Are you for or against socialism for the USA?

Are you for or against socialism for the USA?

  • I am for socialism for the USA.

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • I am against socialism for the USA.

    Votes: 28 84.8%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33
We already have socialism in a blend with capitalism in our economic model. It's here in a form..by default.
Probably better you ask the question, are you for or against increasing or expanding programs that people would consider socialistic in nature. And what would those changes be.
Or creating programs like public option or a high risk pool for healthcare?

I don't hear anyone left or right proposing that the government or the state own and control the means of production.

There is a blend or mix of Socialism in our economic model; this is true. At the moment, there is a greater emphasis on Capitalism which, in my mind, works. The problem is that there exists a push from an element that would like for US to be more Socialist like European and South American models. Universal income + closing the income gap destroy incentive and economic opportunity. These are the themes immigrants flee from countries that have no opportunity for prosperity and are failed and flawed socialist models.
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?

just like conseratives i want a socialist police and fire department

i also want a tax funded education system so all children learn the same basics as citizens

like conservatives i have no problem with socialist roads

like conservatives i want a strong socialist funded military

i never realized just what socialists right wingers are

Where do you think all that money comes from, that pays for the roads and schools? People who have jobs, brought to us by, wait for it......

capitalism.
Government created money.

Capitalism created and funded government.
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?
Government is socialism. We need Pareto Optimal socialism.
What?

So now we see what is being spoon fed to these devils now.

It isn't socialism, its....."pareto optimal socialism."

Pa·re·to-op·ti·mal

adjective
ECONOMICS
  1. relating to or denoting a distribution of wealth such that any redistribution or other change beneficial to one individual is detrimental to one or more others.

Our current policies are not Pareto Optimal since we have growing inequality.
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?
Since people here have different definitions of the word social ism maybe you should define your terms.

Are you using the actual definition in the dictionary ?

so•cial•ism sō′shə-lĭz″əm

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.

Incorrect definition of socialism.
The difference may seem subtle, but it is not really.
Here is a more real definition.

{...
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
...}

The idea of regulation being to prevent monopolies, apply anti trust laws, protective unions, laws against child labor, laws against slavery, etc.
Anyone who is against socialism is for slavery, feudalism, fascism, etc.

The Oxford dictionary's definition you quoted is so full of holes, it might as well be Swiss cheese. What does it mean “community as a whole”?

Who specifically owns that corner pizzeria? Workers who work there? Customers? The entire neighborhood? The entire city? The entire country?

If I am a member of this “community as a whole” but I don't work there, I don't ever buy their pizza, or say for instance that I don't even like pizza, am still a part owner? How do I exercise my ownership? How can I possibly execute my ownership over every pizza, coffee shop and restaurant that are located in my city or even in the neighborhood?

To own by “community as a whole” isn't workable proposition. The only thing that can make it work is for a government to own everything, supposedly on behalf of that mysterious "community."

And that government by necessity will have to be dictatorial, otherwise everything will fall apart before the day is over.

The definition of socialism is that anyone can start their own corner pizzeria, but you have to follow community regulations for things like health, and pay your fair share of taxes for things like streets, fire departments, etc. Socialism also means the people can start a public pizzeria with lower prices if they want, but they do not have to, and normally would not unless there was a strong need for some reason.
Capitalism has some advantages in innovation since it has a smaller decision making process.

And yet under socialism, you would have absolutely no say in the running or operation of those businesses. You get what the socialist government deems those businesses are appropriate, depending on the availability of materials and labor.

Hope you like cold, soggy pizza with ersatz cheese and no toppings because well, everyone deserves the same. And if you don't like it, well tough shit. The pizzeria down the street is serving the exact same thing.
How did we achieve full employment and win WWII with all of the socialism involved? Nobody trusts capitalism when it really really matters.
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?

just like conseratives i want a socialist police and fire department

i also want a tax funded education system so all children learn the same basics as citizens

like conservatives i have no problem with socialist roads

like conservatives i want a strong socialist funded military

i never realized just what socialists right wingers are

Where do you think all that money comes from, that pays for the roads and schools? People who have jobs, brought to us by, wait for it......

capitalism.
Government created money.

Capitalism created and funded government.
Socialism in action equals Government regulated Capitalism not any form of anarcho-Capitalism.
 
I oppose most bumper sticker definitions of "ism's"

Isn't it really based on what your definition of socialism. I think the two parties want to define it two very different ways

For Democrats it's Social Security, Medicare and the safety net for the poor and unfortunate.

For Republicans it's a revolutionary, land and wealth redistribution scheme headed by an authoritarian regime who basically steals the peoples resources.
 
Fiscal conservatism is not a suicide pact, my friends

the role of government is to intervene when there is a crisis like corona

so i'm for socialism at this moment
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?
Government is socialism. We need Pareto Optimal socialism.
What?

So now we see what is being spoon fed to these devils now.

It isn't socialism, its....."pareto optimal socialism."

Pa·re·to-op·ti·mal

adjective
ECONOMICS
  1. relating to or denoting a distribution of wealth such that any redistribution or other change beneficial to one individual is detrimental to one or more others.
Our current policies are not Pareto Optimal since we have growing inequality.
Like in California? Do you have anything of substance or are you just full of tropes passed along by marxists and used by their useful idiots like you?

Meaning, the growing inequality due to socialist policies in California have created giant tent cities. Not made up of bums, but of middle class people who can no longer afford to live with mass regulations.

Property prices through the roof. The middle class cannot afford to even rent and so they are on the streets or flat out fleeing if they can.

Why don't address that? You think California is a conservative state? Go ahead and explain it to all of us.



We are all waiting.
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?

Is this a trick question? Tell me, who would you rather owned the means of all production here in America? Come on now, think hard. We're talking about a very serious choice between Mattel continuing to produce Barbie dolls or coerced to mass manufacture Kamala Harris transgender unicorn action figures; they're horned and castrated all in one rainbow deluxe figurine.

But seriously, if you are pro-socialist America you can look forward to enforced atheism or government controlled churches with political officers for clergy. Not a big deal for you? How about gun ownership? Surely the citizenry of a nation where the government owns the means of production cannot be permitted to keep and bear firearms. That'd be a real travesty—if anyone but cops and soldiers could pack government built guns. And what about hunting? If the means of production and guns all belong to the government then so must all the game animals? Can't have capitalist deer running around paying hunters to shoot at them. No, sir—that'd be too much like a free market.
 
As usual, Trumpbots try to propose simplistic binary possibilities.

We do not have to choose between absolute capitalism and absolute socialism. We can have both - they compliment each other more than conflict. And they completely leave out Liberalism - capitalism with regulation, government social programs and very limited socialism.

But likely we should no more socialism.
For example, why sell oil under shared federal land for pennies on the dollar, so that private oil companies can get rich sell the gasoline back to us?
Why not a state owned gasoline companies that can conserve and price fix.

State run economies tend to be a failure. Having one central command for each industry means that if a mistake or bad policy is made it applies to the whole industry, and that can be catastrophic. Capitalist competition means that poorly run companies go out of business - only the successful survive.

The Soviet Union was a perfect example of a non-competitive economy. In general, it was a poor economy. The only motivation it had for economic progress was the cold war competition.

Otherwise it would have stagnated since the 1920s.

BTW- Thomas Paine's theory justifying his universal minimum income was based on the idea that all resources were equally owned by everyone. Therefore any business that profited from those resources should pay all people for the use of those resources.

In fact when private companies pump oil from government land they pay taxes to the government. The only issue is whether they are paying enough taxes.
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?
Government is socialism. We need Pareto Optimal socialism.
What?

So now we see what is being spoon fed to these devils now.

It isn't socialism, its....."pareto optimal socialism."

Pa·re·to-op·ti·mal

adjective
ECONOMICS
  1. relating to or denoting a distribution of wealth such that any redistribution or other change beneficial to one individual is detrimental to one or more others.
Our current policies are not Pareto Optimal since we have growing inequality.
Like in California? Do you have anything of substance or are you just full of tropes passed along by marxists and used by their useful idiots like you?

Meaning, the growing inequality due to socialist policies in California have created giant tent cities. Not made up of bums, but of middle class people who can no longer afford to live with mass regulations.

Property prices through the roof. The middle class cannot afford to even rent and so they are on the streets or flat out fleeing if they can.

Why don't address that? You think California is a conservative state? Go ahead and explain it to all of us.



We are all waiting.

In right wing fantasy, you are always right. We used to have freer Capitalism and less Government under the failed Articles of Confederation. California has the largest economy in the US in spite of all the of the socialism added with our federal form of Government.

California has nicer weather which draws people from other States. Growing inequality is due to the capital policies not the social polices. Wages for Labor were basically stagnant even while the Richest were getting and are getting richer. In the past, when we had less Government and freer Capitalism as a result, they had laws against vagabonds and the Poor, unlike what we have now with greater socialism.
 
The real questions should be:

1. What industries should be socialized due to the nature of the industry? (i.e. the Legal industry and the banking industry)

2. What industries should be temporarily socialized as an emergency management action? (i.e. the Medical industry)

3. For the industries that are considered for socialization, should we first analyze why capitalism is failing in that industry and fix it if possible? (i.e. the medical industry)
 
Where do you stand...are you for or against socialism for the USA?
Since people here have different definitions of the word social ism maybe you should define your terms.

Are you using the actual definition in the dictionary ?

so•cial•ism sō′shə-lĭz″əm


  • n.
    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.

Thank you!
So many misinformed people.

No wonder "Socialism" is considered "ok" by so many, they have absolutely no idea what it is.
Before the post above it was hopeless.


That is not accurate.
Here is a better dictionary definition of socialism.
{...
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
...}
If you have child labor laws, anti trust laws, laws against fraudulent or harmful products, etc., then you have socialism.
 
I think a lot of the socialist programs we already have in the USA are pretty good.

I am more against a lot of the looney expansive, and new full blown socialist programs the DSA support and propose.

Like what?
The only programs I know of that DSA push that we do not already have is health care and college tuition, which I think the DSA is right about.

It's more than just that. Their policies are bad.. your first clue as to how bad should be that Bernie, and AOC support them..

*Edit* Yeah, I read "non citizens included" under their Medicare for all plan..and that's all I need to know about how bad their policies are.



Oh come on, there is not a modern country in the world that does public health care that also does not care about citizenship.

And I happen to like Bernie Sanders. He was one of the few who voted against the fraudulent invasion of Iraq.
 

Forum List

Back
Top