The Truth of Sanders is That He Is a Socialist.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Would you kindly explain to us how you would implement Socialism "more"

I would implement more socialism through programs that directly benefit the people.

Healthcare.
Housing.
Education.
Job/skill training.

Just to name a few.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

Voting FOR socialism and thinking you can ever go back is like voting FOR the removal of the 1st Amendment then trying to speak out to get it back.

Apples and oranges. Horrible example.

Socialism is an economic theory that can be implemented in specific areas that do not have to affect the entire government infrastructure. If it doesn't work, you use the will of the people to change it.

Face it, you just want socialism.

Nothing to be ashamed of.

I have nothing to be ashamed of. I am a socialist and, of course, I want socialism. But I only want to implement it in certain specific areas. We can maintain individual rights and protect capitalist practices while using a socialist model for basic needs of the people.

Full-blown socialism is just Communism and that is not what I want.

Please take a moment to digest this. It will help you understand why I say that there can be no hybrid system. I don't expect you to agree with me, I understand that's off the table.

"The interventionist interlude must come to an end because interventionism cannot lead to a permanent system of social organization. The reasons are threefold.

First: Restrictive measures always restrict output and the amount of goods available for consumption. Whatever arguments may be advanced in favor of definite restrictions and prohibitions, such measures in themselves can never constitute a system of social production.

Second: All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which, from the point of view of their authors' and advocates' valuations, is less desirable than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.

Third: Interventionism aims at confiscating the "surplus" of one part of the population and at giving it to the other part. Once this surplus is exhausted by total confiscation, a further continuation of this policy is impossible."

-Ludwig von Mises

MODES and MEANS of production...

It's important.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

You want socialism, of course you think it's a horrible example.

But it doesn't change the truth.

It was a horrible example.

Socialism means more government control.

You can't change it back.

Why not?

The only way that it has ever been revered is through violence and revolution.

Unless you can show me where slaves have "voted" to get their chains removed.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko

That's just ridiculous.

Well I'm glad we are making headway in understanding that about socialism. That is essentially what is going on right now in Venezuela and what happened in the Soviet Union.

One was a communist country and the other struggling from the effects of a revolution and attempted coups.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

What economic philosopher are you using to come to the end goal of socialism is communism. Go...

"The goal of socialism is communism."

-Vladimir Lenin

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Would you kindly explain to us how you would implement Socialism "more"

I would implement more socialism through programs that directly benefit the people.

Healthcare.
Housing.
Education.
Job/skill training.

Just to name a few.

Sounds good, but how.

Taxation?
What about healthcare? Universal?
Housing? Universal? Meaning loss of private property rights...right?
Education? We have free K-12 education nationwide.
Job/ Skills training? Who benefits off of it and who pays the EMPLOYERS to do it?

Where does all this 'stuff' come from?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Would you kindly explain to us how you would implement Socialism "more"

I would implement more socialism through programs that directly benefit the people.

Healthcare.
Housing.
Education.
Job/skill training.

Just to name a few.

So you just want government to control the health of people, where and how they live, how smart they can become, and what they can do.

Oh.

That's not sooooo bad!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Willtell

Its crystal clear the US is the ONLY modern civilized country that doesn't have universal health care.

Actually we do.

In the form of medicare,medicaid, and Tricare that account for over 100 million people.

MORE people than most EU countries entire populations.

That fabulous single payer where everyone is using it. Hardly anyone is paying for it, and the SOCIALISTS created triple taxation like the MEDICARE capital gains surtax that is supposed to fund the difference.

The kicker is PRIVATE healthcare in the US runs circles around what the US government 'offers'.

Where is there a country in the world that has a system like the US?

NOWHERE

Maybe on Mars

The reason for that is that it is a inhumane and unworkable system

Other systems aren't perfect but they do try to prevent human beings from dying because of lack of health care

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

So you want 'half baked Socialism"...like...all the Social benefits...but not Socialism.

Depends on your definition of social benefits. By my definition, yes.

And you call yourself a Socialist?

Psssssttttt.....you're a Capitalist. Hate to break it to you. Don't be mad?

I believe in capitalist ideals as well. Like I said, I'm not a communist. I simply believe we can impliment certain programs within a constitutional infrastructure, that benefits the people and cannot be manipulated or denied by outside interests, such as corporations.

You said you're a Socialist. But you believe in Capitalist ideals as well?

I don't.....huh?

Communist? You DO know that COMMUNISM is the end goal of Socialism...the economic MODE OF PRODUCTION.

I mean...right?

I know it's hard to comprehend. You've been taught that all socialists are die-hard red commies that could never possibly be a bit more reasonable in their beliefs.

Oh well. It's not my problem if people can't grasp something quite simple.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sounds great. Do we get free cars and drugs and clothes?

The world is our oyster. We not Unicorns?

a reply to: ketsuko

If you think that could ever realistically happen in America you're delusional. Amazing how you people take the idea of helping others with their quality of life & imagine scenarios like this.
No one is talking about the government nationalizing all grocery store chains.
How you can't recognize that 100 individuals having more combined wealth than the bottom half of world population is the only problem we actually have as a society is mind boggling to me, meanwhile you dream up scenarios of communistic nightmares.
*Maybe* you could say a Bernie presidency is the first step in that direction, but that's gonna be minimum 100 years away & probably require national martial law if not full NWO takeover.
Do you really think the population would ever let it get to that point even, in this day & age with technology being what it is?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

What economic philosopher are you using to come to the end goal of socialism is communism. Go...

The prevailing theory, as it was explained to me by a liberal friend explaining how government control of markets like health care are constitutional, is that any market in which the government has a monetary stake via tax dollars gives it a compelling interest to take control as necessary to ensure the "general welfare" of the people through our tax dollars.

So basically, it takes control of a market to save us from ruin by ensuring it doesn't have to spend ever more tax dollars in a less than fully controlled market.

This would, over time, lead to complete state control. After all, public money is involved in EVERY facet of the US market one way or another. Thus, you can make the argument that the government has the right to step in a take control of all of it.

Now once government intervenes to such a point that it controls a market, the odds are that market will begin to fail. We see the insurance market failing even now under Obamacare. At that point, the state either has to let that market die or begin to start propping it up or take it over and become the sole provider in that market which is the same as state ownership. This is where things start to shift to communism.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

First off Marx believed that as wealth was consolidated the workers would rebel against the company owners creating a barter system amongst themselves. So that's a fail.

And there have been several economists since that time now haven't there.

I happen to like the Austrian school myself. I just don't think its ever coming.

I believe in a free market but it has never really existed for very long because of the corrupting influence of an oligarchy. Which has a history of happening across the board in history.

I would love a free market. But it s just a philosophy that is corrupted by allowing too much money and finite influence of ideas into politics.

a reply to: introvert

I would implement more socialism through programs that directly benefit the people.

That's where the problem is.

Not a single program benefits the 'people'.

The only people they benefit are politicians that create them, and use them to hold over their heads to make them keep voting for them.

That isn't freedom.

That is blackmail, and a perpetual state of slavery.

Truth be told they don't want problems 'fixed'.

That is why nothing EVER gets done.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

You want socialism, of course you think it's a horrible example.

But it doesn't change the truth.

It was a horrible example.

Socialism means more government control.

You can't change it back.

Why not?

The only way that it has ever been revered is through violence and revolution.

Unless you can show me where slaves have "voted" to get their chains removed.

You're not grasping what I am talking about. I'm not saying we need to adopt a government or economy based on 100% socialism. We simply need to socialize certain aspects of our most important needs.

If it doesn't work, shut the program down.

It's not that complicated.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

So you want 'half baked Socialism"...like...all the Social benefits...but not Socialism.

Depends on your definition of social benefits. By my definition, yes.

And you call yourself a Socialist?

Psssssttttt.....you're a Capitalist. Hate to break it to you. Don't be mad?

I believe in capitalist ideals as well. Like I said, I'm not a communist. I simply believe we can impliment certain programs within a constitutional infrastructure, that benefits the people and cannot be manipulated or denied by outside interests, such as corporations.

You said you're a Socialist. But you believe in Capitalist ideals as well?

I don't.....huh?

Communist? You DO know that COMMUNISM is the end goal of Socialism...the economic MODE OF PRODUCTION.

I mean...right?

I know it's hard to comprehend. You've been taught that all socialists are die-hard red commies that could never possibly be a bit more reasonable in their beliefs.

Oh well. It's not my problem if people can't grasp something quite simple.

What's weird about all of this, is that you jump on almost EVERY thread that deals with economics or Socialism, and you don't give specifics and dance around the HOW, then accuse other people of being blind or stupid.

So what's next? Your move Bro.

Cuz I don't see anything being explained.

I mean, you literally called yourself a Socialist, yet believe in Capitalism..but think Socialism would go too far....all in one thread.

I have to say...I REALLY don't think you know what this all means.

a reply to: Esoterotica

Amazing how people will take an abstract example that is meant to be demonstrative and make it literal to avoid the hard truth it contains.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sounds great. Do we get free cars and drugs and clothes?

The world is our oyster. We not Unicorns?

They just need to raise taxes a smidge on only the upper 99%.

You won't feel a thing.

*shhhhhhh*

Now close your eyes and think of something pretty. . . . .

a reply to: greencmp

Anything from this century?

Lenin was not a philosopher. Nor did he understand what Marx wrote. Or he wouldn't have tried to create communism in a peasant culture.