╌>

No, we’re not all socialists now

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  make-america-great-again  •  5 years ago  •  96 comments

No, we’re not all socialists now
“As secularism replaces faith in America, we become less free and more socialistic; in other words, the government is controlling more things and things are controlled from the top down rather than the bottom up….You have central decision makers. That hasn’t worked any time in history, it always results in some form of tyranny.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



On Sunday, New York Post had an editorial about how many millennials embrace “socialism,” while not really knowing what it means:  “Millennials — ignorant of socialism’s appalling economic and human-rights history — increasingly embrace socialism and its naively unrealistic prescriptions for ending all human want.”

I’m reminded of a college student who wrote his dad: “Dear Dad, No mon. No fun. Your son.”

His dad wrote back: “Too bad. So sad. Your Dad.”

The Post points out that a majority of Democrats view socialism positively — yet the very same poll finds them in favor of small business and free enterprise.  Therefore, many claiming to embrace socialism are apparently not aware that socialism refers to government control of the means of production.


Meanwhile, New York Magazine had a title story: “When Did Everyone Become a Socialist?”

The article claims, “Pinkos Have More Fun.”

Well, I’m certainly not a socialist. And most of the people I know are not either. For the record, can anyone name a square inch on the planet where socialism has improved life for its citizens?

Russia?


China?

Vietnam?

Cambodia?

Cuba?


Venezuela?

It seems that between socialism and capitalism, the latter has the worse “branding.” Capitalism is supposedly greedy and self-serving. Socialism is supposedly caring and sharing. But that is not the reality.

Young people have been fed a steady diet of pro-socialism in the media and in academia. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center once told me in a TV interview: “In the movies from a cultural standpoint, the themes are that capitalism is bad; it’s evil, the free market system is evil, the wealthy are the greedy rich.”

Jim DeMint, former US Senator noted, “As secularism replaces faith in America, we become less free and more socialistic; in other words, the government is controlling more things and things are controlled from the top down rather than the bottom up….You have central decision makers. That hasn’t worked any time in history, it always results in some form of tyranny.”


With socialism, the state replaces God. But the Bible says, God alone is God, and we should worship and love Him above all, and not the state, nor anything else.

Dr. Everett Piper, the president of Oklahoma Wesley University, says, “I do believe that socialism is on the rise right now and I think it’s a direct correlation to the loss of a biblical world view – the vacuum. When you create a vacuum it’ll always be filled, and if you take God out it’ll be filled by man. And God always gives us more liberty and freedom than man does.”

The Bible says we should love our neighbor. But is it really loving our neighbor to wish on them a socialistic economic system like that in Cuba or Venezuela?

Dr. Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, notes, “And if you want a modern example of why socialism doesn’t work and what it produces, look at Venezuela. Venezuela was one of the most affluent countries in Latin America; it is now a complete basket case.”


Today’s socialists like to say that Sweden, Norway, and other Scandinavian countries are the model — not Venezuela. I was married in Norway. I have many in-laws that still live there. Its economy is still more of a capitalist one — with high taxes for socialized medicine. But it’s a much smaller country with a limited population. Furthermore, my wife always points out that Norway is coasting on its past Christian work ethic.

Socialism violates the command, “Thou shalt not steal.” The Ten Commandments also say we should not envy — but socialism is built on envy, envy of the wealth of others.

More and more Americans seem comfortable with “the politics of envy.” The New Republic published an article by Alex Shephard (3/1/19), entitled, “The Sensible Politics of Soaking the Rich.” The article shows the picture of Democrat socialist leader, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, newly elected to Congress, who argues that $10 million should be the limit on what people can keep, regardless of their contributions to the market.

Last week at CPAC (a conference of conservatives), Larry Kudlow, the director of President Trump’s National Economic Council, said socialism needs to be confronted quickly: “I want you, and everybody in this room and your friends and your neighbors, I want you to put socialism on trial, that’s what I’m asking….I don’t want us to stand idly by….I don’t want to let this stuff fester. I want it challenged. I want it debated. I want it rebutted. I want to convict socialism.” For example, he called “the Green New Deal” promoted by Congresswoman  Ocasio-Cortez, “central planning on a grand scale.” 


Indeed, the time has come for a necessary national discussion on socialism vs. free enterprise. On big government vs. market-based solutions. Let the debate begin.


Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is an on-air host/senior producer for D. James Kennedy Ministries. He has written/co-written 31 books, e.g., The Unstoppable Jesus Christ, American Amnesia: Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God?, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (w/ D. James Kennedy) & the bestseller, George Washington's Sacred Fire (w/ Peter Lillback)  



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

“Socialism violates the command, “Thou shalt not steal.” The Ten Commandments also say we should not envy — but socialism is built on envy, envy of the wealth of others.

More and more Americans seem comfortable with “the politics of envy.” The New Republic published an article by Alex Shephard (3/1/19), entitled, “The Sensible Politics of Soaking the Rich.” The article shows the picture of Democrat socialist leader, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, newly elected to Congress, who argues that $10 million should be the limit on what people can keep, regardless of their contributions to the market.

Last week at CPAC (a conference of conservatives), Larry Kudlow, the director of President Trump’s National Economic Council, said socialism needs to be confronted quickly: “I want you, and everybody in this room and your friends and your neighbors, I want you to put socialism on trial, that’s what I’m asking….I don’t want us to stand idly by….I don’t want to let this stuff fester. I want it challenged. I want it debated. I want it rebutted.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    5 years ago

Now it appears you have a seed complaining (appropriately) about the redistribution of wealth.    But, of course, it uses the word 'socialism' to describe that and (via examples) the following:

  • totalitarian rule
  • single-party state
  • command economy
  • brutal dictatorship
  • expropriation of private property
  • social democracy
  • statism
  • ... (probably left out some)

Seeds like this do a disservice to intelligence.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    5 years ago

It is socialism that is a discredit to human intelligence.  We are not interested in following after the wishful fantasies of Alexandra Ocrazyo Cortez.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    5 years ago

You've repeatedly shown that you don't know what socialism is.  To you, it's anything you don't like.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    5 years ago
We are not interested in following after the wishful fantasies of Alexandra Ocrazyo Cortez.  

Understood.   So whatever she proposes is socialism because she self-labels as a 'socialist'?   Why not just be direct and state opposition to the Cortez platform?   Her platform at least has specifics.   

Your socialism=bad mantra is devoid of any intellectual content.  Do a little analysis rather than toss out ambiguous, emotive labels.   Write something specific.

See, you might write something like:  I oppose Cortez' view that we should tax wealth.   People would understand what you oppose and, if you chose to actually make an argument supporting your position, they might learn something.   Maybe they will make a counter-argument and you might learn something.   Hey!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.2    5 years ago

“Socialism violates the command, “Thou shalt not steal.” The Ten Commandments also say we should not envy — but socialism is built on envy, envy of the wealth of others.”

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago

So stop paying for car insurance, auto insurance, home insurance and all other forms of Socialism sanctioned by the governments of California and the USA.

and donate your social security and Medicare donations to the national debt if you don't want them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago

Well at least we are narrowing down your particular meaning for socialism.   SocialismKAG = redistribution of wealth.

I think one can formulate a very good argument against wholesale redistribution of wealth.   But you would not state that all redistribution of wealth should be abolished, right?   After all, all government operations are funded by redistributing wealth.   What is your specific position?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago

How is that relevant to my comment?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.5    5 years ago

Paying premiums to get defined benefits is not socialism.  I’ve paid for car, home, health insurance al my life and use them as needed.  The same will apply to social security and Medicare.  I would have privatized my SS contributions had I been allowed to and will go with Medicare advantage when I turn 65 instead of traditional Medicare.  Some of my biggest investments in my retirement account are pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies, right after companies involved in our national defense.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.7    5 years ago

How is it not relavant?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.9    5 years ago

I didn't say anything about whether socialism was Biblically correct.  I just said that, to you, it is anything you don't like, whether it's actually socialism or not. 

 
 
 
luther28
Sophomore Silent
1.1.11  luther28  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago

Now, now let us cut the malarkey, Socialism is the bogeyman of the right for this election cycle.

No need to concern oneself with the USA becoming any more Socialized than we have to this point. Once folks realize that one gives according to their means and only receives according to their needs the folks will move on to the next ideology de jour.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.7    5 years ago

I’d like to thank the Dr. D. James Kennedy Ministries for this fine article that they contributed to the Christian Post.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  luther28 @1.1.11    5 years ago

Socialism and Anti semitism will be great weapons to use against today’s democrat party. 🐓

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.13    5 years ago

You and the good doctor keep confusing Communism with socialism.  That is a harmful disservice to everyone.

Several of the best countries to live in are on the top 10 socialists countries lists

Some of them are also on the top 10 capitalist countries list

Kudlow is an affront to intelligence and common sense because he has abandoned them to his Pavlovian Christian mentality.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
1.1.15  Veronica  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.4    5 years ago

Good thing the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with out government.  BTW - your president broke a lot of those biggies.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.16  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Veronica @1.1.15    5 years ago

We all have for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  Throwing the past sins of a repentant person in their face is a tactic of the evil one

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
1.1.17  Veronica  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.16    5 years ago

bwhahahahahahahahqahahah - repentant - now that is a laugh.  Just keep your religion out of my government and I will be happy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.16    5 years ago

Does "I've done nothing to be forgiven for" sound repentant to you, xx?  Because it sounds pretty much the opposite to me.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.20  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Veronica @1.1.17    5 years ago

Then why bring up religion regarding Trump when he rarely talks about it except in protecting religious liberty?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.21  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.18    5 years ago

That was also at the very beginning of his campaign and he’s changed a lot since those combative early days.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
1.1.22  Veronica  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.20    5 years ago

You brought up the 10 Commandments.  That is your religion & does not belong in our government.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.23  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Veronica @1.1.22    5 years ago

But it already is.  The statue of Moses as a law giver at the Supreme Court is proof of that.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2  Dean Moriarty    5 years ago

Kudlow doesn’t have to twist my arm. I’ve long seen it as the worst thing happening in this country. Working to reverse this slide into socialism should be conservatives top priority. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2    5 years ago

Which 'socialism' would you be trying to reverse?

It is difficult to formulate a strategy for reversing when people do not even understand what, specifically, they are opposing.

After all, some think that Venezuela is socialism.   Shall we launch a campaign to mitigate expropriation of private property?   Count me in Dean.   But is that really a big problem in the USA?   How about implementing a command economy?   Truly horrible idea.   But not something that is likely to happen here.  How about statism?   Count me in there too.   Our government is already too powerful and exerts far too much control over the people.   What about a totalitarian (or even authoritarian) rule?   I am with you.   We should never let control of our nation fall into the hands of a tiny minority with uber power.

None of the above have anything to do with distributed economic freedom - a situation in which the people have decentralized control over the productive resources of the economy.   All of the above are aspects of socio-economic/political systems and vary from truly horrible (totalitarian rule) to arguably what we have today (mild social democracy).   Calling the above 'socialism' is as meaningful as calling them 'bad practices'.

So let us work to reverse this slide into bad practices.   Let us mitigate that which is bad.   All in agreement?   Great.   Now, specifically, which bad thing shall be priority one?   And how is that bad thing addressed?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    5 years ago

I have no problem understanding what Kudlow is talking about and I don’t care if you don’t get it. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.2    5 years ago

Exactly.  We are going to promote free market capitalism and oppose socialism in all its possible forms come what may.  It would be better to play the role of the Kulaks in Ukraine than to yield in any way, shape, or form to socialism. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.2    5 years ago

What, specifically, have you called on people to address Dean?

It is easy to be entirely vague and never commit to anything specific.   Sure, you understand X yet offer nothing of substance; no specific comment on what you would have people do.

Do we fight totalitarian rule?   Is that the priority?   Or should we stop the government from turning ours into a command economy?   Shall we focus on stopping the expropriation of private property?

Or are you thinking that we stop the growth of statism?    (I suspect this is what you really are thinking.)    Just using the label 'socialism' is about as vague and non-committal as one can get.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.3    5 years ago
We are going to promote free market capitalism and oppose socialism in all its possible forms come what may.  It would be better to play the role of the Kulaks in Ukraine than to yield in any way, shape, or form to socialism. 

So you oppose any moves towards a command economy like the former USSR or Venezuela?    Good idea!   Calling that 'socialism' just muddies the water since a free market is not a defining characteristic of either capitalism or socialism.   Both systems can operate with either approach, but most people realize that a command economy is vastly inferior to a regulated semi-free or laissez-faire market.    We simply do not have the brains and the technology to make the micro, decentralized economic decisions in a command economy that would come even remotely close to what is resolved by competition, supply and demand.

Further, centralizing such control is historically a horrible idea as it promotes authoritarian rule.

Your turn.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.3    5 years ago

Capitalism is a flawed Utopian idea that needs to be micromanaged by hope and luck.

We have bounced back from the devastation of the late 1920's brand of capitalism by creating a world war industrial military complex

but it is not a form of government that guarantees anything but winners & losers, lot's of losers without

many controls that we haven't yet mastered.

384

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    5 years ago
Capitalism is a flawed Utopian idea

I don't think you know what the word Utopian means..

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    5 years ago

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty and created a stronger middle class than any other economic system before it or invented since it was introduced.  Capitalism has caused the middle class of today to be better off than royalty when it was first introduced.  

 
 
 
luther28
Sophomore Silent
2.1.9  luther28  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.8    5 years ago

You are correct, but it has at the same time left people in poverty and shrunken the middle class. Capitalism works for us but it has to be tweaked from time to time, now is one of those times.

 
 
 
luther28
Sophomore Silent
2.1.10  luther28  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.6    5 years ago
Capitalism is a flawed Utopian idea

Though I agree with the remainder of your thoughts, Capitalism is more of a Darwinian concept than Utopian.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.11  charger 383  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.8    5 years ago

ONLY BECAUSE OF UNIONS

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.8    5 years ago
Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty and created a stronger middle class than any other economic system before it or invented since it was introduced.

Capitalism is dramatically better than feudalism.   No doubt about it.   

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    5 years ago

But left unchecked and controlled by the robber barons

it was very similar to feudalism.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.7    5 years ago
u·to·pi·a
/yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
noun: utopia; plural noun: utopias
  1. an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
    "misplaced faith in political utopias has led to ruin"
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.14    5 years ago

Good point.

The key is always who controls the productive resources of the economy.   Lords, Kings, Merchants, Robber Barons, Mega Capitalists, State officials, etc. does not matter.   If a minority has unchecked control over the productive resources of the economy the majority largely must hope they are benevolent.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    5 years ago

It was also an improvement over mercantilism which it more directly replaced.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.18  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.14    5 years ago

No the era of the so called robber barons of our late 19th and very early 20th century was nothing at all like feudalism.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.18    5 years ago

Have you ever studied the WV mine wars?  It could be very much like feudalism.  Miners lived in company housing, shopped at company stores, and were paid with company scrip.  If they wanted to move, they had to find a way to turn that scrip into some form of payment that would be accepted elsewhere, and on their travels to whatever elsewhere they chose.

Since the companies owned the stores, and accepted their own scrip, they could charge high prices, even on the tools miners were required to buy to do their work (the company didn't provide the tools).  Workers could be kept in debt to the company they worked for by such practices.

Indebted to your employer, who owns your home, and unable to leave.  Seems to me that there are indeed some similarities to feudalism.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.20  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.15    5 years ago

Every thing that’s tried to replace capitalism has led to such ruin. There’s nothing wrong with a degree of reforms to capitalism from within its system.  There is room to discuss and debate that.  There will be no tolerance for any attempt to change systems from capitalism to something else.  And there will be maximum resistance to any and all forms of socialism no matter what kind of lipstick 💄 is put on that pig 🐷 or how it is dressed 👗 up to the point it can only be imposed by force of state or mob coercion. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.17    5 years ago

So you get the drift that we are talking about evolution.   So what makes you think that capitalism is the end of the evolutionary process?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.20    5 years ago
... will be maximum resistance to any and all forms of socialism ...

Given you do not have a clear definition for 'socialism' as you use the term, your comment is meaningless.   After all, redistribution of wealth occurs under capitalism all over the world.   Indeed social democracy is a form of capitalism which heavily employs redistribution of wealth (via taxation) under a very statist system.   

Gotta know what you are talking about.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.15    5 years ago

No one has claimed that Capitalism is perfect so why the hyperbole?

Besides, “utopian” more aptly describes how many of you talk about Socialism.    Now there is a really ridiculous exaggeration.    Socialist utopia ...... lol 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.23    5 years ago
Besides, “utopian” more aptly describes how many of you talk about Socialism.  

Who describes socialism as a utopia?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.25  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.20    5 years ago
Every thing that’s tried to replace capitalism has led to such ruin.

BS, nothing more than a simplistic generalization based on tribalism.

Are these countries in a state of ruin?

  • China
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • Netherlands
  • Canada
  • Sweden
  • Norway
  • Ireland
  • New Zealand
  • Belgium
 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.26  charger 383  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.19    5 years ago

"you load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"    By Tennessee Ernie Ford  

That song tells the story  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @2.1.26    5 years ago

It sure does.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.28  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    5 years ago

The Kulaks burned their barns and produce, buried their farm equipment, and salted their fields rather than turn them over to Stalin.  I’m just suggesting that it’s better to destroy any asset we own that socialism would take away from us and give to another than to let them have it.  In the face of socialism/statism it would be time to go Galt rather than comply.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.28    5 years ago
I’m just suggesting that it’s better to destroy any asset we own that socialism would take away from us and give to another than to let them have it. In the face of socialism/statism it would be time to go Galt rather than comply.  

So now you consider socialism expropriation of private property as in Atlas Shrugged?   But you also add redistribution of wealth - expropriating a manufacturing plant and giving it to another (rather than engage in state capitalism).  You really have no clear definition of 'socialism' do you?

Is this what you think Ocasio-Cortez is trying to do?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.30  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.24    5 years ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.30    5 years ago

You need more than a link.  What point are you trying to make?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.32  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.29    5 years ago
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialismwelfarismMore
    • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
      synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialismwelfarismMore
    • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.   socialism definition
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.32    5 years ago

And, again, you need to actually provide a point.   Providing a dictionary definition alone is entirely vague.

Do you have a point?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.34  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.33    5 years ago

That I am opposed to every idea and word of the above definition and willing to resist implementation of any of it legally to the point where the other side using lethal force is the only is the only way they can impose it upon us involuntarily over our considerable opposition.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.34    5 years ago

I am aware that you are opposed to socialism.   That is okay.   The problem though is that you do not really understand what you are opposing.  Further, you are even opposed to anything that people label as 'socialism'.   You are opposed to a label KAG.

See, the definition you posted does not correlate with much of what you consider to be socialism.  Where do you see, for example, an authoritarian State expropriating private property?   How does that definition correlate, for example, with the former USSR?   How does the definition hold that socialism means government sponsored public services?   Where does the definition note an egalitarian system of equal results for all?    Where is the Statism?

The people are the 'collective'.   Government is a controlling minority of the population.   Government / the State is by no means the people.   You get that, right?

That is why I asked you to make a point.   You do not appear to read the comments you cut & paste.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.36  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  luther28 @2.1.9    5 years ago

Capitalism vastly expanded the middle class.  Before capitalism most nations had a very small middle class. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.37  JBB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.36    5 years ago

No, it was the advent of mechanization, The Industrial Revolution, that created the goods and the leisure time that made the middle classes. The American prosperity of the 50's and 60's was mainly the result of the rest of the world being in ruins and the US not having any real economic competitors. Today socialized economies like Norway and Sweden have the best and highest standards of living...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.38  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.35    5 years ago

 We are tweaking capitalism for the better by cutting taxes for all and enhancing our energy independence while reducing the cost of our regulatory regime.  Now unemployment is near an all time low and wages are finally starting to rise again.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @2.1.37    5 years ago

Norway and Sweden would be nothing like they are today without the cloak of protection the US/NATO has provided since WW-2.   Had they needed to spend their countries resources on protection and security it would be a much different story today.

That said comparing a country that is 1/30th to 1/60th our size doesn't pass the sniff test.   Not to a non partisan, thinking person that is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.38    5 years ago

Non sequitur.   Dropping in an opinion that does not, in any way, address the question.   

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.42  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.41    5 years ago

Well said.  I agree and couldn’t have said it better myself.  Some simply hate that we won’t accept or tolerate the further expansion of socialism within our fine economic system and will fight to the end come what may to prevent it from in any way, shape, or form replacing or overturning capitalism.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.41    5 years ago

Few in the political arena seems to actually oppose capitalism (minority control over the productive resources of the economy).   Both Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, seem to be the most visible 'socialists' yet their platforms have very little to do with socialism and quite a bit to do with social democracy.  The 'socialists' in national politics are typically statists, not socialists (distributed public control over the economy).  They do not want to change the economic system of the nation (and there is no way they could do so even if that was their intent).   What they want is (primarily) to redistribute wealth in the form of social programs; they want to notch up the level of social democracy in the USA.

Just more of the same.   The USA is replete with people tossing about the label 'socialism' without having a clue as to what that actually would mean in core technical terms.   The word, in USA parlance, is so overloaded it has lost all useful meaning.   Better to simply state the concept of interest with well-defined terms list:  statism, expropriation, redistribution of wealth, social-democracy, authoritarian rule, brutal dictatorship, command-economy, egalitarian results, public services, etc.  rather than use the catch-all 'socialism'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.42    5 years ago
Some simply hate that we won’t accept or tolerate the further expansion of socialism within our fine economic system and will fight to the end come what may to prevent it from in any way, shape, or form replacing or overturning capitalism.  

Thing is KAG, since you never bother to get past the labels you do not recognize that capitalism is not in jeopardy in any way, shape or form.  It is not capitalism that is under attack, it is liberty.   The problem is creeping statism.

Running about complaining of socialism is actually ridiculous.   There is no socialism at play in the USA and very likely will never be.   If socialism evolves in the USA it will be much further in the future and none of us will be around.

Complain about what is actually happening.   Go after statism, redistribution of wealth, etc.   Then, at least, your complaints will be using specific, clear language rather than merely tossing about a label that, in effect, has no practical meaning on its own.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
2.1.45  zuksam  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.44    5 years ago

The problem I see with Leftism today is they have a Religious believe system with all the rules of a Religion, Sinful acts, Righteous acts, things they consider abominations, but since they don't have a God they think it's not a religion and so they think they can use the Government to establish their religious edicts into Law and force their religion on everyone. I never liked it when the Religious Right tried to force their beliefs on the rest of us and I don't like the Left doing it either.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.48  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.43    5 years ago

Then why are the Scandinavian nation’s scaling back on the socialist footprint on their social democracy capitalism?  They are ratcheting back the rates of taxation and the size of government to provide socialist services as a percentage of their total economy.  I’ll be seeding more on that topic this evening.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  zuksam @2.1.45    5 years ago

Interesting perspective.   A lot of people on the left are religious though - with a God.   I think this might be a bit more complex than you are giving it credit.

But I agree with your point about forcing beliefs.   Law, for example, should be based on facts, evidence and logic - not on a mere belief.   Further, we should strive for objectivity (a tough gig) and that clearly calls for leaving mere beliefs (as in without supporting evidence) out of it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.46    5 years ago
I can't imane why you oppose using the term socialism to describe many of the things you have listed and referred to as well defined.  For future reference you can just assume I am using the term to describe the most undersiable aspects of your list.

I am quite aware of that.   That is what most people do.   They use 'socialism' as a pejorative - it basically means 'one or more aspects of a socio-economic/political system that I find undesirable'.    

Trouble with that is when one person refers to socialism as social democracy and another refers to it as authoritarian rule with expropriation the two are talking about very different mechanisms (with dramatically different results).   The dialectic breaks down because the operative term is overloaded with so much gorp as to be meaningless.

However, social democracy is quite well defined, easy to research, easy to understand.   Authoritarian rule is also well defined with many examples.   Expropriation of private property (and the hell that can result) is an easy concept to understand with a recent clear example of why it is bad.

So the reason I oppose labeling all of this (and far more) with the same term is that using the same term for multiple concepts is a horrible way to communicate.   Also, the various usages of 'socialism' usually are talking about variants of capitalism - rarely does anyone indicate an understanding of a system that is inherently the opposite of capitalism.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.48    5 years ago
Then why are the Scandinavian nation’s scaling back on the socialist footprint on their social democracy capitalism?  They are ratcheting back the rates of taxation and the size of government to provide socialist services as a percentage of their total economy.  I’ll be seeding more on that topic this evening.  

The Nordic economies are and have always been capitalist (at least in modern times).   They are social democracies - a form of capitalism.   Yet these (and this is just pathetic) are where USA 'socialists' like Sanders point when they speak of 'socialism'.

The problems with social democracies are inherent in the problems of statism and redistribution of wealth.   Socialism (technically speaking) is not even part of their system.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.52    5 years ago

Basically the problem I noted.   Instead of socialism = 'one or more aspects of a socio-economic/political system that I find undesirable' you define socialism as 'one or more aspects of a socio-economic/political system that I find immoral'.

Meh.   Bears no interesting information.   About as informative as: 'that sucks'.

Vague language accomplishes nothing good and mitigates intellectual discourse.   That is, if people discuss concepts using vague homonyms the likelihood of meaningful results is slim to none.   Might be great for pumping up emotions though.

For example, you and I could discuss Venezuela and I suspect we would see eye-to-eye in terms of analysis (i.e. what is wrong with their approach).    You would call it socialism (repeating the marketing label under which Chávez secured his dictatorship) instead of authoritarian rule based on expropriating private property, command economy and irresponsible levels of redistributing wealth.   We could discuss the actual facets but if socialism becomes the topic I would smile, roll my eyes and recognize a dead end.   To not recognize how Venezuela is the exact opposite of the people having distributed control over their economy means there is no point trying to even construct the bridge.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.54    5 years ago
The branding as you noted above is generally acceptable to me and useful in many applications.

That I knew.  You asked a question @2.1.46 so I provided my answer.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.56  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.52    5 years ago

Exactly.  And when President Trump promised in the SOTU speech that America would never become a socialist country we stoood to a standing O knowing he was and we are rejecting it no matter how it’s worded or what form it’s presented.  It is anathema to political and economic freedom that will never during my life time be imposed upon us.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.56    5 years ago
And when President Trump promised in the SOTU speech that America would never become a socialist country we stoood to a standing O knowing he was and we are rejecting it no matter how it’s worded or what form it’s presented.

Then you are merely rejecting a label without a clear understanding of what it means.

For example, some people consider public services to be 'socialism'.    The USA has plenty of public services.    At what point, do you suppose, that the USA becomes 'socialist' under that (confused) definition?   Or are we already 'socialist'?   When Trump asserts that we will never becomes a socialist country, what do you suppose he meant by that?   What would be a defining characteristic that would, per Trump, mean that the USA is 'socialist'?   Do you know?   Do you think he knows?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.58  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.52    5 years ago

Exactly. It’s all immoral and we don’t want any of it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.60  TᵢG  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @2.1.59    5 years ago

We agree on that.   I doubt most could articulate the defining characteristics of capitalism.   Most would probably state ‘free market competition’.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.56    5 years ago

 I asked this two days ago:

TiG @2.1.57 - What would be a defining characteristic that would, per Trump, mean that the USA is 'socialist'?   Do you know?   Do you think he knows?

You should know how to answer this basic question.   

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.62  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.61    5 years ago

It doesn’t matter.  We are a capitalist country and short of a revolutionary overthrow of our American political and economic system which I’d never survive or even want to if it prevailed, we will always stay that way.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.62    5 years ago
It doesn’t matter.

Being informed matters.   It is very important to have at least a rudimentary understanding of that which you opine.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.64  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.63    5 years ago

Keeping capitalism matters most.  If anyone wants to replace it they are the ones it’s incumbent upon to articulate exactly what it is it the most intricate detail what it is they will replace it with and what we should.  Otherwise we keep capitalism because we know it works.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
2.1.65  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.63    5 years ago
 It is very important to have at least a rudimentary understanding

Folks aren't fleeing to Venezuela, or any other place for that matter for a reason....hmmmm ! There should be a "rudimentary" Understanding of why on that, wouldn't you think ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Could it be because of……. Capitalism.....warts and all ? jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.64    5 years ago
Keeping capitalism matters most.

Capitalism in the USA is not in any jeopardy whatsoever.   This is one of the things you would understand if you got below the slogan-level.   Capitalism is doing fine and will continue to do fine even if our system turns to crap.   What is in danger is liberty.   Understand the things that are bad and address them directly.   Calling everything 'socialism' is vague and confused.   It dilutes the point when to be effective you need a sharp point.

If, for example, you are against big government then argue against statism.   If you are against redistribution of wealth then there is your clearly defined adversary.   If you are against government taking control of industry you are against expropriation of private property.

Why insist on calling everything socialism - especially when you clearly do not even know the defining characteristics of the term?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.65    5 years ago

Venezuela is a mess, why would anyone want to live under authoritarian rule in an economy ruined by expropriation, insane levels of redistribution of wealth and another failed attempt at a command economy?

You missed the point entirely.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
2.1.68  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.67    5 years ago
You missed the point entirely.

Like this point ?:

"Capitalism is doing fine and will continue to do fine " even if our system turns to crap ".

It's a long way OUT when that happens !

Can YOU survive …… AGAIN ?

It behooves us to make sure it doesn't turn to "Crap" again, as the Nutz running for President on the "Left" are advocating !

256

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4  Kavika     5 years ago

Actually life in China and Vietnam has dramatically improved under their current governments. 

 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
5  Citizen Kane-473667    5 years ago
I’m reminded of a college student who wrote his dad: “Dear Dad, No mon. No fun. Your son.” His dad wrote back: “Too bad. So sad. Your Dad.”

I remember reading that joke in Readers Digest decades ago. Still brings a chuckle!

As to there being no record of a good Socialist country; I would have to agree, but that doesn't mean that Socialism cannot be a good form of Government--only that it too must be kept firmly in check just like Democratic-Republic is supposed to be. Even now we can see that system of Government is failing too. Not as fast as the Socialist forms, but failing...

Truthfully speaking, Socialism was the earliest form of Government and it was very successful in elevating mankind to the point that it was able to establish Capitalism. Most people are unaware of this fact, but it is true and continues to exist today in its earliest form: Tribalism. In tribes, no one person owns land--the tribe does. No one person worked the land or hunted or took care of the kids. They all did. This is in accordance with the Socialist motto: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” What exactly is wrong with that mantra? Even in Capitalism we expect people to put forth their best efforts and reward them with money when they do. Where we fail is when that person is a doctor sworn to save lives but who refuses to do so based upon the ability of the sufferer to pay. We fail when we don't provide housing or food to someone because they are mentally or physically  unable to hold a job.

Yes, even in a Socialist society you can accumulate wealth. This si where modern Socialism fails because there are no limits and therefore opens the door to Classes, just as Capitalism does. We could have a successful, fair, and equitable Socialist Society if we trully wanted one. We just have to place the safeguards in place before we do it to ensure we slow the inevitable corruption of ALL forms of Government...much like we did with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 
 

Who is online

Trout Giggles
Snuffy
Sean Treacy


68 visitors