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

[PoliTalker]

Hello Uncensored2008,

Yes, who can deny the wonders of what you've done in places like Venezuela? A country that was once destitute is now prosperous with people pouring in from neighboring Columbia and other nations. Where the population enjoys a solid three meals per month.

oh wait... You have created hell on earth in what was once the most prosperous and advanced nation in South America. The once thriving democracy is a brutal dictatorship. Half the nation has fled as they are driven to eating zoo animals to survive.

Such are the rewards of socialism - 100% of the time.

Venezuela is no comparison to the USA. Two things caused their economy to fail. The market for their single-source product evaporated, and they got nearly all their electricity from one reservoir which experienced a huge drought, forcing them to cut power. Neither of those problems is present in the USA.

Looks like your entire argument just vanished like a single match in a hurricane.

Whiff!

Gone.

The classic nothing-burger. No lettuce, no tomato, no meat, no cheese, no bun. No sense. Just an empty styrofoam clam shell, with a vacuum inside. Want some Freedom Fries with that?

[cawacko]

Beats me?

How come?

Have you ever considered leaving? (not suggesting you should just asking that as an honest/curious question)

[Cypress]

My three favorite Socialist organizations are, in no particular order:

Public libraries
National Parks
The Green Bay Packers

The Green Bay Packers are a socialist organization.

Rather than being controlled by a single owner like the 31 other teams, the Packers are owned by the community — 112,158 shareholders to be precise. The team is a nonprofit and has rules in place to prevent any individuals from taking control of the franchise. Were the Packers controlled by a single owner, it’s unlikely they would still play in Green Bay, the smallest hometown of any NFL team, particularly while a vacancy in the highly profitable Los Angeles market exists. It’s no stretch to say that socialism saved the Green Bay Packers.

The Packers are the only team with a president instead of an owner,” says team president Mark Murphy.. “You know, with every other team in the NFL, all that money the team makes, that goes straight to the owner.” Proudly, he continued, “The Packers don’t have an owner. All that money goes back to the community, the fans. It builds stuff like this,” motioning toward Titletown.

https://thinkprogress.org/top-seven-...-b2a6deaff689/
http://theconversation.com/green-bay...mmunism-102531

[Uncensored2008]

My three favorite Socialist organizations are, in no particular order:

Public libraries
National Parks
The Green Bay Packers

None of those are socialist.

You are economically illiterate. The Packers are a corporation. Your masters have trained to you hate corporations. As for the other two, they merely illustrate your abject ignorance and failure to understand the basic terms and concepts in play.

Socialism is the control of the means of production by the state, generally under autocratic rule.

[Frank Apisa]

Have you ever considered leaving? (not suggesting you should just asking that as an honest/curious question)

Never for a second.

I am still hoping our nation will be the one that leads humanity into a new dynamic...one in which EVERYONE has sufficient.

I'm actually hoping a modified form of capitalism (modified capitalism rather than modified socialism) is the catalyst.

I'm here for the duration...fighting the fight.

[Cypress]

None of those are socialist.

You are economically illiterate. The Packers are a corporation. Your masters have trained to you hate corporations. As for the other two, they merely illustrate your abject ignorance and failure to understand the basic terms and concepts in play.

Socialism is the control of the means of production by the state, generally under autocratic rule.

When you quit hiding behind your troll handle, and post under your real handle, I might write a response to you.

[Uncensored2008]

Hello Uncensored2008,



Venezuela is no comparison to the USA. Two things caused their economy to fail. The market for their single-source product evaporated, and they got nearly all their electricity from one reservoir which experienced a huge drought, forcing them to cut power. Neither of those problems is present in the USA.

Looks like your entire argument just vanished like a single match in a hurricane.

Whiff!

Gone.

The classic nothing-burger. No lettuce, no tomato, no meat, no cheese, no bun. No sense. Just an empty styrofoam clam shell, with a vacuum inside. Want some Freedom Fries with that?

The United States will have the same fate should we be stupid enough to allow socialism to destroy us.

Even the radical left Washington Post doesn't buy your nonsense excuses for the collapse of Venezuela. The nation was destroyed by Chavez and the socialism you seek to infest American with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab7118bbd0c6

[PoliTalker]

Hello Uncensored2008,

The United States will have the same fate should we be stupid enough to allow socialism to destroy us.

Even the radical left Washington Post doesn't buy your nonsense excuses for the collapse of Venezuela. The nation was destroyed by Chavez and the socialism you seek to infest American with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab7118bbd0c6

Thanks for that informative article. I am now better informed for it. Although I have to laugh that you are calling the WashPo 'radical left.' Ha Ha Ha Haaaa. Good one, as you quote a WashPo article supporting your right slanted view. BTW, that piece is loaded with opinion. Don't take every word for fact. I was amused at the comment: "It turns out Lenin was wrong. Debauching the currency is actually the best way to destroy the socialist, not the capitalist, system." Wrong! It shows nothing of the kind. A primarily capitalist nation could be just as easily destroyed by simply printing too much money as a primarily socialist one.

What Chavez and Maduro have done has certainly not worked. Fortunately, neither I nor many Americans, want that. What we want is universal health care and a strong safety net. We need to better regulate some of our big industries to stop them from ripping us off. Phone and internet should cost about a quarter of what they do. We also need better infrastructure and tuition-free college. K-12 needs to become K-16. We are forced to do these things to keep up with progress. Other nations are already doing them. We are being left behind. Our answers do not lie in hating certain types of people and letting the super-rich run everything, including the national debt up.

If you think that's socialism, then that's the kind of socialism we need.

The need increases as the power of the super-wealthy to wage Class War and extract more and more wealth from the 99.9% increases. That means that, until our capitalist system is properly reigned in and regulated, there is a constant need to increase our socialism. Eventually we will have to go to a Universal Basic Income, where the government pays people for doing nothing more than existing. They may work as they please to achieve more, if they can find work, but it won't be required. And the rich will be taxed to pay for it all. The reason is we will soon build expensive new smart machines, powered by AI, which will perform most jobs. But only the super-rich will be able to afford them. There simply won't be enough work for everyone. As if there is now, with so many people underemployed, working in a lower than trained capacity, or simply not counted as possible workers.

One thing is for sure. Our capitalist system is headed towards unsustainable severely extreme wealth inequality. As more and more people are squeezed out of even middle class lifestyles, there will be a growing discontent which will influence our politics going forward.

[evince]

I'm 46. I can remember back in the '80's hearing "we need to put more money into schools". And obviously we're still hearing it today. And I'm not suggesting we don't need more money for schools but just going with the status quo and waiting for that magical day when all this money appears isn't going to happen.

In the meantime are their changes you would like to see our schools or schools systems make to improve?

you your self gave me the "throw money at the problem" idiocy more than once you lying sac of shit

[evince]

The original poster is correct


the founders agree with him


A hybid is the best from of government


without all the tools in your basket its hard to keep it properly functioning


If you wonder if the founders would use socialism to correct the malfunction then you need to read the constitution


they wrote theb post office right into the constitution


they didn't even require it pay for its self


that a NEW rule

the founders used the tool of socialism to create this hybrid we live under folks

[Uncensored2008]

When you quit hiding behind your troll handle, and post under your real handle, I might write a response to you.

What are you yapping about fool?

If you had an IQ beyond single digits, you might grasp that this is the ID I have used since 2008.

[Uncensored2008]

Hello Uncensored2008,



Thanks for that informative article. I am now better informed for it. Although I have to laugh that you are calling the WashPo 'radical left.' Ha Ha Ha Haaaa. Good one, as you quote a WashPo article supporting your right slanted view. BTW, that piece is loaded with opinion. Don't take every word for fact. I was amused at the comment: "It turns out Lenin was wrong. Debauching the currency is actually the best way to destroy the socialist, not the capitalist, system." Wrong! It shows nothing of the kind. A primarily capitalist nation could be just as easily destroyed by simply printing too much money as a primarily socialist one.

What Chavez and Maduro have done has certainly not worked. Fortunately, neither I nor many Americans, want that. What we want is universal health care and a strong safety net. We need to better regulate some of our big industries to stop them from ripping us off. Phone and internet should cost about a quarter of what they do. We also need better infrastructure and tuition-free college. K-12 needs to become K-16. We are forced to do these things to keep up with progress. Other nations are already doing them. We are being left behind. Our answers do not lie in hating certain types of people and letting the super-rich run everything, including the national debt up.

If you think that's socialism, then that's the kind of socialism we need.

The need increases as the power of the super-wealthy to wage Class War and extract more and more wealth from the 99.9% increases. That means that, until our capitalist system is properly reigned in and regulated, there is a constant need to increase our socialism. Eventually we will have to go to a Universal Basic Income, where the government pays people for doing nothing more than existing. They may work as they please to achieve more, if they can find work, but it won't be required. And the rich will be taxed to pay for it all. The reason is we will soon build expensive new smart machines, powered by AI, which will perform most jobs. But only the super-rich will be able to afford them. There simply won't be enough work for everyone. As if there is now, with so many people underemployed, working in a lower than trained capacity, or simply not counted as possible workers.

One thing is for sure. Our capitalist system is headed towards unsustainable severely extreme wealth inequality. As more and more people are squeezed out of even middle class lifestyles, there will be a growing discontent which will influence our politics going forward.

Hello Politalker;

Thank you for your reasoned and well thought out response.

Let me start by saying that socialism has never worked, not once, not anywhere. Socialism as promoted by Marx is derived from the Kibbutzim concept of collectivism. The first failure of this is scale. The Kibbutz works as a cooperative entity inside of a greater macrocosm economic system. It cannot scale past a singular agricultural instance.

On the scale of a country, socialism fails every time it is employed. Promoters of socialism like to point to the Nordic social democracies as evidence of success. But the Nordic nations are neither socialist nor particularly successful.

Before we go on, what exactly IS socialism anyway? Simply stated, it is the control of the means of production by the state. Generally, even in the Nordic nation states, this involves autocratic rule. We will get to why that is and must be, in a moment. So control of the means of production, this means the government regulates or outright owns all of the elements in a society that produce. Based on such a definition, only St. Petersburg in 1922-23 under the "Grand Experiment" and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge were actually socialist. Both resulted in millions dead and brutality beyond human comprehension. Not a rousing endorsement of socialism.

So a modified view is adopted by most economists, myself included. If 50% of the means of production are controlled by the state, the nation is Socialist. Hence Venezuela is, Norway is not. Remember that I said the Social Democracies are not and have never been socialist. None of them have ever seized control of more than half of their economies. They are instead "welfare states." Welfare elements are supported by the free economies. In the Nordic States, this has led to collapse with most of them severely rolling back the welfare element that cripples them. Even the most radical of the welfare states is rolling it back. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/w...o-a-fault.html

Now that we have dealt with typical red herring of Marxists and dispelled with the Nordic states, we can deal with actual socialism.

Socialism revolves around two concepts, central planning and collectivism. Collectivism is the idea that the individual is of little or no consequence and that the group is what matters. I mentioned earlier that socialism is autocratic by nature; this is why. Individualism is suppress under socialism as the group is preeminent. As Marx wrote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." (no, it wasn't Spock, he was quoting Marx). Under socialism, a person is just a resource for the state to utilize. Let's say Joe is a welder. Under socialism the group "welder" has value as a resource to be used, but Joe has no particular value. He is just a part that can be replaced by any other part of type "welder." Under socialism, people have no value. This is one of the reasons that atrocities are virtually universal under socialism. Since the individual is no more important than a seed or a wrench, disposing of the individual by killing them is not seen as immoral. Socialism does not have any place for morality, obedience to the state is the only true law.

The second element is central planning. This is simply the rulers deciding what people do and don't need or deserve. Instead of a person deciding that they want a new 60" flat screen, the rulers decide that all proles will be given 23" displays which carry only MSNBC to regurgitate state ideals to the masses. Because individuals have no worth under socialism, the desires of individuals are suppressed, usually violently and fatally by the rulers of the state. What is produced is directed by the state, what a particular drone may have assigned to them is decided by the state. In many cased drones are dressed in uniforms, as China and Vietnam did.

Socialism is the destruction of the individual. The ultimate aim is to subdue and eradicate individual identity and create a society of perfect slaves who are unthinking in absolute obedience to the state.

[Nordberg]

Socialism as defined nowadays works fine. Most Scandinavian and European countries use socialism as it suits them. Universal healthcare is a great example. Schools covered through college are another. We have some policies that are socialistic. We jusr stop too short. We socailize corporations and the wealthy instead of the masses.

[rjhenn]

The United States will have the same fate should we be stupid enough to allow socialism to destroy us.

Even the radical left Washington Post doesn't buy your nonsense excuses for the collapse of Venezuela. The nation was destroyed by Chavez and the socialism you seek to infest American with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab7118bbd0c6

Of course, the WaPo, rather than being "radical left", is quite capitalist, including requiring you to pay in order to read their articles. So it's hard to see how they support your position. What is more likely to destroy America than socialism is the decreasing quality of education, as evidenced by you and a few others here.

[rjhenn]

Hello Politalker;

Thank you for your reasoned and well thought out response.

Let me start by saying that socialism has never worked, not once, not anywhere. Socialism as promoted by Marx is derived from the Kibbutzim concept of collectivism. The first failure of this is scale. The Kibbutz works as a cooperative entity inside of a greater macrocosm economic system. It cannot scale past a singular agricultural instance.

On the scale of a country, socialism fails every time it is employed. Promoters of socialism like to point to the Nordic social democracies as evidence of success. But the Nordic nations are neither socialist nor particularly successful.

Before we go on, what exactly IS socialism anyway? Simply stated, it is the control of the means of production by the state. Generally, even in the Nordic nation states, this involves autocratic rule. We will get to why that is and must be, in a moment. So control of the means of production, this means the government regulates or outright owns all of the elements in a society that produce. Based on such a definition, only St. Petersburg in 1922-23 under the "Grand Experiment" and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge were actually socialist. Both resulted in millions dead and brutality beyond human comprehension. Not a rousing endorsement of socialism.

So a modified view is adopted by most economists, myself included. If 50% of the means of production are controlled by the state, the nation is Socialist. Hence Venezuela is, Norway is not. Remember that I said the Social Democracies are not and have never been socialist. None of them have ever seized control of more than half of their economies. They are instead "welfare states." Welfare elements are supported by the free economies. In the Nordic States, this has led to collapse with most of them severely rolling back the welfare element that cripples them. Even the most radical of the welfare states is rolling it back. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/w...o-a-fault.html

Now that we have dealt with typical red herring of Marxists and dispelled with the Nordic states, we can deal with actual socialism.

Socialism revolves around two concepts, central planning and collectivism. Collectivism is the idea that the individual is of little or no consequence and that the group is what matters. I mentioned earlier that socialism is autocratic by nature; this is why. Individualism is suppress under socialism as the group is preeminent. As Marx wrote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." (no, it wasn't Spock, he was quoting Marx). Under socialism, a person is just a resource for the state to utilize. Let's say Joe is a welder. Under socialism the group "welder" has value as a resource to be used, but Joe has no particular value. He is just a part that can be replaced by any other part of type "welder." Under socialism, people have no value. This is one of the reasons that atrocities are virtually universal under socialism. Since the individual is no more important than a seed or a wrench, disposing of the individual by killing them is not seen as immoral. Socialism does not have any place for morality, obedience to the state is the only true law.

The second element is central planning. This is simply the rulers deciding what people do and don't need or deserve. Instead of a person deciding that they want a new 60" flat screen, the rulers decide that all proles will be given 23" displays which carry only MSNBC to regurgitate state ideals to the masses. Because individuals have no worth under socialism, the desires of individuals are suppressed, usually violently and fatally by the rulers of the state. What is produced is directed by the state, what a particular drone may have assigned to them is decided by the state. In many cased drones are dressed in uniforms, as China and Vietnam did.

Socialism is the destruction of the individual. The ultimate aim is to subdue and eradicate individual identity and create a society of perfect slaves who are unthinking in absolute obedience to the state.

You are, of course, speaking of 'pure' socialism. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about something similar to what the Nordic countries have, though probably even less 'socialistic'. Just patches here and there to fill in the holes left by capitalism. Regulation about environmental, health and work issues, to prevent corporations and other businesses from mistreating their employees. That sort of thing. Support for the unemployed and unemployable, with the goal of getting them to work.