Is socialism the future?

I think it gets more expensive during rush hours. Luckily I never have to use that road during those hours.

 

No, the water utility is not a monopoly. I have the option of getting water 3 ways - there are 2 water companies that can service my house, or I can drill a well. In fact, a new subdivision going up in the area could get water to the subdivision from 2 water companies, the developer took bids from 2 water companies and chose the one that had the best cost and could mee the demands of the subdivision.

And a lot of people have wells, and many people have a well and the water utility.

There are state regulations that apply to the water utilities regarding quality of pipes, material, testing and quality of water, water volume and pressure, probably more. That doesn't mean the state runs these utilities.

The electric co-op is similar, but I don't have a choice in electric utilities. I either go with the co-op or generate my own power - and some people are totally off grid.

We elect the people on the electric co-op board. There are always more candidates than positions but its pretty bland because the co-op has been very efficient and responsive. When we get a hurricane or there is an outage they are very fast in restoring power. And anyone can run for the board, when there is an election the quarterly bulletin that goes to all members announces the upcoming election and asks all interested in running to get their paperwork in. But like I wrote its pretty bland because the people who run it have done a great job.

 

I agree with the assertation that we need more training programs to make people better qualified for skilled trades.

I will however call out attempts to "blame red states" for the shenanigans and circumstances that exist within their blue controlled cities.

There is absolutely higher wealth disparity and higher concentration of impoverished persons in the urban centers. In order to have an honest discussion we need to be asking why.

 

"Conspiracy"?? What is international banking if not conspiratorial?? Lol...

I've asked you this before I think, and like all leftists you either can't answer and/or you take your ball and go home - why does Big Business promote excessive, wheedling type regulation of businesses??

You're a leftist, you should love lots of top-down regulations on businesses.

As Hannibal Lecter said to Clarice, Make an effort to answer now

 

I don't think so. The USAF is a collective. No one owns it or a share of it.

If the service is the same, yes.

No, "socialism" is about how the service is provided. If it's provided by a collective, then it's socialist. The service can be provided or sold. No matter.

It's a government program.

The USPS is a socialist enterprise selling services.

The product NASA produces is socialist despite many components being produced privately, much like the USAF.

Many materials are produced by teachers, but your point is essentially correct. The education service is provided by a socialist enterprise, the public school system.

The medical service is provided by the VA.

"Social democracy" has no clear meaning.

It's a program, not a policy. Recipients decide how the money is spent.

I wouldn't be so sure every country sees a national annuity as "socialist."

Are they provided by collective production? If not, they aren't.

They provide benefits, not "social benefits."

They might be government programs socialists support, but they aren't socialist by nature.

 

Social does not equal SOCIALIST.

One is a freaking cocktail party, the other is mandatory graft.

 

1) We have the opposite here. The rich are in the cities and the poor are in the suburbs.

2) You can't help First World 'poor'. They've had access to help and opportunity for generations, unlike the rest of the world, and they're haven't used it.

 

I get them from reality. Look around you .. either at the historical West (prior to about 1970), or anywhere else. How do people live? COLLECTIVELY. Multigenerations usually, and within the slightly larger collective context of the village.

 

ALL socialist programs are collective. Suppliers are private companies, and personnel are private people who receive a paycheck. I just don't see how the parameter you are trying to use makes any difference. There is not a single source that uses such parameter to determine what is a socialist program.

Socialist program, socialist policy, socialist law... whatever you to call it. Neither of those things you mention make the least bit of difference. I would just want to refer you to... EVERYBODY. There is no authoritative source, no expert, no reference, no serious political analyst ... nothing.... that would claim that Social Security is not a socialist program (or whatever you want to call it)

 

You keep making on purpose the mistake that since my very first post I said we shouldn't make.

 

A program itself can assemble private inputs—the USAF, for example—and provide a government service. Schools do the same. Social Security just transfers cash.

Socialism as a large part of the economy doesn't work well because socialism is poor at allocating capital.

Economists do.

I realize you're convinced you're right, but I wonder where you got your ideas.

 

Which is as much a public service as any. So I don't understand your argument.

I'm not talking about Socialism. I'm talking about socialist policies. And Social Security has done a decent job at allocating capital, despite the many attacks by the right. No better or worse job than public education or the USAF have, if you account for mishandling by right-wing administrations. But I don't quite understand what point you are trying to make. So I have no idea of the relevance of any of this.

Uhmmm Everywhere! There is not a single source that claims that Social Security is not a socialist policy. Or, to pre-empt the semantical strawman: program, or law, or... whatever you want to call it. From this point on just incorporate this clarification every time I say "socialist policy".

You don't believe me? Google it! You will find two things: one is clarification that it's not "pure socialism". I have already repeatedly said from my first post in this thread that Socialism as a political and/or economic system is not what I'm talking about. The second is that it is a socialist policy. If you find any reference from a reputable source stating that it's not a socialist policy, do share. But you will definitely find enough references so that you don't have to "wonder" anymore about where I go my "ideas". I ALWAYS get my ideas from research, as my sig indicates.

 

Have a nice day.

 

The entire social mammal world practices collectivism (and has for thousands upon thousands of years), but Golem knows better.

 

I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. Of course they practice collectivism! What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote?

Honestly your post looks like an attempt to change the subject. But, to save some time (and to re-take the topic we were REALLY discussing), I'll copy-paste the challenge I made to the only other person I know who argues that Social Security is not a socialist policy:

There is not a single source that claims that Social Security is not a socialist policy. Or, to pre-empt the semantical strawman: program, or law, or... whatever you want to call it. From this point on just incorporate this clarification every time I say "socialist policy".

You don't believe me? Google it! You will find two things: one is clarification that it's not "pure socialism". I have already repeatedly said from my first post in this thread that Socialism as a political and/or economic system is not what I'm talking about. The second is that it is a socialist policy. If you find any reference from a reputable source stating that it's not a socialist policy, do share. But you will definitely find enough references so that you don't have to "wonder" anymore about where I go my "ideas". I ALWAYS get my ideas from research, as my sig indicates.

 

The irony with Red States is that their elected Red representatives and Senators want to discontinue those social welfare programs in the Federal Government, which will hurt those red states the most. And that is what most people are pointing out the hypocrisy from Republican Senators who don't seem to want to answer that question.

 

Oh really? Do you have a choice between several watering companies to deliver your water, sewage, and other utilities to your home? Or is it just one authority in your area and that's it? I bet it is the latter and that would make it a state monopoly.

Yes, some people have wells if you live on a ranch or farm. But that is still controlled by the state because the state generally owns those rights.

As far as co-ops. I know farm co-ops. But for electricity, you have a plethora of electric service providers who sell you the electricity, but you have only one authority who makes the electricity transmission and generation from Florida Power and Light and a couple of others, all with their territories intact by the state legislature.

 

All this academic gobbledygook about how socialism is defined in terms of sources of production and all the rest is pure smoke. Any TAX PAYER can define socialism clearly and concisely. Socialism is a system that takes from motivated achievers and gives free stuff to lazy bums.

 

Socialism is a form of collectivism.

There is no form of collectivism which does not require us to work-to-eat. It's the absolute minimum for any form of collective to even exist.

If you have a society in which people can choose not to work, while others work to support them .. there is nothing remotely like collectivism going on.

 

While I agree in principal, this only applies to STATE socialism.

 

As opposed to what?

 

Collectivism (socialism being merely another name for same).

 

Socialism is simply taking from achievers and giving free stuff to unmotivated losers... no matter how you dress it up.

 

State socialism is, for sure.

Collectivism is the opposite. Collectivism requires that everyone earns their keep, no exceptions. If you don't work, you starve.

 

We've seen that work with young dope smokers on a farm picking potatoes. But we've also see it fail when guys like Jim Jones or Charles Manson lead the way.