Is socialism the future?

Survey says!!!

 

How can it be, when it's entirely voluntary?

 

It seems to me that the choice is either Socialist-Democracy or destruction.

What does that mean?

Both the terms "socialism" and "left" (today) are criminally misused. Would you say that Democracy is represented by the illegal invasion of Irak motivated on pure lies? They claimed they were bringing Democracy. So, is the popular mish-mash of gender-tweaking and rewriting the definitions of pronouns examples of "leftism" and/or "Socialism"? .... and who decides? Government? The media?

Why should it be? Is breastfeeding a prerequisite for heroin addiction?

What do you mean by "can"? IT DOES/HAS DONE. The problem isn't the ability or feasibility of the two to coexist. The problem is 'sabotage':

* Fidel Castro was made isolated by the American CIA
* Mohammad Mosaddegh was made isolated by the American CIA
* Alexander Dubček was made isolated by the Sovjet KGB
* Olaf Palme was murdered by the American CIA.
* Mikael Gorbatjov was made isolated by the American CIA

It is relatively easy to isolate a budding star (hence the phrase, "nipping it in the bud") but very difficult to do so with an established success (hence the murder of Olaf Palme).

Socialist-Democracy may be difficult to define in a way that is clear to everyone simply because its application differs from one to another and because doning the name by self-proclamation (despite the possibility of its corruption) confuses the masses. BUT ..... it can and does work in the hands of the good guys and by that token, it is superior to every other political philosophy and implementation.

 

That would mean they are socislist aka government owns and operates their means of production, and the only difference to Cuba and USSR is how they got there (democratic elections vs violent takeover)

 

Democracy is an election system.
Socialism is an economic system defining the role of the state in the economic operation of the country.
Social democracies operate all over the world including the USA.
Of course it works.

 

I'm just asking because your ideas about what is and isn't socialism are out of the mainstream.

 

No, they specifically support healthy corporations, private production and private ownership of the means of production.

 

Collective production is not limited to government ownership. My wife and I were members of a farm cooperative that opened a supermarket and variety store in addition to farm equipment, feed, fertilizer, seed, etc.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. An economic system is part of a political system.

!!!

Therefore most goods and services are not socialist. They are capitalist.

I don't know what you mean by "collective production". It's a Social program. And, for that reason, it's a socialist policy.

It's a social program that uses private providers. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant. I'm not talking about medicine. I'm talking about the program.

Again: "Socialism" is an immensely broad term. So broad that, in practical terms, it actually doesn't mean much on its own. Social Security is a socialist policy. It's even in the name! Terms like "socialism" and "socialist" are broad terms. They need qualifiers so we understand what we're talking about.

 

No such thing.

There is zero socialism in the First World West, so whatever you think public roads and welfare are, they're most certainly not a product of socialism. Only capitalism can afford such things.

So we have capitalist democracies. And don't forget to thank the gods for that.

 

Let's stick with Collectivism (since socialism and communism are just alternative names for the same thing). When it comes to collectivism, 'my ideas' are hardwired into all social mammals. It's in our DNA, to share labor and resources. It's our tribe/pack default. We're not solitary mammals, and cannot survive well in material isolation from each other.

 

No they really don't.

There are only capitalist democracies. A socialist democracy would mean mandated work for welfare, for example.

 

It's absolutely not. It's the polar opposite of a socialist policy.

There is no form of collectivism/socialism which supports those who don't earn their keep.

If even one person is taking a free ride, you're doing something other than socialism.

 

It's such a socialist policy, that it's even in the name.

Anyway... yes! It IS a socialist policy.

 

So if I add the word "social" to capitalism, it's no longer capitalism? It's magically become something else because I add or change a word?

And anyway ... no! It's nowhere near being socialist. Please grasp that any form of collectivism means work-to-eat. There are no free rides. Not for anyone. If people are able to take a free ride, it's capitalism. Only capitalism can afford excess baggage.

 

First of all, where did you get the idea that capitalism and social policies are incompatible? Second, JUST adding a word is not the same as using a word that describes the policy.

Only if you believe that things "magically" become what the word they use says. It's the other way around. The name of a policy (or an institution) is warranted when the policy it refers to warrants it. And the POLICY called "Social Security" most DEFINITELY warrants the term "social" . Because it IS a socialist policy. There are very few things in which the left and the right agree. There is pretty much universal agreement about this. So I don't even need to argue this because you are pretty much on your own.

 

Collective production occurs in a wide range of political systems.

Yes, most medical care is provided privately even if it's paid through Medicare or Medicaid.

Collective production is where the means of production are owned collectively. Examples include public schools, farm cooperatives, NASA, VA hospitals.

The program bureaucracy in Social Security in less than 2% of the cost.

Socialism has become an almost meaningless term in America where it's often used to reference virtually any government program.

 

I don't know where you get your ideas about socialism, but they aren't mainstream.

 

The unfortunate truth is that what could work in theory "if", has little correlation to reality. Socialism assumes we can modify human nature by making a rule. In the history of the world- that has never worked.
The levels of contribution to a society by those who are part of it spans virtually light years- from those who at very best would never do more than the absolute minimum, to those who are compelled, driven by their nature to achieve the absolute maximum. These are not just choices where either kind could be the opposite, these are forces within a person's character that are not within anyone else's power to change.
The theory of socialism seeks to make them equals or very closely so in terms of their rewards in life- but has no ability at all to make them equal in their motivations and contributions to life.

The idea of socialism is supposed to create some kind of justice in outcome, with no control on the very forces that change outcomes, and no appreciation of why they work, nor how they benefit everyone. While it would easily destroy the most vigorous economy, it can only produce an economy of equal poverty and frustrations... with the exception of course for those controlling the system, who will live like royalty, with closets full of cash.

The people who seek socialism perceive that those who thrive and grow rich are invariably thieves- and are only rich because they are not. This is a human weakness; a justification, the perception that you can raise your standing on the ladder of life by pulling those who have climbed above you down. If life were a footrace, they would believe they lost only because others ran faster than they did and that should be unfair- and thereby they have been cheated.

Human weakness will always exist, but encouraging and promoting it is human ignorance and downright stupidity. As Winston once said, democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the others.

 

ALL services are provided by a private individual. Whether they are on a government agency's payroll, or are subcontracted by a private company makes ZERO difference to the consumer. A policy being "socialist" depends on who benefits from the service. Not who provides it.

And they are provided by private citizens. Food stamps, for example, is a socialist policy, despite the fact that the food is provided by private vendors. The Post Office is a socialist program, despite the fact that most letters and packages are transported by private carriers. NASA is socialist, despite the fact that rockets and equipment are manufactured by private companies. Reading material, supplies, infrastructure used by public schools are provided by private companies. Pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and ALL other supplies used in VA hospitals are provided by private companies.

In some Socialist regimes, like Marxism, ALL of the above is provided and produced by the government (at least in theory). In a Social Democracy, the most fundamental means of production (transportation, communication, energy, ...) may be provided (in varying degrees) by the government.

It is very unique that you would claim that Social Security is not a socialist policy. It is not only bipartisan agreement that it is, but Social Security, in every country that has it, is the first example of socialist policies that you will find mentioned in ANY reference that you care to look up.

Most government programs are socialist programs. The requirement being that it's first priority is to provide social benefits. They are NOT "socialism", if we are talking about a political system. But they are socialist policies.

And this is why, in my first post, I asked the OP to clarify what they were talking about. Which they never did... But I don't think the OP is aware of the differences, so it would have been of little use for them to clarify.

 

LOL, yes I have. But even a search would have yielded the results. But that is the beauty of the internet, instant karma and knowledge. The key to knowledge is not knowing what you know, but more importantly, how to research and analyze what you read.

As for you, stop projecting here. You only believe in those guys because it fits your myopic political agenda. Again, first rule of conspiracy, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.

 

Being in poverty is not based on political idealogy. It is based on socioeconomic circumstances. Even 38,000 members of the military are on public assistance of some kind. These are young married couples with one or more children while one parent is in the military and is either E1 or E2 in rank.

Second, the main reason why urban areas are a concentration of poor is mostly because of mass transit and the ease of multigenerational housing. However, even in rural areas that can also happen but it is more difficult to get around because of no mass transit systems, but rather more reliance on generational family support.

And finally, you made this an all-or-nothing discussion. You only want to say it is democrats without even considering that republicans are in this too. You are not even wantting to discuss why GOP governors and state legislatures who want to take the money so it can help them with all the issues they can fund. With that money gone, what do you think will happen to those economies, that housing and apartment construction, etc in that state? It will dwindle and no one to blame but the GOP leadership.

Want to help the poor? Apply more apprenticeships and job skills retraining at the local level with businesses investing for those future employees. But that takes money and GOP does not like to pay money unless they get money in their pockets in return.

 

The water service companies are a state-run monopoly with oversight by the state government. So, the state has some control over who is on those boards and how they are run. But this is how it is in all states whether it is electricity generation or water or other public utitilies.

 

Is the price set or does it change when demand changes.

Here in Texas, we have the same thing in DFW, but the price changes when demand changes and you can use it whenever you want to give the amount of construction on I35, 183, 114, and other major highways.

 

Yes and no. If you take a look at each of those stops, it is either a pick up point with several major drop off destinations from the Airport to the Government Center, historic Downtown, Lyric theater, and maybe a few other places. Then from each of those pickup/drop off points, you have a plethora of local buses to take you to your final destination. A spoke-and-wheel format of public transportation, much like the air industry.