socialism and the standard of living

I never said Engels was condemning communism. I said that he was distinguishing it from socialism, and comparing it favorably to socialism.

If you read my quote with better reading comprehension, you would know that.

 

Norman Thomas also said, "Mr. Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/from_the_archive/416964

I cannot find this quote on the internet, but Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher said, in so many words - I do not remember the exact ones - "For most Americans 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are mere words. They only care about whether and how well something works."

As the United States becomes more socialist it will become that way because most of the voters want it to.

 

Opinion. Not a fact.

 

No, it's a fact. Just because you're not hearing about it on the nightly news does not mean it isn't. To deny that globalism is spreading is to be living with your eyes closed. It's quite obvious.

 

Opinion, not fact.

 

What is spreading is global capitalism, not global socialism. When it is easy for your employer to ship your job to a third world country where someone will do it for much less, that is capitalism. It is also not the win-win situation many defenders of capitalism claim it is. Your former employer, and the stock holders of your former company win. You lose big time.

 

Scribe, there is no sense trying to get that through with Pressed_rat. He assumes that Socialism is the enemy and is trying to take over the entire world.

 

When Pressed_Rat's job gets sent to some third world country where people work 12 hours a day for a few hours he will blame socialism. His former employer will laugh all the way to the bank as Pressed_Rat discovers that he cannot find a job that pays nearly as much. With no job and no future Pressed_Rat will spend his days listening to Rush Limbaugh, and growling on command whenever the fat one mentions a right wing hate target.

 

It's too late for that, because he already blames socialism for the state of the world today.

You see, some people cannot grasp basic concepts and egalitarian ideals which are embedded in socialist policies like universal health care or pay equity. They simply cannot see the forest forest from the trees, to use an appropriate idiom. They cannot see these social reform policies as bringing a better quality of life to people. Vacation time, lesser work hours mandated by law, etc., these kinds of socialist policies are to blame somehow for his plight and every other imaginable government tyranny in the world according to our dear comrade Pressed_Rat.

It's incredibly silly.

 

In the United States low income Republicans blame the Democrats for social changes that actually happened independently of politics. For example, since the 1950's a smaller percentage of the American people attend church regularly. A much larger percentage engage in sex outside of marriage. Both of these changes may be regrettable. However, in a country like the United States there is little the government can do to influence religious and sexual behavior. Therefore these are not really politically issues.

On the other hand, low income Republicans view the economy as though it is a force of nature beyond politics. If a low income Republican loses a comparatively well paying job, with benefits, and has to take a lower paying job with no benefits, he either accepts this stoically, or he directs his animosity horizontally rather than vertically. He does not get angry at the boss who fired him, and the employer who ordered his boss to fire him. He gets angry at blacks, immigrants, and foreign trade. When he gets angry at foreign trade, he is really getting angry at foreigners.

If I tell him that a plutocracy supported by the Republican Party is benefiting itself at his expense he either does not understand what I am talking about, or he gets angry at me.

 

Hehe, yeah. It amazes me. People forget that Economics is a Social Science.

 

This sounds exactly like a paraphrase from Zeitgeist.

 

Except I was talking about this stuff many years before Zeitgeist came out.

 

Maybe the government should increase taxes so that it actually has the finances it requires to spend the money that it does instead of borrowing it.

 

....or cut spending.

 

Can't. Millions of baby boomers are retiring and relying on Medicare and Social Security each year now.

 

That's not saying they can't cut spending in other areas.

 

Military campaign costs would be nice to cut. But that was do-able at least 10 years ago. There isn't enough revenue coming into government now to keep all the programs and future programs afloat.

 

There's plenty of money in this economy. All we need is for the government to take from those who have it.

 

Pressed_Rat is either a very young and naive basement-dwelling conspiracy theorist, or a troll. Either way, perhaps it is best to just ignore him.

But he has a point.

STOP SOCIALISM by ridding the USA of:
the postal service
fire departments
Medicare
police departments
Social Security
public schools
Medicaid
public libraries
Federal bank deposit insurance
highway departments
water departments
and, especially, the following part of Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution, that liberal, left-wing, socialist document:
"The Congress shall...provide for the... general Welfare...."