Do You View Socialism Positively?

[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?

.

Do you know what socialism is?

Make your point.

Walk me through it.

No games.

.

 

[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

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

Communism is absolutely conservative. When have conservatives EVER believed in democracy? The goal of conservatism is the creation and worship of a hierarchy.

 

[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?

Make your point.

Walk me through it.

No games.

.

The paragraph I posted does a good job of explaining socialism.

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Here is an expanded view...

What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

- See more at: What is Socialism World Socialist Movement

 

[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?

.

Do you know what socialism is?

Make your point.

Walk me through it.

No games.

.

The paragraph I posted does a good job of explaining socialism.

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Here is an expanded view...

What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

- See more at: What is Socialism World Socialist Movement

That's a lovely cut & paste and all, but you didn't answer my question.

In your own words, please walk me through what you posted:

In socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works"

If you're not going to do this, or if you can't, just say so, and I won't burn any more time on this.

.

 

[Ibentoken]

Hotchkiss, Hobart, U of R. You?

Whoever paid for it should demand a refund.

 

[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?

Make your point.

Walk me through it.

No games.

.

The paragraph I posted does a good job of explaining socialism.

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Here is an expanded view...

What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

- See more at: What is Socialism World Socialist Movement

That's a lovely cut & paste and all, but you didn't answer my question.

In your own words, please walk me through what you posted:

In socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works"

If you're not going to do this, or if you can't, just say so, and I won't burn any more time on this.

.

What is so hard to understand? Socialism means EVERYONE has an equal say in how goods and services are distributed.

 

[Ibentoken]

Are you the Propaganda Minister of Denmark? People who get paid to go to school have no incentive to learn, just to show up.

I've noticed those who have adopted a generally negative disposition toward socialist programs have been indoctrinated with distorted impressions. In the above example the advanced educational program in Denmark does not pay people to go to school. Rather, a free college education is available to those who qualify.

The benefit to the supportive society is a well educated population.

I'm a free man under no government's yoke. Some people feel secure just being one of the masses. I prefer being an eagle rather than a sheep.

 

[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?

.

Do you know what socialism is?

Make your point.

Walk me through it.

No games.

.

The paragraph I posted does a good job of explaining socialism.

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Here is an expanded view...

What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

- See more at: What is Socialism World Socialist Movement

That's a lovely cut & paste and all, but you didn't answer my question.

In your own words, please walk me through what you posted:

In socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works"

If you're not going to do this, or if you can't, just say so, and I won't burn any more time on this.

.

What is so hard to understand? Socialism means EVERYONE has an equal say in how goods and services are distributed.

Come on.

In socialism, HOW does everyone have an equal say in how goods and services are distributed? Precisely?

And your affection for socialism is clear. Fair enough to say you would join Franco and MikeK and proclaiming you're a socialist?

Two very clear questions, easy to answer.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you believe that socialism is a form of government........you need to further your education.

 

[SAYIT]

I don't see how we're turning Euro-social. Any examples?

I will, but remember, it's not about where we are today, it's about the direction we're going as a society. There are many smaller signs:

• A health care system with much more central bureaucratic control, with single payer still a possibility
• A growing anti-capitalist, higher regulation and central control, populist environment
• An increasingly hostile environment towards the highest income strata
  
• More and more expectations of federal government solutions
• Ongoing decrease in size of the military
• Increasing restrictions on freedom of expression via intimidation, in the name of a "more civilized society"

Off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with more.

I'm not saying that I disagree with everything on the list. I'm just saying there is a growing movement in our culture that is clearly pushing in this direction and any opposing forces are not doing a very good job in stopping it.

.

" A growing anti-capitalist, higher regulation and central control, populist environment."

Is that necessarily bad? We need regulations, who's to say how much is too much. I think we don't have enough sometimes. BP and others polluted the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago, several people killed. No one went to jail. BP is still getting drilling permits. So much for central control. I think this means not enough regulations.

Another half-baked leftist idea.
In real life, something precious few libs are willing or prepared to deal with, shit happens and the BP spill was one of them.
Should we kill BP?
It must be recognized that regulations are laws passed by those who pretty much nobody trusts ... gov't.
Do we really want more laws from them?
Do we really want more control from them?
Really?

 

[SAYIT]

Damn straight- Every time the Pubs get in, they do away with regulations or look the other way at corruption- see W Booosh- their cronies run wild in a corrupt bubble, and taxpayers get to hold a giant bag o' shytte- AGAIN.

There's nothing wrong with socialism- NOT COMMUNISM, hater dupes- but a giant pile of Pub fear mongering BULLSHYTTE.

So why would a dyed-in-the-wool socialist want to live in America? This is hardly a "worker's paradise" and the chances of it becoming one in the near and perhaps even long term is decidedly slim. So why live here? Could it be the opportunities available in a society like this as opposed to a socialist one?

 

[Mac1958]

Damn straight- Every time the Pubs get in, they do away with regulations or look the other way at corruption- see W Booosh- their cronies run wild in a corrupt bubble, and taxpayers get to hold a giant bag o' shytte- AGAIN.

There's nothing wrong with socialism- NOT COMMUNISM, hater dupes- but a giant pile of Pub fear mongering BULLSHYTTE.

So why would a dyed-in-the-wool socialist want to live in America? This is hardly a "worker's paradise" and the chances of it becoming one in the near and perhaps even long term is decidedly slim. So why live here? Could it be the opportunities available in a society like this as opposed to a socialist one?

They want to "change", "fundamentally transform" and "remake" America.

And they see the opportunity to do so.

No surprise that they're gonna give it a shot.

.

 

[SAYIT]

Are you the Propaganda Minister of Denmark? People who get paid to go to school have no incentive to learn, just to show up.

Yup, and blacks are lazy and dishonest, right, hater dupe? Actually turns out everyone wants a good job and a good life. And yes, they have great treatment for addicts, instead of the largest percentage of people in prison and unable to get work, like here. Great job, a-hole Pubs and hater dupe fool...

Woo ... there is something seriously wrong with you. Turrets Syndrome?
Perhaps you should consider moving to and seeking treatment in one of those "worker's paradises" you so admire. Perhaps simply getting away from America will cure whatever is wrong with you.

 

[SAYIT]

Of course there are good things about socialism. It's worked in so many western democracies

I don't want their kind of success. I don't want to work for the state directly or indirectly by paying sky high tax rates, utilities, gasoline, etc.

"Workers" in the once proud (but since departed) Soviet Union had a clever description of their socialism:
"We pretend to work and the gov't pretends to pay us."
Basically a whole lotta pretending goin' on.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know what socialism is?

Make your point.

Walk me through it.

No games.

.

The paragraph I posted does a good job of explaining socialism.

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services."

Here is an expanded view...

What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

- See more at: What is Socialism World Socialist Movement

That's a lovely cut & paste and all, but you didn't answer my question.

In your own words, please walk me through what you posted:

In socialism, "more people have some say in how the economy works"

If you're not going to do this, or if you can't, just say so, and I won't burn any more time on this.

.

What is so hard to understand? Socialism means EVERYONE has an equal say in how goods and services are distributed.

Come on.

In socialism, HOW does everyone have an equal say in how goods and services are distributed? Precisely?

And your affection for socialism is clear. Fair enough to say you would join Franco and MikeK and proclaiming you're a socialist?

Two very clear questions, easy to answer.

.

In pure socialism, there is no private ownership. Pure socialism calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

I am not a socialist. I am a liberal and a capitalist. What I strongly believe in is democracy; everyone has a say in how their government works. I believe in free and open elections. I believe our founding fathers understood that a pure democracy was not the best model. That is why the form of democracy they chose was a representative republic. Beliefs I have that could be called 'socialist' has to do with our environment. They are beliefs that go all the way back to the Magna Carta...the rule of the commons; the air we breath, the water we drink, the soil we seed. The 'commons' are owned by all of us.



The most insightful and in depth understanding of a true free market comes from one of my favorite liberals, an environmental lawyer who is a member of my favorite liberal family.

I urge you to read the whole speech.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"I want to say this: There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley to my state of New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can't go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they've stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children's brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, causes hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that in a true free-market economy should be reflected in the price of that company's product when it makes it to the marketplace.

What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

At Riverkeeper, we don't even consider ourselves environmentalists anymore. We're free marketers. We go out into the marketplace, we catch the cheaters, the polluters, and we say to them, "We're going to force you to internalize your costs the same way that you internalize your profits, because as long as somebody is cheating the free market, none of us get the advantages of the efficiency and the democracy and the prosperity that the free market otherwise promises our country. What we have to understand as a nation is that there is a huge difference between free-market capitalism, which democratizes a country, which makes us more prosperous and efficient, and the kind of corporate-crony capitalism which has been embraced by this (Bush) White House, which is as antithetical to democracy, to prosperity, and efficiency in America as it is in Nigeria.

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

In order to do that, we need an informed public and an activist public. And we need a vigorous and an independent press that is willing to speak truth to power. And we no longer have that in the United States of America. And that's something that puts all the values we care about in jeopardy, because you cannot have a clean environment if you do not have a functioning democracy. They are intertwined; they go together. There is a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny and the level of environmental destruction.

The only way you can protect the environment is through a true, locally based democracy. You can protect it for a short term under a tyranny, where there is some kind of beneficent dictator but, over the long term, the only way we can protect the environment is by ensuring our democracy. That has got to be the number-one issue for all of us: to try to restore American democracy, because without that we lose all of the other things that we value."

 

[SAYIT]

Damn straight- Every time the Pubs get in, they do away with regulations or look the other way at corruption- see W Booosh- their cronies run wild in a corrupt bubble, and taxpayers get to hold a giant bag o' shytte- AGAIN.

There's nothing wrong with socialism- NOT COMMUNISM, hater dupes- but a giant pile of Pub fear mongering BULLSHYTTE.

So why would a dyed-in-the-wool socialist want to live in America? This is hardly a "worker's paradise" and the chances of it becoming one in the near and perhaps even long term is decidedly slim. So why live here? Could it be the opportunities available in a society like this as opposed to a socialist one?

They want to "change", "fundamentally transform" and "remake" America.
And they see the opportunity to do so.
No surprise that they're gonna give it a shot.

I suspect given a full and open vetting as to how it would change our society, many Americans who now believe socialism is a better system would have their eyes opened to the truth and many of that 36% would back away from it. As usual, the devil would be in the details.

 

[SAYIT]

In pure socialism, there is no private ownership. Pure socialism calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

I am not a socialist. I am a liberal and a capitalist. What I strongly believe in is democracy; everyone has a say in how their government works. I believe in free and open elections. I believe our founding fathers understood that a pure democracy was not the best model. That is why the form of democracy they chose was a representative republic. Beliefs I have that could be called 'socialist' has to do with our environment. They are beliefs that go all the way back to the Magna Carta...the rule of the commons; the air we breath, the water we drink, the soil we seed. The 'commons' are owned by all of us."...

"The soil we seed?" In America that has generally been privately owned or leased from those who do by those who seed it.

 

[Old Rocks]

The poll question: "Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of socialism?"

Dems/left leaning - 53% pos ... 41% neg
Repubs/right leaning - 17% pos ... 79% neg
All Americans - 36% pos ... 68% neg

Strangely, Americans are almost unanimously positive about small biz (95%) and very positive about free enterprise (86%) and entrepreneurs (84%), all of which are contrary to socialism.

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36 of Americans

Socialism is an economic tool. National Parks are socialistic. As are police departments, fire departments, and the military. All are supported and ran by the government. Our Interstate System is a creation of socialism.

Capitalism is an economic tool. It has allowed men like Elon Musk to create whole new industries and products. It has created, in those nations that manage it well, a level of living for the average citizen unseen in the history of our world.

But tools can be used in the wrong manner, clumsily, and even destructively. Those stating that socialism or capitalism are evil are blaming the tool for it's use. And demonstrating their inability to grasp basic reality.

 

[SAYIT]

Mega rich Pubs who lead the GOP are a-holes. Their ignorant followers, hater dupes, are, politically, brainwashed FUNCTIONAL jackasses, fools, idiots, and, sorry a-holes, when they look down on blacks, hispanics, the French, feminists, women, gays, Muslims, people on assistance, etc etc etc. They are misinformed.

While mega-rich libs who lead the Dems are not? Racism and bigotry are not part of either party's platform and are present in some INDIVIDUALS in both parties. While I agree that both are wrong-headed, I also believe sweeping generalizations such as those you promote are downright stupid and self-serving, Hater Dupe.

 

[Old Rocks]

In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.

Those were good for the economy and in no way are they anti-capitalist. Socialists like to pretend capitalism is synonymous with greed and corruption.

Conservatives like to pretend that socialism is synonymous with dictatorship and communism.

Most socialistic aspects of our economy are very good for capitalism. As defined by Adam Smith, not loons like Ayn Rand.