61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[Meister]

The fact that so many people don't understand socialism is not helped by certain conservatives who squawk "we're going to turn into socialism if we get free healthcare".

It's socialistic to be sure, but you need much more than that to turn USA into full blown socialism.

One brick at a time......one brick at a time.

 

[KissMy]

The "Gleaner Law" in the Bible says the slackers get the leftovers.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact that so many people don't understand socialism is not helped by certain conservatives who squawk "we're going to turn into socialism if we get free healthcare".

It's socialistic to be sure, but you need much more than that to turn USA into full blown socialism.

One brick at a time......one brick at a time.

Especially when it is so harmless, and inconsequential, and humane, and caring, and responsible, and just.

It starts with subsidizing single moms back around the turn of the century so they could keep their kids who would otherwise become wards of the state. And then a tiny little pension for the elderly with a guarantee that nobody would need to pay more than than 1% of their income to cover that. And then some food subsidies and some help for school lunch programs and then some government make work jobs, then various kinds of grants and farm subsidies. Little by little you expand veteran's benefits and add non-elderly folks to the social security program and jack up those taxes a bit; expand Medicaid benefits, help for heads of household, single moms, more programs for handicapped and slow kids, and on and on and on.

One day some in government don't bat an eyelash at presuming to put government control over 1/13th of the entire economy with a government directed healthcare program or seizing control of, even ownership of, large corporations that the government says are 'too big to fail', and advertising intention to take unprecedented control over all energy production and how the people will be allowed to use it including what kind of vehicles people will be allowed to drive.

Once all that is in place, is there any question in anybody's mind that ANYTHING will be off limits to government ambition?

 

[Meister]

The fact that so many people don't understand socialism is not helped by certain conservatives who squawk "we're going to turn into socialism if we get free healthcare".

It's socialistic to be sure, but you need much more than that to turn USA into full blown socialism.

One brick at a time......one brick at a time.

Especially when it is so harmless, and inconsequential, and humane, and caring, and responsible, and just.

It starts with subsidizing single moms back around the turn of the century so they could keep their kids who would otherwise become wards of the state. And then a tiny little pension for the elderly with a guarantee that nobody would need to pay more than than 1% of their income to cover that. And then some food subsidies and some help for school lunch programs and then some government make work jobs, then various kinds of grants and farm subsidies. Little by little you expand veteran's benefits and add non-elderly folks to the social security program and jack up those taxes a bit; expand Medicaid benefits, help for heads of household, single moms, more programs for handicapped and slow kids, and on and on and on.

One day some in government don't bat an eyelash at presuming to put government control over 1/13th of the entire economy with a government directed healthcare program or seizing control of, even ownership of, large corporations that the government says are 'too big to fail', and advertising intention to take unprecedented control over all energy production and how the people will be allowed to use it including what kind of vehicles people will be allowed to drive.

Once all that is in place, is there any question in anybody's mind that ANYTHING will be off limits to government ambition?

You certainly do understand my point, Foxfyre.

 

[logical4u]

There can be no free market without regulation, for the unregulated market quickly becomes the market of the Bourgeoisie, who prevent the petty bourgeoisie and proletariat from being able to compete openly and fairly in anything resembling a free market. The free market can only exist so long as there is competition. Competition can only exist so long as the petty bourgeoisie and aspiring proletarian have a real chance of competing with the established bourgeoisie and their trusts and conspiracies. Such an ability to compete can only exist so long as the People, through the State, act against the interest of the Bourgeoisie, limiting their ability to dominate and control the market and manipulate and exploit the lower classes. This process is known as regulation, and it is comprised of several major points: the bourgeoisie must be forced to be transparent and open in its dealing [one example is forcing accurate ratings of investments, the failure to do so directly contributed to America's recent economic turmoils]; the petty bourgeoisie and the aspiring proletarian must be given the means to compete in their early endeavors [this oft manifests as tax cuts for small businesses]; the proletariat must be allowed to keep the fruits of his labours or fair compensation [minimum/living wage, tax breaks for the proletariat- known in Republican lexicon as the 'working class']; the proletarian must be ensured his safety at his work [OSHA and the numerous workplace safety laws] and the right to earn a means to improve his condition [see 'right to work' laws]. These are among the basic principles present in an early socialist society, as they manifest in its economic system.

You'll notice that all are also promises made by the Republican party.

The "free" market is regulated. Take a look at "illegal" markets: if a product of poor quality is sold, word is put out (instead of a bureaucracy coming in and fining while paying millions of tax dollars for those people to sit in offices and wait for complaints to come in), customers do not buy as much of the product. If improvements are not made, the seller is out of business. If the seller has a "quality" product at a good price, demand goes up, the price can be raised (or not depending on supply), and both consumers and the seller are happy.
Your system depends on the gov to do everything for the "subject" (instead of citizen, because all freedoms have been sacrificed for the illusion of security). It gives the consumer no credibility as a conscienceous buyer, but ASS U ME S, that citizens cannot get up and get dressed in the morning without some gov bureaucrat telling them how to do it. Their is no individuality (in the gov's view), their is no personal property (the state is entitled to EVERYTHING you own).

You seem to have a lot of "faith" in regulation. Isn't the automotive industry regulated (the one where cares are recalled on a regular basis)? Isn't the manufacturing of products coming into this country regulated (the one that notifies consumers that "accepted" products have been 'now' found to contain lead or other poisonous materials)?

The regulation in capitalism is the individual (the atheist always tell us that people are 'just good at heart' and want to help their fellow man), why don't we trust individuals?

Why do you want to trust a gov bureaucracy (for any part of your financial security)? There is no way to disagree and win (any more of a handout or getting your own tax dollars back). There is no system (by design) to hold anyone accountable in the bureaucracy, if poisonous toys or products that damage people are presented by said bureaucracy to be safe in the first place. It is a system of wealth drainage and finger pointing. It produces no wealth. It maintains no wealth. It assures no wealth. It exists to remove wealth under false pretenses of keeping the "subject" safe.

Do you, "you" want to be a "subject" (where your gov ownes everything and allows you to 'think' it is yours), or a citizen (where you acually have rights as an individual that the gov may "not infringe upon")?

If you want to be a subject, there are lots of countries that use that system. Why do you need to convert "this" gov to another failing system?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If I may conjecture that American ideas and ideals are more closely associated with self-reliance, free enterprise, and entrepeneurship, what is one to make of the latest Gallup poll?

"Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives."
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

It seems that socialism should be included in pantheon of Democrat beliefs.

The respondents who have a positive image of socialism don't know what it is. It is the leveling of the playing field, whereby, MISERY is shared and wealth, personal initiative, personal responsibility, and personal accountability are BAD.

Those who replied negatively don't know what socialism is. It is leveling the playing field, enabling the petty bourgeoisie ('small business owner', in Republican parlance) to compete and succeed, and ensuring the proletariat ('Working Class', in Republican parlance) does not starve, but can labour and improve their condition in a safe and fair work environment. Starving children, the exploitation of the poor, unsafe working conditions, and Bernie Madoff are BAD.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

L4U: Remember, the average man loathes freedom and liberty. He demands a master, He cannot be content without some authority- a Church, a God, or a Law to tell him what to do. The average man is too weak to live his own life, make his own decisions, or employ rationality in his daily life.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

(the atheist always tell us that people are 'just good at heart' and want to help their fellow man)

, why don't we trust individuals?

Trusting in the goodness of the individual is known as Anarchy. It doesn't work. The People must act against those individuals who cannot be trusted.

If you want to be a subject, there are lots of countries that use that system

No nation in Earth employs what I propose or ever has in recent memory.

 

[Red_Rus]

People there, who favor socialism, please, tell me, what disadvantages you see in America? I mean problems, that connected with daily life of normal American man or woman, not with life of minority.

 

[logical4u]

If I may conjecture that American ideas and ideals are more closely associated with self-reliance, free enterprise, and entrepeneurship, what is one to make of the latest Gallup poll?

"Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives."
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

It seems that socialism should be included in pantheon of Democrat beliefs.

The respondents who have a positive image of socialism don't know what it is. It is the leveling of the playing field, whereby, MISERY is shared and wealth, personal initiative, personal responsibility, and personal accountability are BAD.

Those who replied negatively don't know what socialism is. It is leveling the playing field, enabling the petty bourgeoisie ('small business owner', in Republican parlance) to compete and succeed, and ensuring the proletariat ('Working Class', in Republican parlance) does not starve, but can labour and improve their condition in a safe and fair work environment. Starving children, the exploitation of the poor, unsafe working conditions, and Bernie Madoff are BAD.

I find it interesting that you won't or can't demonstrate a socialist success story (one that started on its own and that has survived after plundering the wealth of same nation).
I find it interesting that you can't or won't debate the success of capitalism. Socialism puts everyone at the same level of misery (with the exception of the ruling class).

I gather you think Bernie Madoff is bad? Socialism is Bernie Madoff on steroids. Socialism promises security in the exchange for wealth and takes both wealth and security.

We have had enough theories (communism is a perfect example of a great theory that DOES NOT WORK). Please provide some evidence to back up your wild statements, that cannot be proven.

Using countries that are not responsible for their own defense, is a misleading comparison.

Waiting, still.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I find it interesting that you won't or can't demonstrate a socialist success story

Um.. the US, Canada, Western Europe.... I did this before.

I find it interesting that you can't or won't debate the success of capitalism.

Uh... I did. Several times. In this thread and others. I've demonstrated repeatedly how, under unfettered capitalism, the poor are exploited. I've shown repeatedly how how the poor and working class are better off now because of the caring economics and social safety nets that mark the emergence of a socialist society.

I gather you think Bernie Madoff is bad?

Uh... ask the people he bent over.

Socialism is Bernie Madoff on steroids.

eh? Pyramid schemes are a classic example of capitalist exploitation. Making them illegal is prime example of the regulation present in a socialist society that defends the weak and seeks to prevent the Bourgeoisie from exploiting the lower classes.

Using countries that are not responsible for their own defense, is a misleading comparison.

The US doesn't defend itself?

 

[Red_Rus]

I am repeating my question:

People there, who favor socialism, please, tell me, what disadvantages you see in America? I mean problems, that connected with daily life of normal American man or woman, not with life of minority.

 

[logical4u]

I am repeating my question:

People there, who favor socialism, please, tell me, what disadvantages you see in America? I mean problems, that connected with daily life of normal American man or woman, not with life of minority.

Do not expect a sincere reply Red_Rus. When you ask difficult questions they throw out half truths and if you call them on that, many will resort to name-calling.

This is what the pro-socialist (and cousin governments) do; they tell you about this great theory. You calmly explain to them that EVERY time it has been tried so far, it ends in failure. They insist that THIS time, THIS time, everything will magically be different. They will point out every sob story and present it as a failure of capitalism, instead of that persons choices (that were a mistake and could be used to learn).

I feel they really believe, when their new government is formed, they will be a part of the "ruling" class. If they believed they were to be a simple subject (instead of citizen), they would never want this government. They believe that those of us that work will be put under the whip, while, they collect the fruits of our labor.

Your posts are direct and open. Do not expect one of the socialist zealots to answer with any logic. It is their religion, they do not give G*d the credit He earned. They do not want any individual to have power. They want appointed men (themselves if possible), to have authority over other men, they want no part of equality.

 

[Red_Rus]

logical4u
Man, you shouldn't say that socialistic system in the USSR wasn't successful, comparing it with USA, because at the beginning situations in this countries was different. USSR (Russian Empire) was backward country, but the USA was advanced. And on the territory of USSR was 2 wars, that rejected industry in the USSR back in development. On the territory of the USA wasn't wars in 20th century.

 

[Foxfyre]

logical4u
Man, you shouldn't say that socialistic system in the USSR wasn't successful, comparing it with USA, because at the beginning situations in this countries was different. USSR (Russian Empire) was backward country, but the USA was advanced. And on the territory of USSR was 2 wars, that rejected industry in the USSR back in development. On the territory of the USA wasn't wars in 20th century.

Wrong Red. The USA started out just as 'backward' as Russia. The difference between the two countries, however, was in the vision of those who founded the USA. They believed in unalienable human rights, personal liberties, a government of and by the people, capitalism, and a free market system. And because those are the principles embodied in the Constitution they forged for us, we were able to advance more quickly and achieve prosperity and a quality of life previously unknown in the world.

Once Russia dumped its Czars, who stunted Russia's growth, it embraced Marxist socialism which also stunted Russia's growth, and you have never quite extricated yourself from that mentality. So, Russia's growth and prosperity remains stunted.

We have some in this country who are now embracing Marxist socialism, and because they have been so brainwashed and/or left uneducated in the implications of that, should they succeed in gaining control, the USA would probably become more like Russia.

 

[sboyle24]

I wonder what would happen in the following scenario:
1st Question:
How to you feel about socialism?
a. For
b. Against
2nd Question
How do you feel about public school, public police, public fire departments, public driving institutions, public parks, government college loans, and public healthcare?
a. For
b. Against


I'm pretty sure the percentages would be separated by at least 10-20%, if not more.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder what would happen in the following scenario:
1st Question:
How to you feel about socialism?
a. For
b. Against
2nd Question
How do you feel about public school, public police, public fire departments, public driving institutions, public parks, government college loans, and public healthcare?
a. For
b. Against


I'm pretty sure the percentages would be separated by at least 10-20%, if not more.

Yes, unfortunately, some of those coming out of our USA education system think the items in 'b' up there are socialism and might actually include those in a question about attitudes about socialism. Of course none of those are socialist in any way, but hey, whatever floats one's boat.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Fail. The Constitution had nothing to do with our technological development. The CCCP's technological development failed because it ignored the most basic principle of communism: caring about the People. They tried to force 100 years of socioeconomic and technological development to occur overnight and it blew up in their face.

 

[Red_Rus]

Wrong Red. The USA started out just as 'backward' as Russia. The difference between the two countries, however, was in the vision of those who founded the USA. They believed in unalienable human rights, personal liberties, a government of and by the people, capitalism, and a free market system. And because those are the principles embodied in the Constitution they forged for us, we were able to advance more quickly and achieve prosperity and a quality of life previously unknown in the world.

Once Russia dumped its Czars, who stunted Russia's growth, it embraced Marxist socialism which also stunted Russia's growth, and you have never quite extricated yourself from that mentality. So, Russia's growth and prosperity remains stunted.

We have some in this country who are now embracing Marxist socialism, and because they have been so brainwashed and/or left uneducated in the implications of that, should they succeed in gaining control, the USA would probably become more like Russia.

Maybe you should study Russian history? I see that any things in your post is wrong. Really I can't explain to you all about Russia, but it is not so easy as you think.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wrong Red. The USA started out just as 'backward' as Russia. The difference between the two countries, however, was in the vision of those who founded the USA. They believed in unalienable human rights, personal liberties, a government of and by the people, capitalism, and a free market system. And because those are the principles embodied in the Constitution they forged for us, we were able to advance more quickly and achieve prosperity and a quality of life previously unknown in the world.

Once Russia dumped its Czars, who stunted Russia's growth, it embraced Marxist socialism which also stunted Russia's growth, and you have never quite extricated yourself from that mentality. So, Russia's growth and prosperity remains stunted.

We have some in this country who are now embracing Marxist socialism, and because they have been so brainwashed and/or left uneducated in the implications of that, should they succeed in gaining control, the USA would probably become more like Russia.

Maybe you should study Russian history? I see that any things in your post is wrong. Really I can't explain to you all about Russia, but it is not so easy as you think.

Actually I have studied Russian history though I do not claim the proficiency in that comparable to a Russian who seriously studied real Russian history and not that manufactured by the government. So what did I get wrong? The USA was set up as a Constitutional Republic. In its entire history, Russia has never operated under a government even remotely similar. If you think Russian people as a group have had it better than American people, as a group, then bless your heart and power to you. I will choose not to trade places with you, however.