AHHH! The beauty of Socialism unplugged!

[Valjean]

Humanity has already tested socialism. Our first settlers in the US tested socialism and concluded it doesn't work,.

Yet it had worked for many of the natives who'd been living here for thousands of years. The first settlers, reared in a hierarchical, aristocratic police state, could hardly relate to a socialist democracy.

• 

 

[Twilight Hue]

Obamacare is hardly socialist program.
Not following. What are you trying to say, here? What is a threat -- social programs, social policies?

Obamacare was very much a socialist directive gussied up and presented as being a benign social program.

Pretty much the proverbial putting lipstick on a pig.

The threat of course isn't the social program itself, rather it's in the particular way said programs are being implemented. Inevitably always at the sacrifice of numerous personal freedoms and liberties. The Hallmark of any socialist implementation of policy.

 

[Willamena]

Obamacare was very much a socialist directive gussied up and presented as being a benign social program.

Pretty much the proverbial putting lipstick on a pig.

How so?

 

[Valjean]

VZ had a lot of bad leadership for decades before Chavez.. and Cuba's leadership was corrupt and criminal.

Chaves moved a million people out of poverty, but pissed off the US oil interests and local aristocracy. He also failed to diversify the economy, which took a dive when oil prices decreased.

Wrong. It may be another straw on the camel's back but it goes much deeper than just "they have more money than I do".

If that were the case, US would have been a socialist country a long time ago.

But wasn't it? Didn't socialism keep the wolf from the door of millions of Americans after the guilded age free market collapsed the economy? Wasn't American socialism responsible for the decades of post war prosperity we enjoyed?
Didn't New-Deal socialism create America's golden age of economic prosperity and industrial growth?

 

[Valjean]

Did you read the article... yes, it did mention a change of petroleum prices, but that hardly was the issue. It was contributing to problems but that wasn't the issue.

The problem with American historians is that they don't talk to the people of Venezuela, though he did get some things right.

This was one of the major factor:

"And that was not the only problem the country was facing; Venezuelans began looking back at the tenure of Pérez – who had left office in 1979 – and found evidence of corruption and wasteful spending among individuals, including the paying of relatives to undertake certain contracts."

The nationalizing (socialism) of the oil was also a major problem. Whereas private ownership caused schools, retirement funds, employment and the latest technology implementation, nationalization caused siphoning off of monies, misuse of finances, breakdown of equipment etc.

Then, with year after year of promise and year after year there was graft, theft and self enrichment (much like the pork barrel spending of today and the favoring of those who support those who are elected), graft, theft, off shore accounts and the promises that were never kept, people finally got mad and upset. I would call it Capitalism without a heart.

Certainly, because of the graft, theft and favoritism, the rich got richer at the expense of the poor.

So, in comes Chavez with "take from the rich, give to the poor, I will give you housing, food and I will take care of you" message. (Much like today in the US). After decades people were ripe for the message.

Results? Everybody got poorer along with the rich. Free petroleum for Cuba, Exportation of socialism/communism. And those in charge get richer (including the military).

Nationalizing the oil disadvantaged only the foreign oil barons and their local toadies. It raised hundreds of thousands out of poverty and improved social services.

Everybody did not get poorer. Where are you getting this information?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

And here I thought that big evil red boogeyman was killed off when I was a kid, and we won, it fell, long live freedom. Apparently they 're still seeing commies lurking in the shadows.

 

[Valjean]

Obamacare was very much a socialist directive gussied up and presented as being a benign social program.

Pretty much the proverbial putting lipstick on a pig.

The threat of course isn't the social program itself, rather it's in the particular way said programs are being implemented. Inevitably always at the sacrifice of numerous personal freedoms and liberties. The Hallmark of any socialist implementation of policy.

Obamacare was originally a Republican initiative. I don't understand what you see in it that's socialist. It expands coverage, but does nothing to cut prices. It just expands the number of people the insurance companies can exploit.

 

[Valjean]

Neither did the Incas

The Inca empire was communist. Everyone worked for the state, there was no money, the goods produced were distributed according to need.

 

[Shad]

She isn't a socialist.

Yes she is as per her members with DSA.

Even Vox agrees

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america

 

[Shad]

The Inca empire was communist. Everyone worked for the state, there was no money, the goods produced were distributed according to need.

Lack of currency does not make something communist. The Inca used a barter system. Goods were not distributed according to need as per the ruling class hereditary monarchy, Quechua speakers being First-class and the nobility system. Having a nobility class demonstrates the redistribution you claim is a farce

 

[Terry Sampson]

Didn't socialism keep the wolf from the door of millions of Americans after the gilded age free market collapsed the economy? Wasn't American socialism responsible for the decades of post war prosperity we enjoyed?

It did. It was. And still is.
Push anti-socialists' backs to the wall, and you'll discover--by and large--that their complaint is pretty much a complaint about how much socialism is too much.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Obamacare was originally a Republican initiative. I don't understand what you see in it that's socialist. It expands coverage, but does nothing to cut prices. It just expands the number of people the insurance companies can exploit.

It was a state initiative. And one that I would think if you compared side to side with the original, would be strikingly different.

The Socialist aspect was to have the program intentionally designed to control people's freedoms of choice and autonomy using Healthcare as a platform to implement it.

 

[Valjean]

Socialism proponents in America likely have never lived in a country where Socialism is the rule.
That though is not an excuse. All one has to do is watch the news and take the object lesson of Venezuela and Socialisms failure there. People are fleeing the country and seeking refugee status in nearby countries. Peru, and elsewhere.
And 2020 Presidential candidate hopeful and Socialist Bernie Sanders has yet to comment. Wonder why.
Venezuela remember is oil rich. So why so much trouble? Some say Capitalism, not Socialism. That's just silly.

What are these countries where socialism is the rule? Sweden? France? Italy? Japan?
News media owned by the same conglomerates with an interest in Venezuelan oil are not a good sources of objective information. Venezuela is not "socialist." It's probably less socialist than a lot of European countries. Like all countries, it has both private and co-operative institutions.
Yes, Venezuela is oil rich -- which did not benefit anyone till Chavez nationalized it and many other institutions. Now that world oil prices are depressed, what profits there are are again going to the 1%.

You know what really gets me?

Is that people who actually come from socialist countries and try hard to warn the Democrats about their now more than obvious Socialist / Marxist Direction, just gets blown off like they don't know what they're talkin about.

‘Damn socialism, why are you chasing me?’ Chinese-Americans see ghost of communism in Democrats’ leftward turn

That's why I think Socialist Democrats are being consciously intentional and already know what they're doing in willfully setting up yet another socialist regime to forcefully take over the country and control other people's lives for the exclusive benefit of themselves at the cost of freedoms and liberties of others.

No! People coming from socialist countries are amazed at how dysfunctional American capitalism is. They like their socialist institutions. Ask any Dane.
Saga reminds me of Ayn Rand, except Rand's anti-social advocacy of radical selfishness was a lot more thought-out than Saga's objection of abortion.

Why do you hate FDR?

 

[Twilight Hue]

No! People coming from socialist countries are amazed at how dysfunctional American capitalism is. They like their socialist institutions. Ask any Dane.

It seems that people have already asked the Danes.

Denmark to American leftists: We’re not socialist

 

[Valjean]

Lack of currency does not make something communist. The Inca used a barter system. Goods were not distributed according to need as per the ruling class hereditary monarchy, Quechua speakers being First-class and the nobility system. Having a nobility class demonstrates the redistribution you claim is a farce

Yes, the Incas were a military empire that conquered and dominated many previously independent cultures. Atajualpa was not a nice man, and hardly an egalitarian. But the economics, at the time of Pizarro's conquest, were redistributive.
Sure, there was bartering within individual villages, but each village was assessed regularly and given what resources they needed. surplusses in one region were redistributed to regions in want.
They were Reds.

 

[Valjean]

It seems that people have already asked the Danes.

Denmark to American leftists: We’re not socialist

Good article. Yes, no economy is all socialist or all capitalist. The so-called "socialist" countries like Denmark have a socialized commons, but the rest of the economy is private. They do have more economic and social freedom than we do in the US, and considerably more "opportunity." They're also happier and more secure than Americans.
So what is your point?

 

[Shad]

Yes, the Incas were a military empire that conquered and dominated many previously independent cultures. Atajualpa was not a nice man, and hardly an egalitarian. But the economics, at the time of Pizarro's conquest, were redistributive.

Communism is about equal redistribution based on need and merit. A nobility system and hereditary monarchy are anything but communism.

Sure, there was bartering within individual villages, but each village was assessed regularly and given what resources they needed. surplusses in one region were redistributed to regions in want.

Look up the Inca tax system

They were Reds.

Nope.

 

[Willamena]

Neither did the Incas

I can only suppose that you don't know what socialism is.

 

[Willamena]

Communism is about equal redistribution based on need and merit. A nobility system and hereditary monarchy are anything but communism.



Look up the Inca tax system



Nope.

Use of a barter system or class structure does not make something not socialist. At it's heart, it simply means social ownership of essential resources.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good article. Yes, no economy is all socialist or all capitalist. The so-called "socialist" countries like Denmark have a socialized commons, but the rest of the economy is private. They do have more economic and social freedom than we do in the US, and considerably more "opportunity." They're also happier and more secure than Americans.
So what is your point?

To stop using Danes as an example of socialism to justify the Socialist Democrat's quest for power and control.