Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

I want to start out by saying many of the social programs in this country started out with the right mind but not enough forethought. But I believe it is better to make a mistake when trying to help the less fortunate, than to make no effort at all.

Socialism is not a 4 letter word. It is people working together for the common good. And almost all of this countries infrastructure is based on socialist programs. Without the infrastructure built by social ideologies there would be no way for capitalism to flourish.

It is possible to find a balance. Only those who are afraid of socialism are afraid to find this balance. As we look to balance the socialist infrastructure with capitalist wealth creation we are bound to make mistakes. But we are not bound to those mistakes. What is broke can be fixed, and what works can be improved.

Most socialist are not communist.

Most socialist understand the need for a certain level of capitalism to improve both the competitive and motivational environment. Socialist have been willing to accept the success of capitalism.

When will the capitalist accept the strength of the infrastructure provided by properly executed social programs? They must work together, because they need each other to thrive. To say it has to be one way or the other is naive and not looking at the bigger picture.

Socialism creates the infrastructure for capitalism to thrive. Capitalism creates the wealth for the infrastructure to improve. If we can find a true balance then all will thrive.

If you want to reduce crime you have to provide an alternative to crime for those at the bottom.

If a man cannot find an honest way to thrive, many will turn to depression, welfare and drug addiction. Others will resort to crime. But very few will find the motivation to persevere.

It is not utopian to think all people can have access to clean water, sanitation, food, homes, jobs and medical services. The technological age has made all of this a possibility for everyone.

But we will only get there when everyone agrees that it's not about socialism vs. capitalism. It's about socialism and capitalism working together.

Democratic Social Capitalism

The combination of a robust socialist infrastructure and the motivational advantages of capitalism. With socially funded elections to keep money out of politics. Thus ensuring an equal opportunity to run and equally weighted vote for all who wish to participate. With the added advantage of a constitutional republic assuring the never ending success of the Bill of Rights.

edit on 8-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

Great thread my friend, one of my biggest pet peeves is people not knowing what socialism means, in the usa if someone is labeled a socialist they think back to the old days of the U.S.S.R.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I want to start out by saying many of the social programs in this country started out with the right mind but not enough forethought.

And many of the programs seemed to have ended up paying the administrators more than most of the donors make, and certainly more than all of the recipients get.

Ironic.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Without going into my usual snark about socialism, the biggest problem is the transition to socialism from a free representative republic.

People, successful people, will lose in the deal.

We saw this, just a bit, with the introduction of Obamacare.

With the transition from a free system where you could choose or not choose versus a mandatory system where you are dictated to enroll, we see costs, freedoms lost.

Now if Obamacare stays, then in a couple of generations, it'll be the norm.

Like Obamacare, socialism will take a couple of generations to negate the loss of individual freedoms and liberties.

a reply to: Isurrender73

you're right it's actually a 9 letter word.

Democratic social capitalism sounds a lot like plain old fascism to me.

Here we go with the rebranding of socialism. Again. I assume this is to make ol' Bernie more palatable to the flyover masses?

a reply to: beezzer

It would be appropriate to have the scales of justice balance out for once.

a reply to: NthOther

Well, fascism isn't socialism so if it is old fashined fascism it can't be rebranded socialism.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: beezzer

It would be appropriate to have the scales of justice balance out for once.

I agree, actually.

Let's use socialized medicine as an example.

There are 2 ways to go about it.

One, you find a way to lower costs so everyone can afford it,

Or,

Two. You find a way to continue paying for the high costs.

And government took option 2.

It's like a boat with a hole in it.

You either fix the hole, or bail out the water.

Socialised medicine, is just bigger, and more buckets to use to bail out the water.

a reply to: beezzer

Makes me think back to the revolutionary war. The part of the conservtives was played by the loyalists. These guys ended up loosing in the deal because that other group wanted to try a different system.

The more things change...

Socialism means equality... of misery.

The funny thing is there is often more inequality with socialism, etc because these systems always produce an elite political class who still gets to live like kings while the masses starve. You can only have socialism with tyranny. Notice liberals always have to use the force of government to implement their ideas. If their ideas were so great, government wouldn't be needed to implement.

I'd rather take my chances with freedom.

a reply to: daskakik

What were the Nazis? National socialists.

So they didn't espouse fascism?

The word games with this crowd are getting absolutely incredulous.

a reply to: NthOther

Funny the thread is about words being co-opted and here you post a perfect example.

a reply to: daskakik

Conservatives today are practical.

The progressives and socialists are idealists.

I save money, pay my bills ahead of time, set up different retirement accounts, have food storage, because I don't know what the future might bring. I may lose my job, go broke, the government may go broke, whatever, but I am practical in trusting in self-reliance.

Progressives, socialists are the idealists. Government will always be there, food will always be in shops, there will always be a safety net, money will always be available.

Socialism doesn't account for WHERE the money comes from for all the Big Programs....the source. On paper and on the podium it sounds all 'butterflies and unicorns', everybody sharing equally and doing their part, but in reality it simply does not work over time. And regardless of what people spout, socialism IS the bedrock of communism.

If all people....all....were willing to work and contribute, it may have some validation. But, we all know that is not real life.

originally posted by: NthOther
Democratic social capitalism sounds a lot like plain old fascism to me.

Here we go with the rebranding of socialism. Again. I assume this is to make ol' Bernie more palatable to the flyover masses?

Then you should probably do some research and figure out what all those terms means because Democratic Socialism is not Fascism at all. There is nothing about Fascism that is Democratic at all. They are complete opposites.

Fascism is closer to Capitalism like Socialism is closer to Communism. However Capitalism is not Fascism and Socialism is not Communism. But they are on opposite sides from each other.

a reply to: daskakik

How so? Which terms have I mischaracterized and how?

I'm all ears.

originally posted by: beezzer
Conservatives today are practical.

I'm not talking about conservitives today, I meant that in those days those wanting to keep things as they were, the general definition of conservative,were the loyalists.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Isurrender73

Without going into my usual snark about socialism, the biggest problem is the transition to socialism from a free representative republic.

People, successful people, will lose in the deal.

We saw this, just a bit, with the introduction of Obamacare.

With the transition from a free system where you could choose or not choose versus a mandatory system where you are dictated to enroll, we see costs, freedoms lost.

Now if Obamacare stays, then in a couple of generations, it'll be the norm.

Like Obamacare, socialism will take a couple of generations to negate the loss of individual freedoms and liberties.

Successful people never lose....they just move and take their money with them. There was a great thread here on ATS about the wealthy moving their money out of countries like Russia and China and the like. You can only tax'em so much before they squirm out from under.

Hopefully, Obamacare will morph into a single-payer system like Medicare.

One of the greatest myths or misunderstandings about Socialism is that its incompatible with a Representative Republic. A Representative Republic is a form of government, (which by the way has already been lost in the US). Socialism is an economic system, or model. Has nothing to do with any form of Government.

However, Socialism works best in a One Party State and those who decide these things are morphing the US to a Direct Democracy system whereby the One Party will control everything. So, for example, if you're not a Party member, you end up waiting 6 months longer for the appendectomy.

Like it or not, Socialism is the economic model that the US is slowly sliding into if for no other reason than its the model most acceptable to those of the "hive" mind and most all of the new immigrants into the US are hive mind type people and come from hive mind societies.

I used to be terribly concerned about all this and was anti-socialst. Now I'm older and don't work and I don't really care; the more free government handouts I can wrangle the better.

There's a neat old saying about Capitalism and Socialism: With Capitalism you work your butt of to make rich people richer; with Socialism you work your butt of so that others don't have to do anything except work the system for freebies.

a reply to: mOjOm

Hitler was "elected", wasn't he?

There's your democratic fascism.