We’ve tried nationalism on for size, why not socialism?

You have to try on a garden variety of clothes before you know what fits and doesn’t fit and what you like styllistically, and this is no different. I have an open invitation to anyone who sees socialism as a scary word.

Before you respond, I encourage you to look up how socialist countries such as Norway and Denmark have been able to put these programs to work successfully l, and why their citizens are hapoier than those in the US. All I will say about Venezuela is it is an example of socialist policies being implemented poorly, not that socialism itself cannot work. I encourage you to look up the testimony a Canadian physician gave on Capitol Hill regarding single payer healthcare. Given nothing definitive has happened in the US regarding healthcare, this is still an open issue.

Once this research is concluded, if you oppose socialism, given what you know, tell me why socialism should not be tried on for size when our country is abundant enough to support such policies.

 

sometimes I just want to scream.

 

When America does socialism right it is admired all around the world. Our Social Security is one of the better ones in that it ensures that the elderly do not end up in abject poverty and Medicare ensures that their health expenses don't result in bankruptcy and destitution.

There is literally no reason why Americans can't embrace other aspects and make them work better for We the People.

 

Okay, answering without any hostility towards the idea is that Norway and Denmark have much SMALLER populations in comparison to the United States. This is why universal health care in America wouldn't work. It's the same reason they can also afford their social programs, etc. They have less costs per production, less masses of people to feed, etc. If you want the US to be a Socialist nation, you'd have to first shrink the population.

The alternative to that of course, and I've proposed it is an Self-efficiency model where in effect, each US Citizen can pull his or her own weight financially, thus no longer relying on the rich and powerful to fund them. Such a transformation to a self-sufficient economy would also strengthen the government and lower deficits.

As it regards specifically to Universal Health Care, Europe(and the various individual States of Europe differ in their plans/costs) basically share the costs of UHC throughout the European Union. Cost-sharing in the US would require a transition from an individual State program, to a National-Universal program of all 50 States. A move opposed by Democrats. It would have to be structured in a way to make all costs relative, but I argue we should do this anyway for all forms of insurance/social government benefits. It's the same as the Continental Dollar Crisis, same exact problem and the same exact solution.

Then finally, are we a Nationalist Government? That is going to depend on the perspective of the person. I always felt like Trump co-opted Nationalistic sentiment to drive a voting base for himself but never really concretely laid down a Nationalistic agenda. To the extent that he's tried to carry out his promises(of varying degrees), he's had some successes, some humiliating drawbacks but by and large I still do not feel Nationalistic towards his administration.

Of course, he would probably be helped if that disgusting thing we call Congress could be remotely, slightly, even the tiniest bit Nationalistic.
Ever since early January 2017, I've called this the worst Congress in American History. And each day, we are reminded of this. Take at most recent example, the family separation issue. Trump points out that the law was passed by prior administrations, the only difference is that Trump actually acted on it. So he tells them "Hey, do something about it then."

They....proceed...not...to...do..it. Frustratingly, they whine that the President shouldn't pass the buck to them. How dare he ask them to fulfill their freaking jobs. Then the President takes it upon himself to remedy the situation, and he does so excellently creating the conditions that would allow us to further the cause of removing illegals from the US. Upon realizing that, they had another watershed tear moment, even though most of the US supported Trump's EO.

This Congress has been transparently blatant: We will oppose Trump, we will release propaganda against Trump. Whether this propaganda is true or not is irrelevant. Congress is at war with the Executive Branch of these United States.

And in having thus declared war, this Congress cemented itself as the worst Congress of all time. That's why Ms.Arrington won her party's Nomination. The American People do not tolerate or embrace this insubordination. Because insubordination of the executive branch is insubordination of a significant number of US Citizens. And the lack of political activity overall is insubordination even to Liberal agendas.

Can you as a Liberal name the last pro-Liberal bill proposed on the House? Or on the Senate? Name the last bi-partisan outreach for any type of reforms. You can't, because this Congress does not want to give the President a 'political victory', which means any type of political success at all. Which overall means our communities and towns suffer.

The true catastrophe of government lies not with Donald Trump, he had been successfully 'neutered' after all. The true catastrophe lies with our government who hasn't passed a significant piece of legislation in how long?

This Congress is little more than a middle finger to every conservative, liberal or independent American. And as such, it cannot possibly claim to be the representative of the American People.


The executive, due to the Russian controversy among others, is weakened. We are closer to an anarchist form of government than any time in our nation's history.

The best case scenario, is that America comes together under a strong moderate candidate. But the political winds aren't blowing in that direction.

 

This is not socialism. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. Social security does no such thing. Social democracy is the end of socialism, it is the bureaucrat class mediating an agreeable compromise wherein the poor get free ****, the rich get cartels, and the hard working STEM guy gets royally shafted.

As a proud capitalist I'd take socialism over social democracy any day.

 

We really need to get vocabulary straight.

We need two distinct words for

(1) "government ownership of the means of production and distribution, with production not for profit, but according to a central plan" -- what used to be called "socialism" , and

(2) "private ownership of the means of production with production for profit, and a comprehensive welfare state that forces everyone to behave sensibly by insuring themselves against unemployment, medical problems, and old age, with possibly a substantial degree of income redistribution." -- what used to be called "social democracy". American 'socialists' just want America to be more like Scandinavia. (Whether what works in Stockholm would work in the South Side of Chicago or Appalachia is something they tend not to address.)

If 'socialism' is just another word for 'government ownership and control', without reference to how much and what, then the USA already has plenty of socialism: fire departments, police departments; local, state and national parks; public schools and universities, roads and dams, and above all the military, along with plenty of regulations dealing with the earth,water and sky. Personally, I'm all for more of that socialism: more National Parks, and another division of Marines.

The situation described by (2) -- a capitalist welfare state -- is the norm in the world. [Including ferociously capitalist Singapore.] Hardly anyone on earth believes in "socialism" in the sense of (1) because of the abject utter failure of economies that have been organized that way. Smart socialists who want to redistribute some income know that the income must be created first, so that they can redistribute it. Goose, eggs.

 

socialism is a scary concept.

Norway and Denmark aren't really socialist they have a mixed economy. And they spend a lot of money on it and there's something they don't have to spend any money on or very little money on and that's National Defense because the USA spends all the money on it. If they had to pay for it themselves but socialist economy we get the heave-ho in an instant or they would collapse.

so you're not going to say anything relevant about Venezuela. It figures.

Venezuela is what happens when there is no more money to take and if you get rid of the biggest producer of wealth and economy the United States all socialism's will topple because we afford it to them.

if you want me to consider this nonsense you are going to have to do more than just allude to it. Single Payer Health Care in every single country that has implemented it has worse Healthcare. And I'm not going by whether or not the people are happy with it people in Cuba are happy with their single Payer Health Care that doesn't mean it's better.

I want objective indications that socialism is better or that we should give it a shot not feelings of people who don't have to pay for anything.

I can think of a dozen reasons but I'll keep it short.

Capitalism is Superior in every way.

All the socialist countries in Europe will collapse or be destroyed once there is no more money going into the defense budget that Americans pay for. ( being able to afford to protect the entire world is one of the ways capitalism is better.)

There is nothing to bring us income and once the economy stagnates we will be Venezuela.

I don't think there was ever any Mass executions under capitalist economy

I don't think there was ever any mass incarceration of political dissidents under capitalism

At least not to the level we have seen with socialism.

Socialism goes against human nature.

If you would like me to give you more in depth explanation on these reasons I would be more than happy to.

 

Nationalism isn't a definitive economic system. Socialism has specific economic conditions none of which are efficient or equitable.

 

something else to keep in mind they also do not pay for their National Defense. We in the US do through NATO.

So as long as there is a capitalist Society they can mooch off of socialism works once that dries up it's breadlines and riots over who gets to lick the bottom of the dumpster like in Venezuela.

 

Why not just push for the individual policies and practices that seem to be best for each given situation and environment, regardless of which generic political labels those policies could be spun to fit? Either supporting or opposing a policy (let alone an entire government program) simple because (you think) it's socialist is idiotic.

 

Not just policies, but people. I would vote for this Socialist for US President without hesitation: From the Wiki article on Socialist Party member Jasper McLevy, who became mayor of Bridgeport Connecticut in the early 30s:

"In the early 1930s, Bridgeport, an industrial city in southern Connecticut, was plagued by corruption and hard hit by the Great Depression. In 1931, voters had ousted the incumbent Republican mayor for Democrat Edward Buckingham and McLevy only lost by a couple thousand votes. By 1933, dissatisfaction had spread to both parties and McLevy trounced the competition, bringing along a Socialist majority on the Board of Aldermen, Bridgeport's city council. While people familiar with local politics had seen the writing on the wall in the 1931 results, the national media was astonished to find the Socialists in control in a New England city.

Contrary to the fears of some,[who?] capital did not flee Bridgeport and McLevy began upon a reform agenda rather than a revolution.[citation needed] In a time of reduced revenue due to the Depression and, with city coffers depleted by corruption, McLevy managed to meet the City's obligations and balance the books, even reducing taxes. He withheld the lucrative contract for trash hauling, instituting municipal trash collection, saving the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. He took over Pleasure Beach where concessionaires had been reneging on taxes and rent for years. He began the process of putting all city purchases out for competitive bidding. In one instance when asphalt suppliers all supplied identical bids, he threatened to create a municipal asphalt supplier and broke their cartel. He championed transparency, opening all board and commission meetings to the press and the public ("Operation Goldfish Bowl"). He sold the expensive limousine his predecessor had used. He instituted a merit system in the police and fire departments. McLevy went on to be reelected eleven times.[

While he was a Socialist, McLevy was known for his fiscal restraint. When asked, after a snow storm, when the City would begin plowing snow, McLevy allegedly replied, "God put the snow there, let him take it away." McLevy gained a reputation for balancing budgets, reducing spending and micromanaging city affairs. In the vernacular of the time, McLevy was referred to as a "sewer socialist", a pragmatist who focused on the details of running a city. [ Source ]

 

They sure aint getting any smarter .

 

I wonder what they would think if they move to Canada for a year and had to go through their socialized medicine.

 

Sorry but its not our responsibility to tell you why socialusm is wrong

Its your job to sell it to us

 

Socialism is great...until the money runs out, then its a **** hole.

 

I don't think it's possible to duplicate the Nordic Model in the US, given it's people aren't prepared to institute the high levels of xenophobia and cultural singularity that has made the model work.

 

It is to laugh It is only better than those in most of the rest of the world because we started out pegging our retirement age nearly a decade beyond what they did and we've raised it since. Yes we are starting out in better position than most countries. All that means is in the end is that the fall will take longer to happen. And because we are a vastly more diverse country than most of those in Europe that collapse will be far nastier and meaner.

 

Libs keep bting up denmark as their role model

but it has less than 6 million people

And until recently almost all were well educated Scandinavians

Who knows what will happen after the rather backward muslims take over

 

Why not socialism? Ask the Venezuelan people. Socialism comes at special costs that are built into the system and eventually you DO run out of other people's money. Why do you think that Communist China has embraced capitalism and is working hard to deep-six communism/socialism as much as possible. Do leftist comprehend either history or economics whatsoever?

 

Probably the same thing that happened here in America when the backwards religious right took over and our nation took a downward trajectory to where we are today with racist white supremacists believing that they now own and run our country.

 

Did you miss the fact that the OP had already addressed the issue of Venezuela?

 

Social democracy is not socialism. And European style social democracy can't work in the US because the country is too divided.

 

Nope, dems are obviously taking their marching orders from the lying liberal media. That's the only power they have left now. Current primaries are showing them moving further left, which is why they've been losing elections SINCE 2010, the Obamacare intro year.

Let's not stop them while they continue to lose elections.

Steve

 

40 million dead Russian's HAD issues with socialism.

 

Stacy Abrams NAILED the reason why Dems WERE losing elections in the PAST and why they are WINNING them NOW and in the future.

She did the math!

The BIG mistake that Dems made in the past was to fallaciously believe that they had to move to the right in order to win elections.

That was a really dumb move because the alt right just kept on moving the goalposts farther and farther to the EXTREME right. This caused liberals to become disillusioned about the Dems and stop supporting them.

But Stacy did the math and figured out that if she could get the disillusioned liberals to come out and vote there are more of them than the alt right and so the Dems would start winning elections again.

This strategy is working all across the nation now with the alt right LOSING both elections and support while the PROGRESSIVE Dems are winning and GAINING support.

Moving to the LEFT is the WINNING strategy and it will pay off in 2018 and 2020.