• 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!

Are We Now a Socialist Country?

Are We Now a Socialist Country?

  • Yes, we are a socialist country

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • No, we are a capitalist country

    Votes: 12 23.5%

  • We have been partly socialist and capitalist for decades

    Votes: 32 62.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Total voters
    51
Cilogy

Cilogy

Pathetic Douchebag
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
374
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Say what you honestly think.
 
Cilogy said:
Say what you honestly think.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what some rightwing, scare tactic, partisan hacks think, no, not in the least. Anyone who thinks so, I challenge to post the definition of a socialist society and identify how the US is identical to that.
 
We could be if you are willing to use a definition of socialist that doesn't bear very much resemblance to the way the word has been used in the past.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Regardless of what some rightwing, scare tactic, partisan hacks think, no, not in the least. Anyone who thinks so, I challenge to post the definition of a socialist society and identify how the US is identical to that.
Click to expand...

I think that we are a Capitolistic/Socialist country atm. A mixture. Though heavier on the Capitolism than the Socialism.

Capitolistic: Obvious.

Capitolistic: Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster: Capitolism

Socialistic: In that there are government sponsored programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare etc etc which makes everyone pay into it through taxes. We would be under the first defination of socialism.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster: Socialism
 
Kal'Stang said:
I think that we are a Capitolistic/Socialist country atm. A mixture. Though heavier on the Capitolism than the Socialism.

Capitolistic: Obvious.



Merriam-Webster: Capitolism

Socialistic: In that there are government sponsored programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare etc etc which makes everyone pay into it through taxes. We would be under the first defination of socialism.



Merriam-Webster: Socialism
Click to expand...

I would agree with the assessment that we have a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. That does NOT define a socialist country.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I
Socialistic: In that there are government sponsored programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare etc etc which makes everyone pay into it through taxes. We would be under the first defination of socialism.
Merriam-Webster: Socialism
Click to expand...
Umm, which of the things you mention is the equivalent of the govt owning the means of production?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
We could be if you are willing to use a definition of socialist that doesn't bear very much resemblance to the way the word has been used in the past.
Click to expand...

I am unwilling. Classical socialism. We do not qualify.
 
In the same way that my puppy is the future 3rd baseman for the Knicks.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Umm, which of the things you mention is the equivalent of the govt owning the means of production?
Click to expand...

Healthy citizens are productive are they not? :mrgreen:

Seriously, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare is nothing more than a type of insurance. There are many forms of production. There are the material types of producing something. IE steel, cars, food etc etc. And then there are non-material types of producing something. Such as health. The government wants to produce healthy people so that other things may be produced.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Healthy citizens are productive are they not? :mrgreen:

Seriously, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare is nothing more than a type of insurance. There are many forms of production. There are the material types of producing something. IE steel, cars, food etc etc. And then there are non-material types of producing something. Such as health. The government wants to produce healthy people so that other things may be produced.
Click to expand...

So, are you saying that the government has a major vested interest in a healthy populace?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Of course. Thank you for putting it far simpler than I did.
Click to expand...

You're welcome...but you might not thank me, now. :2razz: Don't you think that since the government has a vested interest in a healthy populace, that keeping it's populace healthy with a UHC would make sense? I mean, how else can the government manage this?
 
And one thing...I am not arguing for UHC. I have made my position pretty well known at DP that I am for a Tiered system which requires responsibility, choice and accountability. However, the point that I bring up is a point that I have not seen sufficiently explained. If the government has a vested interest in promoting a healthy populace, just like the government has a vested interest in promoting defense of the populace, why should there NOT be UHC?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You're welcome...but you might not thank me, now. :2razz: Don't you think that since the government has a vested interest in a healthy populace, that keeping it's populace healthy with a UHC would make sense? I mean, how else can the government manage this?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. I personally don't have a problem with UHC in and of itself. I just do not like the proposed bill that they have at this point in time.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes I do. I personally don't have a problem with UHC in and of itself. I just do not like the proposed bill that they have at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Damn! You stopped my "trap". Few EVER do that. Kudos to you. :applaud

OK, so in your UHC, what would the plan look like? I'm truly curious.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Damn! You stopped my "trap". Few EVER do that. Kudos to you. :applaud

OK, so in your UHC, what would the plan look like? I'm truly curious.
Click to expand...

:lol: Thanks. :)

I've actually been thinking about this for a bit now. I'm going to go to bed soon so won't beable to tell ya right now. But I will tomarrow if I have time....which I more than likely will. :)

I will say that it involves both Medicare and Medicaid. And yes I know that sounds foolhardy but if done right it shouldn't be.

Edit note: Please note that I'm not that great at technical things so what I will be saying will be in laymens terms.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
:lol: Thanks. :)

I've actually been thinking about this for a bit now. I'm going to go to bed soon so won't beable to tell ya right now. But I will tomarrow if I have time....which I more than likely will. :)

I will say that it involves both Medicare and Medicaid. And yes I know that sounds foolhardy but if done right it shouldn't be.

Edit note: Please note that I'm not that great at technical things so what I will be saying will be in laymens terms.
Click to expand...

I look forward to reading what you say. And don't worry about the technical aspect. I prefer to read non-technical stuff anyway.

Just as a side note. It's interesting what I see happening in the forum. We are seeing more intelligent bipartisan discussion on health care, here, with many folks from across the political spectrum contributing and coming to some agreements. I said it in another thread: we here at DP should run the US. :mrgreen:
 
Cilogy said:
Say what you honestly think.
Click to expand...

I think we are more accurately a Corporatist country.

As it have influences of both capitalism and socialism with direct government influence by corporations.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism]Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I think worrying about whether or not the US falls into a completely undefined label of "socialist" or not is absolutely pointless and detracts from the debates of stuff that actually matters. So by all means argue about UHC but do it on points that matter, like cost, availability, etc but don't argue on whether it fits into someone's individual definition of "socialist" or not.
 
Cilogy said:
Say what you honestly think.
Click to expand...

We are a capitalist country with a few socialist styled programs. The whole socialism thing being talked about endlessly now is just a case of namecalling by those on the right.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Healthy citizens are productive are they not?
Seriously, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare is nothing more than a type of insurance. There are many forms of production. There are the material types of producing something. IE steel, cars, food etc etc. And then there are non-material types of producing something. Such as health.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty unusual and broad definition of "means of production" you're using there. Can't say as I have seen anything quite like it before.

for example:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production"]Means of production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Means of production (abbreviated MoP; [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language"]German[/ame]: Produktionsmittel), are things used by human labourers to create products. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure"]infrastructure[/ame], etc.) and subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials). People operate on the subjects of labour, using the instruments of labour, to create a product; or, stated another way, labour acting on the means of production creates a product.[1]
The term can be simply and picturesquely described in an agrarian society as the soil and the shovel; in an industrial society, the mines and the factories.
​
As I said earlier, if you are willing to use unusual definitions, then you could say that the US is socialist (or most anything else you would like).
Usually though, MoP is defined a bit more narrowly.
 
Cilogy said:
Say what you honestly think.
Click to expand...

I would have to say we are a capitalist country with a few socialist programs and we are heading towards socialist.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's a pretty unusual and broad definition of "means of production" you're using there. Can't say as I have seen anything quite like it before.

for example:
Means of production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Means of production (abbreviated MoP; German: Produktionsmittel), are things used by human labourers to create products. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials). People operate on the subjects of labour, using the instruments of labour, to create a product; or, stated another way, labour acting on the means of production creates a product.[1]
The term can be simply and picturesquely described in an agrarian society as the soil and the shovel; in an industrial society, the mines and the factories.
​
As I said earlier, if you are willing to use unusual definitions, then you could say that the US is socialist (or most anything else you would like).
Usually though, MoP is defined a bit more narrowly.
Click to expand...

It's all in how you look at things. Think about this. Say a person works at a car factory. They help build the cars but they cannot take that car home because it is not theirs. It is the owner of the company's car. That person is just a tool to the car company owner. Remember no one is really irreplaceable to a company. The car company owner sells that car generating revenue which is then taxed by the government. And the person that builds the car is also taxed on their check. Everyone that pays taxes is in effect a tool for the government to make money to do what they need (want (<---also depends on how you look at things)) to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom