Why doesn't socialism work?

https://www.marinelitterthefacts.com/sources

 

As the record amply attests, progressive programs such as Medicare and Social Security were denounced as "socialism!" by ideologues who opposed them.

Such socialistic legislation only ceases to be "socialism!" for hidebound ideologues after it has become popular.

Mewling about "SOCIALISM!" is a chronic Republican affliction.

It will constitute a pandemic in the next few months.

 

It is socialism. The problem is once people become dependent on socialist programs, it is hard to wean them off. It's like crystal meth.

 

Reversing progress, once achieved, is a difficult proposition, no matter how fanatical its ideological zealots.

 

We have socialism on a large scale here in government-run public schools.

He was and isn't now. I think the folly of socialism was brought home to Bernie by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift to a mixed economy in China.

Bernie strikes me as a committed ideologue.

"Was not?" At what point in time?

You have a sales job ahead of you if you're going to claim state-owned enterprises aren't socialist because the government isn't democratic.

 

Progressing towards a cliff isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

They're a mixed economy. You didn't like that fact, so I thought I'd mention their politics.

 

Only the rich can do that in America. Look at the minimum wage. Or the fact that real wages just reached where they were forty years ago. Or the ever increasing wealth inequality in Americacoupked with our ever increasing lack of economic mobility.

 

Yes better they learn independence by starving.

 

So what if those ideologues don't understand what socialism is either. I would wager most Americans don't understand what socialism is.

 

If you wish to disavow all the ideological zealots who have and persist in denouncing social welfare programs as "socialism", I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Few now would attack Social Security as "socialism!" as did conservatives at the time it was passed.

Before Social Security, Most Americans Faced Very Bleak Retirement

Getting old is rarely regarded as a happy prospect, but before Social Security, aging in America often meant penury and sometimes even the poorhouse.​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093​

 

You're flat wrong. If not "collective production," and not government programs because almost all government spending redistributes income, what?

If they have owners who can sell their shares or divide up profits, they're a capitalist enterprise. If they're like the coop where we shopped when we lived in farm country, it had an elected board (free membership) and was an incorporated nonprofit.

 

You don't.

 

The anti-socialists here have no idea what is socialism.

 

Not by your previous definition. You are changing the goal posts now - changing your own definition now. . I had previously claimed that the above was socialism - and you said no.

Now you are claiming that "wealth redistribution" (which is what makes Gov't run public schools possible) is socialism - a claim I have been making all along.

Since I have never claimed that state owned enterprises are not "socialism" I don't have anything to sell.

My claim is that Trump is likely a bigger socialist than Bernie - and he was by far a bigger socialist than Obama. Trump poured more money into "State Owned Institutions" than Obama - Trump makes Obama look like a fiscal Conservative.

 

You copied from his opinion piece without attribution.

You quoted his five points. What are you talking about?

There is a link to your post, so what's your beef?

Meaningless drivel.

Nonsense. We regularly tax the many to help a few.

Trite.

Actually not true.

A really stupid claim. People will work to improve their situation even if they're paying taxes to care for others.

 

To the contrary, the pro-socialism people are the ones who do not know what socialism is and define it any way they choose pretty much in the vein that whatever they like of think is good they call socialism.

 

On the contrary, it's the kind that works.

If it's not voluntary, it literally can't work - ergo can't exist.

 

Because they think because there's free goodies in Denmark making it socialist, completely oblivious to the meaning of the word.

Freebies given away by the US government might larger than the entire Danish economy.

 

Socialism is when the means of production are collectivized, as they are in government-run schools.

Are you going to claim the private schools parents select with a voucher are socialist?

Yes, you did (see above).

 

People caused that, nothing and no one else. Human nature.

 

For the past 40 years American workers have had to compete with workers in other countries. It is an unintended consequence of internationalism.

 

No it isn't. Public schools are a result of CAPITALISM.

 

Yes, they hate that part. They REALLY don't like it when people engage in self-determination.

You can tell them a thousand times that freedom means freedom - to succeed OR fail - and they still won't accept it.

 

I'm sure Xi is unconcerned how Muslims feel about being forced in the Xinjiang interment camp.

China's hidden "reeducation" camps