So what actually is "socialism"

[Billie.jeens]

Those are not examples.

They're social programs are they not? But I'm not going to keep going back and forth with this. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you about what I don't understand and why my examples are wrong. So we'll just agree to disagree and I'll do some reading about socialism and other political systems instead.

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

Private Capital - Private risk - Private reward.

Why we went from start-up to sensational in 200 years - flying past everyone else.

Did they stop teaching that at some point? -


That was probably 5th grade material back in the stone age when I was in school.

[Lemons]

Those are not examples.

They're social programs are they not? But I'm not going to keep going back and forth with this. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you about what I don't understand and why my examples are wrong. So we'll just agree to disagree and I'll do some reading about socialism and other political systems instead.

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

When speaking primarily of countries with large socialist programs, those are not “safety nets” those are benefits to every citizen regardless of need. You’re fixated on “means of production” which is more like communism. Get into this century.

[Billie.jeens]

They're social programs are they not? But I'm not going to keep going back and forth with this. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you about what I don't understand and why my examples are wrong. So we'll just agree to disagree and I'll do some reading about socialism and other political systems instead.

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

When speaking primarily of countries with large socialist programs, those are not “safety nets” those are benefits to every citizen regardless of need. You’re fixated on “means of production” which is more like communism. Get into this century.

Yeah Carpy!

Don't fixate on the actual meaning - focus on what the Progressives are trying to sell.

Good grief.

[Pjmm]

Those are not examples.

They're social programs are they not? But I'm not going to keep going back and forth with this. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you about what I don't understand and why my examples are wrong. So we'll just agree to disagree and I'll do some reading about socialism and other political systems instead.

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

Social safety nets are a socialist idea. So is wealth redistribution. We're just not 100% capitalist. I don't see what the problem is with that. This is what I've been reading. Reading about different political systems is about all the good this argument has done for me. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is ... efinition/

[Carpy]

I notice the people who say “socialism bad, you don’t understand!” never seem to be able to put into their own words why. It’s like they were told so and it’s good enough for them. No thinking for yourself involved.

They just quote black and white statements. No one is talking about a 100% socialist state but they have been so indoctrinated into believing the word is evil they can’t even think about alernatives.

Never mind what history has taught SOME of us.

[Carpy]

I notice the people who say “socialism bad, you don’t understand!” never seem to be able to put into their own words why. It’s like they were told so and it’s good enough for them. No thinking for yourself involved.

They just quote black and white statements. No one is talking about a 100% socialist state but they have been so indoctrinated into believing the word is evil they can’t even think about alernatives.

Never mind what history has taught SOME of us.

[Billie.jeens]

They're social programs are they not? But I'm not going to keep going back and forth with this. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you about what I don't understand and why my examples are wrong. So we'll just agree to disagree and I'll do some reading about socialism and other political systems instead.

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

Social safety nets are a socialist idea. So is wealth redistribution. We're just not 100% capitalist. I don't see what the problem is with that. This is what I've been reading. Reading about different political systems is about all the good this argument has done for me. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is ... efinition/

I will disagree with that -

The problem is that we are not simply having an academic discussion about it -
One party is trying to destroy our system and replace it.
They just did that with health care - that turned out disastrous.

[Pjmm]

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

Social safety nets are a socialist idea. So is wealth redistribution. We're just not 100% capitalist. I don't see what the problem is with that. This is what I've been reading. Reading about different political systems is about all the good this argument has done for me. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is ... efinition/

I will disagree with that -

The problem is that we are not simply having an academic discussion about it -
One party is trying to destroy our system and replace it.
They just did that with health care - that turned out disastrous.

Which I've noticed no one is rushing to fix. I assume when politicians are forced to buy on the market then they'll gaf. As for social programs we don't have the tax base for it. That is what people need to understand. And no one is trying to destroy any system. Neither will they with the government system we have. Democrats may want universal health care and other programs but I think they love capitalism and making money as much as anyone. Besides why worry? Isn't Trump getting re-elected in 2020?

[Lemons]

They're social programs are they not? But I'm not going to keep going back and forth with this. I'm not going to attempt to drag answers out of you about what I don't understand and why my examples are wrong. So we'll just agree to disagree and I'll do some reading about socialism and other political systems instead.

Social safety nets are not socialism. The means of production is solidly in the hands of private capital.

Social safety nets are a socialist idea. So is wealth redistribution. We're just not 100% capitalist. I don't see what the problem is with that. This is what I've been reading. Reading about different political systems is about all the good this argument has done for me. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is ... efinition/

That article states current European democracies have socialist principles alongside capitalism. Citizens pay higher tax rates to the government (twice as much as Americans) but benefit from the programs. Exactly what I said.

It also said Trump likes to scare his base at their rallies by claiming they want to tax you at 90%. Fear mongering and it works. The problem for Trump is his base tends to run old, Fox News old. Younger Americans aren’t so scared of change.

[Aletheia]

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

This (thankfully) does not occur in the United States.

"Regulated" can mean much the same as controlled, with the regulator saying precisely what a factory produces (which product, precise product specification and quality, quantity produced, colour of packaging, etc) and the price at which the product can be sold.

In that meaning, I agree, America doesn't have that. And that form of socialism would fall under the sub-type of "scientific socialism" which uses central planning, and is pretty much a recipe for disaster.

"Regulated" can be used in a different way, however. It can mean "subject to laws and regulations". Laws such as "You can't sell something you know to be poisonous, and advertise it as health food." America does have some regulations that affect what where and how companies can produce and sell stuff, and that's a good thing. Such regulations, done sensibly, improve a society, by encouraging capitalism to work for rather than against the well-being of society as a whole.