It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Call Me A Socialist And I Won't Get Mad
page: 1share:
laprogressive
Actually, I myself am only a semi-socialist. I advocate capitalism with a lot of regulations to impose restraints along with the socialization of our major social programs. This is being done successfully in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Medicare and Social Security are essentially socialized already, which is why the ultra-uber-right is frothing at the mouth about them and trying to eliminate them. Actually, they have been doing this ever since FDR instituted Social Security in the 1930's, but the American people just wouldn't have them undone. Until now. And the attempt looks entirely doomed from the outset.
The popularity of these two programs is evident in the poll results showing that a huge majority of the American people have no intention of getting rid of either program, and show only slightly less support for eliminating Medicaid, which some people object to because it benefits the poor.
Just get rid of the scary word "socialism" (when I was in school I was taught to fear the "red menace") and just about everybody is for it.
Go on, ultra-right, run yourselves right off the cliff with this one. Good riddance.
Republicans are still dissing Democrats as socialists. Democrats are still denying it.
The other day, the socialist slam made Rep. Keith Ellison (left) so angry that he demanded that the Republican slammer – Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama — take it back.
Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, is one of the most liberal members of Congress. Just don’t call him a socialist.
Ellison’s ire is more proof that the Democrats are a capitalist party – moderately so by world political standards, but capitalist nonetheless.
Genuine socialists are proud of the socialist handle. They call their parties — you guessed it – “socialist,” or sometimes “social democratic” or “labor.”
Of course, real McCoy socialists are as rare as July blizzards in the U.S. But they’re common in every other industrial democracy – including our NATO allies.
So when Republicans try to pin the socialist tail on the Democratic donkey, they only show how far right-wing they are. In every other democracy, the current GOP would be a reactionary fringe party.
Actually, I myself am only a semi-socialist. I advocate capitalism with a lot of regulations to impose restraints along with the socialization of our major social programs. This is being done successfully in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Medicare and Social Security are essentially socialized already, which is why the ultra-uber-right is frothing at the mouth about them and trying to eliminate them. Actually, they have been doing this ever since FDR instituted Social Security in the 1930's, but the American people just wouldn't have them undone. Until now. And the attempt looks entirely doomed from the outset.
The popularity of these two programs is evident in the poll results showing that a huge majority of the American people have no intention of getting rid of either program, and show only slightly less support for eliminating Medicaid, which some people object to because it benefits the poor.
Just get rid of the scary word "socialism" (when I was in school I was taught to fear the "red menace") and just about everybody is for it.
Go on, ultra-right, run yourselves right off the cliff with this one. Good riddance.
edit on 26-4-2011 by Sestias because: proofreading
reply to post by Sestias
Ever happen to think Rep. Brooks knows his chances of getting elected with a socialist tag on him are slim and none, and thats why he doesn't want to be called a socialist?
Socialism is simply unconstitutional. . Of course the dregs and parasites support socialism, otherwise they would actually have to be responsible adults and provide for themselves.
The matter need not be discussed any further
Ever happen to think Rep. Brooks knows his chances of getting elected with a socialist tag on him are slim and none, and thats why he doesn't want to be called a socialist?
Socialism is simply unconstitutional. . Of course the dregs and parasites support socialism, otherwise they would actually have to be responsible adults and provide for themselves.
The matter need not be discussed any further
reply to post by ViperChili
Some of the most stable economies and succesfull countries are actually QUITE socialist my friend. Even the American system is somewhat socialist. What do you think Medicare is?
In any case, there's nothing wrong with socialism so long as you remove the totalitarian complex. Even Ghandi stated he was a socialist at heart.
Ridicule it all you want while capitalism destroys the world.
~Keeper
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Some of the most stable economies and succesfull countries are actually QUITE socialist my friend. Even the American system is somewhat socialist. What do you think Medicare is?
In any case, there's nothing wrong with socialism so long as you remove the totalitarian complex. Even Ghandi stated he was a socialist at heart.
Ridicule it all you want while capitalism destroys the world.
~Keeper
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ViperChili
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Some of the most stable economies and succesfull countries are actually QUITE socialist my friend. Even the American system is somewhat socialist. What do you think Medicare is?
In any case, there's nothing wrong with socialism so long as you remove the totalitarian complex. Even Ghandi stated he was a socialist at heart.
Ridicule it all you want while capitalism destroys the world.
~Keeper
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Yay for you! That is my view, too. I always referred to myself as a Socialist when an appropriate chatforum opportunity came up for it. Even though I'm a US citizen, not European. Perhaps (UH OH HORRORS!) The US Constitution is/was a failed ----- Libertarian/Social Darwinistic dream? And is now ----- obsolete? Socialism can be benevolent and fascist-free. Can, if psychopaths aren't running it.
Originally posted by Sestias
Just get rid of the scary word "socialism" (when I was in school I was taught to fear the "red menace") and just about everybody is for it.
The Wikipedia definition of socialism is:
"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
I'm not sure that the initiation of government entitlement programs really qualifies as socialism in the proper sense. The word's meaning has been occluded by its overuse as a political rhetoric buzzword.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by ViperChili
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Some of the most stable economies and succesfull countries are actually QUITE socialist my friend. Even the American system is somewhat socialist. What do you think Medicare is?
In any case, there's nothing wrong with socialism so long as you remove the totalitarian complex. Even Ghandi stated he was a socialist at heart.
Ridicule it all you want while capitalism destroys the world.
~Keeper
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
I completely agree. I personally describe myself as being a democratic socialist. I believe fully within the confines of a socialist government, however I do feel that true democracy in a very much multi-party sense is the only way to prevent the greed factor in it. If government sponsored programs are in charge of allocation and regulation of industry and the people own that government well that just means the people are truly in control of everything.
reply to post by Awolscout
Yup, you can't have just straight up capitalism, or socialism, it must be a hybrid system in order for things to work.
People have this big fear of socialism and it's "evils", when the reality is that ALL social programs are socialist and what are the MOST popular programs of ANY democracy? The social ones. Public transportation is socialist, medicare is socialist, public school, socialist..
The list goes on and on.
~Keeper
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Yup, you can't have just straight up capitalism, or socialism, it must be a hybrid system in order for things to work.
People have this big fear of socialism and it's "evils", when the reality is that ALL social programs are socialist and what are the MOST popular programs of ANY democracy? The social ones. Public transportation is socialist, medicare is socialist, public school, socialist..
The list goes on and on.
~Keeper
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
~Awolscout
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
If government sponsored programs are in charge of allocation and regulation of industry and the people own that government well that just means the people are truly in control of everything.
That's what I think exactly, power and money to the people. That's how we achieve progress in the most positive way. Capitalism has been good to progress in many ways, a lot of the progress we made is also useless outside of that type of economy...and I guess that brings "fear" of changing especially with all the anti-everythingthatisnotcapitalism propaganda.
edit on 26-4-2011 by User8911 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Awolscout
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Yup, you can't have just straight up capitalism, or socialism, it must be a hybrid system in order for things to work.
People have this big fear of socialism and it's "evils", when the reality is that ALL social programs are socialist and what are the MOST popular programs of ANY democracy? The social ones. Public transportation is socialist, medicare is socialist, public school, socialist..
The list goes on and on.
~KeeperAs an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Interesting.. the "socialist" programs you mentioned are all failing horribly. Add the USPS to your list.
reply to post by jjkenobi
That would be for lack of appropriate funding and oversight, not because they aren't good ideas.
A program is only as good as the rules and people who govern it.
~Keeper
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
That would be for lack of appropriate funding and oversight, not because they aren't good ideas.
A program is only as good as the rules and people who govern it.
~Keeper
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Ever think that maybe the USA has a special place as the last bastion of freedom against the hands of Socialism? Ever since the New Deal Socialism has
been creeping further and further in this country and the so-called ‘conservatives’ now don’t even have a problem with many of its core aspects
here. In fact they even rally to defend it 90% of the time.
Only one socialistic policy enacted since the New Deal that worked was Social Security retirement pension. Providing relative stability for the seriously disabled and the elderly is not all bad, of course like every other social program in this country it has grown far beyond its original intent.
Now to address the point you raised. Every other member of NATO has a Socialist party in its country and they do not feel ashamed to announce their true colors. It’s a good thing because it makes finding your enemies easier. However you compare us in a negative light to those countries yet the founding fathers of this republic broke away from Europe and all of its other colonies for a reason, the oppressive collectivism.
Canada was populated largely by the 1/3rd of Americans who were loyal to the monarchy. Europe was obviously the home of oppressive collectivism, and it transported all of these ideals to its colonies which broke away much later than us here in the US did. So demanding to know why we here in this country are not like the rest of the West is like questioning why we ever broke away from England in the first place. We opposed the collectivism and oppression.
Those “reactionaries” as you like to call us are usually the people who have kept your chestnuts out of the collectivist fire for over 2 centuries. Unfortunately it is a battle we are now losing thanks to people such as you. Why should I care where I am in the political context of Europe, Canada, or anywhere else? Their opinions are irrelevant to me and this country. Unfortunately you find more reason to criticize our differences from the rest of the Western world than embrace them.
The position taken by Liberals and ‘Conservatives’ alike today are the same positions which have always eroded the liberty, values, and greatness of a society. Something we renounced over 2 centuries ago you cling to now. It was not just about monarchy, you can have a monarchy and not be collectivist, the founding fathers wanted to throw off the shackles of collectivism and now the left in both the Democratic and Republican Parties are wanting to lock them back onto us.
Call me a reactionary, tell me I am crazy and irrational, every time you do it makes me that much more satisfied in knowing that what I do, what I say, what I think is purely opposing the collectivism that you desire and defend. Call it Socialism now but it is nothing more than a therapeutic managerial state or should I say, the welfare-warfare state.
For what reason would I want to be allied with the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama when I could be allied with Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge?
Only one socialistic policy enacted since the New Deal that worked was Social Security retirement pension. Providing relative stability for the seriously disabled and the elderly is not all bad, of course like every other social program in this country it has grown far beyond its original intent.
Now to address the point you raised. Every other member of NATO has a Socialist party in its country and they do not feel ashamed to announce their true colors. It’s a good thing because it makes finding your enemies easier. However you compare us in a negative light to those countries yet the founding fathers of this republic broke away from Europe and all of its other colonies for a reason, the oppressive collectivism.
Canada was populated largely by the 1/3rd of Americans who were loyal to the monarchy. Europe was obviously the home of oppressive collectivism, and it transported all of these ideals to its colonies which broke away much later than us here in the US did. So demanding to know why we here in this country are not like the rest of the West is like questioning why we ever broke away from England in the first place. We opposed the collectivism and oppression.
Those “reactionaries” as you like to call us are usually the people who have kept your chestnuts out of the collectivist fire for over 2 centuries. Unfortunately it is a battle we are now losing thanks to people such as you. Why should I care where I am in the political context of Europe, Canada, or anywhere else? Their opinions are irrelevant to me and this country. Unfortunately you find more reason to criticize our differences from the rest of the Western world than embrace them.
The position taken by Liberals and ‘Conservatives’ alike today are the same positions which have always eroded the liberty, values, and greatness of a society. Something we renounced over 2 centuries ago you cling to now. It was not just about monarchy, you can have a monarchy and not be collectivist, the founding fathers wanted to throw off the shackles of collectivism and now the left in both the Democratic and Republican Parties are wanting to lock them back onto us.
Call me a reactionary, tell me I am crazy and irrational, every time you do it makes me that much more satisfied in knowing that what I do, what I say, what I think is purely opposing the collectivism that you desire and defend. Call it Socialism now but it is nothing more than a therapeutic managerial state or should I say, the welfare-warfare state.
For what reason would I want to be allied with the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama when I could be allied with Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge?
Those programs were running perfectly fine, ----- until the era of the Reagan Republican uber far right wing Corporatist Plutocrat Robber Baron
privatizing deregulators came along.
reply to post by Sestias
Capitalism is based off of Laissez-faire economics. Laissez-faire is french, and roughly translated means leave it be.
Imposing restraints on Capitalism IS NOT CAPITALISM. Now, with that being said do I think "predatory practices" are wrong? Yes. That's and ethical debate.
And this is being done successfully in Europe and elsewhere? Please.
A few years ago the US AND World Banks bailed out several European countries. Why? Economic problems caused by a number of factors. One major one being their social programs are HEMMORAGING money.
Find me one country that has social programs that don't spend more than they bring in.
Way of base, and spoken truly as someone who is ignorant on economics. The reason, purely and simply, that conservatives have an issue with these programs is because they too are HEMMORAGING money!
YOU!
RIGHT NOW!
ARE NOT PAYING FOR YOUR OWN SOCIAL SECURITY. You are paying for the social security of several generations AHEAD of you. Which means that the money you put in is not going to come back to you. That is the way social security is currently set up. Hence the overwhelming voice by conservatives to either: Give us the choice to put money into it, Or get rid of it
Milton Friedman on Social Security
Social Security Again
Programs like this as well as others, are the main reasons, we as a Nation are going bankrupt.
Secondly show me in the CONSTITUTION where the FEDERAL government is supposed to take care of these programs.
THE ONLY PROGRAM LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION that is a major money spender TODAY, is Defence. Look it Up.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
I don't have a problem donating to the poor.IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG however, that a when these programs were adopted there was an overwhelming majority who wanted them.
Listen the only reason so many republican, conservatives, grass roots, and independents have a problem with Socialism is because that isn't what THIS country was founded on. There are plenty of countries that were. You are free to move to them, thought I doubt you will.
This country was founded with the ideals that someone could come here and make a life for themselves, WITHOUT hindrance from Government, NOT with the government holding our hands. Founding ideals were about liberty, and Personal responsibility.
Socialism is not.
DENY IGNORANCE
Actually, I myself am only a semi-socialist. I advocate capitalism with a lot of regulations to impose restraints along with the socialization of our major social programs. This is being done successfully in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Capitalism is based off of Laissez-faire economics. Laissez-faire is french, and roughly translated means leave it be.
Imposing restraints on Capitalism IS NOT CAPITALISM. Now, with that being said do I think "predatory practices" are wrong? Yes. That's and ethical debate.
And this is being done successfully in Europe and elsewhere? Please.
A few years ago the US AND World Banks bailed out several European countries. Why? Economic problems caused by a number of factors. One major one being their social programs are HEMMORAGING money.
Find me one country that has social programs that don't spend more than they bring in.
Medicare and Social Security are essentially socialized already, which is why the ultra-uber-right is frothing at the mouth about them and trying to eliminate them. Actually, they have been doing this ever since FDR instituted Social Security in the 1930's, but the American people just wouldn't have them undone. Until now. And the attempt looks entirely doomed from the outset.
Way of base, and spoken truly as someone who is ignorant on economics. The reason, purely and simply, that conservatives have an issue with these programs is because they too are HEMMORAGING money!
YOU!
RIGHT NOW!
ARE NOT PAYING FOR YOUR OWN SOCIAL SECURITY. You are paying for the social security of several generations AHEAD of you. Which means that the money you put in is not going to come back to you. That is the way social security is currently set up. Hence the overwhelming voice by conservatives to either: Give us the choice to put money into it, Or get rid of it
Milton Friedman on Social Security
Social Security Again
Programs like this as well as others, are the main reasons, we as a Nation are going bankrupt.
Secondly show me in the CONSTITUTION where the FEDERAL government is supposed to take care of these programs.
THE ONLY PROGRAM LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION that is a major money spender TODAY, is Defence. Look it Up.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
The popularity of these two programs is evident in the poll results showing that a huge majority of the American people have no intention of getting rid of either program, and show only slightly less support for eliminating Medicaid, which some people object to because it benefits the poor.
I don't have a problem donating to the poor.IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG however, that a when these programs were adopted there was an overwhelming majority who wanted them.
Listen the only reason so many republican, conservatives, grass roots, and independents have a problem with Socialism is because that isn't what THIS country was founded on. There are plenty of countries that were. You are free to move to them, thought I doubt you will.
This country was founded with the ideals that someone could come here and make a life for themselves, WITHOUT hindrance from Government, NOT with the government holding our hands. Founding ideals were about liberty, and Personal responsibility.
Socialism is not.
DENY IGNORANCE
edit on 26-4-2011 by TruthAboveIgnorance because: grammar and misspelling
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Awolscout
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Yup, you can't have just straight up capitalism, or socialism, it must be a hybrid system in order for things to work.
People have this big fear of socialism and it's "evils", when the reality is that ALL social programs are socialist and what are the MOST popular programs of ANY democracy? The social ones. Public transportation is socialist, medicare is socialist, public school, socialist..
The list goes on and on.
~KeeperAs an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
That is a very true statement. Socialism today is what Communism was during the McCarthy era. It's basically a blanket term for anything that may threaten the current way of thinking, If it doesn't support the very, very much broken form of democratic capitalism that we still stand by it is black-listed as being evil and something that goes against freedom.
It's sad really, so many, many people could benefit from it. I also do find it slightly ironic when a person will on one hand rail against the current state of society where the rich control everything, they can't get a job etc. but then turn around and claim that they're free and socialism is evil etc. This is always of course without realising that this whole variance in quality of living would not happen to the extreme that is under a democratic socialism.
If you work harder your still going to have nicer things, but everyone will be working hard. That's the point. The point is that you will always have what you need, you might have more if you really want it. But you will always get fair treatment.
Here are some more video's very easily found by a professor explaining more program issues.
I am firmly convinced that all our social safety net programs would still be humming along very nicely, if we never ever poured untold ungodly
trillions into these illegal immoral "wars" of aggression, adopted free trade, and sent all the US jobs overseas to the cheapest labor.
I advocate capitalism with a lot of regulations to impose restraints along with the socialization of our major social programs
This is a very common misconception. In fact, capitalism with regulations and restraints IS NOT CAPITALISM AT ALL. It is a lot like saying "I'd like to play baseball, but with soccer balls and hockey sticks." Well, that isn't baseball at all.
Capitalism, very simply and completely is: a voluntary, consenting exchange of goods between two parties, for their own mutual benefit without the outside threat of force.
And that's it.
Once restrictions or government intervention are applied to capitalism, it is no longer capitalism but central planning. Central planning board, supreme dictator, prime decision maker, -or everything other than capitalism,- is an abolition of independent economic planning, which exists only under capitalism and the price system. All other systems are characterized by price and wage controls, and thus by shortages and government controls over production and distribution. It decides not only the prices and wages charged and paid, but also what is to be produced, in what quantities, by what methods, and where it is to be sent. This, in turn, destroys the voluntary, self interested economic planning of millions and results in chaos because capitalism is the only system that can coordinate and harmonize the activities of all the millions of separate, independent planners.
The system we have today is the result of a handful of government officials, who, having prohibited the planning of everyone else, presume to substitute their knowledge and intelligence for the knowledge and intelligence of tens of millions thereby destroying a system rationally planned by the combined, self-interested efforts of all who participate in it.
There is no country in the world that practices capitalism. All economies are centrally planned and regulated. It's amazing to me that economic model that doesn't exist in practice is blamed for the ills of the world. If the revolutionaries of the third world and of impoverished slums or even Americans themselves understood economics, any desire they might have to fight poverty and create fairness would make them advocates of capitalism.
The foundation of world peace is a policy of laissez-faire, not control.
edit on 26-4-2011 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jjkenobi
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
That would be for lack of appropriate funding and oversight, not because they aren't good ideas.
A program is only as good as the rules and people who govern it.
~KeeperAs an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
If these programs will only work with perfect harmonious oversight and funding you can shelve them since it isn't going to happen.
Originally posted by TruthAboveIgnorance
YOU!
RIGHT NOW!
ARE NOT PAYING FOR YOUR OWN SOCIAL SECURITY. You are paying for the social security of several generations AHEAD of you. Which means that the money you put in is not going to come back to you.
Like I said in another tread, part of the people against socialism are just plain selfish.
You just don't get it.
What if, generations before you payed for you now, come on don't you get it!
The only reason why you think capitalism is better is because your stuck with the problems capitalism brought in the first place, just think of it farther and you will see...