CDZ What Socialist Policies in the U.S. Have Ever Worked?

[Frankeneinstein]

The US military is as capitalist as you can get

lol...your teachers/re-educators would be so proud

 

[Rigby5]

On the contrary, the U.S. military is the best example of communism in the U.S. ...full blown communism .

first of all communism isn't "contrary" to socialism, it is akin to it, and communism is nothing more than full blown socialism, thanks for the validation.

No, the 3 economic forms are totally unique.
Capitalism precludes government investment in the means of production.
Communism precludes private ownership in the means of production.
Socialism is a mix as the people choose to do.

None of the 3 actually overlap at all, since the capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive, and socialism requires inclusion.
And by the way, you will notice no capitalist or communist countries exist now, or likely ever existed.
All countries likely are, were, and should be socialist.
Just varying degrees and with lots of hype and propaganda.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Our Keynesian monetary policy. But it only 'works' in the sense that it is designed to fail and to lead us into full-blown socialism after it does fail.

 

[Rigby5]

The US military is as capitalist as you can get

lol...your teachers/re-educators would be so proud

If the US military had not been somehow profiting from all these wars, I seriously doubt any of them would have happened.
They were not good for the US as a whole, and only profited a few.

 

[alang1216]

The military not only lobbies, but is part of the whole Military Industrial Complex, with its built in kickbacks, corruption, bribes, cushy retirement jobs, etc.
Congress is just a front to gather political contributions.

If Iraq had T-72 mainly, then they were only 30 years obsolete instead of 50.
Still not at all a threat.

It get incestuous at the highest levels. I guess you also have a problem with democracy?

FYI, the T-72 was only 9 years older than the M-1

 

[Frankeneinstein]

No, the 3 economic forms are totally unique.
Capitalism precludes government investment in the means of production.

wrong...it precludes permanent funding, government investing is the incentive for private sector production

Communism precludes private ownership in the means of production.

but still takes the money from private citizens

Socialism is a mix as the people choose to do.

and as long as the people continue to do the right thing at the ballot box they will make sure the other folks money finds them

None of the 3 actually overlap at all, since the capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive, and socialism requires inclusion.

forced inclusion, where as in capitalism it is optional

And by the way, you will notice no capitalist or communist countries exist now, or likely ever existed.

is there anymore proof of the failure of socialized education

All countries likely are, were, and should be socialist.

so all the wars and prejudice and hatred and suffering in the world and throughout history come from socialist countires then?

Just varying degrees and with lots of hype and propaganda.

so it is no stretch of credulity to once again state that socialist education befuddles and confuses small minds by crediting Marx[the ultimate act of credulity in fact] with the concept of socialism...in fact your claim doesn't even entitle him to a footnote or asterisk in world history[/quote]

 

[Oddball]

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.

The U.S. military is the best example of socialism in the U.S. ...full blown socialism.

On the contrary, the U.S. military is the best example of communism in the U.S. ...full blown communism .

Not at all in my opinion.
Since we have not been attacked since 1812, if the US were socialist or communist when it comes to the military, we would have a military about 10% the size of what we have.
That is because for defense only, you don't need much, and you could rely mostly on a well armed and trained civilian force.
The current US military is entirely offensive, to project force onto distant foreign countries where there are profits to be made, like Iraqi oil.
The US military is as capitalist as you can get, like an organization of pirate mercenaries.
About the only historical countries more with more capitalist militaries were the British Empire and the Roman Empire.

The US military is as capitalist as you can get, like an organization of pirate mercenaries.
Crony corporatist (i.e. quasi-fascist), not laissez-faire capitalist.

 

[Rigby5]

The military not only lobbies, but is part of the whole Military Industrial Complex, with its built in kickbacks, corruption, bribes, cushy retirement jobs, etc.
Congress is just a front to gather political contributions.

If Iraq had T-72 mainly, then they were only 30 years obsolete instead of 50.
Still not at all a threat.

It get incestuous at the highest levels. I guess you also have a problem with democracy?

FYI, the T-72 was only 9 years older than the M-1

With a democratic republic, you would not even have a standing army.
The founders did not want or intend one.
What Switzerland does make more sense, with universal military training for a rapid defense response, but no aggressive capability to project power at distant locations.

The Abrams may also be old, but it was mostly air delivered Hellfire missiles the wiped out Iraqi tanks. And it is not fair to compare Soviet and US tanks by year, because Soviet tanks were obsolete by US standards when they were brand new.

 

[WelfareQueen]

No, the 3 economic forms are totally unique.
Capitalism precludes government investment in the means of production.

wrong...it precludes permanent funding, government investing is the incentive for private sector production

Communism precludes private ownership in the means of production.

but still takes the money from private citizens

Socialism is a mix as the people choose to do.

and as long as the people continue to do the right thing at the ballot box they will make sure the other folks money finds them

None of the 3 actually overlap at all, since the capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive, and socialism requires inclusion.

forced inclusion, where as in capitalism it is optional

And by the way, you will notice no capitalist or communist countries exist now, or likely ever existed.

is there anymore proof of the failure of socialized education

All countries likely are, were, and should be socialist.

so all the wars and prejudice and hatred and suffering in the world and throughout history come from socialist countires then?

Just varying degrees and with lots of hype and propaganda.

so it is no stretch of credulity to once again state that socialist education befuddles and confuses small minds by crediting Marx[the ultimate act of credulity in fact] with the concept of socialism...in fact your claim doesn't even entitle him to a footnote or asterisk in world history

[/QUOTE]


Great post. Thank you.

 

[Likkmee]

Lemme think on that one. The US draft for Vietnam ! A great success who left behind 58000 or so dead, millions fucked and a fantastic country to visit and do business in today. ! Thanks ! GREAT job ,as usual. MAGA ! Lets get it on with China and Iran... Flags ready ?

 

[toobfreak]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Well to be fair, in the case of Social Security, the main problem is that the government keeps stealing from it rather than investing the money wisely.

 

[toobfreak]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I have news for you, air polution costs we the people a great deal. For 200,000 people a year, it costs them their life.

Perfectly clean air, ala, no industry, work, cars, trucks, planes or jobs would cost us MILLIONS of people per year in famine.

 

[toobfreak]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

The US Postal Service is socialism?

Yep. News flash for ya Ace, it went belly up years ago only kept artificially alive through subsidizing artificially low shipping rates to offset their loses to stay competitive along with other infusions from the government.

 

[Rigby5]

No, the 3 economic forms are totally unique.
Capitalism precludes government investment in the means of production.

wrong...it precludes permanent funding, government investing is the incentive for private sector production

Communism precludes private ownership in the means of production.

but still takes the money from private citizens

Socialism is a mix as the people choose to do.

and as long as the people continue to do the right thing at the ballot box they will make sure the other folks money finds them

None of the 3 actually overlap at all, since the capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive, and socialism requires inclusion.

forced inclusion, where as in capitalism it is optional

And by the way, you will notice no capitalist or communist countries exist now, or likely ever existed.

is there anymore proof of the failure of socialized education

All countries likely are, were, and should be socialist.

so all the wars and prejudice and hatred and suffering in the world and throughout history come from socialist countires then?

Just varying degrees and with lots of hype and propaganda.

so it is no stretch of credulity to once again state that socialist education befuddles and confuses small minds by crediting Marx[the ultimate act of credulity in fact] with the concept of socialism...in fact your claim doesn't even entitle him to a footnote or asterisk in world history

[/QUOTE]

You said: {...wrong...it (capitalism), precludes permanent funding, government investing is the incentive for private sector production ...}
That is wrong, because with capitalism it would still have to be illegal for even temporary funding that benefited one company over another.
If you have ANY government funding or research, then you have socialism or communism.

To my statement: (,,,

Communism precludes private ownership in the means of production.

...}
You replied: {...
but still takes the money from private citizens
...}

And while true, is misleading because the cost to private citizens is smallest without the profit margins of capitalism, and only with capitalism to you get no say as to how your money is charged, spent, or invested. Capitalism takes the most and gives you the least, while preventing you from having any say at all. Unless you happen to be one of those wealthy elite with a monopoly on capital.

I wrote: {...

None of the 3 actually overlap at all, since the capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive, and socialism requires inclusion.

And you responded: {...
forced inclusion, where as in capitalism it is optional
...}

That is totally false.
It is only with socialism that there is an option as to whether or not public or private funds can own means of production.
With capitalism, public ownership of the means of production is illegal.
For example, that is why we sell oil under public lands for pennies on the dollar, instead of having public drilling and refining.
It is not allowed by law.

All "the wars and prejudice and hatred and suffering in the world and throughout history" does NOT "come from socialist countires".
These problems come from capitalists who try to subvert socialist countries, through the greed, fear, or ignorance of the population.

And yes, Marx has little or nothing to do with socialism or Stalinism.
First of all, he was writing around 1830, and was concerned with the way the industrial revolution was destroying cottage industries, thus creating evil monopolies.
But he quickly became irrelevant once we invented trade unions.
Second is that he was not a centralist at all, and predicted the "state would wither away".
Socialism and communism both HAVE to be as local as possible, since otherwise nothing is collective or communal.

 

[Rigby5]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I have news for you, air polution costs we the people a great deal. For 200,000 people a year, it costs them their life.

Perfectly clean air, ala, no industry, work, cars, trucks, planes or jobs would cost us MILLIONS of people per year in famine.

Should be up to us as voters to decide, not just the wealthy elite stockholders.
I personally do not believe the whole New Green Deal is practical, but some parts may be.

 

[Rigby5]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

The US Postal Service is socialism?

Yep. News flash for ya Ace, it went belly up years ago only kept artificially alive through subsidizing artificially low shipping rates to offset their loses to stay competitive along with other infusions from the government.

Would you want to run the US post office for profit, and cut service to a forth of the population of the country, because they are not profitable?
I don't think so.
The US post office should subsidize distant rural users because they are essential to our survival and our democratic process.

The post office was always intended to be a loss leader.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

If you have ANY government funding or research, then you have socialism or communism.

No, socialism is annual funding, capitalism is funding as needed, this explains why so many of you think you like socialism, you think capitalism is socialism.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

All "the wars and prejudice and hatred and suffering in the world and throughout history" does NOT "come from socialist countires".
These problems come from capitalists who try to subvert socialist countries, through the greed, fear, or ignorance of the population.

lol...how can this be true if there was and is no and never has been capitalism? in almost every post you make you directly contradict something you previously said, which is really your best proof that you are a socialist, go back and check your last post to me, you said it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And yes, Marx has little or nothing to do with socialism or Stalinism.

who mentioned stalin beside you? stalin came after Marx the only reason to pretend he had anything to do with this conversation is to try and make others forget that notorious characters like stalin are the inevitable result of fruitless ideas like socialism.

First of all, he was writing around 1830, and was concerned with the way the industrial revolution was destroying cottage industries, thus creating evil monopolies.
But he quickly became irrelevant once we invented trade unions.

and now it is the trade unions turn

Second is that he was not a centralist at all, and predicted the "state would wither away".

I assume you mean centralized government and if so only a Pol Pot style communist would say that about marx

Socialism and communism both HAVE to be as local as possible, since otherwise nothing is collective or communal.

And yet you claim they are different entities when you are not claiming that only socialism has ever existed

 

[Crepitus]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I have news for you, air polution costs we the people a great deal. For 200,000 people a year, it costs them their life.

Perfectly clean air, ala, no industry, work, cars, trucks, planes or jobs would cost us MILLIONS of people per year in famine.

Why does it have to be black or white? Can't we have better air and still have our industry?