U.S. may not resist siren song of socialism

[Kokolums]

Is this a joke? your picture of a stronger, thriving and limitless future is for people to live like the Amish? I am sorry if having a version of the Handmaiden's tale is not most people's vision of the future.

Its just raw numbers. The Amish have 6-8 kids per family, their population is growing exponentially, and they are wildly thriving. They just started out with such a tiny tiny population of just a few thousand that its going to take them a few hundred years to supplant the non-Amish population. The non-Amish have no kids, run up wild debts, have little to no life skills, and are dependent upon government.

You see, the argument is not American vs European populations because you are really just comparing two semi-socialist populations. The argument is Amish vs non-Amish because THAT is socialist vs non-socialist and the non-socialists are winning in a rout.

[Reaper0329]

Its amazing that socialists see concentration of wealth as bad but arent able to apply the same criteria to the government.

What do you think happens after the government seizes control of the economy? It will gladly give it back to the workers or fall to corruption?

No no no. See, this time, when we touch the stove, it won't be hot. Promise. Pinky swear.

Did you want butter with your popcorn, btw?

[NED funded]

When people like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez talk about socialism they are talking about a mixed economy and decent public services such as education, healthcare and infrastructure paid by reasonable taxation, they are not talking about state control of the means of production.

This is wrong. The loony left of Alexandrio Ocasio Cortez has proudly stated that they don't intend to fund for their programs, instead resorting to the relatively new theory of MMT. In which the government can print as much money as it wants to as long as production keeps up.

[Pooti]

At this point the only people who still can reasonably fearmonger about socialism (especially by using the Venezuela strawman) are the willfully ignorant, the profoundly moronic or those who actually want to fuck with the poor and the middle class.

When people like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez talk about socialism they are talking about a mixed economy and decent public services such as education, healthcare and infrastructure paid by reasonable taxation, they are not talking about state control of the means of production.

Again, the only way you can claim this is not the case if is either you are fucking moron or if you fucking despise everyone who makes less than a million dollars a year.

I can't fucking wrap my head around how this hasn't sunk in yet. Well I actually can...it's the example of how propaganda works on the masses, convincing the poor and the middle class to keep voting against their self interest.

And just to entertain the Venezuela strawman for a second, for every Venezuela there is a France, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Australia etc. This is where the shills will jump in and start the whole "yes, but those are not socialist"...which is technically true, but just as Venezuela isn't socialist under that technical interpretation of what socialism is supposed to be.

Mixed economies like all the above mentioned are welfare states which implement certain socialized programs in areas of healthcare, education and infrastructure to further the common well being of their populace.

Venezuela is a particularly poor example of how socialized programs can be mishandled, misused and even misguided, but again for the umpteenth time, for every Venezuela there are 10 others who do much better. I mean for fuck sake, Chile which is often held up in right wing circles as a successful example of pro-business South American nation, has universal healthcare.

Not to disagree with anything you say, but to bring up AOC then call her detractors fucking morons is laughable. My 8yo daughter speaks more intelligently than her. I agree with you though, that "socialism" is used by the 2 sides of the argument ( and everywhere inbetween ) in very different ways. It does not help I think, that politicians change tune depending on the group they are adressing about it. Not a totally different tune, just adjusted. I mean, they are trying to win votes, so they adjust stances based on what will make the crowd cheer.

[Draco-Onis]

Its just raw numbers. The Amish have 6-8 kids per family, their population is growing exponentially, and they are wildly thriving. They just started out with such a tiny tiny population of just a few thousand that its going to take them a few hundred years to supplant the non-Amish population. The non-Amish have no kids, run up wild debts, have little to no life skills, and are dependent upon government.

You see, the argument is not American vs European populations because you are really just comparing two semi-socialist populations. The argument is Amish vs non-Amish because THAT is socialist vs non-socialist and the non-socialists are winning in a rout.

And why is that? because divorce is pretty much banned, once you are married you are forced to stay home their entire community is a portal to the dark ages. It's socialism for women to have rights instead of forcing them to stay home be servants and popping babies? are you sure you want to go this route?

[roboscorcher]

Mr. Sowell, a Marxist in his youth, made the remarks Tuesday while appearing with Fox Business Network’s David Asman.

Faux News fear mongering again.

America has a capitalist authoritarian in power, who is buddy-buddy with an even bigger authoritarian leader. Fox is trying to look the other way by looking at authoritarians in the other direction.

The best governments combine socialist and capitalist ideals. Most successful societies are built this way, including the US. Going to EITHER side leads to authoritarians. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[cparle87]

Youll now hear that " it was the authoritarianism" as if that wasnt the end result of socialism.

Yeah, the problem with socialism and communism is that they simply cannot work without an authoritarian government organizing and controlling all the aspects of the government and economy. And as soon as you have authoritarianism you have corruption and abuse of power which ends up making it socialism/communism in name only. It's really just a dictatorship or oligarchy pretending to be socialist/communist.

[Dezerte]

I think they would point to the Amish. The Amish basically swear off the entire social safety net like free education, free medical benefits, all forms of welfare etc. They do this because they want to be in control of their own future and not a ward of the state. They will happily leave your country and go and be productive elsewhere if you try to force that stuff on them. And when you compare the two cultures, they are unquestionably the stronger culture, growing exponentially, thriving and seem limitless.

I mean if you want to compare futures, the Amish have a bright future while the rest of the North American and European cultures are dying out from lack of children and lack of will.

Socialists seem incapable of being the Amish way of life on a level playing field. Socialists are going to have to drive the Amish out or they will grow strong enough to where entire counties and states reject all government control.

Aren't the Amish more of an example of a more communistic/socialist society?

[Pooti]

And why is that? because divorce is pretty much banned, once you are married you are forced to stay home their entire community is a portal to the dark ages. It's socialism for women to have rights instead of forcing them to stay home be servants and popping babies? are you sure you want to go this route?

I do not think he is promoting it, just pointing to it's existence, and the fact that it is the true opposite of socialism.

[Mihalik]

I think they would point to the Amish. The Amish basically swear off the entire social safety net like free education, free medical benefits, all forms of welfare etc. They do this because they want to be in control of their own future and not a ward of the state. They will happily leave your country and go and be productive elsewhere if you try to force that stuff on them. And when you compare the two cultures, they are unquestionably the stronger culture, growing exponentially, thriving and seem limitless.

I mean if you want to compare futures, the Amish have a bright future while the rest of the North American and European cultures are dying out from lack of children and lack of will.

Socialists seem incapable of being the Amish way of life on a level playing field. Socialists are going to have to drive the Amish out or they will grow strong enough to where entire counties and states reject all government control.

Not sure whether you are a serious or batshit fucking crazy.

First of all, the Amish have a higher child mortality rate than the general populace, second due to the high rate of endogamy they also have problems with recurrent genetic defects which also increases their mortality rates and reduces their life expectancy.

The Amish do not reject government controlled healthcare (I have no idea which side of your ass did you pull this shit out from), they just tend not to buy insurance (often enough because they don't have the cash or because they don't actually have jobs which would provide them with insurance), but they don't reject modern healthcare that is provided to them by healthcare organizations (which are often funded by state or national grants).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_among_the_Amish

Not to mention, their way of life is utterly unsustainable once their population would go beyond a certain number. Agrarian subsistence farming (what they do) is the norm in the whole of the third world. Which is the third world exactly because its economic model is agrarian subsistence farming.

[Vando]

A lot of states cry bloody murder when a lot of these programs are instituted but now they can't live without them. The federal government is needed for those areas like health care, education etc, you can easily say without the federal government some states in the south would still have Jim Crow.

The problem with your original post, is that you are comparing apples to oranges. Every benefit you listed the recipient has paid into. If I look at my paystub, I see medicare and social security deductions. As to VA benefits, that go to those that served in the military and sacrificed part of their lifetime for, not just everyone. You are asking for things like free healthcare and free college tuition for all.

I am all for getting rid of medicare and social security. But I am guessing many blue states, to use your terminology, would have a melt down in 20-30 years when they realize they aren't able to retire. I am guessing most people focused on getting as many free benefits as possible, are not focused on a 401k or other retirement planning. That is just a bridge they will cross when they get there. Just like the realization that now they have to start repaying college loans now that they are out.

All 5 presidential elections that I have been eligible to vote, I have voted Democrat. Including this past one with Hillary. I wasn't a fan of her, but it seemed like the lesser of two evils. I am seriously questioning the party lately. If the election was today, I would vote for Trump. It makes me throw up a little in my mouth, but I don't identify with much of what the left has become over the past few years. Maybe a sensible Democrat candidate will pop up before the election, but I haven't seen it yet.

[Pooti]

Aren't the Amish more of an example of a more communistic/socialist society?

Probably more communist than socialist? I am no political or sociological expert, but I usually boil down communism to EVERYBODY does their part and benefit equally, equal in and equal out. Socialism ( once again I could be wrong ) is unequal in but equal out. I am sure that I am way over simplifying.

[DJ117]

We do not have socialism in Scandinavia. We are social democracies. A combination of a social welfare system and a pure capitalist market.

[Draco-Onis]

I do not think he is promoting it, just pointing to it's existence, and the fact that it is the true opposite of socialism.

But the reason he is stating they are booming is their birth rates and the reason they have this high birth rate has nothing to do with socialism but the fact that their women cannot divorce and are forced to stay home and have kids.

[Celista]

If so then the only ones to blame are those who exploited capitalism to the point that working conditions are becoming unsustainable for most Americans.

[Dellis0991]

Socialism?! *breaks emergency glass*...*hit button*



Whoa that was close!

[Satelliteyears0o]

Democratic socialism works wonders. Scandinavia being a prime example of it's success. America is just far too brainwashed against it. They will die a slave state that fights for the rich, as sad as that is.

Man, if i could upvote this i would 100x. This is the absolute truth. Democratic Socialism IS the way to go.

[Reaper0329]

Socialism?! *breaks emergency glass*...*hit button*



Whoa that was close!

If you could distill the US into a five second video, that's it. I love that video.

Brings a tear to the eye.

[durenas]

No, it doesn't. You've been lied to if you believe this - probably by Bernie Sanders, that clueless moron. None of the nordic countries are socialist, and the state with the most welfare, that would be Sweden, has suffered tremendously. In all Nordic countries, social welfare programs are being rolled back or removed.

What Denmark had in the 1970'ies can be described as social democracy, but that is NOT socialism. There is still property ownership, private interprise, stocks, companies, and you have no right to welfare if you do not work.

so if it succeeds, it's Social Democracy. if it fails, it's Democratic Socialism. got it.

by that definition, Democratic Socialism is Communism by another name.

I can't stand the sloppy thinking this topic creates. Why can't we just talk about the issues instead of fun catchphrases that don't mean anything?

Because saying 'Oh we should embrace social democracy! that's the way to go!" means nothing. It completely ignores the reasons why other countries went that route. Copying another country's policies wholesale is foolish. Use what is useful, discard what is not.

[ONCHEhap]

Yeah I'm sure venezuela went to shit because of socialism and not because it's an authoritarian mess with a dictator and shit infrastructure