61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[logical4u]

Maybe they should have given examples of socialism in order to clarify what it means...

Like,
-do you want to keep social security retirement as a program or eliminate it?
-Do you think unemployment insurance is a good measure for those losing their jobs?
-do you want to keep Medicare for the seniors or do you want to let them all try to fend for themselves when it comes to their own health?
-Do you want your government to keep up the roads and highways in your area?
-Do you want to eliminate school lunches for the poorest children among us?

Then maybe these idiots would have their answer to what socialism means to them...

guaranteed, there would be A LOT MORE republicans saying yes to 'socialism'.

Perhaps we should also point out that the government takes over private sectors like banking and lending.
Take over of the auto industry
Take over healthcare.
Take over Insurance industry.
Regulate wages.
Take over manufacturing.
I'm sure I can come up with a lot more, but this will do for now.

I wonder if the democrats and the republicans would really be saying yes to socialism?

Socialism is a transition stage.

It's a path to communism, as humanity and its cultures evolve.

Communism opposes a strong central government.

People... this is elementary Marxian stuff here...

Funny, communism requires a "strong central government" to exist.

 

[logical4u]

The fact remains that America's poor have gotten better off as America has reached a socialist stage of development.

Again I refer you to the writings of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et al who have done the hard work of actually studying that phenomenon. And, if you are honest, you will gain a different perspective very quickly. While most of America's poor would be deemed rich in most places, they poor remain with us, and many are far more dependent, less employable, and living in far worse circumstances than the poor of previous generations. Socialism continues to fail to accomplish its rose colored glasses promises everywhere it is tried.

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?

Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.

Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.

 

[logical4u]

The right wing dogma...FEAR and WORDS...

WORD: socialism..elicits an image (scary) tied to the right wing personality driver...FEAR.

The response is severe, immediate and involuntary, akin to the reaction of Pavlov's dogs to the ring of a bell ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

Communists defending Stalin were driven by Cognitive Dissonance. "The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance." They didn't want to hear any criticism, and would go out of their way to deny facts. The abrupt betrayal of ideals by Lenin and Marx left many socialists clinging to the Soviet Union even though they knew Stalin was a disaster. They called themselves Communist even though they espoused none of Stalin's viewpoints and very few of Lenin's revisionism. In Russia, Lenin remains a Hero of the Revolution. Despite having screwed things up in the first place, Stalin is revered by Communists for toppling the Third Reich.

Conservatives defending George W. Bush are in the same situation as Communists defending Stalin. Stalin was never a "socialist" and Bush was never a "compassionate conservative", but the conservatives just don't want to hear any criticism and will go out of their way to deny facts. The current construction of the conservative movement in the US descends through the anti-Communists during and after WWII, the George Wallace "America First" blue-collar workers, the racists that Wallace picked up that switched parties during Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the nascent libertarian movement championed by Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan's acceptance speech for Goldwater during the 1964 Republican National Convention laid out the insistence of a balanced budget: "There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States." And yet, like Lenin revising Marx, when Reagan was governor of California he didn't practice fiscal restraint. And when he was elected president in 1980 he did the exact opposite of his campaign promise and triple the deficit and there has been "no fiscal and economic stability" since his flip-flop. Fiscal restraint was never implemented.

Abrupt betrayal of ideals of Reagan when he got into power left many conservatives clinging to the Republican party even though they espoused none of Reagan's new policies. Despite screwing things up in the first place, Reagan remains a Hero of the Revolution and is revered by conservatives for toppling the Soviet Union.

Reagan isn't Lenin and Bush isn't Stalin, but the parallels are notable. George W. Bush, like Stalin, inherits a failed revolution that relies on a cult-like worship of his predecessors and a complete denial of the facts.

Let me repeat Wikipedia's quote. "Stalinism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what George W. Bush and the Republicans are working so hard for.

Most of the Republicans/conservatives/dittoheads I know are basically good people, but they're gullible fools who have spent more than 20 years burying themselves in lies needed to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by Reagan's betrayal. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire", but as we've seen it wasn't much of an empire and most of the people in it aren't particularly evil. Khrushchev repudiated Stalin after he died in 1953, but wasn't strong enough to change the system or the cult worship that kept the dictatorship alive. Republicans need to repudiate Reagan, but there is no one out there who has the guts to tell the truth. The GOP is reduced to whining, flag-waving and outright lying. The shame of being a conservative has never been greater.

Despite Nader's protestation, John Kerry and the Democrats do represent a return to American values. It took the Soviet Union 40 years to rot from within before democracy took hold. Let us not wait 40 years before the Republican-controlled US rots from within. The choice is clear. To complete the circle, let me quote the last line of Reagan's 1964 speech, which has greater meaning when talking about the need to vote Democrat in 2004: "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."

Socialism vs. Communism

Socialism/Communism are great IDEAS. Just like "world peace" they will never work, the reason: human traits. If humans are allowed to be themselves (without influence from G*d or total domination from other humans), they will act to increase their own power and wealth.

This is an example of intellectualism meeting reality. In theory it should work this way...in reality, there is a lot more to it. Socialism is an invention of intellectuals that prefer to "ponzi scheme" people out of their hard earned riches (taxes), rather than produce any wealth on their own. They get people to "buy" by promising free...., and delivering less than promised. Then they blame the failure on small groups of people, to take what those small groups of people have. This works until there are no more small groups, at which point they have gained control over all the people's rights, which at that point they use to opress the people, while they become the TYRANTS.

 

[MIPS]

I doubt 10% of Americans could define socialism as something other than "just like communism! Commie Bastards!"

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh#t out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy...
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A WELSH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

You forgot Republicans.
They have one cow (they cheated at cards to get) and 50 gallons of milk more than they could drink. A hungry baby cries. The Republicans says, "Beat it. That's not MY kid. I just wanted it born" then they shoot the mother for getting to close to the cow. Finally, they hoard the milk until it rots. They end up happy because they have ALL the milk.

Leave it to the hyper-partisan drones to take a perfectly good piece of humor and butcher it.

 

[Meister]

She was wrong. It was a stupid smart remark of the sort that conservatives enjoy. European socialism is working. In fact, the EU has a trade surplus with the U.S., so apparently their brand of socialism enables them to make more of what we want than we make of what they want.

Your talking about socialism as a nation, and she was talking about socialism as to the citizen. As I stated, look at the fucking taxes that has been laid on them.....the rich are shrinking in those countries. I know you don't want to talk about it, and spin if you want. Like I said....stay on topic, and she wasn't wrong.

She introduced Thatcher's idiotic statement into the mix not me.

What? I'm not talking about PC, I'm talking about Thatcher, and proving to you that your assumption about Thatcher IS wrong. She is spot on.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again I refer you to the writings of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et al who have done the hard work of actually studying that phenomenon. And, if you are honest, you will gain a different perspective very quickly. While most of America's poor would be deemed rich in most places, they poor remain with us, and many are far more dependent, less employable, and living in far worse circumstances than the poor of previous generations. Socialism continues to fail to accomplish its rose colored glasses promises everywhere it is tried.

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?

Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.

Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.

Good observation. Wherever there are BOTH respect for human rights AND capitalism in a free market system, the people are invariably better off than in any other system. To compare any poor African nation (or most other poor nations) with any nation that provides most of that formula is tunnel vision to the extreme.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Perhaps we should also point out that the government takes over private sectors like banking and lending.
Take over of the auto industry
Take over healthcare.
Take over Insurance industry.
Regulate wages.
Take over manufacturing.
I'm sure I can come up with a lot more, but this will do for now.

I wonder if the democrats and the republicans would really be saying yes to socialism?

Socialism is a transition stage.

It's a path to communism, as humanity and its cultures evolve.

Communism opposes a strong central government.

People... this is elementary Marxian stuff here...

Funny, communism requires a "strong central government" to exist.

Fail. Communism is minarchist in its nature.


But you've never seen communism, have you? You don't know what it is, do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your talking about socialism as a nation, and she was talking about socialism as to the citizen. As I stated, look at the fucking taxes that has been laid on them.....the rich are shrinking in those countries. I know you don't want to talk about it, and spin if you want. Like I said....stay on topic, and she wasn't wrong.

She introduced Thatcher's idiotic statement into the mix not me.

What? I'm not talking about PC, I'm talking about Thatcher, and proving to you that your assumption about Thatcher IS wrong. She is spot on.

Except for the part that you offered ZERO evidence that Thatcher is right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again I refer you to the writings of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et al who have done the hard work of actually studying that phenomenon. And, if you are honest, you will gain a different perspective very quickly. While most of America's poor would be deemed rich in most places, they poor remain with us, and many are far more dependent, less employable, and living in far worse circumstances than the poor of previous generations. Socialism continues to fail to accomplish its rose colored glasses promises everywhere it is tried.

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?

Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.

Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.

Capitalism without ethics is unregulated capitalism. Government imposes ethics on capitalism because capitalism in and of itself is amoral.

 

[Polk]

Maybe they should have given examples of socialism in order to clarify what it means...

Like,
-do you want to keep social security retirement as a program or eliminate it?
-Do you think unemployment insurance is a good measure for those losing their jobs?
-do you want to keep Medicare for the seniors or do you want to let them all try to fend for themselves when it comes to their own health?
-Do you want your government to keep up the roads and highways in your area?
-Do you want to eliminate school lunches for the poorest children among us?

Then maybe these idiots would have their answer to what socialism means to them...

guaranteed, there would be A LOT MORE republicans saying yes to 'socialism'.

Perhaps we should also point out that the government takes over private sectors like banking and lending.
Take over of the auto industry
Take over healthcare.
Take over Insurance industry.
Regulate wages.
Take over manufacturing.
I'm sure I can come up with a lot more, but this will do for now.

I wonder if the democrats and the republicans would really be saying yes to socialism?

When did the government take over any of those sectors? O wait, it didn't.

 

[Yukon]

Let's see now. The US government owns GM, Chrysler, AIG, and hundreds of "private" banks and insurance companies. But according to the average American the US is not, repeat NOT, as socialist country. Those same "average" Americans believe Canada is socialist because we have medicare.

I think it;s about time you people demanded your education system be privatized because you have not been taught the difference between socilism and capitalism. How comical you people are and sad..........

 

[sboyle24]

Hey Yukon, how bout the dowhill ski race yesterday? Kicked outta first real quick Canada was!

 

[Yukon]

Hey Yukon, how bout the dowhill ski race yesterday? Kicked outta first real quick Canada was!

It wasn't "Dowhill ski race" you uneducated hillbilly it's "D O W N H I L L" . Also, it wasn't even a downhill race it was 'moguls', and I really don't give a f**k who wins what other than hockey.

 

[sboyle24]

Hey Yukon, how bout the dowhill ski race yesterday? Kicked outta first real quick Canada was!

It wasn't "Dowhill ski race" you uneducated hillbilly it's "D O W N H I L L" . Also, it wasn't even a downhill race it was 'moguls', and I really don't give a f**k who wins what other than hockey.

I'm sorry a typo has convinced you have my education status. I'm actually a college student, so you would be very incorrect. If I was an uneducated hillbilly I'd be at a tea party rally right now.

Canada will probably take gold in mens and womens hockey. I heard the women won like 18-0 or something like that yesterday...

 

[Foxfyre]

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?

Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.

Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.

Capitalism without ethics is unregulated capitalism. Government imposes ethics on capitalism because capitalism in and of itself is amoral.

No. Only unconstitutional government (by U.S. standards) would presume to impose ethics. Good government imposes regulation to ensure our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The purpose of government is to secure those rights so that everybody does not make up their own rules and do violence to each other. Regulated capitalism is no longer capitalism but is rather a form of socialism. In a free society, ethics are determined by the people themselves.

 

[Meister]

Maybe they should have given examples of socialism in order to clarify what it means...

Like,
-do you want to keep social security retirement as a program or eliminate it?
-Do you think unemployment insurance is a good measure for those losing their jobs?
-do you want to keep Medicare for the seniors or do you want to let them all try to fend for themselves when it comes to their own health?
-Do you want your government to keep up the roads and highways in your area?
-Do you want to eliminate school lunches for the poorest children among us?

Then maybe these idiots would have their answer to what socialism means to them...

guaranteed, there would be A LOT MORE republicans saying yes to 'socialism'.

Perhaps we should also point out that the government takes over private sectors like banking and lending.
Take over of the auto industry
Take over healthcare.
Take over Insurance industry.
Regulate wages.
Take over manufacturing.
I'm sure I can come up with a lot more, but this will do for now.

I wonder if the democrats and the republicans would really be saying yes to socialism?

When did the government take over any of those sectors? O wait, it didn't.

If you were anywhere close to being intelligent you would have known that we were talking about a socialist government.....not our government. sheesh

 

[Meister]

She introduced Thatcher's idiotic statement into the mix not me.

What? I'm not talking about PC, I'm talking about Thatcher, and proving to you that your assumption about Thatcher IS wrong. She is spot on.

Except for the part that you offered ZERO evidence that Thatcher is right.

Like I tried so hard is for you to do a little of the homework like I did, and talk about the taxes, remember when I mentioned tax brackets, VAT, gas taxes? Your going to have to do a little of the work yourself, because you won't believe the source I would use.
Thatcher lived with it, and she knows what she's talking about. You with all "your expertise" on the matter is mute.

 

[KissMy]

It should not be a shock to people that 61% of Liberals favor Socialism. Have you ever been to a Obamacare Rally? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkoWIH8_wA"]0[/ame]
Have you ever been to a Democratic National Convention? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsOsp086Hn4&feature=related"]1[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXAhNPl0YI&feature=related"]2[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZiUhSsBmOY&feature=related"]3[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16p-jmUYQg&feature=related"]4[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcnQLZ1YTk&feature=related"]5[/ame]

 

[Wicked Jester]

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?

Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.

Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.

Capitalism without ethics is unregulated capitalism. Government imposes ethics on capitalism because capitalism in and of itself is amoral.

THAT!....is the most idiotic thing ever posted on this, or any other board!

Congrats for winning the dumbest poster in worldwide web history award!

What a fuck wad!

 

[KissMy]

More Libtards in action. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQAQAWjA7U"]1[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKJIGnfd2jY&feature=related"]2[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ius6X9NeKc&feature=related"]3[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ0EKOshsOo&feature=related"]4[/ame]