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.
The Dems are okay with paying College Professors 6 figure money to teach 1 or 2 classes, and for tuition to outpace inflation. so I'm okay with the farmers getting a piece of the handout pie.
Very few Americans are starving to death, but lots of college grads with useless degrees cannot finds jobs, even in a great economy, so farmers are outproducing College professors.
That's almost literally one of the definitions of socialism -- the state distributing money & resources to those in need.
Edward Bernstein says you're wrong. Under Socialism, the State balances the share of the market with the private industry. It's a not a take over or confiscation like it would be under communism, but it takes over a larger share of it. Providing a subsidy to a farmer is no socialism.
Edward Bernstein says you're wrong. Under Socialism, the State balances the share of the market with the private industry. It's a not a take over or confiscation like it would be under communism, but it takes over a larger share of it. Providing a subsidy to a farmer is no socialism.
Socialism has nothing to do with the market or with ownership. You can create a system to achieve socialism based around the market, but it's not inherent or necessary for socialism. Socialism is about achieving a fair distribution of resources. That's it. Anything more is just someone's idea on the best way to get there.
Distributing resources to people in need is a core tenet of socialism, regardless of how it's delivered. Socialism delivered by subsidy is still socialism.
Socialism has nothing to do with the market or with ownership. You can create a system to achieve socialism based around the market, but it's not inherent or necessary for socialism. Socialism is about achieving a fair distribution of resources. That's it. Anything more is just someone's idea on the best way to get there.
Distributing resources to people in need is a core tenet of socialism, regardless of how it's delivered. Socialism delivered by subsidy is still socialism.
That's almost literally one of the definitions of socialism -- the state distributing money & resources to those in need.
No that's not "almost literally" a definition of socialism. Virtually every nation on earth would qualify as socialist under that definition.
The generally accepted definition of socialism is: collective ownership of the means of production. Means of production=any enterprise that contributes to getting goods and services into the hands of the end user, such as farms, factories, warehouses, stores, mining operations, etc.
Edward Bernstein says you're wrong. Under Socialism, the State balances the share of the market with the private industry. It's a not a take over or confiscation like it would be under communism, but it takes over a larger share of it. Providing a subsidy to a farmer is no socialism.
According to Republicans, anything and everything that flows from the government to the people is socialism, and must be stopped completely and eliminated before we instantaneously burst into the full flames of communism!
Unless of course it cynically benefits them somehow.
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.
