• 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!

Trump’s war on socialism will fail

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
111,209
Reaction score
101,523
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump’s war on socialism will fail

“We socialists are trying to save capitalism, and the damned capitalists won’t let us.” Political scientist Mason B. Williams cited this cheeky but accurate comment by New Deal lawyer Jerome Frank to make a point easily lost in the new war on socialism that President Trump has launched: Socialism goes back a long way in the United States, and it has taken doses of it to keep the market system alive. In his State of the Union address last week, Trump cast himself as Horatius at the bridge standing against the Red Menace: “We renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” We should be clear that Trump’s words are entirely about reelection politics. He wants to tar all Democrats as “socialists” and then define socialism as antithetical to American values. “America was founded on liberty and independence, and not government coercion, domination and control,” he declared. “We are born free, and we will stay free.” Cue Lee Greenwood. But attacking socialism isn't the cakewalk it used to be. During the Cold War, it was easy to frighten Americans with the s-word because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics offered a powerful example of the oppression that state control of all of the means of production could unleash. The Soviet Union, however, has been dead for nearly three decades. China is communist on paper but a wildly unequal crony capitalist dictatorship in practice. Young Americans especially are far more likely to associate “socialism” with generous social insurance states than with jackboots and gulags. Sweden, Norway and Denmark are anything but frightening places.

The 2018 PRRI American Values Survey offered respondents two definitions of socialism. One described it as “a system of government that provides citizens with health insurance, retirement support and access to free higher education,” essentially a description of social democracy. The other was the full Soviet dose: “a system where the government controls key parts of the economy, such as utilities, transportation and communications industries.” You might say that socialism is winning the branding war: Fifty-four percent said socialism was about those public benefits, while just 43 percent picked the version that stressed government domination. Americans ages 18 to 29, for whom Cold War memories are dim to nonexistent, were even more inclined to define socialism as social democracy: Fifty-eight percent of them picked the soft option, 38 percent the hard one. Oh, yes, and on those tax increases that conservatives love to hate — and associate with socialism of the creeping kind — a Fox News poll last week found that 70 percent of Americans favored raising taxes on families with incomes of over $10 million. Trump will still probably get some traction with his attacks on socialism. And progressives should remember that social democratic ideas associated with fairness and expanding individual freedoms — to get health care or go to college, for example — are more popular than those restricting choice. Nonetheless, Jerome Frank was right: Those slurred as socialists really do have a good track record of making capitalism work better and more justly. The s-word is not now, and, in its democratic forms, never should have been, an obscenity.

According to The New York Times, the richest 1% in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%.

Americans have grown tired of this absurd inequality. The Trump/GOP Party exacerbated this inequality via the 2017 TCJA tax-cut bonanza for the wealthy.
 
I'm just curious, do Socialists believe that someone starting with a basic education can enter the workforce and achieve financial success on their own or is government intervention necessary for them to achieve financial success? Also, do Socialists believe that the individual bears any responsibility for their economic success or lack thereof?
 
According to The New York Times, the richest 1% in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%.

Americans have grown tired of this absurd inequality. The Trump/GOP Party exacerbated this inequality via the 2017 TCJA tax-cut bonanza for the wealthy.
Inequality has historically increased more under Democrat leadership than Republican leadership, and is far worse in Blue states and large, Blue cities which are all but entirely run by Democrats. Why anyone who actually cares about income inequality would turn to the Democrats for help is beyond me.
 
I'm just curious, do Socialists believe that someone starting with a basic education can enter the workforce and achieve financial success on their own or is government intervention necessary for them to achieve financial success? Also, do Socialists believe that the individual bears any responsibility for their economic success or lack thereof?

You seem sorta bright. Why don't you just ask a socialist Luther?
 
"War on socialism." :lol:
 
I just want the United States to be a moderate social democracy like the Nordic states. Is it really that hard?
 
Trump’s war on socialism will fail



According to The New York Times, the richest 1% in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%.

Americans have grown tired of this absurd inequality. The Trump/GOP Party exacerbated this inequality via the 2017 TCJA tax-cut bonanza for the wealthy.
I'm not sure how "fail" is defined, when one declares "war" on a non-existent threat?
 
I just want the United States to be a moderate social democracy like the Nordic states. Is it really that hard?

The beautiful thing about America is that we don't force you to stay here if you don't want to. Feel free to go to a place you want to experience. Live there. Work there. If you like it, stay. If you don't then we'll welcome you back....unless you happened to join ISIS while you were away.
 
I just want the United States to be a moderate social democracy like the Nordic states. Is it really that hard?
Yep. And if I can't get that, at the least I'd like to get Debate Politics to add "Social Democrat" to the "lean" selection, so I can get rid of my goofy "Libertarian-Left" moniker!
 
The beautiful thing about America is that we don't force you to stay here if you don't want to. Feel free to go to a place you want to experience. Live there. Work there. If you like it, stay. If you don't then we'll welcome you back....unless you happened to join ISIS while you were away.

I didn't say I wanted to live in a moderate social democracy, I said I wanted the United States to be one. Too many Americans are being denied basic human rights, like the right to health care. You can't just turn your back to your nation when it's in trouble, you need to fight for it.
 
The only way that rhetoric works is if socialists continue to count on idiot leftist supporters that believe the 1% that have accumulated wealth have somehow done it at the expense of the downtrodden or if they manage to convince them that those that have accumulated great wealth are oppressing them. Agree...that may happen...but only because people are literally stupid enough to believe the **** the socialists peddle.
 
The socialists (crypto-communists really) just can't stand that their ideas are a failure and always will be. They would be so much easier to peddle otherwise. They dream of stuff that is NEVER going to happen here, or at least not without a lot of blood spillage. People aren't giving up their wealth, their healthcare, their guns or their FREEDOM because a bunch a whiny, lying leftwingers think it's a good idea. The ideas they support will DESTROY the country. Of that, there can be no question.

They talk of taxing the rich more but that isn't what they really want. They lie about what their real aims are: wealth redistribution of an aggressive kind, the confiscation of all private firearms (ie. those belonging to non-criminals), the government running healthcare, energy, education, transportation and any other thing they think they can steal. Them telling you what to eat, drink, wear. drive, say and think with the threat of some punishment if you don't cave in. Oh, and who will be exempt from all these strictures? Why the lying, thieving people at the top who have told us how morally deficient we all are. Nobody should be fooled. They can use weasel words but taking control of every aspect of your life is what they really crave. It's a sick obsession with power and control and every person interested in liberty should be aware. This is especially so for the wet behind the ears types who have been recently turned out by our "re-education" system.
 
The only way that rhetoric works is if socialists continue to count on idiot leftist supporters that believe the 1% that have accumulated wealth have somehow done it at the expense of the downtrodden or if they manage to convince them that those that have accumulated great wealth are oppressing them. Agree...that may happen...but only because people are literally stupid enough to believe the **** the socialists peddle.

I'm no socialist (though I am a social democrat), but the 1%'s accumulation of wealth at the expense of the rest of the country certainly is a problem. The Citizens United decision makes it possible for the turbo-rich to spend unlimited quantities of money on politics, basically allowing them to buy and sell politicians in a manner that will further enrich themselves at the expense of everybody else.
 
I didn't say I wanted to live in a moderate social democracy, I said I wanted the United States to be one. Too many Americans are being denied basic human rights, like the right to health care. You can't just turn your back to your nation when it's in trouble, you need to fight for it.

Now I'm lost.

So you're saying that once you turn the US into a moderate social democracy you're going to move away?
 
I'm no socialist (though I am a social democrat), but the 1%'s accumulation of wealth at the expense of the rest of the country certainly is a problem. The Citizens United decision makes it possible for the turbo-rich to spend unlimited quantities of money on politics, basically allowing them to buy and sell politicians in a manner that will further enrich themselves at the expense of everybody else.

The 1% doesn’t accumulate their wealth at the expense of anyone. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from being successful. Well...except maybe you.

Does Bernie Sanders accumulation of 3 homes and a net worth of 15 million or so impact you in the least? Of course not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Trump anti-socialism hysteria is just the same old John Birch Society bullcrap rebooted again for the tenth or twelfth time. Period, end of story.
 
Yep. And if I can't get that, at the least I'd like to get Debate Politics to add "Social Democrat" to the "lean" selection, so I can get rid of my goofy "Libertarian-Left" moniker!

That's why I decided not to choose a lean or label at all, I didn't see one that fit.
 
I just want the United States to be a moderate social democracy like the Nordic states. Is it really that hard?

You used two bad words there that scares the hell out of cultists.

Moderate, and socialist, they have zero understanding of either...
 
I'm just curious, do Socialists believe that someone starting with a basic education can enter the workforce and achieve financial success on their own or is government intervention necessary for them to achieve financial success? Also, do Socialists believe that the individual bears any responsibility for their economic success or lack thereof?

Of course they do. They don't want CORPORATISM/FASCISM as the current crop of degenerates in Washington do.
/
 
I just want the United States to be a moderate social democracy like the Nordic states. Is it really that hard?

Don't you know the Nordic states are all Communist? /satire
 
The 1% doesn’t accumulate their wealth at the expense of anyone. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from being successful. Well...except maybe you.

Does Bernie Sanders accumulation of 3 homes and a net worth of 15 million or so impact you in the least? Of course not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not everyone has what is takes to be a millionaire. Some (many? most?) people don't want to live to work, they just want to work to live. That's okay and they shouldn't penalized for focusing on things they view as more important than work (not saying that they shouldn't work, just saying that people have different priorities).

Also, the wealthy have a tendency to hoard their money, leaving less money in circulation for the lower and middle classes. Yes, some rich folks do donate generously to charity, but it's not quite enough to offset the damage done by the people who just sit on their money.

One last thing, you didn't address the point I made about extreme and obscene wealth giving the rich to control politicians and further "crony capitalism."
 
I think you know what I meant, I just worded it inelegantly.

So, instead of moving somewhere that provides the form of government you prefer, your proposal is to impose your preference on everyone else without regard to whether that's something they want?
 
Back
Top Bottom