• 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 never?

Doc91478

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
2,778
Reaction score
790
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Socialism never?​
Many young people believe socialism should be implemented in America​



Socialism never? - Washington Times
Aug 14, 2019 ~ By Cal Thomas
President Trump has repeatedly promised “America will never be a socialist country.” Since Franklin Roosevelt began expanding government in the 1930s, the United States has increasingly adopted big-state policies associated with socialism. We may not be at the stage Bernie Sanders would advocate, but more millennials appear to favor a system under which they have never lived. Free stuff is appealing until one realizes its costs. In an attempt to reach Generation Z — those in their teens and 20s — a new organization is starting this month to combat socialism’s appeal. It’s called Young Americans Against Socialism (yaas.org), according to its site, a nonpartisan nonprofit “dedicated to exposing socialism’s failures to young Americans by creating viral educational videos for social media.” Its founder, Morgan Zegers, worries that “more than half of young people believe socialism should be implemented in America.” The reason, she says, is because many of them know little about it. Her campaign will be largely on social media where she notes young people spend hours every day.
Socialism has long needed pushback in America from those opposed to it. President Trump has begun pointing out how harmful it is elsewhere. Ms. Zegers hopes to target young Americans with testimonies from people who have lived under the reality of socialism.


Comment:
Socialism is inherently evil because it functions on the basis of the concentration of political/secular power into the hands of a few. It can be achieved via democratic process, but it is at its foundations non-democratic. ANY form of government can become tyrannical, but Socialism PLANS to be so-for the best of reasons, of course. And even democracy is no guarantee to prevent tyranny. After all, a 51% voting majority can be just as tyrannical to the other 49% as a tiny governing elite.
Socialism attempts to eliminate the greediness of man and ends up simply concentrating it into the hands of a select few.
Unfortunately, the USA has adopted bits and pieces of Socialism thanks to Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats. Slowly enough that we are not called Socialist. One day we wake up and realize the costume party is over and we are 50% Socialist.
"Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it’s been tried. Mice die in mouse traps because they don't understand why the cheese is free".
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.
 
Socialism never?​
Many young people believe socialism should be implemented in America​



Socialism never? - Washington Times
Aug 14, 2019 ~ By Cal Thomas
President Trump has repeatedly promised “America will never be a socialist country.” Since Franklin Roosevelt began expanding government in the 1930s, the United States has increasingly adopted big-state policies associated with socialism. We may not be at the stage Bernie Sanders would advocate, but more millennials appear to favor a system under which they have never lived. Free stuff is appealing until one realizes its costs. In an attempt to reach Generation Z — those in their teens and 20s — a new organization is starting this month to combat socialism’s appeal. It’s called Young Americans Against Socialism (yaas.org), according to its site, a nonpartisan nonprofit “dedicated to exposing socialism’s failures to young Americans by creating viral educational videos for social media.” Its founder, Morgan Zegers, worries that “more than half of young people believe socialism should be implemented in America.” The reason, she says, is because many of them know little about it. Her campaign will be largely on social media where she notes young people spend hours every day.
Socialism has long needed pushback in America from those opposed to it. President Trump has begun pointing out how harmful it is elsewhere. Ms. Zegers hopes to target young Americans with testimonies from people who have lived under the reality of socialism.


Comment:
Socialism is inherently evil because it functions on the basis of the concentration of political/secular power into the hands of a few. It can be achieved via democratic process, but it is at its foundations non-democratic. ANY form of government can become tyrannical, but Socialism PLANS to be so-for the best of reasons, of course. And even democracy is no guarantee to prevent tyranny. After all, a 51% voting majority can be just as tyrannical to the other 49% as a tiny governing elite.
Socialism attempts to eliminate the greediness of man and ends up simply concentrating it into the hands of a select few.
Unfortunately, the USA has adopted bits and pieces of Socialism thanks to Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats. Slowly enough that we are not called Socialist. One day we wake up and realize the costume party is over and we are 50% Socialist.
"Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it’s been tried. Mice die in mouse traps because they don't understand why the cheese is free".

Nobody believes that Universal Healthcare is free. People understand that it comes in the form of taxes. What they are saying is that they would rather their tax dollars go to helping everyone have a better quality of life, rather than to the special interest groups pockets.
 
Socialism never?​
Many young people believe socialism should be implemented in America​



Socialism never? - Washington Times
Aug 14, 2019 ~ By Cal Thomas
President Trump has repeatedly promised “America will never be a socialist country.” Since Franklin Roosevelt began expanding government in the 1930s, the United States has increasingly adopted big-state policies associated with socialism. We may not be at the stage Bernie Sanders would advocate, but more millennials appear to favor a system under which they have never lived. Free stuff is appealing until one realizes its costs. In an attempt to reach Generation Z — those in their teens and 20s — a new organization is starting this month to combat socialism’s appeal. It’s called Young Americans Against Socialism (yaas.org), according to its site, a nonpartisan nonprofit “dedicated to exposing socialism’s failures to young Americans by creating viral educational videos for social media.” Its founder, Morgan Zegers, worries that “more than half of young people believe socialism should be implemented in America.” The reason, she says, is because many of them know little about it. Her campaign will be largely on social media where she notes young people spend hours every day.
Socialism has long needed pushback in America from those opposed to it. President Trump has begun pointing out how harmful it is elsewhere. Ms. Zegers hopes to target young Americans with testimonies from people who have lived under the reality of socialism.


Comment:
Socialism is inherently evil because it functions on the basis of the concentration of political/secular power into the hands of a few. It can be achieved via democratic process, but it is at its foundations non-democratic. ANY form of government can become tyrannical, but Socialism PLANS to be so-for the best of reasons, of course. And even democracy is no guarantee to prevent tyranny. After all, a 51% voting majority can be just as tyrannical to the other 49% as a tiny governing elite.
Socialism attempts to eliminate the greediness of man and ends up simply concentrating it into the hands of a select few.
Unfortunately, the USA has adopted bits and pieces of Socialism thanks to Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats. Slowly enough that we are not called Socialist. One day we wake up and realize the costume party is over and we are 50% Socialist.
"Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it’s been tried. Mice die in mouse traps because they don't understand why the cheese is free".


Hands down, one of the most uneducated ignorant posts I have ever read.

Just pure unsubstantiated propaganda...
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.

Well stated...
 
Socialism is public ownership/control of the means of production. Politicians are attracted to it because it drastically increase the size and scope of the state, and hence increases their power over society. It's also easy to sell the idea to the populace -- simply demonize capitalists, which are an easy target to the ignorant masses.

What gets in their way is the historical track record of socialism. At its absolute best you low quality goods and services that you often have to stand in line to get. Goods and services produced by the state tend to be crap - public housing projects, public schools, the VA hospital system for just three US examples. They also tend to be extremely expensive for the taxpayer, and many of the costs can and will be hidden. At its worst, well, you get a mountain of corpses and rivers of blood.

One problem is even for well meaning bureaucrats, the incentives are all backwards. For example, a government-run school has no incentive to please parents with well-educated children, because everyone in a socialist system gets paid regardless of how poorly they perform. Under capitalism you can take your business and your money to a competitor. Under socialism, you pay no matter what, because the system is funded via taxation. What's even worse is that poorly performing socialist institutions are typically rewarded with even bigger budgets.
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.

Well, I'm sure there's a few definitions we could bicker over, but I think it's more important to point out that the social programs are an aspect of Socialism, and that it's very popular amongst many/most voters, as anyone trying to tinker with social security could tell us.

Many of the "socialism bad" crowd ARE talking about those programs, and they benefit from the confusion they help perpetuate, by swelling their numbers with folks who don't understand what they are supporting, and wouldn't if they did.
 
Socialism is public ownership/control of the means of production. Politicians are attracted to it because it drastically increase the size and scope of the state, and hence increases their power over society. It's also easy to sell the idea to the populace -- simply demonize capitalists, which are an easy target to the ignorant masses.

What gets in their way is the historical track record of socialism. At its absolute best you low quality goods and services that you often have to stand in line to get. Goods and services produced by the state tend to be crap - public housing projects, public schools, the VA hospital system for just three US examples. They also tend to be extremely expensive for the taxpayer, and many of the costs can and will be hidden. At its worst, well, you get a mountain of corpses and rivers of blood.

One problem is even for well meaning bureaucrats, the incentives are all backwards. For example, a government-run school has no incentive to please parents with well-educated children, because everyone in a socialist system gets paid regardless of how poorly they perform. Under capitalism you can take your business and your money to a competitor. Under socialism, you pay no matter what, because the system is funded via taxation. What's even worse is that poorly performing socialist institutions are typically rewarded with even bigger budgets.

WOW, just ****ing WOW!!!
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.

When it's used in that broad way it doesn't really address the fact that some prefer a stronger focus on social programs as a way of assisting those who require assistance. I don't think any mainstream candidate is proposing anything remotely close to socialism in it's most extreme sense. The real debate is how much we should fund social programs and proactively address inefficiencies, as well as how broad should this assistance be. The rest of the "AAHHHH SERSHERLIZM!!" is just noise.
 
When it's used in that broad way it doesn't really address the fact that some prefer a stronger focus on social programs as a way of assisting those who require assistance. I don't think any mainstream candidate is proposing anything remotely close to socialism in it's most extreme sense. The real debate is how much we should fund social programs and proactively address inefficiencies, as well as how broad should this assistance be. The rest of the "AAHHHH SERSHERLIZM!!" is just noise.

There's definitely a discussion to be had, an important discussion that we need to be having. Social programs are not forms of socialism, as socialism itself revolves around the State taking ownership of the means of production. So even Single Payer Healthcare, something like Medicare for All, isn't socialism.

But it is true that this would be a broad expansion of how we've handled healthcare in the country. It would need to be funded and we would need to discuss if this is something we should be looking to do and if so, how. The Socialism Chicken Littles are trying to derail the conversation, stop it from happening. So they invent these idiotic scare tactics that only the most lead-addled brain could ever hope to believe. But it's to remove the conversation.

These so called "socialists" are nothing of the sort, and the branding is just a scare tactic at this point.
 
This is what happens when we use a term a dozen different ways, then argue about it.
 
There's definitely a discussion to be had, an important discussion that we need to be having. Social programs are not forms of socialism, as socialism itself revolves around the State taking ownership of the means of production. So even Single Payer Healthcare, something like Medicare for All, isn't socialism.

But it is true that this would be a broad expansion of how we've handled healthcare in the country. It would need to be funded and we would need to discuss if this is something we should be looking to do and if so, how. The Socialism Chicken Littles are trying to derail the conversation, stop it from happening. So they invent these idiotic scare tactics that only the most lead-addled brain could ever hope to believe. But it's to remove the conversation.

These so called "socialists" are nothing of the sort, and the branding is just a scare tactic at this point.


I expect this to be repeated more often once the presidential campaign goes into full swing. I agree with your points; from my perspective it's been about us investing in ourselves as a nation to help improve the odds of people succeeding.
 
There's definitely a discussion to be had, an important discussion that we need to be having. Social programs are not forms of socialism, as socialism itself revolves around the State taking ownership of the means of production. So even Single Payer Healthcare, something like Medicare for All, isn't socialism.

Well, sometimes the line isn't that clear. I think you would agree that the more regulated an industry becomes, the less capitalist it is. Healthcare in the US is extremely regulated, to the point where hospitals don't even give out prices.
 
I expect this to be repeated more often once the presidential campaign goes into full swing. I agree with your points; from my perspective it's been about us investing in ourselves as a nation to help improve the odds of people succeeding.

Oh the Trumpeteers won't be able to control themselves, they'll run around screaming "socialism" at anything that moves. Bernie uses the word too, should stop. Even "democratic socialist" I don't think is right.

But it is important to talk about these social programs and how we can benefit the Republic in the long run. But we don't get much for political discourse these days. It's mostly just branding and screaming.
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.

So...the government usurping only one entire industry is not socialism?
 
So...the government usurping only one entire industry is not socialism?

Something like Universal Healthcare isn't socialism. The government isn't taking the means of production, merely aggregating the population for insurance purposes. They'd have to take over everything from hospitals and doctors and pharmaceuticals, etc, to "usurp the entire industry". So we can stop with that line of stupidity. Additionally, not all Universal Healthcare is a Single Payer scheme.
 
Something like Universal Healthcare isn't socialism. The government isn't taking the means of production, merely aggregating the population for insurance purposes. They'd have to take over everything from hospitals and doctors and pharmaceuticals, etc, to "usurp the entire industry". So we can stop with that line of stupidity. Additionally, not all Universal Healthcare is a Single Payer scheme.

When the government controls the money that pays an industry, they control the industry.
 
When the government controls the money that pays an industry, they control the industry.

That's not usurping the means of production. And at best would only exist specifically under Single Payer. But as already explained to you, not all forms of Universal Healthcare are Single Payer. And in reality, that's not even socialism.

I know...I know....your narrative. But your narrative is wrong and meant only as scare tactics to avoid the discussion all together.
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.

Probably including the students, and 3/4 of the people here who are in favor of it, who think tax-and-spend capitalism is "socialism."
 
It depends. Are we talking of actual socialism, where the state usurps means of production? Then yes, it is bad. Are we talking about social programs, things like Universal Healthcare and support programs like Welfare? Then that's not actually socialism, and not necessarily bad.

I think people scream "socialism socialism socialism" but have very little understanding as to what socialism actually is.

Tell that to the Dem candidates.... they are verging on a form of government where everything is owned and distributed equally.


"We are from the government and we're here to help"
 
Hands down, one of the most uneducated ignorant posts I have ever read.

Just pure unsubstantiated propaganda...

Then I suggest you contact Cal Thomas and tell him yourself....
 
Socialism is a case that starts off with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and it always ends up, "Do for me what I won't do for myself"

It's the dogma and doctrine of sniveling cowards and manipulators of weak-willed women...
 
Socialism is public ownership/control of the means of production. Politicians are attracted to it ....

You're just make **** up. Present us with a link to each mainstream American politician who is advocating "public ownership/control of the means of production."

You can't because they don't exist. No mainstream American politician is attracted to it. I daresay I would be surprised if you could find any mainstream politician in any Western nation who supports this.

Please quit posting such nonsense. Thanks in advance.
 
Back
Top Bottom