When you quit hiding behind your troll handle, and post under your real handle, I might write a response to you.
We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
When you quit hiding behind your troll handle, and post under your real handle, I might write a response to you.
The United States will have the same fate should we be stupid enough to allow socialism to destroy us.
Even the radical left Washington Post doesn't buy your nonsense excuses for the collapse of Venezuela. The nation was destroyed by Chavez and the socialism you seek to infest American with.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ollapse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ab7118bbd0c6
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Uncensored2008,
Thanks for that informative article. I am now better informed for it. Although I have to laugh that you are calling the WashPo 'radical left.' Ha Ha Ha Haaaa. Good one, as you quote a WashPo article supporting your right slanted view. BTW, that piece is loaded with opinion. Don't take every word for fact. I was amused at the comment: "It turns out Lenin was wrong. Debauching the currency is actually the best way to destroy the socialist, not the capitalist, system." Wrong! It shows nothing of the kind. A primarily capitalist nation could be just as easily destroyed by simply printing too much money as a primarily socialist one.
What Chavez and Maduro have done has certainly not worked. Fortunately, neither I nor many Americans, want that. What we want is universal health care and a strong safety net. We need to better regulate some of our big industries to stop them from ripping us off. Phone and internet should cost about a quarter of what they do. We also need better infrastructure and tuition-free college. K-12 needs to become K-16. We are forced to do these things to keep up with progress. Other nations are already doing them. We are being left behind. Our answers do not lie in hating certain types of people and letting the super-rich run everything, including the national debt up.
If you think that's socialism, then that's the kind of socialism we need.
The need increases as the power of the super-wealthy to wage Class War and extract more and more wealth from the 99.9% increases. That means that, until our capitalist system is properly reigned in and regulated, there is a constant need to increase our socialism. Eventually we will have to go to a Universal Basic Income, where the government pays people for doing nothing more than existing. They may work as they please to achieve more, if they can find work, but it won't be required. And the rich will be taxed to pay for it all. The reason is we will soon build expensive new smart machines, powered by AI, which will perform most jobs. But only the super-rich will be able to afford them. There simply won't be enough work for everyone. As if there is now, with so many people underemployed, working in a lower than trained capacity, or simply not counted as possible workers.
One thing is for sure. Our capitalist system is headed towards unsustainable severely extreme wealth inequality. As more and more people are squeezed out of even middle class lifestyles, there will be a growing discontent which will influence our politics going forward.
Thanks for that informative article. I am now better informed for it. Although I have to laugh that you are calling the WashPo 'radical left.' Ha Ha Ha Haaaa. Good one, as you quote a WashPo article supporting your right slanted view. BTW, that piece is loaded with opinion. Don't take every word for fact. I was amused at the comment: "It turns out Lenin was wrong. Debauching the currency is actually the best way to destroy the socialist, not the capitalist, system." Wrong! It shows nothing of the kind. A primarily capitalist nation could be just as easily destroyed by simply printing too much money as a primarily socialist one.
What Chavez and Maduro have done has certainly not worked. Fortunately, neither I nor many Americans, want that. What we want is universal health care and a strong safety net. We need to better regulate some of our big industries to stop them from ripping us off. Phone and internet should cost about a quarter of what they do. We also need better infrastructure and tuition-free college. K-12 needs to become K-16. We are forced to do these things to keep up with progress. Other nations are already doing them. We are being left behind. Our answers do not lie in hating certain types of people and letting the super-rich run everything, including the national debt up.
If you think that's socialism, then that's the kind of socialism we need.
The need increases as the power of the super-wealthy to wage Class War and extract more and more wealth from the 99.9% increases. That means that, until our capitalist system is properly reigned in and regulated, there is a constant need to increase our socialism. Eventually we will have to go to a Universal Basic Income, where the government pays people for doing nothing more than existing. They may work as they please to achieve more, if they can find work, but it won't be required. And the rich will be taxed to pay for it all. The reason is we will soon build expensive new smart machines, powered by AI, which will perform most jobs. But only the super-rich will be able to afford them. There simply won't be enough work for everyone. As if there is now, with so many people underemployed, working in a lower than trained capacity, or simply not counted as possible workers.
One thing is for sure. Our capitalist system is headed towards unsustainable severely extreme wealth inequality. As more and more people are squeezed out of even middle class lifestyles, there will be a growing discontent which will influence our politics going forward.
evince
Truthmatters
you your self gave me the "throw money at the problem" idiocy more than once you lying sac of shit
evince
Truthmatters
the founders used the tool of socialism to create this hybrid we live under folks
What are you yapping about fool?
If you had an IQ beyond single digits, you might grasp that this is the ID I have used since 2008.
Hello Politalker;
Thank you for your reasoned and well thought out response.
Let me start by saying that socialism has never worked, not once, not anywhere. Socialism as promoted by Marx is derived from the Kibbutzim concept of collectivism. The first failure of this is scale. The Kibbutz works as a cooperative entity inside of a greater macrocosm economic system. It cannot scale past a singular agricultural instance.
On the scale of a country, socialism fails every time it is employed. Promoters of socialism like to point to the Nordic social democracies as evidence of success. But the Nordic nations are neither socialist nor particularly successful.
Before we go on, what exactly IS socialism anyway? Simply stated, it is the control of the means of production by the state. Generally, even in the Nordic nation states, this involves autocratic rule. We will get to why that is and must be, in a moment. So control of the means of production, this means the government regulates or outright owns all of the elements in a society that produce. Based on such a definition, only St. Petersburg in 1922-23 under the "Grand Experiment" and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge were actually socialist. Both resulted in millions dead and brutality beyond human comprehension. Not a rousing endorsement of socialism.
So a modified view is adopted by most economists, myself included. If 50% of the means of production are controlled by the state, the nation is Socialist. Hence Venezuela is, Norway is not. Remember that I said the Social Democracies are not and have never been socialist. None of them have ever seized control of more than half of their economies. They are instead "welfare states." Welfare elements are supported by the free economies. In the Nordic States, this has led to collapse with most of them severely rolling back the welfare element that cripples them. Even the most radical of the welfare states is rolling it back. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html
Now that we have dealt with typical red herring of Marxists and dispelled with the Nordic states, we can deal with actual socialism.
Socialism revolves around two concepts, central planning and collectivism. Collectivism is the idea that the individual is of little or no consequence and that the group is what matters. I mentioned earlier that socialism is autocratic by nature; this is why. Individualism is suppress under socialism as the group is preeminent. As Marx wrote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." (no, it wasn't Spock, he was quoting Marx). Under socialism, a person is just a resource for the state to utilize. Let's say Joe is a welder. Under socialism the group "welder" has value as a resource to be used, but Joe has no particular value. He is just a part that can be replaced by any other part of type "welder." Under socialism, people have no value. This is one of the reasons that atrocities are virtually universal under socialism. Since the individual is no more important than a seed or a wrench, disposing of the individual by killing them is not seen as immoral. Socialism does not have any place for morality, obedience to the state is the only true law.
The second element is central planning. This is simply the rulers deciding what people do and don't need or deserve. Instead of a person deciding that they want a new 60" flat screen, the rulers decide that all proles will be given 23" displays which carry only MSNBC to regurgitate state ideals to the masses. Because individuals have no worth under socialism, the desires of individuals are suppressed, usually violently and fatally by the rulers of the state. What is produced is directed by the state, what a particular drone may have assigned to them is decided by the state. In many cased drones are dressed in uniforms, as China and Vietnam did.
Socialism is the destruction of the individual. The ultimate aim is to subdue and eradicate individual identity and create a society of perfect slaves who are unthinking in absolute obedience to the state.
Socialism as defined nowadays works fine. Most Scandinavian and European countries use socialism as it suits them. Universal healthcare is a great example. Schools covered through college are another. We have some policies that are socialistic. We jusr stop too short. We socailize corporations and the wealthy instead of the masses.
Of course, the WaPo, rather than being "radical left", is quite capitalist, including requiring you to pay in order to read their articles. So it's hard to see how they support your position. What is more likely to destroy America than socialism is the decreasing quality of education, as evidenced by you and a few others here.
You are, of course, speaking of 'pure' socialism. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about something similar to what the Nordic countries have, though probably even less 'socialistic'. Just patches here and there to fill in the holes left by capitalism. Regulation about environmental, health and work issues, to prevent corporations and other businesses from mistreating their employees. That sort of thing. Support for the unemployed and unemployable, with the goal of getting them to work.
All advanced capitalist states have things like relatively decent health care - they have to, or the system would be overthrown tomorrow. The USA, as the centre of world capitalism, can afford to brainwash its masses instead. Socialism is control of the economy by the vast majority who do the work.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Uncensored2008,
You're quite welcome. My pleasure.
OK, so we are talking about two different kinds of socialism. I am talking about the kind of socialism in the USA and other capitalist industrialized nations. The kind of socialism, that when liberals want tuition-paid college or universal health care, and conservatives say 'That's socialism!'
Seems to have so far, but some socialist nations endure none the less.
What they have is commonly referred to as socialism. That is the definition I was using when I penned this Thread. The Nordic countries are quite successful. Norway has no debt.
The classic dictionary definition has, like so many English words, lagged behind the common usage meaning.
Problem is, you're speaking a different language than most of us are.
From your link: "the Danes get a cradle-to-grave safety net that includes free health care, a free university education and hefty payouts to even the richest citizens." Payouts to the richest? That does not sound workable long term.
The red herring is this musical definition of socialism, ever-changing to suit the argument. Liberals want public education to include K-16 and conservatives say: 'That's socialism!' Liberals embrace the term; and then it changes. Oh, that's not socialism, now. Enough of the goal post moving.
The group of what? Individuals? So if everybody has similar needs and they see to them on a volume basis, then that is good for all the individuals. The concept is to use the power of the group to provide the needs for individuals. Individuals are at the core of the priorities.
This occurs within any free society that has laws. Individuals are not allowed to do as they please if what they want to do harms other individuals.
Not true. If you're going to refer to Marx, then quote him accurately. He never said that.
That's ridiculous. Now you're just recanting highly biased conservative impressions of communism.
This exemplifies why conservatives have to re-write what liberals say. No liberal has advocated for the above situation to become reality in the USA. The above would require our Constitution to be scrapped. Liberals are not arguing to toss out the Constitution. Individuals have rights. Individuals are valued. Really, you have launched into an intricate straw man argument with this.
My, you make it sound so terrible, nobody in their right mind would want that. Funny thing is nobody in their right mind does want that, and it is not what I, nor any of the other liberals posting to this thread have advocated for.
Why don't you back up and tell us why we should not extend K-12 to K-16 for those who get good grades. Forget about whether it is socialism or not. That's one of the things we want. It would pay for itself in increased productivity and resultant revenue. It makes sense. We should do it. What possible argument can be made for having a dumb populace? We want the smartest populace we can produce. Our nation will be better for it, and so will life for individuals.
You're quite welcome. My pleasure.
OK, so we are talking about two different kinds of socialism. I am talking about the kind of socialism in the USA and other capitalist industrialized nations. The kind of socialism, that when liberals want tuition-paid college or universal health care, and conservatives say 'That's socialism!'
Seems to have so far, but some socialist nations endure none the less.
What they have is commonly referred to as socialism. That is the definition I was using when I penned this Thread. The Nordic countries are quite successful. Norway has no debt.
The classic dictionary definition has, like so many English words, lagged behind the common usage meaning.
Problem is, you're speaking a different language than most of us are.
From your link: "the Danes get a cradle-to-grave safety net that includes free health care, a free university education and hefty payouts to even the richest citizens." Payouts to the richest? That does not sound workable long term.
The red herring is this musical definition of socialism, ever-changing to suit the argument. Liberals want public education to include K-16 and conservatives say: 'That's socialism!' Liberals embrace the term; and then it changes. Oh, that's not socialism, now. Enough of the goal post moving.
The group of what? Individuals? So if everybody has similar needs and they see to them on a volume basis, then that is good for all the individuals. The concept is to use the power of the group to provide the needs for individuals. Individuals are at the core of the priorities.
This occurs within any free society that has laws. Individuals are not allowed to do as they please if what they want to do harms other individuals.
Not true. If you're going to refer to Marx, then quote him accurately. He never said that.
That's ridiculous. Now you're just recanting highly biased conservative impressions of communism.
This exemplifies why conservatives have to re-write what liberals say. No liberal has advocated for the above situation to become reality in the USA. The above would require our Constitution to be scrapped. Liberals are not arguing to toss out the Constitution. Individuals have rights. Individuals are valued. Really, you have launched into an intricate straw man argument with this.
My, you make it sound so terrible, nobody in their right mind would want that. Funny thing is nobody in their right mind does want that, and it is not what I, nor any of the other liberals posting to this thread have advocated for.
Why don't you back up and tell us why we should not extend K-12 to K-16 for those who get good grades. Forget about whether it is socialism or not. That's one of the things we want. It would pay for itself in increased productivity and resultant revenue. It makes sense. We should do it. What possible argument can be made for having a dumb populace? We want the smartest populace we can produce. Our nation will be better for it, and so will life for individuals.
"Why don't you back up and tell us why we should not extend K-12 to K-16 for those who get good grades. Forget about whether it is socialism or not."
No, we won't forget that it's socialistic. It's already extended for those who can qualify and can pay the freight.
Why should I pay for my children's college education and someone that I don't even know?
More incrementalism.
No, we won't forget that it's socialistic. It's already extended for those who can qualify and can pay the freight.
Why should I pay for my children's college education and someone that I don't even know?
More incrementalism.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
3 Examples of Americans who were highly motivated to do great things for the free world, not for money or the profit motive, but because they wanted to make a great contribution to our society:
1. Jonas Salk. A doctor who developed the vaccine for polio. Had he sold his invention, he could have been fabulously wealthy. Instead, he gave it away for free. When asked "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" The vaccine is calculated to be worth $7 billion had it been patented. An unabashed capitalist would consider this genius an idiot.
2. Alfred Loomis. A Lt Col in WWI, he later became an investment banker in the 1920's investing in the electric companies which were establishing the electrical grid in the USA. He correctly foresaw the coming crash and in 1928 liquidated everything. Then, after the crash he became very wealthy buying up devalued stocks when nobody else had the cash to do it. Then, he took his considerable wealth and funded his own state of the art science lab which was superior to most universities. There, with a team he hired, he developed RADAR, LORAN, and Radar-guidance for automatic AA guns which were instrumental in winning WWII. He didn't do it for the money. He used his own money. He did it because he wanted to make this contribution to the free world. His weapons were instrumental in the defense of Britain from the German Luftwaffe.
3. Nikola Tesla. An inventor who first developed the AC electrical motor. He never worried about trying to sell his invention. He figured Thomas Edison would know how to do that, as he greatly admired Edison. He went to work with Edison and told him of his invention, and how superior AC Power was to DC Power, because AC Power could be transmitted over far greater distances without voltage loss. Edison had already invested heavily in DC Power, so he tried to discourage Tesla. Tesla quit and sought someone to fund his project. George Westinghouse took him up on it, but insisted Tesla give him all the rights for a one-time price. Had Tesla simply asked for a small royalty on the future profits of AC Power, he would have been fabulously wealthy, but Tesla agreed to Westinghouse's offer. Tesla, you see, just wanted his invention to get used for good. Westinghouse, of course, was the one to get fabulously rich from DC Power. Tesla simply wanted to go on working on new projects to help the public, which he did.
None of these 3 people were motivated to do what they did by the profit motive. They all shared a simple desire to advance technology to help the free world. Seeing their work do good was enough of a reward for them. The story of Tesla and Edison is remarkable. Edison was the capitalist. He did what he did for money. Tesla didn't care about profits. Edison was the fool who let Tesla slip through his fingers because he was too greedy to give up on a profit-producing DC Power system he had already developed. Had he looked at Tesla's invention with an open mind, he would have realized he needed to give up on DC Power, which was only capable of providing electrical power for a few blocks nearby a generating station, and developed what Tesla had. Too bad he just couldn't think big enough. He was constrained by the shackles of the profit motive.
1. Jonas Salk. A doctor who developed the vaccine for polio. Had he sold his invention, he could have been fabulously wealthy. Instead, he gave it away for free. When asked "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "Well, the people I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" The vaccine is calculated to be worth $7 billion had it been patented. An unabashed capitalist would consider this genius an idiot.
2. Alfred Loomis. A Lt Col in WWI, he later became an investment banker in the 1920's investing in the electric companies which were establishing the electrical grid in the USA. He correctly foresaw the coming crash and in 1928 liquidated everything. Then, after the crash he became very wealthy buying up devalued stocks when nobody else had the cash to do it. Then, he took his considerable wealth and funded his own state of the art science lab which was superior to most universities. There, with a team he hired, he developed RADAR, LORAN, and Radar-guidance for automatic AA guns which were instrumental in winning WWII. He didn't do it for the money. He used his own money. He did it because he wanted to make this contribution to the free world. His weapons were instrumental in the defense of Britain from the German Luftwaffe.
3. Nikola Tesla. An inventor who first developed the AC electrical motor. He never worried about trying to sell his invention. He figured Thomas Edison would know how to do that, as he greatly admired Edison. He went to work with Edison and told him of his invention, and how superior AC Power was to DC Power, because AC Power could be transmitted over far greater distances without voltage loss. Edison had already invested heavily in DC Power, so he tried to discourage Tesla. Tesla quit and sought someone to fund his project. George Westinghouse took him up on it, but insisted Tesla give him all the rights for a one-time price. Had Tesla simply asked for a small royalty on the future profits of AC Power, he would have been fabulously wealthy, but Tesla agreed to Westinghouse's offer. Tesla, you see, just wanted his invention to get used for good. Westinghouse, of course, was the one to get fabulously rich from DC Power. Tesla simply wanted to go on working on new projects to help the public, which he did.
None of these 3 people were motivated to do what they did by the profit motive. They all shared a simple desire to advance technology to help the free world. Seeing their work do good was enough of a reward for them. The story of Tesla and Edison is remarkable. Edison was the capitalist. He did what he did for money. Tesla didn't care about profits. Edison was the fool who let Tesla slip through his fingers because he was too greedy to give up on a profit-producing DC Power system he had already developed. Had he looked at Tesla's invention with an open mind, he would have realized he needed to give up on DC Power, which was only capable of providing electrical power for a few blocks nearby a generating station, and developed what Tesla had. Too bad he just couldn't think big enough. He was constrained by the shackles of the profit motive.
Because educating our youth...EVEN THE ONES WHO CANNOT AFFORD THE EDUCATION...helps make America and the world a better place.
Oh, wait a second...I guess that does not matter to someone like you.
Last edited:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
If we tax the rich more and pay for tuition for college for anyone who can get the good grades to stay in, then we will have more smart people in the USA and be better able to compete in the world market.
We use socialism to advance our capitalism.
Everybody wins.
We use socialism to advance our capitalism.
Everybody wins.
Americans see the universities as the oven where new ideas are cooked up. Then we make it so damn expensive that many people are priced out. K thru 12 is understood as a benefit to society. People should have access to top education to become better informed citizens and more valuable contributors. But the profit motive trumps all in America. College should be far cheaper.
When I first started going I was paying 16 bucks a credit hour. It was easily affordable. Most jobs you got would pay for, or help pay for schooling. It was absolutely not a crippling cost that would impact your life for decades.
We made a wrong move in education and the profits being made will prevent us from fixing it. America will suffer for it in the future.
When I first started going I was paying 16 bucks a credit hour. It was easily affordable. Most jobs you got would pay for, or help pay for schooling. It was absolutely not a crippling cost that would impact your life for decades.
We made a wrong move in education and the profits being made will prevent us from fixing it. America will suffer for it in the future.
Last edited:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Nordberg,
Totally agree.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that education of the populace benefits the nation.
Education of the populace is in the nation's best interest, benefits society and the economy, makes the USA stronger, greater.
It is in the interest of the USA to have free public education from K thru 16, as long as the students are achieving good grades. Those students who do not learn, and only disrupt the education of others, should be removed from classes and shunted into programs for problem children.
Our schools should absolutely teach how our nation functions, and the importance of voting and staying properly politically informed and engaged in the process which decides their own fate.
Students should learn how big money works against our democracy, erodes our system of government.
They should learn that big money feeds on political apathy, that it actually seeks to limit voter turnout.
They should learn to realize how crucial it is that they vote in each and every election.
They should learn that we need to fight for our freedom from the strangling power of big corporations just as much as from overbearing government.
They should learn that we can have freedom with socialism and capitalism mixed together in the correct balance, socialism for needs, capitalism for wants.
Totally agree.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that education of the populace benefits the nation.
Education of the populace is in the nation's best interest, benefits society and the economy, makes the USA stronger, greater.
It is in the interest of the USA to have free public education from K thru 16, as long as the students are achieving good grades. Those students who do not learn, and only disrupt the education of others, should be removed from classes and shunted into programs for problem children.
Our schools should absolutely teach how our nation functions, and the importance of voting and staying properly politically informed and engaged in the process which decides their own fate.
Students should learn how big money works against our democracy, erodes our system of government.
They should learn that big money feeds on political apathy, that it actually seeks to limit voter turnout.
They should learn to realize how crucial it is that they vote in each and every election.
They should learn that we need to fight for our freedom from the strangling power of big corporations just as much as from overbearing government.
They should learn that we can have freedom with socialism and capitalism mixed together in the correct balance, socialism for needs, capitalism for wants.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Everybody knows there are good jobs and bad jobs. Some jobs really suck. Low pay, no benefits, hard work, unpredictable hours, no guaranteed minimum hours per week, no vacation, no sick days, no exceptions, no pride, no sense of accomplishment, and no job security.
Capitalism seeks to make jobs as bad as possible. Whatever capitalists can get away with is what they will try to get away with. The less capitalists give to workers, the more profits they earn.
The only thing standing between the ruthless capitalists and oppression of workers is government. Capitalism has no goal of making jobs good. That's not the point of capitalism. It would only do that if it was forced to by market forces (happens only at the top,) or government regulation.
It takes all the jobs in society to make our nation function. All jobs should be something a person can live on and be proud to work at. There shouldn't be any jobs that actually create poverty. That's what good regulation should do. All jobs should be good jobs. We aren't even close to that. We've got a lot of work to do. Fighting against regulation itself, as if it's a bad thing, is not productive. Conservatives should be ashamed for that.
Capitalism seeks to make jobs as bad as possible. Whatever capitalists can get away with is what they will try to get away with. The less capitalists give to workers, the more profits they earn.
The only thing standing between the ruthless capitalists and oppression of workers is government. Capitalism has no goal of making jobs good. That's not the point of capitalism. It would only do that if it was forced to by market forces (happens only at the top,) or government regulation.
It takes all the jobs in society to make our nation function. All jobs should be something a person can live on and be proud to work at. There shouldn't be any jobs that actually create poverty. That's what good regulation should do. All jobs should be good jobs. We aren't even close to that. We've got a lot of work to do. Fighting against regulation itself, as if it's a bad thing, is not productive. Conservatives should be ashamed for that.