I hear a lot of people saying "oh no, Obama isn't a socialist" or "this country isn't becoming socialist....". Well......what's so wrong if it does? Is it just the negative stigma of things? I am personally against it, but want to hear from others. From Wikipedia: and for the dumbasses like me that didn't know what egalitarian is:
Pure socialism is a bad thing, just as pure capitalism is. They both have fairly massiv drawbacks when taken to an extreme. Both have been judged necessary in functioning democracies. You'd have to define your terms, when you call Obama a "socialist." Almost everyone in this country believes in some amount of socialism. So at what point do you turn into a "socialist?"
You are expanding on my earlier post where I noted that "socialist" is seen as a pejorative in the US, but that if you don't view it as such, what is good/bad about the merits of this ideology?
"We have to spread the wealth." Note he didn't say "create more wealth". A fundamental difference, and a sliding scale doesn't work in this instance.
I believe he wants to redistribute wealth. Have government take care of the population as a whole. More government involvement in people's lives. Increase of social programs to "even the playing field" so everyone is more or less part of the proletariat.
The long-term goal is to keep the ruling class in power through financial control. We are entering interesting times. It's easy to assume that McCain or Obama have our best interest at heart; I happen to think politicians are like CEOs except with unlimited power.
Disagreement on that, you can do both. No one says "We have to create more wealth," because it's obvious. It's akin to saying, "We need to not be nuked" as a part of your national defense strategy. It's a bit obvious, so it doesn't need to be said and never is.
All of this is done by both parties and the vast majority of the population want some amount of all of this. So again, at one point do you shift into being a "socialist?"
The argument against Socialism is that free market economics will give you the most efficient economy possible. But you also have to take into account equity. Taking care of your people with things like health care are hits we should be taking to the efficiency of the economy to improve the well-being of our people. I don't think anyone is arguing for 100% socialism, which has proven to be ineffective. (In theory, it could work, but human greed will always get in the way from making it work).
I am unsure as to why people who are, in essence, supporting socialism stray away from that monniker, when it is quite accurate.
I disagree. It isn't obvious when you look at the classic theories and writings of Marx and Proudhon. Or Alinsky, for that matter.
Robin Hood had it right, however. He took from the governement and gave the money back to the people. Robin Hood was an "elite", remember? The Sheriff of Nottingham was corrupt and all of the people were suffering, regardless of income. Sounds familiar...
Yes. Its good for the masses. I don't see why we just call a spade a spade, and they embrace socialism.
Some of us like capitalism, but believe we have a moral obligation to provide something like health care to every citizen. A mix of Capitalism/Socialism so to speak. People are too greedy. If you are making $250K a year, you are well off. Will it really be the worst thing in the world if you were taxed a bit more, which would minimally effect your life, while making things easier on those who actually need tax breaks? I think Tyson Chandler said it best: "But you know what, it's a bigger cause. And the way I look at it is that I can afford to pay more in taxes. But my parents, my grandparents, my cousins ... with what they make, they can't afford to cut back in their household with what they're trying to survive with. I can afford to make cuts and still survive. They can't take that knock. I think that's what's going on now and the reason why the middle class is struggling so much. The upper class, we can take that hit. Obviously, nobody wants to take it, but we still can. And we can afford to live nice lives. I've lived in both situations. And not only that, I'm obviously the only one in my family that can say that I'm a millionaire. I've seen my entire family struggle. So, would I rather see my whole family struggle while I get a break, or have me not get a break while the rest of my family gets one? I'll take my entire family getting a break."
