We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.

[PoliTalker]

I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[evince]

I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

so you agree the fairness doctrine should have been killed after it worked great for decades?

can you explain why you don't like the fairness doctrine?

[evince]

this nation can NOT come together if 30% of the nation believes the lies of fox "news"

[Evergreen58]

Thank you for the discussion. We are in agreement. Have a good evening!

[PoliTalker]

Hello Evergreen58,

Thank you for the discussion. We are in agreement. Have a good evening!

You're welcome. I'm glad we are in agreement. And it was a good evening!

I look forward to more discussions.

Good day

[rjhenn]

You are not talking about socialism; you are talking about welfare statism and progressivism. Obviously, capitalism and socialism cannot co-exist at the same time.

Nonsense. You use socialism to fill in the holes in capitalism and capitalism to fill in the holes in socialism. And both of them have great gaping holes to fill.

[rjhenn]

People need to get "ism's" out of their head, and get their head out of their asses.

Just because the United States is a unique example of a Free Country and a symbol of freedom to the rest of the world, and we actually care about the welfare of all it's citizens, does not mean our government is some kind of a Socialist State.

What we truly are is a country where our markets are based on Free-Enterprise with Federally operated safety valves to help those in need of the essentials of life and well-being for all.

One thing for sure is, we are not a Plutocracy run by Plutocrats that only look out for themselves. We are better than that!

Except that that is exactly where Donald and the GOP are trying to take us.

[rjhenn]

No such thing as free enterprise. We placed our first tariff in1789. We have over 12,500 of them now. We have always been a nation that referees commerce. It is needed because the wealthy will confiscate all wealth and power that they can. Regulation protects the people from the ruthless and powerful. The cry to end regulation that the wealthy are using as a war cry, should scare you. Regulation is required in America. you should be asking for more.

And the 19th century is the best historical evidence for that. Truly unfettered capitalism, massive pollution, poverty, disease and death. It was the driving force behind 20th century government regulation and unionism. Never again!

[Grugore]

There is a long standing Conservative Myth that we have to choose between socialism and capitalism. Some say socialism is like a cancerous disease that, once begun, grows and grows until it chokes capitalism to death and destroys the economy.

False and false.

Socialism is working very well in most industrialized nations. The USA is the only highly industrialized nation which does not have a socialist universal health care system.

We have had socialism in the USA for a long time now.

Even back when most Trump supporters would say 'America was great.' (the 1950's?)

We had social security and a minimum wage. Neither of those things is the result of capitalism.

The (socialism again) GI Bill saved millions of returning American vets from poverty. It allowed them to get an education, get a job, get a mortgage, get a home, and build wealth. (White Americans, anyway - blacks were redlined OUT of home ownership, the primary vehicle to wealth for most Americans.)

FDR: One of the greatest Presidents ever. He brought us through the big war, brought us socialism to save us from the ravages of Great Depression.

Socialism has lots of promises and benefits but socialism cannot be our only solution.

Capitalism is our primary wealth generator. Capitalism is a powerful engine of motivation and productivity.

How do we decide between the two?

That's a trick question.

We don't have to pick one.

We can have BOTH!

We already do.

The trick is to get the correct balance between the two. We just need the proper blend of capitalism and socialism. We can work jobs, pay into the system, and let the system take care of the needy. Everyone wins!

We need to be talking more and more about how socialism can work for us. We need to move beyond the limiting old Conservative Myths that are supporting the Class War and wealth extraction.

Corporations and the super-rich extract far more of our wealth than socialism. We need to face up to the facts here. The government doesn't want your money. The government uses the money it collects to do good, and always end up in the hole anyway. (because of the chintzy super-rich never want to pay enough taxes!) Corporations and the super-rich take your money and keep it for themselves. They take the government's money. They can't get enough. If you've got it, they want it. And they are very diabolical about getting what they want.

We need a socialist health care system. It is wrong for people to think of healing as a way to get rich. It is wrong for corporations to be making billions of dollars on the 'business' of providing health care. Health care in the USA should be a RIGHT. We can put a man on the moon; we can do this.

The capitalist model cannot work well for that because there is no way to have basic competition. Something happens and you're rushed off to the hospital, you don't spring up out of the gurney and say: "WAIT! I want to shop around and see which is the best deal in hospitals!" It's not like you're laying on the ground and waving off the first few EMT's because they charge too much. That's ridiculous. Who calls around to doctor offices for prices? "How much do you charge for treatment if I have a stroke?" No. That's ridiculous. Capitalism doesn't work for that.

We need Socialism in the USA.

It must really bug the hell out of you that some chump who fled the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela knows more about Socialism than a 28 year old 10th year undergrad in gender studies with a verified Twitter account.

[Minister of Truth]

Nonsense. You use socialism to fill in the holes in capitalism and capitalism to fill in the holes in socialism. And both of them have great gaping holes to fill.

That is a definition of neither.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Threedee,

Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
Nonsense. You use socialism to fill in the holes in capitalism and capitalism to fill in the holes in socialism. And both of them have great gaping holes to fill.

That is a definition of neither.

Sometimes definitions lag behind where society is taking them.

When we're talking about socialism here, we're not generally talking about the government owning all the means of production. We're just talking about having the government do the things that society needs, and also letting capitalism reward those who work hard with wealth.

The amount of taxation required to support the social safety net is not going to break anybody.

You can't name one billionaire who has been broken to poverty through taxation.

Never happened!

[Minister of Truth]

Hello Threedee,





Sometimes definitions lag behind where society is taking them.

When we're talking about socialism here, we're not generally talking about the government owning all the means of production. We're just talking about having the government do the things that society needs, and also letting capitalism reward those who work hard with wealth.

The amount of taxation required to support the social safety net is not going to break anybody.

You can't name one billionaire who has been broken to poverty through taxation.

Never happened!

IOW, we're not talking about socialism. And it's the middle class that gets wrecked by taxes.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Threedee,

IOW, we're not talking about socialism. And it's the middle class that gets wrecked by taxes.

Then only raise taxes on the rich. Believe me, they have enough wealth to pay off the debt. Just tax their income enough to turn the deficit into a surplus. That's all. They have enough income to do that, you know. I'll never understand why so many people defend the ultra wealthy. Believe me. They can take care of themselves. They already have. They won the Class War decades ago. And they just keep extracting more and more wealth from society. They are fine, seriously. They won't miss it. The nation deserves this after all the USA has done for these super-rich people. They, and their super-rich big fat immortal corporations, can afford to pay enough taxes to begin paying down the US debt. And that's what we need to do. And it would help the economy.

[Evergreen58]

Good afternoon PoliTalker,

My discussion at this point would center around what I said in my first reply:

I suppose the idea of Socialism could be good if human nature was pure. If everyone truly did work to the best of their ability then it would be easier to feel good about goods and services being distributed to them. But I believe there are those who would take advantage of the system - as William Bradford discovered in 1620. He discovered that those participating in the work increased when they got to reap the benefits of their own work - and not have the product of their hard work given to those who did not work. I believe there are many conservatives who would be more open to a socialist society if there could be a way to eliminate benefits going to those who don't want to work. How could we fix this problem?

Then there is another problem. I believe greed is the driving force behind much innovation and invention. Why would someone want to work tirelessly to innovate and invent if the goods and services they produce will be regulated by the government? There may be exceptions, but surely no-one is naive enough to think that most men and women will work solely for the common good. This sounds good. It is probably the Christian way. But it is not human nature.

Also, it appears to me that many politicians who support socialism live in opulence themselves sharing very little of what they have with others. Sadly, they do not practice what they preach. This is a huge problem which leads to cynicism by conservatives. We all are more likely to follow those who practice what they preach. Which modern day politician does this? (not sure how to recapture this in italics)

Especially comments about the William Bradford experiment. But since you do not believe in a purely socialist government, you would probably not argue with my points. Your paradigm works well and as you say is pretty much what we have now. So my question to those who advocate pure socialism is "what about the William Bradford experiment?"

[PoliTalker]

Happy International Peace Day Evergreen58,

Good afternoon PoliTalker,

My discussion at this point would center around what I said in my first reply:

I suppose the idea of Socialism could be good if human nature was pure. If everyone truly did work to the best of their ability then it would be easier to feel good about goods and services being distributed to them. But I believe there are those who would take advantage of the system - as William Bradford discovered in 1620. He discovered that those participating in the work increased when they got to reap the benefits of their own work - and not have the product of their hard work given to those who did not work. I believe there are many conservatives who would be more open to a socialist society if there could be a way to eliminate benefits going to those who don't want to work. How could we fix this problem?

What we do is we don't abandon capitalism! We need capitalism to support the safety net. And people are just going to have to accept that some of their hard work will have to go to paying taxes, and some of that revenue from those taxes is going to be spent on things that people disagree with.

Then there is another problem. I believe greed is the driving force behind much innovation and invention. Why would someone want to work tirelessly to innovate and invent if the goods and services they produce will be regulated by the government? There may be exceptions, but surely no-one is naive enough to think that most men and women will work solely for the common good. This sounds good. It is probably the Christian way. But it is not human nature.

Well if that's the Christian way, and we are a Christian nation, then how come that is not OUR way?

And the answer is that most people who claim to be Christians don't act very much like it.

But that doesn't matter. The profit motive is a strong motivator for people to strive, yes. But it is not the reason most people work hard. Most people are employees who work at a fixed rate. Yes, there are entrepreneurs, sales people, and executives who are paid more if they work harder, but for MOST workers, the only reason to work hard is to avoid getting fired. Let's be honest. Job security is really the strongest motivator. For most workers, if they produce more, somebody else takes it. The owners and investors of the company gets the reward for workers being more productive. That's why so many large employers put the big squeeze on their workers to produce more.

Lots of people work at jobs which only offer more rewards if the worker does a good job and stays on the job for a long duration, working their way up in seniority. Government workers and a lot of corporate bureaucrats work like that. Some jobs have more well defined levels of advancement than others. Military, police, fire, social services, etc, those are kinds of jobs where advancement only comes after good performance and accrued experience. The carrot of being paid more is out there, even if it is not a profitable organization. That's why people would strive, even if they don't really have the immediate profit motive. I don't call that greed. I call that ambition.

Also, it appears to me that many politicians who support socialism live in opulence themselves sharing very little of what they have with others. Sadly, they do not practice what they preach. This is a huge problem which leads to cynicism by conservatives. We all are more likely to follow those who practice what they preach. Which modern day politician does this? (not sure how to recapture this in italics)

I'm sure there are plenty of rich politicians who give generously to charitable organizations. That's not news, so you don't hear about it much. One person who comes to mind is President Jimmy Carter.

The Carter Center

Especially comments about the William Bradford experiment. But since you do not believe in a purely socialist government, you would probably not argue with my points. Your paradigm works well and as you say is pretty much what we have now. So my question to those who advocate pure socialism is "what about the William Bradford experiment?"

Oh, that was the Plymouth Colony, right? They had no monetary system, so they tried to do it like a commune, but people didn't work hard enough to produce what was needed? There's a bit more to that story than some story-tellers relate. They showed up too late to plant crops before the winter. And they didn't know what grew well in that climate. The first years were very difficult. THAT is why so many died and it was so difficult for them to survive. Those people arrived with nothing. How could a monetary system even work for them?

I'm certainly not saying we should try a completely communist system like that. I FAVOR capitalism! I just want to continue to mix it with socialism and help people realize that it works that way for us. We've done very well with lots of socialism mixed in with our capitalism. I'm just interested in honest discussions where we admit that. I think it is a myth when you hear people say that 'everywhere socialism has been tried it has failed.' No. That is not true. Not true at all. Socialism is alive and well all over the planet, and doing very well for people.

ps: if you hilite and click the I above the dialog box, it will italicize what you hilited.