@Laura Bilington "And are you in favor of abolishing that dreadful
socialistic institution known as Public Schools?"Public schools
are not "socialism".Socialism has a definition: A system of
government in which the government controls the means of production and the
distribution of wealth." Public schools do none of that.A
capitalist country can still implement whatever social programs and social
service that it freely decides to create. They are not "socialism" just
because they share the syllables "social". This is a
frightening aspect. Apparently our education system has so thoroughly failed
that people think "socialism" means "being nice to people" and
capitalism means "being mean and greedy". In practice, it ends up
meaning the opposite. No matter how mean a greedy a capitalist is, he cannot
make any money at all unless he actually produces something that customers are
willing to buy on the free market at a price that they feel provides a good
Anyone interested in a contemporary comparison of socialist/communist philosophy
can watch the online video of the debate between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan
Peterson – entitled Happiness: Capitalism vs MarxismIt is
important to remember that, in spite of the claims that "socialism
isn't communism" the fact is that socialism was designed as the
transition period between free-markets and full communism by the communist
theorists themselves. So socialism *is* communism. That is why communist
Russia called themselves" The Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics" and
also why Communist China refers to themselves as "socialist".The 20th Century say the first direct comparisons of Marxist governments vs
capitalist governments. The results were that communist/socialist governments
murdered ~100 million of their own citizens while "evil, greedy,
capitalist" systems created a society in which the biggest problem facing
"the poor" is obesity-related disease. Food for thought.
To "Onion Daze" who can't afford insurance? But then again, what
good is giving people insurance if they can't use use it?Rather
than focusing on insurance, why not look at costs for obtaining care.For instance, a while ago some insurance companies tried to run "grocery
store" clinics where you could go there for routine issues and pay a small
fee to see a doctor. You didn't have to have insurance to get the small
fee.Other issues with healthcare are the high cost of Malpractice
that Doctors have to pay and the taxes that pharmacutical companies and medical
device companies pay. Then there is also the issue with the number of doctors in
the US. If you want to make costs go down, the best way is to flood the market
with competent doctors.Finally, according to pre-ACA numbers less
than 10% of the uninsured didn't qualify for a government program and
couldn't afford insurance. To help them the simple idea is to cut the
regulations and mandates so that the price of insurance would drop by up to 50%.
Redshirt - publishing these headlines time and time doesn't really prove
anything because it is just as easy to find headlines like this"Fed up with NHS waiting times? It’s even worse in the US" The
Guardian Or you could read detailed reports like"Comparisons of Health Care Systems in the United States, Germany and
Canada"It compares availability, cost, and outcomes across the
threeOr you could just read the wikipedia topic"International comparisons of waiting times in health care –
Limitations and prospects"Posting headlines from "faux
news" outlets really proves little. For every UK/Canada bashing headline, I
can find equal number from the US about denied coverage or cost in the US. It
really proves nothing. News organizations in each country are in the business
of finding the failings in their own systems - its how they make money. But for
good measure..."U.S. Federal Court Finds UnitedHealthcare
Affiliate Illegally Denied Mental Health and Substance Use Coverage in
Nationwide Class Action" March 5, 2019 APThe headline game
plays both ways... and really doesn't help.
@ RedShirt"So what if everybody has "insurance" if you
can't use it."Here is sort of a different version of the
above.So what if some citizens don't have "insurance"
if they can't afford it.
Nice try Redshirt. Using the same old rhetoric that has been spewed out for
yesrs.Yes there are waiti times in Canada. However Canada has spent
a lot of money to speed up the processes, and retain new Doctors. (Please read
more recent articles.)Now my question Redshirt. How many Americans
can not even get on a "waiting list" becasue they have NO insurance?
Like to answer that for us? How many millions of Americans would be
without healthcare without The Affordable Care Act? That would be over 20
million.So Redshirt, you can show us the flaws of Canada's
system, but you have absolutely no solution to the uninsured in this
country.In Utah, this paper covered the deaths of several people
who died because they had no access to health care.Canada may have
some flaws, but at least ALL Canadian citizens have health care. Canada's premium for a two couple family is $93.00 per month. Now tell
us Redshirt how you are going to provide at least basic medical insurance to the
millions of Americans without coverage? You can't! So you will attack
the flaws in a system that may not be perfect, but does a lot more for it's
citizens at less cost.
To "Utefan60" you are wrong. It is a problem that the Canadian Medical
Association is concerned with.See "Death on the waiting list for
cardiac surgery" produced by the Canadian Medical Association.See "The Effect of Wait Times on Mortality in Canada" by the Fraser
Institute.See "'Unnecessary deaths' waiting lists
warning" from the BBC to learn about deaths in Ireland while people wait for
treatment.See also "Wait times for health care in Canada may be
linked to increase in female death rates" in the Canada Free Press.There sure are a lot of studies proving that wait lists kill despite your
claim.So what if everybody has "insurance" if you can't
use it. We could have everybody in the us covered by insurance by saying that if
you don't have insurance Medicare will cover you for insurance. Yes you are
covered, but that doesn't mean you will get care.Yes, it is
easy to explain why those countries spend less. They don't cover
everything. They also don't have the research going into medical procedures
like we do in the US. They also don't have the ability to respond to
serious problems like we do in the US. You might as well ask why a Ford Pinto
isn't as fast as a Ferrari.
RedshirtCaltech your quote " To "Utefan60" Canada's healthcare
system is also killing people as they wait for medically necessary procedures.
The same goes on in the UK and throughout the world. Do you consider a
healthcare system to be successful if it kills or injures people while running
deficits?"That is an absolute, and verifiable lie. That old
low information argument has been debunked so many times it is ridiculous.
Canadians, and people in the UK (all citizens) are able to get health care.
Your statement doesn't even pass the muster of low information
Fox News anymore. They got slammed with statistics, so they don't spew out
that anymore. Their health care is far superior to ours. Why? ALL
citizens are covered. Are all Americans covered? So Redshirt,
explain why millions of Americans who have NO health care options. None! What
are their options? Your side has no resolution, just low information
regurgitated falsehoods.Denmark, Germany, France, UK, Thailand,
Canada, Mexico, and dozens of other countries have Universal Health care for all
citizens at far less cost than American see. Explain that Redshirt. Can you?
In my opinion:A lie is a lie. Even if you believe it, if you tell
it to someone else, you are telling a lie.
@Marxist:"However Marx's surplus value clearly shows most
profit is made by capital not completely compensating labor for the value it
adds. This is significant, don't you think? "What do you
mean by "not completely compensating labor for the value it adds" and
how is that different from my example?In my example, a business
owner buys a tool which allows a person to produce 10 widgets in the time it
would take him to produce 1 widget without the tool. Do you believe
that the employee is entitled to the profits from all 10 widgets, and that the
business owner deserves *NO* compensation for providing the tool? Because that seems to be what you're saying, and that is the downfall of
socialism. Failing to properly compensate the contribution of tools / land /
intellectual property to the production of a widget is just as bad as the
failure to properly compensate labor in the production of that widget. And whereas I argue that labor should, and is, compensated, you seem to
be arguing that the "provider of tools" (i.e., the business owner)
should not be compensated at all for his contribution.One argument
shows balance, one does not.
Note also that Marx is NOT saying labor is being cheated! The value of anything
or anybody is the labor time needed to make it or sustain it. Labor gets what
it needs to sustain it. Labor gets its value. But what labor does not get is
its surplus. Surplus value. That goes to profits.Labor produces a
surplus. That's why we have civilization.
@SC Matt "And then, for a reward in helping your employee make 5 times what
he could make without the tool, you get to listen to him complain that he's
not making 10 times what he could make without the tool, and that all the profit
from the activity should be his, without regard to what it cost you to provide
the tool that made him so successful in the first place. "Actually labor never does complain in this way. And BTW much of labor's
added productivity is due to labor itself!I freely allow that the
worker is probably better off under the employer - employee arrangement than he
would be as a sole proprietor or tradesman. However Marx's surplus value
clearly shows most profit is made by capital not completely compensating labor
for the value it adds. This is significant, don't you think? It explains
why capital and labor are almost always in opposition. And it also explains why
there is always downward pressure by capital on wages. It explains labor's
difficult situation under capitalism.Capitalism is otherwise great!
But it has this hole which it can't seem to fix and it will be its ultimate
undoing. Though you'd like to know.
How and why 'Socialism' became a boogyman of the regressive right is
understandable, but indefensible.Some things are settled in this
country and no amount of decades old arguments against these things are going to
change that.We have a retirement system in this country that is
nearly 100 years old. It has been tweaked over the years, but the concept
remains imbedded in the American psyche. Since the notion was born during the
Depression that we ought to offer a lifeline to seniors, the nation as a whole
has embraced the notions of Social Security.The number of years is
different, but the same arguments can be made for Medicare.Now, why
would anyone reasonable person rant/rave about the Constitutionality of these
two systems? As with many other issues, we have evolved as a country from the
18th century notions of the founders. This is as it should be.
To "airnaut" if that is the best you can think of, you don't seem
to know much about the world.You have the US, prior to WWII being
Socialist free. (Schools, water, etc.. are NOT socialism).You also
have Canada prior to implementing Socialized medicine. You have the Nordic
countries (generous welfare is NOT socialism) along with Australia prior to its
implementation of Socialized medicine. You see most of the free world was
socialist free until they implemented socialized medicine.
@Marxist:"that most profit is made by shorting labor. Thus labor
is ALWAYS under duress in capitalism. "Actually, most of the
profit is made by giving labor a tool that allows him to make 10 widgets in the
time that it would take him to make 1 without the tool and then paying him 5
times what he could make on his own.And then, for a reward in
helping your employee make 5 times what he could make without the tool, you get
to listen to him complain that he's not making 10 times what he could make
without the tool, and that all the profit from the activity should be his,
without regard to what it cost you to provide the tool that made him so
successful in the first place. You are, of course, free to go buy
your own tool and earn all of the profit, that portion due to your labor *AND*
that portion due to your investment. Somehow this fact never occurs
@Confused - Sandy, UTMay 15, 2019 4:55 p.m.,You seem to be a
fan of FDR's supreme court. How do you feel about eating food grown in
your garden? His court told us we can't. (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111
(1942)). How about the ruling that struck down a minimum wage for women and
children? (But early in June 1936, the court, by 5 to 4, struck down a New York
state law providing a minimum wage for women and child workers.) How about
Roosevelt's packing the court to get what he wanted? Are you even aware
that he did that? Why not read the Smithsonian, "When Franklin Roosevelt
Clashed with the Supreme Court – and Lost", then give us the clause in
the Constitution that allows Social Security?Even Justice Roberts
showed his irresponsibility to uphold his oath of office when he told us that
ObamaCare was a tax and Congress has the power to tax. He conveniently forgot
to tell us that Congress is limited by the Constitution for the items on their
"taxable list". ObamaCare is not on that list, nor is Social
Security.So, if you eat tomatoes from your garden, then turn
yourself in. FDR's court found you guilty of Interstate Commerce laws.
@mike richardsYou didn’t offer a solution. That is the
problem.You stated SS is not allowed by the constitution. Okay. You
have stated you will not forgo SS because you paid into. OkayWhat is
your solution then. Should my generation have SS taken away but still have to
pay into it for your generation? That is unfair to us. And you know how it is
funded so you can’t say you just want your money back.Again
you are living in ideals and I am asking for a solution that can realistically
pass through congress and be signed into law. If all we are ever going to do is
pine about ideals then we will be in the same situation forever.
Those on the left who advocate for socialism tell us that capitalism is broken
due to an excess of greed on the part of the haves. But when a leftist
presidential wanna-be tells us we should tax away the assets, not just the
income, of the wealthiest to give to the have-nots, that is an example of greed
too.Capitalism is not broken but we may have too few people willing
to live according to an ethical/moral code that requires treating others fairly.
Without that, all economics systems will fail.
Mike Richards - "Is it up to me to tell you that the Constitution does not
allow the government to collect SS taxes?Sorry Mike, but you are
dead wrong on this issue.In the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case of
Helvering v. Davis, the Court examined the constitutionality of Social Security
when George Davis of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston sued in
connection with the Social Security tax.The U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts first upheld the tax. The District Court judgment was
reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Commissioner Guy Helvering of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (now the Internal Revenue Service) took the case to
the Supreme Court, and the Court upheld the validity of the tax.The
Constitution gives SCOTUS the right to determine if a passed law is
constitutional or not.Well SCOTUS says SS Taxes are
constitutional.Mike the problem with you using the constitution is that no
one knows which of the 26 versions you are talking about? Because each
amendment passed since the original one is actually a "New"
Constitution, because it gives new rights to the people.Think about
The ONLY examples I can think of "no Socialism" would be:a
cabin, 500 miles from civilizationan outhouseno waterno roads,
schools, police, fire or hospitalGoing it alone.or The lawless streets of "gangs", in jeeps, with guns in Mogadishu
To "marxist" I didn't ask you to defend any regime. I asked you to
defend the collectivist ideas that you keep telling us are so great.Within the collectivist ideas that Marx wrote about you have the need for
administrators or bureaucrats. Since those bureaucrats are busing administrating
the collective, they cannot be actively involved in production. If they are not
producing anything they would starve if they didn't get money and food from
someplace. So, for a bureaucrat to live in a collectivist utopia that person
would have to live off the labors of the worker.So again, tell us
why it is ok for a bureaucrat to live off the labor of the worker and why it is
so evil for a business owner to do the same?Capitalism isn't
self destructing. Collectivism is. If you look at history the countries that
have turned around their economies and improved them have adopted capitalism.
Chile, China, most of Africa, South Korea, and many other nations gave up
collectivism and brought in capitalism and have turned around their economies.
They would do better if they still didn't have some collectivism or
strongman dictators running their nations.
Shaun - Sandy, UTMay 15, 2019 12:20 p.m.Is it up to me to tell
you that the Constitution does not allow the government to collect SS taxes?
Article I, Section 8 lists (enumerates) the seventeen duties assigned to the
Federal Government for which we can be taxed. Social Security is not on that
list. Your response that those who disagree with SS should not take
it is an insult to those who worked while government took 15% or more, directly
(in the case of those of us who are self-employed) or partially indirectly in
the case of those whose employers paid half in lieu of direct wages to the
employee. Under LBJ, Congress voted to "borrow" from the SS fund to pay
other government expenses. That is a warning to all who think that government
can be trusted to handle any socialist program. The government will spend all
that it has and then borrow trillions more to indebt our posterity.Do the math. Someone making an average of $40,000 per year over 40 years will
pay $6,000 per year SS tax. If invested in safe bonds or stocks at 8%, that
becomes $1,745,503.92, or $139,640 per year forever. The government pays us
$2,000 a month. SS is a socialistic scam.
@mike richards We all have ideals but how do you get there? Take SS
for example. We have gone back and forth on this and I have always told you not
to take it if you dont like it and I know your answer and don’t
necessarily disagree with your answer. However you need to present a
reasonable solution. If you do not want to forgo it since you paid in to it what
do you propose? I know what I would propose and it wouldn’t take a tax
increase but I suspect you would still be against it based on principle which
leads me to believe conservatives and democrats live in ideals instead of
@RedShirtCalTech "You constantly tell us how great Marxism is, yet you
can't tell us why it is better to have a government official living off the
backs of the workers than it is to have profits (or losses) from a business
going to a business owner. Why can't you explain that?"Marx
was an economic theoretician of CAPITALISM. He has critical insights into the
functioning of that system. That's why I use the handle "marxist."
Marx's theory of "surplus value" identifies a critical problem in
capitalism, i.e. that most profit is made by shorting labor. Thus labor is
ALWAYS under duress in capitalism. I do not defend, with the
possible exception of Cuba, any regimes which self identify as "Marxist"
because in fact they are not. Marx was not a socialist planner or architect.As capitalism becomes more like late 19th Century capitalism is is
self-destructing. I should think you would want to look into this.
It's not so much Fox News where letter writers like this and the simpleton
commenters of the same ilk, get their ideas. Fox stokes their fear and their
like-minded way of thinking, but these Utah right-wingers get their arrested
development ideas through the writings of Cleon Skousen, the shallow dogma of
John Birch Soc. and the modern torch-bearers of the Eagle Forum just to name a
few. It's a weird political/religious complex, really more of a tradition
unique but not exclusive to the Mountain West. Their thinking has been done for
them, and those writings and publishing approved by those individuals and the
organizations they started is their only source of truth. Everything is a
conspiracy, except of course anything that would challenge their own
preconceived notions of what's good and true: i.e. Trump and far right
I hate toll roads.
socialism1. any of various economic and political theories
advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means
of production and distribution of goods.2. a : a system of society
or group living in which there is no private property b : a
system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and
controlled by the state3. a stage of society in
Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and
distinguished by the unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work doneThe source of the above definitions is the "Merriam
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary", Tenth Edition, Copyright 1994, page
1114communism2 c: a final stage of society in Marxist
theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed
equitablySame source, page 233Comments by Onion Daze.Note that per Marxist theory and their definition of socialism,
socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.Note that per Marxist theory communism is the final stage of society.Communist dictatorships are very real. Communism has never existed on the
Let's cut through the nonsense once and for all by defining Socialism:"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.policy or practice
based on the political and economic theory of socialism.(in Marxist
theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the
realization of Communism."I want NONE of that. If people freely
give away their businesses and their property, then that is their business. If
the government forcefully takes from me that which I own through my own efforts
by putting my labor or my money at risk, then, I oppose their efforts. Socialism is a deadly disease that will rot away our nation. Just look
at the "charitable" foundation that Bill and Hillary created and the
minuscule amount of money that actually went to charity if you want to see how
people in power take money and then misuse it. The people of Hillary's
Party are the people who promote socialism. I don't trust them with my
To "marxist " and how is that any different than the collectivist
theories you support? All Marxism does is change CEOs for Bureaucrats. The only
difference is you go from having a choice under Capitalism to being compelled
under Socialism.You constantly tell us how great Marxism is, yet you
can't tell us why it is better to have a government official living off the
backs of the workers than it is to have profits (or losses) from a business
going to a business owner. Why can't you explain that?
To "Laura Bilington" you get that idea from every Socialist platform
that has ever been proposed.Yes, look at Public Schools. They are a
dismal failure. If you account for inflation over the past 40 years we are
paying double the amount per student. At the same time test scores are
stagnant.Abolish the Public Schools because the government
hasn't done a good job managing them.To "Utefan60"
Canada's healthcare system is also killing people as they wait for
medically necessary procedures. The same goes on in the UK and throughout the
world. Do you consider a healthcare system to be successful if it kills or
injures people while running deficits?To "Impartial7" what
do you mean that nobody is advocating Socialism. AOC, Bernie Sanders, and many
other Democrats proclaim all the time that they are Socialists and want to
implement Socialism.To "embarrassed Utahn!" but prior to the
ACA the US offered healthcare to everybody, and we did it without the failed
government programs.To "unrepentant progressive" here is the
best defense of Capitalism. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any
other economic system.
Socialism provides a safety net for those who cannot make it on their own. The
only problem is that there’s no safety and there’s no net.
The federal government has power to help all citizens, even in economic areas.
These powers include regulating interstate commerce and protecting consumers
through anti-trust laws(just two examples).Capitalism is not the
lawless wild west its detractors try to make it seem. Our government, our
commerce, and our society are supposed to work together to provide all citizens
with opportunity but without forcing them to take advantage of the
opportunities. The regulatory powers of government and the ability of government
to provide "umbrella" coverage for catastrophic events protects all of
us. Thus, capitalism is a doctrine of self-determination and eternal growth.Socialism wants government to own and manage all services and goods.
Instead of opportunity, it provides basic subsistence only until it runs out of
resources. Socialism is the doctrine of envy and lust for power and eventual
ruin.Words have meanings. The word socialism, twisted and bent to
win debate points, renders dialog meaningless. Disguising it with better
sounding terms, like Democratic Socialism, is just as meaningless. Let's
have an honest dialog instead of playing games with nuanced terminologies.
Why do people who love socialism believe having police, fire and public schools
is socialism? Can you name a country, from the poorest to the richest, most
totalitarian to most lenient that don't have police, fire and public
schools? Probably not. Does that mean every country is a socialist country? No.
Having social programs isn't socialism. It's why you pay taxes, for
all those "free" services. However, if you want a heavy
police state, government control over your lives and limits to what you can do,
say or own, enjoy your socialism. Socialism sounds nice, even looks good on
paper, but the reality is far different. @embarrassed UtahnThe US does provide healthcare to it's citizens just like
"Basically every developed country", it's just not at taxpayer
expense, or in other words, "free". Free has got to be the biggest
misused word in the English language.
There are certainly a lot of problems in this country, but we are actually doing
fairly well thanks to Mr. Trump. As for socialism in Canada it is true they
have a socialized medical system. The key parameters for a successful economy
are found in the Index of Economic Freedom ( easy to find online). They include
such things as property rights, the rule of law, etc. When an economy conforms
to these principles it will be prosperous if not it will be poor. Venezuela
and Cuba, North Korea are rock bottom. Canada actually is ahead of the US as it
has a freer economy. The UK is also fairly high. Denmark is supposed to be a
socialist country, but its' prime minister said they have a market economy.
Socialism does not conform to the Index of Economic Freedom thus it fails.
Under Trump we have gone from 18th where we slumped to under Obama and are up to
12th under Trump.
"The goal of socialism is to remove one’s private property through
force and transfer it to someone else"Stopped reading right
there. Nothing that comes after that line can make up for such a pathetic
strawman argument. The writer should feel shame but we all know someone this
convinced by their own argument (if you can call it that) isnt interested in a
conversation, just edicts.
@ Impartial7"...privatize healthcare, privatize
industry..."Yeah, it would be a shame to "privatize"
things that have always been privatized. You know, the strategy of
repeating propaganda enough times that people will start to believe it only
works on the left side of the aisle. "It was a bright, cold day
in April and the clocks were striking thirteen."
Whenever I read an attack on Socialism, I always wonder what is being offered in
its place. Is it Laissez Faire Capitalism? Mixed Market Economy or something
"A voice of warning about socialism"A voice of warning about
capitalism - the unregulated version of capitalism concentrates wealth in the
smallest possible number of hands. We are repeating the process of
the so-called "Gilded Age."So is "regulation"
If repubs really believed in this narrow definition of socialism, why
aren’t they up in arms against trump? He’s offering a bunch of free
stuff from bridges in New Orleans to handouts to failing farmers. I’m sure
all the Trumpers on this site must be mad as heck at Trump’s socialism and
impediment of the free market, am I right? All the republicans here must be mad
as heck at all the handouts our state is giving to billion dollar companies to
move to Lehi, eagle mountain, and Draper, right?It’s funny how
republicans label handouts to the rich are called “incentives” and
free market economics while incentives to the poor and middle class are called
“handouts” and socialism.
There are opposites in everything. The opposite to freedom is socialism.
Freedom means that each person is free from being forced by government to pay
the bills of his fellowman. A free person is free to offer assistance if he
chooses. Under the rule of forced participation, we lose that freedom to choose
how and where we will spend our money. When force is used to take our assets,
everyone loses. Those who produce wealth are not under any
obligation to continue to produce wealth when government seizes their
assests.Socialism, under any name, is wrong. It is wrong because it
FORCES us to participate in a program where government decides what is good,
what is bad, what is important and what is unimportant. We know
better. We have lived under a system of freedom since the Constitution was
ratified. Those who object to our freedom want a different form of Government.
Free people will grow a spine and stand for freedom. I stand for freedom.
Again, here are a bunch of people arguing about socialism who don't even
know what it is. Socialism has nothing to do with sharing common resources or
even wealth distribution. It is government ownership of the production and
distribution of goods.IMO, we need to change the discussion. As an
anti-socialist, my #1 issue is "ownership" at the federal level.
Education, welfare, health care, etc should be handled at a local level. The
role of the federal government should be like an umbrella insurance policy that
covers only major disasters that are outside the ability of the local government
to address.Local administration is more like a co-op. It minimizes
overhead. Instead of bureaucracy, administration is done by local people who
know and understand the unique needs of our communities and their members.
Taxpayers can more clearly see how our resources are being used and make changes
as needed. It also sets up a natural competition. Communities that want to grow
can shape their systems to attract residents.This should bring money
and influence back to state and local governments as prescribed in the
Constitution and eliminates the risk of federal socialism.
"I'd feel better about" unlimited capitalism "if supporters
would set some firm limits. But they don't. These are the folks who pine
for" low tax rates on the very wealthy "while never defining what"
poor really is, who can't point to any example of unfettered capitalism
delivering unlimited benefits to every citizen, who seem toxically connected to
suspect Fundamentalist Christian dogma and who can't understand reasonable
limits to gun control.Rather than criticize socialism, the Right
should defend the unfettered view of Capitalism in all its glory. And kindly
point out a country wherein this actually works to provide a decent standard of
living for its entire population.
Basically every developed country in the world offers healthcare to their
citizens.The USA is "supposedly" the greatest country in the
world (and getting greater?), but trump and his ilk are trying to deny
healthcare to the neediest in society. trump is trying to add a
work clause for medicaid...how very unChristlike!If it's
socialism to provide healthcare and have a healthy populace, then count me in!
It's clear from this letter that Sheldon is an educated expert on socialism
in all its "guises", because he goes into so much detail explaining what
the various "guises" are, & explains in detail the diff b/t
socialism & communism, & why so many people like to confuse the two,
& pretend that all socialism is really just communism in disguise. Because apparently the U.S. has been practicing communism since the New Deal
in the 30's. After all, S.S. & Medicare only benefit an
"elite" portion of the citizenry, those that have been lucky enough to
live to the age of retirement. And Medicaid only benefits an "elite"
portion of people who are lucky enough to be disabled or living in poverty,
despite having a job. And free public education only benefits the
"elite" youth who haven't yet graduated to join their much wiser
adult countertparts. Farm subsidies only benefit "elite" farmers in the
nation who are lucky enough to have the privilege of supplying the rest of the
country's citizens (& a good portion of the world) w/it's life
sustaining food supplies. CHIP only benefits those "elite" children
lucky enough to live w/parents too poor to afford health insurance.Etc., etc., etc.
Nobody's advocating "socialism". It's the latest GOP scare
tactic, after abortion, gay marriage and Obama taking our guns. Most Americans
are concerned about Republican socialism. Privatize prisons, privatize schools,
privatize healthcare, privatize industry, using tax payer dollars. Socialize the
costs, but privatize the profits.
All private property is dependent on rules and protections provided by society.
Instead of overly privileging a select few in accumulating all the resources,
some forms of societal rules that the author would decry as socialism, would,
after being democratically chosen by the people, more equitably distribute
resources to more members of society. Considering that more than half of adult
Americans have zero to negative net worth, we presently are in desperate need
of rules that give fairer access to resources to all members of society.
The spate of letters on socialism lately has led me to conclude that the concept
of what socialism entails is permanently frozen in a 1950s Red Scare paranoia in
the Beehive State. I don't consider myself a socialist, but
I'm pretty disappointed by the simplistic strawmen being thrown up as
capitalist apologetics against socialist bogeymen.
The problem with most who claim that some socialism is good is the abject
refusal to set any bounds.The case for universal education has long
since been made. Sadly, we've converted community schools into national
schools and seen the problems as federal and State mandates and too many levels
of bureaucracy remove all accountability for what happens.Fire and
Police service seem to work well in govt hands, though Obamacare has killed many
volunteer fire departments. And the same folks who first hold up police service
as evidence of the goodness and success of socialism and the first to accuse the
police of "institutional racism" or excessive use of force.I'd feel better about "limited socialism" if supporters would set
some firm limits. But they don't. These are the folks who pine for 90% top
tax rates on "the rich" while never defining what "rich" really
is, who always point to England or Germany as their examples, and who seem to be
highly anti-Christian and who to want to disarm me lest I be about to resist.I wish socialists would demonstrate the success of their ideas by living
it themselves in voluntary groups, rather than forcing me into their anti-theist
@Laura Bilington "And are you in favor of abolishing that dreadful
socialistic institution known as Public Schools?"aka the
institution about which socialists are always complaining because it has run out
of the taxpayers' money and needs more.
"I want to raise the voice of warning about socialism."My
guess is this letter writter heard Fox News and just regurgitated their point of
view.Maybe this letter writter can explain the vaious forms of so
called "socialism"? Bet they can not? Maybe
they should turn off low information networks and truly learn the differences in
socialism. There are many Democratic Socialist ideas in this country already.
Interesting that the radical right used to call Canada's
healthcare system "socialized medicine" Don't hear the radical
right doing that anymore. Why? One reason is their health care system is
working to benefit all of it's citizens! The radical right can't drag
that down in their false narratives. The GOP has no plan to insure millions,
contrary to their bragging. This country under Trump is practicing
"Corporate Socialism". The government aides the Corporations and rich
at the expense of the middle class. That is an evil form of
"socialism".Learn the difference letter writter. Educate
"I want to raise a voice of warning about socialism. The goal of socialism
is to remove one’s private property through force and transfer it to
someone else — one baby step at a time — under the guise of
“the public welfare."Interesting statement. Where did you
get this idea?And are you in favor of abolishing that dreadful
socialistic institution known as Public Schools?