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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

This statement is PURE ignorance.

This is True .
Socialism will Always end in Tyranny .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

This statement is PURE ignorance.

This is True .
Socialism will Always end in Tyranny .

Also pure ignorance.

originally posted by: dismanrc
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.

Government is the people. If the government is the enemy, then you are saying that the people are the enemy. Do you really want a President taking an oath of office that calls you out as an enemy of the state that needs to be put down?

Im getting so tired of thinking inside of these boxes. Who cares what its called, you should think about if its good for the people. You cant judge socialism as a whole because it has too many different aspects, many good, many bad just as with capitalism. Pick out the good parts of both worlds and call it whatever the hell you want, and no its not impossible. Thinking in these kind of labels is just stupid.

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.

the socialists programs of medicare and social security are working.....you know what is entitlement.....the Walton family of Walmart corporation owning assets worth as much as the bottom 40% of all Americans....now those are people that think they are entitled

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It's kind of strange and ironic that some people to this day, and after all "the failed experiments on socialism" still many believe "we need a bit of socialism and a bit of capitalism". The thing is, a bit of socialism is what has gotten us to the state we are in today.

A Federal Reserve bank is a central bank that socialism and communist nations establish to control all wealth. It is the fifth plank of communism. It is part of what many of the U.S. founding fathers warned against, yet in 1913 under progressive democrats, and a progressive democrat as President the United States gave all economic power over to a central bank and to the world elite. In that same year the IRS as it exists today was "reformed" with it's heavier and progressive taxes.

Has The Communist Manifesto replaced the Constitution?

By: George Hawley
...
The ten program points from The Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
...
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
...
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
...
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
...
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
...
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
...
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
...
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
...
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
...

www.yaliberty.org...


There is, and has been "a little bit of socialism and even communism" already implemented in the United States and in the world. Great part of the reason why we are in this mess we are in today is because of "this little bit of socialism and communism". As such more and more "little bit of socialism and communism" is introduced, more and more individual rights are lost "for the good of all".

For socialism to work, you need a population that is willing to work.

Sadly, in this country, there are far too many who want to receive the benefits but are not willing to get off their lazy behinds to work.

Socialists tend to be very idealistic and won't consider the fact that there is a significant portion of our population that just wants handouts.

a reply to: Wildbob77

Well seeing as if everyone worked we'd only need to pull like 10 hour weeks with modern technology I'm sure even the laziest sob would be willing for food, roof, ect.

But you ask people to work 40+ hours a week for table scraps and wonder why so many choose to say # it? Perhaps it's not so much that people are lazy so much as they realize that giving up most of their life for barely more than they get for not doing so simply isn't worth it.

originally posted by: jimmyx

the socialists programs of medicare and social security are working.....you know what is entitlement.....the Walton family of Walmart corporation owning assets worth as much as the bottom 40% of all Americans....now those are people that think they are entitled

Why is it that some people to this day seem to think that anything that has the word "social" must be socialist?

Programs like social security weren't originally what they are today. Much has been changed in these programs, and in case you didn't know because of many of these changes, and less and less people working, these programs are suffering, and will go bankrupt if they are not changed.

Claiming that "social security is a socialist program" would be the same as claiming that "insurance programs are socialist". Neither claim is true.

This is a similar claim as I have read in these forums in the past claiming that "only socialists and left wingers in general care for other people"... That is not true. You could be a socialist and not care for others, and you could be a right winger and not care for others.

Being/belonging to one side of the political spectrum doesn't make you care more for other people. More so when you need programs that are realistic. Because in the end if there is no way to pay for those programs people will not be taken care of. Money doesn't grow in trees, and despite many claiming that money is not needed even socialists make, and need money.

Heck, as an example look at Soros, a multi-billionaire progressive liberal. You actually think he cares about people? or does he care for using people to simply accomplish his goals? As it is he is one of the people behind the large immigration issue from the middle east, trying to send tens of thousands of people into Europe, and the United States, and the end goal of this is help people like Soros reach those world government goals they have in mind.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Something that is paid for by the tax payer for a service they get in return is pretty socialist. Private insurance hardly meets that.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Something that is paid for by the tax payer for a service they get in return is pretty socialist. Private insurance hardly meets that.

Then you are saying all taxes are socialist in nature. Hence the United States is a socialist nation, hence the deep poop we are in?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Something that is paid for by the tax payer for a service they get in return is pretty socialist. Private insurance hardly meets that.

BTW, just to show how wrong you are. All nations have taxes. Are you claiming all nations are socialist?

originally posted by: Wildbob77
For socialism to work, you need a population that is willing to work.
...

For socialism to work you need a populace willing to give up their individual rights. You need a populace that will never question the status quo, and will never question what their government does. You need a population of robots who will not think for themselves.

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.

Russia was Communist not Socialist. Maybe you should have watched the video or watch it again because you are confused.

originally posted by: buster2010

Russia was Communist not Socialist. Maybe you should have watched the video or watch it again because you are confused.

The former U.S.S.R. was both socialist and communist. It's why it's name was "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics".

In order to be communist, you need socialism. Same for China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In order to be communist, you need socialism. Same for China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc.

Funny there are many nations that are socialist but haven't become communist. It was the communist Bolshevik Russian Revolution that overthrew the socialist government and made Russia communist. So no you don't need socialism to become communist you just need a communist political party to gain power in a nation and turn it communist.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

For socialism to work you need a populace willing to give up their individual rights.

You are confusing communism with socialism. People in socialist nations do have individual rights. Where did you get the idea that people in socialist nations have no individual rights?

You need a populace that will never question the status quo, and will never question what their government does. You need a population of robots who will not think for themselves.

Where did you learn about socialism from FOX, Rush or one of the other propaganda sites? Because what you are saying here is found in communist countries not socialist.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The former U.S.S.R. was both socialist and communist. It's why it's name was "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics".

If that's the standard we're going by, then the Democratic People's Republic of Korea really is democratic.

Socialism is the opposite of capitalism. America would prosper under a Mondrogon system. Let the workers own the company. They do all of the work anyway.

originally posted by: buster2010
Funny there are many nations that are socialist but haven't become communist. It was the communist Bolshevik Russian Revolution that overthrew the socialist government and made Russia communist. So no you don't need socialism to become communist you just need a communist political party to gain power in a nation and turn it communist.

Who says that communists work well besides socialists?... Communists use socialists. Time and time again communists, and even socialists have turned against each other when they try to gain control over a nation.

Did you not know that Stalin ordered the death of Trosky for example among other communists?
www.marxists.org...

fidel castro ordered the execution of socialists who complained that more and more communists were allowed into "the revolution".

Like the above there are many other examples of socialists and communists turning against each other once their common enemy is neutralized, and often turn enemies when they try to gain control of a nation.

BTW, yes you do need to be socialist in order to be a communist.

Here is a site showing the differences and similarities between socialism and communism.
www.diffen.com...

Under "Key Elements" for socialism you can read this.

...
Economic activity and production especially are adjusted by the State to meet human needs and economic demands. "Production for use": useful goods and services are produced specifically for their usefulness.
...

www.diffen.com...

Under socialism the state has to control all means of production.

BTW, in case you didn't know here is what fidel castro said in a speech on February 1st 1961.

First Published: L'Unita, Rome, No. 32, 1 February 1961, pages 1-2.
Source: Castro Speech Database
Markup: Brian Baggins
Online Version: Castro Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000



Havana, January — "Do you really want to write that this is socialist revolution? All right, write it. We are not afraid of words. Do not say, however — as Americans do — that there is communism here, because communism cannot be found even in Russia, after forty years from the overtaking of power... National middle classes? Forget about them, my boy, forget it entirely that national middle classes can still play a revolutionary role in Latin America... Yes, I studied Marx's and Lenin's works even before launching the attack against Cuartel Moncada, in 1953... A society is divided into classes, there is a class struggle: these are unquestionable truths... No, the Americans will not attack us. Imperialism is dying, anyway. It can choose between suicide and natural death. If it attacks, it means suicide, a fast and certain death. If it does not attack, it can hope to last a little longer..."
...

www.marxists.org...

Notice the same mantra some are blindly stating here. Of course you don't have to be afraid of the word itself, but this is a tactic to make people think "socialism is ok, just listen to us it's good for everyone except the rich".