At what percentage do we become a socialist (or communist) nation?

[psionl0]

At what percentage do we become a socialist (or communist) nation?

How many whiskers does a man need to have on his face before he has a beard?

 

[Halfcentaur]

All these socialized roads I drive on really concern me. I heard my brother was just provided a socialist education through scholarships he doesn't have to pay back. This concerns me.
I wonder why socialism isn't added to the obscenity filter, being a bad word and all, I'm concerned. The founding fathers proposed we promote the general welfare of our citizens, this seems to concern me.

 

[Puppycow]

I know! Just kill off all the seniors and we can go back to good ol' capitalism!

 

[Chaos]

You've completely missed the point of this thread, haven't you?

The point of this thread is, once more, completely fact-free liberal-bashing by someone who thinks statements become more profound if you conclude them with a smiley face.

Add to this that you once more demonstrated that you have no clue what "socialist" or "communist" actually means, and you´ll understand why we have trouble taking you and your thread seriously.

 

[C_Felix]

Actually the OP thread title asked no sensible question, neither defining percentage of "what", nor who "we" was.

The link on the other hand didn't just include unemployment benefits (dole) as I noted, and certainly didn't include just a group "living on it"

You might want to define what you mean by socialist/communist nation as well.

Whenever I get in this debate, it usually centers around, "Obama is a socialist", I ask the person to define socialism.

"Well, the government takes your money and gives it to others. And health care! That's socialist!"
"How so?"
"Well, he wants us to buy health care."
"From whom?"
"The government."

Here's how I define socialism, and I've researched this to debate better (and because I was curious as to what it truly is.)

http://www.socialistaction.org/whenamerica.htm
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html


"The government controlling, planning, and owning the means of production of the necessities of life."


Soooo...

At what point do we become a socialist nation?
I'm assuming BAC is talking about the US.

I'd say when 51% or more of the production of the necessities of life are planned, owned, and controlled by the US Federal Gov't.

 

[bikerdruid]

most americans have no idea what socialism or communism is.
heck, many of them think obama is a marxist.
BAC has been asked a couple of times to define his terms.
he has not, because he really can't.
so, you will not see much logic from american conservatives in a thread like this.

BAC!!??
how about defining your terms?
....heck, use a dictionary...you might learn something,

 

[Francesca R]

There was an equally dotty thread on this a few months back, from an OP on the other side of the tracks. But from there:

Something is socialised if it is supplied by the state and compulsory. Conversely it is privatised if it is voluntarily provided by non-state agents.

You can wordsmith-lawyer the definitions all you want, of course. Those definitions are about as simple as one can get.

Many policies or institutions are mixed which means they have public and private parts to them. Universal health cover is almost everywhere compulsory (up to a minimum level of provision) and publicly funded (sometimes with means-testing). More or less of a country's healthcare sector may be in public ownership, but the cover (insurance-based financing) is just about always socialised. If it wasn't, it would not be universal, which is mostly a euphemism for socialised anyway.

 

[pmurray]

When the market fails - which it does periodically - it is the duty of the government to be the employer/purchaser of last resort. This "socialism" that the OP is complaining about is just market failure.

 

[Java Man]

When the market fails - which it does periodically - it is the duty of the government to be the employer/purchaser of last resort. This "socialism" that the OP is complaining about is just market failure.

We can then conclude that Republicans and Conservatives in general are closet communists.

They want less government regulation, which leads to greater market risks, which leads to market failures, which leads to government employment/purchaser, which leads to the OP's "socialism" or in extreme cases "communism" (according to the OP, not me )

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/565496/201103091841/Atlas-Twitches.htm



See the OP thread question.

You become socialist when you elect a socialist government and have a socialist constitution.

In a liberal society, the government is basically a company like all others, with income, expenses, and employees. The main difference is that the government will have to undertake such businesses that need to be done, but can't be made profitable. For this reason it has certain privileges, such as being allowed to force a certain part of its income from the customers.

Hans

 

[Francesca R]

All the federal employees in the US are there because of market failure? All social security and medicare/aid transfers are correction of market failures?

Must be an extremely broad/woolly definition of market failure . . .

 

[MG1962]

All the federal employees in the US are there because of market failure? All social security and medicare/aid transfers are correction of market failures?

Must be an extremely broad/woolly definition of market failure . . .

well he didn't actually say that

 

[Java Man]

All the federal employees in the US are there because of market failure? All social security and medicare/aid transfers are correction of market failures?

Oh my god!!! We've been commies all along!!!! Run run run....

 

[Spindrift]

Increasing the size of the armed forces moves us closer to socialism?

BTW: The article in the OP refers to Atlas Shrugged, which automatically disqualifies it from serious consideration.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I always find it a little irritating when socialism is equated with social programs or taxing higher incomes. As an economic system, it's about holding the means of production in common, not how government revenue is spent (unless it's being used to acquire the means of production). When the government takes over car companies, that's a socialist move, but since our government doesn't seem much interested in retaining control over the automobile manufacturing resources they've acquired, we remain a capitalistic welfare state, not a socialist state.

I suppose the idea that social programs=socialism is irresistable to some folks.

 

[Mister Agenda]

You become socialist when you elect a socialist government and have a socialist constitution.

In a liberal society, the government is basically a company like all others, with income, expenses, and employees. The main difference is that the government will have to undertake such businesses that need to be done, but can't be made profitable. For this reason it has certain privileges, such as being allowed to force a certain part of its income from the customers.

Hans

As long as we're analogizing, I think the government is like the overhead on the company which is the nation. The necessary things you need to keep the business running, but which the owners are always trying to keep from eating too much of the profit.

 

[BeAChooser]

I know! Just kill off all the seniors and we can go back to good ol' capitalism!

See the ridiculous arguments that leftists will make to defend socialist programs?

 

[Twiler]

See the ridiculous arguments that leftists will make to defend socialist programs?

What's a leftist?

 

[chipmunk stew]

What's a leftist?

A straw-stuffed bogeyman that haunts the fevered nightmares of radio talk show fans.

 

[BeAChooser]

Add to this that you once more demonstrated that you have no clue what "socialist" or "communist" actually means

LOL!

So Chaos, at what point do you think that a nation should be labeled socialist? Do you insist that government control be 100% for that to be valid? Hmmmm?

Is that even possible? Did any government that you will call socialist ever control 100% of the economy? Hmmmmm?

You see, I'm not the one with no clue as to what defines socialist or for that matter communist. I'm not the one running from defining it.

Plain and simple, the percentage of government control of the economy is a measure of socialism.

I'm simply trying to get a idea of what you leftists think that percentage must be for a nation to be called socialist … and none few of you seem willing to seriously answer the question.

You are running from it. Quite Telling.

A decade ago, US government spending was about 34% of GDP. Now, it's about 40%. And it will rise well above that if Obama's policies and entitlements are allowed to take root and become permanent. At what point is it fair to call the US a socialist nation? That statistic for the European community is now about 47%. Many here say they are socialist. If 47% is enough, why not 40%?

When our government starts taking over huge companies ... like AIG (biggest insurance company in the world) and GM (one of the largest car makers) ... acquiring large fractions of their shares at almost no cost, perhaps that's a sign we've crossed the threshold into socialism.

When government begins telling companies how much they can pay their executives, perhaps that's the moment when it occurs.

When government is responsible for over 50% of the earnings/wages people receive, as one of the links I posted above seems to demonstrate is now the case, might that not be a sign we've finally become socialist?

And when the government suddenly tells the populace that full employment is now to be 8% rather than the 4-5% it's always been in the past, isn't that a sign that something dramatic has occurred? That we've crossed some threshold?

Do you know who Norman Thomas was, Chaos? He ran for US President six times as the Socialist Party candidate. He once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing what happened." When he stopped running for President he was asked why. His answer was "the Democrats have put into place plank after plank of the socialist platform, and soon the Republicans will compete with them in an attempt to gain support from voters who don’t understand what they are doing.” I think that is exactly what has happened. Now it's a question whether the trend can even be reversed. Democrats certainly don't seem to want it reversed. How about you?

(Sorry if my smilies annoy you. )