The myth of socialism and America

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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!

They just need to get the right people in there.

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.

Not sure what planet you came from...

Capitalism and a Democratic Republic form of government turned us from a frontier colony to the biggest economy the world has ever seen. More actual freedom for it's citizens than ever before in the history of the world.

Bigger government equals less freedom, by the way.

Because the bigger the government, the more they take from the citizens, the less actual freedom the citizens have.

Do you even know what freedom is?

Besides the basic rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, it is the freedom to live your life the way you want it.

A person should be able to work, express themselves, engage in commerce and do what they want for fun.

That is why they call it working for a living... you work to have the money to live however you want to.

The more taxes you pay, the more restrictions on you by your government, the less "life" you have to live freely.

Funny part is, the corruption in our government can be traced back to the progressive push for more government.

Wasn't capitalism, sweety.

It is the form of government that you choose to champion that is bringing us all down.

a reply to: Lumenari

Excellent post. Although it will go over the heads of some of our resident progressives. They aren't very good at connecting dots.

Do you even know what freedom is?

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is. Having to work overtime all the time, or two or three jobs that you hate just to pay the bills for a minmal existence isn't freedom, it's slavery. Luckily I don't have to work much overtime, but I still get screwed by not getting any benefits except medical.

People used to live on one income and have a house and a car and holidays, vacations, without corporations trying to bankrupt them every day. Sure, we only had one TV and crappy cars, but we had time and societies that had worthwhile and social things to do. Now people just work and when they'e not working they're doing stupid things like watching reality TV or playing with their phones.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

a reply to: Lumenari

Perhaps the "throwing money at the problem" didn't work because the money didn't actually get used for the right things.

For instance, if there is a drug related crime problem, do you resolve it by carpeting the library, opening a basketball court, building a civic center or arresting more people out of the community?

Perhaps drug issues require funded medical intervention?
Perhaps People need direct rent assistance (in a way that landlords will not simply put up rents)?
Perhaps people need cheap healthy food?
Perhaps giving cash to those who have demonstrated poor cash management is a bad idea?
Perhaps also, employing another counselor or desk jockey in a social security capacity does nothing to help the public?
... and so on.

I don't think that socialism is bad of itself. Many socialists are well meaning. But governments are notoriously bad at managing the actual issues and Capitalism only works for those who are already in possession of sufficient capital.

Also, if everyone in society expects to "make a buck", where is that economic growth going to come from?

I think the concept of a Universal Basic Income is something that modern governments need to consider, but even it isn't an answer.

The issues are hard and we need to face it, present systems of government are all deficient, spending vast capital and resources on contention while there are increasing numbers of those who slip through the cracks.

originally posted by: CB328

Do you even know what freedom is?

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is. Having to work overtime all the time, or two or three jobs that you hate just to pay the bills for a minmal existence isn't freedom, it's slavery. Luckily I don't have to work much overtime, but I still get screwed by not getting any benefits except medical.

People used to live on one income and have a house and a car and holidays, vacations, without corporations trying to bankrupt them every day. Sure, we only had one TV and crappy cars, but we had time and societies that had worthwhile and social things to do. Now people just work and when they'e not working they're doing stupid things like watching reality TV or playing with their phones.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

Yes, families survived on a single income.
Then duel incomes became the norm, and drove prices up (inflation).

Inflation continues to go up annually, and more so when there is a minimum wage increase.

If you are making minimum wage or close to it, you should look to ways to improve yourself to get raises, or make yourself more valuable to employers.
If you cannot afford what you want, or if you do not have the benefits package you want. It just means you do not have the skills or licenses to demand it.

You have to earn nice things. You are not entitled to them.

originally posted by: CB328

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

Freedom is the opportunity to buy a home, the opportunity to own a car, the opportunity to have health insurance.

Freedom is the option of choice and the opportunity to do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.


Socialism is an infringement upon the freedoms that individuals have.

originally posted by: CB328

Do you even know what freedom is?

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is. Having to work overtime all the time, or two or three jobs that you hate just to pay the bills for a minmal existence isn't freedom, it's slavery. Luckily I don't have to work much overtime, but I still get screwed by not getting any benefits except medical.

People used to live on one income and have a house and a car and holidays, vacations, without corporations trying to bankrupt them every day. Sure, we only had one TV and crappy cars, but we had time and societies that had worthwhile and social things to do. Now people just work and when they'e not working they're doing stupid things like watching reality TV or playing with their phones.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

The holding two jobs thing was debunked last week by WaPo when they blasted Ocasio-Cortez for not being able to get anything right.

Ocasio-Cortez claimed: “Everyone has two jobs.” The facts say: “The data is pretty clear that this statement is poppycock.” In fact, the July jobs report showed only 5.2 percent of Americans hold two jobs.

You don't have to pay $250K for a house. In a lot of states you can get a nice house for half that. It really depends on where you live. Check out where the dollar has the most value. Homes and pretty much everything else are cheaper in states that have lower COL.

originally posted by: CB328

Do you even know what freedom is?

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is. Having to work overtime all the time, or two or three jobs that you hate just to pay the bills for a minmal existence isn't freedom, it's slavery. Luckily I don't have to work much overtime, but I still get screwed by not getting any benefits except medical.

People used to live on one income and have a house and a car and holidays, vacations, without corporations trying to bankrupt them every day. Sure, we only had one TV and crappy cars, but we had time and societies that had worthwhile and social things to do. Now people just work and when they'e not working they're doing stupid things like watching reality TV or playing with their phones.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

Thank you for your post... now I get where you are coming from.

Your job sucks, you have no way to move upward and you want free stuff.

If we are going to trade stories, we wife and I live on my income. I own my property, don't have a car payment and we vacation whenever we want.

That last bit isn't actually true... we gave up vacations for the last year to save up the money to build another house on our property.

As far as medical insurance, I was getting hit to the tune of $1600 a month under Obamacare.

Fortunately, that crap went away so my employer was once again able to just pay for our blue cross blue shield gold so it doesn't cost me anything but a 500 deductible a year.

So my advice to you is to not vote for free stuff for you (that I have to pay for, so that won't work long-term), take the time to better yourself and make more.

You are, after all, in a capitalist country where you can actually move up in life, if you choose to do so.

Stop being a victim... start taking charge of your own life.

Don't wish that the government will do that for you... it won't end well.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: CB328

Do you even know what freedom is?

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is. Having to work overtime all the time, or two or three jobs that you hate just to pay the bills for a minmal existence isn't freedom, it's slavery. Luckily I don't have to work much overtime, but I still get screwed by not getting any benefits except medical.

People used to live on one income and have a house and a car and holidays, vacations, without corporations trying to bankrupt them every day. Sure, we only had one TV and crappy cars, but we had time and societies that had worthwhile and social things to do. Now people just work and when they'e not working they're doing stupid things like watching reality TV or playing with their phones.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

You have to earn nice things. You are not entitled to them.

Epic truth bomb. That's the thing, everyone wants everything now. The reason people "used" to have nice things, was because they spent money more wisely. They weren't buying all the crap we buy now. Look around your house at all the crap you don't need, and ask yourself if your grandparents had all that #. Maybe that's why they were better off than you. There was a lot less junk for them to spend their money on. If people didn't spend all their money on crap, they'd have money for vacations.

a reply to: chr0naut

So socialism will work if only we get the right people.. the smart ones!!! to do it better.

/facepalm

a reply to: Lumenari

Why doesn't the US try democracy, for a start (you know, one person, one vote).

Then you could elect people who have really good ideas, not by the color of their lapel pin, or their haircut. But by the quality, achievability and popularity of the ideas.

Then, all those different individuals, with different popular ideas for how to do things, who got elected, could be called the government.

And those who had ideas but didn't get a popular vote could be called the opposition. You could do that for the upper and lower houses and rinse and repeat right down to local government level.

And, since it is the information age, if an idea is unworkable or looses popularity, the person gets removed from the government and joins the opposition, and the next popular idea bringer would then move into government with their idea.

Also, ideas that get implemented and don't need revisiting would mean the proposer goes to the opposition and some new idea comes forward.

There could be TV channels and special newspapers where those ideas get proposed, argued and selected. If we were really clever, we could even keep the identities of the proposers secret so the ideas would by considered on their own merit.

Democratic government for the people and actually by the people.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Lumenari

Why doesn't the US try democracy, for a start (you know, one person, one vote).

Then you could elect people who have really good ideas, not by the color of their lapel pin, or their haircut. But by the quality, achievability and popularity of the ideas.

Then, all those different individuals, with different popular ideas for how to do things, who got elected, could be called the government.

And those who had ideas but didn't get a popular vote could be called the opposition. You could do that for the upper and lower houses and rinse and repeat right down to local government level.

And, since it is the information age, if an idea is unworkable or looses popularity, the person gets removed from the government and joins the opposition, and the next popular idea bringer would then move into government with their idea.

There could be TV channels and special newspapers where those ideas get proposed, argued and selected. If we were really clever, we could even keep the identities of the proposers secret so the ideas would by considered on their own merit.

Democratic government for the people and actually by the people.

Because that's not what we want. Don't believe me? Try to get an amendment passed to abolish the electoral college. Good luck.

a reply to: chr0naut

Democracy is mob rule.

If we had a "democracy" Hillary would have been president. Is that your idea of a good leader?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Democracy is mob rule.

If we had a "democracy" Hillary would have been president. Is that your idea of a good leader?

If we had democracy, why would Hillary have even been in the running?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Lumenari

Why doesn't the US try democracy, for a start (you know, one person, one vote).

Then you could elect people who have really good ideas, not by the color of their lapel pin, or their haircut. But by the quality, achievability and popularity of the ideas.

Then, all those different individuals, with different popular ideas for how to do things, who got elected, could be called the government.

And those who had ideas but didn't get a popular vote could be called the opposition. You could do that for the upper and lower houses and rinse and repeat right down to local government level.

And, since it is the information age, if an idea is unworkable or looses popularity, the person gets removed from the government and joins the opposition, and the next popular idea bringer would then move into government with their idea.

Also, ideas that get implemented and don't need revisiting would mean the proposer goes to the opposition and some new idea comes forward.

There could be TV channels and special newspapers where those ideas get proposed, argued and selected. If we were really clever, we could even keep the identities of the proposers secret so the ideas would by considered on their own merit.

Democratic government for the people and actually by the people.

We kind of do. On the state level (some states are republics as well).
The difficulty is the vast difference of living state to state.

In a direct democracy, the cities of the coasts would dictate the living of the vast Ag-lands in the center of the country.
In my state the cities already oppress the Ag-lands. I don't want to see it happen to the rest of the country.

My suggestion would be taking away the public vote on house reps. They should be selected by the state, as it was laid out in the federal constitution.

a reply to: chr0naut

Because she had the "popular" vote.

originally posted by: CB328

Do you even know what freedom is?

Apparently I'm the only one who does know what freedom is. Having to work overtime all the time, or two or three jobs that you hate just to pay the bills for a minmal existence isn't freedom, it's slavery. Luckily I don't have to work much overtime, but I still get screwed by not getting any benefits except medical.

People used to live on one income and have a house and a car and holidays, vacations, without corporations trying to bankrupt them every day. Sure, we only had one TV and crappy cars, but we had time and societies that had worthwhile and social things to do. Now people just work and when they'e not working they're doing stupid things like watching reality TV or playing with their phones.

Freedom is not having to pay $250,000 for a house, and $25,000 for a car, and $10,000 for medical insurance ,etc.

What price would you pay for these goods and services ?
I think you may be confusing Freedom with Free.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Getting the definitions from a Wiki page again...
You left out one key part
Marxist socialism which precisely means that which was stated by the OP
And , the most implemented in history of any of the definitions.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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 couple things.... ONE, Corporate America doesn't operate on capitalism, it DOES operate as fascism.

You inferred it was the SAME as fascism. NOPE. Just because the folks who own the media call what we have capitalism, does not make it capitalism, any more than calling me the Pope makes me the Pontiff (for clarity, I am NOT the pope).

You don't really expect Bloomberg and CNBC to call it "Fascism" do you? Of COURSE not.

In order to find capitalism, it's best to find the mom and pop shops or other small businesses, where people took their own money, and started a business. We DO have that... but it's not something media want's to articulate with any clarity. If they did, the "jig would be up".