Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota?

Credit unions are as socialistic as unions. That is a good scale to place things on

To hear the conservatives label things, anything they don't like iis socialism, and anything that they do like is capitalism.

Take the fed reserve system. This is pure capitalism, through and through, private owned banks all. There is nothing socialistic about the fed res, but are people calling the fed res socialistic.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Electric Universe. Name for us a modern day developed country that has a free market system, with no socialist programs, Thanks.

Completely capitalist? none.

Yep.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Let's see the links to those numbers.

I would be more than happy to go through the details with you on this claim.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

under socialism supposedly everything is distributed EQUALLY...

No, that is communism.

In socialism, there is a meritocracy system in place.

So many misconceptions on this thread. Socialism does not mean everything is owned by the state. It does not mean everyone gets paid the same. it doesn't mean there is no private ownership. It does not mean redistribution of wealth. It doesn't mean welfare for everyone.

Mutual insurance companies are an example of socialism. The last time healthcare was affordable and decent in America it was run by mutual insurance companies. This meant the policy holders owned the company and shared in it's profits. Pooling resources in that manner worked very well until they let Wall Street get a hold of them and turn them into publicly traded vehicles with shareholder profit the only concern.

The North Dakota State bank is indeed a socialist establishment as well. It is run for the benefit of the people who receive the profits back in the form of lower taxes, lower interest rates, and easier availability of capital. Credit unions are also a classic form of socialism. Owned by the depositors who share the profits.

If most of you people actually knew what Socialism is you would probably be for it. I think we need socialism for our needs and capitalism for everything else. Every man gets what he needs and his wants are met in line with his effort.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Here is where you demonstrate a complete disconnect with reality.

The united States is not completely socialist, but it has been getting there since at least 1913 when democrats implemented the Federal Reserve, a central bank, and the IRS with it's "progressive taxes" INCLUDING on private property.

Of all the incorrect statements you have made here, the biggest is to ignore that the greatest periods of economic success in the US was in the sixties and the nineties.

Our current problems did not begin in 1913, they began in 1980, with the whole con of the free market.

reply to post by FyreByrd


The founders envision the banks controlled by the treasury. But unfortunately the foreign banks bought up the people they needed to allow them to have a private central bank. South Dakota is the only state that prints their own money. This should have been the way it is ran.

Originally posted by poet1b
...
Take the fed reserve system. This is pure capitalism, through and through, private owned banks all. There is nothing socialistic about the fed res, but are people calling the fed res socialistic.

You are so wrong it is not even funny, a central bank is part of socialism and even communism. The Communist manifesto itself has as a plank, the 5th, the need for a central bank, and that's what the federal Reserve is, not to mention that it was implemented and given power by "progressive democrats" under "progressive democrat president" Woodrow Wilson in 1913...

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, in office from 1913 to 1921. A leader of the Progressive Movement, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. Running against Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, Socialist Party of America candidate Eugene V. Debs, and former President Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912.

In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms. Historian John M. Cooper argues that, in his first term, Wilson successfully pushed a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, remaining unmatched up until the New Deal.(1) This agenda included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the problem with the mayority of the people who cheer for socialism and deride capitalism and a free market, most of the time you don't know what in the world you are talking about... You twist things, and lie so much that you begin to believe your own lies...

...
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
...

www.marxists.org...

A central bank is part of the centralized banking found even under socialism itself.

Originally posted by poet1b
...
Our current problems did not begin in 1913, they began in 1980, with the whole con of the free market.

No, they began in 1913, when international socialist/fascist bankers were given power over the economy of the United States through the Federal Reserve, and through it they created a paper economy which has controlled the world economy and has crippled it. other socialist ideas such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc have given these socialist/fascist international banksters even more power and control over the world resources, and made possible the monopolies that exist to this day.

For thousands of years mankind has used a free market, and capitalism and when done right, not by force that is not capitalism that is greed and a trait of socialism/fascism/communism...

For example, long before any European ever came to the United States, many tribes were already using "Wampun" as tender coin for buying things from other tribes. The Aztecs used powdered gold as tender coin, and if tender coin wasn't used then there was trading/exchanging something for something else. People got together in this way to thrive, more so since not one person could have all the skills needed to live a fairly healthy life.

Even among the Native Americans they knew the value of private property, yes there were things they shared with each other (this didn't make them socialist), but they also respected each other's private property.

When a man wanted to marry a woman, he presented her/her family with gifts that he owned, it wasn't taken "from the community".

Even animals have a basic understanding of private property, and for example different packs of wolves would stay away from each other, and hunt only in "their territory", the same happens with lions and many other species of animals and insects.

First of all, your repeated slurs about "people like me" is childish and rude. You know nothing about me, and trying to distract from your argument with personal slurs is pretty pitiful.

I do not feel I have any firm position on ideals, I only register what I observe, and these are some things I have observed. My focus is usually on "what is", not "what should be".

Now, your doom predictions for the future do not distract from the correct assertion I made-
There are many nations, at this moment, in which capitalism and socialism are both present and cooperating. This invalidates your assertion that this is impossible.

You have further confirmed that you are actually refering, in this thread, to "pure Socialism". Just about no systems exist that are "pure" anything- ideals are fairly unrealistic.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
France is turning more and more socialist, but it is not a complete socialist system yet.

The socialists have been in power before and France has already experienced more socialism and has been developing the other direction. But even then, they never go too far either way, their culture being one of moderation in most things.

The discussion in that meeting (yes I know what UNESCO is, LOL! I even know many people that work for UNESCO ) was about the pros and cons of trying to gain a global agreement to implement democracy in all nations- the criticisms and arguments against were brought forward well, and no push for such a thing was made- it was a discussion, an analyzation, of an idea, that is all.

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming being blamed on humans)

There is no Occupy movment in France, and the french do not believe that Global Warming is caused by humans entirely- as with most things everyone assumes there is natural cycles of the earth and environment, which are also slightly influenced by humans.. again, they always gravitate towrds moderation. There is no controversy on that subject here.

They also have dealt with very hard times in recent memory (WW2) and frankly, they seem to be taking it in stride. The elders are teaching the young folk how to survive and we're hunkering down- there is not panic here. They are used to having their government be unable to protect them and don't expect it.

I have serious doubts about your predictions.
Though who knows! Perhaps Nibiru exists too!

Millions of people like me were born and experienced the truth of socialism and communism, and people like you have ignored our warnings because you have been brainwashed into thinking "socialism is great and we need it"...

I have, up to this point, attempted to be an adult and ignore the childish insults.
I will enlighten you here- I have never said or thought "Socialism is great and we need it". No one could have been more surprised than me to observe that in some places, some socialism is working hand in hand with capitalism, and in en effective way.
I do not know what anyone else needs, and I don't feel like making any judgements of that type.
But the reality in front of my eyes, I choose not to deny, just to please other peoples agendas and idealistic notions.

reply to post by poet1b

Take the fed reserve system. This is pure capitalism, through and through, private owned banks all.

Any central banking system is going to be corrupt and controlling by nature. The Govt is supposed to have oversight, but it should never have given over the control and the printing of money to the Fed, and it should never have been called Federal when it is private, but that may have been to fool the people. But you must know that this was kicked around Congress much like things are today, and the two parties just meshed together what they wanted. The Democrats got central banking and some govt oversight and the Republicans got private banks. Together they are a monster with runaway spending. G Edward Griffin talks mightily about this. He was formerly more liberal. If you are the least bit interested in hearing the truth, I would recommended hearing all he has to say about it.
I know you think the problem is it being privately owned, but when it is used and governed by the Federal Govt which controls the public purse strings, and by federal bureaucrats who love to spend, we've got a problem Houston.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
when international socialist/fascist bankers were given power over the economy of the United States through the Federal Reserve, and through it they created a paper economy which has controlled the world economy and has crippled it.

You have your terminology truly mixed up. Let me try to help you out here...




This is a common tool used in classrooms for defining political ideas.

The various systems are plotted on two axes: 1) the axis of Social Right/Left and 2) the axis of Economic Right/Left. Liberalism plots at 0,0.

This is a good way to look at political systems and helps explain the difficulty in finding common ground for discussion. It's easy to look at only one of the axes when two are required to define a specific system on the graph.

I quote from the essay this graft was taken from: rationalrevolution.net...

During the 1800s, though, "Leftist" opposition to Liberalism gained increasing support. Leftist opposition to Liberalism was embodied primarily in socialist movements, such as the Anarchist, Socialist and Communist movements.

There were (and are) many "flavors" of socialist ideology that oppose liberalism, all of which are critical of laissez-faire capitalism. They generally consider laissez-faire capitalism to foster corruption, to be unstable, to be exploitive, and to lead to social decay and degradation.

By the early 20th century a new "Right-wing" criticism of liberalism began to form as well, this being fascism. Like socialism, fascism is critical of liberalism, but fascism takes many opposing positions to socialism in its criticism of liberalism.

Thus, by the middle of the 20th century both the "Left" and "Right" had formed new and powerful opposition to Liberalism.

The political landscape that emerged by the mid 20th century can be depicted as shown below, in what I call The Rational Spectrum:

This is a good article on the subject and I hope you will read it.

I truly believe what you are adamately opposed to is Authoritarism which can be either Left Communist (what this autor calls Socialism) or right in Fascism. Democratic Socialism is not Authoritarian.

This article has other grafts devised to help define and compare the various economic and social policies promoted by different political stances.

Originally posted by poet1b

Credit unions are as socialistic as unions. That is a good scale to place things on

To hear the conservatives label things, anything they don't like iis socialism, and anything that they do like is capitalism.

Take the fed reserve system. This is pure capitalism, through and through, private owned banks all. There is nothing socialistic about the fed res, but are people calling the fed res socialistic.

Credit Unions are privately owned by the members who belong there, so how is this socialistic?

When does an entity become socialistic by your definition? 1 person owning, or 3000 people?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The federal reserve is privately owned, not stated owned, and it is not 1 bank, it is a group of several banks.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


This whole post is nothing but fantasy.

Being that the US has seen its greatest periods of prosperity well after 1913, your claims that the fed res act is responsible for our current problems is ridiculous.

FDRs reforms kept us out of a depression and lead our economy to great prosperity. It was the undoing of controls on the banker by Newt Gingrich lead by the republicans who controlled the house that wrecked our economy.

Back in the days before democratic style governments were formed establishing property rights and individual liberty, ownership of property was held by force of arms, everywhere on the planet. They didn't barter for goods and services, the best warriors took what they wanted. If you were a good subject, would be allowed some level of property, and some level of trade, but become too successful, and the local warlord/noble would take it away from you.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I'm not a big fan of the fed res, but the system can be made to work, and has been made to work, quite well.

The answer is strict regulation of the banks, and the stock market. Sales tax for stock and derivatives would be a good idea to shutdown the speculators.

Oh well, out of time.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

...
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
...

www.marxists.org...

A central bank is part of the centralized banking found even under socialism itself.

edit on 1-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

You don't understand it. In the Communist manifesto, the central bank is the only bank. That's what it means by "exclusive monopoly".

The USA, and every other mixed capitalist country, have a central bank whose clients are the government and other banks and serve their needs.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by FyreByrd


Are you going to even acknowledge the Billions that have been murdered in the name of capitalism and profit?

The murder count on either side is irrelevant to the validity of any sane argument and you, Sir, are just screaming without listening and/or hearing because you have nothing RELEVANT to add.

They have not... Under socialist systems more people have been murdered and imprisoned than all war wars, and other minor wars put together in the last 90 -100 years...

The empirical evidence is comprensively conclusive:

Socialist-Leninist systems with dictatorships murder and imprison people.

Sociallist-Capitalist systems with freedom and democracy help and benefit people and raise living standards for most.

Non-socialist systems with dicatorships murder and imprison people.

Which is the problem: socialism or Leninist dictatorship? Why do Leninist dictators constantly justify their evil with "socialism"? Because people know actual socialism can be attractive in some areas. But tyrants inflict Leninism.

You shouldn't pay attention to what Leninist dictators say about socialism. You should pay attention to what wealthy democratic countries say about socialism.

Originally posted by Realtruth

Credit Unions are privately owned by the members who belong there, so how is this socialistic?

When does an entity become socialistic by your definition? 1 person owning, or 3000 people?

Because they are owned By The People for The People. Not for the profit of a few.

Now in the case of the North Dakota bank, The People are respresented (Republic remember) by the State government. In the instance of the Credit Union there is 'direct' ownership by members.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Yes, or in other words, a credit union is owned by all the members, not by an individual or controlling group, but by all the members, and is not for profit.

The goal is not to make a profit, but to provide a public service.

On a further note, the whole purpose of trying to define something as capitalist or socialist is merely a technique for creating division. Everything is socialism. Nothing is socialism. Everything is capitalism. Nothing is capitalism.

I am for whatever increases our liberty, and I don't care what you call it.