Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You have a right to send your child to a private charter school. And the tax money that would have been allocated to the public school goes to the private charter school and the parents pay the difference if they choose a private education.

So your point is invalid. Because I am not advocating anything except fixing the broken public school system. I agree with private education and public education. Those who support socialist ideologies are not trying to take away your rights.

The minority of facisist elitists who have bought your representative democracy are the only ones trying to force anything without a public vote.

There has never been a social democracy, America is the closest form of social democracy. Except the power granted to our central government has created laws outside of the democratic process, that only represent a minority of wealthy people.

Every nation that has claimed to be socialist has not been democratic. I don't care what facisist call themselves, stop calling fascist socialist. Try actually understanding what a social democracy with a capitalist marketplace actually implies.

Most of you have no idea what I am advocating. Your arguments in this thread are completely invalid in reference to the OP.

You are so afraid of a word you have failed to understand much or anything that I have presented.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

If you want direct democracy to be implemented you haven't learned from the past. Another member already mentioned that direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and that is true.

A direct democracy with a constitution that protects civil liberties is not mob rule. I am not advocating for civil liberties to be decided by mob rule, which I made clear in the OP. I prefer the bill of rights with direct democracy in place to determine the laws that stand apart from civil liberties, and so did our founding fathers. Direct democracy is law creation based on a majority vote. If the majority agrees we should change a program it would be changed in a direct democracy.

The education system is broken.
The welfare system is broken.
The prison system is broken.
The financial system is broken.
The homeless and jobless situation is a nightmare.

And the majority of people agree that we need massive changes to all of these programs. In a pure democracy the voice of the majority would be heard and these programs would change to reflect the will of the majority.

These systems are broken and do not get fixed because special interest who have the most money have no incentive to fix any of these programs. This is the result of a paid for representatives democracy.

A direct democracy would take the power away from special interest and put it back in the hands of the majority.

Give me the example of a direct democracy so I can learn from the past. Let me help you, no country has ever been a direct democracy, for the most part a direct democracy would simply be impossible without today's technology.

So we can't learn from something that has never been tried.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people. A direct democracy will bring this form of government to fruition, it will not be mob rule.

We need representatives to help us understand the law, and to make suggestions to what needs to be changed, but we no longer need a central government that enforces laws that do not represent the will of the people.

Any time a government imposes laws that are against the will of the majority the government has become facisist. We live in a facisist corpocracy. Democracy died a long time ago. Our representatives have not represented the majority for much longer than most people realize.

The way to fix this this is direct democracy, the only form of government that can meet the stated goal of our founding fathers. When suggesting a government of the people, by the people and for the people they were promoting direct democracy.

They included a constitution to define the social principles of the government. Specifically money, military and law, while protecting civil liberties from extremist or theocratic views.

In a direct democracy the Federal Reserve would have died before it was ever implemented.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Sorry, but direct democracy is very much mob rule.

You have only to look a the Supreme Court to see this in action. There are nine justices there. Every time there is a major case before the court, lots of legal analysts write all kinds of pieces anticipating which way the court might decide. However, you might notice that those pieces more or less ignore four of the current justices - Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer - because they are always assumed to be ruling as a block. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are similar but less assured, and Roberts and Kennedy are up in the air many times meaning most pieces focus on them.

So in practice, the court functions very much like a direct democracy with the justices formed into one mega block of four justices with a less solid block of three and two wild cards. The mega block wields the most power in that situation because it takes a very firm coalition of all the other interests to unseat its will.

And there is very little to no protection for any minority that does not manifest its will as the majority will in those situations.

Our system was designed to extend protection to the minority in the face of the majority because the will of the majority isn't always the right one or proper for the minority. Isn't that what the gay rights campaign has been all about?

For another example, the truth is that the majority of the population lives in urban areas where they do not normally have to drive far, so they decide no one needs a car with a range higher than 100 miles. So they outlaw anything other than limited range electric vehicles. This is very bad news to the rural population, many of whom drive very far on a regular basis as a consequence of the rural lifestyle, but in a simple majority rules situation, their lifestyle was just made untenable.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The City State of Athens was a direct democracy.

We are a Constitutional republic that has been comrpomised by lawyers and money.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

The City State of Athens was a direct democracy.

Thank you for that reference.

Direct democracy did not fail they lost a war.

a reply to: ketsuko

Add - When you add a constitution with a bill of rights you protect civil liberties from mob rule.

Since the term "mob rule" literally implies imposed rule regardless of liberties by a mob of people.

Your assuming that 9 people appointed by one person represent the will of the people.

If those 9 people lived on an island by themselves you could call their decisions mob rule. And in a country of 9 mob rule would suffice.

The supreme court is another function of government that needs to be fixed. I think each state should have at least one representative, elected by the people. In the case of civil liberties it is extremely important to have non biased judges.

And since it is impossible to have no bias, we need to have a larger pool of democratically elected judges to determine civil liberties.

Whether or not a corporation should have rights similar to people has no basis in civil liberties. Anything that falls outside of civil liberties needs to be determined by the people.

Corporations are not people, and citizens united does not promote the civil liberty of one man one vote. The court represents the fascist, and they are appointed by presidents and confirmed by representatives who work for the facisist elitists .

The Supreme Court has become an extension of fascism in this country, where many cases are making decisions outside of civil liberties that do not represent the majority.

Gay marriage is a civil liberty.

Corporations should not have civil liberties.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: makemapmmhmmm and you once lived in the old communist Soviet Union? Or maybe not!!!!

Well, Communism can't truly happen if there was constant war which Soviet Union had. Even Mao after Chinese civil war. Everyone was homeless, so the people had to rebuild all their homes. You should look at China a huge change from Communism to Capitalism. More and more Chinese people started to become homeless and forced to look for work. Even farm area being bought out just like America today(Monsanto)..

www.foreignaffairs.com...

quote: "Communism may have succeeded in constructing an industrial society, but it had failed to transform workers into consumers."

Why? Everyone can grow their own food or trade for food. Unlike today America with Capitalism where companies do all the production and everyone has to be a consumer of products.

Communism is a bit like living in peace without much competition like Capitalism which allowed. There is a reason why US is full of corporations/companies before the rest of the world. I'd probably be farming if we were living in a communistic era(community).

Communism didn't truly work because of greed, laziness, and infiltration takeover by the West. Just like what US is trying to do today with regime changes.

originally posted by: makemap

quote: "Communism may have succeeded in constructing an industrial society, but it had failed to transform workers into consumers."

Why? Everyone can grow their own food or trade for food. Unlike today America with Capitalism where companies do all the production and everyone has to be a consumer of products.

It's interesting how you seem to want to separate "companies" and "everyone"...?? The "everyone" doing the consuming are also the people from which the "companies" are comprised.

In other words, it is the same system of "everyone can grow their own food or trade for food", only more efficient.

@OP You didn't answer my question in another thread, so maybe you'll answer it here:

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So following the policies of countries that have less crime and a higher standard of living for the poor and middle class is a bad thing?

The man is not talking about reinventing the wheel.

He is talking about analysing successful programs in other countries and finding practical ways to implement already proven ideologies here in the USA.

Me on the other hand, I would like to reinvent the wheel. But I am willing to settle for the more practical approach of implementing proven programs.

I would like to know what countries you're talking about. The only country that comes to mind is Germany which is a social democracy. But Germans have a history of hardcore discipline in everything they do. Everyone works. Education is mandatory, not a choice. Germany is not a welfare state. It controls who gets handouts very strictly. Their healthcare system is the best in the world. Industry works hand-in-hand with government. But it's their work ethic that makes it a success, not just the philosophical tenets of socialism.

I can't think of another country who measures up to Germany but it's an anomaly.

And Bernie Sanders will fall on his face if he's elected. The mindset of the United States is "redistribution of wealth" - without the individual responsibility of creating that wealth. Take from the rich; give to the poor. What a concept! What happens when the rich disappear or simply stop producing?

Socialism is not a four letter word. It is just a word. Reading through this thread, you've given no practical means of carrying out this idea of "social democracy with a capitalist marketplace". What exactly is that? Actually I know what it is. It's wealth redistribution. I would just like to know what your plan is to actually do it in the United States.

originally posted by: Phantom423
@OP You didn't answer my question in another thread, so maybe you'll answer it here:

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So following the policies of countries that have less crime and a higher standard of living for the poor and middle class is a bad thing?

The man is not talking about reinventing the wheel.

He is talking about analysing successful programs in other countries and finding practical ways to implement already proven ideologies here in the USA.

Me on the other hand, I would like to reinvent the wheel. But I am willing to settle for the more practical approach of implementing proven programs.

I would like to know what countries you're talking about. The only country that comes to mind is Germany which is a social democracy. But Germans have a history of hardcore discipline in everything they do. Everyone works. Education is mandatory, not a choice. Germany is not a welfare state. It controls who gets handouts very strictly. Their healthcare system is the best in the world. Industry works hand-in-hand with government. But it's their work ethic that makes it a success, not just the philosophical tenets of socialism.

I can't think of another country who measures up to Germany but it's an anomaly.

And Bernie Sanders will fall on his face if he's elected. The mindset of the United States is "redistribution of wealth" - without the individual responsibility of creating that wealth. Take from the rich; give to the poor. What a concept! What happens when the rich disappear or simply stop producing?

Socialism is not a four letter word. It is just a word. Reading through this thread, you've given no practical means of carrying out this idea of "social democracy with a capitalist marketplace". What exactly is that? Actually I know what it is. It's wealth redistribution. I would just like to know what your plan is to actually do it in the United States.

I could do that for you, but I'll wait for the OP to reply first.

originally posted by: onequestion

They were in the midst of the Great Depression

Caused by the Federal Reserve which progressive Democrats implemented and all the regulations on small businesses in 1913 which led to the Great Depression... Another "crisis" which was used to implement even more "progressive policies".

a reply to: makemap

China is not capitalist. It is still a communist dictatorship which allows mostly communist party members to apply for businesses which helps the communist party. In Cuba it is similar. Loyal communist party members are living in mansions, or really good houses, meanwhile the rest of the nation is in disarray.

Mothers who are expecting a female baby in China are forced to abort even if it is their first baby. Of course, there is the "1 child policy" so if a mother is expecting a second child it doesn't matter what sex it is, mothers are forced to abort. Many escape, or try to. If they are caught, they are imprisoned, and fined a lot more money than most Chinese make in a year.

Since the "1 child policy" was implemented in China suicide is the number 1 cause of death of young women in China.

vimeo.com...

There is still persecution against many religious people and groups in China. The communist party in China still suppresses religions to "limit the public influence of religions such as Christianity".

Chinese Persecution of Christians Reaches Highest Level in a Decade

China is not capitalistic, and neither is Cuba, nor North Korea. These dictatorships use capitalism to gain money and keep oppressing millions of people.

originally posted by: makemap

Well, Communism can't truly happen if there was constant war which Soviet Union had. Even Mao after Chinese civil war.

The above is just another example of the ignorance that many socialists and communists have regarding these systems... In communism there is a state of constant violent revolution, which is a constant war... The communists call it the "permanent revolution".

...
Trotsky wrote: “The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx attached to this concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any single form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from without; that is, a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation.”
...

www.marxists.org...

One of the many quotes from Marx states:

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.

Karl Marx

www.brainyquote.com...

What this means is that all opposition to socialism has to be erased, and the only way to do that is through violence. There will always be people who will be against socialism and communism, so a state of constant, or permanent revolution occurs in communist countries.

originally posted by: makemap
...
Communism didn't truly work because of greed, laziness, and infiltration takeover by the West. Just like what US is trying to do today with regime changes.

LOL...communism never works because of the failures of communism... Stop trying to blame everyone else for the failure that is socialism and communism...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Welfare is just one social program.

I like having public programs, police, fire, parks, schools, since it would be impossible for me to fund all these programs on my own.

Why do people turn to welfare, which I agree is a failed program, and believe that is the only thing socialism has contributed to society.

Your painting socialism with the brush of welfare. Without giving credit to the good and necessary programs funded by socialism.

Should we stop providing for the elderly and disabled too? Should people who want to work and are willing to work full time need to be on welfare?

Better to create jobs then welfare, which is also a socialist idea that many socialist agree with. I don't agree with supporting the able bodied with welfare, but I do support employing them so they can earn a livable wage.

Governments do not create jobs, businesses do, and they do it best when government isn't controlling the till with ridiculous regulations, over taxation without representation, and the only reason we hear about "creating jobs" is a LAME political ploy only.
Remember "Shovel ready jobs"? They um mm, never existed.
And the reason society progresses and grows is at those times when taxes are low, regulations aren't over blown and unfair, or just there because the government likes to push it's weight around with untold taxation. An example is Gary Locke, a man from China who openly supports communism and socialist and Maoist idealism, who as governor of Washington state, would not budge an inch in reducing the heavy business taxes and red tape for new business, lost 20 thousand jobs for the state when the Boeing company packed up and shipped it's entire administrative services to Chicago, all because of socialist agendas against business, which caused untold loss of opportunities, lives, (people died because of it), and huge amounts of revenue that the company would have provided, not to mention the continuation of hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy from the people working for Boeing that moves away.

This is the aftermath and the stunted economics that happen because of socialists, commies, and that kind of disease, that I'm talking about, not stopping vital programs for Grandpa, or shutting down all the soup kitchens on every corner that you mention, but I think you already knew that.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Yes, as far as the OP... it is decent and basic common sense to have everyone's basic life needs met ... and we can build any society we wish... especially now that our technology enables it.

Of course, the rabid capitalists and 'individualists' will bring up the fearful, selfish memes about the lazy, scheming poor and the myriad wastes of big government, so we should all pack it in and stop trying to make a better society... yeah...

but in my view, any idiot can see what benefits the least of us will benefit all of us, eventually...

after all, we are all we have... and just looking after the people you can see is literally short sighted.

This is the proper place for socialism - Potluck Today - Bring a dish to share.

At a potluck, everyone who does shares freely from what they and others have brought to contribute. No one will go door to door and force anyone to come to the potluck and bring something to contribute and eat from the table if they don't wish to come.

a reply to: ketsuko

You do realize socialism played an important part of getting the US of A out of the first great depression,

don't you???