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.
Some define it as state control while others describe it as either social or workers' control. How do you define it?
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.
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.
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
Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid aren't socialist programs? Of course they are.
why thank you sir thank you :2razz:Top notch bull****. I like your style, dimensionallava.
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
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
Fletch said: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.
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.
Except that it isn't.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.
It was part of it.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 ".
Single-payer relies on economies of scale, something Vermont cannot have but groups of states or the federal government would have that scale.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
Responsible government regulation could have prevented all of it in the first place.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
Well the economy seems to have recovered and it worked for Canada.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.
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.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.
Many refer to the Soviet union as state capitalist.
That is simply the go-to rhetoric for socialist apologists.
The Soviets were not capitalists.
what were they?
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
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.
No, Stalin's USSR was totalitarian.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?