Would Socialism Be Bad for America? JV on the Dirtiest Word in U.S. Politics

originally posted by: buster2010

You are confusing communism with socialism. People in socialist nations do have individual rights. Where did you get the idea that people in socialist nations have no individual rights?

I am not confusing them. It is you, and others like you who don't understand what socialism is.

originally posted by: buster2010
Where did you learn about socialism from FOX, Rush or one of the other propaganda sites? Because what you are saying here is found in communist countries not socialist.

A great part of my knowledge about socialism and communism comes from having been born in Cuba and lived and experienced part of my education there. Where did you learn about socialism?...

originally posted by: buster2010

You truly want to learn about socialism?

What is the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
...
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.

It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.

Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
...
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.

Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.

More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That ’ s socialism.

Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review

www.marxmail.org...

Of course socialists and communists try to play with people's good nature, but you have to learn to read between the lines.

Notice for example in the last paragraph Huberman and Sweezy stated.

...

More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.

They try to appeal to people by claiming "more private property for use and enjoyment" but then the last part tells you "no private property for oppression and exploitation". How do you think that is achieved? By the state controlling all property that can provide any sort of gain.

Notice how it is stated that in socialism all means of production must be controlled by the state. They make it sound like it will benefit everyone, but it never does. Instead a system of rationing is put in place and the state decides what you need or don't need.

BTW, I have read in these forums how some people claim that a lot of nations are socialist. Meanwhile they might have some socialist ideas in them, just like the United States, they have not turned socialist until the state controls all means of production and individuals can't have any property that will provide any gain. No matter how small.

If you want to know what a socialist nation is like, look at India.

originally posted by: Aazadan

If that's the standard we're going by, then the Democratic People's Republic of Korea really is democratic.

lol, to socialists and communists democracy is very socialist. In fact democracy is often used by socialists and communists to promote their more left wing ideology.

originally posted by: madmac5150
Democracy will always end in Socialism...

Socialism will always end in Communism...

Thank God we are a Constitutional Republic...

There may be hope for us, after all...

There have countless socialist governments in the history of the world that didn't end in Communism.

But what do you know, obviously not much. Other than "defending constitution" means killing brown people for oil. But yea, be proud.

originally posted by: Logman
There have countless socialist governments in the history of the world that didn't end in Communism.

Really? please name them.

originally posted by: Logman
But what do you know, obviously not much. Other than "defending constitution" means killing brown people for oil. But yea, be proud.

wow... is that your argument? The Constitution of the United States has nothing to do with "killing brown people for oil"... Stop using strawmen rethoric and make a concise argument that makes sense please.

What do you think the military is? The military IS socialism! So your very retirement and what you served your country for was socialism. So is Medicare, social security, and all of those are socialist programs that help people.

You need socialist programs to ensure the poor get a fair shake. It's that simple.

originally posted by: madmac5150
As a retired USAF Master Sergeant, as a man that swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America... I see Mr. Sander's candidacy for what it is... a media sham... a Socialist agenda pushed by the MSM. I would beat my head into the wall, but I am not J. Ventura...

I understand that, what you need is a common good balance. It proved you couldn’t have pure capitalism. Look at 2008, they took the restrictions off Wall Street and they damn near buried us.

Pure socialism doesn't work either. You need a balance of both. Take a look at Sweden, those countries, and their standard of living- it's very high. Socialism affects masses, and it raises the levels of everybody's existence. That way capitalism can likewise flourish on top of it.

originally posted by: misterhistory
I believe the only place socialism works is within each person, not the government. The government should help to foster capitalism because that brings out some rare times a person who throws money around for the less fortunate. The middle class help as well. But don't take what I am saying as the government should not interfere or regulate capitalism, it would set the common person back quite a ways.

Don't get me wrong, the social safety nets aren't that bad. I did use one of those for a few months. Just not into the government going full on socialism.

I have news for you- if it weren't for socialism back in FDR days in the Great Depression, where would the country have gone? These people that think socialism is such a bad word- take a look at Sweden, Norway- flourishing countries that have free health care, free college. It works out pretty well for them. But we here in the U.S. have fear and ignorance.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
Socialism does not work. Look at a prime example, Russia. The government was not designed to be the all provider of everything in America. IMHO Socialism + Democrats = Failure to succeed. I can look back and see that nothing Socialism and Democrats have done, did not help the American population. They have only provided a entitlement society which is failing.

You get a kick out of these people that are so anti-socialist, but then they go and cash their social security check. And when they get old, they have Medicare and they're so blessed and happy about that. These are the same people that demand socialism be gone. You have to have socialism to some degree in an organized society, otherwise you'll have anarchy- it's one or the other.

originally posted by: introvert
It's amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to socialism and history.

Socialism is an inevitable part of any and all societies. It's part of the human species and how we naturally operate.

That's what I've been harping on- you have to have a balance of both! The reason capitalism won't succeed on it's own is because of the human nature called greed.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: JesseVentura

The GOP is notorious for putting a spin on anything that will favor their political agenda. I also feel the key is to have a balance of socialism and capitalism. Each has it's good and bad aspects. What's wrong with implementing the best of both economic systems? Capitalism has proven itself time and time again that it caters to the rich. It simply isn't a balanced system and relies heavily on the middle and lower class to support government.

You've got a capitalist society that's electing them, don't you? It's called bribery. You've got capitalism buying off these politicians. If we had more socialism and the politicians were given public financing and could only spend the amount they were given, you would have much fairer elections, wouldn't you?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: JesseVentura

The dirtiest word in politics is: CONGRESS.

When there is no oversight, it's scary to imagine them spending in a (more) socialist economy.

That's true; we do have a socialist taxing system. I wish we'd go to a national sales tax. That'd be much more capitalistic, where you'd be taxed by what you bought, not what you earn. Wealth has nothing to do with what you make, it has to do with what you spend.

originally posted by: Freth
Isn't socialism already here? If you consider ACA, welfare, taxes, various assistance--most of which comes from our own tax dollars. Whether they take it directly or indirectly, it's still the same, taking from some to give to others.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Not with provocateurs, such as yourself, manipulating elections.

You know, I really wonder if we have exhausted ALL options and possibilities when it comes to systems of governance. I'm not particularly convinced that we have..

But, all of these discussions orbit around the same handful of options with seemingly no attempt to design something new, even hypothetically. Its like a celebration of mediocrity.

Then again, I'm also not convinced we have ever had anything other than oligarchies with different labels and slightly different nuances.

It seems silly to completely dismiss, or accept, anything based on a label without objectively exploring it. But, its like that's all any of us knows how to do nowadays.

Just about everything in America, is already Socialist. Name one thing/program the Federal government does that's not Socialist in nature. Hell! Car insurance is a Socialist wracket, shrouded in capitalism. Haven't you ever read the Communist Manifesto? You don't understand why the libs push and constantly harp on anad/for a "Democracy"? The Republic is dead.

a reply to: JesseVentura

No government has ever worked. Regardless of what sh** they wrote on there shingle. The closest thing to perfection was the COTUS. Not perfect but close. Our own government couldn't even abide by it. Human greed? Lust for power? Simple enumerated authority and boundry. Yet they could stay in thier zone? Jesse. How about we. Just put the feds back in thier broom closet? Let the States and "We the People keep the "Authority", local? You know? So they're easier to fire? The problem with the COTUS is? it was written, when men were men. The the, newborn US. Army was ready to back G. Washington for king, over back pay. He declined. What we need is men! With honor. Not Socialist. Socialism would not make honorable men anymore than a Republic did.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Right on target! Fire, for effect! I would hope that all who read this thread. Would get a copy of the Communist Manifesto and read it. Study NAZI Germany. Read history. You won't get it in "public schools"...(Back to the Communist Manifesto). America is now and has been a Socialist country. How's that working?... Hmmm? Now I invite you to actually read the Constitution of The United States... Do that? You'll figure it out. Maybe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay "krazyshot". Name a country that/where it hasn't?. I'm feeling you're used to subjugation anyway. I'm not sure you understand "tyranny". But I'm all for giving "special needs" a chance and a half. Go for it! Don't mention Switzerland. ... They're about ready to thow a tea party. But enlighten us. Please do. Filter that "ignorance". I'll wait.

a reply to: JesseVentura

I can agree with you on this. The Governments..how ever MANY, we have to answer to. Should not profit from sweat, blood and tears because of a "law". But by what "we the people" choose to spend. That alone would force the governments to budget, just like a government of "we the people"? Where in the COTUS allowed a Federal Income tax? That's right! The Feds collected federal taxes based on the lowest, populated state, also imports and exports. Ah? Yes! The 16th. Amendment...blah and blah. I can live with a national sales tax. After all, I don't by what I want, only what I need.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
That's true; we do have a socialist taxing system. I wish we'd go to a national sales tax. That'd be much more capitalistic, where you'd be taxed by what you bought, not what you earn. Wealth has nothing to do with what you make, it has to do with what you spend.

It would never happen, the less money you make the more of it you spend on necessities. The more money you make, the more likely you are to spend it in things like the stock market which is never going to carry a sales tax. No taxation system will work that tries to make most of it's money from the bottom 50% especially not when income inequality is so high.

Let me give you an alternate proposal I thought of that eliminates bickering over tax brackets yet it doesn't have the disadvantages of a flat tax: Thanks to the census and tax forms we can sum the net worth of the entire country and break every single person down by what percentage of the nations total wealth they own. Lets set a federal budget, and then each person/corporation pays for a percentage of that budget equal to their share of the nations wealth.