A History of Socialism in America

originally posted by: Edumakated
Like most liberals, your knowledge of history is warped...

Great contribution to the thread... Thanks for playing. Please try again.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I thought about your question.

I went as far as looking on the internet, blah, blah, blah. . .

I found this article which explains all our liberties and freedoms lost. I invite you to take a look.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

a reply to: hubrisinxs

One last note, there were socialist and communist parties as early as 1870's in America, just look at the eastern Coal Mining companies of the time. All of them had unions with strong ties to socialist and communist parties.

Yea I touched briefly on this later in the thread and you are right. Socialism in some form has existed in this country longer than the 1930's, but I really look at the 1930's as the point when Socialism became a staying force in government.

I mean even the 1900's had things like anti-trust laws which are technically Socialist in nature.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The right NOT to be involved in or taxed for these programs.

I'd agree with that. A purely socialist state gives people an option of what they spend their hard earned on.
That needs to be addressed.

But hand in hand, the capitalist tax machine is no better, because I know for sure if people had a choice about military expenditure it'd be a lot less of the GDP and also more prudent in deciding what wedding to drone.
No one should have to pay for such nonsense given a choice.

So the only fault you've found with socialism I also highlight in capitalism.

Time for a tie breaker, nw.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I thought about your question.

I went as far as looking on the internet, blah, blah, blah. . .

I found this article which explains all our liberties and freedoms lost. I invite you to take a look.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

I am hesitant to call that an "article". It is more a blog and a blog that sources its own material instead of outside material to prove its points. Then the times it DOES source outside material, it sources the likes of Infowars. Sorry, I doubt the credibility of that source based on those things alone.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

Come on, man. Totally different situation then and you know it. No international competition for manufactured goods, a huge military industrial complex that was running over 10% of the GDP was a factor, as well.

But our MIC is bigger now than it was in the 50's and 60's...

The nation had an affluence. Lots of jobs which translated into lots of revenue for the gov't. Abundance. One can be quite generous when has lots of cash. Productivity was the key. A healthy private sector HAS to be a factor as well.

Sounds like Socialism works to me then.

Sounds like our economy worked in spite of, not because of..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Enochstask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Enochstask

Yes I remember all these things, but the compromise I am talking about occurred long before it was voted on by anyone. I'm talking about back when the bill was still in committee status and being debated on as to what would be in it.

NO ONE READ THE FINAL BILL!!! The bill was presented and voted on 48 hours later. What part of that don't you understand?

I do understand it. It's not like I'm saying the Democrats are free of blame from this bill as well. You are mistaking me as an Obamacare defender. But as you want to toe the partisan line and just blame the Democrats, I am rising past partisanship and blaming both sides of the aisle; and I elaborated on why the Republicans are still to blame for the bill along with the Democrats. Your fight isn't with me (that is unless you feel compelled to defend Republican Congressmen for some reason) or you are picking a fight that isn't there.

But all of this is really irrelevant since as I said in the OP, I don't consider Obamacare to be Socialist in nature. Forcing someone to buy health insurance with the threat of a fine for not doing so isn't Socialism. It's forced capitalism.

How in the world are Republicans responsible for a piece of malfunctioning legislation that not one of them voted for? I am not towing the Republican line, as a matter of fact that was the last thing the Republicans did right. You aren't rising above partisanship you are soiling everyone in Congress (at the time) with this catastrophe. You will see your rates go down proclaimed the Kenyan Communist.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

Come on, man. Totally different situation then and you know it. No international competition for manufactured goods, a huge military industrial complex that was running over 10% of the GDP was a factor, as well.

But our MIC is bigger now than it was in the 50's and 60's...

The nation had an affluence. Lots of jobs which translated into lots of revenue for the gov't. Abundance. One can be quite generous when has lots of cash. Productivity was the key. A healthy private sector HAS to be a factor as well.

Sounds like Socialism works to me then.

Sounds like our economy worked in spite of, not because of..

How so? Things were great until Reagan broke things with his "better" idea. To me, this looks like you are denying the obvious.

originally posted by: Enochstask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Enochstask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Enochstask

Yes I remember all these things, but the compromise I am talking about occurred long before it was voted on by anyone. I'm talking about back when the bill was still in committee status and being debated on as to what would be in it.

NO ONE READ THE FINAL BILL!!! The bill was presented and voted on 48 hours later. What part of that don't you understand?

I do understand it. It's not like I'm saying the Democrats are free of blame from this bill as well. You are mistaking me as an Obamacare defender. But as you want to toe the partisan line and just blame the Democrats, I am rising past partisanship and blaming both sides of the aisle; and I elaborated on why the Republicans are still to blame for the bill along with the Democrats. Your fight isn't with me (that is unless you feel compelled to defend Republican Congressmen for some reason) or you are picking a fight that isn't there.

But all of this is really irrelevant since as I said in the OP, I don't consider Obamacare to be Socialist in nature. Forcing someone to buy health insurance with the threat of a fine for not doing so isn't Socialism. It's forced capitalism.

How in the world are Republicans responsible for a piece of malfunctioning legislation that not one of them voted for? I am not towing the Republican line, as a matter of fact that was the last thing the Republicans did right. You aren't rising above partisanship you are soiling everyone in Congress (at the time) with this catastrophe. You will see your rates go down proclaimed the Kenyan Communist.

I'm pretty sure I explained myself thoroughly enough for an intelligent reader to get what I meant. I won't elucidate any further on this matter. We disagree, fine. I'm moving on.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you okay with freedoms and individual liberties lost?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Has history shown us a time and/or a place where socialism brought about more freedom and liberties?

originally posted by: ketsuko
You missed Jamestown where it was tried and failed.

Here is a copy of the first charter of Jamestown dated 1606

I did not see any mention of the public ownership of businesses; no government regulations on private business.

I did see that King James was trying to establish that people could go to America in his name and take whatever land they wanted in the name of God and King. Also, the King does establish that those who came to America were to convert those they found to christ, and anyone who violently resisted was to be killed on King James's authority.

No democratic socialism in Jamestown just a liberal monarchy with democratic tendencies.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Has history shown us a time and/or a place where socialism brought about more freedom and liberties?

The United States from 1930 to 2015. Or do you deny the expansion of freedoms for black people, women, working classes (in the form of unions), lgbtq, etc?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I thought about your question.

I went as far as looking on the internet, blah, blah, blah. . .

I found this article which explains all our liberties and freedoms lost. I invite you to take a look.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

Interesting read, but nothing to do with socialism in that blog.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you are going to state, for the record, that we have more individual freedoms and liberties due to socialism than we had prior to it's inception?

Man, I don't know what you're smoking, but I wish you'd share.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Giving government more control, more authority, call it whatever you want.

I can't argue with people who willingly embrace the thought of cradle to grave care under government authority.

I guess I'm just not wired that way.

When I think about the future, I can't imagine capitalism existing.

The entire world and presumably the entire universe will be socialist.

Socialism equals humanity and eventually we will reach that point.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you okay with freedoms and individual liberties lost?

The only inherent freedom socialism removes is a person's right to horde wealth in the form of resources. It says very little about social issues except that it finds that people will behave better if they feel they have a hand in the economic decisions that affect them most.

Freedoms and individual liberties in modern nations are not granted by capitalism, but instead, they come from social contracts agreed upon by the masses and enacted by democratically elected republics.

Fascism was a reaction to Socialism. The idea, which I get from Benito Mussolini:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power

Personal freedom and liberties were absolutely restricted in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and they were as strong of supports of capitalism as the Russians were of communism. Economic policies did not make these governments evil, it was their willingness to disregard the rights of other humans and that can occur anywhere in any government.

The real problem with fascism and socialism occurs when democracy is removed and in its place a totalitarian regime is established.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
America has always plodded along behind Europe....We'll look the same as Europe does today in about 20-50 years.

Then America's future looks about as bright as a coal mine at midnight to a blind man. Pretty damn sad, really.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you okay with freedoms and individual liberties lost?

Which freedom and individual liberties have been lost due to Socialism exactly? Please name the laws and statutes that did this.