Posted on 09/06/2018 6:07:29 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
What's with all this socialism business? A handful of lefty candidates are calling themselves socialists without a single radical socialistic item on their promise lists. They seem to have little idea of what socialism is. And most of the conservatives talking back to them don't seem to know, either.
Simply put, socialism is a system whereby the state owns the means of production. In capitalism, the means of production are privately owned. Would someone kindly tell us which companies Bernie Sanders would nationalize, starting with Bernie Sanders?
"Spreading the wealth" is not socialism. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries that Sanders habitually holds up as models to emulate are capitalistic powerhouses. They're not taking the means of production away from the private owners. They're just taxing wealth and using the proceeds to fund their plush social safety nets.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Froma needs some Civics 101.
Under communism the state owns the means of production. Under socialism the state controls the results of production.
There is no need to debate about it but destroy it by force.
Article 1 Section 8 precludes socialism
Also the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence
Which in the USA has been happening since the institution of business and personal taxation.
The author has a point technically, but we all know that seizing industry and totalitarianism would follow the initial stage of income redistribution/general impoverishment. Once people have no incentive to produce, government “has to” step in with confiscation and force. Once we’re in the chute at the slaughterhouse, Sanders, et al, won’t have to worry about panicking the herd.
Owning it would only open government up to such messy issues as lawsuits, and potentially losing money. Socialism in sheep's clothing, if you ask me.
Quoth Lenin:
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
... because those documents have held any sway whatsoever on the left for the last 70 years or so.
Someone should ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s an expert. :D
What's with all this socialism business? A handful of lefty candidates are calling themselves socialists without a single radical socialistic item on their promise lists. They seem to have little idea of what socialism is. And most of the conservatives talking back to them don't seem to know, either... "Spreading the wealth" is not socialism. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries that Sanders habitually holds up as models to emulate are capitalistic powerhouses. They're not taking the means of production away from the private owners. They're just taxing wealth and using the proceeds to fund their plush social safety nets.
National Socialism and Socialism are the same thing, but some people (Stalinists, or the absurdly stupid) think they are polar opposites (good model for people who divide everything into two categories, as the op-ed writer does here).
without a single radical socialistic item on their promise lists. Not one really?
For instance, the term "socialized medicine" in its narrow sense refers to a system like the British National Health Service, where physicians and other health care providers are employees of the state. Single-payer systems have socialized health insurance but not socialized healthcare, since providers are not employees of the state.
bmp
The Nordic countries are held up as successes. But they spend pennies on their defense budgets, letting others carry the load. They are allowing in immigrants who will overtake them. They will decline.
Maybe it is only slavery lite. Stealing people labors then redistributing them a your whim. While receiving an obscene salary and profiting from inside information.
I agree with you
The point is, debating a socialist on the merits of socialism is pointless. They don’t want a discussion on the highest law itself.
Except for the fact that the National Socialists didn't nationalize any industries or banks (in fact, both the Nazis and Italian Fascists privatized several industries that their predecessors in the Weimar Republic and Facta's government) while Socialist and Communist governments did exactly that. And then there's the fact that the first people that Nazis and Fascists rounded up and shot were union leaders, Socialists, and Communists, not capitalists, landowners, or aristocrats (all of whom, if they weren't Jewish in Nazi Germany or opponents of their regime, kept their wealth and property).
But other than that, yeah, they're exactly the same /sarc>
but some people (Stalinists, or the absurdly stupid) think they are polar opposites (good model for people who divide everything into two categories, as the op-ed writer does here).
Actually, the "Nazis and Fascists were liberals" line of thinking is mostly limited to people who know nothing about history and who take hack talking heads like Jonah Goldberg and the staff at National Review Online seriously as political theorists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.