What is your problem with socialism?

[RobertEarl]

Is it the fact that everyone in society can equally use the roads?

Maybe you'd rather have neighborhood parks used only by neighbors and not every one?

Is it that profits for some companies may be limited?

Why do Americans have such a fear of socialism?

Can you tell me why, or is that fear blinds you and makes you blab RW ideology?

[craigmatic]

1. My problem with socialism is that we don't have enough of it. We should socialize the banks and

these too big to fail institutions and sell them off.

[el_bryanto]

7. Socialize them and then sell them off?

Do you mean selling what's owned by the banks? Or the roll of the banks? Like make banking a government contract?

Bryant

[Jackpine Radical]

59. Socialize the banks & let the Gov't run them in the interest of the public, you mean.

Check into the State Bank of North Dakota for a model of what can be done.

[hrmjustin]

2. I have no fear of it.

[Vattel]

3. I got nuthin'

[hifiguy]

4. Americans have no idea what democratic socialism even is.

They have been trained to equate the word "socialism" with Soviet Communism, not Sweden and Denmark.

The Scandinavian countries, which are all democratic socialist states, are the sanest places on earth with the happiest people.

[FrodosPet]

21. The racial tensions behind Sweden’s idyllic facade

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/sweden-refugees-racismstockholm.html

June 9, 2014 12:30AM ET
by Sam Piranty

Last month, I went to Stockholm on a reporting trip. The city seemed idyllic: bicycles aplenty standing unlocked outside at night, Volvos with their doors open and engines running, and not a cigarette butt in sight. In trendy Hornstull, bearded bros high-fived each other over Brooklyn craft beers. But everyone, it seemed, was white.

I got chatting with some of these happy hipsters and asked where I might find some of the million Somalis, Kurds, Iraqis, Chileans and Syrians who began arriving in the ’70s seeking asylum in what many perceived to be a Scandinavian “paradise.” Ever since, Sweden’s immigrant population has largely reflected wherever there has been conflict or unrest in the world. “They live in the suburbs, at the end of the blue metro line,” Karl informed me, adjusting his sunglasses in the dimly lit bar. “Don’t go there now, though, it's pretty dangerous. They’re pretty angry, and it's nighttime; black people get pretty angry when there’s no sun.”

“Don’t you think that’s pretty racist?” I asked. Karl hesitated for a moment, shooting a look at his drinking companion before removing his Ray-Bans and turning back to me. “I’m not racist,” he said. “I’m Swedish.”

My time in Sweden suggested that Karl’s articulation of the apparent exclusivity of these two concepts was not an anomaly confined to late-night drinking. Sweden proclaims itself to be an inclusive and tolerant society despite its segregated cities, racial inequality and Islamophobia. But that’s false. One only has to look at the main entrance to the Central Mosque in the middle of Stockholm to see the remains of the swastikas painted on the doors. The rise of the far right, and the entrance of the Sweden Democrats into Sweden’s parliament, have created a space to further isolate those who don’t look “Swedish.” Twice in central Stockholm, when accompanied by two Swedish-born Somalis, I was told to go back to my own country. Recent statistics show a large increase in hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, African-born residents and the Roma community.

~ snip ~

[YoungDemCA]

23. Thank you.

nt

[Jackpine Radical]

60. The Scandinavian countries certainly have their problems with their ethnic minorities.

However, that has nothing to do with socialism.

[JDPriestly]

88. You can find a lot of racists in very conservative states in the US.

So racism is not a characteristic of a particular economic system or ideology.

There are, I'm sure lots of Scandinavians who are not at all racist. Same as in the US.

[Jackpine Radical]

144. They are, however, awfully "politically incorrect" in their speech.

They quite blatantly use racist and other derogatory terms in ways nobody on this board (except for the occasional stray from FR or somewhere) would ever consider using.

[jwirr]

61. I am sure that exists in any society were there are different races. We see it here. And the point

is that it is not Democratic Socialism that causes the divisions. Nor for that matter it is not capitalism that causes racism here. We humans do not need to look for an economic system to be racist. We have plenty of other excuses - like the color of our skin or the religion we believe in.

And their Democratic Socialist system is working a heck of a lot better than our system. You were looking for racism. Did you look at the way the system was working compared to ours?

[jwirr]

55. I was going to say that for years it was equated with the USSR and we were taught to fear them.

They were this mysterious bunch of people who's whole existence was to destroy the USA. Propaganda is a powerful thing.

[former9thward]

179. They are not socialist states.

They are as market based capitalist states as is the U.S. They have more social welfare programs than the U.S. That is the only difference.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. It's about personalities...

This "progressive" personality seems "progressive" but is merely a shill for progressiveism for the corporatists. Yeah... I went there. And it sucks.

Really? I'm a McGovern Dem going on 43 years. And, I'm damned SICK of the "third way".

[Thinkingabout]

6. If I work hard and make a profit it should be my profit and not divided.

[RobertEarl]

8. You are against taxes?

What if your profit comes at the expense of the environment? Or the health of children?

Communism may be what you fear, not socialism.

[cprompt]

58. Or what if

your service/product involves none of the above. What if what you do was a result of you seeing a gap or an opportunity in an industry and spending years of your own time developing a solution to address this gap and providing a better solution at a lower price point. You literally buried your heart and soul into this, sacrificed your time and relationships for this solution, and as a result of this your business was so successful that you had to hire workers to address demand for your service due to it's success? Say 90 or 100 of them who weren't there during the years you spent pouring your heart into this project. Does that mean the years you spent developing your solution should be for a break even?

When you ask should the profits for some companies be limited this is where the road ends for me. Who are you or anyone else for that matter be the authority to determine what me or my product is worth? At what level is it ok to determine when a company has made enough? Should I pay taxes for the infrastructure I use? Yes. Should I provide a decent wage and benefits for my employees? Absolutely, it's far more worth retaining talent than the cost of losing it. But with all that said, where do you get off having any input on what myself or my company profits? IMHO none...

That's where we may agree to disagree. So to go down your list:

1) We do have equal access to the roads
2) We do have equal access to public parks
3) Yes
4) It's not an all or nothing game
5) Not sure I understand why I'm fearful just because I don't agree with you

[PETRUS]

66. The money quote:

"Who are you or anyone else for that matter be the authority to determine what me or my product is worth?"

Exactly. Why one algorithm for value vs. another? Yet you have a strongly implied preference...

[jwirr]

68. The European countries have Democratic Socialism not communism. What that means is that they

believe in taking care of the people through their social programs such as national health care, free education, etc. If you bother to look they are still capitalist countries - they do not steal you ideas - why should they? Everyone pays taxes to pay for the Socialist programs. The taxes are high but they get a lot out of them.


As to limiting profits - do you like how the CEOs are being paid so much more than their employees? And the golden parachutes they get when they leave the company even when they have committed a crime?

[RobertEarl]

89. heh

What if someone comes along and steals your idea?

Well, you'd of course ask the socialist system to remedy the theft.

You seem to equate socialism with thievery and so it seems you do not understand socialism at all. Socialism is not individualism and that is a clue you may chew on?

[Exilednight]

110. I'll go thru your points one by one

1) we do not have equal access to roads. Groups of elites get together and privatize roads, block them with gates and put fences up to keep others out. They're called private communities, and they are roads paid for with tax payer dollars.

2) see above but replace roads with parks.

3) if we have a minimum wage, the. We have to have a maximum wage. Maximum wage would be accomplished through taxes. If you worked that hard, then society was supporting you while you took all that time to develop your idea.

4) it is.

5) not going to try and read into your personal thoughts.

[Jackpine Radical]

147. I suppose you worked your way through school too.

And washed dishes in the school cafeteria to pay for your hot lunches.

(Incidentally, I actually did that in about 4th grade. I went to a 1-room country school with wood & coal heat, outhouses, I a hand pump for water. Kids were assigned chores like bringing in wood & coal for the stove, bringing in water, & washing dishes. A neighbor family with two of their kids in that school had a little contract with the school system to provide us with lunches, which they delivered in those old-style metal military coolers.)

I got the dish gig that year (about 1954), and got 15¢ every day for doing it, which covered the cost of the hot lunch.

What sort of jobs were available for Kindergarteners in your area?

[orpupilofnature57]

9. What if you steal hard, or evade hard, or hedge hard ???

[leftofcool]

26. Most small business owners do not steal, evade their taxes or have hedge funds.

[daleanime]

56. And so there must be no problem.....

Right?

[leftofcool]

105. Not with small Businesses

[orpupilofnature57]

109. I was thinking Monsanto, Halliburton, that cottage industry

the MIC, which threatens to bring another political system, Totaltarianism .

[daleanime]

111. And the problem with Big businesses?

We're willing to overlook it rather then touch 'small' business?

[Exilednight]

112. Do you know the definition of "small business". 99.7% of all businesses are

Small businesses. Technically, almost every wal-mart store is a small business. My parent company is a $42 billion/year company, but since where I work employees less than 500 people, we are a local small business based on federal guidelines.

So, to counter your point, if 52% of companies do those things, then yes the majority of small businesses are that bad.

[Jackpine Radical]

148. Many of them DO steal, often from their employees.

Many of them, particularly where small cash payments are involved, cheat on their taxes. Hedge funds, I dunno about.

[PETRUS]

15. You're obviously confused.

You don't make a profit by working; you make a profit by owning.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Have you ever been an owner? Probably not since you think only the workers works.

[PETRUS]

20. My situation doesn't matter, since we're talking definitions.

But I'm willing to oblige - I currently own and operate a business and it's not my first. But as I said, that's beside the point. Profits come from ownership. Someone has to do the work, but it needn't be the owner and it often isn't. If you have issues with someone else materially benefiting from your efforts, then your complaint applies to capitalism.

[salib]

30. Just a subtle clarification

One does not make a profit by owning. One makes a profit by trading. I.e., buying low and selling high.

However, it is owning that allows you to trade. Mostly, as laborers, people do not even own their own selves. Thus, they cannot trade and cannot make a profit.

The system is designed that way.

[PETRUS]

37. Thanks.

I don't know that I've ever thought to consider it that way. Interesting.

[KingCharlemagne]

95. Marxist economist here: one need not 'trade' to make a profit in any given fiscal year. One need

only conduct affairs such that one's capital generates revenues in excess of costs, the difference being the 'profit' (or 'Return on investment').

The proletariat, as Marx defined the term,, had no capital upon which to subsist and had only its labor to trade. The surplus value of its labor in capitalist economies is extracted by the owner of capital and retained by him or her as 'profit.'

[salib]

118. Good point

Though in my imprecise terminology I think "trade" covers this conducted affairs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. "Marxist economist here"

How much does that pay?

[KingCharlemagne]

124. Well, as a matter of fact, it's an avocation, not a vocation. But

why the snark and sneer?

[Jackpine Radical]

150. Seems to me I remember a goodly number of Marxist

economists, historians & social scientists in my academic background, But then I went to school at Moscow on Mendota. half a century ago.

[DeadEyeDyck]

154. but doesn't a laborer trade his talents and time for money

that he can then trade for something else? And we all trade up.

[Thinkingabout]

31. I don't have a problem with capitalism, i also do not have a problem with retaining my profits.

[PETRUS]

39. The rationale you offered doesn't support your position, though.

It functions neither as a complaint about socialism nor a justification for capitalism.

[upaloopa]

40. I think I understand where you are coming from.

But you don't exist in a vacuum. You could not make a profit if it wasn't for the other stakeholders around you. Your suppliers, your workers, your customers and your neighbors. Any of these can take your profits away from you if you are a poor citizen.

[salib]

27. Are you kidding?

Yes, I have been an "owner".

It was my money that made payroll, that allowed for investment, that controlled everything in the company.

And yes, I worked hard. So did all those i "owned."

How did I own them? All fifteen of them?

I owned their labor. Why did I have a business? Why did i invest, i.e. Put my money on the line? Well, first because I had it and could make more.

How did I make more? Because, while I worked hard and they worked hard, I made money off of their work, they did not make money off of my work. I had money to begin with. They did not, or at least not enough to risk like that.

So, I get to make money off of their work, all because I already have some and they do not.

Is that really so noble?

I certainly did it. Because that is the way the system is set up.

There are most definitely better ways.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Perhaps there are better ways, some only wants a paycheck and not the headache.

The profit retained is pay for my headache.

[salib]

35. A self righteous headache. It is the best kind.

Convenient, isn't it, that "some only want a paycheck"? Kinda takes the sting out of exploitation.

Sorry. Been there done that. Easy too, easier the more you have to play with.

Just because it take more work the less you have does not minimize, and in fact proves the rule, that capitalism is exploitation.

It is simply the only game in town.

Btw, don't flatter yourself. That is never a good idea.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Explotation also would exist in a total socialism state, don't try to exclude those who only

Participate in receiving and not giving. Always receiving may make you happy, it doesn't make me happy, ergo so off to work I go.

[Exilednight]

113. Just like politicians, no economic system is going to be what

everyone wants. I would rather have a system that makes 51% happy, comfortable and their needs met than the system we have now where only 1% enjoys that lifestyle.

[Thinkingabout]

126. Where are the facts where the break down of the 51%?

[Exilednight]

130. I used 51% as an arbitrary number, but here's a fact

That is not in dispute: currently, 90% of the current new wealth is going to the top 1%.

I blame that on people with Ayn Rand logic and truly believe they have a mentality of being owed a ridiculous compensation because of their "headaches" and the belief they are risking something, when in reality they are risking little.

[PowerToThePeople]

50. "There are most definitely better ways."

I respect this post. The system forces people into many moral turpitudes if you want to avoid struggling to survive. It is designed for self-perpetuation.

[DeadEyeDyck]

156. I have two employees-1099s

I pay them both $65/hr. They are very happy with the arrangement. That is why they work for me and not the competitor they left to come work for me. I hope to bring on three more next month as I take on a larger contact.

I went LLC last November and have yet to take a salary. But I can guarantee you, I have yet to have a week where I put in less than 65 hours.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. The owner provides capital. The worker provides labor. This is really simple stuff.

Thinking of opening your own plumbing business? Pro-tip: get licensed first, Joe.

[Exilednight]

114. The owners don't provide capital, banks do. Owners of business borrow and the only

Thing they risk is their credit rating.

[cali]

103. I never have

but my father was "an owner". You've almost surely used something he manufactured. my dad long recognized that the biggest problem in our society is the ever growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

We could use more democratic socialism in this country.

[Starry Messenger]

19. You evade taxes?

[Thinkingabout]

34. No, i pay my taxes, I vote and I go to jury duty. I like being a participating citizen. I do not

Pay under the table and I don't hire workers who does not have proper papers.

[Starry Messenger]

45. Then your response to the OP makes no sense.

None of us retain all of our profits. Socialism is funded through taxation.

[Thinkingabout]

46. WTH?

Profits are after taxes.

[Starry Messenger]

70. Taxes are on profits.

Taxes take a portion of profits. Hope you aren't accountant. I'm from a family of tax professionals--words mean things, and you are using them incorrectly.

[Thinkingabout]

77. Been there done that. Check with them, they can explain it to you. Check to see if the profit the

taken by the owner from the company is after the company taxes are paid. If the owner takes a draw the owner is taxed on personal taxes.

[Starry Messenger]

91. No sweetie.

Look stuff up. Firstly, "profits" taken by an owner...Presuming we aren't talking about a sole-proprietorship (which doesn't technically have profits anyway, just net revenue)... are independent of the "profits" of the entity we're here calling a business.

A partnership or s-corp is a pass through entity. Profits, in as much as you are talking about net revenues, pass through to owners and the owners are taxed based upon that pass thru. There is no "after taxes" ... There is only a stream of revenue and individual taxation.

In the case of a sole -proprietorship, there isn't even the fiction of a separate entity... It's your income, gross and net, and you pay taxes accordingly.

Only in the case of a c-corp is there sufficient division of entities to provide taxation of owners (share holders) in addition to taxation of the corporate entity... But in that case it is not a "draw"- it is either salary or dividends (unless your accountant is smoking crack and making shit up on the fly).

One presumes you can live with paying taxes on your salary, like the rest of us... And one can acquire preferential tax rates on dividend income- if the corporation can qualify for qualified dividend status for its dividend payouts...

In no case, however, does anyone pay additional individual tax, in addition to company entity tax, on a "draw".

[Exilednight]

115. ^wicked smart. Maybe the person your responding to needs to ThinkAboutIt.

[Starry Messenger]

145. The propaganda runs deep in the U.S.

The right-wing gets away with demonizing socialism by tossing the actual definitions of words out the windows. Every schmuck with a dollar in his pocket thinks he's a capitalist.

[Thinkingabout]

161. Perhaps you have not heard about corporate taxes.

[Starry Messenger]

166. Err... did you not read the post? Or are the details of the topic too complex for you to follow?

And I quote (myself):
"Only in the case of a c-corp is there sufficient division of entities to provide taxation of owners (share holders) in addition to taxation of the corporate entity... But in that case it is not a "draw"- it is either salary or dividends (unless your accountant is smoking crack and making shit up on the fly).

"One presumes you can live with paying taxes on your salary, like the rest of us... And one can acquire preferential tax rates on dividend income- if the corporation can qualify for qualified dividend status for its dividend payouts... "

So... yes, obviously I have "heard about corporate taxes". But, and here's the rub, as long as "corporations are people"... as long as corporations want to have the legal protections enjoined by actual, real individuals, they will have to pay in some way for that artificial privilege... and the cost is that they, like "other people", have to pay taxes.

If they then apportion money out to "other people", commonly referred to as "shareholders," then those shareholders, themselves people, also have to pay taxes on that income. Mind you though, the 0%/15% taxation rate on qualified dividends makes that a far less taxed stream of income than actually working for oneself... but it is nevertheless an income stream that will, potentially, be subject to taxation.

If corporations (c-corporations, technically) really found the taxation system that they are subjected to onerous, however, you can bet that they would revise their charters, liquify themselves, and re-incorporate as pass-thru entities like s-corporations, or perhaps ginormous partnerships. The very fact that they don't do so, is itself proof that the specious argument of "corporate taxes" being a burden is simply argumentative spin.

Let the corporations commit "suicide"... and eliminate the ability of individuals to hide behind the corporate "apron strings" while behaving badly (or even criminally)... and in exchange I'm sure we can do away with "corporate taxes".

[Thinkingabout]

167. Since you do not know who you are talking to I will forgive your post.

[Starry Messenger]

168. I'm talking to someone who can't be bothered to read, evidently.

Have a nice day!

[NuclearDem]

41. Personal and private property are not the same thing.

Stupid RW meme is stupid.

[Thinkingabout]

42. Hell is being raised about what the government does and some are wanting the government in control?

If it is my company it is my private property. And why stop at controlling the businesses, just extend the control. Oh, no, this is why I do not agree with socialism.

[NuclearDem]

43. Again, stupid RW meme is stupid.

Public, private, and personal property are not the same things.

Public property is owned in common--roads and libraries.

Private property is capital--financial and plant assets a business uses in its capacity as a business. Factories, fleets, mines.

Personal property is that which belongs to you personally--your own car, your house, your wages, your appliances.

Private property in the context of economics doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Thinkingabout]

44. If you read the definition of socialism, yes it is stupid. You can cherry pick and when I read posts

Where they think the corporations should share the wealth with those less fortunate. You may not have the same feelings as they do. I read this week if you have money to invest in shares you have enough money to pay a tax on the purchases to provide free college to others. This is where I have a problem. I have worked hard in my life and if I can put the funds to invest I should not have to pay for the education and the receivers thinks the hand out should happen. I will never be convinced socialism is best.

[NuclearDem]

48. There is no one definition of socialism.

It's a very wide-ranging economic model and the only things all the ideas have in common with one another are the ideas of common ownership and cooperative management of the economy.

I have worked hard in my life and if I can put the funds to invest I should not have to pay for the education and the receivers thinks the hand out should happen. I will never be convinced socialism is best.

Seriously, knock it off with the stupid RW memes already. As long as you interact with society, you have to play by society's rules, and we have an interest in making education affordable or paying for roads.

Libertarian bullshit, honestly.

[Thinkingabout]

49. How about you knock off the accusations, I am not RW. You do not win on make

Accusations. As I have already said I am not going to change my opinion.

[NuclearDem]

51. Could've fooled me.

Considering you've not only repeatedly misrepresented basic parts of socialism, but you've also managed to slip in "hand outs" and pretty much standard Ayn Rand nonsense about having to pay for the leeches.

[Thinkingabout]

52. Now you are calling others leeches.

[NuclearDem]

54. Reading comprehension helps.

[Thinkingabout]

78. Did you post this:

"having to pay for the leeches"

Maybe reading comprehension does help.

[Exilednight]

116. That's not what the poster implied, you inferred that others in society are leeches. n/t

[NuclearDem]

123. There we go! A correct answer!

[Thinkingabout]

125. I did not imply that either, in this run name calling is happening. Where is the need to name call?

[Exilednight]

127. Yes you did, and this is where you did it using

Right-wing tea bagger dog whistle ...

Where they think the corporations should share the wealth with those less fortunate. You may not have the same feelings as they do. I read this week if you have money to invest in shares you have enough money to pay a tax on the purchases to provide free college to others. This is where I have a problem. I have worked hard in my life and if I can put the funds to invest I should not have to pay for the education and the receivers thinks the hand out should happen. I will never be convinced socialism is best.

[Thinkingabout]

128. I NEVER did the name calling, that is on someone else, a RW tactic.

With the points for socialism on the replies I would never consider giving socialism as being acceptable.

[Exilednight]

131. Put your dog whistle down. It's only name calling if

It's not true. You stated you don't believe in "handouts" which is tea bagger speak for government programs that help lift people out of poverty.

[Thinkingabout]

146. Since I never said I do not believe in "handouts" you are targeting the wrong poster.

It's over, go your way, don't falsely accuse me.

[Exilednight]

149. It's exactly what you said.

[Thinkingabout]

151. BYE

[Exilednight]

153. Enjoy wherever you're going. I'll be here at DU.

[AgingAmerican]

160. So you are against Social Security

Medicaid, public highways, public water systems and, in general, the common good.

Me ME me mE!!1!

[Thinkingabout]

163. It is thinking like your post which makes socialism bad, too much of give me, give me, give me.

[AgingAmerican]

164. So you are against all those things

Thanks for the clarification.

[Thinkingabout]

165. Here is another problem, some thinks they know I should have said for their wants.

I had ask if you know about corporate taxes. I have experience with corporations, I understand how the taxes works, I understand. Don't try to rewrite my post, others have tried and others have also failed.

[AgingAmerican]

169. You are pushing Mitt Romneys 'takers vs makers' meme.

Hillary tried to socialize medicine back in the 90s, so I assume you are not voting for her cuz socialism and stuff!!

[Thinkingabout]

170. Hummm, since you seem to study Mitt, you still fail in rewriting my post, not even a good try.

[AgingAmerican]

171. Apparently you missed the last election

You are pushing the GOP position on a Democratic forum.

Why are you even here?

[Thinkingabout]

172. It is really hard on you, false accusations is not a winning suit for you.

[PowerToThePeople]

65. been smelling this one for a while now.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

84. Day f-ing one. nt

[truebluegreen]

139. Yup.

[jwirr]

72. Education is and always has been an investment. In the future and in our country. Yes we older

ones had to pay for some of our own education but times have changed. Education is way to expensive compared to when I want to school. The kids cannot afford it.

What kind of future are we going to have if they do not get an education? Where are our innovators going to come from? Where are the future taxpayers going to come from? Where are the brain surgeons going to come from? Where are the business owners going to come from? Where are the workers in your business going to come from?

And worst of all where are our leaders going to come from? We are already seeing what the dumbing down of America is doing when we take a look at tea party congress people.

[sammythecat]

140. Just one point I'd like to make

There are lazy rich people and there are lazy poor people, but they're a minority. Call it 15% for the sake of this argument. The other 85% work hard. In other words, nearly everybody in this life has to work hard. It's a given that we all work hard yet you keep mentioning your hard work in all your arguments as if you're somewhat exceptional in this regard. You're not. Like I said, it's a given. In fact I'll wager any amount that the hard work of the poor person is harder and far more stressful than the work of the successful person or a person working toward a goal with a potentially large payoff.

And what if that potentially large payoff fails to materialize and they lose everything they put at risk? Then they become a hard working poor person. But, in nearly all such cases they will likely retain one key advantage over the other hard working poor people. They have the valuable ability to recognize, and take advantage of, the next opportunity that may come their way. Not everyone has that ability. That is a matter of good luck.

[Thinkingabout]

143. I never said there are not people who work hard, since I have been employed before I know lazy mu

hard workers. I understand losing everything put at risk. I am not blind to poor people and agree some needs assistance, it should not be assistance for life for the able bodied. I do not have a problem with people with handicaps. I do not have a problem helping our seniors. You do not have to explain poor to me, I know first hand but it does not mean I should not have tried to obtain employment to provide for my needs.

[brush]

73. You are uninformed

Many things in this country are already socialist.It's just a matter of degree. Your company can exist in a socialist/democratic society that honors and supports the common weal. Just be willing to pay and not evade your fair share taxes for the infrastructure your company uses to make profits.

[Thinkingabout]

82. That was somebody else who brought up the tax evasion, maybe the accuser is evading taxes.

I have already answered I do not evade taxes, I vote and I serve on juries, I do my civic duties. I also don't have a problem with calling out those who wants to evade paying for their education and think it is just fine to tax others so they can receive a free college education.

[brush]

85. Guess you don't know college is free in . . .

democratic socialist countries in Europe that have some of the most highly profitable companies in the world.

The two things can co-exist.

Usually people out grow Ayn Rand libertarian selfishness by the time they are sophomores in high school.

[Thinkingabout]

87. Selfish, this is what you can call the college students who gets their degree and think they should

not have to pay back the loans. They get their education, the next generation comes along and expect loans again because the previous generation is paying their loans and the funds become available for the next generation. You can throw out the Ayn Rand all you want, I suggested for those receiving their degrees to play it forward and pay for the next generation, but it appears they want the free education and to hell with the next generations. That is selfish.

[brush]

92. Is there a comprehension problem?

"Free" as in what President Obama recently proposed, as in the European countries whose governments provides free college for its citizens.

No loans or people expecting loans, a service provided by the government for its people.

[leftofcool]

106. This isn't Europe and I don't owe "your" kids an education.

They can do like most kids do, work their way through college or don't go. If Obama wants to make college free by taxing the rich, good. I love that. But don't expect middle class people raising families or us retired old folks to put others peoples kids through college.

[Violet_Crumble]

129. Do you feel the same about universal healthcare?

Because that comes out of our taxes and I'm more than happy to pay it so that everyone has access to healthcare and not just those who can afford it...

[Exilednight]

134. I was wondering the same thing. If they don't want to pay for my child's education, then should they

Expect me to pay for their healthcare?

[Exilednight]

133. WTF? If you went to college, I'm probably still paying for your

Education. College finding has been drastically reduced since you've gone to college. Your college education, if you went, was mostly funded thru tax payer dollars of the working class.

[leftofcool]

135. Uh no! I worked my way through college working 3 jobs

It took me 6 years to attain a 4 year degree so no you did not are are not now paying for my education.

[Exilednight]

138. Yes I am. Unless you went to a for profit diploma mill, your educatipn was partially

Funded thru tax payer dollars. The same tax payer dollars that every public and private non-profit university receives to help offset the cost.

[brush]

141. What's so hard to grasp about college for all

Corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes. Our military budget is obscene. It's not rocket science to conceptualize what can be done with those funds — single payer healthcare, free college for those who want it, infrastructure repair with all the jobs that would bring.

Come on, folks, government can work for people and still leave room for profit making businesses (like the ones that would do the infrastructure repair).

We're not talking about some no private property, the-state-owns-everything type of communist-style bogeyman that we've been conditioned to fear.

And just think of the benefits of a college educated populace.

[jwirr]

63. So you do not believe in paying taxes?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. I hear Somalia is nice. But Galt's a Gulch might be closer for you.

This tent really is huge. Just look--it stretches WAY off to the right these days.

[eridani]

102. Only if you are a sole proprietorship. What gives you the right to--

--live off of other peoples' hard work just because you own the equipment?

[AgingAmerican]

159. You sound like Rand Paul

nt

[Hoyt]

10. Life would definitely be better if we were more like Denmark.

Question is, how do we get there? Don't think it can happen overnight.

And just in case this is a veiled attempt to promote a certain candidate, I don't know think he'd get elected; or, in the unlikely event he makes it, will get any cooperation from Congress. He's probably best in Senate, or some policy position in another admin.

[RobertEarl]

11. Yeah, it is about Bernie

And yes, he will get elected. But first we'll have to educate people about their dumb fear of socialism.

Obama has gotten no cooperation from Congress since it turned republican, and no Democrat will until the pubbies get run out of DC. Bernie's campaign will be the first push to clean up DC, bet on it. Join in.

[Hoyt]

14. I'll definitely support him if he wins primary. eom

[salib]

32. Exactly. And that is the point of the primaries.

Let's make sure he wins, or someone equally deserving.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. My problem with socialism? Simple:

That it hasn't been implemented here yet.

[99th_Monkey]

13. Let's take a peek at the Socialist Hellhole we'd become under President Sanders

7 Charts that tell it all...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026714061

[Half-Century Man]

16. That we, as socialists or near socialists, do not market ourselves very well.

Socialism came into being in the early 19th century. The only two experimental models of socialistic governments were the fledgling United States of America and the Republic of France.
France was locked in the Reign of Terror and would shortly crown Napoleon.

The only working model of a government of the people by the people aka socialism was the United States.

We are working basis for the modern concept of socialism.
We already are socialists.

[procon]

24. That's the truth.

Socialism is already here in bits and pieces, but we just call it different names to keep the public happy.

[RobertEarl]

97. That should be an OP

Very well said, Half-Century Man, thanks.

[Half-Century Man]

100. One of a series of rants I have yet to post.

[YoungDemCA]

18. I think it's pretty clear that the traditional social-democratic Left is dead in Europe and the US

And has been dead for some time. Hell, it never really took off in the US to begin with.

I don't have a "problem" with socialism, but I can recognize the historical reality of what has transpired.

[JaneyVee]

22. I think we just need to build upon our current system.

[jwirr]

75. You will have to discuss that with the 1% they have all the capital. And they seem to want to

spent is all overseas.

[BlueJazz]

25. If it's regulated fairly, I have no problem with it.

[guillaumeb]

28. If you do not like socialism, you do not like:

the USPS, the largest, most efficient, best rated, and cheapest postal service in the world.

Social Security, a pension plan that has never missed a payment.

The Police, and Fire department of most towns.

Many public utilities,

Libraries, publicly owned and operated,

the Armed Forces,

the Veterans Administration, where the facilities and employees are all public employees.

I could go on, but what is the point? Socialism removes the profit motive from services. Public utilities and services are cheaper to run and a better value than privatized ones.

[LWolf]

29. Good questions

for those who have a problem. I look forward to scrolling through their answers.

[PowerToThePeople]

38. with a world of finite resources

No one can "profit" without another taking a loss.

It is predatory and wrong.

[BKH70041]

47. Not Interested

"A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Calling things we as a people do collectively "socialism" (common defense, roads, law enforcement, etc...) is inaccurate when it is simply the legitimate function of any form of government and/or economy.

More to the point -- I've never been convinced the "community as a whole" has the ability to own and/or regulate in a way that is mutually beneficial to all involved.

Public ownership has its place, but so does private ownership and freedom of the individual to achieve, and the right for an individual to pursue happiness in a way which benefits them (within lawful means). That's the cornerstone of liberty and the foundation upon which America was formed.

So no, not interest in socialism.

[jwirr]

76. And that is not Democratic Socialism. What hey have in Europe is and the economic basis for most

European countries is capitalism with social programs. Not all that different from the mixed economy of the New Deal.

[brush]

83. It's a matter of the degree of socialism in a society

The social democracies of Europe have more public institutions that work well — their healthcare systems for example — than we do but they also have very successful private companies that product great products at a profit — Daimler Benz for example.

Bernie nor anyone here are advocating full-scale, communist-style means of production belongs to the people crap.

Your sacred profits can co-exist with socialists aspects of society that support the common weal.

[RobertEarl]

93. Eh?

You define socialism as:

""A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.""

Well, here in the USA the means of production is protected by the government, the distribution via roads and other networks is protected by the government, and the exchanges via dollars etc, are protected by the government.

So, you can see the government is socialism, and our government makes it possible for you to pursue your happiness.

Then you state:
"...it is simply the legitimate function of any form of government .."

Which is simply not factual. Yes, the US system works, but there are other governments that do not work for the benefit of all. This country has a socialist style of governance in that it works for the general welfare of the people, and it sure has worked well, hasn't it?

If you live in the US, you live in a democratic socialist governing system.

[BKH70041]

122. That was the dictionary definition of socialism.

I just C&P'd it.

And things that I mentioned are legitimate functions of government. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Medes, Babylonians, etc... these governments built roads, provided and/or had oversight of a monetary exchange or trade, provided for the military, law enforcement, provided a legal system, collected taxes, and so forth. Were they socialist? I suppose you would say they were. I sure wouldn't. They were just performing the everyday functions of government. That's what governments are suppose to do. That's like saying a group of neighbors who decide to get together one day to pretty up the neighbor and each pitch in equally are informally forming a socialist work group (and I've seen examples like that at this site, and it called 'socialism'). No they aren't, they're just each pitching in to do their part like people had done for eons. Leave socialism out of it.

Your question was specific. You said "socialism," not "democratic socialism", so the two that answered before you didn't even address my answering the question they way you phrased it. And you call things that governments have done for their citizens/subjects for thousands of years "socialism."

Not interested.

[ronnie624]

157. Using public resources for the common good, is most certainly socialism.

And you're right: it is the legitimate function of any form of government/economy. You and millions of others don't like the word because of a lifetime of exposure to a narrative that marginalizes socialism.

The foundational premise for capitalism, is that the earth's resources, by default, are owned and controlled by a tiny, elite class of human society, for the purpose of profiting. This is an extremely flawed view. It is lacking in logic and justice, and guarantees there will not be enough basic resources for everyone, rendering it devoid of any kind of moral legitimacy.

The resources and energy that drive our civilization, belong to everyone, in my view, and should be used to provide basic goods and services to all people. This is the only way our economy will enable us to meet future challenges. The old way is barbaric and needs to be reformed into an equitable, science-based economic system, that provides security for everyone, and reflects the reality that it is working-class people who provide the greatest energy investment in driving our economic activity.

[seveneyes]

53. Who here is not better than someone else at what they do best?

Equality exists in math, unlike humanity.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. So you think

that because people do not have equal abilities, looks, or other traits that there are some that deserve to have more resources than can be spent in a thousand lifetimes while others die and starve?

[seveneyes]

67. So, you think you can tell a smile from a veil?

[PowerToThePeople]

69. =)

eom

[seveneyes]

71. Peace offering

[Dont call me Shirley]

62. Democratic Socialism works well in worker owned cooperative companies. We need more of these.

[jwirr]

79. FDR used cooperatives to build many of his programs. Not to long ago the power company sent

me a letter asking me to sign off on my grandfathers stock in the coop. He had paid $10 for a stock in the coop in 1938 and he was long dead but they still had his portion on the books. Everyone in that area was a part of that coop and it is still going today with new stockholders.

[Dont call me Shirley]

174. We need the incarnation of FDR

[jwirr]

175. Oh I kind of think we have that choice today. Bernie.

[Dont call me Shirley]

178. We sure do

[MrMickeysMom]

64. Works for the military!

Yesssir!

[fadedrose]

74. Herbert Philbrick

[Jamastiene]

86. It is instilled, brainwashed, into Americans from the cradle to the grave.

That is why most people have a problem with it, because they were told to.

[JDPriestly]

90. Are you talking about democratic socialism?

It is different from socialism that is accompanied by a dictatorship. Those are two very different concepts. It is extremely important to make that clear.

Democratic socialism does not require nationalizing any or all industries, for example. It permits the election of more socialist and also more conservative governments and allows for each to govern according to majority rule.

Majority rule is the key in democratic socialism.

[RobertEarl]

94. I made it clear in post 93

Our whole setup of government is for the general welfare of the people. The people being the social part, as opposed to say companies. Although, whats-his-face did try to say companies are people!!

We do have a democratic socialist type of government, right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

155. No, the US type of government isn't "democratic socialist"

The lack of publicly-provided healthcare, of public (or worker) ownership of banks or extraction or manufacturing companies, and the only partial public ownership of transportation (cities do tend to own their bus services) shows that.

[Omnith]

96. I like the system we have now.

Things keep getting better.

[LuvNewcastle]

107. lol!

[pnwmom]

98. Nothing, concerning socialistic programs. But I'm afraid the word itself has lost value as a brand

and we'd be better off with a different label that so many people didn't associate with communist dictatorships.

[AgingAmerican]

99. Creeping fascism

nt

[Violet_Crumble]

104. The political party I vote for is a democratic socialist party...

They're one of the two major parties here and have held government a fair bit over the years. From their website: 'The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.'

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1365135867/Labor_National_Platform.pdf?1365135867

The only creeping fascism I've seen here is when the Liberal/National coalition are in government, and being conservative, they're clearly not fond of democratic socialism...

[AgingAmerican]

158. Tony Abbot

nt

[eridani]

101. The word no longer means what it used to

It used to mean ownership of all means of production by the state. Now it seems to mean that public goods are good, even though not every enterprise is about public goods.

[dembotoz]

108. the word is more poison to the voting public than the word liberal it is equal to communist

here in this safe place we can blather about what the word means to us but what matters is how it will be used against us.

i grew tired from defend in public----in public that obama was not a socialist...(my comment has always been-obama is not a socialist-hell sometimes he is hardly a democrat--obama is not a socailsit I AM A SOCIALIST)


folks around here are afraid of the word.
that is why i cringe at bernie
i love what he stands for
i much prefer him to hilary
but i fear because of the label it is like giving the gop the ball on our 20 yard line

[lonestarnot]

117. In its purest form, the government would own my car and I've already make all the payments on the

loan.

[wyldwolf]

119. My problem isn't necessarily socialism but, rather, what Americans have been conditioned to...

... think about it.

When I say 'Bernie can't win because he's a socialist,' that isn't a criticism of HIM, it's a criticism of our society. And it's a dose of reality.

Bernie, and other who declare themselves a socialist (especially during the 1930s - 1980s time period) have probably done it as an act of defiance. Bernie would have served himself better had he pushed and fought for what he believed in while never openly embracing the word.

Just my thought. And yes, I'll gladly vote for him with no reservations if wins the nomination.

[99Forever]

121. What is my problem with socialism?

That too many people don't have a clue what the term actually means. Living proof that propaganda works.

[foo_bar]

132. socialism infringes upon an Eli-Lilly registered trademark, Cialis®

Damn I'd make such a good capitalist.

[randys1]

136. Me, nothing. My coworker and neighbor, on the other hand. Scared to death of it.

Because like everything else they are brainwashed and completely ignorant of what it is, how we got here, etc.

The very essence of capitalism is why we are all fucked right now.

[dawg]

137. I have a problem with the re-branding of socialism.

99% of the things people call socialist on this site, and others like it, are really just features of a liberal, well-regulated, capitalist economy.

Under pure socialism, all businesses would be owned by the government. Only idiots want that.

Under pure capitalism, there would be no public goods at all. Only idiots want that.

What we argue about in this country, is whether we want a capitalist economy with a public sector that is 20% of GDP, or whether we want a capitalist economy with a public sector that is 35% of GDP.

But if we could wave a magic wand and instantly establish a single-payer health care system, a guaranteed minimum income, and free college for all, we still would not be living under a socialist system.

[brooklynite]

142. Agreed

My big issue with socialism is that it has never worked on a national level at any time in history. I'm delighted if someone has a local cooperative, but that's not a model for a national economy.

[HassleCat]

152. Theory vs. Practice

The things you mention remind me that socialism enjoys a special status in the United States. It's loved more in practice than in theory, which makes it just the opposite of most political theories, economic systems, religions, etc. We do love to use and enjoy public resources. We like it when federal forests are paid for by everyone, then cut down to provide jobs for "me." We like streets, public schools, swimming pools, etc. In fact, we like them so much we demand they be better and more efficient, without raising taxes. We love socialism. We just don't want to admit we're socialists.

[Rex]

162. Well for the pretenders here, it helps equalize wealth distribution and that scares the crap out

of them!

[applegrove]

173. Socialism works for some things and does not do a good job at others. A mixed market economy is

best. I am only afraid of socialism that tries to completely undo capitalism.

[Matrosov]

176. American ignorance

The biggest problem with socialism is that most Americans don't understand the system. The hear someone argue in favor of socialism, and they automatically assume the person is arguing in favor of emulating the Soviet Union, KGB and gulags and all.

[Agnosticsherbet]

177. A century and a half of anti-socialist propaganda

Left it's mark.