61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[Red_Rus]

The USA started out just as 'backward' as Russia.

Start of the competition between capitalistic system in the USA and socialistic system in the USSR (Russia) started in 1917. If you can't believe, that USA in 1917 produce much more production, you can see statistics.

Once Russia dumped its Czars, who stunted Russia's growth, it embraced Marxist socialism which also stunted Russia's growth

In the Russian Empire since 20th century growth was one of the most fast in the world (sometimes 2nd, sometimes 1st position). And in the time of NEP growth was very fast. Industrialization make Russia 2nd economy in the world after USA. Economical problems started after 2nd World War, when started post-industrial age. USSR needed reforms to adapt for new post-industrial society, but government was impossible to do it, because we hadn't system, how to change leaders (I repeating it third time).

 

[Contumacious]

From a specific issue standpoint defining whether this thing or that thing is "socialist" is highly subjective and always subject to a lot of debate.

HUH?

If a particular means of production is REGULATED by the government then fascism prevails. If the government finances and operates it then you have socialism. Simple. No debate - no subjectivism.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

The USA started out just as 'backward' as Russia.

Start of the competition between capitalistic system in the USA and socialistic system in the USSR (Russia) started in 1917. If you can't believe, that USA in 1917 produce much more production, you can see statistics.

Once Russia dumped its Czars, who stunted Russia's growth, it embraced Marxist socialism which also stunted Russia's growth

In the Russian Empire since 20th century growth was one of the most fast in the world (sometimes 2nd, sometimes 1st position). And in the time of NEP growth was very fast. Industrialization make Russia 2nd economy in the world after USA. Economical problems started after 2nd World War, when started post-industrial age. USSR needed reforms to adapt for new post-industrial society, but government was impossible to do it, because we hadn't system, how to change leaders (I repeating it third time).

Well believe what you want Red. Most reliable historical accounts tell it differently, but you're Russian, so you say, and I'm not.

 

[oreo]

Any person who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any person who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.--Winston Churchill

 

[Red_Rus]

Interesting article: America by the Numbers. No. 1?

 

[Meister]

Interesting article: America by the Numbers. No. 1?

I'm not surprised that you would believe all of that, Red.
It's in writing so therefore it is true?
Got to learn to think for yourself, and not let the state do the thinking for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting article: America by the Numbers. No. 1?

I'm not surprised that you would believe all of that, Red.
It's in writing so therefore it is true?
Got to learn to think for yourself, and not let the state do the thinking for you.

ROFL. He's using The Centre for Research on Globalization as an 'interesting' source? I am more than ever convinced he's a leftwing socialist plant now - a one-world-government guy - with no respect or appreciation for what America is or what America stands for. Or used to stand for anyway. That organization is one of the most virulent hate-America - pro-socialist groups out there.

 

[Meister]

Interesting article: America by the Numbers. No. 1?

I'm not surprised that you would believe all of that, Red.
It's in writing so therefore it is true?
Got to learn to think for yourself, and not let the state do the thinking for you.

ROFL. He's using The Centre for Research on Globalization as an 'interesting' source? I am more than ever convinced he's a leftwing socialist plant now - a one-world-government guy - with no respect or appreciation for what America is or what America stands for. Or used to stand for anyway. That organization is one of the most virulent hate-America - pro-socialist groups out there.

I agree with you about the other poster. He is just another garden variety wingnut. I've talked to a couple Russians in my area, and they are so positive of the American liberties that we enjoy. They never talked of the crap this dude is talking.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

Err, actually, those are all socialist...

Just saying.

 

[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.

Err, actually, those are all socialist...

Just saying.

No they aren't. How does a Fire Department or Police Department fall into this definition:?

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Social contract is a mutually agreed method in which it is practical and useful and contributes to the general welfare to share certain infrastructure and some basic services. All such things are approved by the people before they are initiated. It is important not to confuse that with socialism that presumes government license over all that the people own and produce, and which controls the means by which the people will produce and distribute goods and profit from their own industry.

 

[Vast LWC]

No they aren't. How does a Fire Department or Police Department fall into this definition:?

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Social contract is a mutually agreed method in which it is practical and useful and contributes to the general welfare to share certain infrastructure and some basic services. All such things are approved by the people before they are initiated. It is important not to confuse that with socialism that presumes government license over all that the people own and produce, and which controls the means by which the people will produce and distribute goods and profit from their own industry.

They would fall under that definition the same way nationalized health care would.

Those people provide a service that could theoretically be done by private firms or individuals.

The services being the "goods" that are produced and distributed.

Now, personally, I see nothing wrong with "Socialism" like the Fire Department, but some die-hard capitalist idealogues might disagree.

 

[Foxfyre]

No they aren't. How does a Fire Department or Police Department fall into this definition:?

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Social contract is a mutually agreed method in which it is practical and useful and contributes to the general welfare to share certain infrastructure and some basic services. All such things are approved by the people before they are initiated. It is important not to confuse that with socialism that presumes government license over all that the people own and produce, and which controls the means by which the people will produce and distribute goods and profit from their own industry.

They would fall under that definition the same way nationalized health care would.

Those people provide a service that could theoretically be done by private firms or individuals.

The services being the "goods" that are produced and distributed.

Now, personally, I see nothing wrong with "Socialism" like the Fire Department, but some die-hard capitalist idealogues might disagree.

No. Social contract speaks to the general welfare. Rich and poor alike benefit equally from sewer systems, street lights, shared roads, and police and fire protection. Opportunities for all are enhanced by a community being made more attractive by the presence of these things, and therefore more commerce and industry will settle in that community and benefit all. It is not assumed that the rich will pay so that the poor don't have to, or that some citizens are worthy to receive the benefits, but not all. Nor is anybody who chooses to opt out penalized. Those who choose to live in the community accept the social contract. Those who wish to live outside the community are free to do so complete with their own well, own septic system, own private road, own utility system etc. There are a number of areas of New Mexico in which all citizens are doing just that.

That is social contract.

A nationalized healthcare system requires the rich to pay for the poor, does not allow anybody to opt out of it and do their own thing, penalizes those who don't want to participate, and takes away freedom from people, and dictates what healthcare the people will receive.

That is socialism.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. Social contract speaks to the general welfare. Rich and poor alike benefit equally from sewer systems, street lights, shared roads, and police and fire protection. Opportunities for all are enhanced by a community being made more attractive by the presence of these things, and therefore more commerce and industry will settle in that community and benefit all. It is not assumed that the rich will pay so that the poor don't have to, or that some citizens are worthy to receive the benefits, but not all. Nor is anybody who chooses to opt out penalized. Those who choose to live in the community accept the social contract. Those who wish to live outside the community are free to do so complete with their own well, own septic system, own private road, own utility system etc. There are a number of areas of New Mexico in which all citizens are doing just that.

That is social contract.

A nationalized healthcare system requires the rich to pay for the poor, does not allow anybody to opt out of it and do their own thing, penalizes those who don't want to participate, and takes away freedom from people, and dictates what healthcare the people will receive.

That is socialism.

Police and Fire Departments also require the rich to pay for the poor.

And the exact same argument you just made could be made for a nationalized healthcare system.

Look, I'm not advocating a Nationalized Healthcare system in this post, I'm saying that all of these are examples of Socialism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Police and Fire Departments also require the rich to pay for the poor.

Leaving room for there to possibly be an exception somewhere in the country, no they don't. Infrastructure is almost always accomplished through issuance of city or country bonds, and those are voted on by the general electorate. The city budget assumes that every citizen, rich and poor alike, will benefit equally from police and fire services. The rich will naturally pay more in taxes than will the poor but only proportionately so and not on any kind of progressive scale. But then the rich have more to lose to crime and fire too.

And the exact same argument you just made could be made for a nationalized healthcare system.

Nope. Because if I don't want to pay for a city water system, sewers, street lights, paved streets, police and fire protection, I have the option to move where there aren't such things to be paid for. I am not penalized for not participating and I am allowed to suffer whatever consequences might be involved in not participating. Nobody else is required to do anything for me or participate in any way as a result of the choice I make.

Look, I'm not advocating a Nationalized Healthcare system in this post, I'm saying that all of these are examples of Socialism.

Again social contract - shared services agreed to by the people as a convenience, not a government mandate, is not socialism. Socialism is never optional. It is mandatory with consequences built in for violating whatever system is set up. And you can't get away from it by simply opting out as you can with social contract.

People who voluntarily form a medical group and share costs are not engaged in socialism. They are engaged in social contract even when the process is regulated by certain government laws.

As soon as the government mandates the process and controls who is and is not to be included, however, you no longer have social contract. You have socialism.

 

[csbarry]

What do you think about being an egalitarian?

 

[Foxfyre]

What do you think about being an egalitarian?

Was that addressed to me?

I am 100% egalitarian in that government should show no favoritism or deference of any kind to any citizens based on race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, religion, political or socioeconomic opinion. I am quite non-egalitarian in any government system that presumes to mandate equality of results or outcome among any of these groups.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No. Social contract speaks to the general welfare.

Wrong. Social contract only deals with the general will.

Rich and poor alike benefit equally from sewer systems, street lights, shared roads, and police and fire protection.

Not quite. Bill gates can afford to have a private company take car of all that. Average Joe cannot.

Opportunities for all are enhanced by a community being made more attractive by the presence of these things, and therefore more commerce and industry will settle in that community and benefit all.

Same with a healthy population, ensured by social health care...

It is not assumed that the rich will pay so that the poor don't have to, or that some citizens are worthy to receive the benefits, but not all. Nor is anybody who chooses to opt out penalized. Those who choose to live in the community accept the social contract. Those who wish to live outside the community are free to do so complete with their own well, own septic system, own private road, own utility system etc. There are a number of areas of New Mexico in which all citizens are doing just that.

That is social contract.

That is socialism... a natural stage between capitalism and communism. Notice how it's all communal?

A nationalized healthcare system requires the rich to pay for the poor, does not allow anybody to opt out of it and do their own thing

The personal mandate was a Republican idea and is not in the current version of the bill.

, penalizes those who don't want to participate,

and takes away freedom from people, and dictates what healthcare the people will receive.

That is socialism.

Less Limbaugh, more facts. That's what you need.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Fox...

the very poor can't pay the taxes to support the police. Yet even the homeless and unemployed benefit from it.

Thus, the rich (and middle class) pay for the poor.


Per your definition, that's the evil socialist conspiracy.


Now, stop listening to the Birchers and try thinking for a change.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The Federation of Egalitarian Communities | A new way of living is not only possible, it is happening now!

It is mandatory with consequences built in for violating whatever system is set up.

Right.. like not paying taxes, under your system, meaning your denied police protection (since you opted out) and you're declared free game for rape and murder.

People who voluntarily form a medical group and share costs are not engaged in socialism

Um.. yes, they are. Just because you want to redefine socialism so you can enjoy its bounty without calling yourself a socialist doesn't change the reality.

. They are engaged in social contract even when the process is regulated by certain government laws.

All socioeconomic systems are social contract- including socialism.

As soon as the government mandates the process and controls who is and is not to be included, however, you no longer have social contract. You have socialism.

Recognition of the State and its authority falls under social contract.


You seem to have heard the term 'social contract' and decided to coopt it without learning what it is.

 

[logical4u]

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.


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?

Are any of the countries you mentioned "purely socialist"?

Socialism is the ultimate ponzi scheme: all the people take from those that have it, until it is gone, then all the people in control, force the ones not in control into servitude (they have robbed all the wealth or destroyed it).