• 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!

Let's Try Socialism

LowDown said:
That's a new one. Any form of government is socialist, then? LOL!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders advocate nationalizing corporations and an end to capitalism. Those would be socialist policies.
Click to expand...

They would. But no one advocates that. Maybe you see any government intrusion as a slippery slope to socialism, but after 250 years it ain't happened, and that's when the intrusion started.
 
LowDown said:
No kidding, let's try it.

I realize that it was tried in the 20th century. A few hundreds of millions of people were killed and are no longer around to tell us it doesn't work. But there's been so much enthusiasm about it these days we ought to give it another try. We could call it a learning opportunity.

But not for the whole country at once. I'm thinking we should try it out on a smaller scale first to see how it works. Maybe in California. Or maybe that's too much. Maybe Los Angeles. Let's leave producers of toilet paper, medicines, food, and clothing alone for the time being. I don't want us to lose those.

So we nationalize all those companies in the valley and movie producers in Hollywood. They won't mind. They are all enthusiastic about socialism there. The movie stars would get a standard wage of $20 a month, same as in Cuba, and live in concrete dormitories with no heat or cooling (you can't have a small enough carbon footprint). Same for all those movie moguls, whose properties would all belong to the state. Would they continue to work and produce movies under those conditions? Of course they will! A central belief of socialists is that a revolutionary spirit will spur everyone to contribute according to their ability. Or else.

We can see how that goes. Sure, socialism tends to destroy everything it touches, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.

With apologies to Henry Racette.
Click to expand...

Why don't we also try to oust the Wizard of Oz from his castle and banish Darth Vader to end of the world. If we are dealing with fantasy, we should try to banish all villains, shouldn't we?
 
Casper said:
Nope, won't fly with the American People. That said, not all Socialist ideas are bad.
Click to expand...

There is a socialist idea that Fox News would support. I have lived in the Knoxville TN community since 2008, and with Oak Ridge TN -- the unemployment during the Great Recession never got above 3%. With all the government spending, and being done with the nuclear ability of the United States and the military it supports: military socialism works with the general public. There is socialism that can be done, if it is not connected to the military complex.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The problem you have is that the kind of socialism that scares you is already here. It's called GOVERNMENT. And, you know what? You LOVE IT. ...or, do you really hate the military???
Click to expand...

SIAP. The government owns and controls certain aspects of American life. The military would be one (now, there is no need for the 2nd amendment, IMO:()The White House, The Capitol and Washington Monument would be others. When ALL of goods and services are either controlled or owned by the government then it would be socialism.
 
LowDown said:
It's all laid out in the Black Book of Communism.
Click to expand...

Communism or Stalinism are not the same as socialism.

Did those people starve because they couldn’t get work or did they die because their governments were corrupt or inept? Or were they shot?

There is absolutely nothing about socialism that requires killing boatloads of people. There is absolutely no reason to believe that people can’t live decent lives under a well run socialist system. The only arguments are philosophical - is it right for the government to manage the means of production - and practical - is that the best way to run an economy. That’s it. Talk of all the people socialism killed is rank bull****.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
There is a socialist idea that Fox News would support. I have lived in the Knoxville TN community since 2008, and with Oak Ridge TN -- the unemployment during the Great Recession never got above 3%. With all the government spending, and being done with the nuclear ability of the United States and the military it supports: military socialism works with the general public. There is socialism that can be done, if it is not connected to the military complex.
Click to expand...

Social Security is a non-military scenario where it works and if the government actually ran it properly,and did not steal funds, it would work wonderfully.
 
cabse5 said:
SIAP. The government owns and controls certain aspects of American life. The military would be one (now, there is no need for the 2nd amendment, IMO:()The White House, The Capitol and Washington Monument would be others. When ALL of goods and services are either controlled or owned by the government then it would be socialism.
Click to expand...

Very good points, and a reality check for some who don't realize that the military and it's 1.5 million (or so) active members are practicing "socialism" by the Fox News / RW radio definition every day, at our expense. And few complain. Not me, anyway...
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Very good points, and a reality check for some who don't realize that the military and it's 1.5 million (or so) active members are practicing "socialism" by the Fox News / RW radio definition every day, at our expense. And few complain. Not me, anyway...
Click to expand...

Socialism is when ALL goods and services are either controlled or owned by government. For example, do you want the fed gov't to sell off The White House to some private company to have no evidences of examples of partial socialism?
What is your point?
 
cabse5 said:
Socialism is when ALL goods and services are either controlled or owned by government. For example, do you want the fed gov't to sell off The White House to some private company to have no evidences of examples of partial socialism?
What is your point?
Click to expand...

Read the bolded. Now, read the title of this thread. No one is advocating that, so what is this thread trying to say?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Read the bolded. Now, read the title of this thread. No one is advocating that, so what is this thread trying to say?
Click to expand...

The US economy is already trying partial socialism in some areas.
 
cabse5 said:
The US economy is already trying partial socialism in some areas.
Click to expand...

And that has been a fact since the nation was formed. We have always had a mixed and partially managed economy. Scope and degree have always been argued over. That's why the OP "socialism" assertion is a strawman. Pure, unfettered capitalism doesn't exist anywhere that I'm aware of.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
And that has been a fact since the nation was formed. We have always had a mixed and partially managed economy. Scope and degree have always been argued over. That's why the OP "socialism" assertion is a strawman. Pure, unfettered capitalism doesn't exist anywhere that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
Somalia?
 
Apparently the OP likes poverty and dog meat.
 
Gaius46 said:
Communism or Stalinism are not the same as socialism.

Did those people starve because they couldn’t get work or did they die because their governments were corrupt or inept? Or were they shot?

There is absolutely nothing about socialism that requires killing boatloads of people. There is absolutely no reason to believe that people can’t live decent lives under a well run socialist system. The only arguments are philosophical - is it right for the government to manage the means of production - and practical - is that the best way to run an economy. That’s it. Talk of all the people socialism killed is rank bull****.
Click to expand...

You're a libertarian?? Socialism certainly does require killing everyone who doesn't want to hand over all their money, land and possessions to the "people" (the state).

People can't live decent lives if the government owns the means of production. What does that even mean?? If I own a website company, I can't own my computer because it's my means of production??

All stupid nonsense.
 
LowDown said:
That's a new one. Any form of government is socialist, then? LOL!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders advocate nationalizing corporations and an end to capitalism. Those would be socialist policies.
Click to expand...
I recognize that it is not the point of trolling to actually discuss provocative and nonsense statements, but rather bait and mischaracterize. For that, I give you kudos.

If, however, you had any interest in or knowledge of economics, it might be possible to salvage this drivel. Here's the primary problem: most bloviators cannot distinguish between so-called "socialism" and a "Social Market Economy", which we already have. In the OP, the original poster was setting up an obvious strawman to provoke a response rather than a discussion. What confuses many, yourself included, is inclusion of the word "social". Since they both contain "social", they must be the same, right? Just like "liberal" and "libertarian" are the same, right?

Now, would you like to discuss the merits and issues with a Social Market Economy, or just keep stuffing straw?
 
Good4Nothin said:
You're a libertarian?? Socialism certainly does require killing everyone who doesn't want to hand over all their money, land and possessions to the "people" (the state).

People can't live decent lives if the government owns the means of production. What does that even mean?? If I own a website company, I can't own my computer because it's my means of production??

All stupid nonsense.
Click to expand...

Reading is fundamental. I’ll say it again socialism - at least as defined by most people who actually understand the term - does not preclude all private property ownership. It just means collective ownership of the means of production. It doesn’t mean the state is taking your home or your money.

As to owning the means of production stop and think about it for a second. How many entrepreneurs are there in our society? How many business owners?

And how many work for someone else? I’m guessing for every business owner there are thousands of people who work for someone else. And those people likely don’t see much difference between the government paying them and GM shareholders. They put in their hours and get their paycheck.

You’ve made the statement twice now that people can’t lead decent lives if the government owns the means of production. Do you care to actually back that assertion up or am I supposed to be convinced just because you say so?

And yes I’m libertarian. As I stated I don’t think socialism is a particularly good system. But I have to call a spade a spade when people spout things that are just plain wrong.
 
NWRatCon said:
I recognize that it is not the point of trolling to actually discuss provocative and nonsense statements, but rather bait and mischaracterize. For that, I give you kudos.

If, however, you had any interest in or knowledge of economics, it might be possible to salvage this drivel. Here's the primary problem: most bloviators cannot distinguish between so-called "socialism" and a "Social Market Economy", which we already have. In the OP, the original poster was setting up an obvious strawman to provoke a response rather than a discussion. What confuses many, yourself included, is inclusion of the word "social". Since they both contain "social", they must be the same, right? Just like "liberal" and "libertarian" are the same, right?

Now, would you like to discuss the merits and issues with a Social Market Economy, or just keep stuffing straw?
Click to expand...

Please note that the OP's avatar is the "Grandpa" from the original Social Security poster of the 1930's. :lamo
Mocking serious debate is what he apparently lives for, or so it seems in my years here.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Maybe you haven't heard, but most people want the agricultural subsidies to end.
Click to expand...

Or a gallon of E85 is now 5.49 instead of 2.38
Or a tub of butter is now $6.49

Ag subsidies make a lot of what you buy at the supermarket cheap, and we're not just talking about staples either.
We're not even talking about making it just cheap either, how about just making it AVAILABLE, because some ag subsidies are in place because distributors don't see any profit in guaranteeing availability everywhere.

A generation ago, some fruits and vegetables would go in and out of season.
Notice how that's a thing of the past now in most places in the USA?
Take away all of the subsidies and long term produce storage comes to an end immediately, and certain types of produce will simply no longer be on store shelves in some parts of the country EVER, or only "in season".
 
LowDown said:
No kidding, let's try it.

I realize that it was tried in the 20th century. A few hundreds of millions of people were killed and are no longer around to tell us it doesn't work. But there's been so much enthusiasm about it these days we ought to give it another try. We could call it a learning opportunity.

But not for the whole country at once. I'm thinking we should try it out on a smaller scale first to see how it works. Maybe in California. Or maybe that's too much. Maybe Los Angeles. Let's leave producers of toilet paper, medicines, food, and clothing alone for the time being. I don't want us to lose those.

So we nationalize all those companies in the valley and movie producers in Hollywood. They won't mind. They are all enthusiastic about socialism there. The movie stars would get a standard wage of $20 a month, same as in Cuba, and live in concrete dormitories with no heat or cooling (you can't have a small enough carbon footprint). Same for all those movie moguls, whose properties would all belong to the state. Would they continue to work and produce movies under those conditions? Of course they will! A central belief of socialists is that a revolutionary spirit will spur everyone to contribute according to their ability. Or else.

We can see how that goes. Sure, socialism tends to destroy everything it touches, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.

With apologies to Henry Racette.
Click to expand...

As noted before, we already have tried it. I get my Socialism Security check every month, delivered by the socialist mail. Will see a doctor later this week and it will be paid for by the socialist Medicare program Reagan warned us against. He may give me drugs approved by the socialist FDA, and subsidized by a program from the noted socialist administration of George W Bush.

Along the way, we tied the country together through socialist help to the railroads, raised the standard of living by supporting workers rights to organize, and reduced hunger through socialist food stamps. All while remaining capitalist. Marriage is a great institution.
 
Nickyjo said:
As noted before, we already have tried it. I get my Socialism Security check every month, delivered by the socialist mail. Will see a doctor later this week and it will be paid for by the socialist Medicare program Reagan warned us against. He may give me drugs approved by the socialist FDA, and subsidized by a program from the noted socialist administration of George W Bush.

Along the way, we tied the country together through socialist help to the railroads, raised the standard of living by supporting workers rights to organize, and reduced hunger through socialist food stamps. All while remaining capitalist. Marriage is a great institution.
Click to expand...

I just took the socialist I-605 down to one of the better supermarkets because we like the corned beef that their butcher has better than the packaged briskets at our local super. Then we got back ON the socialist 605 to go back home.
Nobody demanded that I hand over my car while we were on it.

If ever there was a chance that America was going to succumb to what the troll bait posts in this thread suggest, it would have been during the 1930's. Somehow we managed to keep the Marxists at bay and we just added some mild "socialism flavored" tweaks to the capitalist economy.

When one sees the parade of troll-bait posts about encroaching socialism, it's an indicator that the opposition has flat out run out of ideas. It's the equivalent of an old man whistling in a strange public restroom.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
No kidding, let's try it.

I realize that it was tried in the 20th century. A few hundreds of millions of people were killed and are no longer around to tell us it doesn't work. But there's been so much enthusiasm about it these days we ought to give it another try. We could call it a learning opportunity.

But not for the whole country at once. I'm thinking we should try it out on a smaller scale first to see how it works. Maybe in California. Or maybe that's too much. Maybe Los Angeles. Let's leave producers of toilet paper, medicines, food, and clothing alone for the time being. I don't want us to lose those.

So we nationalize all those companies in the valley and movie producers in Hollywood. They won't mind. They are all enthusiastic about socialism there. The movie stars would get a standard wage of $20 a month, same as in Cuba, and live in concrete dormitories with no heat or cooling (you can't have a small enough carbon footprint). Same for all those movie moguls, whose properties would all belong to the state. Would they continue to work and produce movies under those conditions? Of course they will! A central belief of socialists is that a revolutionary spirit will spur everyone to contribute according to their ability. Or else.

We can see how that goes. Sure, socialism tends to destroy everything it touches, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.

With apologies to Henry Racette.
Click to expand...

If we survive tRump I think we've test the strength of the Union enough for one century.
 
Nickyjo said:
As noted before, we already have tried it. I get my Socialism Security check every month, delivered by the socialist mail. Will see a doctor later this week and it will be paid for by the socialist Medicare program Reagan warned us against. He may give me drugs approved by the socialist FDA, and subsidized by a program from the noted socialist administration of George W Bush.

Along the way, we tied the country together through socialist help to the railroads, raised the standard of living by supporting workers rights to organize, and reduced hunger through socialist food stamps. All while remaining capitalist. Marriage is a great institution.
Click to expand...

You are applying the label "socialist" to everything that is managed by the government. That is not what socialism means.

It is true that the US government is involved in things prohibited by the constitution. Anything that can be managed by states is supposed to be. Obviously, interstate travel and interstate mail must be managed by the central government.

This should be obvious. The new fad is calling anything the government does socialism. That is ignorance.

For example, think about police. Do we need the FBI to give out parking tickets? No, the town police can do that. But if a murderer crossed state lines, you need the FBI.

Social Security is an example of a social welfare program, but it is not socialism. It is unconstitutional, and it's just another clever way to rip off the middle class. But it isn't socialism.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You are applying the label "socialist" to everything that is managed by the government. That is not what socialism means.

It is true that the US government is involved in things prohibited by the constitution. Anything that can be managed by states is supposed to be. Obviously, interstate travel and interstate mail must be managed by the central government.

This should be obvious. The new fad is calling anything the government does socialism. That is ignorance.

For example, think about police. Do we need the FBI to give out parking tickets? No, the town police can do that. But if a murderer crossed state lines, you need the FBI.

Social Security is an example of a social welfare program, but it is not socialism. It is unconstitutional, and it's just another clever way to rip off the middle class. But it isn't socialism.
Click to expand...

By what tortured theory is Social Security unconstitutional? True, a move to abolish it would create a landslide of support from the victimized middle class, eager to shed their chains.

There are lawyers out there see if you can get a few to challenge the federal government activities. In practice, the feds did stuff when the states failed to act. The courts haven’t minded for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom