• 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!

Is this socialism?

Is someone who supports these positions a socialist?

  • Total voters
    26
Glen Contrarian said:
Look at the political positions below. Would you call a person supporting all these positions a socialist?


1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;

2. Protect Social Security;

3. Provide asylum for refugees;

4. Extend minimum wage;

5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;

6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;

7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

8. Use federal assistance to ensure as many Americans as possible have health insurance.


Personally, I'd call such a person President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Retired General) (Republican):
Source 1
Source 2

And it should be noted that he won the Republican nomination and the presidency with the above positions.
Click to expand...

FAKE NEWS!
Yes, it's socialist stupidity.
 
Bullseye said:
Eisenhower won because, well, he was Eisenhower - both parties tried to get him. Trying to equate policies and situations 66 years ago is a fun word game but not very meaningful.
Click to expand...

Truman pushed him to run before he knew that he was a republican...never spoke to him again. Remember, Eisenhower wasn't a conservative, he was a republican. The term "conservative" didn't become mainstream until the early 60's, after so many socialists started trying to change America's culture and traditions.
 
Bullseye said:
Eisenhower won because, well, he was Eisenhower - both parties tried to get him. Trying to equate policies and situations 66 years ago is a fun word game but not very meaningful.
Click to expand...

And yet, this is the period the MAGA folks refer to. Interesting analysis.
 
No, it's not socialism.

Republicans from Ike's era would find today's GOP hypocritical and unrecognizable.
 
I don’t see anything about wanting public ownership of the means of production so no.
 
Helix said:
Basically, the right has decided that calling everything that they don't like "socialism" is effective because it sounds more powerful and scary. .
Click to expand...
I would agree, that is a tactic of the right.

But it is not just the right. Americans in general as far as i can see are still under the influence of mccarthyist propaganda. Fixated on lies such as russia was a communist country or that china still is a communist country. Yet china boasts many millionaires something that does not fit into communist ideology and russia was under the influence of leninist bolshevism and a dictatorship of an elite class. Something also not in communist ideology.

That doesn't change the definition of the term, however
Click to expand...
And there in is the problem. The ideology of socialism is not fixed. The definition of the term is that which the society makes of it. Marx was not a prophet he was a philosopher. His ideology and thoughts are interesting and form a basis to start thinking about socialism. They do not, no matter how much americans insist they do, form the only version of socialism. A version given, that is if you listen to these americans, quite idiotic. It is as if americans, when it comes to socialism or communism deliberately play the game of think up the most dumbest way of doing something and then insist it has to be done that way.

Communism, like capitalism is nothing more than a theory of economics. Socialism on the other hand is a theory of social values under a communist/ capitalist economics.
 
Felis Leo said:
No. Not in the most technical sense of the word. Socialism is the communal/governmental ownership and control over the means of production. The above points simply involve heavy redistributionism and governmental intervention in the economy, but do not involve the arrogation of ownership of the economic means of production to the economy.

Though I find providing asylum to refugees nothing to do with "socialism" at all in any sense. Providing asylum for refugees does not make one a socialist country. A policy of asylum makes a nation a humanitarian one, not a socialist one. If anything, socialist countries (and by socialist I mean ones in which the government largely or entirely controls the means of production not simply ones that have strong social welfare nets) tend to be the countries people flee from, not to.
Click to expand...

There are many different types of socialism - it's a great mistake to point at any one common denominator. In fact, if you'd do a bit of research, you'd find that every single first-world democracy on the planet today (including America) are already socialized to significant (if varying) extents. There are indeed democracies that have largely eschewed most or all forms of socialism...and without exception, they're all third-world nations.
 
Casca XV said:
Classifying all Government services as Socialism is a common Propaganda tactic of the Left.

Lying about what a lot of those policies and services do and are is also a common tactic.

The entire premise of this thread is uniformed and inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Um, no. That, sir, is an almost continual tactic of the RIGHT. I can't count the number of times that I've seen people from the Right declare one or several of the positions listed above as "out-of-control socialism".
 
apdst said:
Yes, that's socialism. Some of those are straight out of The Communist Manifesto and The National Socialist Worker's Party's 25 Demands.
Click to expand...

Well, you're in complete opposition to several of the other DP conservatives who tried to avoid the admission that you just made...but whether you're right or wrong, you're at least being honest about what you believe, and I have to give you props for that.
 
soylentgreen said:
I would agree, that is a tactic of the right.

But it is not just the right. Americans in general as far as i can see are still under the influence of mccarthyist propaganda. Fixated on lies such as russia was a communist country or that china still is a communist country. Yet china boasts many millionaires something that does not fit into communist ideology and russia was under the influence of leninist bolshevism and a dictatorship of an elite class. Something also not in communist ideology.
Click to expand...

yeah, both examples seemed to prefer to replace the capitalist elite with party elite to the point of despotism. China kept the absolute power part and worked capitalism back into the formula, which isn't communism. Russia did something similar, though they don't claim to be communist anymore.


soylentgreen said:
And there in is the problem. The ideology of socialism is not fixed. The definition of the term is that which the society makes of it. Marx was not a prophet he was a philosopher. His ideology and thoughts are interesting and form a basis to start thinking about socialism. They do not, no matter how much americans insist they do, form the only version of socialism. A version given, that is if you listen to these americans, quite idiotic. It is as if americans, when it comes to socialism or communism deliberately play the game of think up the most dumbest way of doing something and then insist it has to be done that way.

Communism, like capitalism is nothing more than a theory of economics. Socialism on the other hand is a theory of social values under a communist/ capitalist economics.
Click to expand...

i disagree with part of this. if i get enough of my ideological pals to start referring to the regulated capitalist system of the US as "laissez faire" or "anarchy," that doesn't change the definition of those terms. my pals and i would just be incorrect. using inflammatory hyperbole as a debating technique does not redefine the terms which are being used incorrectly.
 
Felis Leo said:
No. Not in the most technical sense of the word. Socialism is the communal/governmental ownership and control over the means of production. The above points simply involve heavy redistributionism and governmental intervention in the economy, but do not involve the arrogation of ownership of the economic means of production to the economy.

Though I find providing asylum to refugees nothing to do with "socialism" at all in any sense. Providing asylum for refugees does not make one a socialist country. A policy of asylum makes a nation a humanitarian one, not a socialist one. If anything, socialist countries (and by socialist I mean ones in which the government largely or entirely controls the means of production not simply ones that have strong social welfare nets) tend to be the countries people flee from, not to.
Click to expand...

This is the highly politicized US definition that many/most Americans hold, which illustrates just how dismal is the American education system. Many/most???? Americans go even further - socialism and communism are one and the same thing.

Both the far right, Nazi German, the US, the UK and the far left, Stalinist Russia, Communist China believe in much of the same things, most importantly strict control of the means of those things that are most important to the production of those things that keep a small group of elites in power.

In the US's long and sordid history, what it has largely supported is far right, vicious right wing dictatorships. The US sheeple have been trained to rant and rail about communism and socialism without giving it any thought whatsoever. That illustrates clearly how very much like Nazi Germany the USA is.

Israel has communism. The US has communism. Canada, Mexico, a lot of the free world has communist groups. Nobody ever raises their voices about them. The US never organizes death squads to get rid of them. US death squads only are organized when US business elites' interests or opportunities are threatened.
 
Helix said:
yeah, both examples seemed to prefer to replace the capitalist elite with party elite to the point of despotism. China kept the absolute power part and worked capitalism back into the formula, which isn't communism. Russia did something similar, though they don't claim to be communist anymore.




i disagree with part of this. if i get enough of my ideological pals to start referring to the regulated capitalist system of the US as "laissez faire" or "anarchy," that doesn't change the definition of those terms. my pals and i would just be incorrect. using inflammatory hyperbole as a debating technique does not redefine the terms which are being used incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Russia never was communist. It was a dictatorship from the moment lenin put an ice pick into the back of trostky's head.

I agree. However socialism is by definition a philosophy of society. And no society remains constant. A society must change to thrive otherwise it stagnates. So it would be silly to create a philosophy of society but state that it cannot change.

Marxist view of socialism is based on his world view of society still under the oppression of monarchist elite rule. Such conditions no longer exist so defining socialism by marxist view point is a futile effort.
 
Crovax said:
Minimum wage in 1956 before the raise was equal to less than $7 today

So not exactly the same as the call for a $15 minimum wage now
Click to expand...

In 1956 a person earning $35.00 a week could afford food, a room in a flophouse, bus fare and the occasional trip to the thrift store.
Bump that up to fifty bucks a week and suddenly they could afford a jalopy and maybe even a phone, and a dingy bachelor pad.
If you were pulling down a hundred a week you could think about maybe getting married and starting a family.
You'd be renting a tiny cracker box or a small newlywed apartment, but your bills would be paid and you'd have a few dollars of savings and even some mad money at the end of every month, and seeing the doctor didn't bankrupt you and put you in the street.

In 1977 my rent on a bachelor pad in Minneapolis was $110.00 a month, utilities included.
I was making 500 bucks a month working part time in a restaurant as a dishwasher and going to college.
I had a pickup truck, a phone, even a TV set, and I didn't starve.
When I started playing part time in a band, my income shot to over a thousand a month.
That was more than a GS-3 employee was making at that time.
I know that because one of the guys in my band was a GS-3, he worked at a VA hospital and that was his base pay.
 
Crovax said:
Minimum wage in 1956 before the raise was equal to less than $7 today

So not exactly the same as the call for a $15 minimum wage now
Click to expand...

Also, the way we view today's minimum wage jobs is a lot different, too.
In 1956, minimum wage jobs were almost all "starter jobs", for unskilled people, elderly and mostly, for kids and students.
Today, as skilled and semi skilled labor becomes an endangered species, more people are forced back into minimum wage jobs.

So, if we reshape the economy to provide many more jobs that pay more than minimum wage, those jobs will go back to being what they always were historically, but if we expect people to live on those jobs, we're either going to have to make them a livable wage, or people will be forced to ask for assistance. And right now, a good many minimum wage employers are doing just that anyway.
If you work at Wal-Mart, the public is underwriting your benefits, food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare assistance.
Wal-Mart is underwriting employee earnings and benefits on the backs of the taxpayers.
And they're not the only ones.
 
Amelia said:
No, of course that's not socialism. Wasn't then. Isn't now.



The modern GOP is not the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower.


The modern GOP wants credit for the things accomplished back when the GOP was progressive, but they're a completely different animal.
Click to expand...

The modern GOP is engaged in a forty year struggle to dismantle the very things they helped put in place back WHEN they WERE more progressive.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, outside the usa virtually everyone considers the republicans a right wing party and the democrats a left wing party.

Do you not understand that a picture of a rhino (rino) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans.
Click to expand...

No, actually even our Democrats are considered "conservative" by the rest of the world. You'd have to get as far over as Bernie before most of the world would tag anyone as "liberal".
 
Let's describe this "debate" as what it actually is.
The 1950''s and to some degree, the 1990s conservative no longer exists.
The same investment in an alliance of christian conservatives and
concentrated wealth that disarmed one person, one vote controlling
mechanism designed into our constitution to prevent the likelihood just ten percent
would own 77.4 percent of assets in private hands and keep religion out
of governance and the judiciary was effected by that investment in politicians
and messaging intent on influencing what were formerly conservatives to
identify with and support the priorities of the Koch brothers and their ilk.

This investment literally bought concentrated wealth out of their post WWII tax
obligation which grew a vibrant middle class boosted by federal investment in
a national interstate highway network and innovation resulting from space
program investment, presenting just two examples.

Evangelical church leaders were literally bought out by the same money that
bought out one man one vote poltical landscape and judiciary and messaged
conservatives into the angry politically illiterate extreme right oriented "experts,"
who served up Trump because they do not comprehend that the concentrated wealth
that controls who they vote for owned the industrial base they used to work for
because the owners were no longer satisfied with compensation only 30 Times that
of their then middle class employees. They wanted to make 300 Times and they
disconnected from supporting a vibrant middle class society in the comunities
they formerly owned industrial plants in.

The solution is for those Who were receptive to Koch and their ilk invested messaging
and religious control to reeducate themselves and realize Trump is not one of them
and he and his political party stand for nothing and they have to vote against anything
and anyone further diminishing one person, one vote.... Until they do, they remain an
eroding middle class neutralized
by the alliance of conservative wealth holders and christian pastors the wealth holders have invested in.
 
Last edited:
post said:
Let's describe this "debate" as what it actually is.
The 1950''s and to some degree, the 1990s conservative no longer exists.
The same investment in an alliance of christian conservatives and
concentrated wealth that disarmed one person, one vote controlling
mechanism designed into our constitution to prevent the likelihood just ten percent
would own 77.4 percent of assets in private hands and keep religion out
of governance and the judiciary was effected by that investment in politicians
and messaging intent on influencing what were formerly conservatives to
identify with and support the priorities of the Koch brothers and their ilk.

This investment literally bought concentrated wealth out of their post WWII tax
obligation which grew a vibrant middle class boosted by federal investment in
a national interstate highway network and innovation resulting from space
program investment, presenting just two examples.

Evangelical church leaders were literally bought out by the same money that
bought out one man one vote poltical landscape and judiciary and messaged
conservatives into the angry politically illiterate extreme right oriented "experts,"
who served up Trump because they do not comprehend that the concentrated wealth
that controls who they vote for owned the industrial base they used to work for
because the owners were no longer satisfied with compensation only 30 Times that
of their then middle class employees. They wanted to make 300 Times and they
disconnected from supporting a vibrant middle class society in the comunities
they formerly owned industrial plants in.

The solution is for those Who were receptive to Koch and their ilk invested messaging
and religious control to reeducate themselves and realize Trump is not one of them
and he and his political party stand for nothing and they have to vote against anything
and anyone further diminishing one person, one vote.... Until they do, they remain an
eroding middle class neutralized
by the alliance of conservative wealth holders and christian pastors the wealth holders have invested in.
Click to expand...

This is unrelated to the OP, but related to your post. I don't endorse all of the author's opinions, but there's a lot of interesting stuff re evangelicals / plutocrats / so-called conservatives.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...port-gerson-atlantic-sexism-segregation-south
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The modern GOP is engaged in a forty year struggle to dismantle the very things they helped put in place back WHEN they WERE more progressive.
Click to expand...

Yes ... I tried to say that, but couldn't quite articulate it. They want credit for the things the party did while it was progressive AND they're trying to dismantle what the GOP of old did WHILE they're claiming higher moral ground as the party which supported what they're now trying to decimate.

It's very twisted and confusing.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No, actually even our Democrats are considered "conservative" by the rest of the world. You'd have to get as far over as Bernie before most of the world would tag anyone as "liberal".
Click to expand...

I agree. Americans would probably think new zealands right wing party to be socialist.

If in any country the idea that both left and right wing belong to the same bird , america is that.
 
soylentgreen said:
I agree. Americans would probably think new zealands right wing party to be socialist.

If in any country the idea that both left and right wing belong to the same bird , america is that.
Click to expand...

If you are poor, ill, other than white or christian, or have a fertile uterus, support human rights
or are not attracted to authoritarians or gun mfg lobbyists, or support scientific methodology,
the contrast between the two ideologies might seem more obvious.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No, actually even our Democrats are considered "conservative" by the rest of the world. You'd have to get as far over as Bernie before most of the world would tag anyone as "liberal".
Click to expand...

You are an expert on "the rest of the world"?
 
Floridafan said:
You are an expert on "the rest of the world"?
Click to expand...

It doesn't require an expert on the rest of the world, this is common knowledge.
Compared to most of the other secular industrialized democracies, both our Republican and Democratic parties are considered to be conservative by comparison.
We do not have a major political party in the United States which reflects and promotes policies similar to liberal political parties in the rest of the world. Our Democratic Party is somewhat less conservative than the GOP to be sure, but when you're in those other countries and you look at their liberal political parties, our Democrats just don't look very liberal, that's all.

Don't take my word for it, almost every other foreign person on this forum will corroborate what I am saying, even if they are also conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom