Socialism good or bad?

[Timeless]

Sponsored

 

[Caballus]

...President Johnson recognized by signing the Civil Rights Act he would gain the black vote despite the fact that most Democratic members of Congress opposed it.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 vote count was not split so much by party lines (overall ~70% Dem; ~80% Repub) as it was by regions. Southern Dems opposed, Northern Dems supported. The few Southern Republicans that existed also opposed; Majority of Northern Republicans supported.

 

[2016Gruv]

That's true, to an extent. Had the Democrats not had such a significant majority of both houses of Congress, the votes in favor of each of the civil rights acts would have been greater.

The 1964 Bill (one of 4 Civil Rights Acts) initially passed in the House 290 to 130 (60% Dem, 78% Rep). It passed in the Senate 73 to 27 (69% Dem, 82% Rep) after a 57-day filibuster by racists southern democrats. After the Senate made changes to the bill, it went back to the House and passed 60% Dem, 76% Rep. As long as we're rounding numbers, the percentage delta between the parties that voted in favor was closer to 20%.

The first Civil Rights Act initially passed in the House 51% Dem, 84% Rep, in the Senate 59% Dem, 93% Rep, and then back again to the House 55% Dem, 75% Rep. Closer to a 30% delta. The 1960 Bill had about a 21% delta.

The point being that Democratic lawmakers (primarily Southern Dems) were consistently opposed to civil rights legislation. Up to this time Blacks largely voted Republican (the party that ended slavery and the primary proponents for enacting civil rights laws). President Johnson recognized that by signing the Bill into law he would secure the majority black vote for the Democratic Party. He was right.

 

[Caballus]

That's true, to an extent. Had the Democrats not had such a significant majority of both houses of Congress, the votes in favor of each of the civil rights acts would have been greater.

The 1964 Bill (one of 4 Civil Rights Acts) initially passed in the House 290 to 130 (60% Dem, 78% Rep). It passed in the Senate 73 to 27 (69% Dem, 82% Rep) after a 57-day filibuster by racists southern democrats. After the Senate made changes to the bill, it went back to the House and passed 60% Dem, 76% Rep. As long as we're rounding numbers, the percentage delta between the parties that voted in favor was closer to 20%.

The first Civil Rights Act initially passed in the House 51% Dem, 84% Rep, in the Senate 59% Dem, 93% Rep, and then back again to the House 55% Dem, 75% Rep. Closer to a 30% delta. The 1960 Bill had about a 21% delta.

The point being that Democratic lawmakers (primarily Southern Dems) were consistently opposed to civil rights legislation. Up to this time Blacks largely voted Republican (the party that ended slavery and the primary proponents for enacting civil rights laws). President Johnson recognized that by signing the Bill into law he would secure the majority black vote for the Democratic Party. He was right.

Assuming that fewer Democrats would have resulted in greater support ignores the important distinction between Southern and Northern Democrats. The numbers you quote amount to about 70% Dem support and 80% Repub support. Almost all of the opposition from both parties was Southern. So no change to the point. It was a North-South thing more than a party thing.

Blacks and many Northerners in general voted Republican and White Southerners voted Democratic. The former Confederate states were staunchly Democratic following the Civil War for the same reasons Blacks voted Republican when allowed to vote.

As for Johnson, it's hard to argue that he was seeking the Black vote at the expense of the White vote. That would be terrible math. It would also fail to recognize that, despite his own admitted biases, he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1964, and 1968 and that he championed numerous very liberal social programs (Great Society) and liberal immigration...and gun control.

 

[Anthony 05 GT]

I think an interesting point to raise too is the fact that under President Obama there were 8 million more Americans on food stamps than his predecessor. Granted we had a terrible recession, but Mr Obama and the democrats did absolutely nothing to improve that situation including near zero action to bolster the economy. Why do you think that was? It's not like they are so damn stupid they didn't know how to. It's safe to say the democrats want a huge number of people dependent on the government. They want total power over the people because they are obsessed with it. They also act like there's no crisis on the border when it's obvious there is.

Donald Trump will have none of this horse shit. He understands the system better than most people and I'll put up with his antics, tweets, public arguments and such. He also knows none of us could ever achieve anywhere near what he has under the system the democrats would have us under. I think the man appreciates this country and he's definitely not a sell out like most national politicians are. I will vote for him again because I love this country and I want it to be saved from these assholes.

 

[Hack]

The thing I really can't understand is why the democratic party wants to be associated so closely the idea of socialism (like those who refer to themselves as democratic socialists). The two do NOT go hand in hand but the fear mongering that is going on these days will have you believe that every democrat is a socialist and that has about as much weight as every republican being a fascist. A fair amount of the rest of the civilized world welcomes socialized government programs (healthcare) but are not Socialist nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK and many other eastern European nations).

No one in their right mind should want to be under a Socialist rule. History has proven it doesn't work. But no one should want to live in a fascist world either.

Fascism is not identical to socialism, but it's nearly the same. Fascism removes individual rights. The name comes from the word fasces which means bundle of sticks. Meaning we are stronger as a group rather than as individuals.

Some left-leaning people try to say that fascism is right wing, but it's not. It associated with the left and the idea that the government takes over services and industries because individuals can't thrive without help from the government.

So yes I agree that most people shouldn't want to live in a fascist world. But the left is pushing in that direction and for some reason they are getting support from many people.

 

[Weather Man]

If you don't mind wiping your ass with your fingers and think zoo animal meat if terrific, Socialism is great!

 

[Blue Moon]

 

[Anthony 05 GT]

LMFAO, never too proud not to laugh at that shit.

 

[Grintch]

No one in their right mind should want to be under a Socialist rule. History has proven it doesn't work. But no one should want to live in a fascist world either.

The fascist Nazi's were Socialist, as were IIRC the Italian fascists. Just not communist. So fascism is not Capitalism, not even close. It also is all about the government controlling everything. And you can be a Socialist without being a communist. Though fascists socialist may be worse than communist ones.

 

[Interceptor]

Wow! So many different ways to screw up

 

[Blue Moon]

 

[Todd00000]

Fascism is not identical to socialism, but it's nearly the same. Fascism removes individual rights. The name comes from the word fasces which means bundle of sticks. Meaning we are stronger as a group rather than as individuals.

Some left-leaning people try to say that fascism is right wing, but it's not. It associated with the left and the idea that the government takes over services and industries because individuals can't thrive without help from the government.

So yes I agree that most people shouldn't want to live in a fascist world. But the left is pushing in that direction and for some reason they are getting support from many people.

The problem is you can't compare Euro politics to US politics. Fascism is right wing, the right wing of Socialism and Communism is Socialism's left wing.

 

[Hack]

The problem is you can't compare Euro politics to US politics. Fascism is right wing, the right wing of Socialism and Communism is Socialism's left wing.

The meaning of "right wing" would have to be twisted and warped for Fascism to be right wing. Extreme right wing is anarchy - no government control of individuals or businesses - basically a free for all with everyone doing whatever they want. Not quite so extreme right wing is libertarianism - government only defends people (police and military, but no other assistance) - or at least that's how I understand libertarianism to be defined. It's theoretical because a real libertarian state will probably never happen. Government officials never want to give up power and control. Also, people need roads and an electrical grid, so government has to do more than just protect people from each other.

Both socialism and communism feature heavy controls on individual freedom, hence both are left wing. Same thing applies to fascism. Industry and people are tightly controlled and regulated "for the good of the people" - and usually lots of people end up suffering and dying.

I think the thing that is the most scary about socialism and communism is that many people believe that it would work if somehow they found a good and benevolent person to be the head honcho. Reality seems like that never happens. At least in history it never has happened.

 

[Docscurlock]

I think the thing that is the most scary about socialism and communism is that many people believe that it would work if somehow they found a good and benevolent person to be the head honcho. Reality seems like that never happens. At least in history it never has happened.

Just put me in charge and then my heirs and all will be good.

Sponsored