What would a socialist America look like?

[Norman]

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 a garbage dump.

I guess that's the plan.

 

[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 a garbage dump.

I guess that's the plan.

Like Canada Australia and New Zealand? You dupes are just ridiculous, the dump isthe way we are going now. But the mega rich are doing just great...

 

[skye]

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 a garbage dump.

I guess that's the plan.

I agree!

It would all look like a huge San FranFeces!

In other words ....total filth!

 

[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 a garbage dump.

I guess that's the plan.

I agree!

It would all look like a huge San FranFeces!

In other words ....total filth!

They don't have homeless in socialist countries like Canada and Australia, Just in successful cities in the new BS GOP America. How about taxing the rich more then the middle class and investing in America and Americans?

 

[bripat9643]

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.”)

 

[bripat9643]

What would a socialist America look like?

Much like now.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

75 lies.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

See Venezuela.

 

[Tehon]

Monkeys throwing feces.

Next time the OP might consider just stating plainly that he believes Trump is a socialist. At least then the monkeys will have a target.

 

[Mac1958]

I think we can all agree that traditional socialism ain't a great thing.

Euro-socialism, on the other hand, is clearly attractive to many.

It now appears that the Right will never, ever see the distinction.
.

 

[Norman]

I think we can all agree that traditional socialism ain't a great thing.

Euro-socialism, on the other hand, is clearly attractive to many.

It now appears that the Right will never, ever see the distinction.
.

Or maybe they just reject it and want nothing to do with it. Importing your own invaders and genocidal birth rates is what the policies lead to. However, the primary problem is of course that everyone has equal voting rights, which leads to crazy choices.

 

[Brain357]

I think we can all agree that traditional socialism ain't a great thing.

Euro-socialism, on the other hand, is clearly attractive to many.

It now appears that the Right will never, ever see the distinction.
.

Or maybe they just reject it and want nothing to do with it. Importing your own invaders and genocidal birth rates is what the policies lead to. However, the primary problem is of course that everyone has equal voting rights, which leads to crazy choices.

World wars is what nationalism leads to. We still have plenty believing that’s a good idea.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and industrial automation to help with social costs.

 

[dblack]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and industrial automation to help with social costs.

Why do you keep repeating this? It doesn't even seem like the topic of the thread matters. It's your standard post.

 

[dblack]

I think we can all agree that traditional socialism ain't a great thing.

Euro-socialism, on the other hand, is clearly attractive to many.

It now appears that the Right will never, ever see the distinction.
.

Or maybe they just reject it and want nothing to do with it. Importing your own invaders and genocidal birth rates is what the policies lead to. However, the primary problem is of course that everyone has equal voting rights, which leads to crazy choices.

You're proving Mac's point. Immigration policy and voting rights have exactly nothing to do with socialism. Many of the things Trump is doing, however, are right in line with socialism. That's what Will was pointing out in his article.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and industrial automation to help with social costs.

Why do you keep repeating this? It doesn't even seem like the topic of the thread matters. It's your standard post.

It is a solution involving socialism, bailing out Capitalism, like usual. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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....

Let me make sure I understand you.
So the new spin is socialism is “REGULATION” and regulation is synonymous with free shit for some?

“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.”

Your party does not give two fucks about the middle class...everybody sane knows this. You’re pissed when America’s Best benefits because you ALWAYS prefer to reward our bottom feeders, the filth of America. Just fucking say it..stop using the middle class as your centerpiece to beg for free shit for filth.

 

[danielpalos]

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....

Let me make sure I understand you.
So the new spin is socialism is “REGULATION” and regulation is synonymous with free shit for some?

“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.”

Your party does not give two fucks about the middle class...everybody sane knows this. You’re pissed when America’s Best benefits because you ALWAYS prefer to reward our bottom feeders, the filth of America. Just fucking say it..stop using the middle class as your centerpiece to beg for free shit for filth.

How does a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, fail to help the middle class?

 

[dblack]

I think we can all agree that traditional socialism ain't a great thing.

Euro-socialism, on the other hand, is clearly attractive to many.
.

Clearly, many Trump supporters dig it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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....

Let me make sure I understand you.
So the new spin is socialism is “REGULATION” and regulation is synonymous with free shit for some?

“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.”

Your party does not give two fucks about the middle class...everybody sane knows this. You’re pissed when America’s Best benefits because you ALWAYS prefer to reward our bottom feeders, the filth of America. Just fucking say it..stop using the middle class as your centerpiece to beg for free shit for filth.

How does a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, fail to help the middle class?

Could work in a civilized, first world disciplined society with no baby factory wetbacks weighing good folks down.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

a fairytale version, but another version nonetheless.