• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Question for Liberals: How many of you embrace Socialism?

A Question for Liberals: How many of you embrace Socialism?


  • Total voters
    51
I am liberal, meaning I'm for maximum individual freedom possible (freedom from religion, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceably assemble, right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, right to keep and bear arms, no quartering of soldiers without an owner's consent, right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, etc.) & socialism goes contrary to this, so it's impossible to be both liberal and socialist.
 
Your poll question is much to broad.
The fact is the US has been a blend of socialism and capitalism for almost our entire history.
And for the most part it has worked well.
Socialism in it's purest form, just like capitalism in it purest form, is dangerous and unworkable.
 
I did not say that they were socialism. I said they are socialist programs and no Social Security is a relatively new concept that is not even a century old. Govt. run social programs are not capitalist in the least either.

The Social Security program in the US might not be a century old, but the Cura Annonae was around thousands of years ago. Neither program was Socialist.
 
A Question for Liberals: How many of you embrace Socialism?

-snip-

Yawn. Just Gaslighting for socialism to be accepted in America

Yep, that's how Hitler did it.

It still turns out like shit though, because in the end, politicians cannot spend your money better than you can.

Guess who propagandized you into welding yourself to a belief system radically divorced from that of the majority of adults living in all over developed countries,
including in the U.S.?


Documented Obtains List of 2020 Donors to Ginni Thomas Group That Supported Trump’s Attempted Coup​

Documented is revealing a list of CNP Action's 2020 donors, and can confirm that Ginni Thomas remained on the board of the group as it laid the groundwork for January 6.

Link to cached image of this article, https://archive.ph/flaoa

God, Trump and the Closed-Door World of the Council for National Policy

https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2021/10/25 › god-tr...
Oct 25, 2021 — “We cannot trust Donald Trump to do either.” Then came a great swerve that would upend politics in America: Millions of conservatives — ..."

The alternative, in America, was untold suffering and avoidable early death. Crony capitalism, as practiced in the U.S., failed and continues to be unreliable.
People, OTOH, need to eat and be clothed and sheltered, everyday.

History of SSA During the Johnson Administration 1963-1968

https://www.ssa.gov › history › ssa › lbjmedicare1
Prior to Medicare, only a little over one-half of those aged 65 and over had some type of hospital insurance; few among the insured group had insurance ...

"..The Political ResponseFranklin D. Roosevelt and The New Deal
One observer pointed out to Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) upon taking office that, given the present crisis, he would be either the worst or greatest president in American history. Roosevelt is said to have responded: “If I fail, I shall be the last one.”11 By the time Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932, the traditional ideologies and institutions of the United States were in a state of upheaval.12 Americans who had grown up promoting the ideology of the “deserving and undeserving poor” and the stigma of poor relief were now standing in line for relief. Private nonprofit organizations such as Community Chests, although valiant in their effort, were overwhelmed with requests, unable to meet the needs of their communities. State and local governments, ultimately responsible for their poor throughout American history, now looked for financial assistance. What was needed was an expanded institutional partnership between the federal government and the other sectors of American society in promoting social welfare. In the past, the federal government had been active in other areas such as railroad development and war veteran pensions. However, the American belief, as earlier expressed by President Franklin Pierce to Dorothea Dix, was that the federal government should not be involved in providing poor relief.13 But now the size of this national crisis required a national solution. The federal government was in the best position to initiate and coordinate national efforts among public, private, and nonprofit sectors of society. As the crisis deepened, progressive leaders and average Americans increasingly demanded that the federal government take greater responsibility in relieving and preventing poverty..."
 
Last edited:
...You, and Ginni and Clarence Thomas, LOL! Follow the money....
 
The Social Security program in the US might not be a century old, but the Cura Annonae was around thousands of years ago. Neither program was Socialist.
It's good to know that you do not believe there are any real socialist politicians in Govt. I agree fully with that.
 
Because the government destroyed the healthcare market. I'm doing a series of posts on it. Here's the first, there will be more soon.
I will be waiting for your explanation of why universal healthcare is so successful in other countries but in ours it would be a disaster. It appears that Govt. is only a bad thing here.
 

I am a geo-mutualist, and therefore a socialist. I consider social democrats to be allies and tankies (authoritarian socialists) to be enemies.
 
I have too many disagreements with the fundamental tenets of Marxism to call myself a socialist, even if I occasionally agree with Marxist doctrine.

There are non-marxist forms of socialism. Marx isn't even in my top 10 biggest political influences.
 
Rules and regulations is not socialism

Conservatives would have all of us think otherwise. Every time a liberal/leftist proposes a government program it is denounced as 'socialist.'
 
Market economies do a much better job than command economies of efficiently producing goods and services that society actually needs. Command economies are deeply immoral not only because they are repressive, but because they keep most people poor.
 
Socialism as the world knows it is unequivocally defined by Marxist doctrine.

To an extent I do agree, which is why I usually define my beliefs as left-libertarian or more specifically geo-mutualist.
 
From the great Ann Landers ...

Socialism: You have two cows. Give one cow to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. Give both cows to the government, and they might give you some milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. You give all of the milk to the government, and they sell it.

Nazism: You have two cows. The government shoots you and takes both cows.

Anarchism: You have two cows. Keep both of the cows, shoot the government agent and steal another cow.

Capitalism: You have two cows. Sell one cow and buy a bull.

Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government makes you take harmonica lessons.


 
 
Conservatives would have all of us think otherwise. Every time a liberal/leftist proposes a government program it is denounced as 'socialist.'
Because it is, more taking other people's money
 
Your opinion is noted and dismissed


You personally support socialim too
Not true. I was born into Social Security and Medicare, but I still disagree with both.

They could've at least put that money into interest bearing accounts, but that makes too much sense for the elitist trash.
 
Based on the textbook definition I cannot wholly embrace socialism. Yet elements of social support in government policy (medicare, Medicaid, education and services such as the fire department) have proven to be effective in economies that are not wholly socialist.

This is not an accident. Too much of anything could go sour. Nor is it a paradox: those who chafe at the mere word socialism probably don't understand how it fits in a modern economy and wilfully confuse it with Stalinism or some other extreme ideology.
 
Liberals are cute they are so ignorant on socialism, the first colonist tried socialism in America first, and it was a total failure. People died of starvation because they didn't want to work

it was abandoned not because of famine but because the settlers wanted to make more money. As for Jamestown, their biggest problems were drought and malaria, not socialism.

...

Communal farming arrangements were common in the pilgrims’ day. Many of the towns they came from in England were run according to the “open-field” system, in which the land holdings of a manor are divided into strips to be harvested by tenant farmers. As Nick Bunker writes in 2010’s Making Haste From Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World, “Open field farming was not some kind of communism. All the villagers were tenants of the landlord.”

There was no local baron in Plymouth, but it was a commercial project as much as a religious one, and the colonists still had to answer to their investors back in England. It was this, not socialist ideals, that accounted for the common course. Bunker writes, “Far from being a commune, the Mayflower was a common stock: the very words employed in the contract. All the land in the Plymouth Colony, its houses, its tools, and its trading profits (if they appeared) were to belong to a joint-stock company owned by the shareholders as a whole.”

 
Because it is, more taking other people's money

How do you think rules and regulations are enforced if not through tax money?
 
Not true. I was born into Social Security and Medicare, but I still disagree with both.

They could've at least put that money into interest bearing accounts, but that makes too much sense for the elitist trash.
The fire department is socialism. I have ten more examples


You LOVE socialism
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…