Why socialism is bad....pt 1

russia was communist - whole different animal than socialism

The communists will tell you that the best way to get to communism is to have socialism first.

No, that's what a republican will tell you. Canada and the bulk if not all of Europe would be communist if that were true. Hell, Russia itself was not socialist before becoming communist.

Socialism and communism run hand in hand.

Canada is really socialist? It's rated higher than the US in economic freedom now, has avoided the traps of fiscal stupidity and surge in government so popular the last 4-5 years here, despite it's rather socialist government health care system (it's a system in flux with provinces challenging the huge costs and restrictions, courts overturning restrictions on private care etc), lower corporate taxes, etc-this is a country doing many things right as of late compared to it's neighbor to the south.

It's no exaggeration to say that socalism is a milestone that democratic states can travel to totalitariansim (sic). Socialism as a system is also great as long as you have plnety of other peoples money to spend. Eventually that money runs out as Europe is finding out today.

Our system is straddling the freer minimalist government heritage we were so proud of for over a century and lurching towards one of European semi socialism. One only has to look at when our government stopped being a distant and relatively unimportant factor in our lives to when it became an overwhelming presense to see how this change has affected us. There are pluses to be sure from such government but the minuses are huge and growing, not to mention how we as Americans are no longer governed by government but ruled.

Of course Norm, one tends to have friends who agree with ourselves.

But do your Canadian friends consider themselves socialist? I for one think their government is far from being one actually though it has some aspects such as it's health care system.

Now your European friends, are they all Dutch? That is the one socialist success you continuely mention here and on other posts/threads. Enlighten us on why they think socialism is such a great success. Their present government/society was built by the wealth that the Dutch brought in from all over the world for centuries to build what they have now.

The point is the negative of socialism is much greater than any positive, and thus needs to be turned away. We are a REPUBLIC and need to get back to it, end of story.

You're logic is illogical. They were/are communist! Where did you get your education? Seriously, do you think we're that inept? My goodness...your asinine assumptions are astounding. You really have been brinwashed by liberal propaganda, so sad! Even liberals changed sides this mid term election. Democrats are no longer stand for what those people thought. You really need to get a grip on reality. You are as out of touch as our potus!

Michelle, I don't know where R.F. gets his information but I assure you, it is not from a liberal. I had assumed he got that crap from a delusional nut job. Not even the conservatives are that far out. Of course, it is possible that he is just yanking our chains and actually knows better.

Glad I am not the only one to see that he is delusional. LOL! We can definitely agree on something! There are some far out crazy libs, are you sure it wasn't from them???

Reasonably sure it wasn't a liberal but had to have been from a far out crazy source. There are, after all, many people wandering around loose who have the most unusual beliefs. I once knew a woman who believed that her ex-husband was spying on her through the TV. She knew it was true because when she watched TV, she could see herself in it. I was never able to convince her of the reality of reflections.

True Marxian communism will never exist any more that a totally free market economy will ever exist except, perhaps, among robots. They both go against human nature.

We have had free market here, and it was here for well over 230 yrs. Again, it exists, both do. I do agree susan some people are just plain out there!

Well Norm, you could also look at welfare as our duty as Christians to look after the least among us. It also keeps us from the distastefullness of having to step over the bodies of starved, dead children as we go about our daily business.

Susan, we have no duty to anyone except ourselves and our family and our God. Charity is not a duty, it is a choice. We need to stop all gov't social programs including ss. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own retirement. All the people 50 and under. The rest will get it til they die and then, no more hand outs. It is bankrupt, and it needs to be abolished, as does Unemployment. If the state wants to fund it then that is fine, the gov't no.

We need to stop all funding and aide to foreign countries by the gov't it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We also need to deport all 12 MILLION + Illegal aliens out of country, and secure our border. If we do all of that, our country would turn around so quick, you would be amazed.

Well, its true that I would be amazed.

I wouldn't invest in any international market. This guy must not be from around here. No American would ever suggest such a thing. I agree if we dont change this outlandish spending yes, we will crumble economically, but that is what obama and his lackeys are trying to do. He wants to change this to a muslim country.

What specifically are you referring to?

shall we belabor the obvious?

Very arbitrary,too.

Actually, there is a fine line between the two. Both end up with totalitarian control.

True Nora, and also the Conservatives are the one who will control your life!

So how does supporting small government, self responsility, locally controlled education and a free market do that?

It doesn't.

Again, RF, you are wrong, as usual. The line is that fine. We are turning into a socialist country.

An oligarchy is a socialist country...it has nothing to do with corporatism. It has to do with big gov't and George Soros, the gate keeper, mr corrupt. I have already connected these dots, so, the only ones being conned RF are you and Obama's followers. The rest of the country have woken up to the biggest con in the country, and he is in our WH. Get your facts straight before you make asinine and incorrect assumptions.

1 man's opinion. When in reality there is a HUGE difference.

Thanks, Michelle. I doubt that some people will listen. They either don't think it will ever happen here or they think having socialism would be great. Sad.

Indeed.

the fact is, we are paying for socialism, but we are not getting it -- we get all the controls, but one of the benefits

we are also paying for all the junkets that politicians take, traveling the world, filling up entire passenger jets, hotels, etc. - for our benefit, they claim

We need to put the White House in the middle of the Country to make travel more of an equal distance for more Congressmen!

very good idea, maybe Denver? Cleveland? Detroit?
-- but that would not stop them from traveling to foreign countries at our expense

I bet Cleopatra spent more on those barge trips - but they do get things done. But if they can get it done over the phone that would be best.

isn't that what Skype and Go to Meeting dot com are for?

Yes, Tessa, indeed. They need to not take all those stupid and unneccesary trips. Let the other people come here.

A lot of people do come here - the White House has a revolving door (so to speak)

Well, not lately. Obamanus does not need to take a 10 day trip to asia at our expense!

Because you decide our foreign interests?

Peter Joseph, I understand he and a dozen plus security might need to go. But 3,000 ? Do you honestly think that's acceptable? Especially in these tough economic times? Really????

If it was a Republication President you'd be happy with the Secret Service planning the trip - do you really think he plans those kinds of details of those kinds of foreign diplomatic trips? He's planning on what to talk about once he gets there!

It sounds like Tea Party types want Obama to go 2nd class, suffer, and then get shot and killed.

Besides, Presidential trips and their costs are a stimulus in these bleak economic times.

The economic problem was caused by all private money freezing up. Let it spend where it can!!!!!

Thank God the Tea party isn't in charge of our economy (yet) they'd do it all backwards and throw us into instant bartering dark ages.

(but they still might do that)

Actually Dems protested Bush's travel too citing similar things but that was ok then.

Actually Peter pointed out earlier in this thread that using a phone often works, given the tough times this trip highlights a lack of thought in how many will see it. The First Lady's trip didn't do Dems or Mr Obama any favors, this trip just adds to the perception of a lack of concern.

I missed the Dem's complaints about past Presidents' travels. I need to be on the internet, more. (ha ha)


It's a very good time for more stimulus. The economy is still too sluggish.

Regardless, funny how the right only wants money for big war overseas, not proper diplomacy.

Peter, if you'll notice, I did indicate the need for "security" our problem is the 3,000 going on the trip. BTW, it will be India and Japan and the other Indo China spots they go to that will benefit from a boost in economy. The President needs to boost the economy over here, don't you think? How about a fancy trip to L.A. or Las Vegas or San Francisco? Bet those cities would appreciate an economical boost of 3,000 visitors all at once!

Oh Peter, you were right here on gather.com during those complaints about Bush's travels...

Unsure about where you get that the right only wants war money. Seriously, the number of people actually wanting any such thing to fight overseas is pretty small. There are those who wish to be ready for wars of course and I'd note more than a few Dems take that idea seriously too.

Diplomacy is fine and necessary. The actual results from such big, publicized trips-regardless of who makes them-is pretty sparse though historically. I'm sorry, given the state of world communications-its very hard to justify so many people on such trips

Peter, your logic, is completely illogical. Him going overseas, does not in anyway stimulate OUR economy! HE is spending OUR money and giving to the ASIAN countries. That is my problem. We don't need any more chinese toys. There's too many recalls. We need to stop bringing foreign countries toys and go back to american made products. We lost 21,000 more jobs in october! This has got to stop! It seems all this admin is good at is job loss.

Whatever his business over there, believe me it is not proper diplomacy.

Whatever his business over there, believe me it is not proper diplomacy.

No I don't believe you. Do you even know what he's talking to them about? Or they to him?

YOu don't have to believe me. The fact that he is over there, and our present economic situation is absurd! He brought 3,000 people, flew first class, and is renting out the Taj Mahal, with our money. THis man has no idea what our economic situation is. If he did he wouldn't be wasting our money on this trip, when these countries could be bringing money here, by visiting us! NOt us bringing money there. It is common sense, Peter.

Painting "socialism" VS "capitalism" in such extreme ways makes them meaningless. We will never have 100 percent of either in any modern economy anywhere in the world. The word "socialism" is totally being misused. Just say what it really is "government". We will always have government.

Amen JJ, me too! Socialism is bad no matter which way you look at it! Less rights and the gov't basically owns you, not in my country!

Less rights and the gov't basically owns you, not in my country!

And in a world with no socialism at all, you live most of your day in sweat shop until you die young from the pollution and all the rats in your shanty town eat you as you lie in the open sewer. But there's not much to eat.

Right Peter, anything you say.

All of the horrible things Peter mentions as a defense of socialism were part of the growing process of nations. All the present Western world nations started this way and many 3d world nations are doing so now, moving up the economic ladder. Socialism comes once nations start trusting government to do what they (the people) chiefly did for themselves through their localities. Look at socialism's short life span, it lives off it's national capital-that causes collapse (look at Europe AGAIN)

Norm you keep mentioning the Netherlands, how about Greece, Spain, Italy, France, etc? One success is the only measure you will take on the system?

Actually, I wouldn't be so sure about the Scandiavarian countries doing all that well. From what I've read, they're starting to worry. Too many older folks, not enough younger ones to support the mix. Lots of younger ones moving to "greener pastures" for lack of jobs. I've met a few here in the Houston area!

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything political. They contradict themselves constantly. The socialism you think is a success is not. The scands just don't care that they have no rights. There literacy rates may be high, but it doesn't mean their geniuses. Socialism doesn't work and never will, period.

Greece needs to modernize its government so it actually collects taxes. They haven't been collecting from the rich, and most of their shopping goes without taxes collected. Most of its market has been what the rest of us all call a "black market". Once they modernize their economy then they will be able to pay for their own government, and now that they're in the E.U., they really have no choice.

(and Michelle, there is a place for Socialism in Capitalism to regulate it and make it all work, and that's the way the modern world works now, period)

The scands just don't care that they have no rights.

Sounds like the kind of utter nonsense you see on Tea Party signs.

Oh but i do. Socialism doesn't work. You can spin it all you want. I have seen the facts to back up what i am saying. You on the other hand, i have yet to see the facts that you talk about...and if you showed them to me, they would probably be liberally skewed big time.

Peter your opininon, has no basis. You are using a few socialist countries. Socialism has no place in the modern america. you want socialism move.

What do you base success on Norm? Yes France is a socialist country as is Greece and Spain. Italy is...well Italy and hard to figure out what governs it, if anything does.

Regardless, you name one socialist country as a success, a very small one too and one that has some major social problems arising from its government's policies such as it's Muslim immigrant problems. Just what does qualify success to you?

One caveat you did put in this thread is interesting and much harder to debate, socialism does/can work in certain situations. Can you share with us what those situations might be?

Socialism has no place in the modern america.

It's never NOT been here. It's called "government".

Your traffic laws are socialism (and have the biggest impact on your "freedom").

Try having freedom with having cancer caused because government hasn't banned carcinogenic things.

And don't make me repeat my sweatshop/shanty town story (but try having freedom there)

Most cancer is caused from a genetic predisposition. Are you planning to prescreen everyone and do away early with those who have the cancer gene?

Gov't hasn't banned anything carcinogenic, it would be unconstitutional. Hence, why there are warning labels. Socialism is not misused at all. It is BIG GOV'T and the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. That is exactly what it is, and exactly what we have. We are going to reverse this hideous system. It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum your on. If your a true american, you should want as little FEDERAL GOV'T in your life as possible.

As for traffic laws, that is not mandated federally, it is a state law. There should be laws, from the states. It is mandated in the CONSTITUTION. Each state has their own state sovereignty. So again, your point is illogical, and doesn't make a point at all.

Wikipedia: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property. The exact definition of communism varies and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism, however, communist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism.
I believe socialism is a derivative of communism.

Stalinism:The term came into prominence during the mid-1930s, when Lazar Kaganovich, a Soviet politician and associate of Stalin, reportedly declared, "Let's replace Long Live Leninism with Long Live Stalinism!" Stalin initially met this usage with hesitancy, dismissing it as excessively praiseful and contributing to a cult of personality (like Hitler).

Social: The adjective "social" is also used often in political discourse, although its meaning in viveks a context depends heavily on who is using it. In left-wing circles it is often used to imply a positive characteristic, while in right-wing circles it is generally used to imply a negative characteristic. It should also be noted that, overall, this adjective is used much more often by those on the political left than by those on the political right. They do not use it because "people" are not important in their Agenda.

I think that the "socialism" as it was and still in some European countries will never be in the USA. Think about being more "social".

Being social, is not what we're talking about laurence. we're talking about socialism, big difference. It is not talked about negatively by the right. Get a real source of info. Wikipedia has contradicted themselves many times, on political definitions and politics in general. Socialism doesn't work and won't work here. That is the point. Move on! Being social is talking to people, which everyone does on a daily basis. Charity is individualistic, not governmental-or collective. Only churches, individuals and non profits can be charitable under the constitution!

That's your mistake Michelle.
When I was a politician I was "SOCIAL" and had a lot of return because I was near the people.
You do not have to be "communist" or "socialist" because both of them are not really DEMOCRATIC and do not want or know how to dialogue with the population; they do not want to know their needs nor aspiration. Being social is another dimension. Everybody here, apart Norm Bruce, is speaking about "old conventional political images and myths". Open your mind to a new way of thinking and acting. Pres. B. Obama is thinking differently, maybe out of the box, and that's why (maybe) he hs so many ennemies...

No that has nothing to do with it. HE his a marxist, socialist. His book says so. Have you read it? He hires known domestic terrorists to run unconstitutional boards, he mandates unconstitutional bills. This is why he is not liked. He doesn't care what the people want. If he did, he wouldn't do what he is doing! I don't make mistakes often Laurence, I am not making one now!

America is fed up with him and his admin, hence the midterm election results. If they cared about us, they wouldn't have bailed out failing, corrupt institutions, they wouldn't have passed the HCB, they wouldn't keep spending and spending, and they wouldn't keep losing jobs. The only thing that creates jobs is people, not gov't. They need to get out of the way. That is the fact. I could careless what you did as a politician. It doesn't apply to Obama. He is a radical left winger who believes in oligarchy. We are headed there. We're already socialist. We need to change our direction and quickly.

I am very well educated.

If you believe such extreme things about Obama then it seems you've only been educated from FOX NEWS.

Actually, I don't believe extreme things about obama. I believe the research that i have done independently. So again your ASSUMPTIONS, are wrong as always Peter. Let me guess you listen to nbc, abc, cnn, read huffingtonpost, watch pbs, and bbc? ALl liberal, all the time. So, goes to show what you know. I don't have time to watch news. I work ft and watch my tv shows, and study for my licensure. while i am at work, on my downtime, i search several news outlets including my local news, to get my information. I have verified all of my information on OBAMA before i have posted it here, by making connections and doing my hw. I am very well versed in research. So when I say I am well educated I Am. Just because you BELIEVE something completely different because you choose to listen to liberal media, is on you. I actually do my own research, and get my news from several outlets that are fair and balanced including but not limiting to FOXnews. So before you make an assumption, get your information correct first.

Norm, the only person who will create the gridlock is the potus. HE is the one who has been ignoring the will of the people the whole time. IT's a known fact!

Don't make predictions, cause trust me it ain't gonna happen. This country has awakened and even dems switch sides because dems are no longer who they used to be. So I would say things are still in our favor. They should work together but the dems won't, there notorious for gridlock.

Did any of you ever have to do a group project for a grade? That's where the class is split into groups of 4-5 and the "group" has a project that all are supposed to contribute to.

I don't know about your experience but all of the times that I had to be involved with that, there are some who are concerned about getting a good grade (moi) and there are some who are slackers. Guess who ends up doing the majority of the work and even redoing the sloppy work of the slackers? But they all get the same grade.

In society if the reward is the same... only a few will work hard....for awhile that is... then out of discouragement they say the heck with it and join the slackers.

Fortuately, those class group projects lasted for only a couple of weeks. A societal change is indefinitel.

Be careful what you wish for.

Do they have all the dumbing down in the schools and the social promotions? OR do they split off at high school level into college prep OR trade school? Check it out!

Another question, where is the check system for accurate reporting on individual countries scores? Would you honestly believe the scores from a tyrannical leader's country?

No I would not. Good point nora!

The USSR was an ordinary dictatorship. It was a lot closer to the Czarist government than anything Marx and Engels envisioned. It's not a good example of the success or failure of socialism or communism. It's a pretty good example of the dangers of authoritarian government though.

There you are! You're late to the party. It was an Oligarchy with Stalin as the main guy, and some puppet movers in the background, like we have now. Socialism leads to all of these steps, which is why it is important! NO socialist country is successful. England taxes the hell out of there people. They have few rights, and many mandates. Greece, france-both socialist. Greece is Bankrupt and france isn't far behind. SO these are great examples.

I don't have to have lived there to know. I am not going on propaganda, i am going on very indepth research. So again, I DO know what i am talking about. I work for a huge telephone company and we have tons of foreigners who live here and let me tell you , most of them are british! So again, I know more than you think!

No, Jesus was not a socialist.

The War on Success By Tommy Newberry - Chapter 7 - God is Not a Socialist

Amen!