• 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

Your thoughts on socialism


  • Total voters
    66
Note that the government services/infrastructure included under democratic socialism (in your spiffy 101 course syllabus) are mostly controlled and funded at the state/local government level. With the exception of "postal roads" none of those are powers granted to the federal government by the constitution.

How did they get away with Social Security and Medicare?
 
How did they get away with Social Security and Medicare?

The same way they 'got away with' PPACA - someone on the SCOTUS decided that if congress does something funded by taxation then it must be OK to become a new federal power.
 
This clearly biased info graphic really clears up the definitions for me... thanks

It really is based on this false notion that socialism is just the government doing things.
 
Lots of industries could benefit from more cooperative practices. Especially creative endeavors.
 
Lots of industries could benefit from more cooperative practices. Especially creative endeavors.

But you can’t forget about competition too. That’s very important for innovation
 
The Republicans favor Corporate Socialism.

The Democrats favor Democratic Socialism.

67252309d1552286687-political-photos-cartoon-thread-x-w-1-w-386-2856-a-52776042_10157514567196393_7237967105847459840_n-jpg

God bless American free enterprise: The government is not the solution to the problem, the government is the problem. It is better that the government is run by people who have good sense even in they have more money than the poor, than for the poor to be given the power to take away the money from those who earned it and to give it to themselves.
 
Last edited:
The same way they 'got away with' PPACA - someone on the SCOTUS decided that if congress does something funded by taxation then it must be OK to become a new federal power.

What is PPACA?
 
But you can’t forget about competition too. That’s very important for innovation

Sure, depends on how we go about it. Lots of companies just work their artists to the bone now then toss them aside. Publishers take an IP created by a company or a person then treat it like it is their idea.
 
Your thoughts on socialism?

Your poll is based on your understanding of socio-economic theory. It would appear that your understanding is binary and thus extremely limited.

We've had this discussion before. To which type of socialism do you refer? As an example the US military is a form of socialism.
 
Your poll is based on your understanding of socio-economic theory. It would appear that your understanding is binary and thus extremely limited.

We've had this discussion before. To which type of socialism do you refer? As an example the US military is a form of socialism.

The US military is a necessary evil, not a glorious example of profit and success. Only for profit industry by man works.
 
Likely more so if it is not just a once in a while thing.

Because of derivatives the government will be forced to bail or the whole system goes caput. The major banks have 10 times derivative notional balances than they show on their Balance Sheets. And its all interconnected.
 
He's 150 lbs overweight. He's had 2 heart bypasses, 1 hip replacement and goes to the doctor's about once a month because he has a bleeding ulcer.

He's health problems, which mostly is caused by his bacon and cheeseburger diet, has cost MILLIONS in health care/medicare cost..

He's taken MUCH more than's he's put in. He's taking YOUR money..

Millions? I doubt millions.
 
Your thoughts on socialism?

Its not a dichotomy. It neither inherently bad nor inherently good. Capitalism is also neither inherently bad nor inherently good. No economy is pure one or the other, but usually blends of both.

What we do know, however, the countries have a tad more socialism in the mix have happier and healthier citizens than the US. Since economy and a government are ultimately accountable to the people, it seems the US should tweak the formula a bit.
 
The US military is a necessary evil, not a glorious example of profit and success. Only for profit industry by man works.

But, none the less, you would agree that the US military is a form of socialism.
 
The unchecked excesses of the right lead you to Hitler. the unchecked excesses of the left lead you to Stalin and Mao. So, in essence, unchecked excesses of either lead to the same place. Disaster and mass suffering.

Agreed, which is why people should take care to avoid knee-jerk dogma. Of course rational people don't want the socialism of Cuba or Venezuela, of course rational people don't want the hardcore authoritarianism of Viktor Orban or a Recip Erdogan.
What people really want, apparently, is a carefully prescribed mix of the useful parts of any system that can breathe life into the economy but provide a haven for the vulnerable, while shielding us all from the fraud and abuse by those who try to game the system.

I admire your willingness to dispense with the tribalism and open the dialogue. We need more like you here.
 
But, none the less, you would agree that the US military is a form of socialism.

And it actually has to be unless one is okay with a mercenary army.
There's no end to the reasons why that would be the worst idea imaginable.
 
Its not a dichotomy. It neither inherently bad nor inherently good. Capitalism is also neither inherently bad nor inherently good. No economy is pure one or the other, but usually blends of both.

What we do know, however, the countries have a tad more socialism in the mix have happier and healthier citizens than the US. Since economy and a government are ultimately accountable to the people, it seems the US should tweak the formula a bit.

I get called every left epithet in the book all the time and yet all I ever wanted was for us to check the adjustments.
I have no issue with the "engine of capitalism"...in fact, I would even consider myself to be something of a "motorhead", so I enjoy POWERFUL "capitalist engines" but the engine has to be TUNED correctly.
Our "social carburetor" is out of adjustment.
It's like the mixture is set too rich and we need to lean it out a bit, a quarter turn of the screwdriver, so to speak.
It's true that you can "sell more gasoline" if you convince everyone to drive with the CHOKE on but in the end you do damage to your "engine".

And right now, that's almost what we are doing...we have too much "gasoline" and not enough "air".
 
Likewise the left overuses the "you do not know what socialism means" buzz crap all the time. ANd most of the time even they have no clue what they are talking. For example when they try to lie and say that social infrastructure is socialism. Or they try to say that jesus was a socialist. And its the same type of propaganda that the right peddles; just lies to sway you into switching ideological beliefs. More of a bait switch I suppose.

Wait a second, nearly ALL public infrastructure and public goods ARE indeed socialism to the extent that they are funded by taxes and not expected to survive on a purely profit trajectory. Do public schools or highways make a profit?
And if these public goods are not socialism, explain why privatization schemes even exist at all, such as when foreign investors purchase a large chunk of American highway and transform it into a toll road?

No, it is not PURE socialism however it is a FORM of socialism in that it operates according to the principles of a public good or public service and not as a profit generator or rent-seeking apparatus for investors and shareholders.

Take off the binary blinders, or at least lower them for a moment. We have TRIED the opposite in some instances and watched it fail spectacularly, like when private fire departments allowed sections of New York City to burn for hours as they engaged in brawls for the benefit of spectators, because the building wasn't one of their clients.
 
Wait a second, nearly ALL public infrastructure and public goods ARE indeed socialism to the extent that they are funded by taxes and not expected to survive on a purely profit trajectory. Do public schools or highways make a profit?
And if these public goods are not socialism, explain why privatization schemes even exist at all, such as when foreign investors purchase a large chunk of American highway and transform it into a toll road?

No, it is not PURE socialism however it is a FORM of socialism in that it operates according to the principles of a public good or public service and not as a profit generator or rent-seeking apparatus for investors and shareholders.

Take off the binary blinders, or at least lower them for a moment. We have TRIED the opposite in some instances and watched it fail spectacularly, like when private fire departments allowed sections of New York City to burn for hours as they engaged in brawls for the benefit of spectators, because the building wasn't one of their clients.
Lets take your logic at face value. SO what you are asserting is that if something isnt for profit its socialism (going by your first sentence, if I were to take it the way that you wrote it). SO clubs, churches, non-profit organizations, political parties, etc are all socialism. So the heritage Foundation, NRA, the boy/girl scouts, the Republican party, Democrat party etc are socialism. Or if you only want to talk about government, then the those nutty rightwingers asserting that Nazi Germany was actually socialism is correct according to your cherry picked definition of socialism. I say cherry picked since socialism is a lot more than what you are claiming (no matter the flavor).

Oddly when you look up infrastructure (outside of socialists) no one else defines it as socialism, why is that? I assert that it is because infrastructure is not unique to socialism.


Infrastructure is a Government Fixed Assets. All governments have fixed capital equipment in a country, including factories, roads, schools, etc, considered as a determinant of economic growth.
As it turns out the government (and private business, citizens in general) profit from infrastructure. You are taking a common need of ever government that has ever existed and are calling it socialism it is wholesale dishonesty. In effect you are saying that every modern government that has existed is part socialism. You are doing the exact same intellectual dishonesty that I was talking about; ie propaganda. Even worse its the type of lie that the right likes to concentrate on when they go off on socialism. That is unless they are using it for their own hypocritical dishonest hyperbole when trying to take away government programs.

As far as privatizing, its good and bad, it depends on what we are talking about. The demise of Ma Bell was extremely beneficial to most consumers. Toll roads on the other hand out sourced to private companies is very bad, for everyone. But then so is government owned toll roads. I wouldnt even call that infrastructure, I would call it authoritarian. Not the type of world that is ideal.
 
Lets take your logic at face value. SO what you are asserting is that if something isnt for profit its socialism (going by your first sentence, if I were to take it the way that you wrote it).

Except you skipped several key elements.

Public goods
Public services

Therefore, clubs, churches, non-profit organizations, political parties, etc aren't socialism.
A public good or service is built and operated by the government. A public school district is built and operated by the government for the benefit of its citizens, and paid for by taxes.

Yes, of course socialism is "a lot more than what" (you say) I am claiming, but you also skipped over the part where I said:

No, it is not PURE socialism however it is a FORM of socialism in that it operates according to the principles of a public good or public service

"How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"



As it turns out the government (and private business, citizens in general) profit from infrastructure.

If you use the word loosely enough then yes of COURSE we the PEOPLE profit from it. Now try telling that to all the reactionary types who claim that they are entirely self made. They even made a meme lampooning Obama by lifting his quote out of context and beating him over the head with it in their righteous indignation, as a means of labeling HIM a socialist.



But shareholders, CEO's and investors didn't take home a dividend in cash, did they?
 
Back
Top Bottom