The rise of socialism in America

[variant]

Mandatory collective funding of a social safety net.

Mandatory. You have no choice.

Sounds very similar to the former Soviet Union.

Right, the Soviet Union is the best equivalent idea to mandatory social safety net funding.

What tripe.

 

[Whyayeman]

Right, the Soviet Union is the best equivalent idea to mandatory social safety net funding.

What tripe.

As someone who grew up within the protection of the National Health Service I was shocked to learn that the USSR did not have anything equivalent. Neither has modern China. As models for socialism, these countries are unhelpful.

Most European countries - and all the prosperous ones - have a comprehensive health system at least partly based on public funding. By any measure you care to use, health outcomes are better than in USA.

This is not a coincidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Really?

Two Federal Proposals Would Promote Employee Ownership | NCEO

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...ip-the-wealth-gap-and-the-current-crisis/amp/

Employee Ownership — The Democracy Collaborative


Bernie Sanders’s most socialist idea yet, explained

Reducing Economic Inequality through Democratic Worker-Ownership

Yes, good examples of private ownership of the means of production, meaning the US is the opposite of what people peddling scary sounding narratives about socialism are trying to sell.

 

[hislegacy]

Yes, good examples of private ownership of the means of production, meaning the US is the opposite of what people peddling scary sounding narratives about socialism are trying to sell.

I have never hear a conservative consider it scary, but scary is a recurring theme with others.

Please tell me what you consider scary and why. Be sure to open a thread about this new subject and I will gladly participate.

Thank you for your help.

 

[hislegacy]

AOC-backed New York Democrat celebrates primary victory by declaring 'socialism wins'

 

[Whyayeman]

I have never hear a conservative consider it scary, but scary is a recurring theme with others.

Please tell me what you consider scary and why. Be sure to open a thread about this new subject and I will gladly participate.

Thank you for your help.

Employee participation in the companies they work for is not, I agree, scary. It is a well-tried and successful idea practised in many democratic countries.

But is it loathsome?

 

[hislegacy]

Employee participation in the companies they work for is not, I agree, scary. It is a well-tried and successful idea practised in many democratic countries.

But is it loathsome?

We are talking about socialism as defined earlier.

who said loathsome, you would have to ask them.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have never hear a conservative consider it scary

Red Scare - Wikipedia

 

[hislegacy]

Red Scare - Wikipedia

Is wikipedia a conservative site? hmmm.... no it is not.

Perhaps _ I have never heard a conservative talk about the fear of socialism, because your link says nothing newer than 60 years ago.

Either that, or because they just plainly don't.

 

[expos4ever]

Of course they do...all legal businesses anyway.

That's the whole point of socialism.

You are evading the challenge. Show us that the control is in fact total.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is wikipedia a conservative site? hmmm.... no it is not.

Perhaps _ I have never heard a conservative talk about the fear of socialism, because your link says nothing newer than 60 years ago.

Either that, or because they just plainly don't.

Maybe that's because KC was talking about *actual* socialism.

On the other for several years I've heard over and over from various conservative sources (pundits, politicians, posters) about the things they hate and/or fear all labelled "socialism".

 

[hislegacy]

Maybe that's because KC was talking about *actual* socialism.

On the other for several years I've heard over and over from various conservative sources (pundits, politicians, posters) about the things they hate and/or fear all labelled "socialism".

No one is bringing up hate and fear, but those on the left. They use it as a descriptor for the Right not agreeing with their position.

KC stated the definition of socialim:

Post 46 has a basic definition, which would be a good starting point for anyone seriously interested in learning more.

​

Post #46 =

Definition of SOCIALISM

Here is a dictionary definition>

"socialism
noun
so·cial·ism ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Which is exactly what is being addressed.

If you have a different definition - please share.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which is exactly what is being addressed.

You mean like in the OP text which isn't even about America. Your whole thread was born broken, but you knew that already.

 

[hislegacy]

You mean like in the OP text which isn't even about America. Your whole thread was born broken, but you knew that already.

As always, thank you for your opinion.

Does that mean you do not have a definition?

 

[childeye 2]

As always, thank you for your opinion.

Does that mean you do not have a definition?

The problem is that socialism is a relative term, as is capitalism, because most economies are some hybrid form. Hence, objectively there are both negative and positive connotations for the terms socialism and capitalism, and they both have their "scary" implications in their absolute forms.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As always, thank you for your opinion.

Does that mean you do not have a definition?

I don't need my own special definition. I'm fine with KC's or whatever fits the conversation. (I'm not fine with labeling all sorts of non-economic things like CRT or wokeism as "socialism" as the RW media likes to do.)

My problem, as always, is that the OP *never* matched the thread title. It wasn't even about America, but rather some Americans complaining about socialism in Europe. Just a lot of misdirection from the beginning.

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem is that socialism is a relative term, as is capitalism, because most economies are some hybrid form. Hence, there are both negative and positive connotations for the terms socialism and capitalism, and they both have their scary implications in their absolute forms.

Socialism and capitalism are ideologies, which means they are implemented in different ways through different political and social structures.

I don't think socialism is scary. I think capitalism is scary. The notion of the rich and powerful controlling society at everybody else's expense, or that every facet of human life must be submitted to market forces, seems deeply inhuman.

 

[childeye 2]

Socialism and capitalism are ideologies, which means they are implemented in different ways through different political and social structures.

I don't think socialism is scary. I think capitalism is scary. The notion of the rich and powerful controlling society at everybody else's expense, or that every facet of human life must be submitted to market forces, seems deeply inhuman.

You're right that socialism and capitalism are basic terms applied in economic theory, and in my view neither one of these theories are foolproof, as in being fully comprehensive. It's even hard to say whether a publicly sold corporation is quasi capitalism or factional socialism. But my point is that there needs to be a balance to ensure fairness because currently all wealth is extremely lopsided, and some socialism is going to have to be implemented in order to correct it.

 

[hislegacy]

I don't need my own special definition. I'm fine with KC's or whatever fits the conversation. (I'm not fine with labeling all sorts of non-economic things like CRT or wokeism as "socialism" as the RW media likes to do.)

My problem, as always, is that the OP *never* matched the thread title. It wasn't even about America, but rather some Americans complaining about socialism in Europe. Just a lot of misdirection from the beginning.

If you had taken the time to open the link in the op you would have read:

emphasis mine

In today’s political culture, socialism is gaining in popularity. What does this mean for the future of America—and what can be done to stem this tide?

For the latest Goldwater Institute webinar, Iain Murray, the director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, joined Goldwater Vice President for Litigation Timothy Sandefur to take on these questions. Murray is the author of The Socialist Temptation, which delves into why socialism holds such sway over people, even in the United States.
​

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are evading the challenge. Show us that the control is in fact total.

Again....that's the very definition of socialism. I'm not really sure what you're asking me to prove....that planned markets are socialist? That planned markets refer to controlling supply and cost? That controlling supply and cost requires control of the market?

What are you asking me to show here?