Leftist Answer to Everything: Socialism

[fallenturtle]

@anon91495210

The standard. Free health care, food programs, cheap housing… essentially free goods bought by others. They always promise those from big government which is exactly what we’re hearing today and exactly what Bernie was cheering when Chavez took over in Venezuela.

The US already has programs for food and cheap housing and it has to because of the negative side of capitalism. We can have those “socialist” programs without actually converting our economy to full socialism which is what social democrats like myself believe to be ideal.

There are variations of socialism that are anti-big government and prefer to have ownership on the local level. Not all socialists favor state ownership.

[anon91495210]

Socialism is government control of the means of production. Safety net programs are not socialism. That’s not what Bernie is suggesting. He’s suggesting killing the free market for things like medical by making them a single payer system and killing private insurance/private ownership of hospitals, etc. While the social programs are FAR too large, a certain amount of them are desirable in society, so long as government doesn’t take ownership. I want a capitalist system with as little government interference as possible with a small social safety net to keep people from going bankrupt due to bad circumstances. I don’t want a social safety net so large that it ENCOURAGES bad decisions.

Like I said, Socialism is the government or collective ownership of the means of production. There is no distinction between collective or government ownership because to have that, you must first have a powerful government to enforce it. If not, you end up with anarchy which is worse than any other system out there and it’s certainly not capitalist OR Socialist at that point.

You have a basic misunderstanding of what Socialism is, which probably explains why you support it. It’s very common for people that don’t study history and fully understand what socialism actually IS to support it because it’s sexy on paper to some. Where the metal meets the meat, it’s a horrifying system as proven through the last 100 years. There are 100,000,000 bodies can attest to how horrible it is. (Well, they could if they were alive but Socialists snuffed them out)

[WildRose]

We already have that.

There’s no evidence to suggest more would change anything.

[WildRose]

There are thousands of people serving time right now for tax evasion and fraud.

[WildRose]

France. A decade ago they had to completely revamp their system because it was failing and drowning in debt because of their bloated welfare state.

France is 'totally bankrupt', jobs minister admits as concerns grow over...

[fallenturtle]

@anon91495210

Socialism is government control of the means of production.

No, not necessarily.

“In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.”
-O’Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71.

@anon91495210

He’s suggesting killing the free market for things like medical by making them a single payer system and killing private insurance/private ownership of hospitals, etc.

Has single payer killed the free market in all the countries that have implemented it?

@anon91495210

Like I said, Socialism is the government or collective ownership of the means of production. There is no distinction between collective or government ownership because to have that, you must first have a powerful government to enforce it. If not, you end up with anarchy which is worse than any other system out there and it’s certainly not capitalist OR Socialist at that point.

False. Not only are there variants of socialist theory that are anarchist but there are also variants that involve a free market.
“Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought and economic theory that advocates a socialist society based on free markets and usufructs, i.e. occupation and use property norms.”
http://www.mutualist.org/

@anon91495210

You have a basic misunderstanding of what Socialism is, which probably explains why you support it. It’s very common for people that don’t study history and fully understand what socialism actually IS to support it because it’s sexy on paper to some. Where the metal meets the meat, it’s a horrifying system as proven through the last 100 years. There are 100,000,000 bodies can attest to how horrible it is. (Well, they could if they were alive but Socialists snuffed them out)

I’m sorry, but you have a very poor understanding of what Socialism is because you seem to believe the only version of it is Marxism… which is just absurd. It’s like I’m arguing the benefits of modern and forthcoming nuclear reactors with someone who insists all nuclear reactors are like the one’s used in Chernobyl.

[fallenturtle]

@WildRose

There are thousands of people serving time right now for tax evasion and fraud.

And they had their “stuff” taken away by “leftist domineering control freak kooks”?

[fallenturtle]

How did democratic socialism cause this? You can have a welfare state without democratic socialism, the US being a prime example. If you have a person in charge of a country making poor economic decisions things are going to go poorly regardless if your country is capitalist, socialist, or somewhere in between.

[NJBob]

@WildRose

We already have that.

There’s no evidence to suggest more would change anything.

I didn’t know that Emergency Rooms provide preventative healthcare.

[gooddad409]

@anon91495210

You remind me of what Thatcher once said. . . not word for word but …The gentlemen would rather the poor be poorer so long as the gap is smaller…

Thatcher also said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later the money of others runs out.

[Borgia_dude]

@anon91495210

Yeah, slaves were compensated too… with food and horrible housing… doesn’t make them less of a slave. I always find it funny that people still argue for socialism, even though we have example after example of it ending in misery over the past 100 years. Every time, we hear the same thing “That’s not real Socialism”… funny enough, Capitalism creates prosperity over and over and again, we hear from the left “That’s not real Capitalism.” You folks are hilarious.

I don’t know any libs advocating socialism. You guys have already agreed that specific programs as seen in Finland for example, are not socialism. We just want a few programs like they have.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@13BU6

@fallenturtle

Not with that attitude it can’t!

In all seriousness though, I wouldn’t say never… but certainly not anytime soon. Good people do exist… the question is how to get them into power without power corrupting.

Only 2 ways I can think of

Term Limits
Revolution

I’m a supporter of instant runoff voting so that third parties have a better chance at getting elected.

Democratic socialist generally oppose the idea of revolution vs doing it via democracy.

Then there’s people like me who prefer freedom over even the kindest possible form of socialism. I would rather see a civil war with half the population dead than socialism.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@anon91495210

Yeah, in theory… in reality, you know that’s BS.

Most socialism is theory. What little socialism is in practice is mostly Marxism, an offshoot of socialism, and does not represent socialism as a whole.

That said, even in the USSR, though you were required to have a job unless you were a homemaker, they were still compensated for their work.

You don’t even know where Marxism & socialism came from! Karl Marx wrote the communist manifesto & that is why it’s called Marxism. His stupid ideas have caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people & it still continues. Marx believed socialism instituted in a capitalist country was the road to communism. It is.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@Ceasar

@fallenturtle

@anon91495210

That’s the benefit of having him on ignore. I don’t have to see silly posts like that. Do they not realize that slavery was Socialism, not capitalism? From each according to his ability to each according to his need. People working for nothing so others get the benefit. Slavery has nothing to do with capitalism, but it sure resembles Socialism. Funny enough, the same party was fighting to KEEP slavery and today, they are fighting to implement a different form of slavery.

lol… no. Not at all. Slavery is capitalism. The slave owner is the capitalist and he profits off the labor of his slaves. Under socialism there would be no slave master and the former slaves would collectively own the plantation and share the profits equally.

Sooooo… collective ownership as opposed to self ownership? The left will make my property that I worked for collectively owned. That’s how it works, & if I say no they will impose it on me. At that point they are thieves. At that point they get authoritarian & civil war.

The “left” isn’t going to do anything because that’s a arbitrary division based on the political opinion. For socialism to be implemented in the US more votes then just the left will be needed.

Now we’re getting into hypotheticals. The first question would be is your property used for yourself and family, or are you profiting off other people using it. If the former, you would probably keep it. If the latter there would probably be some sort of transition period and the gov or community would try to buy it from you… think eminent domain.

Yup! The left will find some way to justify taking my property.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@WildRose

North Korea and The Soviet Union.

NK and USSR are/were based in Marxism. Marxism is a offshoot of socialism and only represents a small portion of the many variants and theories of socialism that exist. The factors that caused these countries to be ■■■■■■■■■ (for example authoritarianism, central planning, and corruption) are not universal to socialism.

Marxism is not an offshoot of socialism. Marx, who Marxism is named for, advocated socialism as the ROAD TO COMMUNISM (Marxism).

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@anon91495210

Yeah, slaves were compensated too… with food and horrible housing… doesn’t make them less of a slave.

Unlike a worker under socialism, slaves were not provided wages that they could use to buy things at the store.

@anon91495210

I always find it funny that people still argue for socialism, even though we have example after example of it ending in misery over the past 100 years. Every time, we hear the same thing “That’s not real Socialism”… funny enough, Capitalism creates prosperity over and over and again, we hear from the left “That’s not real Capitalism.” You folks are hilarious.

Capitalism does create prosperity but that prosperity is often very uneven… which is what socialism aims to address.

Prosperity will always be uneven because a person with a 170 IQ will make more than someone with 86, or a person with 95 that works hard & is inventive is likely to make more than a person with a 95 & wants to get by with 30 hour week & never intends to excel at anything. It’s fair if it happens that way, and it does under capitalism. Under socialism it always ends in poverty, then dictatorship when the government can no longer keep up. Happens every time. The European welfare states there have been cutting back on social services because many of them cannot afford them. Welfare, SS, SSI, roads, police, fire dept., etc. does not a socialist country make. It can, but I get sick of the left saying all that is socialist. A capitalist system can have those if they choose to without it being socialist.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

When you speak of the history of socialism, which history are you referring to? Can you provide an example of where democratic socialism has failed?

They all call it democratic socialism. Democratic Republic of North Korea for example.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@anon91495210

Nonsense. You cannot have government or collective ownership of the means of production without force.

You can’t have a structured society in general without force regardless of the economic system.

Any successful transition to socialism is going to have to require time and some form of compensation for the capitalists.

That transition will involve mass death. The compensation will be a bullet or work camp. I prefer civil war to the transition, even if voted in. Hitler was voted in, & there should have been an instant civil war to get rid of the NAZI’s. Same here. Socialism should be met with mass opposition & war if not stopped. In my opinion the teaching of socialism in schools in the form of advocacy or in a positive light should be outlawed as advocacy of overthrow of the constitution & insurrection. It is of itself unconstitutional & should not be propagandized in schools, & advocates should never be allowed to hold public office or a teaching position.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@anon91495210

My problem is the same arguments people make for socialism have been made in almost all of the countries that ended up in misery. Just look at what Chavez promised…

Which arguments are you referring to?

Just about every argument you make here & most of the left in this country.

[Ceasar]

@fallenturtle

@anon91495210

The standard. Free health care, food programs, cheap housing… essentially free goods bought by others. They always promise those from big government which is exactly what we’re hearing today and exactly what Bernie was cheering when Chavez took over in Venezuela.

The US already has programs for food and cheap housing and it has to because of the negative side of capitalism. We can have those “socialist” programs without actually converting our economy to full socialism which is what social democrats like myself believe to be ideal.

There are variations of socialism that are anti-big government and prefer to have ownership on the local level. Not all socialists favor state ownership.

Most of the leftists in this country who want to take over do favor state ownership.