Public works are not Socialist

Unless they are also Nazi-ist, despotist, communist, monarchist etc.

There is a trend by the socialists to try and shame those against socialism by saying things like:

"Do you hate driving on nice roads? Do you hate infrastructure and schools? " etc. because "That's socialism"

The implication is that if you are against socialism, you are against public works and civic improvement. The fact is, EVERY government form since the beginning of time has had public works with the goal of adding value for the populace (or some faction thereof). The only difference in all of them is whether the populace had any say in how much was taken out of their pockets or whether they were forced to do the work.

Socialism doesn't own public works as I could just as easily say it is a Nazi thing, and those against socialism--which leads to communism, are not against public works and civic responsibility. Nice tactic though. /sarc

a reply to: Halfswede

All military spending is socialism. Are you okay with the robber barons of government taking taxes out of your "pocket" so we can drop 30,000 bombs per year in the Middle East (ME) which you know is going to do absolutely NOTHING in terms of peace in the ME?

I think every single penny we spend in the military on the ME is a complete waste of money. People will be killing each other in the ME for the next 500 years whether we drop 30,000 bombs per year or not.

By the way, when it comes to your precious money coming out of your pocket for socialism just remember it's not how much in taxes that is important. What is important is the purchasing power of your take home pay. I think the billionaires paying the lobbyists to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies is a much bigger problem in this country than the $60 billion being spent per year on the Welfare program (we spend close to one trillion on the military complain about that).

If you take Social Security out of the equation, the amount of "socialism" is far less than what people complain about. I'm not sure Social Security should even be part of the equation. If you go to their site their budget looks paid for by the program itself.

The military industrial establishment is the biggest socialist program in the government and simple cannot be stopped.

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

a reply to: Halfswede

The best form of government is a small, resourceful and cost effective govt that balances all of these things.

a reply to: dfnj2015

By the way, when it comes to your precious money coming out of your pocket for socialism just remember it's not how much in taxes that is important. What is important is the purchasing power of your take home pay. I think the billionaires paying the lobbyists to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies is a much bigger problem in this country than the $60 billion being spent per year on the Welfare program (we spend close to one trillion on the military complain about that).

It does matter how much in taxes. They have calculations out on how much all these socialist policies would cost and it's around $70,000 for each family in the US to pay for the free stuff the left is promising. That is $20,000 over the annual median salary here in my hometown.

So where are you going to get the money? You can't tax the people more than they make.

a reply to: Halfswede

Well, pooling money through taxation to provide infrastructure for everyone is pretty much the biggest principle of socialism.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Halfswede

The best form of government is a small, resourceful and cost effective govt that balances all of these things.

Exactly until human nature intervenes with greed and selfishness and misplaced disproportionate priorities and effff it all up.

Back to square one.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You forgot the companies. As soon as those are confiscated, they are to be sold to China, making tons of §§§.

a reply to: muzzleflash

* Define the "small" government by giving us a list of needed ministry departments.

* Then, break those down to the minimum of needed personal individually.

* Now try to sell this idea to politicians.

a reply to: Halfswede

The key word here is "Public". Theses things are very much at the core of socialism. Whether it is state owned roads, or state owned factories. These are public infrastructure paid for out of communal funds gathered through taxation.

If the democrats build a public college using public funds, and pay for it and the faculty out of public money, then the republicans scream that this is socialism. So how is this any different from a road or other public infrastructure?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Your thinking of communism.

Outside of America these things look very different. I've lived under both systems. No socialist ever came and tried to tell us that our property belongs to the state. Only our taxes.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Halfswede

The key word here is "Public". Theses things are very much at the core of socialism. Whether it is state owned roads, or state owned factories. These are public infrastructure paid for out of communal funds gathered through taxation.

If the democrats build a public college using public funds, and pay for it and the faculty out of public money, then the republicans scream that this is socialism. So how is this any different from a road or other public infrastructure?

Because roads are used by everyone, and only some people can get accepted into that college. To be fair though, the argument against the public University shouldn't be "socialism" which is a very vague and easily twisted concept, but instead the argument should be that it's "too expensive". If it's not too expensive, than by all means build more schools and cut taxes.

Without public works who will build the roads? No one except a profiteer, so therefore we would have no roads aside of turnpikes/tollroads.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Halfswede

The key word here is "Public". Theses things are very much at the core of socialism. Whether it is state owned roads, or state owned factories. These are public infrastructure paid for out of communal funds gathered through taxation.

If the democrats build a public college using public funds, and pay for it and the faculty out of public money, then the republicans scream that this is socialism. So how is this any different from a road or other public infrastructure?

Again, socialism doesn't "own" public works. Conservatives like some public works. Monarchies had public works. They certainly weren't socialist. The point is, stop claiming that wanting some public works is supporting "socialism". Every form of government has that concept, not just socialism.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

The military industrial establishment is the biggest socialist program in the government and simple cannot be stopped.

Not quite



I won't deny that our military spending could use some trimming, but medical/healthcare (which *are* socialist) and social security (which is dipped into for discretionary spending and *has become* a socialist ponzi scheme) overshadow it by quite a bit, and our interest on the debt is catching up.

Socialist government spending is when the government uses its power to control/regulate/provide privately produced goods and services by public mandate. Therefore, buying a tank is not socialism. Telling a private doctor how to do their private business is socialism. Building a public road is not socialism. Taking private earnings from one person and immediately giving those private earnings to other private citizens as a SS check is socialism (and legalized theft.)

I think we need a definition here since this word is being construed into it's most vague possible meanings by some members here (which is understandable because the word is very broad and vague):

Socialism

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Ok so in general, socialism refers to the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

Everyone is mixed up here and isn't using the proper classification of terminology.

It refers to the Means of Production and who owns and organizes it:

In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods)[1] are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services.[2][3] In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital.

The social means of production are capital goods and assets that require organized collective labor effort, as opposed to individual effort, to operate on.[4] The ownership and organization of the social means of production is a key factor in categorizing and defining different types of economic systems.

The means of production includes two broad categories of objects: instruments of labor (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials). People operate on the subjects of labor using the instruments of labor to create a product; or stated another way, labor acting on the means of production creates a good.[5] In an agrarian society the principal means of production is the soil and the shovel. In an industrial society the means of production become social means of production and include factories and mines. In a knowledge economy, computers and networks are means of production. In a broad sense, the "means of production" also includes the "means of distribution" such as stores, the internet and railroads (Infrastructural capital).[6]

Now, it must be noted that virtually every form of government I can think of in history had some form of Public Works:

Public works are a broad category of infrastructure projects, financed and constructed by the government, for recreational, employment, and health and safety uses in the greater community. They include public buildings (municipal buildings, schools, hospitals), transport infrastructure (roads, railroads, bridges, pipelines, canals, ports, airports), public spaces (public squares, parks, beaches), public services (water supply and treatment, sewage treatment, electrical grid, dams), and other, usually long-term, physical assets and facilities. Though often interchangeable with public infrastructure and public capital, public works does not necessarily carry an economic component, thereby being a broader term.

Public works has been encouraged since antiquity. For example, the Roman emperor Nero encouraged the construction of various infrastructure projects during widespread deflation.[1]

a reply to: muzzleflash

Exactly. The Socialist movement in the US has been putting every effort into confusing and browbeating people into supporting it's agenda.

The whole point of this thread is to bust the myth that decrying socialism is somehow anti public works or that Conservatives are anti- public works -- simply not true. Anti-socialism is just preemptive anti-communism and this link is clearly illustrated in you link that defines socialism.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The cost of those welfare projects is simply outrageous.
2.3 trillion $ in one year (2015).

In comparison, 1 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier costs 13 billion and a F/A-18 F Super Hornet costs 70 million.

We could have bought 177 of those carriers or nearly 33,000 Super Hornets for that price.
In just 1 year...

originally posted by: Halfswede
Unless they are also Nazi-ist, despotist, communist, monarchist etc.

There is a trend by the socialists to try and shame those against socialism by saying things like:

"Do you hate driving on nice roads? Do you hate infrastructure and schools? " etc. because "That's socialism"

The implication is that if you are against socialism, you are against public works and civic improvement. The fact is, EVERY government form since the beginning of time has had public works with the goal of adding value for the populace (or some faction thereof). The only difference in all of them is whether the populace had any say in how much was taken out of their pockets or whether they were forced to do the work.

Socialism doesn't own public works as I could just as easily say it is a Nazi thing, and those against socialism--which leads to communism, are not against public works and civic responsibility. Nice tactic though. /sarc

It seems most people have no idea we had a lot of socialism since the mid 1800's. Things like schools to train farm workers when the industrial revolution was destroying jobs, workers rights like an 8 hour day and even presidents like teddy Roosevelt were sympathetic to socialist ideals. In fact many of his quotes sound a lot like socialism.

The difference is there are no longer fiscal conservatives to keep government from expanding infinitely.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Not as ridiculous as the nearly 1 trillion per year we pay on interest to the national debt. Or the 1 trillion plus per year the Republican president is adding to the deficit in a "great economy" (that we are borrowing money to create)

People who say "It's not that kind of socialism being proposed", seem to ignore the fact that their heroes Bernie etc. openly touted the greatness of Cuba and Venezuela as bastions of progress.

a reply to: Halfswede

I'm glad you posted it than, because I agree with you - many people simply aren't educated much about this. I can see where the confusion comes in because these terms are broad and vague and there's a spectrum rather than precise definitions. And I do agree with you that actual socialists want to cheat by using the most strict definition of pure capitalism in order to fool people into supporting whatever their current party's goals are. Which I find to be rather deceptive and underhanded because any student of history knows that public works (in a general sense) has been utilized by virtually every civilization/government capitalists included.

Good discussion.