• 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 Destroys

Renae said:
I know it's not the definition of socialism, it takes elements of socialism, puts the veneer or economic freedom on it and says "EVERYTHING IS WONDERFUL" But it's not, and I value my freedoms over the false security D. Socialist promise
Click to expand...

It doesn't really take anything from socialism, socialism revolves around state ownership of production of means. It's perhaps a form of social capitalism. As opposed to the corporate capitalism we now run.
 
Redress said:
Who are you, and what have you done with my friend Ikari?

99 % of the time when some one calls others Socialist(or Statist), they are doing so because they cannot argue ideas, and so try and attach negative labels to others so they do not have to argue against their ideas. Much easier to say "you are a Socialist", than "you are wrong about <insert issue here> because...". Sanders is an ebil Socialist is easier than Sanders is wrong because he takes reasonable ideas and inflates them to the point they will not work. It is a tactic done largely by anti-liberals, people whose whole ideology is being opposed to liberals, like the OP(think he will catch the humor there?).

A list of words used to label instead of debate(ie words for those unable to debate: lefty, righty, socialist, commie, fascist, nazi, libtard, Trumper, statist, and many many more.
Click to expand...

I do like Trumpeteer though.

However, I dislike where we have come as a Republic and regardless of my personal support of these systems, I hate that we find ourselves in a place where hyperpartisan propaganda rules the day. We cannot even have the discussions now because everything has to be cast in these partisan contexts that short-circuit critical and rational though in favor of emotional reactions. I'd rather have the argument, to lay the facts bare, to argue the point and promote what I believe is best and others to do the same in an environment that encourages and embraces intellectualism and reason so that we may drive the system to a better spot.
 
Ikari said:
It doesn't really take anything from socialism, socialism revolves around state ownership of production of means. It's perhaps a form of social capitalism. As opposed to the corporate capitalism we now run.
Click to expand...

If these people were really patriots they'd be fighting for things like tuition free college for young people. Places like the Scandinavian countries have long realized that giving young people a head start is beneficial to your nation in the long run. They don't actually care about what will make America strong and prepared for the future.
 
dex4974 said:
If these people were really patriots they'd be fighting for things like tuition free college for young people. Places like the Scandinavian countries have long realized that giving young people a head start is beneficial to your nation in the long run. They don't actually care about what will make America strong and prepared for the future.
Click to expand...

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.” - Daniel Webster

An educated and intelligent populace is a necessity to a Free Republic.
 
dex4974 said:
Am I correct in assuming you are one of the left wing people that seeks the total annihilation of capitalism? I do not support the end of private property and business, at least not yet. The world is not ready for full blown socialism, and it won't be until AI has removed the need for human labor in my opinion. Capitalism can work for everybody and the Scandinavian countries have proven that. Don't let the way America has perverted capitalism turn you off to the idea completely. We should stick with what we know works for now and improve it.
Click to expand...

This may come as a shock to you but it shouldn't. Most liberals are capitalists, and only have an issue with who our capitalism is geared to serve the most. The fact is, back in the New Deal era, there were PLENTY of filthy rich capitalists walking around. Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, the Rockefellers, need I go on?

But our SYSTEM was geared to serve as a tool to benefit the middle class first. As Will Rogers said, "Mister Hoover didn't know that money trickled up."
What that meant was that Mister Hoover didn't know that money WAS SUPPOSED TO trickle up.
"Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands."

And that's what the New Deal did, it allowed the little people to hold the money for a little while and spend it, whereupon it STILL wound up in the hands of the rich anyway. Only along the way it made our economy scream with strength, and our middle class at least got a decent quality of life.

And the New Deal was capitalism, with a couple of mild socialist tweaks added, but it was never a PATH TO SOCIALISM ITSELF, nor could it ever be.
 
Ikari said:
I do like Trumpeteer though.

However, I dislike where we have come as a Republic and regardless of my personal support of these systems, I hate that we find ourselves in a place where hyperpartisan propaganda rules the day. We cannot even have the discussions now because everything has to be cast in these partisan contexts that short-circuit critical and rational though in favor of emotional reactions. I'd rather have the argument, to lay the facts bare, to argue the point and promote what I believe is best and others to do the same in an environment that encourages and embraces intellectualism and reason so that we may drive the system to a better spot.
Click to expand...

Tribalism seems to be where we have gone wrong. Now, tribalism has always existed, but recently, we have taken it to such extreme levels that it becomes impossible to have a conversation. Reagan and Tip O'Neal could come together, discuss things, and work out a deal in the not distant past. Clinton and Gingrich, much less so. Bush and Pelosi, even less so. And Obama and Ryan not at all. And it is unlikely to get better soon. We could very well see a battle of the populist ideologues in 2020, Trump vs Sanders, and neither one of them has any interest in bringing the country together.
 
dex4974 said:
Most people on the left don't actually want socialism. What they want is Nordic capitalism. The Scandinavian countries operate under capitalism even though people constantly call it socialism. The left wants social safety nets and healthcare for all. They want young people to have access to college without needing to go into debt. They want people to make enough money at their jobs to live comfortably without needing welfare. Comparing what the left is fighting for to Venezuela or Cuba is dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

if rain drops were gum drops and lollipops ol what a day it would be.
 
Redress said:
Tribalism seems to be where we have gone wrong. Now, tribalism has always existed, but recently, we have taken it to such extreme levels that it becomes impossible to have a conversation. Reagan and Tip O'Neal could come together, discuss things, and work out a deal in the not distant past. Clinton and Gingrich, much less so. Bush and Pelosi, even less so. And Obama and Ryan not at all. And it is unlikely to get better soon. We could very well see a battle of the populist ideologues in 2020, Trump vs Sanders, and neither one of them has any interest in bringing the country together.
Click to expand...

When you have two opposing ideologies that have competing visions of what they want the country to represent, political conflict is inevitable.

Trying to bridge such a divide becomes impossible if both sides can not find any middle ground.
 
dex4974 said:
Well, good. Not too long ago I made the mistake of assuming almost nobody on the left considers themselves an opponent of capitalism. There are a lot more than I expected unfortunately.
Click to expand...

There are a lot fewer than you expected, you've just been duped by propaganda.
 
Deuce said:
There are a lot fewer than you expected, you've just been duped by propaganda.
Click to expand...

No, I based what I said on my own interactions with left wing people. I had a big discussion on another online forum about how I don't believe people on the left are opponents of capitalism. A surprising amount of left wing people made it very clear that they are indeed opponents of capitalism. There is a lot of ignorance on the left too, and I think that ignorance is where anti-capitalism sentiments mostly come from.
 
Redress said:
Tribalism seems to be where we have gone wrong. Now, tribalism has always existed, but recently, we have taken it to such extreme levels that it becomes impossible to have a conversation. Reagan and Tip O'Neal could come together, discuss things, and work out a deal in the not distant past. Clinton and Gingrich, much less so. Bush and Pelosi, even less so. And Obama and Ryan not at all. And it is unlikely to get better soon. We could very well see a battle of the populist ideologues in 2020, Trump vs Sanders, and neither one of them has any interest in bringing the country together.
Click to expand...

Parties have always existed, but the Republocrat Oligarchy has cemented its power and now we see the effects of stagnated parties. Without proper political competition, it becomes all but impossible to actually control the system and force particular elements to work together to drive a system.

It's true that back in the day, even as recent as Reagan, bipartisanship wasn't a four letter word. But as we allow the Party to isolate itself from the People, to cement themselves as the "only options", they have been able to kick up the divisiveness and vitriol while maintaining power.

I don't know when this gets fixed, I see it as every election cycle we sink even lower into it. I've been saying that for a long time now. Certainly if you leave it to the Republocrat Oligarchy, it won't be fixed. Because the only thing that will really get them to change is fear of losing power, and for that you have to break their teeter-totter.

I'm just tired of it all, none of this behooves the People or the Republic and it seems like we'd rather sit around pointing fingers at the other side than to actually address the fundamental issues and seek to fix those.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Arguing against the right-wing "socialism" strawman is folly, imo. They see socialism in anything the government does, unless it's the military industrial complex - that is somehow exempted.

My maternal step-grandmother seemed to see communists everywhere. Ike and JFK were commies. That was the 1960's. Amazing how little has changed.
Click to expand...

They thought Eisenhower was a communist?
 
Tigerace117 said:
They thought Eisenhower was a communist?
Click to expand...

Yes, the John Birch Society did. I don't know if she was a member, but she held some of those beliefs.

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/more-fun-with-the-john-birch-society-6502732

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
The John Birch Society (JBS) is an extreme right-wing organisation[2] founded by candy manufacturer Robert W. Welch, Jr.Wikipedia's W.svg in 1958 as a wingnut red-baiting propaganda machine last line of defense against the massively ongoing, clandestine Communist takeover of the United States. An early book by Welch, The Politician, became controversial after it became widely known that an early manuscript included the accusation that President Dwight Eisenhower was a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist conspiracy."

It's basically the KKK but with a thin, stringy veneer of political theory (read: more fears of fluorinated water controlling their brains). They basically started libertarianism,[3] which took the cult-ish route of hiding the core tenets from newcomers.

Oil baron Fred C. Koch was also among the original members.
Click to expand...
 
dex4974 said:
No, I based what I said on my own interactions with left wing people. I had a big discussion on another online forum about how I don't believe people on the left are opponents of capitalism. A surprising amount of left wing people made it very clear that they are indeed opponents of capitalism. There is a lot of ignorance on the left too, and I think that ignorance is where anti-capitalism sentiments mostly come from.
Click to expand...

Your problem is thinking in black and white. Someone criticizing the negative impacts of capitalism isn't automatically saying we should end capitalism.
 
Deuce said:
Your problem is thinking in black and white. Someone criticizing the negative impacts of capitalism isn't automatically saying we should end capitalism.
Click to expand...

Your problem is assuming my experience is something other than what I am telling you. I know how to distinguish between criticism and intolerance. Maybe we should do a poll here. I bet the results would surprise you.
 
Renae said:
We know, "THIS TIME, THIS WAY, We'll get it right! TRUST US!!!" ROFL. It's like lemmings...
Click to expand...

Almost all developed economies in the world today are social democracies. This includes the US. The US gave up on pure laissez faire capitalism way back at the end of the Gilded Age, when they instituted child labor laws, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, public schools, etc... We already have it right. Not sure what the problem is.
 
Deuce said:
Your problem is thinking in black and white. Someone criticizing the negative impacts of capitalism isn't automatically saying we should end capitalism.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is the line of thinking that says if you speak out against being a crazed workaholic, that means that you must be advocating for being a lazy bum.
 
ataraxia said:
Almost all developed economies in the world today are social democracies. This includes the US, which has many elements of it, like its system of public schools. They already have it right. Not sure what the problem is.
Click to expand...

Probably your dishonesty with the matter.
 
Renae said:
Probably your dishonesty with the matter.
Click to expand...

Why dishonest? Just read some late 19th century European and American history.

Almost all developed economies in the world today are social democracies. This includes the US. The US gave up on pure laissez faire capitalism way back at the end of the Gilded Age. The UK, the first nation to launch the industrial revolution, actually gave up on it a few decades before we did. Not because they were stupid, but because it just wasn't working out. And left alone, it wasn't getting any better. It was just getting worse. These countries gave up on it when they instituted child labor laws, antitrust laws, minimum wage laws, legalizing unions, public schools, etc...

We already have it right. Not sure what the problem is.
 
LowDown said:
When Castro took power in Cuba the people cheered because they thought that everyone would be equal and would want for nothing.

But Castro's government failed to run the economy in a rational or efficient manner, and Castro discarded democracy, using the military to maintain power. Many rights and freedoms were lost because only with coercion by force could Castro's socialist ideal be maintained. So everyone suffered and continue to suffer, and most of them have no way to escape this hell.

A few have managed to escape. One survivor, describing conditions in present day Cuba, said, "You don't see any future. Everything is stagnated. Health care, education—nowadays they're in ruins."

"[People who support socialism] should wake up," says Gloria Alvarez. She is from Guatemala and says, "I've seen the impact of socialism. My father escaped Cuba. My grandfather suffered under Communists in Hungary before escaping."

[...]

"As a child, I was taught to mock socialism," she says, "but democratic socialism sounded OK. It made sense that government should take care of the economy. Then I watched democratic socialism fail in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. I learned that every time a country started down the socialist path, it fails."

https://reason.com/archives/2018/10/10/socialism-destroys
Click to expand...

I really have a hard time understanding why the left can't see something so obvious. I guess it is the mentality of thinking that this time will be different. But, the left do seem to have a history of thinking that if their policies didn't work the solution is to double down on it because surely it SHOULD work.
 
dex4974 said:
Your problem is assuming my experience is something other than what I am telling you. I know how to distinguish between criticism and intolerance. Maybe we should do a poll here. I bet the results would surprise you.
Click to expand...

Go for it. Be sure to word it clearly or I will just laugh. Also be sure to make the poll public.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Almost all developed economies in the world today are social democracies. This includes the US, which has many elements of it, like its system of public schools. They already have it right. Not sure what the problem is.
Click to expand...

I think one thing that sticks in the heads of conservatives is that in most of those European-style social democracies firearms are much more heavily restricted, (if not outright banned,) than they are in the U.S. Taking away a citizen's right to self-defense is certainly an assault on freedom. Freedom of speech also tends to not be a guarantee in those countries. So you can make the argument that social democracies where the government regulates the population more heavily than in the U.S. tend to be less free than the U.S. In the every day lives of their respective citizens there isn't that much of a difference, but the very idea that speech isn't necessarily protected and that 'self-defense' isn't necessarily a legitimate legal defense for assaulting someone with a weapon can be troubling for people used to these freedoms.

Of course, none of this is inherent in social democracy. There's no logical reason why there couldn't be a European-style social democracy with American style freedoms. But once government starts to assume a larger and larger role of taking care of the populace, history shows that, for whatever reason, freedoms gradually begin to evaporate. They don't call it a "nanny state" for nothing.
 
Renae said:
We know, "THIS TIME, THIS WAY, We'll get it right! TRUST US!!!" ROFL. It's like lemmings...
Click to expand...

American leftists screw up everything they touch, and we are to expect them to make socialism work here? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Hell, they couldn't get Obamacare right. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom