Democrats "Trending" Socialist

A recent Gallup poll shows that 53% of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism. What is surprising is that 23% of Republicans also have a favorable view of socialism.

No wonder we're trending socialist.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158978/de...deral-gov.aspx

I wonder how, or if, it was defined. None of you wingers know what it means, as evidenced by the way you use the term. I wouldn't expect that that the majority of the polltakers knew either.

You may be right, Timmy. We are trending more fascist than socialist. Glad you were able to pick up on that.

TP,

It's much easier to post links and let others think for you than to actually do the research and have the knowledge.

Flyer

Fascists.

Belafonte’s Advice to Obama: Imprison Opposition “Like a Third World Dictator” (Video)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...ictator-video/

I don't favor it, despite being told that I do by ignorant fear mongers.

Too many people throw the term around and have no idea what the definition of it is.

Defined:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : 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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Fucking idiots!

Socialist is right up there with Liar in their limited vocabularies.

First, I suspect that most in the poll think of Socialism in the modern European context of Democratic Socialism:

Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian means of transitioning from capitalism to socialism but rather calls for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy from the grassroots level.

But even if that is not true, given the sorry state of laissez-fairecapitalism, it's no wonder. Hell, compared to that, many would support common ownership of means of production and means of distribution. And the extremists on the right are indeed imperiling those of us like me who do believe in well regulated market capitalism by their slavish adherence to 19th century robber baron/gilded age type policies. If unrestrained, they undoubtedly will kill the goose that layed the golden egg for us all.

The Robber Baron capitalism you describe, TTH, is just as abhorrent as the fascism we are trending toward now. No argument there.

Haven't we already done the "Definition of Socialism" thread? YES, we have (and, NO, the Teawipes CAN'T understand the definitions - hugh fu*king surprise, that). Lot of fu*king good that did. As has been demonstrated over and over, ad infinitum, reading for comprehension is an automatic DQ (no, teawipes, not Dairy Queen) for inclusion in the Teawipe Parrotriot Cells.

Until you learn it, we'll keep repeating it, RaggedyAndy.

Until you learn it, we'll keep repeating it, RaggedyAndy. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Was that supposed to be witty or were you going for funny? Hard to tell which failed more.

I don't favor it, despite being told that I do by ignorant fear mongers.

Too many people throw the term around and have no idea what the definition of it is.

Defined:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Originally Posted by markroxny

Karl Marx, theorized that in order to have communism that you must first have capitalism, a system which would ultimately fail due to its own success, where the people would first demand socialism which in and of itself is unfair and then they would eventually evolve into communism.

Capitalism would produce more improved means of production through competition. Those who fail to innovate would succumb to their competitors. When all competitors have failed new competition can not enter the market since the start up costs are so high. Labor would be forced to accept lower wages which would cause an imbalance leading to calls for socialism.

Under socialism a transition from capitalist ownership of the means of production to state ownership would occur. Since the production is now nationalized the workers would all be compensated based upon their input into production. This would result in a new form of inequality where a worker with a large family would not be able to get enough to feed the family where an abundance would occur for those with less mouths to feed.

This imbalance would lead to communism and the ideal that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." A utopian ideal which fails to take into account basic human behavior which is why it can not succeed.

We do not have socialism in the US as of right now. We are still inside the stage of capitalism where the cost of adding competition is to expensive. How likely is it for a new player to join the cell service to compete with ATT and Verizon; A new computer OS to compete with Microsoft or Apple?

The cost is too high. If you look closely you can see the writing on the wall of the desire to progress towards socialism in the thing being said by many in the democratic and republican party. They are not full fledged declarations of support but rather candid slips. Competition still exists, innovation is still occurring, we are not there yet.

Marx had some things right. Capitalism is a system that will defeat itself. He was wrong to think that communism is possible as a replacement. Communisms failure is that the abundance created by capitalism is necessary to support communism, and under communism that abundance can not be maintained because the competition that created it is no longer available.

Was that supposed to be witty or were you going for funny? Hard to tell which failed more. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

What would you expect from a total failure?

I don't favor it, despite being told that I do by ignorant fear mongers.

Too many people throw the term around and have no idea what the definition of it is.

Defined:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Originally Posted by markroxny

Thats pretty much a basic definition of Socialism. It also boils down to individuals would work according to their abilities and get paid or compensated according to their needs. Our needs maybe considered rather menial in the eyes of a Socialist Government. Honestly I really can't say for sure if this country is headed in the direction of Socialism, Fascism, Communism or if Capitalism will remain the way it is. What I do think is, we'll see a profound change in the way this country does buisness and in the not so distant future. Whether these changes would be good or bad remains to be seen. I do see Red Flags all over the place. The Patriot Act and the NDAA to name a few are totally unnecessary.