Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

originally posted by: Esoterotica
The world will be a better place once all humans are dead

If you truly believe this, why arent you leading by example?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I agree that the War on Drugs is a conservative policy and not a socialist one.

Ah I see. Are any liberal/left wing policies failed in your mind?

Okay. So none of this adds up for me.

People aren't happy about the way things are going.
Wealth largely controls the way things are going.
People don't want the govenernment to be able to do anthing about it.
Nobody else can do anything about it.
So how do you plan to implement checks on the super wealthy?
How would you go about doing it, if not through some kind of government?
Would you just let the concentration of wealth and power to continue unchecked?

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I agree that the War on Drugs is a conservative policy and not a socialist one.

Ah I see. Are any liberal/left wing policies failed in your mind?

Obamacare, but then again that isn't Socialist either.

a reply to: Esoterotica

None of those are "socialist". The equation between tax-funded programs and "socialism" is false. It's like saying because kings collected taxes, funded the building of their palaces, armies, roads, etc. feudalism was essentially socialist.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Esoterotica

None of those are "socialist". The equation between tax-funded programs and "socialism" is false. It's like saying because kings collected taxes, funded the building of their palaces, armies, roads, etc. feudalism was essentially socialist.

If you're targeting the producers with high taxes in order to redistribute wealth, that's definitely an aspect of socialism and more accurately Marxism.

a reply to: Tearman

Would you just let the concentration of wealth and power to continue unchecked?

That is the question; and it raises two others, do we have a violent revolt or just social political change?

a reply to: AlaskanDad

A violent revolt would just be a repeat of the kind of pointless mayhem happening in the middle east right now.

a reply to: TheTory

There would have had to be an entity taxing the king for it to have been closer to socialism I think.

Maybe if we just instituted a maximum wage we wouldn't have to have such pedantic arguments over words that end in -ism.

a reply to: TheBulk

If you're targeting the producers with high taxes in order to redistribute wealth, that's definitely an aspect of socialism and more accurately Marxism.

Yes wealth redistribution is socialist, but because something is tax-payer funded does not mean it is socialist, is my only point. I've noticed this specious argument being passed around as of late.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Esoterotica

None of those are "socialist". The equation between tax-funded programs and "socialism" is false. It's like saying because kings collected taxes, funded the building of their palaces, armies, roads, etc. feudalism was essentially socialist.

Correct, what confuses people is that so-called "social programs" are merely socioeconomic interventions, not ownership of production. The more you have, the closer you get to being forced into true socialism. But, they are not "socialist" policies per se.

The State acquires ownership of everything then a totalitarian grabs control from the powerless defenseless peoples. The Bolshevik's learned that the hard way, it went from Lenin the Socialist to Stalin the Totalitarian on one generation. The intellectuals will be the first ones rounded up for elimination, the ones who supported and ushered in the supposedly utopian society.

In this Democratic Republic, Socialism is a poison.

There's a big difference between putting a check on the concentration of power, and controlling everything.

Just because you want to move society in a direction doesn't mean you have to go insane about it.

Or do you honestly think leftists wont stop until they control what everybody thinks and says and does, everywhere, all the time, no matter who you are or what you're doing?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: xuenchen

Rather easy to define. FREE STUFF.

So one more that can't describe it. If the person reviving the service also pays into it how is it free?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Interestingly the only people who repeat the "free stuff" mantra are conservatives trying to strawman Socialism. I've yet to see a supporter of Socialism, or heck liberal policies in general ever go on and on about getting free stuff from the government.

a reply to: Tearman

Part of the problem is the crony relationship between government and the very type of power you despise. Why would giving government more power fix this? That, to me, is your fundamental disconnect.

Take the power away from the government and the wealth has no purpose there.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sremmos80

Interestingly the only people who repeat the "free stuff" mantra are conservatives trying to strawman Socialism. I've yet to see a supporter of Socialism, or heck liberal policies in general ever go on and on about getting free stuff from the government.

WTF? Free healthcare? Free college? Free this.. free that. Wages higher than market value. Face it, the under current of all this is that people think they are getting something for nothing. The evil 1% will pay for it.

a reply to: Edumakated

Thanks Mr conservative poster for proving my point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But that is what socialism is to many people. The idea that they won't have to pay directly out of pocket.

They all buy into the idea that someone else will do it for them. Then people are upset when that "someone else" winds up being them. Hence likely why you don't think of Obamacare as socialism. But guess what? It was designed to pool everyone's risk for a common good - the paying of your health care. Of course, everyone demanded that no one could be left out and that someone who goes to the doctor tomorrow and discovers stage four cancer also can't be left out. So your bill ends up being high ... but it is socialist - the pooling of resources for the common good.

What was the sample size in the OP? 10 individuals?

Nothing can be proven with a sample of that size.