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

[vegas giants]

No the way it paste it, it drives me crazy

You'll get over it. Lol

 

[Bear5131]

You'll get over it. Lol

Never...unless you keep blowing up threads

 

[vegas giants]

You can learn about the history of Socialism here. You can learn about the history of the Flavian Amphitheater here. As you can see, the Flavian Amphitheater predates Socialism by quite a bit, and ancient Rome was not a Socialist state.

Show me a definition that requires ending private property

 

[vegas giants]

Never...unless you keep blowing up threads

I'm debating.....you are derailing

 

[Jason Warfield]

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

Based on the definition below:

Definition of socialism​

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Ummm...let me establish something...a dictionary definition is not always correct, nor does it really reflect theories and application and it is not a good tool to use in a debate over economic theory. Or. let me put it this way: when a person tried to "own" me on the dictionary definition of vaccine as the coup de grace of our debate...I won by stating that when it comes to medical advice, I will go to a doctor, not a dictionary. In this case, go to the actual theories of socialism and real-world applications...not a dictionary.

I say this because points 1 and 2 of the dictionary definition relate to the economic theory of communism, not socialism. Point 3 is not a de facto of why socialism exists. Socialism CAN lead to communism, but that does not mean that socialism exists solely as a gateway to communism. Often, socialist nations do not move forward into communism.

Socialism requires free market capitalism to work. The idea of socialism (which isn't very good to me) is that the government exists to make sure that profit is given out more evenly to both labor and management. Socialism is about control of profit, which means much tighter regulations on management and labor. An example of socialism (and it was unintended) was when Trump wanted the government to fix prices for medications by applying a price structure that kept profits down to make the medicines more affordable, based on an European model.

Communism is a whole different idea. Points 1 and 2 are pretty good as descriptors for communism. What is missing is the ultimate goal of communism which is the abolishment of currency and profits. That the people will be taken care of on virtue of labor alone.

As is obvious, there are issues with both. Hence my response that I don't embrace socialism.

 

[vegas giants]

Ummm...let me establish something...a dictionary definition is not always correct, nor does it really reflect theories and application and it is not a good tool to use in a debate over economic theory. Or. let me put it this way: when a person tried to "own" me on the dictionary definition of vaccine as the coup de grace of our debate...I won by stating that when it comes to medical advice, I will go to a doctor, not a dictionary. In this case, go to the actual theories of socialism and real-world applications...not a dictionary.

I say this because points 1 and 2 of the dictionary definition relate to the economic theory of communism, not socialism. Point 3 is not a de facto of why socialism exists. Socialism CAN lead to communism, but that does not mean that socialism exists solely as a gateway to communism. Often, socialist nations do not move forward into communism.

Socialism requires free market capitalism to work. The idea of socialism (which isn't very good to me) is that the government exists to make sure that profit is given out more evenly to both labor and management. Socialism is about control of profit, which means much tighter regulations on management and labor. An example of socialism (and it was unintended) was when Trump wanted the government to fix prices for medications by applying a price structure that kept profits down to make the medicines more affordable, based on an European model.

Communism is a whole different idea. Points 1 and 2 are pretty good as descriptors for communism. What is missing is the ultimate goal of communism which is the abolishment of currency and profits. That the people will be taken care of on virtue of labor alone.

As is obvious, there are issues with both. Hence my response that I don't embrace socialism.

I support certain Socialist programs built on a strong base of free market capitalism

 

[Doppelgangirl]

Countries have Socialist, capitalist and even communist programs. But no country is a pure model of anything

I really need a sarcasm button…

Yes, we agree.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

Actually the SS surplus is in T-bills and makes interest.

By the end of 2020, the trust funds had accumulated $2.9 trillion worth of Treasury securities, earning an average interest rate of 2.5 percent during that year. The Social Security Administration provides monthly reports on the investment holdings of the trust funds, their maturities, and interest rates. The trustees project that the trust funds will earn $70 billion in interest income in 2021.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I don't even know what to ****ing call myself anymore. I am a hardcore civil libertarian, first and foremost, while I'm economically... the way Americans use "left" and "right" is so broken that it staggers the imagination. Generally speaking, I want more taxes and services than the Democrats do, less regulation of providing goods and services, and more regulation of financiers and rent-seekers.

I mostly believe that Constitutional rights are supposed to be ironclad restrictions on the government's authority and that even within those limits, the only legitimate functions of government are safeguarding those rights and providing services (including military and law enforcement) that allow/enable/support people to exercise those rights. Literally anything else the government could do is violating its authorized functions, which is sedition against the Constitution. Any government function that does not directly protect the people from having their rights infringed must be justified by demonstrating how it makes people more capable of exercising their rights.

I'm not a Libertarian, because the argument in favor of public healthcare and education (and economic infrastructure) is patently ****ing obvious... but I'd be closer to them than anyone else if they pretended even a little bit that civil rights were as important as property rights.

 

[Geoist]

And?


They dumped socialism because of lazy people who didn't want to work.

Except it wasn't socialism, unless you want to call feudalism/corporatism 'socialism.'

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.”


And they dumped the system due to drought and malaria.

Hence that's why we became a capitalist Christian nation

Lmao, nice fantasy, there.

 

[Geoist]

I don't even know what to ****ing call myself anymore. I am a hardcore civil libertarian, first and foremost, while I'm economically... the way Americans use "left" and "right" is so broken that it staggers the imagination. Generally speaking, I want more taxes and services than the Democrats do, less regulation of providing goods and services, and more regulation of financiers and rent-seekers.

I mostly believe that Constitutional rights are supposed to be ironclad restrictions on the government's authority and that even within those limits, the only legitimate functions of government are safeguarding those rights and providing services (including military and law enforcement) that allow/enable/support people to exercise those rights. Literally anything else the government could do is violating its authorized functions, which is sedition against the Constitution. Any government function that does not directly protect the people from having their rights infringed must be justified by demonstrating how it makes people more capable of exercising their rights.

I'm not a Libertarian, because the argument in favor of public healthcare and education (and economic infrastructure) is patently ****ing obvious... but I'd be closer to them than anyone else if they pretended even a little bit that civil rights were as important as property rights.

What do you think of georgism?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What do you think of georgism?

Not sure these days. I used to be repulsed by it, but that was back when I didn't understand the difference between personal property and private property. I tend to consider the ownership of land the basis of all ancestral wealth, so I am still deeply uncomfortable with it being reduced to a land-lease from the Crown; for a person, for a family, owning land should mean the end of having to pay for occupying space.

 

[Peter King]

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

Based on the definition below:

Definition of socialism​

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I am a social democrat and even I don't embrace socialism as you describe.

 

[Geoist]

Not sure these days. I used to be repulsed by it, but that was back when I didn't understand the difference between personal property and private property. I tend to consider the ownership of land the basis of all ancestral wealth, so I am still deeply uncomfortable with it being reduced to a land-lease from the Crown; for a person, for a family, owning land should mean the end of having to pay for occupying space.

I mean, we already pay property taxes and still consider the land private. But I think an argument can be made for exceptions on occupied land or land values under a certain amount while dealing with those rent-seekers you don't like. I don't think we have to go as far as leasing the land from the state.

 

[choiceone]

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

Based on the definition below:

Definition of socialism​

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Your poll is worthless.

Liberal is not about economics. It is about politics.
Socialism is an economic system, as is capitalism.
Democracy, Fascism, totalitarianism, etc., are political systems.

I honestly have never met anyone who supports Fascist or totalitarian or dictatorial socialism, but I have met some people who support democratic socialism. I have also met others who support social democracy, as I do. But the definitions of democratic socialism and social democracy are much more subtle than any of what you are putting forth here.

So I couldn't vote. But social democracy a la the Netherlands? not bad at all - and very liberal.

FYI, "liberal" means "befitting a free person." All free persons believe in private property, because your body is one part of your property. States shouldn't have the right to own your body - or, for that matter, either impregnate it or ban abortion. People who are social democrats know that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This is a pure troll bait thread masquerading as "concernnnnnnnnnnnnn" over some nebulous moral panic designed to fearmonger in the old Red Scare style of the John Birch Society.
The OP carries the Bircher gene and is therefore convinced that all Democrats, liberals and other left leaning independents are budding

COMMUNISTS!!!!!

 

[Lisa]

I am a mixed-market socialist and civil libertarian.

 

[Ren]

True, the definition above is out of date. Socialism seems to be one of three things: the Marxist principles quoted in the definition supplied, the forms of government administration and programs that came out of the New Deal and are present to a greater extent in much of Europe, or an epithet used by conservatives in the US to replace the out of date “commie” or “pinko.”

The definition above is from Merriam Webster's. That means we go by that definition, not yours.

 

[Ren]

Which of those descriptions describe any country in Scandinavia?

I don't care.

That definition is from Merriam Webster's Dictionary and it's the definition I'm using for this thread.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I believe that socialism, like much of the right's fearmongering, is not the boogeyman they make it out to be.

I believe that like capitalism, socialism has good points and bad.

To this end I believe that in a perfect world the best system blends the two, each serving as a check/balance against the other's negatives while allowing the positives of both to shine through.

 

[vegas giants]

I believe that socialism, like much of the right's fearmongering, is not the boogeyman they make it out to be.

I believe that like capitalism, socialism has good points and bad.

To this end I believe that in a perfect world the best system blends the two, each serving as a check/balance against the other's negatives while allowing the positives of both to shine through.

Most people would leave America tomorrow if we abandoned every Socialist program

 

[Ren]

He could come and tell me. Hell, he could appear to everybody at once and tell us so we would understand.

But he doesn’t. He plays games.

So I don’t think he actually exists or is a dick.

Is God a "dick" for not doing what you want?

You're not a follower of Christ; you're just some guy who wants the Almighty to show up and do what? Perform tricks? It doesn't work that way.

 

[Ren]

Ummm...let me establish something...a dictionary definition is not always correct, nor does it really reflect theories and application and it is not a good tool to use in a debate over economic theory. Or. let me put it this way: when a person tried to "own" me on the dictionary definition of vaccine as the coup de grace of our debate...I won by stating that when it comes to medical advice, I will go to a doctor, not a dictionary. In this case, go to the actual theories of socialism and real-world applications...not a dictionary.

I say this because points 1 and 2 of the dictionary definition relate to the economic theory of communism, not socialism. Point 3 is not a de facto of why socialism exists. Socialism CAN lead to communism, but that does not mean that socialism exists solely as a gateway to communism. Often, socialist nations do not move forward into communism.

Socialism requires free market capitalism to work. The idea of socialism (which isn't very good to me) is that the government exists to make sure that profit is given out more evenly to both labor and management. Socialism is about control of profit, which means much tighter regulations on management and labor. An example of socialism (and it was unintended) was when Trump wanted the government to fix prices for medications by applying a price structure that kept profits down to make the medicines more affordable, based on an European model.

Communism is a whole different idea. Points 1 and 2 are pretty good as descriptors for communism. What is missing is the ultimate goal of communism which is the abolishment of currency and profits. That the people will be taken care of on virtue of labor alone.

As is obvious, there are issues with both. Hence my response that I don't embrace socialism.

See, I don't care what you think Socialism is. The people at Merriam Webster's Dictionary also don't care, and it's irrelevant to this thread.

The definition above is what's being used. So based on your response above, you'd simply select "I don't" and leave it at that.

 

[Ren]

I am a social democrat and even I don't embrace socialism as you describe.

Then hopefully you chose "I don't" in the poll.

And it's not my description: it's Merriam Webster's.

 

[Ren]

Your poll is worthless.

Liberal is not about economics. It is about politics.
Socialism is an economic system, as is capitalism.
Democracy, Fascism, totalitarianism, etc., are political systems.

I honestly have never met anyone who supports Fascist or totalitarian or dictatorial socialism, but I have met some people who support democratic socialism. I have also met others who support social democracy, as I do. But the definitions of democratic socialism and social democracy are much more subtle than any of what you are putting forth here.

So I couldn't vote. But social democracy a la the Netherlands? not bad at all - and very liberal.

FYI, "liberal" means "befitting a free person." All free persons believe in private property, because your body is one part of your property. States shouldn't have the right to own your body - or, for that matter, either impregnate it or ban abortion. People who are social democrats know that.

My poll is worthwhile. It's your opinion that's worthless.

Now, are you trying to tell me that liberals are incapable of embracing Socialism as defined in the op?