What Exactly is Socialist and what is Not?

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:55:48 -0500

"On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) gave his long planned speech on Democratic Socialism, invoking great American leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and reminding everyone that some of the most popular social programs we have today — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — were all once labeled socialist and aggressively opposed by monied interests, who FDR called “economic royalists.”

Not only were social programs opposed and called socialism; so were any kind of laws or regulations that intervened with the “free market” for the betterment of society. “Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as ‘socialist,’” explained Sanders.

Of course, capitalists never come out and say that they want the government to get out of their way so that they can take advantage of workers or employ children or contaminate the water supply. They fear-monger about the threat of socialism and claim that as long as the government intervenes with their business, we can never have true freedom."

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/america_has_never_recovered_from_ronald_reagan_thats_why_bernie_sanders_is_so_important/

All the screaming and shouting you can hear about this and that being "Socialism" is to trick you into working against your best interests.

Don't be fooled.

Walt

America has never recovered from Ronald Reagan. That’s why Bernie Sanders is so important.

Sanders explained his democratic socialism in a speech last week that should be a wakeup call for America

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Nov 23 at 2015 1:57 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:57:34 -0500

That's up to the individual as is everything else.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 23 at 2015 1:58 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:58:55 -0500

"Of course, capitalists never come out and say that they want the government to get out of their way so that they can take advantage of workers or employ children or contaminate the water supply. They fear-monger about the threat of socialism and claim that as long as the government intervenes with their business, we can never have true freedom."

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 23 at 2015 2:08 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:08:58 -0500

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSTQwamo8M

FDR: I Welcome Their Hatred

From an FDR 1936 campaign speech in Madison Square Garden: "For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rol...

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 2:13 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:13:50 -0500

We have plenty of socialist programs in America. Many European countries have more than we do...or at least more advanced socialist programs akin to ours. In a modern, moral society it is a requirement to have these. A portion of my taxes goes to support those who are less fortunate than I. I am willing to give to the nation at the current tax rate in order to support those programs. I would be willing to give more if I knew what those programs were, who they were supporting and why, and how much it would cost me. We are in a class of society where most of these programs will not benefit me personally...so it's about a moral belief that even though I will not benefit, that it is for the good of the Nation. There is a point of diminishing returns for the individual. I cannot give 50% of my pay unless housing costs and costs of living go down throughout the United States. My family and I would not be able to live like we do now. That being said, I could downgrade my family's lifestyle to accomodate the socialist programs that I would have to pay for. Here's the rub. How far down does middle-America have to go to support the rest of society? If you have to give 50% of your money to the government, you will fundamentally have to change the way you live. There is a point where that doesn't become a concern any longer. I don't know what that limit is, but it is well above my pay. Maybe if you make more than $1 million per year, giving $500,000 isn't a big deal...but there is a huge difference in living with $750,000 (25% tax rate) and $500,000. That being said, it's still enough to live quite comfortably. This is where you will get some loud arguments. Why should someone who has worked so hard to get where they are be forced to pay 70-90% of the taxes in America? An interesting problem to have for some. I can tell you that if Bernie amps up the socialist programs in America, it will be a hell of a fight. He's talking about things that will make Universal Health Care look like a girl scout party.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 3:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:52:03 -0500

Want a great example of a socialist program? The US military. We get medical, housing, and on the enlisted side food and clothing stipends. We all get the same pay based only upon years of service (since our promotion system is up or out), regardless of performance. Child care and recreation activities are subsidized, as are our shopping experiences (commissary, PX). Our news media (AFN, Stars & Stripes) are government run and funded. We wear "equalizing" clothing in the form of uniforms ... The USMC probably more than most. Our educational system is standardized not only within each service but also across services. Most everything we do is for the collective good -- your ability to be part of the team is a key component of your success. We are generally not interested in your individual skills, but rather what we can achieve as a group.

I'm not talking about whether those things are deserved or not -- just that if you look at the system in which we live -- it's very socialist, which I find rather humorous considering the number of military & veterans who hate it so much while having benefitted from the system.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 23 at 2015 4:46 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:46:01 -0500

"Bernie Sanders, FDR, MLK, and many other past and present Americans have a very different view of freedom, and believe that the freedom to starve or to be left untreated after being seriously injured is no freedom at all. As FDR said while listing his Second Bill of Rights, “we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.” This is one of the fundamental values of socialism."

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Nov 23 at 2015 4:55 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:55:08 -0500

Given the many variations over the years, can there be an "Exactly" response?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 23 at 2015 5:00 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:00:12 -0500

In a nutshell? America. America is Socialist, just in huge denial about it...

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Nov 23 at 2015 9:42 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:42:26 -0500

All forms of Government are "Socialism". The opposite of Socialism is not "Capitalism" but rather Anarchy. Now the choice is what Kind of Socialism do you Practice? One that Benefits a small group of Elites at the Top of the Food Chain, One that is more Inclusive, One that is more Exclusive. I prefer the Middle Road.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Nov 23 at 2015 9:49 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:49:46 -0500

Socialist is Bernie...Socialist wants everything to be free and 65% of our hard earned money will be taxed. Socialist is Obama care. Socialist is social ownership with DEMOCRATIC control...It's exactly what obama and clinton and sanders is trying to drive us towards and it's BOLOGNA....and not anything I want a part of NOR SHOULD IT BE A PART OF OR ALLOWED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 23 at 2015 10:19 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:19:21 -0500

I was really disappointed to scan the initial responses and discover that no one has gotten it correct. Government programs are not "socialist". All you had to do was Google "socialism", then cut and paste the answer: "...a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Government programs for which there is no constitutional authorization are simply unconstitutional. They are not in and of themselves socialism. Even worse, they have proven to be failures. Social Security is a trust fund just begging to be pilfered. Medicare has done more to increase the cost of healthcare in the United States than any other factor up until Obamacare, another unconstitutional program that is exacerbating every healthcare issue, making it more expensive and less available.

Welfare is another failure. It has trapped a whole class of people who now refuse to find work for the simple reason that it doesn't pay for them to go to work. Charity should have been left to We the People. There is no such thing as government charity. That is simply a canard for confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

Now any who want to live under socialism feel free to go to Europe. They have been practicing it there for several decades. I'm sure they would love to have you. Just leave America alone. We've already tried socialism and it failed miserably. Yes, the Pilgrims tried it and almost perished. No the Indians didn't save them. They saved themselves by dumping communal ownership and centralized management and succeeded through free markets and hard work. Think about that as you give thanks this Thursday.

Remember, bloated government has done more harm than any enemy who ever attacked the United States. Socialism would only finish the job...