Socialism is America's future.

[jcmaine72]

If there's any merit to recent poll data I've seen posted at DU with regards to how young people view Socialism, I'd say the future is bright for those of us who want a more equitable society sans the predatory greed and callous indifference to the needs of others Capitalism breeds.

At the very least, it seems that things like Socialism, reparations, and enacting real measures to save our environment are being discussed more seriously these days, especially by several Democratic presidential hopefuls. Hopefully, the more these ideas are discussed, the more people will accept them as normal and see past, in the case of Socialism especially, decade's worth of pernicious propaganda and hate.

[murielm99]

1. Socialism will be used against us

as a talking point in the 2020 election.

Capitalism, with more regulation, is our future. We will have limited socialism, like Medicare and Social Security.

[Mr Tibbs]

5. We can't quake in fear of talking points

Or what the right wing thinks. They will call names regardless. They have no control over us.

[Roy Rolling]

11. Propaganda War

Republicans have demonized the word "socialism", now their mindless followers and other idiots use the term to mean violent, oppressive communism. Also, they make a hero out of capitalists as the superhero that defeats socialism. It's all a propaganda narrative.

Socialism can exist with capitalism, they are not mutually exclusive---except in the minds of the targets of Republican propaganda.

America has capitalist businesspeople and socialist fireman.

Capitalist and socialist are employment terms, not government, as Republicans are trying to reposition the term "socialism" to be an evil word.

The point: in a branding/propaganda war young people know the truth because they are not yet spoiled. Older people who believe propaganda, have to be educated they are already beneficiaries of socialists in America because its not against the law to reform work as a socialist--police, fireman, nurse, social worker. They may be a closet socialists themselves.

[Farmer-Rick]

12. I'm not so sure the RepubliCON propaganda war against Socialism is a winning issue even for them

As you say, young people know the truth and a lot of them don't vote at all. So, if we get out an promote Socialism we may be able to get them to come out and vote too. If we can get them excited about real change in our dog eat dog economic destruction system, they will come out and vote like they did for Obama. That's a whole block of people the RepubliCONS want to prevent from voting.

[Hortensis]

65. Sorry, but you're missing the whole point of the midterms.

Americans do want to change the conservative destruction system -- by moving power to Democrats. You know, the party who created the laws and programs that serve the people that the right is currently destroying on behalf of their donor classes?

To win we have to give the voters what they do want, not what the Republican Party, agents of our new kleptocrat classes, Russia's military, and a dissident fringe insidiously insist Democratic voters want.

And, happily, what people want is both what we stand for and what all America needs. So this Blue Wave is going to be a win-win for everyone, including the many who never know it.

Nothing new there. Liberals, joined by sensible moderate conservatives, have always taken care of the rest. This is a liberal democracy, after all. Things go bad when "the rest" manage to take over and derail.

[Mr Tibbs]

87. Very well put

[jcmaine72]

13. Excellent post!

[Horizens]

103. Wrong

Socialism can not exist with capitalism and they're not employment terms/

Socialism is an economic system of social organization “that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”

[murielm99]

77. I'm not quaking with anything.

I think it is a dumb idea. I am a Democrat, not a Socialist.

[ehrnst]

79. However, the wrong terminology can cause a good idea to lose support.

And yes, we need many right wing voters to agree to these programs.

Right wing talking points brought down the attempt at health care reform in the 90's. Hillary said that they didn't make it understandable enough to conservatives, and they kept repeating, "We'll cover the uninsured, We'll cover the uninsured," without reassuring those who did have coverage that they would not lose out in order to get everyone covered.

Don't confuse acknowledging the realities of messaging with "quaking."

[Horizens]

102. Agree

100%

[Perseus]

2. Socialism does not exist, what we need is a "Social-Democratic" government

Any country in the World that has embraced "Socialism" ends up in "Communism" or a "Kleptocracy" such is the Venezuelan experiment. "Socialism" is just s rhetoric to enamor the masses, it fools them into following, blindly, promises that can never or that were never intended to be kept, that is what happened in Cuba and of course the Castro have used the same tactics to proliferate their "Socialism" with dire effects to the countries where this happened.

IMHO, the best government is a "Social-Democratic" government where capitalist ideas still flow, but these ideas are managed to avoid abuses, thus regulations. Here in the USA we have capitalism with no breaks, no regulations, and that is why false populism like the one the orange buffoon continues to spew takes grab of the uneducated minds and we have to admit that we have a lot of those in the USA, it is by design, the effort of republicans to destroy education, the arts, etc. is by design, ignorant masses are easily manipulated.

The idea of "Socialism" must be taken out of the discussion, in the USA it is a path to political failure, it is easy attacked because of the ignorance of the voters, but when you combine it with "Social-Democracy" and you can explain it, show successful examples of it around the World (there are plenty), in a way the uneducated can understand, then you have a winner.

[Farmer-Rick]

14. Socialism in Venezuela would have worked if the US had NOT meddled in their politics and economy.

They were moving away from a charismatic socialist leader like Chavez. Maybe if we had NOT so obviously funded the opposition and capitalist predators, they could have evolved into a successful Socialist country. But we would not give them a chance. Our uber rich oligarchy wants you to believe Socialism wont work which is why they feed us such crap about Venezuela. They also literally funded every problem faced by Venezuela today.

I also believed if we had helped out Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they wouldn't have the Russian mob running the country right now. We shoved the worse kind of capitalism at them, wouldn't give them loans, and basically allowed capitalism to eat the country alive. The only remaining functioning group in Russia was the mob and they moved in with the help of the KGB and took over. Capitalism is what created Putin and the problems in Venezuela.

We tried regulated capitalism after the first RepubliCON Great Depression. And look what has happened. The uber rich capitalist spent night and day using the profits we allow them to retain, to bring down our democracy. No matter how much regulation you put on capitalism, the grifters, the cons, the criminals, the organized crime will always win out. Capitalism gives a competitive edge to those willing to do illegal things. If you are willing to break the law you too can make huge amounts of profit off of other people. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy. You can NOT teach people that capitalism is good (the retaining of inherited wealth, capital and labor's profits at the top, by a handful of people, at the expense of Everything else) yet claim democracy, the equalizer of everyone, will work. They contradict each other and capitalism will always corrupt.

Socialism is very popular among younger voters. If we excite them, maybe they will come out and vote like they did with Obama.

[Perseus]

22. No, that is not true

Chavez may, and I say "may" carefully, have had good intentions but he was being manipulated by Fidel Castro, all the moves Chavez made in Venezuela were directed by Castro who had very bad intentions for Venezuela. I wish the USA had seen what was coming and intervened, Venezuela would not be going through the chaos they are in.

The people who worked with Chavez had no intentions of making the country better, their intentions, which they accomplished, were to put as much money in their pockets as they could. Diosdado Cabello allied himself with the FARC, drug cartels, and he became a drug lord himself.

Why is it that everyone wants to blame everything on the USA? The USA did not react to the danger that the Castro and Chavizmo have represented for South America, and now we see worst things going on there. GW Bush was idle towards Venezuela, and Obama was even more, the reasons? I wish I knew, Venezuelans wish the knew.

I repeat myself, "Socialism" does not exist, "Social-Democratic" governments do. "Socialism" is just beautiful, but impossible to implement rhetoric, it leads to "Communism", "Dictatorship" and "Kleptocracy"...Name one country that started on the road of "Socialism" and did not end up as the three I just listed. If you are trying to compare governments from Europe that work very well for their countries then you are looking at "Social-Democratic" governments where capitalism exists in its glory but regulated appropriately to avoid abuse like the one in the USA.

We need to stop talking about "Socialism", "Socialism" is just an ideology full of pretty words but it is not implementable, "Social-Democracy" is.

[Farmer-Rick]

25. You really bought into the US oligarch's propaganda, I thought you were smarter than that.

So now not only is the dully elected president of the country a criminal but Chavez was a criminal and Cuba's leaders are criminals too.

We blame the US because there has been a funding line in the US budget since Chavez came to power to provide funding for opposition groups in Venezuela. It is clear, it is obvious, it is what is happening.

Socialism could exist. It is a possible future. No we don't have to stop talking about it because it excites our younger voters and we need them in our elections.

[Perseus]

34. Please, do not get personal, I AM smarter than the average bear

Yes, Chavez was a criminal, Maduro is a criminal, Diosdado Cabello is a criminal, Freddy Vernal is a criminal, etc. etc.

Yes, Cuba's leaders are criminals, Fidel Castro was a criminal. I guess you think all the horror stories from Cuba are fake news?

How is it clear that funding by the USA against Chavez has happened since he took power? As long as you don't produce a link to a Chavizta website or article I will be willing to read it.

I don't know who you are Farmer-Rick, but I do happen to have family in Venezuela, I happen to know a lot of people in Venezuela, I lived in Venezuela, and I have seen everything that has happened in Venezuela since Chavez took power. I have friends shot, point-blank by the government criminals (Colectivos) and the GN in daylight because they were protesting against the regime.

There are thousands of young people held captive in the middle of Caracas, Torre Phelps (La Tumba), being tortured every day, being killed every day. I have friends who still live there who cannot get medicines, who have a hard time buying food. I know what I am talking about, I keep in touch with many friends on a daily basis. Have you been to Venezuela? If you live there and are defending the regime then you are part of the problem, I don't know, you have to be defending something out of knowledge or convenience if the knowledge does not exist.

And no, "Socialism" cannot exist, "Social-Democracy" yes.

Oh, and one last thing...Maduro IS NOT the duly elected president, #1 is was born in Colombia, which disqualifies him to be president, #2 he lost the election but Tibisay Lucena made sure the counts were reversed, why Capriles did not argue the results? I wish I knew.

Now, if you are talking about Juan Guaido? Yes, he is the duly elected President at the time, and you can understand that if you understand how the national Assembly works.

[Perseus]

40. Here we go Farmer-Rick...read about it

[link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/12/venezuela-luis-carlos-diaz-journalist-taken-sebin|

This happens every day in Venezuela.

[Perseus]

93. Here you can watch the son of Diosdado Cabbelo making fun of the Venezuelan people

Not sure if you speak/understand Spanish, but what he is saying is "who says their is no electricity? Of course there is, if you have a generator..." then he boasts about what they are eating, shows a bottle of Scotch Chivas, which is extremely expensive there.

[link:

|

And that is what Maduro does, while the country is in chaos he is dancing salsa, eating, and worst of, he is being filmed on National TV for everyone to enjoy...joy, joy...nothing fills the regime's heart so much as to see people hungry, without medicines, while they enjoy all that money they robbed...joy, happy, happy joy.

[DownriverDem]

3. Young Folks

look to Finland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. They get weeks off, health care and education. That is socialism to them and they don't see it as bad.

[Perseus]

6. That is "Social-Democracy", not "Socialism"

That is why people in the USA are so afraid of "Socialism", all the countries that started as such ended in a dictatorship, Communism, or Kleptocracy, all combined as a matter of fact, and those are the examples repubs use to curve the ideas of a "Social-Democratic" government, which is the same as we have but with regulations, with putting money towards education, health care, making sure the tax dollars buy what they were always meant to buy.

[Perseus]

26. No, that is "Social-Democracy", "Socialism" is something else

Those countries work so well because there is free enterprise, there is capitalism, but it is heavily regulated to avoid corruption, that is all we need. Politics in those countries are not dominated by money like in the USA, which also leads to corruption.

What the USA needs is adopt a "Social-Democratic" type of government, which includes capitalism, but regulated to avoid corruption. Income on CEO's and high executives have to be regulated as well. Why should an Exxon executive get a $400 million bonus? Did he create the company? Why was Exxon so profitable when he received the bonus? Because oil was at its high then, nothing the CEO did to earn that money. If I was told that Fred Smith got a bonus of $400 million I would be OK with it, he created FedEx, he was the brains of the entire operation, he built it from scratch, but an Exxon CEO? Please, he is just an employee.

Lobbying must be eliminated, if a company has something to pitch, they can do it in a setting where the public can listen to it. There should not be any political contributions, and if there are then the money must go into a pool then it needs to be distributed evenly to all campaigns. TV should be allowed tax breaks to have balanced exposure of all candidates, not the fiasco we had 2015-2016 where the orange buffoon represented earning for the TV networks and thus, despite of the classless act by the candidate, he got more exposure than anyone else by catering to the uneducated masses.

Lets stop the "Socialism" discussion, repubs will vilify it comparing it to countries like Venezuela where there is only a Kleptocracy combined with torture, dictatorship and an extremely high level of corruption, but a "Social-Democratic" government? they will have a very hard time vilifying it because the examples around the World will disprove all their vile rhetoric.

[comradebillyboy]

42. In 1984 I visited Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Soviet Union.

Only the Soviet Union was a socialist state. You want socialism look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela. All authoritarian and very much less than free.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. And poor...

[comradebillyboy]

58. Indeed, I was shocked at how dingy and decrepit Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) was

compared to the Scandinavian capitals. Still the Hermitage Museum and the restored Summer Palace were well worth seeing. All in all it was a great vacation for my wife and myself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. The Soviet Union/Eastern Europe was my major when I did post grad work in Government at FSU

I had a professor, who was far from a rightie, tell me about this Polish emigre he knew. Upon entering an American supermarket she just started to bawl. She couldn't believe all the food one needs could be found under one roof, and in such abundance.

We should concern ourselves with making the lives of the fifteen percent of Americans who live below the poverty line better instead of talking about embracing systems that make everybody but a cadre's life worse.

[comradebillyboy]

67. Yeah we accidentally wandered into a Soviet grocery shop. It was depressing.

And the long lines of people outside shops with actual goods to sell were eye opening.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I presume the people outside were engaged in the limited free enterprise the government allowed.

In Cuba a taxi driver can make more than a physician.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9593658/cuban-castro-taxi-driver-doctor-economy

[comradebillyboy]

78. We hosted an exchange student from Slovakia in 1999 who later graduated from med school

in Bratislava. She started up a little computer business with her boyfriend because the Slovakian government pays physicians so little she couldn't make ends meet. The Eastern Bloc hasn't full caught up with the rest of Europe.

[duforsure]

4. Socialism easily trumps hate groups and fascism.

They can use it all they want , but when its coming from hate group members and people who are anti-Democracy, and want a fascist dictator with absolute power , the America people will reject this demonizing of the word Socialist, and know that hate and fascism, and a dictator is a cancer on any society that accepts it. Branding socialist as bad will fail and highlight what they really are more, traitors.

[watoos]

7. C'mon people, learn how to fight back against name calling.

Republicans name call because it's easy for the unwashed to understand.

I live among Trumpers in central Pa. and when they call me a Socialist this is how I answer them, I say, Republicans are the real Socialists, no one gets more tax dollars than rich Republicans. Donald Trump gave billions of tax dollars to soy bean farmers because their profits dropped because of his tariffs, that's not capitalism, that's picking winners and losers, that's Socialism.

I tell them that if they really believe the Socialist right wing talking point, that we should veer away from Socialism then we need to start in red state Alaska where every resident in Alaska shares in the taxes that are imposed on the oil corporations, that's Socialism.

I tell them that thank god the Army Corps of engineers built our borough's flood control project back in the 60's. We have a large stream running straight through the middle of our town of 1500 people. We don't have to worry about our 2 bridges washing out or our downtown getting flooded.

All Republicans have is name calling. If people can't defend against that simple childish tactic then people need to learn.

No one is saying that the workers need to control the means of production, that is stupid. Republicans are mixing in communism with Democratic Socialism, we need to learn how to defend what Democrats are really for.

[Aussie105]

8. Old labels

won't do. Their meanings have been muddied and slandered over the decades.

The Democrats need to reinvent themselves, easy to do with the new faces and new energy on view at the moment.

How about: 'New Age Democrats'. Slogan: Government for the people.

Get the message out there strong and loud, focus on the benefits for the average citizen, living wage, cheaper education and health care, housing, care for the elderly, protecting the environment, etc.

Get the message out there now, so people can look at the policies and consider them, so that when the elections come around next time, they will think . . . We can do so much better this time!

Promise them what they thought they were getting with Trump. Change for the better.
He didn't deliver, now it is the turn of the New Age Democrats.

[HopeAgain]

9. What? Letting Democrats frame the conversation?

Who'da thunk? Don't let the right take our words from us.

[Lonestarblue]

10. Socialism is government ownership and control of all forms of production.

And no one is advocating that. As others here have said, we need to stop talking about socialism and the label itself and start talking about economic and social justice. Republicans have quickly used the most extreme understanding of the concept to paint Democrats as wanting the government to take over all business, which we all know is ridiculous but credulous voters may believe the rhetoric. All they hear are the labels socialism, communisim, big government.

Universal health care and the Green New Deal are goals. They won’t be accomplished overnight, but like every sizable business that spends time each year to set strategic business goals to help ensure continued profits and success, government needs to set ambitious goals and craft implementation plans that may cover a number of years. The outcomes are important for everyone: stop worrying about affording healthcare, stop worrying about whether you and your children are drinking safe water or breathing unsafe air, stop paying for the cleanup after disasters exacerbated by climate change, stop falling behind because of low pay, etc.

The Democrats have real ideas for improving people’s lives. The Republicans have ideas only for giving the wealthy more while depriving regular people of financial stability and basic rights, like living without having to worry about being attacked in public simply because of your skin color.

[Farmer-Rick]

30. No socialism is the WORKERS controlling and owning all forms of production and the profits.

It doesn't have to be the government owning it. In fact I think the government owning it only leads to corruption.

But younger people hear something different when you talk about socialism and we need them to vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. When socialism was conceived there wasn't as much international trade

When socialism was conceived there wasn't as much international trade because there wasn't as much commerce. How does socialism affect the fact that much of what we consume we don't produce.

I'm looking around my apartment and closet and there isn't much that was made in America.

[George II]

15. No it isn't.

[forklift]

16. No it is not.

No way.

Socialism makes everyone poor in the end .

[Yavin4]

17. America has tons of poverty without Socialism

There are some states that are as bad if not worse than some third world nations.

[forklift]

20. Let's not make it worse

with socialism.

[jcmaine72]

28. What proof do you have that Socialism would make poverty in America any worse, and for whom?

Was there some specific instance in our history when we embraced it and poverty shot up 75% that I'm unaware of?

[forklift]

46. Evidence is out there

Russia - converted to capitalism
China - converted to capitalism and its economy became second to the US
India - modernized economy in 1992 and is the fastest growing economy in the world
Eastern Europe - now prospering
Cuba - recently instituted reforms and is doing much better
Venezuela - basket case

Some people measure economic systems only by how the poorest of poor are doing and they create social upheavals by instituting socialistic policies which don't end up helping anyone.

And .... some people confuse social programs with socialism which they are not. Medicare and social security were designed as capitalist programs where people contribute, their money grows and they are paid it back over time. It is a stream of payments algorithm. What screwed them up was a rise life expectancy and the rapidly rising costs of health care for an aging population.

[jcmaine72]

55. Russia converted to capitalism?

Really? That's the first example you provide to prove Socialism would wreck America, by pointing to Putin's jackbooted, repressive kleptocracy? And the rest of those regimes?

With a such shining examples of prosperous and just capitalist societies such as those, who would want to live under any other system?

[forklift]

57. You, Sir are conflating political systems and economic systems

Russia was socialist and changed to capitalism -- meaning individuals could own property and conduct a business. Moscow also has a stock market which never existed before.

Russia was not successful in changing the political system of authoritarianism.

China only dumped socialism - they still retain authoritarianism.

Perhaps a course or two in economic systems to help clarify?

[jcmaine72]

62. Yes or no: Is there any semblance of economic justice inside Russia or China?

This should be fun.

[forklift]

66. Don't create straw men nt

[LanternWaste]

56. It's fun to pretend examples are evidence, but they're two separate concepts.

It's even more fun to read your unsupported bumper stickers attempting the pretense of rational thought.

Head's-up for ya... talk-radio isn't a recognizable (nor valid) form of education (education teaches premise, hypothesis, objective evidence, conclusion-- not bumper stickers and trendy t-shirt slogans). It's simply entertainment pandering to the lowest common demonstrator.

Be Better.

[FBaggins]

69. Examples ARE evidence

You might look up the definition of words before you snipe at others?

OED - "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

[Skidmore]

82. Lord help us

if these nations listed are envisioned as the future of America. Stop looking at the hypothetical bedazzle and examine the cortuption and poverty close to the ground.

[Bettie]

18. Oligarchy and dictatorship is looking more likely these days

that's the direction we're moving.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

19. Socialism is an enemy of our Liberal Democratic ideology.

That dog won't hunt.

Try the DSA.

[jcmaine72]

23. Sorry, but your assertion is ridiculous.

Do you even know what Socialism is? And tell me, how has capitalism advanced our "Liberal Democratic ideology", by exploiting and impoverishing millions?

Try harder.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

27. Yes, I do know what Socialism is.

it isn't compatible with liberal democracy.

Save the gaslighting for someone who cares.

[jcmaine72]

31. So you can't answer my question? Okay.

Gaslighting? Yeah right! Please prove you really don't care and go away now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Social or governmental ownership of the means of production.

Since we don't produce much of what we consume how will socialism address that?

[jcmaine72]

35. Oh, you mean the means of production that those compassionate, freedom-loving, Democracy-upholding

Capitalists shipped off to China and elsewhere for handshake? What, is China the only nation on earth that can build factories and produce crap?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. How do you plan on bringing production back?

[jcmaine72]

41. Perhaps through incentives and stricter laws regarding what percentage of manufacturing jobs

American companies are permitted to have overseas. Perhaps by other means. If there was a way for these jobs to end up in China, there must be a way to bring them back.

Why people celebrate a system that allows for companies to blatantly and callously ship good paying manufacturing jobs overseas and conflate such avarice and lack of social conscience and responsibility with freedom and democracy is beyond me. Just goes to show how successful the propaganda has been.

[forklift]

49. lulz

Perhaps through incentives and stricter laws regarding what percentage of manufacturing jobs American companies are permitted to have overseas.

hahahahahahahahaha

Thank you for the laugh.

[jcmaine72]

74. Glad to see you're so easily amused

Just an FYI. I have a six-month-old nephew who is easily amused. He hears the adults speaking, and he giggles uncontrollably....and then he shits his diaper.

I hope I don't owe anyone here a dry pamper.

[radical noodle]

21. Socialism (see the dictionary for a definition)

will not even win with most Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Will there be a Costco in our socialist future?

[JustAnotherGen]

32. Please don't associate Reparations with Socialism

I'm actively engaged in serious activism around this - there are two schools of thought that I'm pursuing.

Both are steeped in Capitalism. But - neither one requires a check to be written.

[jcmaine72]

37. I mentioned them together to illustrate the point that they are both issues that are now being

discussed seriously, instead of their traditional handling of simply being condescendingly dismissed out of hand.

[forklift]

50. No one is discussing socialism seriously.

[jcmaine72]

60. You mean, they're not discussing it seriously with you.

And why would they? After all, when someone holds up Putin's Russia as a prime example of the superiority of capitalism there's not much more you can say to that person.

[forklift]

61. I doubt anyone in my social and professional circles

would take socialism seriously.

All this talk of socialism now is Bernie propaganda - to give people a warm, cuddly feeling about Bernie.

We see through it.

[jcmaine72]

64. LOL..."Bernie propaganda"? And who is "we"?

I must've missed that adoring phalanx of Democratic admirers standing behind you who share your high opinion of Putin's kleptocracy.

[forklift]

70. Don't misquote me no matter how much energized you are

about Bernie Sanders.

I am not going to deny a ridiculous accusation.

Bottom line, neither socialism nor Bernie are the "future of America."

Future of America will always be entrepreneurs who come up with revolutionary ideas.

[jcmaine72]

72. I didn't misquote you. You cited Putin's Russia as an example of Capitalism's success

And when did I say I was a Bernie supporter? Can you quote me on that?

And you're accusing me of misquoting you? Nice hypocrisy.

[forklift]

73. Russia became capitalistic long before Putin

Putin didn't come on the scene and didn't become authoritarian for at least 12 years after Russia became a capitalism country.

[jcmaine72]

75. I'm still waiting for that quote.

I mean, you said you don't like to be misquoted, right? I'm sure you'll understand if I don't either.

So, can you show me where I said I was a Bernie supporter?

[redstateblues]

38. Anybody remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

[Perseus]

39. Can anyone answer this question please?

Can you name one country that has a "Socialist" government, and I mean full implementation of Socialism?

Just because the ruler of a country pretends their regime is socialist doesn't make is so. In Venezuela Maduro, Cabello are constantly talking to the few people who still support the regime about the "fight for the socialist experiment", but there is nothing of the sort, the regime is just a Kleptocracy, the lack of medicines, food, the broken infrastructure where the country is without electricity and water for days due to lack of maintenance because all the billions originally destined for it have been pocketed by the crooks of the regime.

Anyway, I digress...If anyone can answer the question it would be very good for all, I think.

[OilemFirchen]

48. There are currently only four Marxist-Leninist Socialist states:

China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam.

All are moving to mixed economies.

[kentuck]

43. Is it a natural evolution for older democracies to turn more socialistic?

Perhaps it is?

[jcmaine72]

45. Good question. I certainly view it as a necessary step in a healthy democracy's evolution

toward producing a more just and equitable society. Naturally, as several posts above would indicate, there are those that disagree.

[kentuck]

53. Capitalism tends to leave old democracies for younger and cheaper wages...

Capitalism does not have any loyalty for democracy. Socialism tends to drive away the most greedy capitalists, in my opinion. Workers demand more and more benefits from their government over time.

[NurseJackie]

44. No it's not. Get real.

No it's not. Get real. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[jcmaine72]

47. Well, at least I managed to give you a good laugh.

You're welcome.

[NurseJackie]

51. It certainly did.

Well, at least I managed to give you a good laugh.

It certainly did.

[forklift]

52. Bravo

You made me laugh 4 times on just this thread.

[jcmaine72]

59. Good. Then You owe me three good laughs.

I only laughed once, when you cited Putin's brutal kleptocratic Russia as the first example in your argument as to why Socialism would fail in America.

[Alea]

68. lol

[stonecutter357]

76. I'm not a socialist , I don't think the democratic party is socialist.

[MineralMan]

80. Because it has worked so well in other countries, like...

like...

Wait, what? Where has it worked?

America's future is unknown. Nobody can predict it. It will depend on many different variables and how those change.

But socialism? That system does not work. It has been tried, and it has failed. If Socialism is America's Future, then we are well and truly doomed.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. It seems to work well enough in Zaparista controlled areas of Mexico....

They are doing better than equivalent impovershed areas of Mexico. Nepal has problems but seems to be transitioning into a true Democrat Republic under the guidance of a Communist lead coalition. In addition, define "doesn't work". Socialism had economically stabilized and liberated regions in the world that were then crushed by either the Imperalist west or Soviet/Dengiist East. Many examples in Latin America and other parts of the world.

[MineralMan]

84. Are those areas in Mexico countries?

I specifically said countries. Nepal doesn't qualify, actually, since it is not a socialist country. Which Latin American countries that are socialist nations did you have in mind? You said there were many of them as success stories. Which ones? Which countries in "other parts of the world?"

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Nepal is a "Socialist oriented" state that's attempting to transition to a Socialist state...

I was just pointing out that Authoritarianism isn't always a consequence of such policies or political parties. In addition, I said there were attempts, but they were crushed by external forces. I'm assuming you think the overthrow of Allende or Ortega was a good thing, etc. Vietnam is another example of a "Socialist oriented" state. The problem is that you are limiting your definition of Socialism to centrally planned economies, that is not the only form of socialism that exists.

Most Socialist collectivism practiced today is extremely localized, generally outside the restrictions of states and even local governments, though some are self governing territories within some nations.

[MineralMan]

89. So, you can't actually name any countries that are making

a success of socialism? that's what I thought. Never mind.

What exactly is a "Socialist oriented state?"

In Mexico, the Zapatistas appear to be influential only in the state of Chiapas. I'm not sure how important that is to Mexico. It's clearly the most impoverished state in that country, though, and also has the highest percentages of indigenous peoples.

[Humanist_Activist]

90. Why not look it up? Its not my job to educate you...

Here, let me bring up a link or two for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-oriented_market_economy

Its hard to have success when the largest economies and countries in the world are violently opposed to reform, up to and including murdering millions to get their way.

[MineralMan]

91. Yeah, OK, then.

Uffda!

[Humanist_Activist]

92. You didn't answer the question, was the overthrowing of Allende a good thing or not...

it prevented Socialism from taking hold in Chile after all.

[MineralMan]

95. You did not ask a question. You stated an assumption.

You assumed something about me. I don't generally respond to people's assumptions about me.

The reality is that I do not follow South American politics at all, really. I see news occasionally from that region, but it is not a particular interest of mine.

I especially don't consider events from the early 1970s to be relevant today. So, I have no strong opinions about Allende's ouster, nor US participation in it. In general, I support a policy of non-intervention in the internal politics of other countries by the United States. So, I was in opposition to our involvement at that time.

I believe that individual nations should decide their own political destinies on their own, ideally with the support of their populations. But, i think we should not be involved in such matters as a nation. Period.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. That's an interesting non-answer, and quite revealing....

You do realize that what the United States is attempting to do now, vis a vis, with Venezuela(which, according to your definition and mine, is not a socialist country) is practically no different than the numerous interventions it participated in in the 20th century? You claim its not relevant while also lambasting as to why there are no "successful" socialist states in those same regions today?

If you don't follow politics of other regions at all, why are you even opining about it?

[MineralMan]

98. I cannot think of anything Trump is doing that has my approval.

That said, I really don't follow Venezuela at all, except for news stories I encounter in my daily paper.

Venezuela appears to be in a huge mess right now. I can't imagine that anything the Trump administration does will help solve the problems. Right now, it looks like some assistance restoring electrical power should be a high priority there. Politics, I suppose, can wait, but I have no clue what Venezuelans want their politics to be. Do you?

I'll leave following South America to you, though.

[Humanist_Activist]

101. Again, what's the point of opining about things you have very little knowledge of...

according to your own admission, you have largely removed yourself from this failed neo-liberal capitalistic economy. Why not let those of us who are barely surviving in this "success" actually have a chance to fix it?

[MineralMan]

104. What is the point of existence?

[OilemFirchen]

99. Vietnam is moving AWAY FROM Socialism.

What external force is causing that?

[Humanist_Activist]

100. No, they are moving away from Central Planning, do you know about all the varieties of socialism...

that exist?

[OilemFirchen]

109. There is only one "variety" of Socialism:

The collective ownership of the means of production, almost exclusively by the State.

Planned economies are not at all uncommon in mixed markets. Even in the wretched U.S.A. we have a central bank, some (albeit diminishing) price controls and, of course, subsidies. Certainly, our public market (DoD, for example) is centrally planned.

I would suggest moving on to Cuba if you wish to make a point, however weak it may be.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. Yeah, thats not true. Why don't you read up on the many varieties of Socialism that actually exist..

Rather than argue from ignorance?

[OilemFirchen]

111. YOU'RE going to lecture me on "ignorance"?

Go fuck yourself.

[Humanist_Activist]

112. If you demonstrate ignorance, expect to be called out on it.

There are plenty of resources online for you to read and review about Socialism. Instead you insist on arguing based on one largely obsolete model while claiming, wrongly, that its the only one.

Why devolve to personal attacks.

[OilemFirchen]

113. "Why devolve to personal attacks.' (sic)

Why indeed?

BTW, this is a public forum. Others can read this subthread. You really should stop.

[Humanist_Activist]

114. Stop what? I haven't used personal attacks, you did.

Do you want me to provide links to aid you in your research?

ON EDIT: I actually provided links to some helpful videos in the Multimedia forum. They are from a College Econom8cs professor, so kinda dry, but informative.

[OilemFirchen]

116. Gee, Wally...

Yeah, thats not true. Why don't you read up on the many varieties of Socialism that actually exist.. Rather than argue from ignorance?

That's a personal attack, pal.

[Humanist_Activist]

117. No thats an observation, all of us are ignorant of something.

I'm not excluded from that. I strive to learn about subjects before I opine on them. You are wrong in your assertion, plain and simple. How do I know, because I am, myself someone who has anarcho-syndalist leanings, a variety of Socialism that is diametricly opposed to the command economies of the USSR and other countries.

[jcmaine72]

118. And this post highlights why you are a wise person.

[OilemFirchen]

85. Nepal is not a Socialist state.

In fact, they are digging out of a dramatic depression with the introduction of new privatized industries, such that their GDP is steadily increasing.

Where on earth do you get your information?

[MineralMan]

86. I don't expect an answer.

Just more vague claims that assume ignorance on the part of the reader.

[OilemFirchen]

94. Nor do I.

I'm mostly just practicing my typing skills.

[ehrnst]

81. "Socialism" is what replaced "Communism" as a racist dog whistle for the right.

If we ignore that association, we will fail at any attempt to implement socialized programs.

Niether Medicare nor Medicaid have "social-" anywhere in their name.

Do you think that's accidental?

"Social Security" came about at a time prior to the 60's when Socialism/Communism became associated with civil rights.

[Hortensis]

97. Socialist replaced commie when the right decided to align with Russia.

Bizarre. Who could have guessed this when they were enraged by every nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia?

Political scientists. They say strong conservative people are mostly driven by gut reactions, largely negative, but have no intellectual foundation to keep those gut reactions from being manipulated into whatever form the leaders they follow decide on. We're living that, shockingly.

Fortunately for our comfort, liberalism is also inborn but also has a strong intellectual foundation going back to the Enlightenment, etc., that aligns with the principles the nation we were born into was founded on. They don't have that.

The Social Security Act, passed in the 1930s, is only considered, okay, slightly socialist because the government administers it; otherwise, working people pay into it instead of into banks -- not socialist. It was sold to the public as a guaranteed retirement plan. There were a whole bunch of socialists and communists in those days also, but they were so obnoxious that the New Deal people were unable to work with them. Perhaps including the word "social" in the name of this program was a sop to those who demanded a "real," and we do mean REAL, revolution.

[lancelyons]

105. We don't want socialism in it pure form.

We want a hybrid of good fair capitalism along with some solid helping of social programs.

[brooklynite]

107. I think they call that...capitalism

[redstatebluegirl]

106. I had a very strange conversation with a student today.

She told me she loved "socialism", she wanted free tuition, free healthcare, all the poor people in shelters etc. I asked her how we would pay for that? She said well I haven't thought about that but I guess with taxes, well I said how much in taxes are you willing to pay to get these things? She said they have it in Sweden. I told her to google their system and study it and then come back to me with what she thinks.

Nothing is "free", everything has a cost associated with it. Personally I would like to cut the heck out of the defense budget and corporate welfare, but even doing that taxes would need to be raised in a serious way. I understand this, I know that it would be a trade off, to pay more in taxes for some security, but it will cost us all more money.

If we take the criminals out of capitalism in this country all of this will be easier to take, but it is not "free".

[brooklynite]

108. Would you cite the poll data

I have a feel that, once again, people are conflating social safety net programs with socialism....incorrectly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. Why does a cab driver make more than a physician in Cuba?

[Revanchist]

119. Sigh