
anyone that preaches the tenets of the Constitution is viewed as a wacko at best
or considered a dangerous sociopath
so yes, totalitarianism is not only a distinct possibility in this country
but a foregone conclusion as there isn't anything nor anyone to stand in its way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom