The US is already Socialist

Noooo...
Socialism is kind of like an outhouse built out of that mucky stuff dug out of the hole beneath it.

 

Missed the point, Hobbs.
Nature has done incredible things with it's life principles- and all things thrived.
We have done incredible things with our imagination, and in addition to things like going to the moon, it includes screwing up the entire world- not only for ourselves, but for all other living things.

Creatures at the top of the food chain in nature only kill for their own survival. Aside from that- they usually leave others alone.
Man kills not only to eat, but for the hell of it- anger, envy, jealousy, theft, even entertainment. That IS NOT the same as being at the top of the FOOD chain. That is a penchant for murder, war, and violence. We are far from being masters of ourselves, let alone masters of our environment.

We are the exception to the principles of nature. Not because we don't have the inherent ability- but because that gift of imagination that enables us to be exceptional is a double-edge sword capable of doing great harm as well as great good- and we are not moral enough, wise enough and disciplined enough to control it and direct it only to good. That IS within our power- but we aren't really interested in doing it.

Nature does eliminate species who are unable or unwilling to adapt and preserve themselves. However, man in the developed state has only existed for a short while on the geological clock; we seem to be dedicated to eliminating ourselves in record time.

 

no matter how many times you repeat this, it will not change the fact that the no country is purely capitalist or purely socialist.

 

And, that has little to do with the end result- it is the dominate system that matters first, and secondarily- the potential for the other to bring about problems. Socialism is very much like a disease to a free country. Even a small amount of the real thing is dangerous. It's core principles amount to theft- taking from those who have done well because they have done well, and giving it to those who have not. NOT those who truly can't help themselves- that is a charitable function, and we are very generous in that respect. Socialism is unable to separate those who can't from those who won't, and thus cultivates an entire society who won't. Free everything- and soon, nobody left to pay for it. Of course, they do this to the people for their own good???

 

Why are you making up terms? "Uncompromised capitalism"? Sounds like a nonsense term. Capitalism has always been a dirty mish-mash of private and public sector. Take Galbraith. He realised how market power ensured the blurring of the two sectors (often to the detriment of the working class).

 

True. You're no different to a right winger that crows "government is socialism". Partners in crime...

 

Descriptive adjectives, such as "uncompromised", are often used in the English language to minimize verbosity.

Government, under the auspices of citizens in a democracy, necessarily has the authority to regulate entities in the business sector in ALL countries that I am familiar with; surely, that is not capitalism in its purest form.

 

Try not paying into it if you don't want to collect it.

 

It's actually about creating a false narrative. Rather than uncompromised, mind you, we get reference to purity. That ultimately reflects a right wing political ideology which completely ignores the economics. We get whinge about government intervention, with no appreciation of economic history: capitalism exists because of government (with interventionism needed to create markets and reproduce capitalist profit going way beyond the protection of property rights).

 

The government has made sure the confiscation is not elective. But what does that have to do with Socialism?

Social Security payments are based on contributions over a lifetime. The only way to get them if you've never worked is via spousal benefits.

Try getting a SS check if you never married and never worked.

 

it's just reality. it won't change because you don't like it.

 

Yep, that's what the right wingers say too. You ignore the political economy in exactly the same way.

 

It is simply a fact of reality, that there is no such thing as a purely capitalist or purely socialist nation. They are mixtures of both.

 

Yep, they say "its true cos I say its true" too. The reality is boring: you've confused yourself with the economic spectrum.

 

What is being called socialism, is a nation having a "Commons". Something where citizens collectively finance something that is seen as essential and so valuable as not to be left up to profit motive capitalists.

A Commons was present to various degrees in all civilizations, past and present, and only in more recent history has "socialism" been applied to the Commons.

A commons just seems to be more descriptive than socialism, IMO.

 

None of these things is socialist. They are government services. Socialism deals with companies that are involved in products or services, including those that build the government infrastructure, health services etc. Socialism is an economic system, not a governmental one.

The only ones that I can think of have socialist economic systems. While government controls the major means of production, smaller businesses do exist. These are places like Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.

Again, socialism is an economic system. Government policies can and do exist under any economic system.

Of course we can. We have a capitalist economy. Period. Businesses are subject to government regulation but none are operated by the government.

It is binary. Capitalism and socialism don't mix. Russia and China are perfect examples. Once socialist economies, both countries have embraced capitalism. While government regulations and involvement are heavier there than they are here, they are still capitalist. Socialists like to point to the success of Norway. No surprise, Norway has a purely capitalist economy. It has high taxes and high per capita government spending but it is all capitalist.

The American "socialists" don't really want socialism. They don't even know what it means. What they want is more income re-distribution handled by the government.

 

I'm sorry you have a problem with reality and facts. But that doesn't make them go away.

 

Yep, right wingers claim victory and say naff all too. As I said, you have simply referred to the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy). That doesn't provide any appreciation of socialist political economy. The existence of intervention (from public good provision to macroeconomic demand management) are all natural parts of capitalism. Socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. We'd need, for example, for worker ownership in all large firms.

 

We should use different words.....

"Socialist" sounds like "commie pinko" to all the Archie Bunkers. They just get all angry about welfare queens and lazy millennials with man buns, and lose the plot on how they benefit from "socialist" things.

 

no matter how many times you try to deny it, reality will not change. There are no purely capitalist or socialist countries on earth, nor have their ever been.

 

Notice that you can't actually respond to what is said. Here it is again: "As I said, you have simply referred to the economic spectrum (from laissez faire to command economy). That doesn't provide any appreciation of socialist political economy. The existence of intervention (from public good provision to macroeconomic demand management) are all natural parts of capitalism. Socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. We'd need, for example, for worker ownership in all large firms."

 

no matter how many times you try to deny it, reality will not change. There are no purely capitalist or socialist countries on earth, nor have their ever been.

 

Its a shame that you're reliant on tactics akin to spamming. Its a shame that you can't actually respond to simple questions. Why are you inappropriately applying the economic spectrum? Why can't you define socialism? Why are you mixing up liberal and social democracy with socialist political economy?

 

That is the intention.

It works on the talk radio right wing every time. The noise coming out of them about "socialism" and the Green New Deal could have come right off the pages of John Birch Society's tracts.