AHHH! The beauty of Socialism unplugged!

[Kenny]

I can certainly see why you wouldn't want a government under the current Head Honcho to control very much. Mind you - we're about to change ours and I'm none too hopeful...so far the contest seems to be based mostly around who smoked the most weed at college parties. And whilst I have some (not a lot though) sympathy with the idea that socialism can engender dependency, I have no idea what that has to do with a particular politician pushing for a pay rise. On the whole I think the main difference between the right and the left in politics seems to be that socialists are somewhat less confused.

Politics has certainly taken on a different hew. No Statesmen. But, while the right may be confused, the left are not confused, they have gone insane.

 

[Valjean]

Nope! Just ignore Venezuela and Cuba and repeat.

Venezuela and Cuba's problems are a bit more complicated that "Socialism dunnit!"
How about Scandanavia's socialist policies? They seem to work.

How are you defining "socialism," anyway?
How can you have any sort of society without co-operation?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I do agree that we should have some kind of socialized health care over here. But we have to do better than the affordable Care act.

Agreed. That is why when Obama began the affordable care act he made it very clear and stated plainly that any of the 50 states that could create a more efficient system was still free to go ahead and do so. Few tried.
The republicans in congress and all the republican candidates said they had a better system. None of them ever even showed one page of text on their “ideas”.

The Socialists won't be able to do it without affecting a person's Liberty and freedom in some capacity by which they can control and direct people's lives.

I think it more has to do with the socialists who have that pathological need for control and subjugation with whatever it is that they do while robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Is.....is that you Alex? Alex Jones?

Wow! Paranoid conspiracy theory much?

That produces wealthy people at the top and lazy people on the bottom.

That, actually is a good description of Capitalism in its ideal form. Hard workers get rich, lazy people become poor.

Unfortunately, without a few regulations and socialist programs that even Ayn Rand admitted are necessary, every civilization on the Earth, throughout all of human history, has fallen to unregulated Capitalism (similar to what we have in the US today), and every one of them has passed right by the ideal, moved through severe pay discrepancies, and went straight to producing “a few wealthy people at the top, and everyone else working/slaving for them.” I.e. a plutocratic aristocracy.

And that is in fact exactly what the USA was formed to prevent.
Semper fi! We must remain vigilant against those who would turn our capitalist/socialist constitutional nation into just another historical monarchy /plutocracy.

 

[Kenny]

Venezuela and Cuba's problems are a bit more complicated that "Socialism dunnit!"
How about Scandanavia's socialist policies? They seem to work.

How are you defining "socialism," anyway?
How can you have any sort of society without co-operation?

Quote:

Sanandaji thinks that a much better explanation for the economic success of Scandinavia is culture. If you look at the years in which these countries built the wealth their citizens now enjoy, it was long before leftist ideas took hold. For instance, from 1870 through 1936, Sweden was the fastest growing economy in the world. But after 1975—when the Swedish state began to expand in earnest—Sweden’s economy noticeably slowed, falling from the 4th richest in the world to the 13th by the mid 1990s.

And Nordic voters are starting to take notice. Scandanavian governments have been paring down the size of their governments. Since the 1990s, the total taxation of the Swedish economy as a percentage of GDP has fallen more than 5%, while labor market reforms, such as Denmark’s cutting of unemployment benefits have helped Scandanavian economies rocket up measures of economic freedom. Don’t tell Bernie Sanders, but as Sanadaji puts it, Scandanavia is slowly “returning to its free market roots.”

What the Left Gets Wrong About Scandinavia

 

[Kenny]

That, actually is a good description of Capitalism in its ideal form. Hard workers get rich, lazy people become poor.

Unfortunately, without a few regulations and socialist programs that even Ayn Rand admitted are necessary, every civilization on the Earth, throughout all of human history, has fallen to unregulated Capitalism (similar to what we have in the US today), and every one of them has passed right by the ideal, moved through severe pay discrepancies, and went straight to producing “a few wealthy people at the top, and everyone else working/slaving for them.” I.e. a plutocratic aristocracy.

I agree completely that Capitalism must be regulated. Indeed, unions were a result of unregulated Capitalism.

But regulations is not socialism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is.....is that you Alex? Alex Jones?

Wow! Paranoid conspiracy theory much?


.

Tell me that wasn't true.

It took Trump to get rid of the insipid mandate that the Socialists try to dress up as a 'tax' enforced and controlled people into purchasing private insurance creating a perpetual state of forced debt on people.

Ignorant much?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Politics has certainly taken on a different hew. No Statesmen. But, while the right may be confused, the left are not confused, they have gone insane.

Actually the right are far from confused.

They see it exactly for what it is.

 

[Valjean]

Quote:

Sanandaji thinks that a much better explanation for the economic success of Scandinavia is culture. If you look at the years in which these countries built the wealth their citizens now enjoy, it was long before leftist ideas took hold. For instance, from 1870 through 1936, Sweden was the fastest growing economy in the world. But after 1975—when the Swedish state began to expand in earnest—Sweden’s economy noticeably slowed, falling from the 4th richest in the world to the 13th by the mid 1990s.

And Nordic voters are starting to take notice. Scandanavian governments have been paring down the size of their governments. Since the 1990s, the total taxation of the Swedish economy as a percentage of GDP has fallen more than 5%, while labor market reforms, such as Denmark’s cutting of unemployment benefits have helped Scandanavian economies rocket up measures of economic freedom. Don’t tell Bernie Sanders, but as Sanadaji puts it, Scandanavia is slowly “returning to its free market roots.”

What the Left Gets Wrong About Scandinavia

GDP is a poor indicator of the prosperity or happiness of a population.

 

[leov]

That produces wealthy people at the top and lazy people on the bottom.

Humanity still have to test socialism, there were only hints so far,

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Socialists won't be able to do it without affecting a person's Liberty and freedom in some capacity by which they can control and direct people's lives.

OMG, yes, socialized health care is a threat to you liberty to suffer when youre sick and freedom to go bankrupt due to a medical crisis. Being able tto just go to the doctor, how dare the state cintrol us like that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

OMG, yes, socialized health care is a threat to you liberty to suffer when youre sick and freedom to go bankrupt due to a medical crisis. Being able tto just go to the doctor, how dare the state cintrol us like that.

A social program no.

Socialist policies yes. A very serious threat to people's freedoms and liberties.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A social program no.

Socialist policies yes. A very serious threat to people's freedoms and liberties.

Capitalism hasnt proven itself any inherently better at protecting rights and liberties. Red Scare, PATRIOT act, Conservative RFRAs, abortion, race, it seems to me the economy and government are not really good indicators of social liberties and freedoms.

 

[Father Heathen]

As a European I have a really hard time understanding why US people hate socialism. I much prefer a nationalised health service, rail service, electric board and prison system. I can't really think of a system much worse than trying to make profit from sick people or criminals, but there you go.

It's an irrational knee-jerk reaction to residual red scare.

 

[Father Heathen]

The US hatred of socialism is almost pathological. It's insane. Why is this all of a sudden a huge issue again?

It's used as a bogeyman to lather up gullible dopes ahead of looming elections.

 

[David1967]

The Socialists won't be able to do it without affecting a person's Liberty and freedom in some capacity by which they can control and direct people's lives.

There is the elephant in the room. How do we provide truly affordable healthcare without bankrupting the people paying into the system as the ACA was doing in my state? But we need to do better than we are. The ability to get needed medical care should not be based on a persons wealth. And I don't think anyone should have to file bankruptcy (as many unfortunately have had to do) just because they had the audacity to get sick. IMHO of course.

 

[Kenny]

GDP is a poor indicator of the prosperity or happiness of a population.

Economic status is also not an indicator of happiness. Each person is in charge of their happiness regardless of what goes on around them. Certainly Government cannot make me happy.

 

[metis]

No country in today's world is truly "socialist", nor is AOC pushing Marxism or anything similar to that. Also, it is the Pubs, not the Dems, who have long resisted changes to try and reduce lobbyist spending.

Also, I checked out the website linked to in the OP, and let me just say that I certainly would not blindly accept what they have "reported". as it definitely reflects a right-wing slant.

And to say that socialism doesn't work is simply not true as we've had socialist programs mixed in with capitalistic ones for many decades now, and we are still the #1 economic power in the world.

 

[David1967]

Agreed. That is why when Obama began the affordable care act he made it very clear and stated plainly that any of the 50 states that could create a more efficient system was still free to go ahead and do so. Few tried.
The republicans in congress and all the republican candidates said they had a better system. None of them ever even showed one page of text on their “ideas”.

I wish I could disagree with you here, but I can't. In Oklahoma where I live this is exactly what happened. Our state govt. did nothing on its end to balance out the cost. The result was a disaster for people like me who are self-employed and pay for their own insurance. Long story short, I had to do without insurance because the ACA was not affordable for me at all. So I see some bad planning and management on both the Democrats and the GOP on this.

 

[David1967]

And to say that socialism doesn't work is simply not true as we've had socialist programs mixed in with capitalistic ones for many decades now, and we are still the #1 economic power in the world.

Agree. I don't see it as a one or the other solution. Why not use the best ideas from both and scrap the ones that don't work?

 

[Father Heathen]

How are you defining "socialism," anyway?

Good luck getting a coherent answer from any of the conservatives in this thread.