Social Security is clearly socialist program, ans so is Medicare, and some Obama's initiatives are socialist by nature. You guys seem to think that "socialism" is obscenity or insult, while it's just a political term with a certain meaning, and because of that you are trying to deny obvious things.
True, "Social programs" are not "socialism." They are steps on the way to socialism. You see, this clear-cut definition is not complete. Concept of socialism is much wider, and its social implications are no less important than economical.
Where did you read this - "Social programs are socialism!!!"? I said those programs are socialist. Elements of socialism. Steps on the way. Is this approach too sophisticated for you?
America is such a capitalist, free-market system, it's mind-blowing. Really, the free-market conservatives should be on cloud 9. But we institute a few basic social programs-- which every other first-world, industrialized nation has-- and they start freaking out like tyranny is soon upon us.
The point this cartoon makes is clear... in the 1930s, conservatives warned that Social Security was the beginning of socialism in America. Didn't happen. In the 1960s, conservatives warned that Medicare was the beginning of socialism in America. Didn't happen. Today... well, a Democrat can't even fart without conservatives warning of the hammer and sickle. So no, sorry, I don't think I take this all very seriously.
Sure you don't. I know. But I do take it seriously. There were people to take it seriously before, and that's the reason America's path to socialism is longer than some people would like it to be.
you mean those people who stood in the way of Social Security and Medicare?
The Medicare that the GOP chairman today, in an interview on NPR, insisted that it not be touched, because Obama's national health care proposals are socialist?
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
I'd call Social Security and Universal Health care "imperfect implementation of collectivist principles". The same is true for many social policies, such as welfare and food stamps.
Understand, a step toward socialism may not be leaping the entire chasm, but it IS making moves in that direction. If you are removing money from individuals and giving it to the collective for dispersion BY the collective, it's taking discrete and definite steps toward socialism.
They're a "path to socialism" much in the way that letting corporations tell your legislators how to write laws is a "path to fascism" which is to say really utterly fucking not. FDR's New Deal was in the fucking nineteen forties and in over sixty years, not only has this country not moved a single iota closer to anything that might remotely be defined as socialism, it hasn't even adopted a comprehensive solution for its people who become injured or ill and don't have the tens of thousands of dollars necessary to pay for treatment in this insane fucking economy. Unlike ANY of the other industrialized nations on the planet, NONE of which has moved any closer to being "socialist" even though THEY all adopted health care programs three or four GENERATIONS AGO.
In fact this country is much closer to socialism now than it was then. Not close enough for you, apparently.
It's a long process, unless somebody manages to organize some revolt. Step forward, step back... Great Britain, for instance, became practically a socialist state after WWII. They had their reasons - socialism has some advantages in critical situations, but in decade or two they found themselves in deep trouble, and Thatcher took some measures to reverse the process. Couple more decades, and they are heading to socialism again.
Fascist tendencies, btw, exist too. (It's not the right term, but I know what you mean.) Socialist trends, though, are much stronger now, and we have to keep the balance. Watch the developments. There is no need to wait for the final result.
And what I'm saying is we don't have to watch, because it balances out naturally over time. There won't ever be an abundance of people on either side of the argument who will use any significant amount of force to push the government either way. There are always going to be a roughly equal number of those in favor of social programs and those who favor free enterprise. As you can see by looking at all the other countries we're talking about.
"There are always going to be a roughly equal number of those in favor of social programs and those who favor free enterprise"
I don't agree. This ratio isn't stable, it changes, and keeping it in balance requires some serious work on both sides. As you know, National-Socialist Workers' Party got to the power in one of those countries through legal democratic elections, and restoring the balance took a lot of efforts.
First, Godwin's Law is about comparing opponent to Hitler. Second, we are talking socialism here, and national-socialism is a relevant example. Third, count how many "nazi" words is already in this discussion. Fourth - don't be stupid.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"Social programs are socialism!!!" / [receives reply with definition of socialism] / "Okay, so they're not socialism. But it's close!"
Reply
Reply
America is such a capitalist, free-market system, it's mind-blowing. Really, the free-market conservatives should be on cloud 9. But we institute a few basic social programs-- which every other first-world, industrialized nation has-- and they start freaking out like tyranny is soon upon us.
The point this cartoon makes is clear... in the 1930s, conservatives warned that Social Security was the beginning of socialism in America. Didn't happen. In the 1960s, conservatives warned that Medicare was the beginning of socialism in America. Didn't happen. Today... well, a Democrat can't even fart without conservatives warning of the hammer and sickle. So no, sorry, I don't think I take this all very seriously.
Reply
Reply
The Medicare that the GOP chairman today, in an interview on NPR, insisted that it not be touched, because Obama's national health care proposals are socialist?
Yeah, ok. The goal-posts are THATAWAY.
Reply
Reply
I'd call Social Security and Universal Health care "imperfect implementation of collectivist principles". The same is true for many social policies, such as welfare and food stamps.
Understand, a step toward socialism may not be leaping the entire chasm, but it IS making moves in that direction. If you are removing money from individuals and giving it to the collective for dispersion BY the collective, it's taking discrete and definite steps toward socialism.
Reply
Reply
It's a long process, unless somebody manages to organize some revolt. Step forward, step back... Great Britain, for instance, became practically a socialist state after WWII. They had their reasons - socialism has some advantages in critical situations, but in decade or two they found themselves in deep trouble, and Thatcher took some measures to reverse the process. Couple more decades, and they are heading to socialism again.
Fascist tendencies, btw, exist too. (It's not the right term, but I know what you mean.) Socialist trends, though, are much stronger now, and we have to keep the balance. Watch the developments. There is no need to wait for the final result.
Reply
Reply
I don't agree. This ratio isn't stable, it changes, and keeping it in balance requires some serious work on both sides. As you know, National-Socialist Workers' Party got to the power in one of those countries through legal democratic elections, and restoring the balance took a lot of efforts.
Reply
at 6:42pm, gmt, i call this godwind.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment