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.
Very good sphinx-like answer. Not much of an addition to the debate, however. I would probably try to side-step too, were I on your team.
You are on my team, you just don't understand that you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Its interesting that countries with the better economic system cannot resist the one with the bad economic system, isn't it?
I do make some concessions for Cuba which was not merely a mess on its own. it was helped by being cut off from trade. However that just means there are two probable causes for its failure as a state.
Most socialist countries have been the victims of colonial powers, no kidding they didn't build a superpower's military overnight before getting trounced. I don't understand why you even think you're making a point here. Socialism is a threat to the wealthy, and so the wealthy don't permit it to succeed. It's pretty obvious if you bother to think about it for two seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t. raleigh fingers
Strictly speaking, true. All countries have socialist (gov't owned/operated) entities. The US has government owned/operated USPS, and government owned/operated public schools. The USPS is constantly in a pickle and begging for taxpayer bailouts. We spend more per pupil on K-12 than all but 2 or 3 nations, and our results are mediocre and declining, according to PISA testing.
An entity that is owned by a bourgeois government is not really socialist. The USPS being run as if it should return a profit is one obvious example of why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t. raleigh fingers
The nations that have tried to move to full-bore socialism, such as Venezuela, which even had government owned grocery chains, have been universally failures.
Capitalists sure do love exploiting and brutalizing poor countries and then blaming those countries for being poor.
Strictly speaking, "government owned" is called "state capitalism", not socialism.
Whatever it's called, I'm still baffled that so many democrats want to put their financial and economic welfare in the hands of the same organization that ran an operating loss for 20 years straight.
65% of Democrats have a "positive image of socialism."
I agree if "socialism" refers to social democratic market economies with a welfare state. Countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland have capitalist market economies paired with a government that insures the people have universal healthcare, affordable college, paid sick leave, holidays and so on. These countries have the highest standards of living, longest life spans and have the happiest populations.
65% of Democrats have a "positive image of socialism."
I agree if "socialism" refers to social democratic market economies with a welfare state. Countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland have capitalist market economies paired with a government that insures the people have universal healthcare, affordable college, paid sick leave, holidays and so on. These countries have the highest standards of living, longest life spans and have the happiest populations.
These countries don't also have our Federal Government. When's the last time we ran a budget surplus again?
Show me that the Feds can run a substantial budget surplus consistently for at least 20 consecutive years without raising taxes or fees, compromising quality of services and making a substantial dent in the national debt. Oh, and stop wasting money. Then we'll talk.
Last edited by albert648; 12-07-2021 at 10:08 PM..
Gallup: 65% of Democrats have a "positive image of socialism."
TRANSLATION: 65% of Democrats have no knowledge of world history and the history of governments, and no awareness of what has historically happened to nearly every government that has become socialist or taken on socialistic traits. Instead, they only know what the pushers of socialism have promised, but remain ignorant of what they have actually delivered.
As a Democrat, I associate my positive image of socialism as approving of Social Security and Medicare. As a very strong opponent of socialism, do you quite strongly wish your Social Security and Medicare could be abolished?
First, let me reiterate the definition of socialism. It is "collective (in practice, government) ownership of the means of production." The 'means of production' includes factories, farms, distribution, repair shops--anything that contributes towards putting goods and services in the hands of the end user.
It has proven a disastrous failure where ever tried, most recently in Venezuela, which has seen a massive diaspora after Hugo Chavez tried implementing socialism after winning election in 1998.
Yet according to this poll from Dec 6, 2021, 65% of American Democrats say they have a 'positive image' of socialism. That is a landslide number in today's context. It is up from 53% in 2010.
As a Democrat, I associate my positive image of socialism as approving of Social Security and Medicare. As a very strong opponent of socialism, do you quite strongly wish your Social Security and Medicare could be abolished?
As a Democrat, I associate my positive image of socialism as approving of Social Security and Medicare. As a very strong opponent of socialism, do you quite strongly wish your Social Security and Medicare could be abolished?
Social security and medicare are not socialism.
As for do I want social security/medicare in their current forms, yes. Especially social security. The returns on my FICA contributions are atrocious, assuming I even see that money when I retire.
At the least, let me opt out and use that money to top up my 401k.
As a Democrat, I associate my positive image of socialism as approving of Social Security and Medicare. As a very strong opponent of socialism, do you quite strongly wish your Social Security and Medicare could be abolished?
There’s a difference between social programs and a socialist government.
Not to mention socialism puts more people into poverty where the elite remain wealthy. There is no working, middle, upper middle, lower upper income earners in a socialist system. There is no movement in a socialist system. You do not move from poverty to wealthy in such a system, where in a capitalist system one can move from poverty to wealthy by a series of right moves and the wealthy can move to poverty by a series of bad moves. Those who speak ill of capitalism are economically illiterate.
You're talking about communism, not socialism. The stress should be on what happens to communist countries with the Soviet Union being the worst one of all!
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.
