Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds as though you wrote your definition after reading pages on the Democratic Socialists of America website.
It also doesn't sound as though you have never opened an economics textbook.
You left out one important part Democratic Socialism, as practiced in Scandinavian countries, in your above definition.
Also....Can you identify a significant reason why the Social Democratic model in, for example, Sweden doesn't hinder economic growth and why that can't be applied in the U.S. under current law? I doubt you can.
Your post is quite hyperbolic and reactionary.
Scandinavian countries are not democratic socialist. They are social democracies. There is no reason why the US cant be a social democracy. In fact, the US has had several social democratic presidents, the most famous of course is FDR, the most popular president in the last 100 years. Why you are so against it, I have no idea. Its definitely far better for the people, but of course, the donor class will take a hit, and many sees it as their mission to protect the special interests and the big money donor class.
But, the government should have free state universities. We now have free from k-12 and it simply needs to be extended to k-16. Yeah, yeah, I know we pay with taxes, but that is better than the gouging of American students that are in deep debt.
A civilized advanced country should have a National Health CARE PROGRAM. In fact, health care should be like an utility (electricity, water, Internet, etc) and available to all with little fuzz. There is no need for corporate America to male billions by simply acting as intermediaries between patients and health providers.
Otherwise, I am all in favor of capitalism since at this time it is the economic system that humans need to be motivated and be productive.
Capitalism also needs to be more empathetic to workers and not treat them as pseudo-slaves.
Then those who receive the welfare or government aid should not be allowed to vote or have children. If they commit crime, the sentence should be doubled.
Why should people on welfare be allowed to determine how to spend other people's money?
There's not one thing socialist government can do that is better. Not even one, none.
Post office? You have to be BSing here. Post office, by the government's own admission, is one of the most wasteful organization. It rakes in billions of loss each year. Try to compare the USPS with UPS, Fedex...
And FBI, CIA, military and police are part of socialism?
The military is a big socialist-type program. You ridicule the government that has given you the opportunity to benefit from computers, the internet, satellites, nuclear power and countless other government endeavors.
Then those who receive the welfare or government aid should not be allowed to vote or have children. If they commit crime, the sentence should be doubled.
Why should people on welfare be allowed to determine how to spend other people's money?
There should be no public welfare,period. What you propose just makes the schemes more expensive and does nothing to address the immorality of them.
Why should be people be given other people's money?
Would many of these countries have been able to afford such benefits had the U.S. not had their backs militarily for decades after WW2 ? Questionable. Each would have had to spend a lot more on defense.
Common right wing talking point but not really true. If you look at foreign aid as a % of GDP for example, these countries spend 10 times as much as the US. I dont hear you complain about that? That is their choice, but to say that they cant afford it without US military bases is absurd. These countries have a combined military budget 7 times as high as Russia. The military industrial complex are just scaring people with another boogeyman.
There should be no public welfare,period. What you propose just makes the schemes more expensive and does nothing to address the immorality of them.
Why should be people be given other people's money?
So you believe children who are born disabled and need care 24/7 should just ask for help from volunteers, and if they cant they should die?
There's not one thing socialist government can do that is better. Not even one, none.
Post office? You have to be BSing here. Post office, by the government's own admission, is one of the most wasteful organization. It rakes in billions of loss each year. Try to compare the USPS with UPS, Fedex...
And FBI, CIA, military and police are part of socialism?
I'm not defending socialism i'm just saying it exists in the USA,i gave a link pointing out a few examples. i'm still unsure of what your definition of socialism is.
But, the government should have free state universities. We now have free from k-12 and it simply needs to be extended to k-16. Yeah, yeah, I know we pay with taxes, but that is better than the gouging of American students that are in deep debt.
A civilized advanced country should have a National Health CARE PROGRAM. In fact, health care should be like an utility (electricity, water, Internet, etc) and available to all with little fuzz. There is no need for corporate America to male billions by simply acting as intermediaries between patients and health providers.
Otherwise, I am all in favor of capitalism since at this time it is the economic system that humans need to be motivated and be productive.
Capitalism also needs to be more empathetic to workers and not treat them as pseudo-slaves.
Actually, communism is an extreme form of socialism. So technically, you ARE preaching to it more than you realize. Let's look at the differences and similarities. Capitalism doesn't force empathy. It allows people to make the personal choice if they will be empathetic with others needs and give as they see fit. It forces people to take care of themselves instead of having people take care of each other. (This breeds complacency when people know their basic needs will be met whether they work or not) The US has adopted "some" socialist ideas (welfare, social security, etc..) but is far from socialist unless we continue to implement more socialist ideals.
Capitalism doesn't treat workers as slaves. It gives them the freedom to choose. They can choose to work for someone, or choose to start their own business and grow it to it's potential. They can choose to reap the full benefits and profits, or to share those with the public. In the end, they get to make the choice since they did the work.
Communism - From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - The government decides how much you must give to make everyone equal. All people are the same, therefore there is no class. All members of the state are considered equal. The government owns all means of production and land and everything else. People work for the government and output is distributed equally. Centralized government, planned economy, no private property. Complete government driven economy that can change on a whim.
Socialism - From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. - If you make more, you must give more to ensure equal distribution. Profits are distributed among society (not speaking of cash specifically). Class distinctions are diminished. Political distinctions remain. All members are considered equal, and laws are made to protect people from discrimination. All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption (housing, food, clothing, healthcare, etc..) Industries are collective efforts and the returns from those must benefit society as a whole. Economic activity are adjusted by the government to meet human needs and economic demand. Partial Government driven economy that can change on a whim. Socialists tend to agree that war is good for the economy by spurring production.
Capitalism - Capital is owned, operated, and traded in order to generate profits for individuals. Government does not get to assign winners and losers. Production for profit - Competition for ownership of capital drives economic activity and creates a price system that determines resource allocation. Profit is reinvested into the economy to fuel economic growth. People make the best decisions for themselves because they must live with the consequences of their actions. Freedom of choice. Consumer driven economy. War is bad for the economy as a whole. It diverts resources away from producing that would raise consumers' standards of living. (BTW...... the U.K. is classified as mostly capitalist.. not socialist.)
We all know that Karl Marx is well known for backing communism. He is also a key proponent for socialism since it has ties to communism. Socialism and Communism both work to ensure that no one really gets a leg up. If you want to start a business and become successful, you will be forced to distribute your wealth amongst others to benefit their needs. If those people that you work to benefit choose to work less in a socialist party, they distribute less while retaining their basic needs. You lose the freedom of choice as decision making powers are given to the government. The people have some control over decisions in a socialist party (with government still weighing in) where-as there is none in a communist party.
Why would anyone choose to work to contribute to society if they know their basic needs are covered? We see this in many welfare recipients already who have learned how to play the system.
Their healthcare is covered (Medicaid), their food is covered (food stamps, EBT), their housing is covered or at least subsidized (Section 8, gov't housing projects). Their basic needs are met, so anything else is just a bonus. I see handicapped tags hanging from the mirror of Corvettes, Cadillacs, and other expensive vehicles. I see people get out with no physical disability and go into the store only to buy their food with EBT, then get back in their expensive car and go back to their government provided housing. (Please don't start with the "people can have unseen disabilities... I am aware of that. But a lot of them only have a disability when it benefits them and prevents them from contributing to society)
If there were no socialist programs in place now, those same people would be forced to work for what they have. As these programs get put into place, some people will start to see those who work less get more, so they will begin to do the same. This only further adds to the burden that those individuals who do work must carry. Eventually the norm will be to lean on the government for more and more assistance and we slide from socialism into full up communism and for a little while, none will be the wiser. It's a slippery slope.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would many of these countries have been able to afford such benefits had the U.S. not had their backs militarily for decades after WW2 ? Questionable. Each would have had to spend a lot more on defense.
