The rise of socialism in America

perplexed · Sep 30, 2022

hislegacy said:
Ask 15 proponents of socialism for a definition and you get 25 different definitions.

There is no agreed on definition, how can you support it?

The source of the confusion is that republicans stopped using the dictionary definition which is just crazy.

I don't see how your argument applies in general

For example, You agree with the Republican claim that the Republicans are saving America from tyranny
I would agree if the republicans made a ridiculously obvious correction.

The fact that some people have a strange definition of tyranny and claim not calling republicans racist is tyranny does not invalidate everyone who uses the term

SimplyMe · Sep 30, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
The DSA web page describes a pretty strong support for collective ownership.

Is that big in Denmark?

Well the Scandinavian countries aren't socialist.

The DSA pretty clearly are, but they've ignored any in depth explanation of political philosophy on their website.

I suppose it is good that I wasn't talking about the DSA -- and I agree, they are vague, and I suggest they are intentionally vague. OTOH, a bit of looking and the basic idea is that workers should have an ownership stake of the companies they work for, not government ownership such as you'd find in socialism.

Instead, if you listen to those who are "socialist" in Congress, you quickly learn that they largely support a Scandinavian-style "socialism" which is better defined as Democratic Capitalism with strong social nets. Granted, it can vary depending a little, depending on which you listen to, but it is still the basic idea of ensuring fair wages, giving a "fair" (similar to Scandinavian/European laws, the EU mandates 20 vacation days, 4 weeks, per year) vacation and time off, and some wanting the workers to have an ownership stake in the company they work for.

perplexed · Sep 30, 2022

whoops ignore don't know how to delete a post

Ana the Ist · Sep 30, 2022

SimplyMe said:
I suppose it is good that I wasn't talking about the DSA --

You compared the Democratic Socialists to Denmark. I assumed that the Democratic Socialists in Congress belong to the Democratic Socialist party.

and I agree, they are vague, and I suggest they are intentionally vague. OTOH, a bit of looking and the basic idea is that workers should have an ownership stake of the companies they work for, not government ownership such as you'd find in socialism.

Well I recall them advocating for government ownership of natural and energy resources.

Nothing much....just the ground beneath your feet.

Instead, if you listen to those who are "socialist" in Congress, you quickly learn that they largely support a Scandinavian-style "socialism" which is better defined as Democratic Capitalism with strong social nets. Granted, it can vary depending a little, depending on which you listen to, but it is still the basic idea of ensuring fair wages, giving a "fair" (similar to Scandinavian/European laws, the EU mandates 20 vacation days, 4 weeks, per year) vacation and time off, and some wanting the workers to have an ownership stake in the company they work for.

Uh huh....well the part I mentioned above seems to contradict that. The Scandinavian models differ....but regardless, one thing has to happen. We would need to end the vast majority of illegal immigration.

These planned markets have a habit of failing badly when millions of illegal immigrants are unaccounted for.

As for some goofy model wherein the employees share ownership of the business....I'll let you in on a little secret...

You can do that right now if you wanted. There's nothing to stop you.

FireDragon76 · Sep 30, 2022

Maria Billingsley said:
Well " late stage Republican Authoritarianism " doesn't seem much better.
Thank God for rational moderates.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/04/hungarys-authoritarian-leader-no-gift-us-conservatives

Hungary isn't comparable to the US, and Hungary's illiberalism could not work here. Hungary is overwhelmingly ethnically and religiously homogeneous. The US is not. Many millions of people in the US, who are neither white nor conservative Christians, would not accept such bigotry and sectarianism foisted on their way of life without a fight.

KCfromNC · Oct 3, 2022

hislegacy said:
I have NEVER heard a conservative mention fear nor hatred, why does the left?

Come on, seriously? You've never heard them mention fears over immigration? Or fear of needing to fight or they'll lose the country? Or, per the thread topic, of an unfounded fear of the rise of socialism?

hislegacy · Oct 3, 2022

KCfromNC said:
Come on, seriously? You've never heard them mention fears over immigration? Or fear of needing to fight or they'll lose the country? Or, per the thread topic, of an unfounded fear of the rise of socialism?

nope. But I have heard hundreds of Democratic and liberal members of this forum wave the fear flag every chance they get.

like now….

perplexed · Oct 3, 2022

Plenty of people hate and fear "socialism"
I think a lot of it is legitimate but the right has plenty of crazies these days

Here’s the Real Reason Why I Hate Socialism - The American TFP

Amazon.com: Funny Anti Socialist Communist Pro America Patriotic Tshirt : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry

hislegacy · Oct 3, 2022

perplexed said:
Plenty of people hate and fear "socialism"
I think a lot of it is legitimate but the right has plenty of crazies these days

Here’s the Real Reason Why I Hate Socialism - The American TFP

Amazon.com: Funny Anti Socialist Communist Pro America Patriotic Tshirt : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry

nope never heard of them.

jayem · Oct 3, 2022

hislegacy said:
Opinion:

Socialism seems to have the same methodology no after where you find it.

strong base on class warfare

Utilizes labor unions as a voting and power base

Believes the more government intervention is businesses, the better it is for everyone

Relies heavily on propaganda through mass media

operates Mainly on stoking division and fear

That sounds to me like 1950s McCarthyist "red scare" propaganda.

Some business activities need regulation. Are you opposed to OSHA setting safety and health standards? Like limits on hazardous chemicals to which employees might be exposed. Asbestos protection. Requiring use of respirators and other protective gear for some jobs. Fall protection and other safety standards for construction, maritime, mining, and other workers. You can't leave these functions to the states. You might have 50 different sets of rules. Which would be impossible.

BTW, how about the social safety net programs that we've had for decades? Which we love. But aren't they socialistic? Try running for office someday on a platform of eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. See how far you get.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention the 3 rounds of government checks sent out in 2020-2021. The brain child of you-know-who. (With the last payouts made under our current Pres.) True, the amounts were based on a sliding scale with high income persons getting less or nothing. It still cost the Treasury almost $900 billion. We won’t call it welfare. It’s an “economic stimulus” program to soften the financial impact of a pandemic. But if sending government checks out to most of the population during tough times isn’t socialistic, then what the heck is?

perplexed · Oct 3, 2022

hislegacy said:
nope never heard of them.

hislegacy · Oct 3, 2022

jayem said:
That sounds to me like 1950s McCarthyist "red scare" propaganda.

Some business activities need regulation. Are you opposed to OSHA setting safety and health standards? Like limits on hazardous chemicals to which employees might be exposed. Asbestos protection. Requiring use of respirators and other protective gear for some jobs. Fall protection and other safety standards for construction, maritime, mining, and other workers. You can't leave these functions to the states. You might have 50 different sets of rules. Which would be impossible.

BTW, how about the social safety net programs that we've had for decades? Which we love. But aren't they socialistic? Try running for office someday on a platform of eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. See how far you get.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention the 3 rounds of government checks sent out in 2020-2021. The brain child of you-know-who. (With the last payouts made under our current Pres.) True, the amounts were based on a sliding scale with high income persons getting less or nothing. It still cost the Treasury almost $900 billion. We won’t call it welfare. It’s an “economic stimulus” program to soften the financial impact of a pandemic. But if sending government checks out to most of the population during tough times isn’t socialistic, then what the heck is?

well, you starter with the ‘scary’ line to begin with.

the rest of your diatribe depends on which definition you are using for the term Socialism.

Which definition are you using.

perplexed · Oct 3, 2022

hislegacy said:
well, you starter with the ‘scary’ line to begin with.

the rest of your diatribe depends on which definition you are using for the term Socialism.

Which definition are you using.

Can you give two brief definitions of socialism and explain how that changes the meaning of what he said ?

jayem · Oct 3, 2022

hislegacy said:
well, you starter with the ‘scary’ line to begin with.

the rest of your diatribe depends on which definition you are using for the term Socialism.

Which definition are you using.

To be very brief, I'll define current American socialism as mandatory, collective funding of a social safety net. With a few exceptions, when you're working and earning money, a portion of that goes to pay for the health care and a monthly pension for those no longer earning. And in return, after you've paid a certain amount into the system, you're eligible to receive the same benefits when you're no longer earning.

perplexed · Oct 4, 2022

To discuss the topic in the OP I am disturbed by the trend to make to make the government bigger without discussing how many government programs are not effective and government debt is getting out of control.

hislegacy · Oct 4, 2022

perplexed said:
Can you give two brief definitions of socialism and explain how that changes the meaning of what he said ?

no, because I believe there is only on and that has been already shared. The differences are obvious.

jayem said:
To be very brief, I'll define current American socialism as mandatory, collective funding of a social safety net. With a few exceptions, when you're working and earning money, a portion of that goes to pay for the health care and a monthly pension for those no longer earning. And in return, after you've paid a certain amount into the system, you're eligible to receive the same benefits when you're no longer earning.

Mandatory collective funding of a social safety net.

Mandatory. You have no choice.

Sounds very similar to the former Soviet Union.

jayem · Oct 4, 2022

Mandatory collective funding of a social safety net.

Mandatory. You have no choice.

Sounds very similar to the former Soviet Union.

False equivalence. SS/Medicare/Medicaid (and others) were established by the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

As I said, try running for office on a platform of eliminating them.

BTW: The SS Act was challenged in SCOTUS back in the 30s. It was found to be Constitutional. Helvering v. Davis:

Social Security History

hislegacy · Oct 4, 2022

jayem said:
False equivalence. SS/Medicare/Medicaid (and others) were established by the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

As I said, try running for office on a platform of eliminating them.

BTW: The SS Act was challenged in SCOTUS back in the 30s. It was found to be Constitutional. Helvering v. Davis:

Social Security History

did you say social security? No you did not.

Additionally, if you think SSI retirement income is your safety net, you are in for a rude awakening. At this point in time you have to work until almost 70 before you get full benefits. Good luck with your less than 2,000 a month to live on.

hislegacy · Oct 4, 2022

jayem said:
To be very brief, I'll define current American socialism as mandatory, collective funding of a social safety net. With a few exceptions, when you're working and earning money, a portion of that goes to pay for the health care and a monthly pension for those no longer earning. And in return, after you've paid a certain amount into the system, you're eligible to receive the same benefits when you're no longer earning.

But the Democratic Socialist have a much, much broader agenda. Am I correct in seeing your statement above as limiting their agenda to just Social Security>

jayem · Oct 4, 2022

hislegacy said:
did you say social security? No you did not.

Additionally, if you think SSI retirement income is your safety net, you are in for a rude awakening. At this point in time you have to work until almost 70 before you get full benefits. Good luck with your less than 2,000 a month to live on.

Of course. Everyone knows—or should know—that SS is not meant to be one’s sole source of retirement income. It’s a supplement. But still, a lot of folks depend on it. So it’s not going away. And you still have to pay for it.

The rise of socialism in America

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Aggressively serene!

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Memories pre 2021

Senior Member

Memories pre 2021

Naturalist

Senior Member

Memories pre 2021

Senior Member

Naturalist

Senior Member

Memories pre 2021

Naturalist

Memories pre 2021

Memories pre 2021

Naturalist

Similar threads