Is the U.S. ready for Socialism? (1 Viewer)

[TGN]

First Kshama Sawant gets elected to the Seattle council and now we've just seen the Sanders campaign, regardless of what the results maybe, give Hillary a run for her money. It seems the millennials and, since the 2008 crisis, many other members of the U.S. electorate are more opened minded to overtly socialists candidates. Is there more to come? Also, it seems people have somewhat different opinions of what socialism is or isn't. Some define it as state control while others describe it as either social or workers' control. How do you define it?

George Orwell saw it firsthand during the Spanish Civil War and gave this insightful description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

 

[Van Basten]

There is no socialism coming, so what's there to get ready for?

It seems the millennials and, since the 2008 crisis, many other members of the U.S. electorate are more opened minded to overtly socialists candidates.

The democratic socialists are really just pushing the same progressive capitalist policies that liberals used to champion. You could say many Americans are just yearning for New Deal coalition era liberalism, the good stuff.

Some define it as state control while others describe it as either social or workers' control. How do you define it?

Radical democratic control over the spheres of a classless society with the abolition of private property and worker control (industrial democracy). All with a fetish for mediocrity.

A bloody scam that always ends the same way.

 

[Fletch]

There is no socialism coming, so what's there to get ready for?

You are right, in a way, its not coming. Its here. Its been here for several generations now, growing steadily across that expanse of time. Its not the Soviet style socialism that enslaves and impoverishes the population over which it rules, but the European variety that slowly chokes the motivation and prosperity out of the people like weeds through an untreated lawn.

 

[Van Basten]

You are right, in a way, its not coming. Its here. Its been here for several generations now, growing steadily across that expanse of time. Its not the Soviet style socialism that enslaves and impoverishes the population over which it rules, but the European variety that slowly chokes the motivation and prosperity out of the people like weeds through an untreated lawn.

There is not a shred of socialism in this country.

Welfare isn't socialism, that's right wing propaganda.

The enemy is not within the gates, relax.

 

[TobyOne]

The ideology of the left is more Marxist than socialist. The rhetoric of both their presidential candidates is mostly about class warfare and "unfairness". Its thinly veiled Marxism. Socialism in its strict sense is a non-starter in the US - it just won't happen - but Marxist thought has become ingrained in the left and needs to be called out and dealt with.

 

[Fletch]

There is not a shred of socialism in this country.

Welfare isn't socialism, that's right wing propaganda.

The enemy is not within the gates, relax.

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid aren't socialist programs? Of course they are.

 

[dimensionallava]

There is not a shred of socialism in this country.

Welfare isn't socialism, that's right wing propaganda.

The enemy is not within the gates, relax.

America is not only a socialist country today but it was also founded as one, its one of the oldest, if not the first, socialist countries in the world

 

[Van Basten]

America is not only a socialist country today but it was also founded as one, its one of the oldest, if not the first, socialist countries in the world

Top notch bull****. I like your style, dimensionallava.

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid aren't socialist programs? Of course they are.

They're not, they do not originate in socialist thought. They're progressive, not socialist. Government assistance to needy people is not a new concept.

Don't buy the revisionism.

 

[dimensionallava]

Top notch bull****. I like your style, dimensionallava.

why thank you sir thank you :2razz:

 

[coldjoint]

America is not only a socialist country today but it was also founded as one, its one of the oldest, if not the first, socialist countries in the world

:lamo

 

[Fenton]

First Kshama Sawant gets elected to the Seattle council and now we've just seen the Sanders campaign, regardless of what the results maybe, give Hillary a run for her money. It seems the millennials and, since the 2008 crisis, many other members of the U.S. electorate are more opened minded to overtly socialists candidates. Is there more to come? Also, it seems people have somewhat different opinions of what socialism is or isn't. Some define it as state control while others describe it as either social or workers' control. How do you define it?

George Orwell saw it firsthand during the Spanish Civil War and gave this insightful description:

"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master...One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

Socialism is crashing and burning the world over and Sanders is just a snake oil salesman selling a " light " version of Socialism to the naive and ignorant.

He appeals to those who think that Capitalism and Free markets caused the 2008 Crisis, to those think that Govt can and should be the arbiter of whats '' fair and equal ".

Sanders is a liar and a fraud. He tries to sell Single Payer but never mentions the fact that his home State of Vermont had to abandon its Single Payer initaive because the tax increases needed to pay for it woud have crushed their economy

He rails against the evil banks but fails to mention the two most corrupt and influential Financial agencies involved in the 2008 Subprime Collapse.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who according to a 2011 SEC investigation committed unprecedented Securities fraud by hiding hundreds of Billions of dollars in worthless debt from the SEC

It wasn't " Capitalism " or the Free market that caussd the 2008 Subprime Crisis. It was unprecdented Govt intervention into the private sector economy that cause it

He says we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity by " investing in infrastructure " even though " Stimulus to increase aggregate demand " has failed miserably in the past.

Japan blew through 100 Trillion Yen in the 90's " investing in infrastructure " just so their economy could stagnate while their GDP to debt ratio grew to be the largest in the world.

He wants to raise taxes on investors, corporations and the wealthy and drive away investment in our economy while increasing our debt exponentially

He would turn all of America into the economic and fiscal basket case that is California.

 

[Mithrae]

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid aren't socialist programs? Of course they are.

They're not, they do not originate in socialist thought. They're progressive, not socialist. Government assistance to needy people is not a new concept.

Don't buy the revisionism.

The revisionism comes from both angles, unfortunately. Far-right propagandists label such programs 'socialist' because they think it'll energize their fellows, and left-wing propagandists do precisely the same thing for precisely the same reasons :lol:

Allowing that 'the means of production' in a modern economy would refer to any commercially-viable enterprise, welfare really isn't socialist; it's hardly likely to be commercially viable. On the other hand, public education, public healthcare, public roads and infrastructure... these things certainly can be commercially viable, to some extent at least.

It's really quite depressing that the radical ideologues and dogmatists of both wings keep labeling and arguing over socialism vs. capitalism, when every successful modern country has proven that a mixed economy combining the efficiency and innovation of private enterprise with the social investment and long-term outlook of public enterprise is the most sensible, pragmatic and successful combination.

 

[TGN]

Its not the Soviet style socialism that enslaves and impoverishes the population over which it rules...

Many refer to the Soviet union as state capitalist.

 

[Tigerace117]

Many refer to the Soviet union as state capitalist.

Uh......no. The Soviets were not capitalists.

 

[Carjosse]

Socialism is crashing and burning the world over and Sanders is just a snake oil salesman selling a " light " version of Socialism to the naive and ignorant.

Except that it isn't.

He appeals to those who think that Capitalism and Free markets caused the 2008 Crisis, to those think that Govt can and should be the arbiter of whats '' fair and equal ".

It was part of it.

Sanders is a liar and a fraud. He tries to sell Single Payer but never mentions the fact that his home State of Vermont had to abandon its Single Payer initaive because the tax increases needed to pay for it woud have crushed their economy

Single-payer relies on economies of scale, something Vermont cannot have but groups of states or the federal government would have that scale.

He rails against the evil banks but fails to mention the two most corrupt and influential Financial agencies involved in the 2008 Subprime Collapse.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who according to a 2011 SEC investigation committed unprecedented Securities fraud by hiding hundreds of Billions of dollars in worthless debt from the SEC

It wasn't " Capitalism " or the Free market that caussd the 2008 Subprime Crisis. It was unprecdented Govt intervention into the private sector economy that cause it

Responsible government regulation could have prevented all of it in the first place.

He says we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity by " investing in infrastructure " even though " Stimulus to increase aggregate demand " has failed miserably in the past.
Japan blew through 100 Trillion Yen in the 90's " investing in infrastructure " just so their economy could stagnate while their GDP to debt ratio grew to be the largest in the world.

Well the economy seems to have recovered and it worked for Canada.

 

[TGN]

Uh......no. The Soviets were not capitalists.

And yet Lenin introduced his New Economic Policy at the Tenth party congress of 1920 which allowed private and state capitalism. Then there were the Stahknovites. I guess you missed those details. And again I only pointed out that the USSR is referred to as a state capitalist society with state, rather than worker control, over production, wage differentials, etc.

 

[Tigerace117]

And yet Lenin introduced his New Economic Policy at the Tenth party congress of 1920 which allowed private and state capitalism. Then there were the Stahknovites. I guess you missed those details. And again I only pointed out that the USSR is referred to as a state capitalist society with state, rather than worker control, over production, wage differentials, etc.

You mean the "make up random numbers so you could screw over your fellow workers-ites"? Or the fact that things never worked that way once Lenin died?

As I recall, the NEP and the other non communist policies were disposed of fairly rapidly

 

[Kurmugeon]

True, honest, authentic Socialism will never come to any society, it is not within the flawed human nature to implement such a form of government.

But Progressive-Fasicsm, is already here.

What part of Eric Holder, Louis Lerner, Jan Brewer, "I got my Pen and Phone" Obama.... etc, etc, etc,..... don't you get?

-

 

[Van Basten]

Many refer to the Soviet union as state capitalist.

That is simply the go-to rhetoric for socialist apologists.

The Soviets were not capitalists.

 

[dimensionallava]

That is simply the go-to rhetoric for socialist apologists.

The Soviets were not capitalists.

what were they?

 

[Van Basten]

what were they?

In practice? Not communists and not capitalists.

The USSR was a collectivist oligarchy (for whatever reason, I've always liked this phrase) espousing ideas of totalitarian socialism. You could say they were socialists, just not the "proper" kind.

What do you call them?

 

[dimensionallava]

In practice? Not communists and not capitalists.

The USSR was a collectivist oligarchy espousing ideas of totalitarian socialism. You could say they were socialists, just not the "proper" kind.

What do you call them?

a socialist state with a state capitalist economy

 

[Van Basten]

a socialist state with a state capitalist economy

China has a state capitalist economy.

The only real capitalism going on in the USSR was during the 30's when American firms shamefully made a fortune in the days of Stalinism. If I'm mistaken though, I am open to a history lesson.

Do actual capitalist economists recognize the USSR as a totalitarian, state capitalist nation? I've only ever seen this rhetoric from far left apologists.

 

[dimensionallava]

China has a state capitalist economy.

The only real capitalism going on in the USSR was during the 30's when American firms shamefully made a fortune in the days of Stalinism. If I'm mistaken though, I am open to a history lesson.

Do actual capitalist economists recognize the USSR as a totalitarian, state capitalist nation? I've only ever seen this rhetoric from far left apologists.

it depends what year we are talking about, but they were a state dedicated by a constitution to the establishment of socialism, using state capitalism as a means to create socialism, there are also many different kinds of socialism, utopian socialism, scientifc socialism, "socialism in one country" like stalin and mao tried to implent.

The ussr was never totalitarian in any respect, totalitarianism was used to describe fascism. And many people used that word to criticize stalin by comparing him to hitler.

but this would be simlair to saying america lives in a totalitarian state today because rush limbaugh constantly says it about "the obama regime"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics#Soviet_Union

 

[Van Basten]

The ussr was never totalitarian in any respect, totalitarianism was used to describe fascism. And many people used that word to criticize stalin by comparing him to hitler.

No, Stalin's USSR was totalitarian.

And lol @ the awful Limbaugh example.

I'm not here for revisionism and red-tinted delusion, we're done.