Wednesday, July 31, 2019

What is "Socialism"?

MinnPost What programs constitute socialism? Dems’ and Republicans’ answers differ

This was somewhat interesting especially since my favorite Far Right folks love to use that word to describe almost everyone including myself...  I especially liked Eric's summary:
"My conclusion, based on the poll results: Republicans think things that use tax dollars to help people like them are NOT socialism. Programs that use tax dollars to help the poor or the non-white ARE socialism.
  • For example, is Medicare socialism? 44 percent of Democrats said yes, but only 29 percent of Republicans agreed.
  • Would free health care for all be socialism? Republicans said yes by 77 percent; but only 55 percent of Democrats agreed.
  • Is Social Security “socialism?” 42 percent of Democrats said yes, but only 27 percent of Republicans agreed."
I mean we all know that Social Security Retirement, Medicare and Social Security Disability are just welfare for the old, disabled and/or young.  And yet I do not see any old Conservatives refusing their Government provided Checks or Services. :-) 

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Socialism is that which builds interstate highways. It provides public schools, and old age insurance. It's workers compensation. It's what defends our nation. It's what brought electricity to rural America. It ensures (to the extent that they are) that our markets treat all favorably. Socialism is where our health care comes from.

--Hiram

John said...

I disagree.

To me Electricity, Interstates, K-12 Education, national defense and world peace are all investments that have huge long term paybacks.

Workman's compensation is paid for by employers as part of their compensation.

Where as Medicare, Medicaid, SS, SSD, SNAP and other programs are "welfare" / socialistic in nature.

Anonymous said...

Sure, but it's a socialist form of investment. Capitalism doesn't pay for them.

--Hiram

John said...

I think there are many stages between Capitalism and Socialism...


Socialism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2a : 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 state


3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Anonymous said...

It's a vague term. But it's the Republicans who have been throwing it around for the last hundred years, and it's suffered a great deal of wear and tear as a result. So instead of shrinking from the mean word in fear, let's actually take a look at what Republicans have called socialism. Let's, for example, break out that wonderful recording from Ronald Reagan equating what was to become Medicare with Socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw

It really is so gosh darn easy to disguise a medical program as an humanitarian project. I wonder why that is.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram's Link / Video

John said...

That was an excellent recording.

No wonder people liked Reagan.

Anonymous said...

All those years giving speeches for GE. But to a political geek like me. But I also recommend his famous speech on behalf of Goldwater. How do you think it looks in retrospect? How much of it even makes sense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoObph3ZrT4

--Hiram

John said...

Reagan regarding Goldwater

John said...

It sounds a lot like today...

The arguments against excessive government control and socialism seem pretty consistent.

John said...

This is an interesting piece regarding Goldwater

Anonymous said...

The arguments against excessive government control and socialism seem pretty consistent.

We loosened regulation of airplanes and they started crashing. Are crashing 737's a price we are willing to pay for freedom?

--Hiram

John said...

Actually the FAA still had over sight and approval authority.

And I assume that was during the Obama years.

The reality is that when developing and testing complex machines, things sometimes get missed. That is why they run so many test hours.

Since the 2 crashes were in third world countries, I assume a lack or training and experience were big factors.

Anonymous said...

Actually the FAA still had over sight and approval authority.

But they took Boeing's word for it, and so planes crashed.

--Hiram

John said...

As I said before...
Problems occur when designing complicated machines and systems.
No amount of regulation and over sight can stop that.

Please remember the catastrophes only occurred in 3rd world countries.

Apparently the other pilots knew enough to shutoff a failing system.