57% of Democrats View Socialism Positively

How many democracies, with a capitalistic economic system balanced over time by socialism, OLDER than the US, do you think there are in this world?

I find it interesting that you immediately see a lack of diversity as why those capitalistic economies with socialism work.

The United States of America is an anomaly in this world. We are not a country of blood and soil. We are a diverse country of people that all believe in the rule of law, freedom, and the American Dream. None of those things require a certain color skin, a certain religion, or any other categorization. Your post implies that a lack of diversity is necessary for a capitalistic economy, balanced by socialistic cures to the inherent problems that come with capitalism, and that it can't happen in a diverse country. The truth is, it is possible. It does exist today, and we continue to perfect it.

 

there isn't one.

 

I would extend that to trade schools, etc. Higher education should also include learning skills, crafts and anything that others who do not seek a higher education can also benefit from. It's a slippery slope though. Many would abuse the system. Capitalism must remain the primary foundation in this country or we will ail as a society.

 

That must be why Liberia and Ethiopia are so successful.

 

Unless they're representing some Deep Blue kook district they know that's political suicide.

That's why they refer to themselves as "progressives", just as the Soviet sympathizers who marched out of the Democratic party at the onset of the Cold War referred to themselves as "progressives"...

And the next generation of "progressives" in the New Left would march back into the party in the late 1960s. One might say they had their coming-out party at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and from that point, their Long March through the Democratic Party resumed...

 

You expect wrong, as usual.

https://www.jns.org/jewish-retirement-to-south-florida-behind-the-numbers/

 

Almost no Democrats have a positive view of Socialism. Dumb poll questions will yield dumb results.

If the question was "do you favor State Ownership of all resources and means of Production" - the response would be overwhelmingly negative.

If the question was "do you favor wealth redistribution programs such as welfare, universal healthcare, food stamps) the response would be positive.

 

This is not surprising

It was obvious during the obama years that democrats have morphed into Marxists

Something for nothing is their objective

 

The US was very much based on blood as recently as 50 years ago. We had laws on the books to protect it. Your version of America has only been in effect a few decades, and it’s clear you’re not “perfecting” anything but the undoing of the society, which was the goal all along.

 

Yeah, I'm wrong, as usual. </sarcasm>

Did you even read the article before you posted it? It fails completely to support your point.

Nowhere in that article does it say that elderly folks from New York and California are moving to get away from the liberal ideas they pushed through in their home state.

 

NO NATION has ever had a stable, functioning economy based on worker ownership and control. The USSR, like China and other countries, were carrying out a strategy intended (originally) to get to socialism, but they never got there. Many people make the error of referring to that strategy and intention as "socialism" but of course a strategy and an effort to carry it out is not an economic system. Do you have solid evidence to the contrary?

 

Being as how the "progressive" holy grail of nationalized/government-run HC is straight-up socialism those numbers might be higher than you suspect.

It's probably safe to presume that most Dims are "cafeteria socialists" - they like some forms of socialism but not necessarily others.

 

What they had in the USSR is the crappy real world socialism you get when socialists try to implement theoretical socialism in the real world.

Therein lies one of the fundamental knocks against socialism - the theoretical ideal is unviable and unobtainable.

 

Why are most of the people who retire out of state (such as states like NY and CA) leaving? Why would someone retire in NY and then move to FL? Why do people in WI retire and move to AZ?

The reason should be very obvious.

 

Actually it specifically mentions a migration of liberal Jews from New York and other liberal areas to Florida, Arkansas, and other areas with low costs of living at retirement.

 

Talk about asinine revisionism! The Soviet Union was trying to use their Communism as as a stepping stone to Socialism?

That's a new one! I have to admire the bold nakedly unapologetic attempt to state something so bizarrely out of left field that it's audacity
is breath taking.

 

Sure but, Universal Healthcare is not "Gov't owning all resources and means of production".is is not straight up socialism by any stretch of the imagination. I am a fiscally conservative, free market loving, constitution loving Republican (meaning I believe in the principles of Republicanism - unlike the vast majority of today's Republicans)

Yet .. I am for universal healthcare.

My reasoning has zero to do with some affinity for Socialism and everything to do with the fact that it would reduce my friggen tax bill (I am including healthcare costs as part of the tax bill). Unfortunate as it may be .. that is the proper choice for the fiscally conservative. It is a simple - do you want to spend less - or more ?

 

What is obvious is that you do not know what Marxism is.

 

We also had slavery on the books, at one time too. The United States is a work in progress. When we know better, we try to do better. Society isn't being undone. It is being perfected. When capitalism failed to provide for dignity in retirement for elderly no longer able to work, and to keep them from dying from poverty, we created socialistic programs like Social Security. The truth is unregulated capitalism will result in very few hoarding all the wealth and the rest living in abject poverty. Play Monopoly to the end of the game, and one person will own everything and every other player will have gone bankrupt. Monopoly is unfettered capitalism. Profit is all that matters and people are expendable. Governments have to regulate capitalism, or the government will fail as the people revolt. It's happened repeatedly throughout history. We either recognize that fact and deal with it, or we repeat previous failures. Capitalism, in a democracy, requires socialistic cures, to survive long term. Otherwise, capitalism will burn through a country to the point of revolution. People will only remain compliant, if they are also rewarded for their labors. When the rich starve the people, eventually, the people will eat the rich (metaphorically, of course.)

Our Constitution has been amended many times in the effort to perfect our country. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. We are not based on blood and never have been. We were multi-cultural before we fought the Revolutionary War. We have been based on the democratic principle of majority rules, tempered by the Bill of Rights that protects the minority's rights, since we have been a nation.

 

Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

 

Apparently you dont or you would have compleated your argument

 

You have defined "Socialism" = state ownership of most resources and means of production. While this is certainly a feature of Marxism .. there is a little more to it.

In any case .. to call the Dems "Marxists" because of some desire for Universal healthcare is woefully inaccurate.

 

Your complete lack of sound information on this, and your unwillingness to explore it honestly, are noted. It is clear from the little you posted that your only source of opinion is anti-communist propaganda that was willingly absorbed. You have abandoned your intellectual honesty and human curiosity when it comes to these things.

If you had any reasonable analysis to oppose my analysis, you would have posted it. I posted facts that anyone can confirm. You have a computer, right? You have access to Google or some search engine, right? So you can research the facts I posted to see if you can work up a counter argument. But I suspect you know you can't because facts are facts. So you throw stones instead of discussing and exploring it.

 

I know enough to know that "something for nothing" - a Marxist does not make.

 

Where did he specify "state ownership"? That definition is incorrect. "State ownership" was a strategy used for getting to socialism. But it's not socialism. BuckyBadger's statement was correct.