Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

That's thoughtful but you have to think about distributive justice vs. meritocratic justice

 

Pish tosh, Reivs. He's no such thing.

He's a bog standard ardent capitalist.

 

LOLS. Hold their little 'pink' feet to the fire!

They can never explain why they don't just go ahead and do what you suggest. Which tells you they're not really interested in worker owned enterprise, at all.

 

It's more that if they had to actual do it, they'd implode.

So, they come up with all these comfortable definitions. Ones which magically allow middle class Progressives to continue living the gloriously capitalist lifestyles of fun and freedoms they currently enjoy.

 

What a joke of a post - what does the definition of socialism have to do with either ? and if you are talking Philosophy of Law - and justification of law - why didn't you use proper terminology - such as utilitarianism - but this is just me entertaining the rabbit hole you have gone down...

 

No, it's republicans who are confused. Republicans call democrats socialist and communist every day of the week, when we are neither.

Even 'democratic socialists' are not advocating classic socialism, but don't expect a republican to respect that distinction, they have an agenda, and if they have to lie they lie.

How many times have FDR, Obama, etc., have been called 'Socialist' ? Too many times. But, when a democrat points to any policies by any of these presidents that was successful, then you'll hear republicans say 'that's not socialism'. You ask Bernie 'what is socialism' his only definition is to point to programs that help college students, and people who can't afford health care, and point to countries like those in the Netherlands. When he does that, republicans say 'that's not socialism'. Then republicans will go o TV and say demorcats are socialist because they are calling themselves, 'democratic socialists' and this is after Bernie told them what he was talking about. Republcans onlly care about associating democrats with Venezuela, and the Soviet Union, that's it, right there. They don't want to be honest about it.

Republicans are disingenuous, deceitful.

so, to a republican, any government sponsored program that doesn't work is socialism, and any government sponsored program that does work is not socialism.

I experience the above with republicans and Trump supporters all the time, which is one of the reasons I started this thread, but republicans still are not getting the message. The two videos explain it, but they won't watch it, because they don't want to know, they want to continue with their ignorant agenda,

 

There are some things in this world, Xandufar, which, to comprehend fully, a dictionary entry is only a starting place, it's not the end of the journey.

That is why there are no less that 73 pages in wikipedia on socialism, and 76 or so pages on democratic socialism.

Therefore, it's specious reasoning to assume that you can end a conversion about what socialism is by merely asking someone to look it up in a dictionary

So, if you say the definition is the classic definition, and a democratic socialist says it's basically free college, universal health care, paid leave for expectant and new mothers, and a place where workers are allowed a seat at the table in management, and otherwise following a similar path as that of the netherland countries, we can't really debate the virtue or folly of socialism, can we? noting that in the 149 pages on the subject in wikipedia, both definitions are more or less acommodated.

By the way, dictionaries are more or less copies of each other, and more than one does not equal 'consensus'.

 

Bernie has been asked what he means by 'democratic socialism'.

Not even once, has Bernie ever defined it as 'state ownership of production'. So, he's not a 'self described socialist' the kind YOU are suggesting.

Why don't you just accept HIS definition, and respect it. Why are you trying to CRAM SOVIET UNION AND VENEZUELA down Bernie's throat, when he's against that kind totalitarianism? I'll tell you why, because republicans are deceitful, and will gladly twist anyone's position to forward the right wing agenda.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-never-worked.575074/page-22#post-1071868410

 

What is distributive justice? Is it just equality of outcome?

 

Apparently you need to understand that things like college and health care are not free.

 

Distributive justice is what you give to those who are not expected to be responsible for themselves -- as opposed to meritocratic justice, which is always earned.

 

Pure socialism has never worked, but neither has pure capitalism. Every nation that has succeeded have used a blending of the to some degree or another.

 

It wasn't my purpose to debate the technical aspects of it, but since you brought it up, let's take a closer look, and in so doing, I shall reveal the fallacy of your statement, given that it's not the entire story:

If they are paid for by taxes obtained from the rich, and not by the poor who receive the benefit, then they are therefore free to the poor.

Apparently you are getting bogged down in a detail which resulted in your making a false accusation.

Now, go back and reread my comment to which you incorrectly responded, and thus missed the entire point, and see if you can respond, this time, on point.

 

Interesting.
What were the socialist policies of the Unites States, 1791-1900?

 

Bingo! That is correct. Socialism, without capitalism, will collapse under its own weight, and capitalism, without socialism to keep it in check, will devour itself.

Like man and woman, the two ends of the spectrum cannot exist without the other.

So, the debate isn't about the validity of one over the other, the debate is where is the sweet spot? In my view, the only place a pendulum can achieve equilibrium, in other words, the only place a pendulum can rest, is at dead center.

 

That's charity, not justice.

 

During those times the United States was not that powerful economically. it didn't become an economic superpower until well into the twentieth century, when social policies begin getting put in place.

for example during the fifties which is seen as our most prosperous time the tax rate for the wealthy was 90%.

 

This is an interesting point you keep making. I thought you were being sarcastic at first - but yes - while Bernie may favor some socialist policy - such as Universal Healthcare - this is done within a capitalist model. His policies are not that far off many EU nations - all of which are capitalist.

 

FDR was the father of social spending. He contributed nothing to the economic power of the U.S. nor did his social spending.

Taxes are a drain on national wealth. Having high taxes only gives congress more money to spend and spend it they will. There will be no progress until we get federal government to start spending less.

 

The depressing part is that both capitalism and socialism in their purest forms without human read interfering with lead to Utopias.

Human greed is always the corrupting factor, sadly this means that neither will ever exist in their purest forms, because humans by their very nature are greedy and selfish.

 

I find it ironic that conservatives always praised the 1950s as the greatest time in American history, and yet they denounced the economic policies that made the 1950s so prosperous.

 

The US emerged from the US Civil War as an economic and military superpower.

That aside, you said:
Every nation that has succeeded have used a blending of the to some degree or another.

Was the US -not- a success 1791-1900?

 

Government policies didn't make the 50's prosperous. Government policies never cause prosperity. At best they keep the government from making matters worse. The return of the finest generation from war and the explosion of the private sector gets credit for the greatness of the near post war era.

 

The economic policies...
... like having the only significant undamaged industrial infrastructure in the world, and thus, a virtual corner on the market of things so produced?
... like supplying the material to rebuild Europe and Japan?
The "policy" that created this was called "Winning WW2".

 

Excellent Point - this is not some Black vs White - "Good vs Evil" "God vs Devil" paradigm - as it is so often portrayed.

Pure Socialism does not exist -and so there is no point in using such a definition it does not refer to any nation - in present or past -sans perhaps some ancient or modern but scarce tribal society operating on the basis of generalized reciprocity . Neither does pure Laissez faire capitalism exist. Someone is always trying to regulate / control things - that's what those with Military and/or bureaucratic/political power do.

What we have is a spectrum - and what happens that at the extreme end of the spectrum on both sides - the two meet !

In both cases you get a few elite controlling most or a vast majority of resources and means of production.

We in the US - and much of the planet - has moved quite far to both extremes .

In the US I call it an Oligopoly Bureaucracy Fusion Monster - where some of the worst elements of both extremes are combined into an ugly beast.