Why Do You OPPOSE Socialism?

It always fails to deliver, and always results in poverty for those that embrace it.

I don't oppose socialism. No one in his right mind would oppose socialism.

If you do oppose socialism, then stay off the public streets and sidewalks and if your home ever catches fire, put out your own fucking fire.

^^^ Oh, but THAT'S not what we mean when we talk about socialism!

It works better in smaller countries with a high level of homogeneity and social trust. Neither of which America has much of.

[quote]Discuss why you oppose socialism, and support having more of your taxes going to yourself.

Actually I want more of my taxes going to myself, and that’s why I support socialism.

The way we have it now, I get the shit taxed out of me, and the money goes into the pockets of billionaires.

R2

You are describing forced slavery, not a normal social system.

The A-List gays who make over $100,000 a year (and more) don't support socialism because they'd rather keep more of their money than going to the Government.

R7

People spend money for things they want. Government wastes money on bullshit we don’t need.

Without taxes, how could they ever pay for all these wars and spying operations and bank bailouts and corporate welfare...

I support socialism.

R6, sidewalks are enforced slavery, am i understanding you correctly? A fire department is enforced slavery?

R9

Does it hurt to be stupid?

Not to mention police and fire departments, roads, schools, libraries, universities and health care.

But Trumpanzees got to fling poo: “I’ll be goddamned I me or my grandchildren breathe clean air. Bwaaah! Socialism! MAGA!”

I’m a Socialist.

Taxes and taxation are not socialism, nor are public works.

You really need to learn some basics before you either pose or answer these types of questions.

Because it gives people incentive to work their way out of poverty. For some people without family or many friends, working toward a monetary goal in order to be able to travel, etc., gives them purpose in life. Because I don't want to be enslaved by government. Because I believe people should have more freedom than not. Because Venezuela, because Soviet Union, because North Korea and because Cuba. Socialism is extremely close to Communism.

Both Brnie & Liz are social democrats. Folks have zero idea what socialism is.

The US is a mix of capitalist and socialist ideals. The balance is in what the government should control or own, and what it should leave to the free market. The government works well when it ensures and provides at least a minimum level of service for citizens to support a certain standard of living. Without that, you see effects such as increased crime rates and poverty. It's a misnomer to think the US is anything but a mix. And both Dems and Repubs are to the right of that mix - the Republicans are just a little further right.

Socialism works best when it’s used to beef up the safety net.

When we are assured that we won’t go bankrupt due to illness, we’ll be able to afford a good education, and we won’t be in poverty when we are old, we are free to take chances with starting businesses and becoming an active part of the economy.

Capitalism is so burdened by greed that it leave too many in poverty.

When you work all day for low wages and long hours just to make others wealthy, that is terrible for productivity.

[Quote] It works better in smaller countries with a high level of homogeneity and social trust.

Utter nonsense used by conservatives whenever anyone brings up America working to help everyone equally

Exactly R19

[Quote] Because I don't want to be enslaved by government.

Yet, you’ll demand the government pay for your healthcare when you end up in the hospital without insurance.

Or should we let you die?

R2 Because non-socialist countries don't have streets or fire departments . Perhaps a GED would help you.

[Quote] Because Venezuela, because Soviet Union, because North Korea and because Cuba. Socialism is extremely close to Communism.

How about Germany, France Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and on and on and on?

[quote] Because I don't want to be enslaved by government.

You want to be enslaved by corporations you can't even vote out.

[Quote] Taxes and taxation are not socialism, nor are public works.

Actually they are exactly socialism

I always laugh when people claim Social security and Medicare aren’t socialism because we pay for them with our taxes.

How do you think socialist countries provide their programs— taxes!

It kills me when people think communism and socialism are the same thing.

*sigh*

So many children left behind in this country.

NYC’s tax rate about the same as Denmark’s.

In Denmark you get free healthcare, child care, education, retirement pay, etc.

When you take profits out of the equation, the government can provide those things so much cheaper and to everyone.

[Quote] People spend money for things they want. Government wastes money on bullshit we don’t need.

Healthcare, education, childcare, elderly care, police protection, roads—which one of these don’t you need?

I'm from Denmark originally, and we are NOT a socialist country. We are a free market economic country with high taxes to support government programs. We were a wealthy, healthy economy BEFORE we instituted high taxes. We don't even have an actual minimum wage, but are strongly unionized.

IMO it would never work in the US. Too many on the "taking" end of programs and not enough on the paying end. Plus our population is around 5.5 million and the U.S. is something like 330 million. It just won't work to use that model on such a scale.

Thank you r26. I didn’t argue with the moron troll, because, well, they’re a moron troll.

R28

I don’t think that you could ever explain the difference between socialism, communism, and Nazism.

They are identical triplets with differing epigenetic expression.

Lick those boots, comrade!

France is being ripped apart by gilets jaunes right now - not a poster child for socialism. Germany is a mixed economy and not strictly socialist.

R20, you know as well as I do that large numbers of Americans dislike and distrust each other and do not wish to pay for each other's activities any more than they already do. Nations like Switzerland have much clearer national priorities and greater solidarity than the US does. And much smaller populations.

[quote]Why Do You OPPOSE Socialism?

Because I took Econ 101 in college. We thoroughly learned the inescapable truth of TANSTAAFL.

Oh, but you can, R33.

Socialism brought us Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Shining Path, the Great Slump, The Cultural Revolution, the Gulag, the Red Terror, the Budapest Uprising, the Prague Spring, the 1953 East German Rebellion, the Berlin Wall, and of course the wonderful 1930s Russian Famine. Am I missing anything? I probably did.

[quote]It kills me when people think communism and socialism are the same thing.

There are as many variations of socialism as there have been establishments of it. That doesn't make them not all fit under the umbrella of socialism. Communism is a form of socialism.

TANSTAAFL

For the people that are stupid enough to still believe in Socialism, the acronym stands for “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”.

R38

And all of them have failed. The more socialism in a society, the less freedom and prosperity.

People only point to white, ethnically homogeneous, hard working, high IQ countries to support the idea that socialism works.

Scandinavian countries would work under any system of government, but low IQ populations will ALWAYS fail.

Socialism is a reverse eugenics program, designed to give huge financial incentives for the least intelligent and the laziest people to have the most children.

And then it all falls apart. Look at what the welfare state has done for the black community. Only 25% of black kids were born out of wedlock before the welfare state was introduced.

Now the black community is dramatically lower in average IQ, the fathers are almost entirely absent, and blacks are 8x more violent than every other ethnic group. And of course blacks lead in child abuse and sexual abuse too.

Black women have zero incentive to be sexually selective, and seek a genetically blessed productive black husband.

And that's what socialism would do for the entire US. Destroy it completely. Economically, spiritually, and emotionally.

Just as mothers are generally the permissive parent, and fathers the ones who lay down the law, socialism appeals to women and nelly gays, because they are driven by emotion and not by logic.

Socialist programs like free college, free healthcare and the like are a beautiful thing to have here in Mexico but I agree that they end up stunting people's ability to improve themselves, paternalistic government and politicians giving handouts just for votes. Socialism does work best in countries that are homogenous culturally and racially...and were already rich thanks to colonialism,

Capitalism is socialized capital and credit. It is a narrow form of socialism. To hate socialism is to hate capitalism too. But that is true of republicans. What they really want is a return to feudalism. Saudi Arabia on the Potomac is their dearest wish.

Time to back out of this thread before my head explodes.

And they justify it by saying the world can only support a fraction of the people it now holds. Socialism would try to save everyone. Feudalism will only save the few.

[quote]Socialist programs like free college, free healthcare and the like are a beautiful thing to have here in Mexico

Mexico, what a paradise. Why would anyone be desperate to escape it?

R44

“Capitalism is socialized capital and credit”

I want to call you a retarded fucking moron, but I would like more information on what you mean by this sentence before I proclaim your ignorance.

Either you don’t understand socialism, or you don’t understand capitalism/private property/sound monetary policy/individual liberty.

I want my sugar daddy to have more money for me and I don't care if poor, stupid people die... unless they have huge cocks.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 R47

The regulatory systems, tax burden, and systemic corruption prevent Mexico from becoming a first world country.

Thank God that most of the decision-making for our government is decentralized to the state and local level.

Imagine what the central planning morons would have done to our country if we were totally under the control of Washington, DC.!?!?

Free markets never made any society rich R48. Wealth began with certain things: legalized tender and nationalized currency made a large market out of a small one by giving one standard of value and introducing non-discrimination (anyone's money is as good as anyone else's regardless of birth, religion, etc. etc.). Then came the corporation, originally medieval guilds intended to restrict trade in order to guarantee orderly markets, transmit skills and technologies across time, and provide stable long-term employment. This is also the function of the modern corporation. Markets are terrible ways of organizing work, but by creating a legal fiction, you can have the benefits of long-term employment, skill development, technology capture and advancement, all at the risk of higher prices and socializing risk to the public at large. Again, a socialist entity. And then we move to banks and security markets, originally created to help governments raise money without taxation. Their use in expanding credit has been given a privileged position in society by government fiat.

In short, Capitalism as we know it today is not the creation of markets: go to any third world country and you will see millions of people more familiar with markets than our own. It is a series of government innovations which organize the work of society in a more efficient and fair manner. Lose sight of fairness, and you destroy it. Lose sight of its anti-market efficiencies, and you destroy it. Make it a junior partner to the gospel of free trade, and you destroy it and the prosperity it brought all of us.

The central planning morons were smarter by far than the billionaire class currently making the investment decisions in our society R50 and it shows. Declining new business formation, stalling consumption, reduced innovation.

Anyway, historically it's not so clear. Soviet Russia added 11 million industrial jobs in the late twenties and thirties, which was enough to defeat Capitalist Germany. The US converted to command socialism during that war, by the way, which is what finally ended the Depression: rising incomes, full employment, and forced savings.

[quote]Free markets never made any society rich

Shouldn't you be falling off your flat earth somewhere?

The earth is not flat. What is flat are dimwitted slogans from the cold war which were lies to begin with.

Socialism means everything is owned by the society or people, in other words, the government. There’s no accountability. Kind of like “too many cooks spoil the soup”. We do need government to regulate things and a welfare system in place to help those in need. socialism will always fail because “ownership” “territory” are inherent human & animal needs without that we will lose motivation and ambition, to create wealth. What we have in the U.S is a form of welfare state which could be improved for sure.

Full employment only works when people want to work.

We're close to full employment now and liberals/socialists/lazy blacks don't even like it.

You never hear Bernie say that he hopes the welfare state will dry up as 95+% of people go back to work.

Bernie wants a huge welfare state, and he wants high school dropouts demanding free $200,000 college.

Notice that Bernie doesn't propose guaranteed JOBS for everybody. Bernie only proposes guaranteed free college for everybody, even if they read at a 6th grade level.

Bernie even said that bread lines like in the Great Depression are a GOOD thing, because that means that people aren't starving. The idea that GOOD would be if nobody needed free bread because they had jobs, that would never occur to Bernie Sanders, who never had a real job in his whole life.

R55, There's certainly no accountability for corporate America.

Soviet Russia forcibly collectivized agriculture with a huge death toll and famines. Not a good example to use.

r55 it would be easy to fix the welfare state, but Democrats would never support it, because it would cost them votes. People who work hard and actually pay taxes are less likely to support high taxes to give handouts to people who don't want to work.

How to fix the welfare state:

1) Guarantee jobs for every American, with easier jobs offered to welfare recipients who have been out of the workforce.

2) Mandatory long-term birth control shots for welfare recipients. If you're a single mom and you want welfare, you're not having any more kids while you're on welfare. And there still need to be more disincentives for girls to decide to get pregnant as a "career" path as a welfare queen. Even 14 year old girls know that their life will be easy if they just get knocked up.

r58 The Soviets were waaaay worse than Hitler, and their leadership was disproportionately Jewish. They killed tens of millions of white Christian goyim, but it's not a holocaust because goyim aren't the Chosen Ones.

Hitler was fighting against communist revolution inside Germany, and most of the Jews in camps were communist revolutionaries or sympathizers.

In fact, the entire Holocaust narrative was extracted through torture by Soviets of German guards, to distract the world from the much greater genocides of the Soviets.

Thank you r50 & r51. Nice to see a factual, educated response.

I oppose socialism because:

-it has failed everywhere it was tried

-the private sector is more responsive to people’s wants and needs

Boy, there are a ton of myths here. Let's start with r59. Black people have a LOWER birth rate than white people. You can check any demographic breakdown of births in the US to confirm this. One of the reason that there are more single mothers among blacks is that the incarceration rate of black men between 18-35 (due to the "war on drugs" of the 1990s and years since) is astronomical. According to surveys, whites and blacks use drugs at about the same rate, but blacks are between 5 and 10 times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for using or possessing drugs. Children of unmarried women are about 30% for white women now, and about 65% for black women. Not great for either - single parents are poorer and their children generally have worse outcomes.

Unregulated capitalism has enormous flaws. One is that there is a cyclical propensity to enormous booms and busts. What we call the great depression was only the last of a series of really devastating economic crashes in the US since its founding. (35 before the great Depression, about 12 afterwards) Many were financial crises, others were horrific panics. Each one was the source of enormous suffering on the part of average citizens, and over the decades, millions lost their shirts (and their land, and their homes, children being farmed out to foster parents, etc). Suicides have been a common feature of economic collapses at all times. So it is factually incorrect to say that it is the most efficient system, unless you consider the loss of generations of human capital to be acceptable. Moreover, do we REALLY need 194 kinds of breakfast cereals, hundreds of brands of shampoo, soap, shaving cream? We all know (deep in our hearts) that most are made in the same factories and pumped into jars or packages with different labels. There is tremendous waste of resources built into capitalism and enormous creation of waste products.

Many economists agree that the socialist aspects of western capitalism (social security, etc) have done much to mitigate or smooth over the worst of the recessions since they were instituted. Governments paying out pensions and other programs when an economy is in a recession guarantees that businesses can stay in business because at least SOME of their customers have incomes.

That being said, centralized or planned economies have never proved to be adequate. It appears that competition, in regard to TRUE creativity when it comes to inventions and products is a necessary thing for the improvement of the standard of living. So it appears that finding the ideal mix of the best features of regulated capitalism and a society in which there is support for all citizens (socialism) is our only good option in the 21st century. I certainly don't believe that the US is the best model for this. Think of all the thousands of posts on DL having to do with homelessness. That is a depressing result of US style capitalism - just one among many.

[quote]Black people have a LOWER birth rate than white people. You can check any demographic breakdown of births in the US to confirm this.

If you have a study that supports this statement, please provide a source. According to the statistics provided in the study I've linked, this is not true.

[quote]One of the reason that there are more single mothers among blacks is that the incarceration rate of black men between 18-35 (due to the "war on drugs" of the 1990s and years since) is astronomical. According to surveys, whites and blacks use drugs at about the same rate, but blacks are between 5 and 10 times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for using or possessing drugs. Children of unmarried women are about 30% for white women now, and about 65% for black women.

I'm confused by the terminology you've used. You start with a reference to "single mothers", then later refer to "unmarried women". On the surface, these could be the same population. But while I can understand incarceration rates having an effect on the amount of single mothers (the household becomes a single mother household because the father becomes incarcerated), I can't understand a correlation between incarceration and pregnancy rate by unmarried women. (Pregnancy rate among unmarried black women is rising because... more black men are incarcerated?)

I'm not trolling, I can see where both facts are true (more black men are incarcerated AND pregnancy rate among unmarried black women is climbing), I just am not seeing a correlation because the assumption is that the male isn't incarcerated at the time of pregnancy, and would have no effect on marital status.

People like r63 are why socialism fails. Socialism is their religion, in place of traditional religion.

And in this religion, black people are angels, or even Christ-like figures who are persecuted for no good reason.

Just ignore the stats you don't like, and lie about the other stats.

Pretend that two-parent households are the norm in the black community, and these families are ripped apart by evil white supremacist cops who arrest black men for nothing but drug use.

Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 52-60% of the violent and property crimes, but just ignore this because BLACKS ARE ANGELS.

Blacks have by far the highest child abuse rates, but just ignore this because Blacks Are Angels.

Karl Marx Christ will lead the black angels to the Promised Land, where strong black families are not ripped apart by evil white people, and where white people are disarmed because gun violence is a white thing.

In the socialist's mind, every unemployed black person is disabled or otherwise disenfranchised for no good reason, because of white racism.

And rather than guarantee jobs for these angels, socialists want to shower them all with free money each month, to stand on the corner all day writing beautiful poetry about gang banging.

And every black female is strong and ethical and a great mother and a great father too. Oh, and they all set a great example for their children about how to behave at school, and how to respect authority and strangers and the property of others.

Yes, in the socialist's mind, the world would be a lot better if everybody acted like black ladies and gentlemen.

And along those exact same lines, socialism is much better than capitalism because human psychology is whatever a socialist hopes it is.

Blacks only rob rape and kill because they are oppressed. If blacks are in need of some serious self-criticism and self-improvement, a socialist will always pretend otherwise.

Blacks = support for socialism = socialist revolutionaries.

The NAACP was created by communist Jews, and our future socialist "paradise" will be dominated by them as well, just like the USSR was. And noticing Jewish power will be a capital offense, rather than the current career suicide.

All of North America and Western Europe have been socialist since 1933(USA) and 1945(Europe) It's part of the master plan of the international usury bankers! Who are the biggest beneficiaries of socialism? Banks! If you cannot figure that out we will explain.

There must be a lot of poor people on this thread. Making over $100,000 makes you an A-list gay? Those are low wages in San Francisco, NYC, DC, etc.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

R65, R66: it seems to me you're obsessed with race. One can believe in and support socialism (although I don't) without it being a racial argument. While there may be differences in the behaviors that produce statistics with a white vs. black separation, I would suggest those behaviors are defined by income level, childhood background/upbringing, and other characteristics besides race/skin color.

Because it’s the opposite of capitalism

Socialism v Capitalism? The best solution would seem to be wiping out humanity as we all hate each other and are ruining the planet.

I guess our alt-right trolls are going meta in anticipation of 2020.

[quote]I don’t think that you could ever explain the difference between socialism, communism, and Nazism.

So boring. 0/100

The fact Socialist and Liberal are now insults shows how pervasive the alt right is R73, it appeals to the 'I've got mine, you fuck off' attitude so beloved of humans .The world has become a much more depressing place in the last few years as that attitude has been promoted.

It's difficult to have an exchange on this topic when people have different interpretations of the term "Socialism". I don't interpret "Socialism" to mean social programs in a free market economy (like Social Security and Medicare). I interpret "Socialism" to mean an economy where the production is socially owned and shared.

I don't like Socialism as an overarching economy because it's forcing equality of outcome on a society when it can't be maintained, and I prefer a system that rewards individuals for their efforts and contributions.

Jesus fucking Christ, how about we start with universal healthcare and go from there? Got a problem with that? You’re a sadistic cunt if you do.

True socialist societies always go down the same route. The political leaders and their friends and families become the 'haves' and the citizenry become the 'have nots'. Socialism leads to official corruption by those in charge.

R77 is describing where we are currently headed by our dear leader and family.

[quote]Jesus fucking Christ, how about we start with universal healthcare and go from there? Got a problem with that? You’re a sadistic cunt if you do.

I don't have a problem with a system that covers catastrophic care for all Americans, which would prevent people from going bankrupt if diagnosed with a condition with expensive treatments. I do have a problem with what Sanders is proposing which would eliminate all private health insurance and private health plans.

Today, Medicare has deductibles and copays, amounts that the insurers must pay to receive treatment. These aren't huge amounts, and those who are lower income get assistance to help cover those costs. There are also Medicare Supplement plans that individuals can purchase through private insurers for additional coverages. So why, when discussing the concept of Medicare for All, are we doing away with those features, that have helped to keep Medicare afloat and maintain it as a viable program?

To me, this is the distinction between a Socialist program and a Socialist economy. If we are truly saying that we want healthcare for all US citizens and to protect against bankrupting the sickest people, that can be accomplished without socializing healthcare entirely. So ask the question - why do Sanders et al want to socialize healthcare entirely? What is the goal? Other countries allow for some supplemental (free market) care, but even that isn't allowed under Sanders' plan.

I love this idea that socialism eliminates the incentive to better oneself. That if people have a strong social safety net available to them, they will not want to make more money.

Yet, we see multimillionaires who have more money than they could ever spend, struggling to get more. If human nature really was to stop working once one's needs were met, how would you explain the Trumps, Waltons, Kochs, etc?

People always want more, whether they are living in a capitalist or socialist system and whether their needs are already met or not.

OP is a troll. Socialism is about wealth redistribution, not “more of your taxes going to yourself.”

The taxes on middle class and working class people would not rise. People earning the most, meaning the top 1-5% of earners, under a progressive tax scheme, would pay much more than they are paying now. Remember when Mitt Romney said he only pays about 15% in taxes? While the rest of us pay 25 or 30% (or more) on our meager earnings? That would change. The taxes of Mitt and his ilk would go up, especially on earnings well above $500,000 or $1,000,000 a year. The taxes of regular people like us would stay the same or possibly even fall. This additional tax revenue from billionaires and multi-millionaires would provide for Medicare for All, free college tuition, and other sweeping programs to improve the lives of working people, the middle class and the poor. Your taxes might not get cut, but you’ll spend less of your money (ideally, none) on basic, foundational things like healthcare and education.

Imagine never paying a co-pay again, or paying for a prescription, or not having a large chunk of your paycheck going to a health insurance company that doesn’t even cover everything. Imagine your life without student loan debt, or worrying about paying for “a good school” for yourself or your kids.

So again, socialism is wealth redistribution, to the benefit of the greater good and society at large. It is not “more of your taxes going to yourselves;” it’s making the very wealthy pay their fair share in the form of a much larger percentage of their extremely large profits going to fund programs that will improve the lives of countless struggling people.

[quote]Because it’s the opposite of capitalism

“The opposite?” Meaning instead of exploiting workers and enriching the ruling class off of the labor of regular people, and monetizing basic needs like healthcare and education for profit to benefit the already very wealthy, socialism, unlike capitalism, would put the needs of the many over the enrichment of the (already obscenely wealthy) few?

Do you even know what capitalism is? How much do you earn in a year? If it’s less than $2 million, you’re a fool. If it’s more than that, you deserve to be guillotined.

OP is indeed a troll pushing the typical US “muh freedoms” buttons, the same ones that enable mass shootings in this blighted land on “freedom” to get shot four times in the abdomen by a 5.56mm.

[quote]Yet, we see multimillionaires who have more money than they could ever spend, struggling to get more. If human nature really was to stop working once one's needs were met, how would you explain Yet, we see multimillionaires who have more money than they could ever spend, struggling to get more. If human nature really was to stop working once one's needs were met, how would you explain the Trumps, Waltons, Kochs, etc?

Easy. People are not all the same.

There is am "ism" that is not linger part of the vocabulary, but ought to be. That is "paternalism": the notion that the employer has a responsibility to his employees and their well being. This is what the majority of Americans would want. Many of the successful companies of the 20th century were paternalistic (nearly all Quaker companies were.) Henry Ford famously priced his car so his employees could afford one. Hershey Chocolate, IBM, Disney were all paternalistic. You pretty much had a job for life. There were plans so employees could purchase their own homes, wage increases with each child, scholarships for children who excelled in school etc. Medical issues were often taken care of in-house. There was a nurse on duty every day and a doctor who had office hours once a week. You did not have a choice of doctor, but your medical care and that of your family was covered.

The reality is that most Americans are plodders. The just want to go to work, be paid a fair wage for their work, and go home to their families. The do not enjoy the struggle, the fight, the scheming. Unfortunately, the conversation is dominated by the type A personalities,the Trumps, Waltons, Kochs, etc, who are addicted to the adrenaline rush and demand that everyone else play their game.

Of course the other roadblock to paternalism is activist shareholders.

[quote]Socialism is about wealth redistribution,

So in other words, you don't own the product of your labor. Society does. So where's the incentive to work? R80 makes the point that Socialism won't eliminate the incentive. Probably not completely, but it would certainly lower the average.

I also don't believe that the middle class comes out without additional taxes. Look at the tax rates in countries with huge social programs - it's not just the millionaires paying.

By the way, what went underreported when Mitt's taxes revealed he paid 15% in taxes was that his charitable contributions were about 30%. So the other thing to consider is what these tax dollars will be taken from. What charities and causes will suffer because of the higher tax rates on those that support them?

I'm not opposed to higher taxes on the wealthy, but it would be foolish to hike the tax rates exorbitantly, IMO.

And why should wealthy people be allowed to choose which charities survive and which wither and die? Fuck that. Let's carefully examine which charities Mittens chose to bless with his ill-gotten wealth. I suspect that some of them will be deeply problematic.

We should consider health insurance premiums paid either by ourselves our by our employers when looking at middle class taxes in countries with national health care programs. The money is laid out, so it should be counted in this analysis. Unfortunately, the health care we receive here is too expensive, unevenly distributed, and when considering the falling average life expectancy in the U.S., might not even be efficacious. How much better it might be if the money collected went not to insurance company executives, but to the actual provision of health care.

R85, please remember that Romney's charitable contributions include tithing to the Mormon church as required. He is basically paying for lobbyists.

Remember? Yes, that's the point of what I wrote. The tax deductions claimed by Mittens and those like him fund all manner of spurious endeavors.

I oppose SOCIALITES!

A lot of hate and envy on this thread. Read history folks, socialism doesn’t work, you can’t control the laws of supply and demand no more than you can control the laws of physics. Eventually you always run out of other people’s money, always.

R90, the problem with you post is that the vast majority of Socialist examples have been Soviet-Socialism which is about as close to real Socialism is as National Socialism (Nazi) is. I lived in the DDR (East Germany). That was not Socialism. It is not a fair representation of Socialism.

Funny you say there is no accountability in a democracy when the government owns everything. In truth there is no accountability in capitalism if the government does not regulate corporations and the rich in the public interest. The government represents the people, so it is the accountable actor in society.

R90 cannot explain the advertising industry.

Sad to see so many Reaganites and Thatcherites on a gay website. Some of you really no nothing of history.

Return the wealth to the people. Nationalize the banks!

R93, the other issue with R90s post is that in the US the government does control the laws of supply and demand... to the benefit of corporations.

You don't need to nationalize the banks. You need to publish their secrets. Ditto Wall Street. No corporation should be able to own shares in another corporation. It should be illegal to own proxy shares. The ownership of all financial entities and corporations should be known at all times. It is the cult of secrecy that has to go. It has no economic foundation.

So funny that OP and its allies use the term socialism as if it has only one meaning.

OP, google "Rhine capitalism."

There are two kinds of thinking and two kinds of people. Those who are the I people, who think about individuals, about themselves. And those who are the We people, who think about society, about others.

We are all a mix of the two. The more inclined you are towards the former, the more right wing you are. The more you are inclined towards the We, the more left wing you are.

Fox is pushing the “work sets you free” mantra a lot. Capitalism good, work makes you happy. Socialism bad, makes you unhappy.

Well... If you're more "capital" than labor — if you make more money from the capital you have invested in the economy (and/or financial speculation) than by your own labor (other than allocating capital) — socialism isn't that great, because a huge chunk of your earnings are taken for government programs, etc. From an individual perspective for someone with capital, therefore, it's not that great and rather disruptive (you end up having to move your capital overseas for decent returns).

Bottom line, though, the most important reason I don't like socialism in the US that today, most of my fellow citizens are rather incompetent and corrupt, largely incapable of collective action, and I don't' trust them to use my money to better society. Also, I don't think most of the poor deserve substantial cash grants and other transfers, because they're mostly entitled, surly, low-IQ and/or overly fertile. I'd trust socialism in, say, Singapore (see, e.g., their excellent redistributive mostly publicly-run health care system), but not in the US, which is full of adult children-cum-savages. We're not as completely corrupt a citizenry as Russia's — we're not actively trying to cheat one another — but when there's a big pot of money available for use for the common good, it mostly doesn't get used for that: 60%-40%, I'd say, with the 60% representing waste, corruption, and incompetently spent capital.

Also, in the US we're selfish and cynical and we don't respect the "commons" enough for me to believe there won't be endless individual corruption (e.g., the ultra-Orthodox in NY and NJ getting millions in welfare and housing subsidies, cash-based workers in CA( (e.g., escorts) getting public health care) and systematic dysfunction and self-dealing. When our government has been given a big pot of money, they don't usually spend/invest it correctly, as far as I can tell, at least not in the last two decades (e.g., war in Iraq, defense grants to Israel; fossil fuel subsidies, "spending" by not taxing rich universities and religious organizations).

There are definitely things I prefer that the government handle: a public option would be good, insofar as it competes with private healthcare. But I don't trust most of my fellow Americans to wield governmental authority properly in most fields: I've been burned too many times by incompetent, unresponsive governmental actors (e.g., I was screwed out of a chunk of unemployment insurance payments over ten years ago, and the bureaucrat in charge refused to address the issue). I can't change citizenship easily, whereas if things are privately run and not monopolistic (cf. cable internet; e.g., health insurance), I can take my money elsewhere.

Fox says "free money" or "get other people to pay for your stuff!" a lot.

What they don't say is, right now most of us pay taxes to keep rich people rich. Except rich people don't pay the taxes, of course. If Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine was taken over for one week by people who actually showed Americans what is going on, there would be a revolution by the end of that week.

I think we overestimate our fellow citizens' capabilities, and throw money at trying to help them improve their lives, to little effect.

I don't like the capture of our government by self-interested, rent-seeking actors (e.g., pharma, fossil fuels, agribusiness), but it's unlikely that handing more control of the economy to the government in the name of helping others and reducing inequality will actually lead to net positive outcomes.

I don't want to see taxpayer money going to things like reparations (not just literal reparations, but government set-asides and affirmative action), free healthcare and education for illegal immigrants, more money for Israel, moronic farm subsidies, etc.

I resent that most of the working upper middle class slog everyday to make decent money, and have at least a third of it taken for redistribution, only to be we're hammered over the head about our privilege. In the meantime, our government is so captured by Wall St. that hedge fund managers pay 15% federal income tax.

Also, too much public spending and governmental power goes to fucking around with social engineering, e.g., programs to undermine race-neutral admissions to NYC's elite public high schools. Yes, *public* high schools — when there's something great that's public, it's prey to political control and manipulation, and, ultimately, destruction.

R4 is right. It worked in some of Europe, before Merkel's migration crisis.

But I just can't get over the idea of taking earned income of educated people and redistributing that money to people with low IQs in the name of "equality of opportunity." Public funds are going to making the lives of monsters like those I've linked "better." It's bullshit.

If you want to do that, take it from people with massive, often inherited wealth. No individual should be worth over, say, $100 million (for now, maybe lower in the future), and no "family trust" should have more than $1 billion. Take it from those fuckers, who got rich usually by gaming the system, violating the law, and through monopoly.

I don't oppose it...something like The Netherlands would be great.

Burned by bureaucrats, as if the private sector didn't have more of them than the government. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. You had recourse against government employees. You have no recourse against private people who deny you things except through the government.

loony tunes

All they know of socialism (and atheism) are empty cold war slogans. What is most disappointing about Americans is their inability to distinguish propaganda from reality.

All the undeserving poor put together haven't stolen as much as Trump and Romney and Bush through fraud. Three people.

R108. I read the Guardian and the Economist. I have a well-informed global view. If you did as well, you'd know that Americans are selfish children and our nation is longer capable of collective action without it being accompanied by incompetence, self-dealing, rent-seeking, and general corruption.

That didn't happen overnight R110. It has taken decades of propaganda to accomplish that.

Capitalism has been hijacked by the rich and is failing.

Capitalism was supposed to help everyone but it's just creating a huge gulf between the rich and the poor.

Everyone live a 24 hour day. We should all have access to basic aspects of life--healthcare, education, child care, etc.

There is capitalism and socialism. But there is also greed and sloth. Human nature versus economic theory.

It's never going to end perfectly.

[quote] All they know of socialism (and atheism) are empty cold war slogans. What is most disappointing about Americans is their inability to distinguish propaganda from reality.

The interesting thing is younger generations don't have such negative associations with the word "socialism."

The GOP can bleat constantly about Venezuela but we know alot of factors (especially relying solely on oil) caused the destruction of that country. Socialism is thriving in Europe. America LOVES our socialist programs--SS and Medicare.

[quote] Fox says "free money" or "get other people to pay for your stuff!" a lot.

It's the rich who are getting free money and getting other people to pay for their stuff. That's EXACTLY what the GOP Tax Law was about.

The government give you due process. Equifax does not. Who in the end controls more of your life?

Equifax is in part the product of government meddling. It's part of a protected tri-opoly that the government won't subject to proper regulation.

R83, and then you get the freedom to pay for the treatment for that gunshot would yourself.

All the Thatcherites on this thread would shit themselves into a coma if the NHS shit down. So they like AOME socialism, don’t they.

There is a balance to be had between Socialism and Capitalism. It's all about finding that sweet spot. A pure 100% Socialist should have no problem with a thief going in and stealing one's stuff. If you are a Socialist of the purist variety, "your" stuff does not really belong to you and if "your stuff" gets stolen, it's not really stolen but redistributed. People have common desires as well as needs, and one of those is to feel like they have something, and have something to attain. We are not Naked and Afraid survivalists for the most part, on this planet. You need a mixture of Socialistic programs (Medicare, Social Security and Universal Healthcare, hopefully one day) and Capitalistic ones too, to keep one's right to autonomy and aspirations.

R119, I'm with you. Mixed economy. Heavier on the capitalism in the US, heavier on =socialism in the EU, but always in flux.

[quote] Equifax is in part the product of government meddling. It's part of a protected tri-opoly that the government won't subject to proper regulation.

Um, you just described the government NOT meddling

[quote] There is a balance to be had between Socialism and Capitalism. It's all about finding that sweet spot.

That's exactly what Europe has found--fiercely capitalistic economy with a strong safetynet to cover essentials like healthcare and college.

Capitalistic countries each create social programs as people gain power to fight corporations.

This is exactly how and why American started social security and medicare. The elderly were being discarded by businesses because they were not seen as productive for their profits.

R121, government protection of monopolies is a form of meddling: making it illegal for new entrants in the industry is meddling. BUT refraining from regulation is also meddling: allowing them to collect massive amounts of consumer data to sell as a triopoly, all in exchange for free credit reports and "greater oversight" (which never comes) is the kind of cozy government-business arrangement typical of managed industries.

Learn about the industry, and it'll become clear.

Socialism isn't the same as proper regulation in light of public policy. Socialism allows for things like the VW (+BMW +...) diesel scandal. Government ownership of firms, upon which mass employment is dependent, opens the door to lax regulation and corrupt — but so does government capture by private industry. Both extremes are bad.

Political parties always advocate giving away free things.

In the US, the Republicans give away free stuff to large businesses and the wealthy.

The Dems try to give away stuff to the middle class, but usually fail in the attempt.

Why are we talking about socialism then?

It’s very expensive r122 and doesn’t deliver what we pay for so many people chose to pay privately for Security, schools and healtcare, this paying double for things the government can’t provide.

The systems are also built for a population where the majority works full time. With the great influx of immigrants and refugees with little or no education and no skills that are in demand, more and more people are using the safety nets, built to be a shirt term solution, as a permanent way of supporting themselves and their often large families. The systems are starting to kneel in many countries and when you pay 50% income tax and 25% vat you are starting to wonder what’s in it for me.

[quote] Socialism allows for things like the VW (+BMW +...) diesel scandal.

That and the fomenting Boeing Scandal are capitalism at its worst. Both are due to allowing corporations to police themselves

I support helping citizens (healthcare, education etc...) but I don't believe economic socialism works. People pay taxes so they should get something out of it.

Americans are too brainwashed by corporations' well financed PR campaigns.

I oppose Corporate Welfare Socialism that promotes Crony Oligarchy via the Trump Tax Scam.

It's worse even than that, r130. These days a single corporation led by an ancient foreign billionaire pretty much dictates how Middle American whites should think and feel, and it's not afraid to lead them around by the nose using that power.

Socialism can work well, but I don't want anything provided by the government because it usually sucks. Public education sucks. Infrastructure is deteriorating. Public transportation usually sucks. In order to persuade citizens to accept socialism, government services need to be attractive.

R11, is that a rhetorical question? Because you should definitely know the answer.

R133, working public systems don't enrich the wealthy. That's why so much of it is shit in the US.

R24 Those are all white countries (for now).

White socialists are "we" focused, but they assume that black socialists are "we" focused as well. In reality, poor lazy blacks support socialism precisely because it is selfishly good for them, not because they give a shit about the greater good.

If poor blacks cared about the greater good, they would cut their crime rates by 800% to get to the national average, and they would stop having so many kids that they can't afford, without a husband to help pay for those kids.

The average black person costs taxpayers $750,000 over their lifetime, even after they pay in taxes.

The average white person contributes net $200,000 over their lifetime, even after taking Social Security and Medicare.

Have you ever heard a black person say that blacks need to stop being such a huge financial burden to society?

50% of black families are on welfare, and they're not doing it because they give a shit about the greater good. These single moms don't even teach their kids to give two shits about the greater good. It literally never occurs to them.

We need capitalism. How else would youth be able to study Queer Theory and Gender Studies at Brown?

[QUOTE] Everyone live a 24 hour day.

Huh?

What? I prefer to be alive for 24 hours of every day too.

For me, American socialism is promoted by a certain demographic aimed at rebelling. Against conservatism, capitalism, classicism, ageism, racism, sexism, etc. It is a political means here rather than a truly social one.

The most successful examples of socialism - the Scandinavian ones are based off this premise.

The most unsuccessful examples of socialism - the American version.

I support neither full on socialism or full on capitalism, the best is a mixture of the two. With full on socialism their is no incentive to work hard or excel. If everything is equal and distributed equally the lazy and unmotivated get the same as the hardest best worker. With no incentive to work hard or excel, no one does. Like it or not rewarding hard work and excellence is a must.

The problem with Capitalism is that hard work and excellence is being over rewarded now. Wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of a few. The wealthy need to be taxed more, yes I know they pay the majority of the taxes now in the US now, but that is because they have the majority of the wealth. Taxing low income people who are getting most of the welfare benefits makes no sense, you are just taking money out of their hands and giving it back to them in benefits.

Health care and a college education or job training should be a right for everyone but both of those systems are in need of major reforms. Both are way more expensive than they need to be. There needs to be election reform in the US to get the money out of politics, the rich are buying elections and the lawmakers and the length of our Presidential elections needs to be shortened.

What hard work did Romney ever do, aside from the zodiac killings, of course?

Oh, that's just silly. Romney isn't the Zodiac Killer ... that's Ted Cruz's job.

[quote]Well... If you're more "capital" than labor — if you make more money from the capital you have invested in the economy (and/or financial speculation) than by your own labor (other than allocating capital) — socialism isn't that great, because a huge chunk of your earnings are taken for government programs, etc. From an individual perspective for someone with capital, therefore, it's not that great and rather disruptive (you end up having to move your capital overseas for decent returns).

How about we just chop your head off and redistribute your “capital” to people who actually work and produce things of value? People like you contribute NOTHING to society. You’re worthless leaches. Die, corporate scum.

We cannot possibly endure socialism with a diverse population in the throes of Juilliet & Août. Impossible. Im-fuckin'-possible!

Simple. Because it encourages dependence and discourages self-reliance.

The soul of America is rugged individualism and self-reliance. The downfall began with the acceptability of government charity.

The soul of America is reliance on poor people or slaves to do the hard work for wealthy people.

I hate labels. I don't want socialism, I want to do away with the Senate filibuster so we can start enacting the fairer laws in this country. I want to stop compromising on our principles in order to reach a stupid 60-vote threshold created hundreds of years ago by a bunch of racist elitists.

I want our country to try and sometimes fails at policy, then try again with a new approach. The first step is getting rid of the filibuster when we take back the Senate. It's not about socialism, it's about balancing the tax burden against our established obligations, then having a discussion with the American people (through an election cycle) about the allocation of future taxes for things like wars, college tuition, and other popular ideas.

The ideology debate is a distraction.

The gays and socialism.

Right, R148. The soul of America was founded on its rugged individualism and self-reliance. American self-reliance on rugged individual African slaves to do the work for the masters.

Think, R148. Don't just spout unexamined platitudes. Think.

Most of you really do not understand actual Socialism. Under Socialism one doesn't get to sit on your butt and be on the dole (sorry, UK). There are social benefits for workers. There are social benefits for those who cannot work due to a severe impairment. There are no social benefits for the lazy. The US court rulings that one can receive benefits without anything in return is 180 degrees from actual socialism. If we actually had Socialism, a great many people would be in shock when they are put to work, like it or not.

Also, benefits are not given out willy-nilly. A lot of the young people clamoring for free college would be shocked to know that it is very difficult to get into college in the countries with free college. They do not waste taxpayers money on Liberal Arts degrees, Women's Studies, or "finding yourself".

One of the clearest examples of real Socialism vs faux Socialism was a popular British TV show about a bunch of guys scamming the National Health to live in a hospital full time. Free room and board and lots of nurses to flirt with. Funny right? They attempted to show the program on European TV and it bombed big time. The Germans and Scandinavians found *nothing* funny about scamming a social benefit. This was not something that one joked about.

The biggest obstacle to Social programs in the USA is the US worship of hucksters and cheats. This goes back to P.T. Barnum and probably earlier. We love people who cheat the system *if they become wealthy from it*. Everyone starts sharpening the pitchforks at the idea of the "Welfare Mother" bogeyman (bogeyperson?) but if a corporation or a wealthy businessman does the same thing, it is good business,

"I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that someday we would someday become communists." – Jane Fonda

Go, Jane! Love, Love, LOVE HER!

r150 doesn't like the label "socialism". He just likes socialism, but with new branding.

I am increasingly beginning to think that the climate change crisis and environmental degradation will become so severe that it will be the bigger challenge to capitalisms future and that almost as a neccesity a form of socialism will be the inevitable and natural response over time.

The biggest 'beneficiarie$' of socialism are the banks!

[quote]We love people who cheat the system *if they become wealthy from it*.

We do?

30%-40% seems to love Trump, so maybe, R159.

What a depressing thought r160

[quote]I want our country to try and sometimes fails at policy, then try again with a new approach.

Try and fail = end stage capitalism

New approach: democratic socialism.

Rugged individualism = mass shootings, homelessness, dying from lack of health insurance.

I can’t believe people still believe that brainwashing. Do you ever question ANYTHING you were taught?

[quote]Do you ever question ANYTHING you were taught?

Yes, questioning any favorable statements about socialism.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/138248-the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-you-eventually-run-out

[quote]We love people who cheat the system *if they become wealthy from it*. Everyone starts sharpening the pitchforks at the idea of the "Welfare Mother" bogeyman (bogeyperson?) but if a corporation or a wealthy businessman does the same thing, it is good business,

That’s not true. Every person, rich or poor, who cheats the system by taking more or for longer than what was intended, or uses handouts in an inappropriate way, is rebuked.

WTF happened -R165 here-reposting

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."

[quote]That’s not true. Every person, rich or poor, who cheats the system by taking more or for longer than what was intended, or uses handouts in an inappropriate way, is rebuked.

In the current USA? Oh, my sides!

Stop and ask yourself why you want to give more power and control (and money) to the federal government. Since Trump has been elected, a huge segment of the population is concerned about who is running the government. Both Obama and Trump have over-extended their power with executive privilege. There's much angst about what kind of country we are becoming with the elected officials currently in place. So the solution is... give the federal government a greater say in everything? Make them more powerful?

It's so counter-intuitive that I can't wrap my head around it.

Elect Bernie, give the government more control over healthcare, education, transportation, and your overall paycheck. Then what happens in 4 years if someone you don't like or support gets in office? You have someone who you philosophically disagree with running your life.

Are people even thinking anymore? Haven't the last couple of years made it clear that we should be reducing the control of the executive branch, and transition more control to the states and local governments?

R169, we have some control over the government. We have no control over business.

I have known people denied treatment by their insurance companies and private schools eject students because their parents could not make contributions above the tuition. These people had no recourse. At least with the government there are public proceedures--and you can always contact legislators and media about rotten behavior.

I never understand why so many people in America think that big business is more trustworthy than government agencies.

Bullshit R169, Obama did no such thing.

r163 Doesn't realize that there will always be homeless people. r163 doesn't realize that hard-core drug addicts prefer to live on the sidewalks of major cities, where they can easily beg for drug money and play the sympathy card.

People like r163 don't realize that there will never be a Utopian paradise, and this is what makes r163 so dangerous.

Sure, if all people were moral and virtuous and addiction-free and community-minded, limited socialism could make some sense. But that simply isn't the case, and it will never be the case.

All socialism does is disincentivize work, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship.

And the wealth gap will always be there. There will always be mildly retarded and lazy people, and there will always be workaholics who deserve to be rewarded for their talent and their competence and their contribution to society as taxpayers.

And free health care for everybody also has major downsides. It disincentivizes healthy eating, and exercise.

People like r163 think there is some sacred virtue in poverty, but the reality is most poor people don't deserve a free middle class lifestyle, for one reason or another.

Homeless people in San Francisco live at a higher standard of living than 90% of the rest of the world, because of our capitalist economy. If you want to feel sorry for people, don't feel sorry for Americans, even homeless Americans. Any homeless person in the US that isn't a toxic, anti-social drug addict gets housing assistance, or at the very least they can live decently enough in the US, even if they need two sleeping bags in their tent.

Socialists like Bernie Sanders are ultra-conservatives in disguise. Bernie single-handedly prevented a full audit of the Federal Reserve banking system.

Jews dominate the banking system, and because of that, they dominate every other important industry.

The Federal Reserve literally gave trillions of dollars to Goldman Sachs and other Jewish banks in 2008, just like they've been doing since Paul Warburg created the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Jews support socialism because it's a seductive way to sell Jewish totalitarianism onto a gullible public.

R172, as a former junkie, I can assure you that you are wrong about addicts preferring to live on the street. I think that is something people say so that they do not have to feel as bad about addicts.

At a certain point you keep using because it is cheaper in the short term than going to rehab.

Nobody want to be homeless, drug addicted, hungry, sick.

The idea that good healthcare removes the incentive to care for one's health is clearly untrue. If that were the case, the US would have a healthier and less obese population than France, Gemany, Canada, etc. which is clearly not the case.

I know all that stuff makes you feel better, but without facts and data it is pretty stupid to say it out loud.

[quote]Homeless people in San Francisco live at a higher standard of living than 90% of the rest of the world, because of our capitalist economy.

This is delusional bullshit. Do you say this crap with a straight face? Does anyone ever laugh at you?

r174 as a former junkie, you might want to be use a little restraint before calling others stupid in the very same comment you admit that you were a junkie.

Don't act like California, Oregon, and Washington don't bend over backwards to shower addicts with funding and services.

It's not right.

It's not okay.

I'm gonna make it anyway.

Found the Nazi at R173.

r178 Hitler was responding to Jewish domination of Germany, and Jewish communist revolution that sought to conquer Germany and makes them slaves of the (Jewish-dominate) USSR.

[quote]I never understand why so many people in America think that big business is more trustworthy than government agencies.

They are equally untrustworthy, it all depends on the individuals in place. It's not as though all "bad" people go into corporate/private enterprise, and all "good" people go into public service.

You do have control over business. Stop using their services. Start campaigns to have others boycott. Make their faults known to their business partners. File a lawsuit. You have limited recourse when it comes to government. You can hope someone doesn't get re-elected, or campaign for an opponent if one is running. But good luck fighting city hall, or whoever.

When I moved cities a couple of years ago, I didn't notify the state DMV. They sent my car tax bill to my old address, but for some reason it didn't get forwarded to my new address, so it bounced back to my former city. It never reached me. I noticed when it came time to file my annual income tax, so I contacted the DMV. They re-sent the tax bill, plus interest, plus a late fee. I called to explain what had happen, more than willing to pay the tax, and even the interest, but hoping to get the fine waived. After waiting on hold for probably twenty minutes, then explaining what happened, the DMV said they don't waive fines, and hung up.

Yeah. Government is so easy to do business with.

[quote]Bullshit [R169], Obama did no such thing.

Obama regularly issued executive orders. Orders that can now be repealed by Trump with the swipe of a pen. Our government was not designed to have laws dictated by the Executive branch.

You are an idiot, R181. Congress absolutely delegates responsibilities to a variety of authorities. The President has limited authority to work within duly enacted statute regarding areas of responsibility already delegated to the Executive by Congress. Mostly, the Executive Order circumvents a lengthy formal rule making procedure. But if the subject of the proposed Executive Order is not already delegated to the Executive branch of government by the Congress, no Executive Order on that subject can be issued.

Do you think Congress makes every rule that is used to implement the Environmental Protection Act? Or Farm Subsidy programs? Or any other goddamned thing we encounter in our daily lives? It does not. It makes the law that establishes the program and then it turns the details over to the experts.

I don’t

[quote] Obama regularly issued executive orders.

Yeah, no shit. He had to work around the "Congress of No" to get literally anything done. However, Obama, unlike Trump, did NOT overextend his power through executive order.

Still calling you on your bullshit.

The question is:

How does Canada do it?

How? Why can they do it but not the US?

Is it our size? Is it their environment? Is it their population?

Are they just better than us? Is Canada in general just loaded up with superior people?

Because it creates shithole countries, poor, unstable, economics and tends to foster dictatorship.

Socialism undermines a free market economy and democracy. Neither unbridled capitalism nor socialism is the way, but the most prosperous countries work on a combination of capitalism and social (not socialism) policies.

Every country that tried socialism failed miserably, most had horrible human rights records and leaned towards dictatorship regimes.

Here's my question: For someone that grew up in a really White town (2% Black population) as a mixed person, I'm wondering how incoming students react to the environment. There are obviously going to be kids coming in from predominately Black communities, and ones were back home they were the "token" Black person at their high school. How do people adjust, and do the two groups tend to hang out separately?

Sadly, my college also had about a 2% Black population. I would have loved to take a Black history course filled with people more likely to already understand some of it/the experience. Some people who read this thread might not understand what being the only X in a class about X history can be. Not that this happens, but it would be akin to being the only woman in a women's studies class, taught also by a guy. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it... you just end up explaining more in the class than actually learning.

jasmaree

7 years ago

They do tend to go into different groups. I'd say that the number of people who came from black communities is larger (usually their mother or father also went to Howard) and that group tends to be the largest. The people who went to predominantly white neighborhoods either go around in small groups or join others. They seem less at-home at first but then get used to it. Some, however, are shocked and appalled at how people here act. I have to admit there are some things I see around here that make me think "Why do you INSIST on making yourself into a stereotype for the sake of entertainment? You're making it worse for the rest of us." Sadly, that's a reason why people transfer away from Howard (among others).

You need a mix of capitalism and socialism. Social democracy. This country used to be closer to one. The corporations have taken over almost all business and are monopolies. Their money buys elections and now we have citizens united that says corporations are people (corporate personhood). Corporations can now call all the shots because they have all the money.

R187, you're completely off track. Missing the point. What does your experience re:blacks have anything to do with this discussion? Why are you making this about you and your legacy of being related to the black community? Of all the communities and/or races this subject touches upon the black community is the LAST demographic to enter into a discussion about socialism.

Tell you what..why don't you go take care of yourself. Get yourself focused and stay off of the threads where you don't belong. Once you pull yourself together come join us in offering suggestions and solutions to better the black community. Help us out.

See you there

I thought the answer to R185 was going to be because they don't have "the black problem".

r189 I accidentally posted that on the wrong thread, but you're dead wrong that the black community has no place in a discussion about socialism.

Our most socialist policies have "benefited" the black community the most, and the results have been devastating for the black community and for America. The welfare state caused the almost immediate destruction of the black family unit. The single-parent household rate went from 25% to 75% in the black community. A child out of wedlock used to be a huge scandal in the black community. Now the vast majority of blacks kids are raised by single moms, and blacks have by far the highest rates of child abuse, which causes kids to grow up angry, violent, and incapable of holding down a job because of their authority issues.

Socialists are ideologues. They're so proud of their socialist beliefs that they throw science, common sense, and human nature out the window. Then, as soon as they get power, they start slaughtering everybody who questions their precious ideology.

We'd be better off with a Scientologist society rather than a socialist society, or no worse off.

Ask any Eastern European over age 40.

R194, like you better on R189's thread ♡

[quote]I'm from Denmark originally, and we are NOT a socialist country

Bullshit, R31. The supposed personal testimony, online and anonymous, is only part-and-parcel of every troll claim, ever: "I'm an 88 year old black man who lived through segregation, and I support Trump. MAGA!"

[quote]Socialism brought us Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Shining Path, the Great Slump, The Cultural Revolution, the Gulag, the Red Terror, the Budapest Uprising, the Prague Spring, the 1953 East German Rebellion, the Berlin Wall, and of course the wonderful 1930s Russian Famine. Am I missing anything? I probably did.

R37, you missed out on brains when they were handing them out. That's as fucking idiotic as the Christians who haul out the 'Atheist Atricities' fallacy, in order to blame atheism for Hitler's, Stalin's, and Mao's victims. Every one of the instances you listed were specifically brought on by individuals and administrations whose policies had less to do with actual socialism and more to do with autocracy, self-dealing, partisanship, gross mismanagement, and out-and-out cruelty.

R198, I think he left out Canada, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, no?

Superior majority white nations, if you've notice

R197, you are an idiot, Denmark has NEVER been a socialist country.

Social policies ≠ socialism

I oppose it because that walking shit bag Bernie Sanders enjoys it

[quote] autocracy, self-dealing, partisanship, gross mismanagement, and out-and-out cruelty.

R198, that sounds a LOT like a certain fat, orange fascist.

[bold]Why Bernie's Democratic Socialism Can't Stop Capitalism[/bold]

Ignoring that the writer advocates for pure communism as the alternative, the arguments make sense. I do like Bernie, by the way.

The salient points:

[quote]How much can you take from the private sector before they stop giving it to you — either by willfully resisting you or when they hit material limits in their ability to pay up? How much can you tax these entities before they break down altogether and you cannot get the taxes any more — a big problem if you are expecting them to generate value on a perpetual basis? And what if they say no? How much can you demand of powerful economic institutions before they use their power to undermine your ability to demand it of them?

[quote]In Venezuela right now or in Chile in the early 1970s, for example, socialist leaders who decided to respect bourgeois property rights learned that the private sector would simply sabotage the economy and then blame the socialists for the fallout. Large chunks of the electorate that had gone along with the left before the crises lost faith, and the left’s power to resist was eroded dangerously.

[quote]“Democratic socialism” of this sort is a delicate balancing act of retaining the economic function and basic political powers of the very entities you want to economically exploit and rein in politically. If the answers to the questions above (and these questions have specific, objective, and quantifiable answers — none of which Sanders or DSA have been compelled to give) are not commensurate with the costs of the programs the democratic socialists want, then the “socialist” program is impossible on its own terms.

[quote]If, as these problems suggest, it is impossible for him to deliver what he is promising then the longer-term consequence of his victory is liable to be a snap towards reaction that makes Trump’s election look pleasant and progressive by comparison. The promise of an anti-socialist savior come to restore American power and boost economic performance without the self-indulgent pathologies of Donald Trump should terrify us all.

Sorry but Government rationing of housing, health care, food, etc doesn’t sound very appealing.

R176, why would a former junkie need to show restraint at calling people on their bullshit? In fact, I think it is because I have been through hell, I am more direct. Life is too short and too precious to put up with the kind of nonsense R172 spouts.

You discuss California, Oregon, and Washington. J do not know what their public health systems are or what that has to do with what I was saying. You do not make any clear connection, so I get the feeling that you exemplify the kind of thinking I discussed in R174.

Like R172. you have certain beliefs about addicts, healthcare, etc because they make you feel good about yourself in some way. That might be a convenient way to think, but ultimately it is less effective than thinking based on data and logic.

But since you have decided that I am an inferior person, you will find a way to dismiss what I said. But that does not eliminate the truth.

Socialism: Republicans stealing all the taxpayer's money and spending it on themselves.

Democratic Capitalism: The rest of us.

A friend who works in London had a minor medical emergency, and was told he would have to wait 3 weeks to be seen. No problem, he went to a private practice and paid cash. Still thinks National Healyh is "brilliant." The NYT has a feature article on the decline of rural England. In a typical small town in Cumbria, all the clinics and hospitals are shutting, and the nearest hospital bed is an hours ride away.

R206. Clever. Is Maduro a Republican? Because that's exactly what his party has done, grabbed everything left in the country for themselves.

I am a civil servant with Blue Cross. I have to wait five weeks to see a doctor, so mostly I go to urgent care .

When I hear about the waits in other countries, they seem to be about the same as in the US.

Are we forgetting Canada?

Stop equating socialism with inferiors like Venezuela.

Canada doesn't suffer these problems. They're a different breed up there.

R180, so you forgot to register your car and want them to waive the fine because you forget when your birthday is without a government letter to remind you?

I should try that with my income tax. Maybe I can get them to waive late fees because they never sent me a letter telling me I had to pay on April 15.