The rise of socialism in America

[Ana the Ist]

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

One of the mistakes socialists make is the idea that capitalism is a thing you choose to do.

It's really not.

There's no real difference between describing capitalism and describing economics. All the basics of economics are found in early capitalist writings.

I don't think socialism is scary.

Which is odd.

I think capitalism is scary.

Which is odd.

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.

That's a pretty poor description of capitalism.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

I'm not sure of the relevance of the political leanings of the site I linked. Perhaps you could explain why you brought it up?

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

It is possible for people to learn things they haven't witnessed first hand.

But if you need something more recent to make an informed decision, perhaps https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...same-about-medicare/5dc9e04388e0fa10ffd20d4e/
or
ICYMI: CNN: Republicans called Biden's infrastructure program 'socialism.' Then they asked for money. | The American Presidency Project
or
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/tru...ate-of-the-union-as-2020-election-starts.html

etc, etc, etc.

 

[Postvieww]

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.

How do you propose specifically we correct the unfairness in wealth? Tax the rich and give to the poor? I would venture to say if you transferred all wealth to the poor those that created the wealth originally would eventually wind up with it again. Socialism is s failed system and we do have that pesky old constitution standing in the way.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't need my own special definition. I'm fine with KC's or whatever fits the conversation.

It wasn't my definition, or maybe it was but in the sense that I just pointed to a post which actually knew what socialism is. The OP is now avoiding that their scary definition in post 5 was woefully inaccurate by playing the "just asking [leading] questions" game.

 

[Postvieww]

This is what socialism produces! For those who laud the benefits of socialism watch the video and then tell us how great this would be in the US.

 

[hislegacy]

I'm not sure of the relevance of the political leanings of the site I linked. Perhaps you could explain why you brought it up?

The relevance is found in what we are talking about:

I have never heard a conservative talk about the fear of socialism,

Thanks for asking.

 

[hislegacy]

It wasn't my definition, or maybe it was but in the sense that I just pointed to a post which actually knew what socialism is. The OP is now avoiding that their scary definition in post 5 was woefully inaccurate by playing the "just asking [leading] questions" game.

Scary to whom? Certainly not any conservative I have read after?

IMHO - the scare, fear based comment about a political party one seems to be little more than a dog whistle for others to jump on board.


personal opinion; I think we would be much more productive in our debate if we could actually stay within the topic of the thread posting facts and opinions and discussing the topic of Socialism versus trying to prove it an individual right wrong whatever.

Yes I believe I read that someplace that when we disagree we should present facts and why we support our position.

 

[hislegacy]

I'm not sure of the relevance of the political leanings of the site I linked. Perhaps you could explain why you brought it up?



It is possible for people to learn things they haven't witnessed first hand.

But if you need something more recent to make an informed decision, perhaps https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...same-about-medicare/5dc9e04388e0fa10ffd20d4e/
or
ICYMI: CNN: Republicans called Biden's infrastructure program 'socialism.' Then they asked for money. | The American Presidency Project
or
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/tru...ate-of-the-union-as-2020-election-starts.html

etc, etc, etc.

Not oNE of those shows a conservative saying they feared socialism. Only that they opposed it.

There is a difference

Fear and opposition are not Synonymous terms

 

[childeye 2]

How do you propose specifically we correct the unfairness in wealth? Tax the rich and give to the poor? I would venture to say if you transferred all wealth to the poor those that created the wealth originally would eventually wind up with it again. Socialism is s failed system and we do have that pesky old constitution standing in the way.

Taxation could be a viable means providing that it's structured to cover any loopholes that pass the costs of that taxation to consumers. But that is difficult to do since the economic principle of a free market system in regard to competitive pricing becomes less viable as the economy itself becomes a handful of massive global conglomerates. We need to protect the basic necessities to live from becoming a cash cow. For example, introducing a modest housing construction program that would provide a home in exchange for labor in the program.

 

[hislegacy]

We need to protect the basic necessities to live from becoming a cash cow. For example, introducing a modest housing program that would provide a home in exchange for labor in the program.

What program and who would build the houses, who would control distribution of housing?

Sounds a bit like this description of Soviet era 'free' housing.

The State distributed accommodation would be nominally free, but you won’t own it; it was not free ownership, it was a continuous rent from the State, which you’d have to pay for, albeit small fee to cover the communal services such as plumbing; you’d be also paying your electricity and gas bills. As your family may split, or one of members would die, you’d be requested to move out and to the less spacious flat, according to the norm of square metres allowed per person, unless you somehow pursue and win an exception for your special circumstances against all odds and people envying your luxurious life. But the primary cost of your not-so-free accommodation was your not-so-free labor.
​

If I am mistaken - please describe how your idea would differ. Thanks

 

[expos4ever]

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?

The claim - most certainly false - is that control is total under socialism. This alarming claim needs to be supported.

 

[childeye 2]

What program

The program doesn't actually exist. I'm just giving an example of how to prevent basic necessities from becoming cash cows.

and who would build the houses, who would control distribution of housing?

Like I said in the prior post, the people in the program would build the houses. Who would control the distribution is a good question when pondered as rhetorical. I can imagine many other similar issues that would have to be worked out.

Sounds a bit like this description of Soviet era 'free' housing.

The State distributed accommodation would be nominally free, but you won’t own it; it was not free ownership, it was a continuous rent from the State, which you’d have to pay for, albeit small fee to cover the communal services such as plumbing; you’d be also paying your electricity and gas bills. As your family may split, or one of members would die, you’d be requested to move out and to the less spacious flat, according to the norm of square metres allowed per person, unless you somehow pursue and win an exception for your special circumstances against all odds and people envying your luxurious life. But the primary cost of your not-so-free accommodation was your not-so-free labor.
​

If I am mistaken - please describe how your idea would differ. Thanks

I don't see the example above as even close to the same thing. Remember that I'm trying to give an example of protecting the basic necessities for living from becoming a cash cow. I could also articulate the same sentiment as an incentive to eliminate as many bills as possible. That's why I gave an example of a program that would provide a modest home in exchange for labor in the program.

 

[Postvieww]

The claim - most certainly false - is that control is total under socialism. This alarming claim needs to be supported.

Check out Cuba!

 

[expos4ever]

Check out Cuba!

Does the government of Cuba control every aspect of a business operation? Obviously not.

The original claim - that socialism entails total control over businesses - is wild exaggeration.

 

[hislegacy]

Does the government of Cuba control every aspect of a business operation? Obviously not.

The original claim - that socialism entails total control over businesses - is wild exaggeration.

No, the government does not control where the bathrooms are placed, so they do not control every aspect.

 

[Postvieww]

Does the government of Cuba control every aspect of a business operation? Obviously not.

The original claim - that socialism entails total control over businesses - is wild exaggeration.

Are you of the opinion that the government of Cuba has redeeming qualities that we should envy?

 

[hislegacy]

The claim - most certainly false - is that control is total under socialism. This alarming claim needs to be supported.

Here is the definition of socialism we have been using:

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"
​

Please share your definition, if different, and why. Please give a working example of the socialism you are defining.

 

[Whyayeman]

Here is the definition of socialism we have been using:

It is a definition you have been urging on the thread. It would be useful if you acknowledged that many societies incorporate systems which they regard in socialist in intent without being very interested in the definition peddled here. Socialised medical care is widely practised in advanced democracies, including (in a rather niggardly, graceless fashion) America.

The question here is: How much has socialism been 'on the rise' (by this or any other definition) in America? I have not observed it, but maybe people closer could point out some examples.

 

[KCfromNC]

The relevance is found in what we are talking about:

Thanks for asking.

Weird you'd cut out the part of the post which documents some of the recent examples of conservatives doing exactly that. It seems that if you're really interested in "talking about" the trend of conservatives using claims of SOCIALSM! to scare their followers that would be exactly the sort of information we should be "talking about". And yet you totally ignored that in your response.

Makes me wonder if you really want to talk about it, or if the attempt is just to bury the obvious examples of it happening, maybe because people might be inclined to think the OP is just another example of that trend.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not oNE of those shows a conservative saying they feared socialism.

Kinda weird to say that conservatives aren't worried about socialism given the OP, which is a conservative source worrying about socialism. But hey, I guess if we're just ignoring any evidence that comes along the narrative stays intact.