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.
So you actually believe the North Korean propaganda? It doesnt matter that the workers are literal slaves of a ruling all-powerful king? The workers actually own the means of production in North Korea and have a say?
Thats hilarious.
Yes, that is what happens under such a system. Look at the former Soviet Union and eastern European satellite states as well as former socialist states in Asia such as Vietnam and China. All these countries have abandoned socialism and collective ownership for private ownership with grand results in the development of the countries, the advancement of the standard of living and eventual human rights.
You are the one confused, my friend over the terms because the exact opposite, as we can see in North Korea and Cuba, is what evolves or devolves under the economic system known as socialism.
If you wish to call a welfare state under a system with private ownership in a liberal democracy 'socialism' that is your right to call it what you want, but it isn't, it is a welfare state.
So tell me about what kind of say the workers in North Korea have over their destiny...They dont own anything, least of all the means of production. They are just slaves of a dictator, no different than slaves of any feudal lord or king in medieval times. So the ruling lord can call it "socialism" to appeal to the masses for propaganda purposes, and people in educated countries that dont even live there will believe the propaganda?
What? These are federal programs. Not state programs. I absolutely do not want states to create a public safety net while we continue free movement of people within the US. That's madness. No country has ever done that. Its either federal or nothing.
Nonsense.
You are claiming a state can't implement socialist programs without a revolution. The federal programs in no way prevent states from creating more socialism. They would even help pay for it. If socialism is an attraction that will cause more people to move to that state it only means there will be more people to pay into it. If on the other hand it causes people to flee to another state maybe its a bad idea to start with.
Stop the excuses and get to work !!!
You are claiming a state can't implement socialist programs without a revolution. The federal programs in no way prevent states from creating more socialism. They would even help pay for it. If socialism is an attraction that will cause more people to move to that state it only means there will be more people to pay into it. If on the other hand it causes people to flee to another state maybe its a bad idea to start with.
Without a revolution? I dont know what you are talking about, but no country has ever had such a crazy divided system within their country as you are advocating. Anyone can just pick and choose whatever they want at different parts of their life cycle. Say you are a poor senior. So you just pick a state with great support for seniors that rely on people paying a lifetime of taxes into that system. Yet, you want freeloading on an epic scale to take place. Anyone who thinks this through understand how nonsensical this is.
The two terms are often conflated and used interchangeably, often with leftists in the US pointing to 'socialism' in Europe as a model they wish to follow. But in fact, there is no country in Europe today that has a socialist system, as socialism is the collective ownership of property, usually by the state.
Today, private property, production, banking and lending, housing, etc is all almost totally privately owned in Europe. What they do have is a well established welfare state of state run programs financed by high taxation. This is a welfare state, not socialism.
In fact, there are really only two purely socialist states renaming in the world-North Korea and Cuba. Bernie, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, calls for socialism, but he isn't clear what he means exactly. We can hope he means a strong welfare state, not what the former Soviet Union and today's Cuba and North Korea practice, where one waits years for a one bedroom apartment or a state vehicle.
I have never done this, and frankly, I wish others, including Bernie, who I like very much otherwise, would stop. It clouds the issue and scares the bejeezus out of people.
Without a revolution? I dont know what you are talking about, but no country has ever had such a crazy divided system within their country as you are advocating. Anyone can just pick and choose whatever they want at different parts of their life cycle. Say you are a poor senior. So you just pick a state with great support for seniors that rely on people paying a lifetime of taxes into that system. Yet, you want freeloading on an epic scale to take place. Anyone who thinks this through understand how nonsensical this is.
You have that now with people retiring to low taxed states like Florida when they retire.
You are really going all out with the excuses. Meet the challenges. Just b/c something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done. There was a time when people didn't have lightbulbs b/c no one ever tried making one.
Whats crazy is experimenting with the lives of over 300 million people on a system that's a proven failure.
You have that now with people retiring to low taxed states like Florida when they retire.
No, we have some states offering some lower taxes in a race to the bottom so people dont have to finance schools anymore when they no longer have children, even though they benefited from the elderly paying into their own school budgets when they were younger. So its freeloading on a smaller scale. A far cry from states offering full-on public safety nets paid for by state residents' taxes.
No country has ever done what you propose. Because its madness. All developed countries have done something else though. That is to guarantee health care as a right for everyone, regardless of the zip code in their country.
You need a link to know that the Soviet Union called itself socialist? Do you believe it was part of the dictatorship propaganda to appeal to workers? Or do you believe that workers actually had a say?
Yes, I need a link or quotation for any of your imaginary statements. I'm still waiting for a citation of a post where I said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
So no more Fox News rhetoric from you about single payer and welfare being socialist?
We have some people on both the right and the left who vehemently will deny that a welfare state is socialism. Usually for opposite reasons. We even have people who for years have demonized welfare policies as socialism and then turn around and say that tax funded programs are not socialism, but just part of a capitalist mixed economy.
Socialistic programs does not make the country's political system socialism. At its core, it is still capitalism.
True socialism is very different than the United States' system of government.
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.
