Salon.com: "America is Ready for Socialism!" (Didn't we fight against Socialism in WW II?)

[Socialist]

Because it simply works better than Capitalism.

Yes, socialism works so well that in most of Europe you will have a hard time finding toilets that work in public areas. Anyone who has never travelled extensively in Europe will think that socialism is the greatest thing in the world till you try and find a toilet while on a drive.

Is it easier in the more Capitalist, third world?

What capitalist third world? If you are a citizen living in the third world your government is either a socialist shithole, a religious theocracy, or a dictatorship.

What the fuck? The third world is ruthlessly and mercilessly exploited by capitalists.

You mean when the capitalists pay them a days wages they are being "exploited?"

They are paid WAYYY less then the value they produce, capitalists mercilessly exploit the environment/the resources available (The congo and mining, for example.)

 

[Socialist]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

No. we fought against RW fascism.

Wrong. You fought to help communism take over the world.

I wish it took over the world.

Yeah, we know. You're a fucking traitor to this country.

I'm happy to be a traitor.

 

[Socialist]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

No. we fought against RW fascism.

And then we fought against left wing socialism. Which is basically the same. After all you progressives always forget that Hitler and Stalin joined together to partition Poland. Yes, Germany and the Soviet Union were allies once upon a time. You always manage to forget that little fact.

Basically the same? What the hell are you talking about?

Fascism equals corporate controlled socialism. The individual exists for the benefit of the corporate controlled State.

Socialism equals the government controls the means of production, thus it takes on the roll of the corporation. And once again the individual exists for the benefit of the State.

Once the individual becomes a burden to the State they are eliminated. Sometimes nicely with assisted suicide, sometimes they are just left to die as happens in the UK on a increasingly regular basis.

Jesus christ, you actually think the UK is socialist? I'm sending this to reddit, shitamericanssay, as I've linked earlier, this post is a gold mine for europeans to laugh at americans.

 

[Mac1958]

Jesus christ, you actually think the UK is socialist? I'm sending this to reddit, shitamericanssay, as I've linked earlier, this post is a gold mine for europeans to laugh at americans.

What country, current or former, comes closest to what you'd like to see here?

.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, socialism works so well that in most of Europe you will have a hard time finding toilets that work in public areas. Anyone who has never travelled extensively in Europe will think that socialism is the greatest thing in the world till you try and find a toilet while on a drive.

Is it easier in the more Capitalist, third world?

What capitalist third world? If you are a citizen living in the third world your government is either a socialist shithole, a religious theocracy, or a dictatorship.

What the fuck? The third world is ruthlessly and mercilessly exploited by capitalists.

Yes, it is. And the SOCIALIST masters make the money and fuck over the people. I've spent a good portion of my working life in Africa and have seen it up close and personal. Let me know when you are able to get out of the library to go see what is really happening OK sweetcheeks?

Socialist masters? Socialists have been brutally shut down in Africa.

Socialists run most African countries.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, they pretty much were. The treatment prisoners received virtually ensured their deaths.

Yeah, which explains why the majority didn't die in the gulags and got out, oh, you do realize the gulags imprisoned less people then the united states prison system throughout their existence?

ROFL! During the great terror the Soviet rail system was overloaded with prisoners headed for the Gulags. American prisoners spend most of their day watching television of lifting weights. Prisoners in the Gulags were sent outside when the temperature was -50 F to work 14 hours a day digging gold or cutting wood.

That wasn't the point of the post, the point was that the gulags had a high rate of getting out, imprisoned mainly actual criminals, and when comparing through percentages, the gulags held less of a percent of the population.

ROFL! They "imprisoned mainly actual criminals?" You're joking, right? Have you ever ready the Gulag archipelago?

Yeah, a book written before the archives were ever opened... seems reliable. /sarcasm

They guy lived in the Gulag for a major portion of his life, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, which explains why the majority didn't die in the gulags and got out, oh, you do realize the gulags imprisoned less people then the united states prison system throughout their existence?

ROFL! During the great terror the Soviet rail system was overloaded with prisoners headed for the Gulags. American prisoners spend most of their day watching television of lifting weights. Prisoners in the Gulags were sent outside when the temperature was -50 F to work 14 hours a day digging gold or cutting wood.

That wasn't the point of the post, the point was that the gulags had a high rate of getting out, imprisoned mainly actual criminals, and when comparing through percentages, the gulags held less of a percent of the population.

ROFL! They "imprisoned mainly actual criminals?" You're joking, right? Have you ever ready the Gulag archipelago?

Clearly not. This asshat is no doubt a follower of Zinn.

Oh, I do like Zinn.

We are so shocked!

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe we should ask harder working illegals their opinion since the Right is too lazy to be less clueless and less Causeless.

You clearly have never been to a socialist wonderland. Take a look and see how long it would take you to buy a house in Italy for example. We have several friends there. ONE friend has been able to buy her own home. One. All other members of her family still live with their parents. You truly have no clue.

What socialist wonderland? Considering socialism refers to collective/democratic ownership of the means of production. Italy is socialist? What the fuck are you smoking?

Isn't it amusing that you can't name a single country on this earth that has ever been socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't personally advocate for this, although It does depend on the present conditions.

Of course you do, because that is all there is.

New York's Central Park is owned by "the people," just as you seek for all assets to be owned. So what happens when a homeless man tries to build a structure? Well, the cops come and tear it down. Why? Because the STATE owns the park - any notion of joint ownership by the people at large is bullshit to appease the stupid - no such condition exists or will ever exist.

When you call for "democratic socialism" you are advocating for ownership of all assets by the state - even if you fail to grasp that this is what you advocate.

You're referring to marxist-leninists and all extensions of that line of thought, more so, the idea of a vanguard party.

No, I am referring to reality. The ONLY way the people can own anything is through private property rights - you advocate for all to be owned by our rulers and allocated through feudal lords to the well connected.

I don't seek for all assets to be state owned, however, one would have to have a basic understanding of leninism in order to contribute to any meaningful discussion, the conditions present at the time of the russian revolution are different from the conditions today. When a homeless man tries to build a structure? Honey, new york city "central park" as being owned by the people is a pathetic example to pull up, idiotic, truly. Again, I refer to the hilarious idea that just because someone claims to represent something, it doesn't mean thats what it is. No, I'm really not, and I'm pretty sure I'd rather have mining/healthcare run by a state representing the peoples interest (If the US is actually a democracy of any kind) then run by profit seeking capitalists... The only way people can own anything is through private property rights? When communists refer to abolishing private property, we refer to farms/factories.. A toothbrush is still someones property, as is a house, then again, people who aren't willing to have a decent discussion and continually spew bullshit wouldn't understand this. Feudal lords? Yeah, you're thinking of an-caps..

Can you provide an example of farms or factories owned by "the people" and not the state?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Bullshit on the "new soviet man." It was an idea to strive for, but they didn't actively kill other races, idiot.

You can't lie your way out of this. Creating the perfect man was an obsession of Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev. Kruschev went as far as to build idyllic scientific cities for the elite Ubermensch that the Communists were trying to create.

Closed city - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

China is not communist,

Of course not - Muhammad Atta wasn't Muslim and Jimmy Swaggart wasn't a Christian.

just because a party claims to be representing something doesn't mean it actually does, take north korea for example. They are not democratic, yet, it's in their name, therefore, it must be what democracy stands for. Truly idiotic line of thought, but it's what morons go off of. China is allowing capitalist interests to mercilessly exploit its people, and if anything, follows state capitalism.

Besides, if one lacks integrity, then when the actions of one of your own impugn the cause, just lie and claim "they aren't really real Communists..."

It's childish and stale.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't seek for all assets to be state owned,

Yes you do - euphemisms don't alter reality. Claiming Central Park is "owned by the people" doesn't alter the reality that it is owned by the state.

however, one would have to have a basic understanding of leninism in order to contribute to any meaningful discussion,

ROFL

I've already demonstrated vastly more knowledge and understanding of Marxism than you have, But this isn't about Marx or Lenin, it is about the distinction between reality and slogans.

Communists always love to claim "this is owned by the people." Oh good, I'll go take my share - say, why did the man with the machine gun shoot me? Because the RULER is "the people" in 100% of cases.

All you advocate for is all resources to be owned by overlords who occasionally invoke the name "the people" to justify their rule.

the conditions present at the time of the russian revolution are different from the conditions today. When a homeless man tries to build a structure? Honey, new york city "central park" as being owned by the people is a pathetic example to pull up, idiotic, truly. Again, I refer to the hilarious idea that just because someone claims to represent something, it doesn't mean thats what it is. No, I'm really not, and I'm pretty sure I'd rather have mining/healthcare run by a state representing the peoples interest (If the US is actually a democracy of any kind) then run by profit seeking capitalists... The only way people can own anything is through private property rights? When communists refer to abolishing private property, we refer to farms/factories.. A toothbrush is still someones property, as is a house, then again, people who aren't willing to have a decent discussion and continually spew bullshit wouldn't understand this. Feudal lords? Yeah, you're thinking of an-caps..

There has never been a farm or factory owned by "the people." There is no "the people;" it is merely the cry of the most foul scumbags to justify their tyranny.

 

[Bombur]

I don't seek for all assets to be state owned,

Yes you do - euphemisms don't alter reality. Claiming Central Park is "owned by the people" doesn't alter the reality that it is owned by the state.

however, one would have to have a basic understanding of leninism in order to contribute to any meaningful discussion,

ROFL

I've already demonstrated vastly more knowledge and understanding of Marxism than you have, But this isn't about Marx or Lenin, it is about the distinction between reality and slogans.

Communists always love to claim "this is owned by the people." Oh good, I'll go take my share - say, why did the man with the machine gun shoot me? Because the RULER is "the people" in 100% of cases.

All you advocate for is all resources to be owned by overlords who occasionally invoke the name "the people" to justify their rule.

the conditions present at the time of the russian revolution are different from the conditions today. When a homeless man tries to build a structure? Honey, new york city "central park" as being owned by the people is a pathetic example to pull up, idiotic, truly. Again, I refer to the hilarious idea that just because someone claims to represent something, it doesn't mean thats what it is. No, I'm really not, and I'm pretty sure I'd rather have mining/healthcare run by a state representing the peoples interest (If the US is actually a democracy of any kind) then run by profit seeking capitalists... The only way people can own anything is through private property rights? When communists refer to abolishing private property, we refer to farms/factories.. A toothbrush is still someones property, as is a house, then again, people who aren't willing to have a decent discussion and continually spew bullshit wouldn't understand this. Feudal lords? Yeah, you're thinking of an-caps..

There has never been a farm or factory owned by "the people." There is no "the people;" it is merely the cry of the most foul scumbags to justify their tyranny.

Saying something is owned collectively means individuals can't do whatever they want with it without concern of the ownership rights of the others.

If your concern is that the rulers in socialism do whatever they want without concern of the will of the people then the problem is that the people in charge are dictators. This is a rather obvious problem with many attempts to enact socialism.

Socialists mostly worried about the means of production being owned privately due to the idea that they would continue to gain in value to the point that their ownership meant more in the economy and in politics so that their individual power would overwhelm the power of the individual. A problem that is growing in the US today as the labor markets lost power economically and politically.

Socialism and dictators mostly came to power when large numbers of individuals felt so powerless that they had no other choice but to put power in the hands of dictators. Socialism was often used as propaganda to sell people on the idea of giving power to the dictator. Which is the exact opposite reason as to why socialism was formulated as an option.

Modern applications of socialist ideas tend to mix those ideas with capitalism and do far more to ensure that the process is more democratic.

China is far more authoritarian which has worked for them because they have undergone serious industrialization and have relied heavily on trade manipulation to achieve economic growth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Saying something is owned collectively means individuals can't do whatever they want with it without concern of the ownership rights of the others.

Owning something imbues certain rights and privileges. When one buys shares of a corporation, then the rights to profits, the right to accounting, and the right to representation all accrue.

When tyrants claim to act on behalf of "the people," the first thing to notice is that none of the rights and privileges of actual owners are present. Why? Because slogans are not reality. Collective ownership is a fraud perpetrated by authoritarians on the stupid to entice compliance.

Even the dumbest democrat is likely to balk at armed men dragging a family out of their home in the dead of night when they declare "we take this property for Emperor Obama." BUT the same dem-bulbs will cheer armed men dragging a family out of their home in the dead of night when they declare "we take this property for the people who are the collective owners - facilitated by Emperor Obama." The difference in realty? None, but the stupid are convinced that the theft benefits them - though it really hurts them.

Such is the nature of Socialism, the manipulation of the stupid by the greedy. Socialism is in reality nothing but repackaged feudalism - the ownership of all by the supreme ruler who cedes small bits of power to agents who lord over and enslaved populace.

If your concern is that the rulers in socialism do whatever they want without concern of the will of the people then the problem is that the people in charge are dictators. This is a rather obvious problem with many attempts to enact socialism.

It is inevitable. There is no other possible outcome. Concentrating all wealth and power into the hands of a single man or group will incite resistance - the holders of power will use violence to retain control.

Socialists mostly worried about the means of production being owned privately due to the idea that they would continue to gain in value to the point that their ownership meant more in the economy and in politics so that their individual power would overwhelm the power of the individual. A problem that is growing in the US today as the labor markets lost power economically and politically.

Socialism and dictators mostly came to power when large numbers of individuals felt so powerless that they had no other choice but to put power in the hands of dictators. Socialism was often used as propaganda to sell people on the idea of giving power to the dictator. Which is the exact opposite reason as to why socialism was formulated as an option.

Modern applications of socialist ideas tend to mix those ideas with capitalism and do far more to ensure that the process is more democratic.

China is far more authoritarian which has worked for them because they have undergone serious industrialization and have relied heavily on trade manipulation to achieve economic growth.

China is a good study of the reality of socialism verses the claims. The years under Mao were regressive, with the majority sliding into a dark age. After his death, and with the reality of the success of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea, small scale "enterprise zones" were created, allowing ownership of property by the people. The surrender of Hong Kong by Britain created a massive enterprise zone, and provided a thriving economic engine for China. Far from supporting the ideas of Socialism, this utterly repudiates them. China became an economic power ONLY because they took over a capitalist region already developed by the British. Extending the enterprise zone to Shanghai and then across the Western part of the country is why China became what it is.

 

[westwall]

What is amusing is this claim that "the people own it" is shown false by actions Obama took when he was having his hissy fit over the budget impasse. He CLOSED the various veterans memorials and even went so far as to spend hundreds of thousand s of dollars to close memorials that were normally open 24/7.

That's how much the "People own it" means. When an asshole can close things down on a whim thus depriving you of the ability to enjoy it...... you don't own it.

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe we should ask harder working illegals their opinion since the Right is too lazy to be less clueless and less Causeless.

You clearly have never been to a socialist wonderland. Take a look and see how long it would take you to buy a house in Italy for example. We have several friends there. ONE friend has been able to buy her own home. One. All other members of her family still live with their parents. You truly have no clue.

What socialist wonderland? Considering socialism refers to collective/democratic ownership of the means of production. Italy is socialist? What the fuck are you smoking?

Isn't it amusing that you can't name a single country on this earth that has ever been socialist.

What do you mean by socialist. Socialism is not one thing and one thing Only.

I find it more amusing that the capitalist right alleges to believe in unfettered or less fettered Capitalism; and, we had it in 1929.

 

[Bombur]

Saying something is owned collectively means individuals can't do whatever they want with it without concern of the ownership rights of the others.

Owning something imbues certain rights and privileges. When one buys shares of a corporation, then the rights to profits, the right to accounting, and the right to representation all accrue.

When tyrants claim to act on behalf of "the people," the first thing to notice is that none of the rights and privileges of actual owners are present. Why? Because slogans are not reality. Collective ownership is a fraud perpetrated by authoritarians on the stupid to entice compliance.

Even the dumbest democrat is likely to balk at armed men dragging a family out of their home in the dead of night when they declare "we take this property for Emperor Obama." BUT the same dem-bulbs will cheer armed men dragging a family out of their home in the dead of night when they declare "we take this property for the people who are the collective owners - facilitated by Emperor Obama." The difference in realty? None, but the stupid are convinced that the theft benefits them - though it really hurts them.

Such is the nature of Socialism, the manipulation of the stupid by the greedy. Socialism is in reality nothing but repackaged feudalism - the ownership of all by the supreme ruler who cedes small bits of power to agents who lord over and enslaved populace.

If your concern is that the rulers in socialism do whatever they want without concern of the will of the people then the problem is that the people in charge are dictators. This is a rather obvious problem with many attempts to enact socialism.

It is inevitable. There is no other possible outcome. Concentrating all wealth and power into the hands of a single man or group will incite resistance - the holders of power will use violence to retain control.

Socialists mostly worried about the means of production being owned privately due to the idea that they would continue to gain in value to the point that their ownership meant more in the economy and in politics so that their individual power would overwhelm the power of the individual. A problem that is growing in the US today as the labor markets lost power economically and politically.

Socialism and dictators mostly came to power when large numbers of individuals felt so powerless that they had no other choice but to put power in the hands of dictators. Socialism was often used as propaganda to sell people on the idea of giving power to the dictator. Which is the exact opposite reason as to why socialism was formulated as an option.

Modern applications of socialist ideas tend to mix those ideas with capitalism and do far more to ensure that the process is more democratic.

China is far more authoritarian which has worked for them because they have undergone serious industrialization and have relied heavily on trade manipulation to achieve economic growth.

China is a good study of the reality of socialism verses the claims. The years under Mao were regressive, with the majority sliding into a dark age. After his death, and with the reality of the success of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea, small scale "enterprise zones" were created, allowing ownership of property by the people. The surrender of Hong Kong by Britain created a massive enterprise zone, and provided a thriving economic engine for China. Far from supporting the ideas of Socialism, this utterly repudiates them. China became an economic power ONLY because they took over a capitalist region already developed by the British. Extending the enterprise zone to Shanghai and then across the Western part of the country is why China became what it is.

Collective ownership works in some cases and not so well in others. We can all agree tyrants are bad but it helps to be able to get past that fact and look at the rest of reality when discussing the topic of collective ownership. In none of them is it ok for a homeless person to build a shack in a park. That is not tyranny but an example of establishing the rights of all the owners. Equating things that are not tyranny to tyranny is not intellectually honest and I don't really feel all that compelled to continually point out similar false equivalencies in your arguments.

Your sophomoric ramblings about people being taken from their homes doesn't do you any favors. Whatever point you think you had is buried in the absurdity of how you tried to communicate it. Try again maybe.

Your attempt to compare socialism to feudalism is an interesting one. Feudalism was based on the power of lands owners who used this to establish power over everyone else. No job, no food, no chance. We no longer live in an age where land is so important but many socialists felt that it was only a matter of time before land was replaced by capital. The worship some people have for "job creators" is comparable to that of how peasants used to look up to their lords. The major difference today is that capital owners don't feel the same loyalty to the people as capital owners do today. Socialism is meant to put that power in the hands of democratic government, which has its own problems of course. In the end though it is an important lesson that we don't want too much power in the hands of those who own the means of production.

Early socialism in China was just a dictatorship. Once again socialism proved difficult to implement.

Both Hong Kong and now China have benefited from mercantile economic policies that provide economic stability for producers and investors. One of the keys for any investment has always been reducing the risk associated with the investment and China has been able to do that in large part due to government intervention in their economy. Hong Kong was once a symbol of the old mercantile practices of the Europeans became an example for the rest of China to follow.

China is not a good example of the ideals of socialists but it does show how authoritarianism and planned economies can work when mixed with investors who have a strong demand for cheap labor and a stable economic climate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
What do you mean by socialist. Socialism is not one thing and one thing Only.

I find it more amusing that the capitalist right alleges to believe in unfettered or less fettered Capitalism; and, we had it in 1929.

Socialism: Ownership or control of the means of production by the state.

Words have meanings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Collective ownership works in some cases and not so well in others.

Can you point to a case where it actually works well? Or even exists?

I remember having this argument 30 years ago and the proud Bolshevik declaring "such and so kibbutz in Israel is the example of harmonious collective ownership." 6 months later the father of one of the members sold the place..

There never was collective ownership - it was all a fraud. These were just a group living on another person's private land. When land value increased, they were evicted.

We can all agree tyrants are bad but it helps to be able to get past that fact and look at the rest of reality when discussing the topic of collective ownership. In none of them is it ok for a homeless person to build a shack in a park. That is not tyranny but an example of establishing the rights of all the owners. Equating things that are not tyranny to tyranny is not intellectually honest and I don't really feel all that compelled to continually point out similar false equivalencies in your arguments.

Without ownership rights, there is no ownership. With real property, the test of ownership is the ability to erect a structure. This is a basic legal principle.

Your sophomoric ramblings about people being taken from their homes doesn't do you any favors. Whatever point you think you had is buried in the absurdity of how you tried to communicate it. Try again maybe.

LOL

I think you got the point just fine, as did others.

Your attempt to compare socialism to feudalism is an interesting one. Feudalism was based on the power of lands owners who used this to establish power over everyone else. No job, no food, no chance. We no longer live in an age where land is so important but many socialists felt that it was only a matter of time before land was replaced by capital. The worship some people have for "job creators" is comparable to that of how peasants used to look up to their lords. The major difference today is that capital owners don't feel the same loyalty to the people as capital owners do today. Socialism is meant to put that power in the hands of democratic government, which has its own problems of course. In the end though it is an important lesson that we don't want too much power in the hands of those who own the means of production.

Not entirely correct. Under Feudalism, all property is owned by the Crown (the state.) The Barons and Earls are agents of the crown, stewards of the assets of the crown such as lands and the people living on those lands. All things were property of the state (the crown.) So it is under socialism - all things, including people, are the property of the state to be disposed of as the rulers see fit.

Early socialism in China was just a dictatorship. Once again socialism proved difficult to implement.

Both Hong Kong and now China have benefited from mercantile economic policies that provide economic stability for producers and investors. One of the keys for any investment has always been reducing the risk associated with the investment and China has been able to do that in large part due to government intervention in their economy. Hong Kong was once a symbol of the old mercantile practices of the Europeans became an example for the rest of China to follow.

China is not a good example of the ideals of socialists but it does show how authoritarianism and planned economies can work when mixed with investors who have a strong demand for cheap labor and a stable economic climate.

As we saw last week, China has done little to reduce the risk of investment. But the adoption of market oriented reforms that allow people to own property is the motive power of the economic engine that has allowed China to grow,

 

[Bombur]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.