Do You View Socialism Positively?

[francoHFW]

Link? lol

 

[jasonnfree]

A great book is "The Good Old Days- They Were Terrible!"- every GOPer should read it. The suffering of the nonrich from nonregulation was horrible in the 1800's, mainly.. Poisonous and fatal work conditions, food, housing, pollution, horrible.

Work related accidents declined at a faster rate before the creation of OSHA than afterwards. In other words, government regulation didn't do jack shit to improve conditions for workers.

I just don't believe this. I have turned in employers that had unsafe working conditions in their plants. This was high pressure steam and hot water issues. OSHA would come out and give the employers a certain amount of time to fix the problem, depending on the severity of the infraction.

 

[francoHFW]

Well, he said improvements are coming more slowly, as you would expect after a century and more of improvements. Ipso facto etc...

 

[Indofred]

Sounds about right, sadly.

.

What's sad?
Socialism is pure stupidity.
Socialist governments want to give everything away to people who just piss their money up the wall.

 

[francoHFW]

????????????????? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Name one such socialist government.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Hotchkiss, Hobart, U of R. You?

A friend of mine went to Hobart too. What year did you graduate?

 

[francoHFW]

Hotchkiss, Hobart, U of R. You?

A friend of mine went to Hobart too. What year did you graduate?

'73

 

[Rikurzhen]

My great grandfather, born around 1870's could tell you about unsafe working conditions, slave wages, predatory capitalism, not the b.s. we're told.

And immigrants in 1870 accounted for 14.4% of total population, far higher than what we experience at present. It's no surprise that such a surplus of labor drove down wages and made capitalist predators.

Are you going to learn a lesson here? The best of times for the American working class was in the 1950-70s when foreign born citizens were down to 4.7%.

Revolutionary idea huh, reduce labor competition and wages go up, flood the labor market and wages go down. Meanwhile idiot Democrats want to flood the labor market because votes for socialism are more important than improving the lot of average citizens via increased income.

If you follow the Party of Stupid, then you get no sympathy from me.

 

[francoHFW]

The 50's also when unions were strongest, the USA had no competition, the greatest generation was in charge and CEOs made 23 times as much as workers, not 350x like today, the highest tax rate was 90%, corps paid 35% of taxes-not 10% like today. You have kind of a one track mind...

 

[francoHFW]

Dems want a good SS/ID card, the only solution for illegals, and to raise the min wage. You are duped.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Dems want a good SS/ID card, the only solution for illegals, and to raise the min wage. You are duped.

The only solution for illegal infiltrators is to deport them. This helps raise the wages for Americans and close the income inequality gap.

 

[bripat9643]

Dems want a good SS/ID card, the only solution for illegals, and to raise the min wage. You are duped.

How would that help when Obama doesn't enforce the laws that are already on the books?

 

[Mac1958]

.

So if my tally is correct, so far Franco and MikeK admit they're socialists.

This isn't an attack, or name-calling. That's their stance, and frankly I appreciate their honesty.

I'll bet more lefties here would like to admit it too, and perhaps they will on this thread, ya never know.

It really is okay to be honest.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, I view Socialism as the gateway drug to Communism.

It is to be avoided as much as possible.

Actually Americans don't have a clue what the relationship between socialism and communism is and isn't.

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 perversity. 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. ref

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, I view Socialism as the gateway drug to Communism.

It is to be avoided as much as possible.

Actually Americans don't have a clue what the relationship between socialism and communism is and isn't.

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 perversity. 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. ref

How powerful are those anti-psychotics that you're taking? Seriously, you go and find a fringe website and then vomit that site's delusions up on this board and because you've referenced a conspiracy site you believe that this gives you cover for telling people, the world actually, that everyone has gotten their definition of socialism wrong?

Communism is conservative, men shall now be known as women, dogs shall be known as cats, liberals shall be thought to be intelligent, water shall be defined as dry, solids shall now be known as liquids, etc

 

[Mac1958]

This notion, that in socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works", made my head spin a little, even more than it usually is.

Huh?

Can someone walk me through this one?

.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This notion, that in socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works", made my head spin a little, even more than it usually is.

Huh?

.

What you're seeing is called motivated reasoning. It dominates leftist thinking. First you dream up a conclusion, then you weave together a story which kind of supports your conclusion. Reason and evidence are simply tools used by oppressors so they're discarded. If the argument sounds fancy enough then the leftist gets an emotional rush from having his bias confirmed and thinks he has a winning argument, for why not, the very definition of a liberal is someone who is never wrong, so whatever he writes must be true and correct.

We can't penetrate through that bubble and save them. It's kind of sad, really. Think of those old anti-drug commercials with the frying egg and the announcer declaring "this is your brain on drugs." Same thing here, this is your brain after liberalism has taken control of it.

 

[Mac1958]

This notion, that in socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works", made my head spin a little, even more than it usually is.

Huh?

.

What you're seeing is called motivated reasoning. It dominates leftist thinking. First you dream up a conclusion, then you weave together a story which kind of supports your conclusion. Reason and evidence are simply tools used by oppressors so they're discarded. If the argument sounds fancy enough then the leftist gets an emotional rush from having his bias confirmed and thinks he has a winning argument, for why not, the very definition of a liberal is someone who is never wrong, so whatever he writes must be true and correct.

We can't penetrate through that bubble and save them. It's kind of sad, really. Think of those old anti-drug commercials with the frying egg and the announcer declaring "this is your brain on drugs." Same thing here, this is your brain after liberalism has taken control of it.

One of the many things that fascinates me about partisan politics is when a person says something that is just so incongruent with what I perceive as obvious reality (redundancy there) that it literally stops me in my tracks and makes me question that reality for just a moment. Then I blink my eyes and get back on track.

This was one of those times.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Quite a few posts in either clear or implied defense of socialism on this thread already.

Come on, folks, just come right out and say it.

What, do you think your head is going to explode if you do?

.

Bump!

.

 

[Bfgrn]

This notion, that in socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works", made my head spin a little, even more than it usually is.

Huh?

Can someone walk me through this one?

.

Do you know what socialism is?