Who is Going to Tell Them?

a reply to: daskakik

Of course.

It's a stupid post by yet another politically illiterate person. I most certainly didn't miss it.Im also addressing all the erroneous misconceptions in the overall discussion.

a reply to: projectvxn
That is fair.

The thing is that the use of welfarism seems to be a way to just avoid the use of the term socialism.

If you look up "socialism" there are many variants but the one thing that they have in common is the implementation of social programs, like welfare. There really is no hard mark where one stops and the other starts.

Seems like what is a "socialist" program is left up to the individual and they don't necessarily need military intervention to be implemented.

a reply to: daskakik

But it isn't. The two concepts are very different.

One is a system of economics that does away with profit and capital requirements. Same with investment.

One requires capitalism to exist at all.

Who else is going to implement social programs other than an all powerful state? Cuba has social programs but they can't fund them. If they had a welfarist system and a free market economy they'd be able to.

I look to the Nordic model rather than Karl Marx as a guide on these things.

We can debate to what degree we should have welfarist policy. But what degree of socialism doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: projectvxn
We can debate to what degree we should have welfarist policy. But what degree of socialism doesn't make sense.

But that brings us back to the point of the OP and people who don't recognize a difference and all those welfare policies are socialism, except the ones they agree with. At that point it is just semantics, policy X isn't socialism it is welfarism.

a reply to: daskakik

The problem is that the misinterpretations and misidentification continues with the OP and several members who still refuse to make a distinction between socialist economic theory and welfarist policy which is an artefact of capitalism.

They are, infact, not the same things. I don't care how some yokel identifies socialism, what matters is what socialist theory has been theorizing and implementing since the 1800s. What matters is what socialist scholars say it is and they appear to agree with me.

originally posted by: projectvxn
The problem is that the misinterpretations and misidentification continues with the OP and several members who still refuse to make a distinction between socialist economic theory and welfarist policy which is an artefact of capitalism.

I think Nexttimemaybe alluded to a valid point, if it isn't voluntary, is it still an artifact of capitalism?

They are, infact, not the same things. I don't care how some yokel identifies socialism, what matters is what socialist theory has been theorizing and implementing since the 1800s. What matters is what socialist scholars say it is and they appear to agree with me.

Let me ask you a question, what would make the implementation of universal healthcare in the US welfarist instead of socialist?

How would that mechanism be different than the funding of other social services?

a reply to: daskakik

The military isn't a socialist organization. They do not produce anything and exist as an arm of the state to protect the people.

As far as I know Universal Healthcare Systems that exist today in Western nations do not outlaw private sector medical companies, clinics, or doctors operating within that market. Nor do they, as far as I know, ban medical insurance. That makes them welfarist in nature.

In order for healthcare to be socialist they would have to outlaw private sector medical companies, private practice, and insurance as well as seize those means from the private sector and nationalize them.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: rounda

Social programs are not socialism.

When they are established by the government and paid for with tax dollars, they are.

It's when that government oversteps it's boundaries that it becomes socialism.

Is that what you think Social Security is, an overstep of boundaries by the government?

No, social programs are not socialism, no matter how much you think they are.

Socialism implies "social ownership." You don't "own" the police department because you pay taxes. The state doesn't own the police department, even though they fund police departments. The police department isn't owned by anyone... it's a public service designed to enforce the laws, whether that be federal, state, or local.

Socialism redistributes wealth, "according to one's need." Welfare programs could be argued as "redistributing wealth," but only a very small portion of your taxes actually go to those programs. That's not "redistributing wealth." You're not forced to give your mansion up and move into a smaller house...

Do I agree with welfare programs? No. They promote degradation of society. Why bother contributing through work when you can sit on your ass all day and get paid?

But do some people require assistance? Yes. That's just the reality of the world we live in. Some people can't actually function in normal society. Some people can't realistically contribute, like perhaps a low functioning autist.

So is social security an overstep by the government? Absolutely.

Does that make it socialism, or this country socialist? No. It's simply a social program the government created to try (horribly) to solve a real problem.

Again, there is a difference between social programs and socialism.

I think you're talking about public schools in another comment. Public schools would be socialist if everyone were required to go to public school. But there are other options available if you are so choose. Private schools are the big one, but now there are charter schools too. In this case, public schools are a social program, which, arguably, benefit the whole of society, and nobody in their right mind would argue isn't an essential function of government.

But an example of government overstepping their boundaries would be in Commiefornia, where Gavin Newscum and Co. are vehemently opposed to school choice through a voucher system. And the results of their amazing policies are pretty clear... the poor can't afford to send their kids to private school, can't choose to send their kids to a better public school, and teachers unions take away any incentive to be a good teacher... which hurts the students, and future society...

originally posted by: projectvxn
The military isn't a socialist organization. They do not produce anything and exist as an arm of the state to protect the people.

I think you are wiggling a little. They provide a service like the healthcare system, which also doesn't "produce" anything.

As far as I know Universal Healthcare Systems that exist today in Western nations do not outlaw private sector medical companies, clinics, or doctors operating within that market. Nor do they, as far as I know, ban medical insurance. That makes them welfarist in nature.

But, there is no private sector national security equivalent for the military, so, by this standard, the military might not be welfarist.

In order for healthcare to be socialist they would have to outlaw private sector medical companies, private practice, and insurance as well as seize those means from the private sector and nationalize them.

So, it doesn't matter if tax dollars are used to fund universal healthcare, as long as there is a private sector?

Also, if western nations don't work that way and there is no reason to think the US would, where is this supposed threat of socialism coming from?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: daskakik

The military isn't a socialist organization. They do not produce anything and exist as an arm of the state to protect the people.

As far as I know Universal Healthcare Systems that exist today in Western nations do not outlaw private sector medical companies, clinics, or doctors operating within that market. Nor do they, as far as I know, ban medical insurance. That makes them welfarist in nature.

In order for healthcare to be socialist they would have to outlaw private sector medical companies, private practice, and insurance as well as seize those means from the private sector and nationalize them.

The product is War, and the state owns the means of production (the service members).

It's the most efficient way to provide the social program of national security.

Socialists would love being in the service. They get paid every two weeks regardless of job performance. They make the same as the person sitting next to them as long as they're the same rank, regardless of who's better at the job. They get housing, food, clothing, healthcare, spending money, a job they may or may not have chosen themselves...

And all they had to do was sign away their right to life.

a reply to: daskakik

The healthcare system most certainly does produce. New research, techniques, intellectual property, devices, drugs and so on.

The military does not produce. They are a service provided by government with no private sector equivalent both in scope and utility. Privateering isn't even close to the same thing and they have a profit motive. The military only has one motive and that is the common defense of the nation.

As another poster pontes out, paying taxes that funds the police does not mean you own the police. There is no collective ownership of the military either. the military is exclusive and they have regulations as to who can join and who can't.

So, it doesn't matter if tax dollars are used to fund universal healthcare, as long as there is a private sector?

As long as the private sector isn't SEIZED by the state and allowed to produce then the government offering a state funded public option is not socialism.

Also, if western nations don't work that way and there is no reason to think the US would, where is this supposed threat of socialism coming from?

From the threats to abolish the private sector and nationalize. That's the issue.

a reply to: rounda

The military is not a socialist organization regardless of parallels.

War is exclusively the purview of the state.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: rounda

The military is not a socialist organization regardless of parallels.

War is exclusively the purview of the state.

National defense is the purview of the state.

War to control poppy fields in Afghanistan so Americans can become addicted to cheap opiates is not the purview of the state.

a reply to: projectvxn

I’d like to have the production of war changed to my hands. Those drug cartels and their bought corrupt foreign politicians would not like that socialism very much.

originally posted by: projectvxn
The healthcare system most certainly does produce. New research, techniques, intellectual property, devices, drugs and so on.

Pretty sure that would be pharma and not the end healthcare providers/users in healthcare.

As another poster pontes out, paying taxes that funds the police does not mean you own the police. There is no collective ownership of the military either. the military is exclusive and they have regulations as to who can join and who can't.

Pretty sure all things public are collectively owned. What else would you call it?

As long as the private sector isn't SEIZED by the state and allowed to produce then the government offering a state funded public option is not socialism.

From the threats to abolish the private sector and nationalize. That's the issue.

What threats? Is there even a threat to abolish any private sector segment of the market?

a reply to: rounda

No, social programs are not socialism, no matter how much you think they are.

And repeatedly saying this doesn't make it true.

Socialism implies "social ownership." You don't "own" the police department because you pay taxes. The state doesn't own the police department, even though they fund police departments. The police department isn't owned by anyone... it's a public service designed to enforce the laws, whether that be federal, state, or local.

"We the People" don't "OWN" the United States, we ARE The United States. Our government is established by the people, for the people and of the people.

Socialism redistributes wealth, "according to one's need." Welfare programs could be argued as "redistributing wealth," but only a very small portion of your taxes actually go to those programs.

Then you agree that the USA does employ a blend of socialism and capitalism, even if you don't agree on the extent of socialism being employed in our economy.

So is social security an overstep by the government? Absolutely.

Does that make it socialism, or this country socialist?

Yes it does. It's right in the name Social Security.

Nobody is saying the USA is a socialist country. But, the isn't purely a capitalistic country either. We use a blend of economic systems.

I think you're talking about public schools in another comment. Public schools would be socialist if everyone were required to go to public school. But there are other options available if you are so choose.

It's erroneous to assume that it's only socialism if it's forced on a population. No one is forced to accept SNAP benefits, or Public Assistance. However, Social Security, which you insist isn't socialism IS forced on the population.

a reply to: projectvxn

In order for healthcare to be socialist they would have to outlaw private sector medical companies, private practice, and insurance as well as seize those means from the private sector and nationalize them.

This is an erroneous claim. Socialisms doesn't depend on the outlawing of the private sector. Socialism can be used as an economic tool to bolster capitalism, by placing the burden of social welfare on the government, and by bridging the wealth gap, in the spirit of some base line equality.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, offers housing to the poor, a socialist program. HUD doesn't own the housing it subsidizes. It doesn't outlaw private property rentals, and in fact, HUD uses private contractors to build and manage privately owned property/housing, not government employees.

By the way, welfarism is merely a facet of socialism, not a separate economic system.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


Lol.

Social club.

Social media.

Social studies.

They have the word social in them. Does that make them socialism?

If you're not going to be honest about this discussion, there's no point in having it.

Peace.

a reply to: rounda

Social club.

Social media.

Social studies.

None of those things are government programs that utilize tax payer money to implement, except social studies, maybe, as it's taught in public schools.

Social Security is a "socialist" government program. It's a social safety net, enacted when capitalism failed, meant to fill in the gaps that capitalism can't. It isn't a social club, and it isn't an online discussion board.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Weird. I wasn't aware capitalism "failed."

I can start my own business as a sole proprietor, select which companies I want to source my materials or products from, sell a portion of ownership of my business to one person or the public if I choose to.

I can buy and sell my own property, whether that be material goods, land, or homes....

All things you can't do in socialism, since all property is "socially owned." I.e. state owned.

You can't seem to be able to differentiate between state intervention and socialism.