See? I knew America wasn't an empire based on conquest. It was the fair redistribution of land that factored in the needs of the ever increasing migrant community.
I just immagine one of your children grabbing cake from the other and saying this and I think it's funny because most kids are really really social when it comes to distributing food, as in I have to repeatedly tell my nephew a grape or cookie is his as he tries to shove the half eaten pieces into my face.
@ssez These terms are slippery, applied inconsistantly, and misused, but I shall try to explain: Firstly, all western nations, and almost all other nations, are MIXED ECONOMIES. They have socialist (state ownership) and capatalist (private ownership) elements. What we call 'socialist countries' are simply those that lean more towards the state ownership end of the spectrum -- Denmark and Sweden are the commonist examples people use, they are also very succesful at creating private wealth through capatalism. When you people in the US argue about becoming 'socialist' they are simply talking about moving slightly on the scale of capatalism----socialism, they are not talking about a fundermental change in government. Secondly, economic systems aren't the same thing as governmental systems. The 'socialist' part of the 'USSR' was describing it's economic system, not it's political one. It is theoretically possible to have a pure socialist (communist) state with a democratic system of voting for political parties.
Agree on first point - hence my inclusion of the word usage history Disagree on second point- USA does not have state run business unlike China who is socialist and does. USA is not mixed, some of our business are not owned by state and some are. Third point disagree people like sokolov want no pvt owned property that is fundamental. That's by the state for the state, wanting to take away everyones property is not slight. Economic systems like socialism are by definition part of state since it state controlled that's why its different, hence why its in USSR. That's also why in definition its a "political and economic theory" not just economic theory. The two are together by definition.
I should add that I think the exact point on the socialism------capitalism scale is far less important than things like corruption, resources and competitiveness. New Zealand has perhaps the least state ownership and seems to work fairly well, Denmark has a relativeless high state ownership and works really well. There are successful and unsuccessful countries all along the spectrum.
I understand that view, and it shows in practice, I don't think by socialism itself it is "evil" or wrong I just think its way more prone to abuse. If people want to live in a socialist country I am all for their choice. I think because of the power that consolidating power of business property etc under state make government bigger and more susceptible to abuse. Basically the less power the state has the less power it has if corrupted. I have never seen a government that has not been corrupted, hence I take a approach of limiting their power. Some think the idea of America or any other country going "evil" or corrupt is almost impossible these days.
The US has publically owned services right? That run it's roads, postal service, police force, etc, etc. In a pure capitalist country these would be run by contracts with private companies and paid for directly by those who use them (toll roads, some kind of police insurance charge). The US is a mixed economy because taxation is used to pay for such services.
I didn't say we are a pure capitalist country and I think this is where the slippery definition of word comes in, things like states take care of their roads, feds only own roads on fed land. The taxes raised all come from private companies, but taxation is a whole different topic that has changed in US. "The overwhelming majority of roads in the United States are owned and maintained by state and local governments. Federally maintained roads are generally found only on federal lands (such as national parks) and at federal facilities (like military bases). The Interstate Highway System is partly funded by the federal government but owned and maintained by individual state governments" And again I would say its not mixed, No funds come from government owned businesses, all from pvt. Taxation does not make a country socialist. All those companies could stop working and government cant force them to open etc. This is also where the part of it being a economic and political aspect. publicly owned "services" are not publicly owned businesses - I was speaking of business in my example.
Your argument of not including a 'service' as socalist is odd. A service is something run by government, so shouldn't be counted as something run by government? In terms of what they provide, there isn't really a distinction between a business and a service -- they are both providing some sort of service. Different countries choose to state-run different thing... Oil and gas, public transport... it varies a lot... a country could decide to run burger places by state-ownership if it wanted. So I don't think you can claim the US is both 'not pure' and also not 'mixed'. Especially since there are very obviously government run services paid for by taxation, which could (and are in some countries) be privatised. I won't insult your intelligence by listing them all.
But, as often, this is semantics. Though this doesn't mean it is unimportant since words and different conceptions are used to spread propergander and division.
I said its not mixed in that its businesses are not run by government. I think it is getting down to semantics and the changing definition of word, Its coming across like anything government does you would say is socialist because the government controls it. People pay for military - ergo you are a socialist country, states fund roads-socialist etc. Those aren't principles I was addressing. I trust you see the difference between not being able to own property and being able to own property, and difference between a state owned company and pvt one etc. If one wants to say as soon as a government controls something then it is socialist, that makes all governments socialist and that's how I feel like you do, it is getting into semantics.
I think the goverment should have systems in place to help the elderly and the poor. and think these systems should be funded using money gathered from taxes on the entire population. some people think Firk people who have either don't have family or lost their family and/or money, we shouldn't have to give up things to help others. these people are wrong. currently debate in this thread is between police and welfare state wherein while all goverments are social(ist) constructs your debate is if a goverment should primarily be there to protect its borders and internal workings by means of military and police force or also be there to support the sick and elderly and poor.
Another most important thing to remember is socialism wasn't even invented when US signed constitution. so kinda hard to be what doesn't exist.
I'm trying to make you see that socialism is not an all or nothing condition. You can't say definativly that Denmark is a socialist country and the US is a capitalist one. If you choose to equate socialism with communism then it is meaningless to talk about it in terms of any country but North Korea. This is important because when, say, Bernie sanders uses the word, he means one thing and you hear something different.
@badgerale you realise he's never gonna get it right? earlier he was doing the silly 'national SOCIALISM' 'this REPIBLIC' thing.
I think people should be able to help them of their own free will and not have money taken from them and redistrubted, by people who could easily misuse it. I think helping people is important, In my direct family alone we have fostered exactly 100 children of our own free will and still get letters and calls to this day saying thanks etc so for some of us helping is not all talk. Now if someone wanted to say you are forced to take care of 100 children, I would say get bent. Life can be super tough on anyone for many reasons, that's why I think its important to help others.
All I got was a black screen so I couldn't see the video. Frankly it doesn't matter the model. My general comment stands. The model will make a particular government more or less dangerous than a different model.
I never brought up anything about capitalism until you started saying I was talking about capitalism - capitalism is not a republic, and all I did was refute what you implied by bringing up capitalism. I was only speaking about its government type. Also never brought up communism. You keep trying to put words in my mouth. I never equated it, please copy and post if I did. Its starting to get off the rails at this point. When people like sokolov say hey lets get rid of property they are speaking of socialism just like they say they are.
