What would a socialist America look like?

[francoHFW]

OP-socialism is defined as ownership or regulation of industry and business by the the Community in the dictionary. In practice, ownership of business and industry is communism and is just about dead. Regulation is socialism. We should stop confusing the two. Socialism is always democratic nowadays.

If we could only join the rest of the successful developed world, the EU Canada Australia New Zealand Japan, we would have health care daycare living wage cheap college and training, good infrastructure and vacations. Under GOP dominance the last 35 years, give away to the rich tax rates and policies have wrecked the the middle class and our infrastructure and blocked all these benefits that citizenship should provide. Thanks scumbag BS propagandizing GOP and you silly dupes....

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions; Socialism requires "force".

Not just voluntary transactions.

But you ignored my questions, as usual.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

That solves simple poverty.

So you keep saying, as you ignore my questions.

But if you leave your job voluntarily and don't try to find work, how about, rather than unemployment compensation being a check, why not an apartment in Section 8 housing and a Food Stamp card?

 

[Tehon]

Will starts from a false premise, which naturally leads to faulty conclusions. State ownership of the means of production is not the starting point of the social revolution, nor does it much factor into the socialist equation at any time. And government can never be fully dispensed with. The state and government are not synonymous in socialist parlance. Will is using them here interchangeably.

Which is completely irrelevant to his point. But thank you for sharing.

It is completely relevant to his point. Will is not describing a socialist society at all. He is describing an American society that is at an advanced stage of capitalism. If you think Trump is working for the betterment of society and not the betterment of the specific property owners who helped get him elected and who own your government, you're delusional.

Heh, yeah. You missed the point entirely. He's showing that many of Trump's policies would be considered socialist if a Democrat were behind them. It doesn't matter whether their definitions align with yours. The point is that they are being conned.

Consider Marx's words from The German Ideology.

Speaking of cons ...

Sorry, I've spent too much time slogging through Marx as it is. Better things to think about.

I got the point fine. There is just no purpose to making that point.

I guess you are just trolling then.

 

[dblack]

OP-socialism is defined as ownership or regulation of industry and business by the the Community in the dictionary. In practice, ownership of business and industry is communism and is just about dead. Regulation is socialism. We should stop confusing the two. Socialism is always democratic nowadays.

If we could only join the rest of the successful developed world, the EU Canada Australia New Zealand Japan, we would have health care daycare living wage cheap college and training, good infrastructure and vacations. Under GOP dominance the last 35 years, give away to the rich tax rates and policies have wrecked the the middle class and our infrastructure and blocked all these benefits that citizenship should provide. Thanks scumbag BS propagandizing GOP and you silly dupes....

Another one ...

 

[francoHFW]

Will starts from a false premise, which naturally leads to faulty conclusions. State ownership of the means of production is not the starting point of the social revolution, nor does it much factor into the socialist equation at any time. And government can never be fully dispensed with. The state and government are not synonymous in socialist parlance. Will is using them here interchangeably.

Which is completely irrelevant to his point. But thank you for sharing.

It is completely relevant to his point. Will is not describing a socialist society at all. He is describing an American society that is at an advanced stage of capitalism. If you think Trump is working for the betterment of society and not the betterment of the specific property owners who helped get him elected and who own your government, you're delusional.

Heh, yeah. You missed the point entirely. He's showing that many of Trump's policies would be considered socialist if a Democrat were behind them. It doesn't matter whether their definitions align with yours. The point is that they are being conned.

Consider Marx's words from The German Ideology.

Speaking of cons ...

Sorry, I've spent too much time slogging through Marx as it is. Better things to think about.

Mark's was wrong about just about everything and is now totally irrelevant.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions; Socialism requires "force".

Not just voluntary transactions.

But you ignored my questions, as usual.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

That solves simple poverty.

So you keep saying, as you ignore my questions.

But if you leave your job voluntarily and don't try to find work, how about, rather than unemployment compensation being a check, why not an apartment in Section 8 housing and a Food Stamp card?

Employment is at-will. Equal protection of the law applies. It really is that simple.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

OP-socialism is defined as ownership or regulation of industry and business by the the Community in the dictionary. In practice, ownership of business and industry is communism and is just about dead. Regulation is socialism. We should stop confusing the two. Socialism is always democratic nowadays.

If we could only join the rest of the successful developed world, the EU Canada Australia New Zealand Japan, we would have health care daycare living wage cheap college and training, good infrastructure and vacations. Under GOP dominance the last 35 years, give away to the rich tax rates and policies have wrecked the the middle class and our infrastructure and blocked all these benefits that citizenship should provide. Thanks scumbag BS propagandizing GOP and you silly dupes....

Your whole list of countries is falling apart with massive immigration, declining societies, massive gdp, third world healthcare. It's no surprise you would point to this as utopia, lol.

 

[initforme]

Here we go again. Some look tossing the socialism bs around again. Socialism has no support in America not is it any kind of a threat whatsoever. The post has zero credibility. Nothing in America resembles socialism.

 

[initforme]

More proof McCarthy was a completel kook. The number of voters who would vote for socialism is less than one percent.

 

[WinterBorn]

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions; Socialism requires "force".

Not just voluntary transactions.

But you ignored my questions, as usual.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

That solves simple poverty.

So you keep saying, as you ignore my questions.

But if you leave your job voluntarily and don't try to find work, how about, rather than unemployment compensation being a check, why not an apartment in Section 8 housing and a Food Stamp card?

Employment is at-will. Equal protection of the law applies. It really is that simple.

True. You are welcome to quit a job anytime. But the job pays you. Not working does not pay.

 

[initforme]

And let's add that giving 2 weeks notice is an infringement upon the worker. Loyalty is no longer a thing a worker should show an employer. As soon as something better comes it should be out the door. Pack sand mr employer.

 

[francoHFW]

OP-socialism is defined as ownership or regulation of industry and business by the the Community in the dictionary. In practice, ownership of business and industry is communism and is just about dead. Regulation is socialism. We should stop confusing the two. Socialism is always democratic nowadays.

If we could only join the rest of the successful developed world, the EU Canada Australia New Zealand Japan, we would have health care daycare living wage cheap college and training, good infrastructure and vacations. Under GOP dominance the last 35 years, give away to the rich tax rates and policies have wrecked the the middle class and our infrastructure and blocked all these benefits that citizenship should provide. Thanks scumbag BS propagandizing GOP and you silly dupes....

Your whole list of countries is falling apart with massive immigration, declining societies, massive gdp, third world healthcare. It's no surprise you would point to this as utopia, lol.

Actually, super dupe, They have great control over their immigration, but at the moment they have a problem with refugees from our stupid GOP Wars and our corrupt GOP world depression. Massive GDP? You have no idea what you're talking about. They are all doing very well, and were back in 2008 until your GOP corrupt Heroes wrecked the world. Of Of course your propaganda machine makes you absolutely ignorant of reality.

 

[francoHFW]

Here we go again. Some look tossing the socialism bs around again. Socialism has no support in America not is it any kind of a threat whatsoever. The post has zero credibility. Nothing in America resembles socialism.

Except the Democratic Party and especially Bernie Sanders the Democratic Socialist, called thatsimply because America is brainwashed into thinking socialism is communism.

 

[skews13]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Well that makes to much sense.

Which means the right will never go for it.

 

[eagle7_31]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like Chicago, Detroit or some 3rd world dump.

 

[Brain357]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like Chicago, Detroit or some 3rd world dump.

Like the whole country under our current leadership.

 

[Lakhota]

What would a socialist America look like?

Much like now.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

 

[sartre play]

The fight is not about socialism, its about how we view the social programs we all ready have., no one works toward eliminating the extremes from both sides.

 

[francoHFW]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like Chicago, Detroit or some 3rd world dump.

Don't blame the blacks, it's ridic.

 

[francoHFW]

More proof McCarthy was a completel kook. The number of voters who would vote for socialism is less than one percent.

Ever heard of Bernie Sanders? I guess you're one of those socialism is communism dupes. Cold War dinosaur.