Would Socialism Be Bad for America? JV on the Dirtiest Word in U.S. Politics

It's amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to socialism and history.

Socialism is an inevitable part of any and all societies. It's part of the human species and how we naturally operate.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
There are a ton of politicians who are simply using socialist ideals and programs, especially when so many people need help in tough times, and this gains political success for those using socialism as a tool for personal enrichment. The money gained from raising taxes to pay for 'help for the people in need' first goes to newly hired administrators to furnish their new offices with expensive things, and to pay lots of salaries which pay very nicely.

What is left after all the politicians get their cut aren't enough to help the needy, and after a few years go by there are five times more needy people than there was before the social programs began, so they grow the size of government even bigger, hire more pals to administer them, and then rinse and repeat.

Now we have tent cities and ghettos, and crime galore with long lines at food banks while bleeding heart socialist politicians live the good life. How many fancy chefs work at the White house now?

Socialism is a big lie. Not because it is supposed to be, but because the scum sucking toilets like the "Obama's" of America make it that way. Broken promises served like a 100 course deluxe meal. Or even a smorgasbord of broken promises and drinks included.
What is the easiest way to take advantage of people? Ask them to donate money to all those in need because people care about their fellow men and women, but the corrupt in government know they can use that for selfish reasons and they are still doing it right now.
Now they are cannibalizing social security and 401 K's and all the "untouchables" to pay for what? For the rich to get richer?

That pretty much sums it up as the underlying philosophy of the social justice crowd. But to understand it, we have to understand that at its core, socialism is all about redistributing..........poverty.

a reply to: JesseVentura

The GOP is notorious for putting a spin on anything that will favor their political agenda. I also feel the key is to have a balance of socialism and capitalism. Each has it's good and bad aspects. What's wrong with implementing the best of both economic systems? Capitalism has proven itself time and time again that it caters to the rich. It simply isn't a balanced system and relies heavily on the middle and lower class to support government.

a reply to: TonyS

How can that sum-up the philosophy of the social justice crowd when the example given is completely false? The "Obamas" of American have not done anything that can even be considered socialist in nature. Hell, Obamacare isn't even socialist!

The real socialist programs, like SS, are what the politicians have plundered to pay for their non-socialist spending.

The problem with socialism is that too many people use the term when placing blame or discussing problems, but they don't even know what the hell socialism is.

Socialism isn't the problem. Ignorance is.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
Socialism does not work. Look at a prime example, Russia. The government was not designed to be the all provider of everything in America. IMHO Socialism + Democrats = Failure to succeed. I can look back and see that nothing Socialism and Democrats have done, did not help the American population. They have only provided a entitlement society which is failing.

What a dumb statement. Russia is not socialist, it is run by oligarchs. it is the epitomy of capitalism but does not call itself that so that the citizens don't get upset.

China is the freaking same. Run by a small group of millionaires who call themselves "the communist party" in order to keep support of people who know no better due to the massively controlled media.

We in the west have our information controlled in a similar manner but we can bypass it if we wish (most people are too lazy to). Do you really think that the owner of a newspaper is going to publish information that would result in his little rich get richer world collapsing......not a chance. This is why socialism has a bad name in the minds of people who have only ever relied on normal media for their information.

Things are changing though, social media is bypassing the traditional flow of distorted information. people are starting to wake up although I strongly suspect the religious right in the US will have a strnaglehold on thoughts for a few decades yet. As is clearly evident right here on ATS, brainwashed defenders of laissez-faire capitalism.

Some mechanisms of capitalism have their position in an economy, particulariy in the provision of non essential goods and services. When it comes to the essentials for a citizen to live then capitalism invariably fails for the many but makes the few very rich.

originally posted by: madmac5150
Socialism will always end in Communism...

This statement is PURE ignorance.

There were those pesky Anarchists way back when in the past in the U.S. that made a lot of trouble for the government way back then. The people were convinced that the Anarchists were the bad guys when they were actually trying to point out that the oligarchy was/were the guys pushing their head under water.

There are is the potential that a hybrid of governance and economic methodology might work but the extremists who accuse everyone else of being extremists have too many believing the venom they spew.

Most Americans' are ignorant and have no clue they are being played by those who want things to remain the way they are in order to keep exploiting them like the livestock they nearly are.

The name callers are nearly always guilty of the crime they accuse others of.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
I think America should stop holding European socialism up as such a great thing. I used to think the Nordic countries were successful societies until you see their recent embrace of neo facist politics, where they are now burning down refugee camps. Hardly something to aspire to. They aren't some advanvanced group of countries. Their greatest legacy will be abba and flat pack furniture and pickled fish, maybe you could make some concessions to become a more ethical capitalism trying to keep money out of politics and things like that, but Europe at the moment should not be seen as some type of utopia especially if you see what's going on in some parts right now.

In any country of several million people you're going to have a fringe that acts out. In the Sweden example it was a fraction of 100 people, it's not right to judge 9.5 million based on the actions of a few.

To place the opinions on socialism more into perspective, the 1%'ers have somewhat more control of the means to develop/influence the attitudes of the masses with propaganda than the masses give them credit for.

Things have been this way to at least some degree for many centuries, that is why so many do not have their BS sensors sounding off when they hear the media babbling about what an evil thing socialist ideology is.

Those who benefit the most from the way things are want things to stay the way they are and almost always have been, including keeping the majority of the masses ignorant to the truth through manipulation of the economy and banking system to keep them too busy chasing a carrot on a stick, scaring the # out of them with glorified disaster coverage and news stories and making them afraid of one another so they don't assemble and realize that collectively they possess a lot of power.

Divide and conquer.

Cluck, Cluck, Cluck, Mackuuuuuuuuck!!!....

a reply to: JesseVentura

The dirtiest word in politics is: CONGRESS.

When there is no oversight, it's scary to imagine them spending in a (more) socialist economy.

It amazes me how many paid shills are on ATS nowadays.

Isn't socialism already here? If you consider ACA, welfare, taxes, various assistance--most of which comes from our own tax dollars. Whether they take it directly or indirectly, it's still the same, taking from some to give to others.

a reply to: Freth

Taxes and the ACA is not socialism. Welfare and social security is sure,. So no it is not already here.

a reply to: JesseVentura

It would be bad if it were on the European model. If they were states in the US they would all be towards the bottom for average income in the United States.

However, if for some reason we could pull off an Australian model, then it could potentially be good for everyone. With that said. These are all little countries, so they are far more controllable than the United States. They have less problems due to their population is smaller.

So basically No, it isn't possible without going bankrupt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Positive and Negative

PRO and CON

PROgress and CONgress

I Digress....................

Sure, people are rightly and sadly confused about what socialism is. One thing is for sure that the way things are going economically wise for the country(ie pending TPP on top of the dying middle class and growing homelessness), welfare then to a full on socialist system will be an only option for many. But hey maybe it was in the cards for some time now.

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: madmac5150

Agreed.

"It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech."

-Ludwig von Mises

I was a USAF SNCO... never in my life did I pledge my life for my government... I pledged my life to my Constitution. Guess I am just old school...

Funny how the word GOVERNMENT is no where in the oath of office. But "all enemies, foreign and domestic" is.

Make you think that the Founding Fathers where a bit smarter then any one we have today.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Really Jesse? you would vote for a socialist? So I guess you are in favor of banning the right to property?

...
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.
...

www.workers.org...

That comes straight from the "workers.org"

I am guessing then you are siding with the One World government, just like the pope Francis wants, to destroy capitalism and install a socialist system. Of course, like always such proponents try to claim "it will be for the good of all".

You should know that Chavez in Venezuela claimed he would install socialism, and in the end communism creeped in.

You should know in Cuba it was the same. The castros claimed they would implement socialism, and later implemented communism.

Socialism is but a stage for a capitalist nation to reach the final goal of communism.

If you don't know that you haven't read the works of past socialists/communists.

The goal of socialism is communism.

Vladimir Lenin

www.brainyquote.com...

Not all socialists are communists, but all communists are socialists. Socialism leads to communism as it has been seen in many nations, from the former U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc. These dictatorships implemented socialism first, but the goal is always communism.

...
Marxist doctrine holds that just as society evolved from feudalism to capitalism, it will inexorably progress still further to socialism and eventually communism. Communists consider socialism to be an intermediary step between capitalism (out of which socialism is said to grow) and communism.
...

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

look, even in wikipedia you can find this.

...
Socialist perspectives

Socialists generally view private property relations as limiting the potential of the productive forces in the economy. From this perspective, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. With largely reduced capital accumulation from the original class of owners, private property in the means of production is to be replaced with a free association based on public or common ownership of socialized assets.(8)
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Under socialism, just like in communism, private property is abolished. Any property that can have any gain has to be socialised, and centralized...

Under socialism the state owns not only all means of production, but every private property that will have gains. This includes small farms, etc. If the tract of land you are living in is very high priced the state can apropiate it from you "for the common good". That farm that generations of your family built, and helped it grow will be taken from you.

A world socialist system is exactly what the rich elites have been working for, and what they want to implement. It seems that you Jesse are siding with these people.

originally posted by: introvert
It's amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to socialism and history.

Socialism is an inevitable part of any and all societies. It's part of the human species and how we naturally operate.

Really?... So giving up your right to property and allowing the state to control all means of production "it's part of human nature"?... Since when?...

a reply to: Ceeker63

Without Capitalism , there would be No Creation of Wealth . Without the Creation of Wealth , any Society would become Bankrupt in a Matter of Years . Investments in order to turn a Profit are the Driving Force of an Economy . Socialism Takes , but Never Gives Back . FAIL .