USSA? United Socialist States of America

[DadSmith]

Socialist countries commonly are home to genocide, torture, slave labor camps, religious persecution, mass murder, police-state repression, Orwellian surveillance, and a long list of additional unspeakable crimes. Socialism has left a trail of blood, misery, death, and destruction unparalleled in human history.

That being known why do Democrat's want a Socialist government here?

 

[MCgrease08]

It comes from a place of pure arrogance and hubris.

They are so delusional that they claim true socialism (or communism) has never been tried. And they have such an over inflated and false sense of their own intelligence that they think they understand Marxist doctrines better than anyone in human history. They honestly think that if they were they ones in charge of implementing these doctrines, that they would usher in the Utopia they naively imagine.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Socialist countries commonly are home to genocide, torture, slave labor camps, religious persecution, mass murder, police-state repression, Orwellian surveillance, and a long list of additional unspeakable crimes. Socialism has left a trail of blood, misery, death, and destruction unparalleled in human history.

That being known why do Democrat's want a Socialist government here?

I know I'm going to start a crapstorm... but I can't help it:

1) No, they aren't and it hasn't.
2) They don't.
3) We are all going to lose our 2A rights if we keep up this tribal claptrap.

 

[Tanfodude]

Canada is a socialist form of Govt right? Are they doing all those mentioned?

 

[DadSmith]

I know I'm going to start a crapstorm... but I can't help it:

1) No, they aren't and it hasn't.
2) They don't.
3) We are all going to lose our 2A rights if we keep up this tribal claptrap.

Green New Deal....

Canada is a socialist form of Govt right? Are they doing all those mentioned?

Not all but several. Given time it will get worse.

 

[Kdf101]

I know I'm going to start a crapstorm... but I can't help it:

1) No, they aren't and it hasn't.
2) They don't.
3) We are all going to lose our 2A rights if we keep up this tribal claptrap.

i agree that tribalism is a bad thing, but from where I sit, it seems to be much more prevalent on the far left. Heck here we have republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc.. I think we are, as a whole, far less tribal. San Francisco just declared many of us terrorists, THAT is tribalism, because we don’t agree with them we must be terrorists.

 

[BugI02]

Free is the gateway drug to socialism, which is in turn the precursor to communism and the addiction turning into a nightmare the addict is unable to escape

They can't see past the high that they crave to the end stage, or in their hubris they think that they're strong enough to resist and control their urges. Either way, the destination is the same and the people willing to ride that wave to power will be vicious pushers indeed

 

[HoughMade]

What exactly would you call Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of Welfare, the ACA, etc., etc., etc.?

The U.S. IS a socialist country. The only question is how much socialist we will get.

 

[rhino]

Canada is a socialist form of Govt right? Are they doing all those mentioned?

Does the government own all means of production? If not, then they are not actually socialist. They can have an ill-advised level of welfare programs and entitlements that are typically associated with socialism, but not technically be a socialist country.

 

[HoughMade]

So i guess the question is- what is an example of a socialist country....that's not communist?

 

[Leadeye]

Socialism like any other form of government requires money. The big difference between the two philosophies of capitalism and socialism is that one is centered around making more money and the other is around paying people to divide money up. Problems occur with socialism because when the amount of money decreases, there's less to divide up and you are still paying someone to do the dividing. You could run a socialist government indefinitely if you had an inexhaustible supply of unobtainium that everybody wanted.

I think it was PM Margret Thatcher who said it worked until you ran out of other people's money, so it's not something you can judge in the short term. Some countries with long histories have pretty big reserves of wealth and socialism can seem to flourish when it starts until that wealth declines. Others with much shorter histories and less wealth turn into basket cases rather quickly.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Again, I reject the original premise.

1) No, they aren't and it hasn't.
2) They don't.
3) We are all going to lose our 2A rights if we keep up this tribal claptrap.

 

[NKBJ]

No, socialism doesn't mean communism.
To many what socialism means is communism lite (without the AK's yet) and it can be pretty hard to refute such thoughts.

But come on, fascism is socialism. Why big money funded NAZI Germany and funds socialist congresspersons is a no brainer. It's all about manipulating the consolidation of power.

 

[jamil]

Sigh.

1) Yes, OutdoorDad, socialism, REAL ASS socialism, is indeed generally home to genocide, torture, slave labor camps, religious persecution, mass murder, police-state repression, Orwellian surveillance, and a long list of additional unspeakable crimes. REAL ASS socialism, as I've described elsewhere, has fundamental attributes that make it socialist. Having some or many public programs does not make a nation socialist. Canada IS NOT SOCIALIST! Norway, Sweden, Denmark, are not socialist. They're capitalist, because they have a market based system where the primary means of production is privately held. They just have a lot of social programs and high taxation.

2) I can't think of many (or at the moment, even any) REAL ASS socialist countries that aren't communist. Socialism isn't communism in the same way fruit isn't apples. Communism is a specific type of socialism as apples are a specific type of fruit. Democratic socialism, I mean REAL ASS democratic socialism is a socialist system where there is no private ownership of capital. There is no profit. "The people" (meaning the state; or effectively, bureaucrats) owns the means of production and the people all share in the proceeds, and have a vote in how to manage it all. At least in theory. Democratic Socialists want profit to end, they want private ownership of real and capital resources to end. I'm not making that up. That's what the Democratic Socialist Party says.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist". He says it's like the Scandinavian economies. I don't know if he's just confused and has never asked the Democratic Socialists what they really want, or if he's actually a REAL ASS democratic socialist and is subverting his true intents and purposes.

3) Fascism isn't necessarily socialist, but can be. Nazi Germany did not have a socialist economy, private companies owned the means of production, for profit, in a market based economy. The Nazi regime rewarded private companies for supporting the regime. People owned property. They owned businesses. They owned cars. They owned their homes. That's not socialism. That's crony capitalism.

 

[JettaKnight]

So i guess the question is- what is an example of a socialist country....that's not communist?

Finland?

But even then, the majority of businesses are private. They just have a massive welfare state. So, would that be considered quasi-socialism?

3) Fascism isn't necessarily socialist, but can be. Nazi Germany did not have a socialist economy, private companies owned the means of production, for profit, in a market based economy. The Nazi regime rewarded private companies for supporting the regime. People owned property. They owned businesses. They owned cars. They owned their homes. That's not socialism. That's crony capitalism.

Why are you so closed minded?

 

[HoughMade]

Finland?

But even then, the majority of businesses are private. They just have a massive welfare state. So, would that be considered quasi-socialism?...

See, that's my point. If we're going to claim that socialism means there is no private industry and there is authoritarian totalitarianism...and communism is something different....it would seem that there have been no true socialist countries, according to those parameters.

Seems to me, we have to start thinking in terms of a spectrum of socialism, not "it either is or isn't".

The U.S. is on the spectrum. So is Finland.

 

[JettaKnight]

See, that's my point. If we're going to claim that socialism means there is no private industry and there is authoritarian totalitarianism...and communism is something different....it would seem that there have been no true socialist countries, according to those parameters.

Seems to me, we have to start thinking in terms of a spectrum of socialism, not "it either is or isn't".

The U.S. is on the spectrum. So is Finland.

That makes sense - my wife says I'm on the spectrum.

Agreed - to say that a state can only be considered socialist if the state owns everything is ridiculous. Even under full communism, there was private property ownership - you could get a car, but after a long wait and approval.... well, I guess that's technically ownership.


So, if there's incredibly draconian regulation on your business, can it be considered capitalism?

 

[KLB]

Well, Socialism is supposed to be

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

It isn't about not being to own anything.

 

[BugI02]

My understanding was always that in Socialism, the workers owned the means of production (kind of like a co-op, like REI is supposed to be) and in Communism the state owned the workers (kind of like Google or Uber)

 

[jamil]

See, that's my point. If we're going to claim that socialism means there is no private industry and there is authoritarian totalitarianism...and communism is something different....it would seem that there have been no true socialist countries, according to those parameters.

Seems to me, we have to start thinking in terms of a spectrum of socialism, not "it either is or isn't".

The U.S. is on the spectrum. So is Finland.

Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian in theory. Communism is an authoritarian form of socialism. I think, because human nature is what it is, socialism, even if it starts out democratic, will eventually evolve to be authoritarian especially as it scales up.

I would not say that the U.S. is on the socialist spectrum. But, I guess it depends what you mean by "spectrum". If you mean anything that isn't pure capitalism is on the spectrum because it's some mixture of capitalist and socialist attributes, well, sure. But then it's kinda meaningless because there aren't any scaled working pure capitalist nations out there, nor are there any scaled pure socialist nations. Even China has private ownership.

What comes to mind when I think of an economic spectrum, you'd have pure capitalism on the right, pure socialism on the left, and everything else in between. So if you say we're on the spectrum of socialism, I think you'd be saying the US is left of center in terms of having socialist attributes. And I don't think that's the case.

Finland, since we're talking about them, isn't on the other side of the spectrum either. A little over half their GDP is government spending, but not all government spending is "socialist". So I guess you could say they're maybe close to halfway socialist. Having social programs isn't socialist, per se. But because Finland's healthcare is a huge chunk of their GDP, and that sector of their economy is publicly owned.