The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

As we all know, Socialism is a political system in which the government forcefully takes away from the rich their possessions. Which are given to the poor, thus making them rich. Which means that the government must take away their possessions, and give them back to those who were formerly the rich, because they are now poor. Making them again rich.... and so on... endlessly.

The right has made up some similar absurd definition of Socialism. Made to order by Hannity and Limbaugh so they can attack it. Not being Hannity and Limbaugh too bright and even less "educated", all they did was look up with some sort of "idealized" verion of "Communism". Call that "socialism". And attack that. Despite the fact that it has nothing to do with anything that anybody has proposed. But, of course, people like Hannity and Limbaugh would be lost if they had to debate somebody about real proposals. They feel it's much easier to attack absurd statements that they themselves made up.

The fact is that socialism is much simpler than that. Socialism is the opposite of individualism. Which does not mean that Socialism wants to eliminate individualism. It simply means that it's the contrasting ideology. While the ultimate goal of individualism is individual gain. The goal of socialism, is social welfare, equality of opportunities at all levels within the society, and to secure the benefit of liberty and justice for all of us and our posterity.

What AOC, Bernie and others are talking about is called "Democratic Socialism" . This is Socialism under a Democracy,. Which means that everything has to be in accordance with our laws and our Constitution as the Democratic Republic that we are.

It's that simple. We have always had socialism in this country. Our road system is socialist. Our public education system. Medicare, Social Security, our Postal Services....

Even our Constitution. Of course, Cemocratic Socialism was not ideologically established at the time. The reason is simple: our Constitution, our Independence, and our Revolution actually helped shape Democratic Socialism. We defined what Democracy is today, and we defined what Socialism is today.

In a Democratic nation, the Government provides for the Common Defense. There are no individual mercenaries. The Government promotes the General Welfare. That;s everybody's welfare. Of the whole of society. And, of course, the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Not just for those who can afford them. This ensures Justice and domestic Tranquility.

This is the basis in which this country was constituted. And they are what today are considered "Socialist Principles"

Of course, private property is explicitly protected in the Constitution. As are individual rights. These are integral parts of a Democratic Republic.

I tend more towards Democratic Socialism than to individualism, but circumstances always rule. I am not an ideologue! Nor is, obviously, the Constitution. It contains a healthy does of Socialism. It is not socialist. A healthy does of socialism, along with a healthy dose of libertarianim, conservativism, individualism and every non-destructive ideology is always desirable.

It's not the ideology that is the problem. It's ideologues. Those who think that one ideology solves all the problems. They don't! None do. Solutions are found in all ideologies depending on the circumstances.

So, to the right, the real "horror" of socialism is that, if people realize that we have already been living in a heavily socialist society since.... we became a nation... they might have to find a new talking point.

 

I like that Democrats are finally admitting they are socialist. About time.

 

The (D)'s are having a real identity crisis. Pelosi never dreamt she'd be holding the gavel, but being led around by the nose. Karma is awesome.

 

LOL! The donks can't even condemn antisemitism.

 

They are actually admitting to much more than just being Socialist... Shades of something that looks like full blown Fascism...

 

Nicely done/written. Good description of reality.

 

When are Republicans going to start admitting the same ?

 

All this is moot because the US was founded as a Republic. To those who prefer socialism, planes leave for South Korea and it's just a short hop over the barbed wire into socialist No. Korea. Other than that Venezuela is another choice but bring a flashlight as the power is currently is off in many large cities.

 

No it isn't...

Reality is based on who controls what... And according to the structure by which decisions are made and as to which course of action is to be taken.

The closest we have ever been in this country to true Socialism was in the form of Antebellum slavery. Socialism does not promote individual responsibility or independence.
The first government healthcare program was set up as a blanket policy for slaves working on coastal fortifications in 1808.

Progressivism is nothing more than a revisit to that system of control and dependency... AKA: Chattel Slavery.
Progressives simply advocate for the elite to make choices for who they view to be their intellectual inferiors.

 

So are Republicans.

 

Huh?

That's like saying "All this is moot because the New England Patriots won the Superbowl.

South Korea??? South Korea is also a Republic. As is North Korea.

Difference is that the U.S. and South Korea are Democratic Republics while North Korea is a Dictatorial Republic.

Man! You're so confused it's hilarious!

 

Like many on this board, I follow the political landscape more closely than most. At no point have I ever seen anyone describe Socialism in a manner even remotely resembling this description

Nope. Just you. You are the only person that I have ever seen give such an "absurd" definition of Socialism.

I find it humorous how you wholly mischaracterize how the right decscribes Socialism, and then you follow that by arguing against your ridiculous mischaracterization. I think that is what they call a strawman argument.

LOL....The irony is dripping off this statement. You are projecting, and basically having an argument with your bathroom mirror.

 

I didn't say you (or anybody, for that matter) had. But some have come close. They view "socialism" as "taking away" or even "theft". Which is not true, and similar to what I described above.

I'm amused that you couldn't discern the serious part from the irony.

Unfortunately you didn't comment on the main topic.

 

Here are some examples of "socialism" that exist in the United States today. Each one is paid for by all (taxes), but not used by all.

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Affordable Care Act support
Public and VA hospitals
Public Schools
Public (state) universities
Public libraries
Public parks
Public Transportation
Police and Fire departments
Public roads
Public airports
FEMA
Public legal services
Which ones must we do away with in order to become pure?

 

What heap of malarkey. The primary concern of the founders was that everyone would have the opportunity to become rich f they so choose. It was not to make sure that no one ever became rich. In fact the founders went to great lengths to ensure that the government, at least on the federal level would never be able to seize the property of any of it's citizenry with out adequate compensation. There was no such organization as FEMA for the first 100+ years of this country's existence. In fact fema not corporations were the first attempt to do that of which the left constantly complains inaccurately of corporations that is to make public the private losses incurred by individuals

 

Maybe it would be easier for you to understand it you repeated my fulll quote.

As for Korea,
https://www.upi.com/North-Korean-re...itional-socialist-party-system/9101524104260/

 

Everybody? Even those who were born into poor families and couldn't afford college to study and better their lives? Looks like thom founders were some real pinkos!

Compensation? Did the government ask the taxpayers every time they gave these handouts? Sounds like redistributon of wealth to me!. Those commies! They could just as well put a statue of Marx in the Capitol Building, couldn't they?

So you're saying we've only been a socialist nation for the last 100+ years of our history.

 

I'm talking about the founding of the country you know a hundred plus years before there was a Federal income tax. The Sixteenth amendments which was necessary for their to be an income tax doesn't show up until 1916.

And what we have now isn't socialism however much you wish to pretend otherwise, it is far more akin to Mussolini's fascism than it is anything to do with socialism. IN fact most of the west operates a system that where the rubber meets the road far more resembles fascism than socialism.

 

Because I didn't mention Venezuela? Also a Republic, you know. A Dictatorial Republic. Used to be a Democratic Republic until its President started to grab power away from Congress, disparage the Press and appoint only loyalist judges who would protect him.... Stayed in power because his loyal followers, in a cultish fashion, decided to act "blind" to his many crimes. Now.... who does that remind me of...?

 

Keep pushing that crap but nobody's buying it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela

 

Ok, so you're doubled-down here now. How about spelling out your description of socialism so we can see how accurate it is. This should be good!

 

Your confusing "social", i.e. public, services with an economic system in which the working class does in fact own and control the "means of production".

 

this is your understanding of socialism....take and give

 

So you equate socialism with an idea that has never operated in any country in the world to any great extent and likely never will. They tried that in Plymouth colony when they first landed, and damn near everyone starved. "The Tragedy of the Commons" would detail nicely the error of your view were you not so blinded by your ideology. Another way of saying the same thing is that in any large group of people that which is everyone's responsibility is in reality no one's responsibility.

 

In 1776 and later the politicians were farmers who also served the country in office at the same time. They derived their income from farming. Costs to run the country were covered by excise taxes. And as the government developed and the nation grew, governing eventually became a full-time job and paychecks were needed. Actually the income tax showed up in 1912 but I won't quibble over 4 years. https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/OnlyObvious/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxNzkxNTE5Mw==/?ref=

Wow! We finally agree on something!