The myth of socialism and America

A brief apology if this doesn't come out right for some people... English is not my first language. Mods, feel free to move this if it doesn't belong here.

For years on this site I have seen people bandying the word Socialist around, changing the meaning, changing its history, changing it lately to be something "of the people, for the people."

Let's define it simply.

Socialism: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

That's the actual definition. Period.

In theory, a benevolent state owns the industries and provides jobs for the citizenry.

In reality, it becomes a tyrannical government that eventually bankrupts said state and the citizenry are just the first victims.

Often confused with socialism is progressivism. Which is understandable, since they are sisters walking different paths to the same destination. Which in theory is a worker's utopia where the citizens of the state are cared for by a benevolent ruling class... the state. The only difference is that socialism advocates the state ownership of industry. Progressivism advocates the state running industry through regulation. The mechanisms involved are basically the same... the state running industry.

The reality, of course, is that the theory breaks down when you add actual human beings to it. It invariably turns into something different.

A tyrannical government.

Keep in mind, all these little "isms" (communism, socialism, Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, progressivism) all stem from the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 1800's.

The only difference between all the "isms" is the socioeconomic mechanisms used to achieve the goal.

So when a person belittles you for equating socialism to communism, they really have no idea what they are talking about. After all, they have the same unachievable goal. They also end up having the same results when they are attempted... the eventual collapse of the country and horrible widespread misery for their citizenry.

Will this work for America? The short answer is no... it is the polar opposite of a Democratic Republic. However, it has been creeping into our culture step by step, a cancer that we will soon have to deal with or face the consequences. We have been letting it influence our politics for some time now... since the late 1800's.

Is there any evidence in America that socialist/progressive policies work?

We can take California as a good case study.

Are they helping the poverty-stricken?

California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and "other public welfare," according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation's welfare recipients. The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

So throwing money at the problem didn't seem to help. What about regulation?

Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, "Less Carbon, Higher Prices," found that "in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced … energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15% of all households." A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17% of median income in some areas.

How about increasing the minimum wage?

Looking to help poor and low-income residents, California lawmakers recently passed a measure raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour by 2022 — but a higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60% of Californians who live in poverty and don't have jobs. And research indicates that it could cause many who do have jobs to lose them. A Harvard University study found evidence that "higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants" in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. "Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14% increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating)," the report says. These restaurants are a significant source of employment for low-skilled and entry-level workers.

So.. how about regulations to keep the land natural and out of the hands of human beings?

Further contributing to the poverty problem is California's housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.
"Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings," explains analyst Wendell Cox. "Middle-income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing." The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1971, is one example; it can add $1 million to the cost of completing a housing development, says Todd Williams, an Oakland attorney who chairs the Wendel Rosen Black & Dean land-use group. CEQA costs have been known to shut down entire homebuilding projects. CEQA reform would help increase housing supply, but there's no real movement to change the law.

So what is progressive California's answer to all this?

Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on "remaking the world." The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system; talks of secession from a United States presided over by Donald Trump; hired former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. to "resist" Trump's agenda; enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime; established California as a "sanctuary state" for illegal immigrants; banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture; and is consumed by its dedication to "California values.

So yes, we have a good example in America on how the socialist/progressive model works on the largest state economy in the USA.

So to those of you that want to push the socialist agenda, a vote for that is a vote for poverty.

Let's just put the socialism works myth to bed and get back to making our Republic better.

Instead of taking the time to try to re-invent our country, take the time to put a light on the corruption we have and get rid of it, no matter what the party.

We are not a perfect country.

However, we live in a country where we can still change it for the better.

I would rather trust random chaos than a State of any flavor.

originally posted by: rom12345
I would rather trust random chaos than a State of any flavor.

Which was what America originally was... 50 different States that you could choose depending on their politics. Vote with your feet.

Not the federal monstrosity we have now.

The myth of socialism

Because politicians make better bosses, and spend your money better than you do.

Busted.

a reply to: Lumenari


If you take our current corrupt government and enacted socialist policies, then we would have a corrupt socialist government.

An enlightening succinct post. Going to save this one. Thanks.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Lumenari


If you take our current corrupt government and enacted socialist policies, then we would have a corrupt socialist government.

True!

So instead of trying to re-invent America, why not just clean it up?

We need the Property Brothers hired by Trump to do a national makeover...

Indeed, the irrational argument here with so many millennials seems to be

"Capitalism doesnt work because the gov is corrupt , power hungry and selfish, so we need to implement socialism"

originally posted by: Lumenari

Let's define it simply.

Socialism: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

That's the actual definition. Period.

In theory, a benevolent state owns the industries and provides jobs for the citizenry.

In reality, it becomes a tyrannical government that eventually bankrupts said state and the citizenry are just the first victims.

An actual definition:

Dictionary Enter a word, e.g. "pie" so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. synonyms: leftism, welfarism;

More (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Read the 'community as a whole' part of this.

You go on to say it lead to tyranny, as it can. If largely decentralized - not so much.

Capitalism leads to tyranny as well and it owns the government (bypassing 'the community') and is commonly called fascism.


Heres the Webster definition:

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Much the same with more emphasis on the 'administration' of the means and distribution of goods.

Neither speaks about resources. Much the resources can be held (not own) by the collective or by Capital.

The very definition you speak of ASSUMES Capitalism.

I like Webster's definition better because it does present the concept of 'no private property'.

Here is the best contemporary definition, I've found ... a real definition of "production for use not for profit" which is key to 21st century socialism:

Socialism Socialism is both an economic system and an ideology (in the non-pejorative sense of that term).

A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production.

It also typically organizes economic activity through planning rather than market forces, and gears production towards needs satisfaction rather than profit accumulation.

Socialist ideology asserts the moral and economic superiority of an economy with these features, especially as compared with capitalism.

More specifically, socialists typically argue that capitalism undermines democracy, facilitates exploitation, distributes opportunities and resources unfairly, and vitiates community, stunting self-realization and human development.

Socialism, by democratizing, humanizing, and rationalizing economic relations, largely eliminates these problems.

www.iep.utm.edu...

Socialism has a much broader scope then the definition presented.

a reply to: FyreByrd

So to debate the point you cherry-pick the definition to fit your argument.

Saul Alynski... is that you?

a reply to: Lumenari

Excellent Post . Simplistic yet Profound . ...........

a reply to: FyreByrd

A "definition" of Socialism by socialist sources 😃

Well that round peg fits the square hole.

I'm convinced for sure now 😎👋

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: FyreByrd

So to debate the point you cherry-pick the definition to fit your argument.

Saul Alynski... is that you?

The problem with their definition is there's no way to implement it without some form of government. How do you get "the community" to make the decisions about what should be done? You have to have some form of voting, to govern the community.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: FyreByrd

So to debate the point you cherry-pick the definition to fit your argument.

Saul Alynski... is that you?

The problem with their definition is there's no way to implement it without some form of government. How do you get "the community" to make the decisions about what should be done? You have to have some form of voting, to govern the community.

So.... let's vote in some people to have total control over us so they can give us all the power.

What can possibly go wrong with that?

The founding fathers thought of another way, which has a history of working a lot better than socialism.

I think we should get back to that.

Almost everything is wrong in your post.

Is there any evidence in America that socialist/progressive policies work?

Yes, the worst states are conservative, and the best ones are liberal, or at least they were the best until they got infected with corporatism and business people pushing growth 24/7 now they suck too.

originally posted by: CB328
Almost everything is wrong in your post.

Is there any evidence in America that socialist/progressive policies work?

Yes, the worst states are conservative, and the best ones are liberal, or at least they were the best until they got infected with corporatism and business people pushing growth 24/7 now they suck too.

I had hoped you would wander into this thread.

Care to point out where I am am wrong, besides you screaming "Obama rulez!!!".

Because that is not an argument.

Some links, a few paragraphs on where socialism (I took the time to define it for you, so you are off the hook there) works better in America than capitalism?

Anything at all?

I am looking forward to your reply...

a reply to: Lumenari


Those that are the biggest fans of socialism are also the ones that constantly complain about our government having too much power, so their solution is to scrap the Constitution and grant the government (which they complain about) even greater power and authority.


The biggest problem with socialist programs is that they are impossible to eliminate once they are in place.

, a few paragraphs on where socialism (I took the time to define it for you, so you are off the hook there) works better in America than capitalism?

Americans had a better quality of life (not amount of objects, but real life quality), less stress, more freedom, more harmony (among the adults anyways), more hope, and didn't have to work as hard when we had bigger government, unions, and less capitalism.

Seriously, with all the corruption, inequality, bankruptcies, health problems, wars, and destroying the planet how can you even claim capitalism is great? It's only great for bad or spoiled people, what a brilliant system.

originally posted by: CB328

, a few paragraphs on where socialism (I took the time to define it for you, so you are off the hook there) works better in America than capitalism?

Americans had a better quality of life (not amount of objects, but real life quality), less stress, more freedom, more harmony (among the adults anyways), more hope, and didn't have to work as hard when we had bigger government, unions, and less capitalism.

Seriously, with all the corruption, inequality, bankruptcies, health problems, wars, and destroying the planet how can you even claim capitalism is great? It's only great for bad or spoiled people, what a brilliant system.

Everyone doing well in the US is bad or spoiled?

Seriously, this level of brainwashing is scary.

originally posted by: CB328

, a few paragraphs on where socialism (I took the time to define it for you, so you are off the hook there) works better in America than capitalism?

Americans had a better quality of life (not amount of objects, but real life quality), less stress, more freedom, more harmony (among the adults anyways), more hope, and didn't have to work as hard when we had bigger government, unions, and less capitalism.

Seriously, with all the corruption, inequality, bankruptcies, health problems, wars, and destroying the planet how can you even claim capitalism is great? It's only great for bad or spoiled people, what a brilliant system.

You admit, in the same post that corruption exists, and in the same post, advocate for bigger government.

So not only do you want bigger government, you want a bigger corrupt government!


OMG!