Do You View Socialism Positively?

[Mathbud1]

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

"From each according to ability, to each according to needs."

King Need shall rule us all, and Ability shall be his slave. Need shall be rewarded with more bounty, and Ability shall be punished with more work. How long, do you think, before Ability realizes this and gives up, becoming Need instead? If ever a system provided an incentive not to work, Socialism is that system.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

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.

BS.

No, the B.S. is the right wing mantra of 'less government'. Conservatives have NEVER given us 'less government'. Those are merely 'code words' for hands off the opulent so they can run roughshod over the working class who get to pee in a cup. And we witnessed the way you right wingers marched in lock step when "The Decider" was in the White House. Your beloved F.A. Hayek had you right wing authoritarians pegged years ago...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom


Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

 

[Bfgrn]

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

"From each according to ability, to each according to needs."

King Need shall rule us all, and Ability shall be his slave. Need shall be rewarded with more bounty, and Ability shall be punished with more work. How long, do you think, before Ability realizes this and gives up, becoming Need instead? If ever a system provided an incentive not to work, Socialism is that system.

The main problem is to confuse socialism with the communism of the Soviet Union.

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. ref

 

[Mathbud1]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

communism, the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism

communism ideology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

socialism -- Encyclopedia Britannica

The problem does not stem from what Marx called Communism or Socialism, but rather from what Communism and Socialism actually are. Calling Communism by the name Capitalism would not fool anyone who actually looks at what the two are.

 

[regent]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

 

[Iceweasel]

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

No, our big problem is government ballooning in size and scope to try to solve all of our problems. As it grows we shrink. You want to live as a shrunken servant of the state, we get that. I don't. The "needs" of the people are growing as they become increasingly dependent on the state for survival. I see no evidence that the trend is good for the country or the people. Change isn't always good.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

I don't agree that's what socialism is. Those parks are funded by the private sector, capitalism, not state ownership. The state doesn't create any wealth, it doesn't fund jack shit, that's the people's money. The people fund the state, that's capitalism.

Your ignorance as to the definition of socialism doesn't alter the definition.

National Parks, police, fire depts, etc are all socialist by definition.

All are paid for by those who pay fed taxes which is roughly the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

100% of all taxpayers pay FICA taxes which is funding government spending.

Woo, Disingenuous much?
FICA taxes are Social Security and Medicare, both gov't mandated INSURANCE policies.
The money that pays for our roads, parks, military, gov't operations, etc., etc., etc., is confiscated from the top 50% of earners and corporations. The bottom 50% and all non-earners get a free ride.

 

[SAYIT]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

But they continue to try to sell it and they are willing to cherry-pick facts and post outright BS as this thread seems to be proving.

 

[SAYIT]

Suppose, when Marx had looked about for a name to give to his program to transition capitalism to communism he had selected "scientific capitalism" instead of scientific socialism? Would all this furor that socialism leads to communism have existed; I wonder if we would have spent the last 100 years or so dreading capitalism? Marx gave us another good one and we were even afraid to read and learn how stupid the whole communistic set up or we would be afraid of being labeled a communist. I remember taking a college course on comparative economic practices and I kept one textbook covered so the title with Marx could not be seen. Students were not above accusing one of being a communist if they carried a textbook about Marx and communism to class.
After the 1917 revolution the USSR dropped the scientific-socialist thing pretty quick, and then dropped the whole communist program, it didn't work-except to frighten. Can anyone name a country that made Marxian communism work?

It isn't the name, it's the system people live under. Call it whatever you want, I want to minimize what the state takes from me to redistribute to others and pet projects. We were not formed as a socialist country, capitalism made us number one and moving away from it is lowering quality of life and freedom for most of us. Putting a happy face on socialism to sell to the masses isn't going to improve our economy.

As a democracy continually makes adjustments to meet the needs of the people so our economic system makes changes to meet the needs of the people. We cannot keep either our government or our economic systems as they were in 1787. By making changes America has kept both its political system and economic system alive and well, Had we tried to keep them the same as in 1787 we might have lost both.
One of our big economic problems is keeping capitalism capitalistic.

A task certainly faced by prior generations in the face of those who would have us establish another "workers paradise."

 

[Penelope]

And

For people with little ambition socialism is a great deal. Give up most of your freedom and autonomy for three hots and a cot. People are more afraid of failure than they are desirous of success.
The Obama administration and Dems play on that. They tell people, oh you can't do that. You cant become rich. Those people who did become rich, it was a fluke, like winning the lottery. You're not that lucky. The deck is stacked against you. The rich wont allow you to become like them. Side with us and we'll at least guarantee you a minimum level of comfort. It's your only choice.

And that is why Democrats get the majority of Jewish votes in the US?
The American dream is not rosy anymore, it has turned into who you are and who you know and who you brown nose.

 

[Mathbud1]

"From each according to ability, to each according to needs."

King Need shall rule us all, and Ability shall be his slave. Need shall be rewarded with more bounty, and Ability shall be punished with more work. How long, do you think, before Ability realizes this and gives up, becoming Need instead? If ever a system provided an incentive not to work, Socialism is that system.

The main problem is to confuse socialism with the communism of the Soviet Union.

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. ref

Did I say something that would lead you to believe that I "confuse socialism with the communism of the Soviet Union?"

 

[boedicca]

And

For people with little ambition socialism is a great deal. Give up most of your freedom and autonomy for three hots and a cot. People are more afraid of failure than they are desirous of success.
The Obama administration and Dems play on that. They tell people, oh you can't do that. You cant become rich. Those people who did become rich, it was a fluke, like winning the lottery. You're not that lucky. The deck is stacked against you. The rich wont allow you to become like them. Side with us and we'll at least guarantee you a minimum level of comfort. It's your only choice.

And that is why Democrats get the majority of Jewish votes in the US?

Really? You're making this about The Joos?

You lose at the interwebs today.

 

[Penelope]

Hey if you want to talk about who is in office, look at the most powerful lobby in Washington , ok.

 

[boedicca]

Hey if you want to talk about who is in office, look at the most powerful lobby in Washington , ok.

Government Employee Unions?

 

[Penelope]

AIPAC

 

[boedicca]

AIPAC

Nonsense. Here are the top 20 all time campaign donors from opensecrets.

The top 1 is the Dem PAC ActBlue. 12 of the 20 are unions - supporting the Dems. And then we have the banksters who support both parties.

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

 

[Penelope]

Yes well the most powerful is Aipac. You do not become President unless you vow to Israel.

 

[boedicca]

Yes well the most powerful is Aipac. You do not become President unless you vow to Israel.

Good bye. There is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. There are a few antisemites on the board. I'm sure you'll bond with them soon.

 

[Penelope]

Yes well the most powerful is Aipac. You do not become President unless you vow to Israel.

Good bye. There is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. There are a few antisemites on the board. I'm sure you'll bond with them soon.

Yes well my response was to the rabbi who seems to think its the lazy people who don't want to work which vote for Dems. Not true. Jews are very liberal and vote Dem.

For people with little ambition socialism is a great deal. Give up most of your freedom and autonomy for three hots and a cot. People are more afraid of failure than they are desirous of success.
The Obama administration and

Dems play on that

 

[Mathbud1]

Yes well my response was to the rabbi who seems to think its the lazy people who don't want to work which vote for Dems. Not true. Jews are very liberal and vote Dem.

For people with little ambition socialism is a great deal. Give up most of your freedom and autonomy for three hots and a cot. People are more afraid of failure than they are desirous of success.
The Obama administration and Dems play on that

Do all jews vote Democrat?

Are there no lazy Jews?

Are there no people who vote Democrat who are not Jewish?

Did Rabbi indicate that there were no non-lazy people who vote Democrat?

Given the fairly obvious answers to the above questions, what exactly do you think you have proven or disproven?