Socialism good or bad?

[Timeless]

WALL
OF
TEXT

I certainly agree that problems arise no matter the party in control. Humans have flaws and thus nothing will be perfect.

However I am sure most will agree the US is still the most successful government to date.

I believe the problem is the human need for change no matter the harm it might cause. Sometimes the originators had it correct and it should be left alone.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

No one in 'mainstream' American politics is an actual socialist.

In case you aren't aware, Roosevelt actually proposed a second bill of rights almost 70 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Only in recent years has everyone completely forgotten what the actual term "socialist" or "communist" means, and it's now used as a largely inaccurate derogatory term to describe anyone who thinks government can be more helpful than it is already through modest reforms or expansion.

Edit: Next thing you're going to tell me is FDR isn't one of the greatest champions the U.S. has ever had, lmao.

Sigh... well I guess I'm going to have to go along with your prejudice of me and say what I think about FDR.

FDR presided during the Great Depression, which might have only been a mild recession if it weren't for how terrible FDR's policies were.

And FDR basically wanted to become a dictator. It's fortunate that he passed away. He was in office way too long. I'm glad that the US passed a law after he left limiting presidents to 2 terms. Before FDR the other presidents were all good enough men that they honored term limits without a law being in place.

So, I think FDR was one of our worst presidents and we are fortunate to not have had very many more like him.

 

[watisthis]

I certainly agree that problems arise no matter the party in control. Humans have flaws and thus nothing will be perfect.

However I am sure most will agree the US is still the most successful government to date.

I believe the problem is the human need for change no matter the harm it might cause. Sometimes the originators had it correct and it should be left alone.

Agreed.

 

[watisthis]

Sigh... well I guess I'm going to have to go along with your prejudice of me and say what I think about FDR.

FDR presided during the Great Depression, which might have only been a mild recession if it weren't for how terrible FDR's policies were.

And FDR basically wanted to become a dictator. It's fortunate that he passed away. He was in office way too long. I'm glad that the US passed a law after he left limiting presidents to 2 terms. Before FDR the other presidents were all good enough men that they honored term limits without a law being in place.

So, I think FDR was one of our worst presidents and we are fortunate to not have had very many more like him.

Don't get me wrong FDR did a lot of wrong mainly Japanese interment camps and him attempting to force the supreme court to favorably rule on his new deal by adding more supreme court justices. This goes against the very idea of our country being kept into 3 separate branches.

Moreover, George Washington started a tradition/precedent when he was President that he ran for president twice, and then stopped. This set an unofficial custom for all future presidents. A few before FDR's time tried to run again after their second term, but never won. This was concerning to many legal/constitutional people who thought that the US presidency should not be able to go on infinitely, so Congress passed the 22nd Amendment which stated that nobody could be elected to be president more than twice. As we all know this happened after the fact.

However, FDR's presidency was marked by 2 of the greatest hardships America had to face, The Great Depression and WWII. Having the President in your living room. Having him calmly and clearly explaining the world around you and what he was doing about it had an enormous impact on America at the time. Despite radio being a relatively new invention, no President has used it to greater effect. Even with television and the internet, never since FDR has America had the President in their living room, calmly and clearly explaining policy in quite the same way, given times have changed a lot. People at the time worshiped FDR, he wasn't perfect but who was.

As a vet I respect his war leadership very highly.

But we're getting off topic here. We can agree to disagree on FDR.

 

[Weather Man]

No matter how many times it doesn't work, people seem to want to try it again.

The left has completely compromised higher Ed. They don't teach what really happened, as a result, we are almost doomed to repeat it.

 

[watisthis]

The left has completely compromised higher Ed. They don't teach what really happened, as a result, we are almost doomed to repeat it.

You're not wrong about higher education being more progressive leaning. But let's be honest here, teachers and professors have a vested interest in the democratic party because they are the ones that operate on the platform of making education more accessible (more students more funding more pay). So it only makes sense that college professors practice a consistent ideology with regard to their bias.

However, I do not agree with many left leaning persons striping free speech away from conservatives. Everyone has the right to voice their opinions as long as it does no harm.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Do I want common ownership of the means of production? No, therefore I am not Socialist. Maybe the disconnect is...

No, the disconnect is that your arrogance leads you to believe that you can hoodwink us into accepting your proposal as not Socialist, when in reality all you are doing is proposing a ludicrous academic difference to try and avoid the classic definition of Socialism.

In your model, who is going to invest in, or leverage themselves for, a business where they don't own the profits?

Let me be the arrogant one, and answer for you: no one.

The sole purpose of owning the 'means of production' it's to benefit from it. If you don't benefit from it, there is, by extension, no ownership of it, except in some meaningless 'not socialism' context.

Move on, no dupes here buying your propaganda.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

You're not wrong about higher education being more progressive leaning.

Wait. So you cite University research as unbiased, tell me fake news when I say you cite biased sources, and then admit universities are progressive, aka, left leaning? Seems to be a conflict in your bs there professor.

 

[watisthis]

Wait. So you cite University research as unbiased, tell me fake news when I say you cite biased sources, and then admit universities are progressive, aka, left leaning? Seems to be a conflict in your bs there professor.

The only work you've cited in this thread has been USA today which I agreed with you people do spend outside of their means, but that is deceitful. I've already gone into income inequality.

The articles I've cited when quoted in context are fact-based such as your USA today one is, most are peer-reviewed and have statistics to back them up. Hell, I've even asked you to quote my posts in full context and provide articles from unbiased meaning no extremely right or left-wing fringe website because you don't see me linking garbage like vox or even CNN.

I've linked several labor statistics, economic professors and the like. If you can not trust the source then prove it wrong with data. We as a democracy should be able to trust papers written by higher education professors who have legitimate knowledge on the subject and provided data to prove their points.

 

[watisthis]

No, the disconnect is that your arrogance leads you to believe that you can hoodwink us into accepting your proposal as not Socialist, when in reality all you are doing is proposing a ludicrous academic difference to try and avoid the classic definition of Socialism.

In your model, who is going to invest in, or leverage themselves for, a business where they don't own the profits?

Let me be the arrogant one, and answer for you: no one.

The sole purpose of owning the 'means of production' it's to benefit from it. If you don't benefit from it, there is, by extension, no ownership of it, except in some meaningless 'not socialism' context.

Move on, no dupes here buying your propaganda.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm merely presenting information that is counter to your argument for people to be more mindful of what is going on. You don't have to like what I'm saying and I'm more than happy to have a civil discussion about capitalism.

This is not me advocating for socialism and I find it incredibly disrespectful that knowing that you still try to slander me as if I am.

I just got done explaining how the two can not coexist.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

The only work you've cited in this thread has been USA today which I agreed with you people do spend outside of their means, but that is deceitful. I've already gone into income inequality.

The articles I've cited when quoted in context are fact-based such as your USA today one is, most are peer-reviewed and have statistics to back them up. Hell, I've even asked you to quote my posts in full context and provide articles from unbiased meaning no extremely right or left-wing fringe website because you don't see me linking garbage like vox or even CNN.

I've linked several labor statistics, economic professors and the like. If you can not trust the source then prove it wrong with data. We as a democracy should be able to trust papers written by higher education professors who have legitimate knowledge on the subject and provided data to prove their points.

Nice try at skirting, but you ended up right back at college professors... Which you already admitted are biased toward the left.

BTW, nobody, except maybe you, wants to see your posts again (quoted), or in the first place for that matter.

 

[watisthis]

I don't go out of my way to ask anyone what political ideology they believe in. If their statements are backed by facts and can be double checked to be legitimate then they are credible. When you think about it, this is a pretty flimsy defense (everyone being biased so I can't trust them) and I think it functions as a loophole for people to avoid having to try to be objective. To make an analogy, it's like if you had a surgeon that made the wrong cut and they told you that "everybody makes mistakes" without trying to fix anything, in the sense that, while it may be true, your job is supposed to be providing this service while making the least amount of mistakes possible, which is why you are paid to do it and not a layman.

Ok, you've got a few options here. Get triggered and act like a neanderthal (post memes, post extremely made up shit, etc), be civil and be open to the discourse we don't have to agree with each other, or just not post.

 

[watisthis]

Your intelligence begins and ends with memes.

 

[Hack]

25 pages and socialism is still bad.

Sponsored