Quote:With a growing number of politicians self-identifying as socialists, and two — New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Detroit's Rashida Tlaib — newly elected to the House of Representatives, Americans need to ask themselves a question that didn’t appear on any ballot.

Are you ready for socialism?

It’s an especially interesting question because most Americans don’t really understand what socialism is — or the consequences of embracing it.

I attended the largest socialist conference in the United States, “Socialism 2018,” this past July while finishing research for a new book. Attendees’ opinions on how far down the spectrum toward full-blown socialism they wanted to move varied widely. Some favored small moves in specific sectors, such as energy or healthcare. But many, particularly members of the growing International Socialist Organization, favored moving all the way to abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Technically, the abolition of private property in the production of goods and services and its replacement with collective ownership under government control is the very definition of socialism.

But in practice, as a recent report by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers noted, “socialism is not a zero-one,” that is, an either-or, designation. Instead, we can think of pure capitalism and pure socialism on opposite ends of a spectrum. All existing countries fall somewhere between these poles based on how much “the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the state; and the [degree to which the] state uses its control to distribute the economic output” without regard for market forces.

The report offers a sobering look at the countries closest to the socialist end of the spectrum: the former Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, and Venezuela. The results of taking one's country to that end of the spectrum were universally awful.

The report also discusses the large body of research showing that countries closer to the other end of the spectrum — more-capitalist countries — outperform the less-free countries on most measures of economic development and citizen well-being. It also notes that Scandinavian countries are not an exception to this relationship — they’re mostly capitalist.

Unfortunately, that’s not what some people want to hear. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for example, tweeted that the report is “amazingly dishonest.” The New York Times, Washington Post, and other news outlets ran editorials attacking the report as inappropriate. They don’t like self-described "democratic socialists" like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep.-elect Ocasio-Cortez being associated with the failures of real state socialism.

But here’s the problem. The word “democratic” isn’t magic fairy dust when put in front of “socialist.” The socialist portion of democratic socialism still means the state — the government — has undue control over economic decision-making that will result in stagnation.

And, as history has shown over and over again, you can’t really have a free society and free people without economic freedom. Democratic freedoms and economic freedoms go hand in hand.

In his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek made the case that democracy is only compatible with competitive capitalism and that once a country becomes “dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.”

The reason is simple. Centrally planned socialist economic systems necessarily concentrate economic power in the hands of government officials and planners. Without such power they can’t hope to “run things.” Yet this same power limits citizens’ ability to freely exercise their power when they become dissatisfied with the government. That’s because the government can punish them financially if they choose to oppose those in power.

Venezuela started off as a democratic socialist state when Hugo Chavez was freely elected in 1998. Then, with economic power centralized, his successor, Nicolas Maduro, tightened the screws in the predictable fashion of socialism. He took care of those who supported him, ignoring, jailing, harassing the rest, as the economy crumbled with falling oil prices. Now, the democratic portion of “democratic socialism” is no more in Venezuela — it is merely socialist.

Some Americans think socialism is the answer for problems in our country. But the reality is that it would only make the problems worse. America’s democratic socialists need to learn more about the system they would have us embrace.

Link

I'm sure they don't want to be bothered with facts.

It's so scary how the left romanticizes socialism/communism. But it all goes back to the whole post modern/neo-marxism ideology that's popular today:

-anti free market
-identity politics
-collectivism (anti-individual).
-your group identity holds precedence over you as an individual
-equality of outcome holds precedence over equality of opportunity
-the victim/oppressed/oppressor game...your shortcomings are not your own fault but the fault of someone else. You're a victim, and you're either with us or against us...there is no in between (very powerful Marxist narrative)
-the more outrage you manifest the more justified your morals must be
-if you have more than another person than you're automatically an evil patriarchal oppressor who stole it...and if you have less than another person it's because you're virtuous and victimized and the reasons for your shortcomings are completely out of your own control

It truly is the most evil form of government there is.

Just as a little Hussein care leads to socialized medicine,
a little socialism leads to totalitarianism. No way on earth to deny that.

Those that are ignorant to or refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

(11-16-2018 09:17 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Those that are ignorant to or refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Problem is, I don't want them repeating it.

(11-15-2018 01:50 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Technically, the abolition of private property in the production of goods and services and its replacement with collective ownership under government control is the very definition of socialism.

This is the litmus test that should be applied to all ideologies.

Either the system favors private property rights and structures laws and policies protecting them;

OR

The system favor collective property rights and structures laws and policies enforcing them.

The government will either protect your property or steal your property. It's as simple as that.

Socializing businesses is like watching workers lay down asphalt in our streets. One working while the others watch. There is definitely no incentive to produce.

(11-16-2018 11:57 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  Socializing businesses is like watching workers lay down asphalt in our streets. One working while the others watch. There is definitely no incentive to produce.

Oh, you mean kinda like watching a union shop.

When I was younger, my parents always explained me that life wasn’t fair, and that’s how it was. This is what everything being “fair” gets you.

(11-16-2018 12:15 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  When I was younger, my parents always explained me that life wasn’t fair, and that’s how it was. This is what everything being “fair” gets you.

If everything's "fair", then why should I put out any more effort than the laziest guy? I don't get extra consideration for my superior work ethic.

(11-16-2018 11:36 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  This is the litmus test that should be applied to all ideologies.
Either the system favors private property rights and structures laws and policies protecting them;
OR
The system favor collective property rights and structures laws and policies enforcing them.
The government will either protect your property or steal your property. It's as simple as that.

Yep, that's about the size of it.

I administer staff in San Francisco....

The biggest problem I have is 'Fair Market Value' wages

We are essentially required to give pay raises to people based on experience which of course levels the field between my worst and best workers.

How do you think my best and worst workers feel about it?

What do you think that does for business?

We hear the terms "minimum wage" and "living wage" tossed around a lot.

These are not synonymous.

Check out the Living Wages for your area here.

For 1 Adult & 3 Children
Memphis: $31.17
Nashville: $32.01
San Francisco: $53.69

For 2 Adults & 3 Children
Memphis: $15.89
Nashville: $16.31
San Francisco: $27.28

If you have 2 adults in the household both are expected to work. Because of that, each adult could earn less per hour compared to a single person.

In other words, everyone is compensated differently so that their household, regardless of composition, is compensated equally to all others.


One way to approach society is to ensure everyone has equal opportunity. Another approach is to force equal outcomes.