Judge Jeanine Pirro: Think socialism can never happen here? Just look at the left and the last 10 days

  
Via:  donald-trump-fan1  •  5 months ago  •  120 comments

Judge Jeanine Pirro: Think socialism can never happen here? Just look at the left and the last 10 days
This is a group of people that actually sits on their hands when the president of the United States says he wants to stop human trafficking. A group that sits on their hands when the president says he wants to end childhood cancer. And they sit on their hands when he says he wants to have a plan to eradicate AIDS. Who are these people? They are people who are more hateful of one man, our president, that it matters not that he wants to protect babies or stop human trafficking or eradicate...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T









We are reaching a turning point that will forever determine our future -- how we live our lives and how our children will live theirs.  The gap between the ever-widening left and right has never been wider, and yet amazingly it continues to widen.

Every time we turn on a TV, open a laptop or listen to the radio, another bizarre, offbeat, outlandish idea brings us closer to socialism and the destruction of capitalism. And it is being pushed by the left.

So you have a decision to make. Do you want to live in a country where no matter how hard you work, no matter what you do or how much you succeed, you simply won't improve your lot?

Do you want to benefit from your own success or would you prefer to let the government take over and use your benefit to pay everyone else?

In the last few weeks, the left has removed its moderate mask to show its true socialist colors as they cheer laws that allow for the killing of babies already born and born alive, giving the mother the right of a thumbs up or thumbs down like an emperor in the Roman Coliseum. And almost every one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates supports the New Green Deal proposed by a freshman congresswoman so knowledgeable about Washington that she thinks she came here to sign bills! And her New Green Deal will literally pull planes out of the sky.

No issue, I guess, since the left is happy with the influx coming in through our southern border. No air travel required for them.

This Green New Deal is supported by Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, by Senators Sanders, Gillibrand and Warren and requires that every building in America be rebuilt for environmental reasons and that high-speed rail be developed so that air travel becomes unnecessary.

The New Green Deal foresees Medicare for all and considers a deficit not that big of a deal, because, according to Ocasio-Cortez, we can just print more money.

You know what? You should have left your Monopoly game home when you came to Washington, Ms Ocasio-Cortez.

But my favorite part of the New Green Deal is where they seek a net zero greenhouse gas in 10 years.

So you may ask why “net zero” as opposed to zero? The reason is that they are not sure they will be able to get rid of bovine flatulence. I can't believe I just said that -- aka, cows farting.

These emissions from cows are of concern to the left because these bovine emissions have an environmental impact and the methane gas produced by the bovine flatulence contributes to the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Need I say more?!

And their hypocrisy. It knows no bounds as they hang on to dear life -- political life, albeit -- in the State of Virginia where the governor and the attorney general dressed in blackface and the governor comes out and says that he is now going to explore the issue of white privilege and pursue an agenda of racial reconciliation. -- Talk about trying to deflect an issue from yourself to everyone else. And he even says it was a terrible week for Virginia. --No, governor, it was a terrible week for YOU!

And now, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax is accused of forcible sexual assault and forcible rape. Although the date of one attack was 16 years ago and the other 15 years ago, the victims each have very specific recollections. One has classmates who corroborate her immediate outcry that Fairfax raped her. One victim remembers the date, the time, the place, and telling her classmates.

One involves a doctor who says that she was forced to perform oral sex on Lt. Gov. Fairfax, and although she did not bring it up until years later, it's a far cry from the demands of the left that Brett Kavanaugh remove himself as a candidate for the Supreme Court for something that allegedly happened more than 35 years ago with an alleged victim who didn't remember where it happened, when it happened, and who never reported it to anyone. Fairfax's victim has the date, place, time.

So what I want to know is, where are the Democratic senators who turned the Constitution on its head for Kavanaugh saying that all women need to be believed?

Now where are all the women in their pink hats? Where are the women who suffered sexual assault storming the doors of the Capitol during the Kavanaugh hearings?

Where are those women, who refused to allow the elevator door to close in the Senate as they had a fit and sought to blame Brett Kavanaugh for their own distress?

I guess, if the accused is a Democrat, the rules don't matter.  And so it seems the Democrats don't care if someone is in blackface, happens to be a Democrat or if someone accused of sexual assault happens to be a Democrat, or if a baby is murdered after it is born.

This is a group of people that actually sits on their hands when the president of the United States says he wants to stop human trafficking.

A group that sits on their hands when the president says he wants to end childhood cancer.

And they sit on their hands when he says he wants to have a plan to eradicate AIDS.

Who are these people? They are people who are more hateful of one man, our president, that it matters not that he wants to protect babies or stop human trafficking or eradicate AIDS.

I'll tell you who they are. They are people who don't care about us. They only care about power and making sure that they keep it.

And, for all of you who can't make sense of why normal thinking people would not support a border and not care if illegals including MS-13 members come into our country, you need to understand that this group knows that they have lost Americans and their only hope is to get immigrants and illegal immigrants into our country so that they can maintain their power base.

And if you think socialism will never happen in this country, just take a look at what has happened in the last 10 days and ask yourself that question one more time.

Jeanine Pirro currently hosts Justice with Judge Jeanine (Saturday, 9PM/ET). She also serves as a legal analyst for FOX News Channel (FNC) where she provides legal insight across the network’s programming. She joined the network in 2006 and is based out of New York. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
XXJefferson#51
1  seeder  XXJefferson#51    5 months ago

“So you have a decision to make. Do you want to live in a country where no matter how hard you work, no matter what you do or how much you succeed, you simply won't improve your lot?

Do you want to benefit from your own success or would you prefer to let the government take over and use your benefit to pay everyone else?

In the last few weeks, the left has removed its moderate mask to show its true socialist colors as they cheer laws that allow for the killing of babies already born and born alive, giving the mother the right of a thumbs up or thumbs down like an emperor in the Roman Coliseum. And almost every one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates supports the New Green Deal proposed by a freshman congresswoman so knowledgeable about Washington that she thinks she came here to sign bills! And her New Green Deal will literally pull planes out of the sky.

No issue, I guess, since the left is happy with the influx coming in through our southern border. No air travel required for them.

This Green New Deal is supported by Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, by Senators Sanders, Gillibrand and Warren and requires that every building in America be rebuilt for environmental reasons and that high-speed rail be developed so that air travel becomes unnecessary.

The New Green Deal foresees Medicare for all and considers a deficit not that big of a deal, because, according to Ocasio-Cortez, we can just print more money.

You know what? You should have left your Monopoly game home when you came to Washington, Ms Ocasio-Cortez.”

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    5 months ago
And now, Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax is accused of forcible sexual assault and forcible rape. Although the date of one attack was 16 years ago and the other 15 years ago, the victims each have very specific recollections. One has classmates who corroborate her immediate outcry that Fairfax raped her. One victim remembers the date, the time, the place, and telling her classmates.

One involves a doctor who says that she was forced to perform oral sex on Lt. Gov. Fairfax, and although she did not bring it up until years later, it's a far cry from the demands of the left that Brett Kavanaugh remove himself as a candidate for the Supreme Court for something that allegedly happened more than 35 years ago with an alleged victim who didn't remember where it happened, when it happened, and who never reported it to anyone. Fairfax's victim has the date, place, time.

So what I want to know is, where are the Democratic senators who turned the Constitution on its head for Kavanaugh saying that all women need to be believed?

Now where are all the women in their pink hats? Where are the women who suffered sexual assault storming the doors of the Capitol during the Kavanaugh hearings?

Where are those women, who refused to allow the elevator door to close in the Senate as they had a fit and sought to blame Brett Kavanaugh for their own distress?

I guess, if the accused is a Democrat, the rules don't matter. And so it seems the Democrats don't care if someone is in blackface, happens to be a Democrat or if someone accused of sexual assault happens to be a Democrat, or if a baby is murdered after it is born.

This entire section, which is about half the article , is nonsense. Why do you seed such crap?  Most Democrats that I know of have called for the Virginia blackfacers and (accused) rapers to resign. These people are not up for election or new appointment at the moment, and unless they are impeached they have to leave on their own. Kavanaugh went up for a vote.

Judge Jeanine is a shameless right wing hack , who even though she is in her mid 60's (and thus too old for the 72 year old Trump), is still wearing low cut blouses and dresses trying to get Trump to notice her longing for him. It's quite touching. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago

Ahhh - the pot calling the kettle black - interesting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago
Most Democrats that I know of have called for the Virginia blackfacers and (accused) rapers to resign.

You mean after they had no choice?  What did they say in the beginning? (The party that claims you must believe women)

"I don’t want to get into that,” said Feinstein, after saying that she “doesn’t know” who Justin Fairfax is!

“It’s premature,” said Kaine, explaining why he isn’t calling for the resignation for Fairfax who is “someone we know real well” and“denies the charges unequivocally.”

“I haven’t had the chance to see her. I did have the chance to see Dr. Blasey Ford testify right in the room in front of me. So she had a chance to display great personal credibility. I have not seen this other witness or victim,”
said Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

“Busy with bills and focused on matters at hand right now,” said leader of Virginia House Democrats Eileen Filler-Corn.

 Kavanaugh went up for a vote.

In that case, Ford couldn't even prove she met him. Here in the Fairfax case there is proof of sex taking place and some corroboration. You guys didn't want Kavanaugh on the Court so you dragged him through the mud. "What goes around comes around"!

unless they are impeached they have to leave on their own.

That's the best part. I hope they keep this issue going right up to the 2020 election.

Judge Jeanine is a shameless right wing hack , who even though she is in her mid 60's (and thus too old for the 72 year old Trump), is still wearing low cut blouses and dresses 

She is 67 to be exact and we all should look half as good at that age. What ever her diet should be bottled and sent to the rest of the women!  jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    5 months ago
She is 67 to be exact and we all should look half as good at that age

I don't disagree. She has the hots for her he-man Trump though.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    5 months ago
She has the hots for her he-man Trump though

Why do I feel as if you are jealous she has a fair better shot at Trump than you? Your hatred of Trump through the judge is quite creepy.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.3  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago

I kinda wish  the [Deleted] continue their far left swerve into collective insanity. It's damn entertaining to watch this once proud party self destruct. I even voted for JFK, and they sure need someone like him again.

It they don't do a 180 degree course correction soon, they are going to handed their worse defeat in decades. The silent majority of hardworking and patriotic Americans are watching this clown show, and sadly shaking their heads at all the lunacy on display by the left. They are rushing headlong into losing their slight advantage in the House, and never coming close to getting a Democrat in the White House.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.3.1  WallyW  replied to  WallyW @2.3    5 months ago

I was using modifiers to describe the Democrats. It was not a sweeping generalization, but my honest opinion of them as a political party. This censorship is getting pretty petty, sure be glad when we update the CoC.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  WallyW @2.3.1    5 months ago

Your opinion and "sweeping generalization" are not mutually exclusive.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.4  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago
Judge Jeanine is a shameless right wing hack , who even though she is in her mid 60's (and thus too old for the 72 year old Trump), is still wearing low cut blouses and dresses trying to get Trump to notice her longing for him. 

Ageism and misogyny attacks in one sentence. Bravo!

Other than what you think are low cut blouses, exactly why do you believe that Judge Jeanine Pirro is "shameless", John? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 months ago
who even though she is in her mid 60's (and thus too old for the 72 year old Trump), is still wearing low cut blouses and dresses

Slut shaming and ageism. How wonderful. /s

Democrats love to say Republicans are sex-obsessed prudes but at least around here, I see it a lot more from the Left than I do from the Right.

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     5 months ago

The VA Democratic Party and numerous senior democratic politicians has asked/demanded that he resign.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Kavika @3    5 months ago

If all three were to resign a Republican would become governor of Virginia. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @3    5 months ago

What did the leader of the Virginia House democrats say?

 
 
 
Kavika
3.2.1  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    5 months ago

The same thing that Steve King said...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @3.2.1    5 months ago



Eileen Filler-Corn said something King said? What was that?

 
 
 
bbl-1
4  bbl-1    5 months ago

Will the term socialism in GOP/World become the new 'Lock her up' or 'Crooked Hillary'?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bbl-1 @4    5 months ago

Socialism is the siren song of Alexandra Ocrazyo Cortez and hopefully so.  Socialism is America’s enemy #1 now.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    5 months ago

What, specifically, about what you call 'socialism' concerns you the most?

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    5 months ago

I'm guessing Social Security first,

mandatory Home owners insurance second and other insurances after that....

and here's an opinion from the interweb

Is the US “Socialist”? Well, we certainly are when it comes to bailing out “capitalists” who irresponsibly wreck our economy and then come whining to President Bush to make them rich again after losing it all. After the plunder of the Real Estate bubble had run its course, and the “losers” were determined, these billionaires lined up at the front door to the White House begging for money, and they got it. A country can’t get more “socialistic” than that. The Bush administration gave them billions, all of which came from the taxes of decent hard working citizens, many of whom were wiped out by that corrupt Real Estate fraud.
Don Emerson, former Union Member for 25 Years
 
 
 
epistte
4.1.3  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    5 months ago
What, specifically, about what you call 'socialism' concerns you the most?

He doesn't understand what socialism would mean, and he equates the economic idea of socialism with an authoritarian government.

Fox News that their viewers do not understand basic economic concepts that aren't spoon fed to them in sound bites and that their viewers typically respond with fear instead of by learning from respected sources. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1    5 months ago

Siren song?  "Grab em' by the puffy."  Conservatism should let it go at that and quit while they're ahead.  Well, ahead--------could be a matter of definition.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
4.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    5 months ago

Most of us have the Fox Business Network as well as Investors Business Daily and The Wall St. Journal and understand the economy and business news as well or better than anyone else.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    5 months ago
He doesn't understand what socialism would mean

It's easy to comprehend it. Get on a plane to Miami Florida and ask any elderly individual in that community what it means. They will have a detailed answer.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.7  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.5    5 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Of course you do....

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.8  WallyW  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    5 months ago

by learning from respected sources. 

What sources do you respect?

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.9  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @4.1.5    5 months ago
Most of us have the Fox Business Network as well as Investors Business Daily and The Wall St. Journal and understand the economy and business news as well or better than anyone else.   

Do you not see the obvious bias inherent in those conservative sources?

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.10  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    5 months ago
It's easy to comprehend it. Get on a plane to Miami Florida and ask any elderly individual in that community what it means. They will have a detailed answer.

When was the last time that myself or other progressives ever mentioned Cuba as an example of democratic market socialism?

Here's a hint; It isn't and neither is Russia, Venezuela, N. Korea, or E. Germany.  It is your own ignorance of the economic concept that it is the problem because you cannot discuss the subject in an intelligent and rational manner, so you fall back on emotions.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1.11  KDMichigan  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    5 months ago
He doesn't understand what socialism would mean,

Well enlighten us then. What does "Democratic socialism" "Social Democrat" whatever term you want to use to make yourself feel better, mean to you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  KDMichigan @4.1.11    5 months ago

The meanings of these terms are established.   They are not personal opinion.   But even advocates such as Sanders and Cortez get it wrong.  They call themselves Democratic Socialists and then propose liberal and social democracy policies.

Democratic socialism is a category.   It refers to systems with distributed control over the productive resources of the economy.  The people collectively control the productive resources of the economy - not a minority as in capitalism.   Key is the notion of workplace democracy, regional capitalization and an active, engaged community.   These systems are all theoretical; some elements exist today (such as workplace democracy) but societies would have to evolve for these systems to go into effect at a national level.

Social democracy, in contrast, is highly regulated capitalism that funds a 'benevolent' government offering public services.   It is a form of capitalism.   Social democracy has been in place at a national level for about 75 years.   Heavily used in Europe.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.13  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.12    5 months ago
The meanings of these terms are established.   They are not personal opinion.   But even advocates such as Sanders and Cortez get it wrong.  They call themselves Democratic Socialists and then propose liberal and social democracy policies.

Democratic socialism is a category.   It refers to systems with distributed control over the productive resources of the economy.  The people collectively control the productive resources of the economy - not a minority as in capitalism.   Key is the notion of workplace democracy, regional capitalization and an active, engaged community.   These systems are all theoretical; some elements exist today (such as workplace democracy) but societies would have to evolve for these systems to go into effect at a national level.

Social democracy, in contrast, is highly regulated capitalism that funds a 'benevolent' government offering public services.   It is a form of capitalism.   Social democracy has been in place at a national level for about 75 years.   Heavily used in Europe.

Thank you. You stated it better than my reply would have been.

 
 
 
nightwalker
4.2  nightwalker  replied to  bbl-1 @4    5 months ago

no, socialism is too long a word and doesn't rhyme with anything. They'll have to stick with jail her.

trump tried to start the next bumper sticker "the wall goes up then crime goes down" but it's too long and doesn't rhyme either. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5  tomwcraig    5 months ago

We have already accepted Socialism in this country.  We have been at least a semi-Socialist nation with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935.  And, that Socialism has been deeply ingrained into our psyche.  That Socialism was expanded with Medicare Part D and the PPACA.  What we are in the middle of is an identity crisis due to that Socialism.  Do we continue on the path to providing everything to everyone without thought to the costs and eventually have the system collapse as it is doing in Venezuela, or do we stop the progression of that Socialism and return to the independence and self-reliance this country was built on by the colonists to the pioneers in the Oregon Territory?  I prefer to return to the independence and self-reliance of the pioneers; but I will take advantage of the Socialism we currently have.  A person would be a fool not to when they are without a job and other resources and been turned down at multiple jobs for various reasons, including a lack of funding at a state government agency after interviewing for a job with said agency.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @5    5 months ago

What you call socialism is actually social democracy or, to be more generic, statism.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
5.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    5 months ago
What you call socialism is actually social democracy or, to be more generic, statism.

Yes Statism, which the founders rejected forthrightly and completely, at least the monarchical version....

And tried to set up a government to prevent it from ever taking root...

But people keep trying and will keep trying until they get it and learn that it wasn't what they really wanted after all, much like Venezuela has recently learned.

But that's no matter, they are going to keep trying cause no one else has done it right. At least that is the argument they use.......

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.1    5 months ago

Venezuela is an extreme case of statism.   Shows how bad things can get - an all powerful state (government) is historically a nightmare for the people.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    5 months ago

What I call Socialism is Socialism.  You are trying the old bait-and-switch, TiG.  Socialism is both an economic and governmental system.  Statism is where the State comes first in all things.  Socialism is where a government or society ends up trying to support itself not through individualism and self-responsibility but through taking from those that were self-responsible and individually wealthy through hard work and gives it to someone whom the government decided was disadvantaged.  The problem with that system is that it will eventually collapse due to people deciding that it is foolish to work hard as someone else comes in and takes their money and/or property to give to someone else.  It, like Ancient Athenian Democracy ends up becoming a dictatorship as shown by Venezuela.  Their Socialist form of economy began in the 1950s and continued being exacerbated until now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.3    5 months ago
You are trying the old bait-and-switch, TiG.

No, I am encouraging people to learn and then use labels properly.    Think about that.   What would be my motivation to 'bait and switch'?    

Socialism is both an economic and governmental system. 

Socialism is an economic system at its core, but it of course would be part of a socio-economic/political system.

Statism is where the State comes first in all things. 

True.   Statism is "A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.".  (Oxford)

But that does not apply to Venezuela, eh?

Socialism is where a government or society ends up trying to support itself not through individualism and self-responsibility but through taking from those that were self-responsible and individually wealthy through hard work and gives it to someone whom the government decided was disadvantaged. 

That is Statism (at least the government part; the society part would be tyranny of the majority) engaging in the practice of redistribution of wealth.   Your definition does not even touch on the underlying economic system.   Socialism, when the label is used properly, is based on distributed economic control and the need for the demos to be more active and involved in the economic (and other) affairs of their lives.   In contrast to capitalism where economic control is held by a minority, under socialism it is held by the demos.  In theory of course.

The problem with that system [authoritative State expropriating private property and engaging in a command economy] is that it will eventually collapse due to people deciding that it is foolish to work hard as someone else comes in and takes their money and/or property to give to someone else. 

Of course it will.   What you call 'socialism' is an authoritative State expropriating private property and engaging in a command economy.   That is an entirely crappy system.   We agree on the assessment of such a system.   The problem is the labeling.   The word 'socialism' actually means something entirely different from how it is commonly used.   Socialism is commonly used as a pejorative for any system that is bad.   The term is so overloaded it has lost its meaning.

And look at what you just did.   You actually tried to argue that Venezuela is not Statism.   You apparently are compelled to employ the pejorative usage of 'socialism' - a term that even in pejorative usage has conflicted meaning - and inexplicably argue against using a term that is well-defined and appropriate for the circumstances.

And then, backing up to your definition of 'socialism':  

Socialism is where a government or society ends up trying to support itself not through individualism and self-responsibility but through taking from those that were self-responsible and individually wealthy through hard work and gives it to someone whom the government decided was disadvantaged. 

That is the definition for redistribution of wealth, not socialism.  Why use 'socialism' rather than a well-defined term that clearly expresses your meaning?   

Finally, when you call things 'socialism' you make your comments vague and contradictory.   People use the label 'socialism' to mean everything from a government that provides public services (every government then would be socialist) to a brutal authoritarian command economy.   The unqualified term is overloaded and rendered meaningless.

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.5  WallyW  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    5 months ago

You know the nonsense that the far left, including Uncle Bernie and AOC, is trying to shove down our throats?

To me and millions of others that amounts to out of control "socialism" or whatever one wishes to call it.

It's unworkable and affordable and most American citizens don't want it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  WallyW @5.1.5    5 months ago
To me and millions of others that amounts to out of control "socialism" or whatever one wishes to call it.

Well if you simply label it 'socialism' you have not provided any information.   If you instead call it 'redistribution of wealth' or 'statism' or 'social democracy' or whatever well-defined term expresses your thought, then your audience will know what you are saying.

( 'you' in the above is generic )

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @5    5 months ago
We have already accepted Socialism in this country.

If you had a big tub full of water and heated to a roiling boil, sitting in it will cook and kill you. But if you heat it to just the right temperature, say right around 102-105 degrees Fahrenheit, it's an enjoyable, beneficial and relaxing hot tub.

If somehow a super majority of Americans and their legislators voted for total take over of the production, distribution and exchange of American goods and services, then you would have that boiling water to be very afraid of, the kind of socialism that cooks and kills innovation and eventually a nation. But that is NEVER going to happen in America. There are simply too many checks and balances for us to tip completely into either pure fascism or pure socialism. Sure we wiggle back and forth leaning in one direction or the other at times, currently listing towards fascism with an authoritarian leader who believes he's above the law, and in response we have the young socialists pushing the other direction.

Neither will be able to win this tug of war, and that is a good thing, because America is stronger when we don't allow ourselves to be completely under the thumb of any one "ism". America is a melting pot of not only races, cultures and faiths but also of political ideologies and nationalist traditions and we are stronger for it.

"Do we continue on the path to providing everything to everyone without thought to the costs and eventually have the system collapse as it is doing in Venezuela"

We are not going down the Venezuela path. They are an extremely new and volatile nation with a current political ideology younger than my second marriage. They've gone through dozens of different hands and political regimes over the last 200 years. To claim our 240+ year political experiment is somehow leading us down a similar path is frankly ridiculous. Even our own social security program is four times older than the current socialist regime in Venezuela.

"I prefer to return to the independence and self-reliance of the pioneers; but I will take advantage of the Socialism we currently have."

As fun as pooping in a dirt hole sounds, I'd much prefer our collectively owned and managed sewer system and other essential utilities we agreed as a society benefit everyone and thus should be funded by everyone. Not having buckets of crap thrown out windows into our streets as was once done in some places (mostly Europe but we saw it here too in early America) which keeps down sickness and disease is beneficial for all of us, regardless of whether you want to pitch in for the sewer or not or prefer crapping in the woods.

So really the debate, the issue, the crux is not about whether to have any socialism, it's about how hot we want the tub. Those against any and all socialism scream warnings as the temperature rises slightly, to them it's a signal that at any moment it might become a socialist boil. But that isn't realistic, America is so far from socialism it's a tepid warm bath, not a hot tub. We have just enough socialism to barely keep our elderly and poor from dying in the streets while the top 1% own over 90% of all the wealth in America. It's like a tub with 80 degree water in it when some say "Hey, shouldn't we heat this up a bit? Shouldn't we invest more in our children's educations? Shouldn't we tax the top 1% a little more than we are considering they are doing really well with the protections provided them by our very expensive military?" and the response is "Hell no! This warm water could boil us all alive if we started giving away free educations! It would cook and kill any innovation if you started taxing the top 1% more than the bottom 99% of Americans! Arghhh! You're evil for even suggesting the top 1% should pay more! You socialist!"...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    5 months ago

The real problem with centralizing power in government is that it makes it considerably easier for a dictator to seize power as seen in most governments that claim to subscribe to Marxism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6    5 months ago

Even before that, the more power is centralized the less the people can influence things (i.e. mitigate consolidation of power).   The State incrementally grows more powerful and always at the expense of the people.   Eventually the people are nothing more than resources for an all powerful State.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    5 months ago

That I believe is the greatest fear, handing power of one"s destiny over to a bureaucracy that has a historical track record of failure. Not to mention the immoral use of coercion.

Historically governments alleging to adhere to Marxist principles have erased Millions of human lives.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.1    5 months ago

Authoritarian rule never works well for the people.   The trick of calling a system 'socialism' and hyping it up with grand promises as a smoke screen for instead building an all powerful State has worked in the past largely due to the ignorance of the people.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.3  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.1    5 months ago
Historically governments alleging to adhere to Marxist principles have erased Millions of human lives.

Do you not see that capitalism has just as much of a history of abusive authoritarian governments?

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.4  MUVA  replied to  epistte @6.1.3    5 months ago

I don't capitalism gives a person the ability to do as they please and use their talents to become or achieve what they are capable of.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.5  epistte  replied to  MUVA @6.1.4    5 months ago
I don't capitalism gives a person the ability to do as they please and use their talents to become or achieve what they are capable of.

As does market socialism when the workers own the private businesses cooperatively.The individual workers would still be capitalists, but the businesses would be owned by the workers instead of just by one person/family or a group of shareholders. It isn't a big change. The middle-class benefits and the workers now have a reason to work because instead of being just a drone they benefit directly from their efforts.

You seem to think that it would be a massive change from the current system and that appears to scare you, but it wouldn't look any different than now and there would not be the government in control of anything that they don't already do.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @6.1.3    5 months ago
Do you not see that capitalism has just as much of a history of abusive authoritarian governments?

BF used the language 'alleging to adhere to'.   He is talking about States that engage in authoritarian practices while improperly calling their efforts 'socialism'.   Venezuela of course is the most recent example of this.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @6.1.5    5 months ago
... but it wouldn't look any different than now ...

I know what you meant, but people will read that the wrong way.   If it worked per the theory it would be substantially different than what we have.   For example, there would be a lot more small to medium sized owner-owned-and-operated businesses and substantially more community involvement.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @6.1.3    5 months ago
Do you not see that capitalism has just as much of a history of abusive authoritarian governments?

Refresh my memory on the capitalist countries that have forbidden emigration.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.9  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    5 months ago
BF used the language 'alleging to adhere to'.   He is talking about States that engage in authoritarian practices while improperly calling their efforts 'socialism'.   Venezuela of course is the most recent example of this.

Venezuela has been ruled by a dictator for decades, even if Chavez was a relatively benign dictator.  I think that politicians in the US need more oversight to protect the rights of the citizens so I would never support that idea. 

Fopr some reason people think that socialism must include a dictator or an authoritarian government when there is nothing in the economic idea of worker control that even suggests that idea. Most dictators like to claim that they are socialist or even communist to gain worker support, despite the fact that one of the core ideas of commumism is voluntary group rule.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.10  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.8    5 months ago
Refresh my memory on the capitalist countries that have forbidden emigration.

Socialism is an economic idea =/= authoritarian government.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @6.1.10    5 months ago
Socialism is an economic idea =/= authoritarian government

Obviously. 

You have conspicuously evaded my question.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.12  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.11    5 months ago
Obviously.  You have conspicuously evaded my question.

I responded previously, but it wasn't what you wanted to hear. The economic idea of socialism (worker control of the means of production) is irrelevant to immigration or free movement of people. You are convinced that socialism means an authoritarian government that limits the freedoms of the people but you are wrong. I have tried to explain this to you and others, but apparently, you will keep asking me until I give you an answer the confirms your previously held bias based on erroneous ideas.

 The progressive democratic concept of socialism is the Nordic model. Do Denmark and Sweden limit their citizen's ability to travel? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @6.1.9    5 months ago
Fopr some reason people think that socialism must include a dictator or an authoritarian government when there is nothing in the economic idea of worker control that even suggests that idea.

Indeed, authoritarian government is the polar opposite of distributed economic control.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.14  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.13    5 months ago
Indeed, authoritarian government is the polar opposite of having distributed economic control.

Russia was neither socialist or communist because the people had virtually no power, either politically or economically. Their situation was closer to serfdom to oligarchs and a brutal police state.

North Korea and East Germany claim/ed to be democratic republics, but obviously, they are/were neither.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @6.1.14    5 months ago
Russia was neither socialist or communist because the people had virtually no power, either politically or economically. Their situation was closer to serfdom to oligarchs and a brutal police state.

A fact that seems to be ignored.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @6.1.12    5 months ago
The economic idea of socialism (worker control of the means of production) is irrelevant to immigration or free movement of people.

Are we going to pretend economic systems have no social impact?  

OK.  Then there really isn't any reason to change one.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.13    5 months ago
Indeed, authoritarian government is the polar opposite of distributed economic control.

Possibly.  In theory.

But that theory never seems to make it to full realization.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.17    5 months ago
But that theory never seems to make it to full realization.

True.   The national systems that actually attempted distributed economic control quickly abandoned it and jumped to the other extreme.   Exemplar:  Leninism.

There are some noble microcosms such as Mondragon but nothing at the national level.   I would not expect to see this at a national level in our lifetimes.   Given the state of societal evolution I personally see no indications that the demos are currently equipped (in terms of attitude, ethics) to assume the level of responsibility required to have distributed economic control over productive resources.   Far too many people are comfortable letting others lead the charge.   Especially here at home.   Nonetheless, the results of Mondragon suggest that our species is indeed capable of rising to this occasion.  Thus my view is that it is possible but our societies need to evolve before it is practical.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.19  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.16    5 months ago
Are we going to pretend economic systems have no social impact?   OK.  Then there really isn't any reason to change one.

What are you trying to so inelegantly say?  What are you worried about happening?

There is absolutely nothing that would preclude the US Constitution with a democratic socialist economic system. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.18    5 months ago
The national systems that actually attempted distributed economic control quickly abandoned it and jumped to the other extreme.   Exemplar:  Leninism.

That's the issue.  

It takes such utterly perfect conditions for such a system to survive, corruption is almost always the result.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @6.1.19    5 months ago
What are you trying to so inelegantly say?

No irony there.....  

  What are you worried about happening?

Capricious, naive, hyper idealistic and ultimately stupid government action.

There is absolutely nothing that would preclude the US Constitution with a democratic socialist economic system. 

There is nothing in our current system that precludes worker cooperatives, crowdfunding, or other means of social ownership without changing anything we do right now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.20    5 months ago
It takes such utterly perfect conditions for such a system to survive, corruption is almost always the result.

Corruption is the result of any system Jack.   And the required conditions are not 'utterly perfect' - they are just different and unfamiliar. 

I would not underestimate what our species can accomplish.   My comment is that I do not think we are ready (in a societal evolution sense) to engage in cooperative operations.  The historical system of leaders and followers is what works today and that system naturally yields minority control over the majority.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.23  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.21    5 months ago

Exactly.  If people want socialism they can voluntarily create it in their own communities or maybe even a county somewhere.  It will never be imposed upon us.  Trumps delivering an awesome speech right now.  

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.24  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.23    5 months ago
Exactly.  If people want socialism they can voluntarily create it in their own communities or maybe even a county somewhere.  It will never be imposed upon us.  Trumps delivering an awesome speech right now.  

What are you afraid of? 

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.25  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.21    5 months ago
There is nothing in our current system that precludes worker cooperatives, crowdfunding, or other means of social ownership without changing anything we do right now.

Why do you think that this would happen if we have public policies that support a market socialist economy?

Capricious, naive, hyper idealistic and ultimately stupid government action.

Stop with the fear mongering. Intelligent people should be able to rationally discuss ideas without being bogged down emotionally by fears.  From my perspective, you are terrified of change because you don't understand it in practice.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.26  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @6.1.25    5 months ago
Why do you think that this would happen if we have public policies that support a market socialist economy?

Why do I think what would happen?  

Better question... why do we need to change public policy when these things are already available?

Stop with the fear mongering.

Are you suggesting that the US Govt does not have a history of naive, hyper-idealistic and ultimately stupid action? 

Intelligent people should be able to rationally discuss ideas without being bogged down emotionally by fears.

Intelligent people should recognize the difference between the ridiculously naive and the realistically plausible.  

From my perspective, you are terrified of change because you don't understand it in practice.

I would be concerned if any of this were remotely possible.  It's not, so I'm not.

I do understand the practice of angry liberals, wherein they "double down" on bad ideas because their emotional investment won't let them admit their ideas are never going to work.  That "double down" frequently has no reservation about removing the individual liberties of others, as long as the liberals in question get what they want.  

If cooperative ownership was so amazing, we wouldn't need to change policy for it to become the norm.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.27  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.22    5 months ago
Corruption is the result of any system Jack. 

Yes.  But again....you don't have to force people to live in capitalist systems.  They willingly flock to them by the millions.

 And the required conditions are not 'utterly perfect' - they are just different and unfamiliar. 

I'm sure you would like to believe that.  There just isn't any large scale evidence to support that belief.

I would not underestimate what our species can accomplish.

Especially when the highly gifted and ambitious are not saddled by the ordinary and feckless.

   My comment is that I do not think we are ready (in a societal evolution sense) to engage in cooperative operations.

I realize that.  I am just suspicious that human nature will ever evolve enough for someone like Elon Musk to be willing to cooperatively own an enterprise with someone like Donald Trump.

  The historical system of leaders and followers is what works today and that system naturally yields minority control over the majority.

It is indeed all we've ever known.  And you may be right....we may evolve into different beings.  But as you say, I doubt either of us will live to see it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.27    5 months ago
Yes.  But again....you don't have to force people to live in capitalist systems.  They willingly flock to them by the millions.

If one must be forced to be part of a system, it is not a socialist system either.    The label does not make the system.

I'm sure you would like to believe that.  There just isn't any large scale evidence to support that belief.

The systems are theoretical.  But you can (as I noted) look at Mondragon for empirical data.   You can also, if you have researched these systems, draw a conclusion.   You should know that my comment is not about faith, Jack.

I am just suspicious that human nature will ever evolve enough for someone like Elon Musk to be willing to cooperatively own an enterprise with someone like Donald Trump.

Not sure why you chose that odd example.   Also, think in terms of evolution.   You are picking two people who spent their entire lives in a capitalist world with ancestors who were capitalists.   Culture influences how one thinks.   What if one is brought up in a culture of community businesses, etc.   We all are shaped by our environment.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.29  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.28    5 months ago
If one must be forced to be part of a system, it is not a socialist system either.

You don't get to just count your utopia as the only true Scotsman.

The label does not make the system.

No, the collective ownership of the means of production does. 

The systems are theoretical.

As is this entire discussion.  I get that.

You should know that my comment is not about faith, Jack.

I understand you don't think it is.  But as others are talking about the mandatory implementation of these ideas over hundreds of millions of people, it is still fair to say that empirical evidence on that scale is lacking.

Not sure why you chose that odd example. 

What would be a "non-odd" example?

You are picking two people who spent their entire lives in a capitalist world with ancestors who were capitalists.

The point is that it is unlikely we'll eliminate big egos, either deserved or not.  On present evidence, we are definitely moving in the opposite direction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.23    5 months ago
If people want socialism they can voluntarily create it in their own communities or maybe even a county somewhere.  It will never be imposed upon us.

I think you just accidentally stumbled onto a partial understanding of socialism.   

Indeed, socialism cannot work unless the people want it because it is the people who drive it.    Imposing socialism is a contradiction unless you are going by a pejorative meaning of 'socialism'.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.31  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.30    5 months ago
Imposing socialism is a contradiction unless you are going by a pejorative meaning of 'socialism'.

And yet.... Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, and AOC would tell us otherwise.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.29    5 months ago
You don't get to just count your utopia as the only true Scotsman.

Labeling this as 'my utopia' tells me that you have not done any research in this area.   Why be obnoxious and mess up a good discussion?

No, the collective ownership of the means of production does. 

And it is critical to understand what that actually means.   It is control by the people, not by a minority.

But as others are talking about the mandatory implementation of these ideas over hundreds of millions of people, it is still fair to say that empirical evidence on that scale is lacking.

I agree, there is no empirical evidence on that scale.   One must go by analysis of the proposals and the empirical data that exists.   Drawing a conclusion based on that is not faith.

What would be a "non-odd" example?

An organization based on workplace democracy involving hundreds of people.   

The point is that it is unlikely we'll eliminate big egos, either deserved or not.  On present evidence, we are definitely moving in the opposite direction.

Eliminating big egos is not an objective.   In today's largely hierarchic systems we find big egos at every level of the organization.   The fact that human beings are not robots and have all sorts of behavioral components is not an argument against socialism (or any other -ism).

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.31    5 months ago
And yet.... Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, and AOC would tell us otherwise.

Our current 'socialist' politicians are social democrats, liberals and/or statists.    Don't go by an overloaded label of 'socialism'; go by what they actually propose.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.34  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.31    5 months ago

The left definitely wants to impose socialism on us unwilling over our objections and against our will. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.35  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    5 months ago
Labeling this as 'my utopia' tells me that you have not done any research in this area.   

It is your utopia.  It's a completely theoretical situation where none of the pitfalls of actual socialist systems are allowed to be considered.  It only exists in theory in the minds of its advocates.

It is control by the people, not by a minority.

In your idea, yes. 

An organization based on workplace democracy involving hundreds of people.  

OK....well rather than an idealized sample of people who really want to make an experiment work, let's imagine an organization with a ridiculously talented genius and a bloviating con-man who can't tell the truth...both with egos the size of Texas.  How long do you think that organization survives?   In real life, it implodes very quickly.

It's fair to point out that "an" organization does not actually constitute a reasonable level of research.

I agree, there is no empirical evidence on that scale.   One must go by analysis of the proposals and the empirical data that exists.   Drawing a conclusion based on that is not faith.

Implementing programs nationwide based on such limited analysis is definitely "faith".  I realize that is not your plan, but there are several very loud people who would like to see such a plan enacted, without regard to the capriciousness of the decision.

Eliminating big egos is not an objective.

It doesn't matter what the objective is or was in such a situation.  As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

I consult on compensation and compliance for a living.   The number one problem employers have in good economic times is attracting and keeping good employees.  Almost every client of ours is hiring, and almost every one is struggling to find qualified people. 

However for many firms it proves more difficult to keep quality people than it does to find them.  People who are very good at their jobs see the opportunity of starting their own ventures, and seize it.  This is amplified in situations where those highly talented people feel held back my less capable and/or less ambitious workers, and amplified again when those less capable/less ambitious people are given power in the workplace. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.33    5 months ago
Our current 'socialist' politicians are social democrats, liberals and/or statists.    Don't go by an overloaded label of 'socialism'; go by what they actually propose.

The point being that none of you have a monopoly on the use of the term.  So the declarations you make about socialism not being compulsory are all well and good, but there are quite a few socialists who are more than willing to do whatever it takes to force everyone to follow their ideas.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.35    5 months ago
It is your utopia.  It's a completely theoretical situation where none of the pitfalls of actual socialist systems are allowed to be considered.  It only exists in theory in the minds of its advocates.

I did not invent this Jack.   Calling this my utopia implies I created it and that I buy into it.   Given I have pointed out some of my reservations you should logically realize that I do not consider socialism to be a utopia or that I am even convinced it is doable in the large. 

In your idea, yes. 

Apparently the only information you have on this topic came from me.   Otherwise your would know that this is not my idea.   Do some research.

It's fair to point out that "an" organization does not actually constitute a reasonable level of research.

It is fair to point out that you cherry-picked the reference to Mondragon and present it as the only research I have done.  

Implementing programs nationwide based on such limited analysis is definitely "faith". 

Then the faith of which you speak is the 'faith' that is part of any large scale pioneering effort.   Placing a man on the moon involved 'faith' by your usage.   

It doesn't matter what the objective is or was in such a situation. 

You mentioned egos and implied that they would have to be suppressed in some way.   That is not part of socialism.   As I noted, ego and other factors of human beings are present in all systems.   We could spend plenty of time enumerating human faults that logically screw with any system.    Yet the systems work.   Focus on the big picture.

People who are very good at their jobs see the opportunity of starting their own ventures, and seize it. 

Agreed.   I have done that myself twice.   Do you think democratic socialism stifles ambition?? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.36    5 months ago
The point being that none of you have a monopoly on the use of the term.  So the declarations you make about socialism not being compulsory are all well and good, but there are quite a few socialists who are more than willing to do whatever it takes to force everyone to follow their ideas.

Do some research Jack.   It gets old explaining something only to have someone claim this is just my opinion.   

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.39  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.34    5 months ago
The left definitely wants to impose socialism on us unwilling over our objections and against our will. 

What are you afraid that will happen if we have a mixed market socialist economy. You do a lot of complaining but you never offer any specifics of what is going to happen that you oppose. From my perspective, you don't understand the idea but you have been told that it is bad, so you parrot that line. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.34    5 months ago
The left definitely wants to impose socialism on us unwilling over our objections and against our will. 

The left wants to impose (more) social democracy.   Just crying 'socialism' does not mean anything.   There are well defined terms for bad ideas.  Why call everything 'socialism' and be entirely vague when you can use proper terms and be clear?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.41  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.38    5 months ago
Do some research Jack.   It gets old explaining something only to have someone claim this is just my opinion.

Not any older than listening to you deny reality, and then get pissy and claim that people who don't agree with you "don't understand".  

Whether you like it or not, the current group of nutbags are pushing their own brand of very traditional socialism.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.42  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.40    5 months ago
The left wants to impose (more) social democracy. 

This presumes they agree.  There really isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.43  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.41    5 months ago

Taking care of the population is not socialism.

It is a matter of social need.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.44  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.20    5 months ago

Yet you must admit that there is corruption in our current system. 

We both know laws and regulations can be a double edged sword. They can be written to protect and serve the many at the expense of the few, or to protect and serve the few at the expense of the many.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.45  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.43    5 months ago
Taking care of the population is not socialism. It is a matter of social need.

Government control of industries is socialism.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.46  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.44    5 months ago
Yet you must admit that there is corruption in our current system. 

Sure.  

We both know laws and regulations can be a double edged sword. They can be written to protect and serve the many at the expense of the few, or to protect and serve the few at the expense of the many.

What would you put forward as an example of a law that serves the few?

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.47  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.45    5 months ago
Government control of industries is socialism. 

I was taught the opposite.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.48  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.47    5 months ago
I was taught the opposite.

That a government seizing control of an industry was NOT socialism???

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.49  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.48    5 months ago

Yes, socialism is the means being held within the workers. Not the government.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.50  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.46    5 months ago

Citizens United

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.45    5 months ago
Government control of industries is socialism.  

State capitalism, fascism and 'socialism' ala the former USSR.   You may not like to hear it, but that cliche declaration illustrates that you have not researched this area.

How do you have distributed economic control if the State controls the means of production?  

Do you consider the presence of public services to be 'socialism' too?    Redistribution of wealth?   Anything that is undesirable?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.48    5 months ago
That a government seizing control of an industry was NOT socialism???

Yes Jack.   It is a common misunderstanding to call expropriation of industry 'socialism'.    That simply shifts minority control.    It does not matter if the government is the minority controller instead of aristocrats - it is still minority control over the productive resources of the economy.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.41    5 months ago
... the current group of nutbags are pushing their own brand of very traditional socialism.  

Well that is some very revealing nonsense.   Blindly labeling initiatives you dislike as 'socialism' is pointless.   Why bother with a label that is rendered meaningless with overloaded, contradictory meanings and not based upon established core principles?

If you break down what the 'current group of nutbags' are pushing you will not see them working towards a society wherein the people have economic control.   Statism is not socialism.   Social democracy is not socialism.   Redistribution of wealth is not socialism.   Environmental policy is not socialism.   Welfare is not socialism.   Public services is not socialism.   Expropriation of industry is not socialism.   Authoritarian rule is not socialism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.42    5 months ago
This presumes they agree.  There really isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that.

Since when does the left or the right all agree on something?   Who would presume that?   We are talking general trends here.   Do you not recognize that the USA is currently a (weak) social democracy (has been since FDR) and that this continues to be part of the D party agenda?    General historical trend.   The general trend of the R party is to oppose social democracy by limiting the scope and control of government and lessening regulations (and taxes) on private enterprise.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @6.1.43    5 months ago

Agreed.   

Most every significant nation on the planet necessarily has public programs (albeit in quite varying degrees).   The presence of public services is certainly not socialism - if that were the case then every nation with a government is socialist.

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.56  evilgenius  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.17    5 months ago
Possibly.  In theory. But that theory never seems to make it to full realization.

Same as Libertarianism. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.57  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.50    5 months ago

Citizens United was one of the supreme courts best decisions. It liberated the first amendment from the few and gave it to all during election seasons.  I say what Justice Alito said when Obama made that claim.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.58  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.50    5 months ago
Citizens United

Is not a law.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.59  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.49    5 months ago
Yes, socialism is the means being held within the workers. Not the government.

But as the government ... in theory... represents the people....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.60  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.51    5 months ago
State capitalism, fascism and 'socialism' ala the former USSR.   You may not like to hear it, but that cliche declaration illustrates that you have not researched this area.

I don't mind hearing it at all.  We're back to the same contrast of your utopian theoretical vs. what happens in real world implementation.

How do you have distributed economic control if the State controls the means of production?  

You don't.  And you won't.  That's my point.

Do you consider the presence of public services to be 'socialism' too?

Depends on how the service is provided.  Government owned housing projects are socialist, as the means of production for the program are collectively owned.  Section 8 housing vouchers are not.  A government owned farm producing food for sale in government owned markets would be socialist.  Food stamps are not.  Medicare... socialist health insurance.   Medicare Advantage....not.  

Redistribution of wealth?   Anything that is undesirable?

I'm actually not opposed to intelligent, effective government expenditure.  We just don't do it very often.  I think we need a very large infrastructure bill, and I think had AOC has squandered an opportunity with her silliness.  Handled maturely, her "green new deal" could have been wrapped up into a much larger overall infrastructure program that would have enjoyed lots of bipartisan support.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.61  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.52    5 months ago
 It is a common misunderstanding to call expropriation of industry 'socialism'. 

That doesn't seem to dissuade the people who do it from using the term.

  That simply shifts minority control.

Does it?  In a democracy, isn't "the people" the majority?  

    It does not matter if the government is the minority controller instead of aristocrats - it is still minority control over the productive resources of the economy.  

That's what socialism devolves to, usually exceedingly quickly.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.62  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.53    5 months ago
Well that is some very revealing nonsense.

I'm sure you think so.  

   Blindly labeling initiatives you dislike as 'socialism' is pointless.

When the means of production for a given industry comes under collective control, that is socialism.  I realize that is horribly inconvenient for your theoretical utopia, but again...you don't have a monopoly on the term.

   Why bother with a label that is rendered meaningless with overloaded, contradictory meanings and not based upon established core principles?

Why pretend socialism is only the fluffy bunny goodness you like to think about and ignore how quickly it goes wrong?

If you break down what the 'current group of nutbags' are pushing you will not see them working towards a society wherein the people have economic control.   Statism is not socialism.   Social democracy is not socialism.

I'll let you have that discussion with them and their supporters, who are eternally attempting to justify socialism by using public schools or public highways as examples of how wonderful collective control is.

   Redistribution of wealth is not socialism.

Socialism is a redistribution of weatlh, by intention and design.  The workers cannot own Koch Industries while the Koch family does.

   Environmental policy is not socialism.

Correct.

   Welfare is not socialism.

Depends on how it's done.

 Public services is not socialism.

Depends on how it's done.

   Expropriation of industry is not socialism.

No...it pretty much is.  I realize you don't want to admit that, but you have the means of production in an industry owned by "the people".  

   Authoritarian rule is not socialism.

Not necessarily, but they are certainly not mutually exclusive.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.63  Jack_TX  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.56    5 months ago
Same as Libertarianism.

Well thank God.  Really.  Who wants that nonsense?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.64  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.54    5 months ago
Since when does the left or the right all agree on something? 

Almost never.   

Who would presume that?

You did, when you described them as one entity.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.65  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.37    5 months ago
I did not invent this Jack.   Calling this my utopia implies I created it and that I buy into it. 

Not at all.  It implies that you are the person advocating it in this discussion.  And you clearly have bought into it, complete with 30 year mortgage and extended warranty.

 Given I have pointed out some of my reservations you should logically realize that I do not consider socialism to be a utopia or that I am even convinced it is doable in the large.

You have stated clearly that you do not think it is doable.  Your reasoning for that opinion has been that society is not advanced enough, and that the natural state of enlightened people will be to gravitate toward a system of this sort.  So the idea that you don't think it's utopian is dishonest.

Apparently the only information you have on this topic came from me.

Again..."your idea" in the same way Manchester United is "my team".  I have nothing to do with creating their product.  I just support it.

Placing a man on the moon involved 'faith' by your usage.   

Of course.  But not as much faith as changing the way every American goes to work and rewriting the fundamentals of a $20 trillion economy.

We could spend plenty of time enumerating human faults that logically screw with any system.    Yet the systems work. 

Some systems work.  And they work because they have mechanisms to deal with human faults.  In a capitalist environment, one of the giant egos walks out and starts a competing enterprise.  Because that's relatively easy to do in a capitalist system.

Do you think democratic socialism stifles ambition?? 

Depends on the level of socialism.  For example....if it is mandatory that employees get half the seats on a corporate board, then yes...that absolutely stifles ambition.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.59    5 months ago
But as the government ... in theory... represents the people....

By that reasoning, if the federal government expropriated the entire private sector you would consider that to be the people controlling the means of production. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.60    5 months ago
Jack @6.1.45 - Government control of industries is socialism.  

TiG @6.1.51  - How do you have distributed economic control if the State controls the means of production?  

Jack @6.1.60 - You don't.  And you won't.  That's my point.

You recognize that government controlling the means of production does not yield distributed economic control but you call this socialism nonetheless.  

Per you socialism = government control of the MoP/D

Jack @6.1.62 - When the means of production for a given industry comes under collective control, that is socialism. 

Per you, socialism = expropriation of private property

TiG @6.1.52 - It does not matter if the government is the minority controller instead of aristocrats - it is still minority control over the productive resources of the economy.   Jack @6.1.61 - That's what socialism devolves to, usually exceedingly quickly.

Per you, socialism = minority control by the government over the productive resources of the economy

Jack @6.1.62 - I'll let you have that discussion with them and their supporters, who are eternally attempting to justify socialism by using public schools or public highways as examples of how wonderful collective control is.

Per you, socialism = public services provided by the State

Jack @6.1.62 - Socialism is a redistribution of weatlh, by intention and design.  The workers cannot own Koch Industries while the Koch family does.

You presume some revolutionary force?   As I have noted, if socialism is to happen it will be evolutionary.   You seem to think that someone can design a 'socialist' system and just make it happen?   Not bloody likely.   Think of the transition from feudalism to capitalism - these are long evolutionary processes.

Per you, socialism = redistribution of wealth

Jack @6.1.62 - Depends on how it's [welfare] done. Jack @6.1.62 - Depends on how it's [public services] done.

It does not matter how it is done.   Welfare and public services are not defining characteristics of socialism.   You should realize that anyway since both are present in most every significant socio-economic/political system.

Per you, socialism = presence of welfare systems (with an unspecified qualifier)

Per you, socialism = presence of public services (with an unspecified qualifier)

Jack @6.1.62 - No...it [Expropriation of industry] pretty much is.  I realize you don't want to admit that, but you have the means of production in an industry owned by "the people".  

Per you, socialism = expropriation of industry

Jack @6.1.62 -Not necessarily, but they [Authoritarian rule] are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Yet you recognize that authoritarian rule cannot yield distributed economic control

Per you, socialism = a system that could be authoritarian.


In net, you see socialism as any undesirable consolidation of power by the State.   This is the basic level of understanding one would get by accepting, without challenge, the various usages of the term in informal discourse.   That, by itself, is something to be expected.

What is revealing though is that you flat out deny that socialism = distributed economic control.    Ignore the core principles and blindly cling to a slogan-level understanding of the concept.   So it goes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.65    5 months ago
You have stated clearly that you do not think it is doable.  Your reasoning for that opinion has been that society is not advanced enough, and that the natural state of enlightened people will be to gravitate toward a system of this sort.  So the idea that you don't think it's utopian is dishonest.

Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word utopian:  "Modelled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic."

If this is news to you then you made an honest mistake.  If not, then you are being intellectually dishonest.   I have indeed described socialism in terms of its core principles and have at times noted some of the characteristics of theoretical systems of democratic socialism.  Not once have I suggested that this '-ism' is perfect or ideal.   Where do you find me stating, for example, that socialism is better than capitalism?   Since we have had this discussion before, you (should) know that I state that our future system (assuming it gets better) could be a variant of capitalism or socialism.   That the best system (in terms of most effectively satisfying the many constraints of practical reality) is yet to be determined.   

If we were to explore future variants of capitalism I would likely opine on the practical realities of achieving that variant and would likely note that societal evolution would be required.   And if we did discuss a future variant of capitalism, would you be labeling it as 'my utopia' or would you be honest and discuss the subject matter without obnoxious quips?    

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.69  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.57    5 months ago
Citizens United was one of the supreme courts best decisions. It liberated the first amendment from the few and gave it to all during election seasons.  I say what Justice Alito said when Obama made that claim.  

Who was prohibited from donating to election campaigns before Citizens United?

 It was one of the worst decisions because corporations are not citizens and they do not have constitutional rights.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.70  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.48    5 months ago
That a government seizing control of an industry was NOT socialism???

That action isn't limited to socialism, so it cannot be a defining characteristic. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
6.1.71  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  epistte @6.1.69    5 months ago

A corporation is a group of citizens working together for a common purpose and the citizens forming a corporation do not lose their constitutional rights by pooling their efforts together.  So bluntly, corporations literally are people too.  

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.72  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @6.1.71    5 months ago
A corporation is a group of citizens working together for a common purpose and the citizens forming a corporation do not lose their constitutional rights by pooling their efforts together.  So bluntly, corporations literally are people too.  

Corporations are made up of people individually, but they do not have rights as a corporation because a corporation is a legal construct and not a person itself.

 
 
 
CB
7  CB     5 months ago

Who are these people? They are people who are more hateful of one man, our president, that it matters not that he wants to protect babies or stop human trafficking or eradicate AIDS. I'll tell you who they are. They are people who don't care about us. They only care about power and making sure that they keep it.

And all this time I thought judges avoided sensationalism!

I am not hateful of President Donald Trump. I have no confidence in him. Once a person reaches that base level with me, I take the things they say (and mostly likely their actions too) with a 'pinch of salt.' Do not forget, President Trump is a proven liar. Moreover, he is presently demonstrating this practice: He giveth with one hand while taking away with the other!

It is not my, our, fault that Judge Pirro can not see pass what is good for her bottom-line, to help others deal with their own! 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7.1  seeder  XXJefferson#51  replied to  CB @7    5 months ago

She’s a former judge and she is spot on in all that she said.  

 
 
 
CB
7.1.1  CB   replied to  XXJefferson#51 @7.1    5 months ago

Define, "former judge," please. Authentic judges are true to their profession oath, even as a private citizen, until death in my opinion. Being a so-callled "star" so obviously tilted to one side —that side which gives you a one-hour network show does not mean a respected individual should choose propaganda over professional and self-respect.

When JUDGE Pirro takes the same care with her measurements of the lying words which freshly utter from our sitting president's heart and mouth; when she calls him out once and again for being labled "liar" on a daily basis. When she can let it be seen that she distinct from the lies Donald Trump takes great satisfaction in spouting. Perhaps, her judgement can be considered on the mend.

Some have become so remarkably comfortable with President Donald J. Trump's ability to deal in lies that I get a picture of these folks 'bathing' in his lies. Trump actually looks forward to telling his followers lies! Now tell me, what kind of leader aspires to have millions of enthralled and delusional attendees to his or her every word?

What kind of leader, "Keep America Great!"?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8  sandy-2021492    5 months ago

Locking until xx can participate.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
9  seeder  XXJefferson#51    5 months ago

I’m back!  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




KDMichigan
PJ
r.t..b...
JohnRussell
arkpdx
Snuffy
Tacos!
Sean Treacy
Ozzwald
Krishna



85 visitors