Socialism viewed positively by 36% of Americans

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What about the way our taxes are spent, and the way that new proposed social programs, are not socialist. Equal healthcare for all is socialist.

Were the Arab Caliphates aware of that?

Social welfare programs are socialist.

Are Catholics and Muslims aware of that?

Massive spending for public education is socialist.

That's one.

Nationalizing GM and Chrysler

Was Nazi Germany aware of that?

while rewarding the unions and punishing private investors was socialist.

Nah, not really. Our unions aren't motivated by radical ideas.

The private investors were punished by the companies they invested in.

Cheezy, there's a monolithic transfer of wealth from the top to the bottom in this country.

Of course there is atop-bottom wealth transfer, otherwise our system would collapse. But much of that transfer only happens during times of crisis, when the system itself is in danger.

And we've already talked about Welfare programs before; its enough to get people to not riot and to provide a means to demonize the poor to the eyes of the middle class. That's not socialist, that's capitalism defending its existence.

Probably at least a quarter of the nations GDP. I know it doesn't fit the mold of your ideological and impossible version of socialism, but it still fits the mold of many versions of socialism.

It fits the mold of zero versions of socialism. The economy and society are not on a sliding measure with capitalism at one end and socialism at the other. They are diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive systems. I've explained this to you myriad times. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[Cutlass]

A balanced budget is not the definition of a conservative government. All modern American conservative national politicians have run up the deficit simply because they could.

 

[Traitorfish]

Just because it's centrist doesn't mean it's not socialist. Expropriating wealth from one group and redistributing it to another in the name of fairness and social justice is socialism. It's an antithetical position compared to classical liberalism.

Traditionally, it's seen as a pooling of resources for the greater good, rather than "expropriation". The logic is similar to that behind public education, public libraries, the fire service, the police, and so and so forth. Certainly, the current system is far more reliant of progressive taxation of private commerce than would be likely in a socialist economy.

 

[Elta]

and we've already talked about welfare programs before; its enough to get people to not riot and to provide a means to demonize the poor to the eyes of the middle class. That's not socialist, that's capitalism defending its existence.

qft

 

[Merkinball]

Were the Arab Caliphates aware of that? - Cheezy

RED HERRING!

Are Catholics and Muslims aware of that? - Cheezy

RED HERRING!

Was Nazi Germany aware of that? - Cheezy

Yes they were. What does Volks Wagon mean in Americana anyway?

Nah, not really. Our unions aren't motivated by radical ideas. - Cheezy

Well, yeah, sorta. Unions are in it for the unions and nobody else.

The private investors were punished by the companies they invested in. - Cheezy

To an extent you are correct. They were punished even more so by the populist President who was looking out for the good of the people.

Of course there is atop-bottom wealth transfer, otherwise our system would collapse. But much of that transfer only happens during times of crisis, when the system itself is in danger. - Cheezy

I disagree. These things are not done to "save the system" like you and Cutlass seem to think. These things are done because it's easier to exploit the situation and institute a populist agenda. These tactics are really nothing new either. It was done in Italy, it was done in Germany, it was done in the UK, it was done in France, it was done here during the depression, it was done in Cuba, it was done in Venezuela. It's right out of each and every leftist handbook on the planet.

A balanced budget is not the definition of a conservative government. All modern American conservative national politicians have run up the deficit simply because they could. - Cutlass

By definition it is. Fiscal conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it too. Bush and Reagan are not fiscal conservatives, and the main reason is because of the large deficits they created. There is no substantive, tangible, objective difference between taxing and spending now, or spending now and taxing later. And I would say that ideologically it is far worse to spend now and tax later like Ron and W did.

Traditionally, it's seen as a pooling of resources for the greater good, rather than "expropriation". - Traitorfish

Traditionally charity is seen as the pooling of resources for the greater good, and taxing is seen as expropriating earned wealth.

The logic is similar to that behind public education, public libraries, the fire service, the police, and so and so forth. - Traitor

These are typically provided at the local level, not the federal level (at least in the states.) I have less qualms about localities doing the things they do than the federalays doing it. I really don't care if Cheezy wants to start his social collective in North Dakota and share the wealth created by his hard work with the janitors and lackeys. I really don't. I do have a problem with people like you, or Cutlass, saying that I have to be taxed to oblivion so Paul can have a home, healthcare, a college education, and everything else under the sun while putting in a quarter of the effort.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

RED HERRING!



RED HERRING!

No, they're examples to show that the ideas in question are not "socialist" any more than eating bread or taking a poop is socialist, just because socialists do it.

Yes they were. What does Volks Wagon mean in Americana anyway?

By that logic, anything done with the making of people's lives easier in someone's mind is socialist. Does that make the lightbulb socialist, or

To an extent you are correct. They were punished even more so by the populist President who was looking out for the good of the people.

Which is more than Bush can say. God forbid the president does something that's popular and that people want...

I disagree. These things are not done to "save the system" like you and Cutlass seem to think.

They absolutely are. Its not a "spectre of communism" type of saving the system, its a "our economy is going to take a giant poop on us if we don't do something" type of save the system.

These things are done because it's easier to exploit the situation and institute a populist agenda.

Yes, which is why people do it who are not socialist. Remember, even when social democratic parties are in power, their state is not Socialist because of that. They are still constrained by the corporate aristocracy's power, because that power is over the government itself, not merely the party in power. So they must do what they can, which results in incomplete implementation of certain ideas (whether they mean to go all the way at all is a question to be debated; certainly not all labor or democratic socialist parties can be called truly radical parties in the sense that they desire to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat). And you should be careful not to confuse the programs of these social democratic parties with those of radicals, who are the most true Marxist Socialists.

These tactics are really nothing new either. It was done in Italy, it was done in Germany, it was done in the UK, it was done in France, it was done here during the depression,

Up to this point, you are kind of right. Europe is much further down the path of Welfare Capitalism than we are, and those concessions have been made to socialists to alleviate frustration; tossing the people a bone, so to speak, to keep them from eating their master. But it is not a "populist agenda," since the politicians doing it are not doing it simply to appear to be doing a public good, it is social welfare and done because it actually does good. Make no mistake, I would much rather live in a European welfare state than the US, but it is not socialism. At most it is a warped capitalism, because it preserves private property of the rich (not to be confused with personal property).

it was done in Cuba, it was done in Venezuela. It's right out of each and every leftist handbook on the planet.

These situations are different than the previous. Here, popular need is the goal, not merely a tool for political leverage. More so in Cuba than Venezuela, since that country is not genuinely socialist.

EDIT:

These are typically provided at the local level, not the federal level (at least in the states.) I have less qualms about localities doing the things they do than the federalays doing it. I really don't care if Cheezy wants to start his social collective in North Dakota and share the wealth created by his hard work with the janitors and lackeys. I really don't. I do have a problem with people like you, or Cutlass, saying that I have to be taxed to oblivion so Paul can have a home, healthcare, a college education, and everything else under the sun while putting in a quarter of the effort.

I should clarify this by noting that Marxist socialism is not reclusive, but revolutionary. We desire to change society for the betterment of all, not to craft a supposed equal society in isolation. That is why Marxists refer to Marxist Socialism as "scientific socialism" and oppose it to "utopian socialism" like those reclusive societies dreampt up by Charles Fourier and Etienne Cabet. If you want some reading to clear up this concept (which I admit can be a bit complicated) I can recommend some stuff. Maybe I'll be lucky and dig up the e-book version of it and link to the relevant chapters.

EDIT II:
This is the best I can find, which is basically a summary of each chapter. http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-to-the-finland-station/ The relevant chapters are all of Part I, plus the first six chapters of Part II. I would recommend the whole book, though, for anyone who wants to understand the historical evolution of socialism, its a great read, with a lot more to it than simply the spelling out of philosophical and sociological ideas.

 

[Traitorfish]

Traditionally charity is seen as the pooling of resources for the greater good, and taxing is seen as expropriating earned wealth.

By you, certainly. Others, oddly enough, hold diverging views. I merely sought to enlighten you to these views, rather than to inflict them upon you.

These are typically provided at the local level, not the federal level (at least in the states.) I have less qualms about localities doing the things they do than the federalays doing it.

That's an issue of organisation, not principle. What you object to here is centralised government, not universal healthcare.

I really don't care if Cheezy wants to start his social collective in North Dakota and share the wealth created by his hard work with the janitors and lackeys. I really don't. I do have a problem with people like you, or Cutlass, saying that I have to be taxed to oblivion so Paul can have a home, healthcare, a college education, and everything else under the sun while putting in a quarter of the effort.

I'm not convinced that I've expressed that particular view, at least not recently. As I said, I am merely attempting to correct some liberal interpretation of terminology on your part, rather than to make an ideological argument. If anything, I lean towards Cheezy's position; progressive taxation strikes me as a stop-gap solution, and far from comprehensive.

 

[Merkinball]

By you, certainly. Others, oddly enough, hold diverging views. I merely sought to enlighten you to these views, rather than to inflict them upon you. - Traitorfish

Do you honestly think you're enlightening me to anything? You're not making a good argument as to how it's not expropriating wealth Traitorfish. There is no singularity when it comes to defining the greater good. So how can it be anything other than expropriation? A plurality does not define a universality.

No, they're examples to show that the ideas in question are not "socialist" any more than eating bread or taking a poop is socialist, just because socialists do it. - Cheezy

Yes it is. Donating used clothing goods to my church is nothing like you taking my money and giving it to someone else against my will. Furthermore, it was a red-herring because you shot off from the initial point.

By that logic, anything done with the making of people's lives easier in someone's mind is socialist. Does that make the lightbulb socialist, or - Cheezy

No, when the government does things that it perceives as making of peoples lives easier is socialist. Me solving a problem in the private sector and marketing it is not.

Which is more than Bush can say. God forbid the president does something that's popular and that people want... - Cheezy

What the mob wants is hardly a valuable metric at determining what is right and what is wrong, or what is just and what is unjust. In some respects I have no problem with presidents doing things that are popular and that the people want. But I despise the idea that presidents or governments should have the power to everything that the people want simply because a certain position holds a plurality. The worst thing that people can do is use government to take from one so stuff can be given to them. If you polled Americans and asked them if they all wanted a Mercedez Benz, more than half would say yes. If you polled them and said "Would you be in favor of a Mercedez tax where the top 1% would be taxed so you can have a Mercedez," more than half would say "yes." That doesn't make it right though, and I see no tangible difference between taxing to buy a Mercedez for someone else and taxing to buy someone else healthcare. Either way you're enslaving one man to another.

Remember, even when social democratic parties are in power, their state is not Socialist because of that. They are still constrained by the corporate aristocracy's power, because that power is over the government itself, not merely the party in power. - Cheezy

This depends on the nation. You're right in terms of Europe, but wrong in terms of Latin American socialist nations.

Up to this point, you are kind of right. Europe is much further down the path of Welfare Capitalism than we are, and those concessions have been made to socialists to alleviate frustration; tossing the people a bone, so to speak, to keep them from eating their master. - Cheezy

I wouldn't disagree with this. But one thing that you need to learn is that this is what socialist politicians are all about Cheezy. They are not about forming some egalitarian society as viewed by you. They are about throwing people bones to keep them content, and to keep eating from them, their masters. I'm sure you'll respond with something about corporatism on this and the collusion between corporations and governments. And again, I wouldn't disagree with you one bit.

Here, popular need is the goal, not merely a tool for political leverage. More so in Cuba - Cheezy

How is it possible for you to ascertain with any sort of certainty that what Castro and Che did is truly any different than what was done in those other locations? When you examine how much of a police state Cuba is, I think it's utterly foolish to think they want anything more than a nation of people that is dependent on the rich masters in government.

I should clarify this by noting that Marxist socialism is not reclusive, but revolutionary. We desire to change society for the betterment of all, not to craft a supposed equal society in isolation. That is why Marxists refer to Marxist Socialism as "scientific socialism" and oppose it to "utopian socialism" like those reclusive societies dreampt up by Charles Fourier and Etienne Cabet. If you want some reading to clear up this concept (which I admit can be a bit complicated) I can recommend some stuff. Maybe I'll be lucky and dig up the e-book version of it and link to the relevant chapters. - Cheezy

I've actually been doing a bit of reading on this Cheezy I know you don't want to be reclusive and whatnot. I know you have egalitarian ideals. I just don't agree with the idea of having to supplant my own ideological values with your own, and adopting your specific version of what is best for everyone.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The 17% of Republicans who view "socialism" positively is potentially the most interesting cohort in the survey, but it's probably just another example of the weird ~20% of Americans who will answer anything "yes" in surveys -- alien abductions, conspiracy theories, voting for Alan Keyes, &c.

Cleo

Or a sign that Midwestern Republicanism isn't dead.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you honestly think you're enlightening me to anything? You're not making a good argument as to how it's not expropriating wealth Traitorfish. There is no singularity when it comes to defining the greater good. So how can it be anything other than expropriation? A plurality does not define a universality.

I do not believe you understand me; my intention was to inform you that it is not universally regarded as "expropriation", not to prove that it was or wasn't. I can't help but feel that you're trying to find ideological quarrel were none is presented.

 

[Merkinball]

I do not believe you understand me; my intention was to inform you that it is not universally regarded as "expropriation", not to prove that it was or wasn't. I can't help but feel that you're trying to find ideological quarrel were none is presented.

No, not really. Just making conversation. I really like debating and discussing this stuff with people like you and Cheezy. You guys are well rooted in what you believe. No quarrel here buddy.