Socialism is an economic system and there are many different economic systems....still doesn't mean that they are the same or that they are compatible with one another. It's kind of funny, you seem to think I'm extreme right simply because you are extreme left. I'm barely right of center, the reason we disagree on socialism is that I'm a libertarian and libertarianism and an inherently authoritarian ideology like socialism (such as can actually exist) are incompatible.
Going to college shouldn't guarantee you anything. If you're not very smart .. just a memorizer .. then you will be a sheeple forever who complains they are not getting what they deserve. You will watch reality television and feel entitled, you will get excited by AOC types and join her twitter. This is a stupid vs smart thing, where the stupid want more help at the expense of those creating the wealth using brainpower. America is in the position it's in because of innovation that has come from a system that rewards the bright more than any other country in the world. It is taking the easy route out to say well... work is work... we're all the same, LeBron and teammate X contribute the same amount to winning. But there are more of teammate X who want a bigger piece of the pie.
That's not exactly true, almost everyone is "strictly capitalist" who grew up in America. When you grow up with private property and the notion that one should profit from their own work it's hard to truly support backwards nonsense like socialism. Lately there have been more and more people who think they are socialists simply because that is what the fringe left is calling themselves these days, but when pushed, they describe socialism as a capitalist welfare state rather than an actual socialist system because most of them are very young and not very educated on the subject. Hell most are just regurgitating propaganda that was given to them.
What if you want to retain capitalism in some areas and replace it in others? Are you not therefore both a capitalist and a socialist, depending on the context? Maybe someone is a capitalist when it comes to manufacturing cars, and they're a socialist when it comes to healthcare.
There are different forms of capitalism and socialism. Not everyone thinks as simply as you do. Lol whatever you say. You have no idea what you are even talking about Bobby... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism But hey, I'm sure you know more than people that study this stuff. You know more than anyone.
The problem is the person with more influence wants a higher quality, more comprehensive healthcare. They do not want to be competing with blue collar for same medical treatment. Then youll have it become privatized, and the better doctors will go there for more $.
Going to college also shouldn't put you in crippling debt either...yet here we are. Again, we can mock people and call them stupid without knowing them or understand their position. They don't see the economic boon of corporations getting bigger and more powerful, all they see is being squeezed out of every penny they have.
By saying "retain captialism in some areas and replace it in others" I'm guessing you mean to create a welfare state, that's not actually replacing capitalism what you are doing is expanding government to provide more services....but they are services paid for by the captialist system. It would be viewed as "socialist" by American standards, but it's really not. The Nordic welfare state is an example of that. Saying that you want a socialist economic system means that you want there to be no more private property and you want the means of production to be owned by the state.....it's simply not something compatible with capitalism on any level. In fact, capitalism can not exist in a socialist system and socialism cannot exist if there is capitalism anywhere in the world.....or at least that's what the socialists were blaming the failures of socialism on every time it has been tried. After you hear "It would have worked if not for being sabotaged by capitalism still existing" a few dozen times your eyes just gloss over upon hearing it.
Heh. Of course. Why didn't I realize "it" before? Actually, if "it" is doing the Breakfast Club rooftop dance -- then yes, she's about the best, no doubt.
Hey, I agree on both counts. But you aren't forced to go to college, and it is rigorous for a reason in the harder subjects like STEM. I am more concerned about blue collar professions struggling without any college debt. You have plenty of options to work outside the corporate system, which needs more regulation and oversight instead of profiteering from misinformation. That is why capitalism appeals to Americans. The second the have nots become haves they see a radical change in their thought process because they know how it all works and have seen it play out time and time again. Socialist policies will see a shutdown of innovation and productivity, there has to be a fine line of capitalism within a heavily regulated system.
You are doing nothing but parroting propaganda but I don't blame you, there are many people who teach this propaganda and students can't help themselves but swallow it whole and then regurgitate it later. Baseball is not a form of hockey, there are not "many forms of hockey" simply because you want to describe hockey as baseball. There has literally never been a successful socialist state. Ever. Socialism has literally always led to mass murder and starvation. Always. No exceptions. For whatever reason that doesn't stop people from pushing it as if it is a good thing. it's ridiculous but I guess that's a testament to human stupidity.
Yep. This may have already been posted in this thread, but it is still worth the repost if so: "One of the reasons that socialism has been such a miserable failure — worldwide — over the course of the last hundred years, is because it inevitably takes a very strong, centralized government command economy that restricts civil, political and economic freedom to force society to behave in the way that socialism demands. This isn’t FDR or Barack Obama’s big government, we are talking about. This is Venezuela’s big government." http://www.themainewire.com/2018/08/belligerent-ignorance-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/ And it's still a very good article on AOC. Elaborating on the above, this is how and why the USSR's gulags became so infamous. If people won't act in an a manner that is against their economic interest (but prescribed by the larger socialist agenda), you have to imprison them.
The issue is that many people feel forced to go to college and just go and it's very hard to tell these people that after their 4 years their degree means little and they now have debt to go with it. There's this whole fear pounded into youth that if you don't go to college you will fail and I think, on issues like these, we will not find much disagreement honestly.
Again man, after considering that you didn't even know that Libertarian socialism was a thing I'm not sure I should waste effort discussing this with you again...all you will do is ignore the entire study of poli sci for whatever you believe and since my arguments are rooted in poli sci and how they define these terms there's really not much to discuss here. I'll post definitions and you'll call them propaganda. The irony of it is...is that you are parroting propaganda and don't even realize it. All I've done is state to you how political science generally sees it. You can believe in their studies and work or you can't. Your choice. Also, not interested in your "No True Scotsman" argument of "SOCIALISM ALWAYS LEADS TO MASS MURDER AND STARVATION." Just not interested in it.
Trust me, there's all sorts of weird nonsense out there, how about "Anarcho-Communism" for something completely ridiculous? It doesn't mean that those are legitimate things. For the record, I've put in a ton of time in poli sci courses over the years, so suggesting that what I'm saying is at odds with it is....well not worth going into. I just don't buy in to socialist propaganda and clearly you do. Also, pointing out the factual statement that socialism has led to mass murder and starvation literally every time it has been tried is not a "no true Scotsman" argument. It's just stating a fact that is indisputable. Funny enough the only way people even attempt to dispute that is by pointing to capitalist systems as successful socialist systems....which I'm sure you were poised to do.
It looks to be like there's just disagreement on whether "social democracy" counts as a form of socialism. And then there's "liberal socialism", which is also has a mixed economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Social_democracy_and_liberal_socialism Social democracy is a political ideology which "is derived from a socialist tradition of political thought. Many social democrats refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists, and some, for example Tony Blair, use or have used these terms interchangeably.[420][421][422] Others have opined that there are clear differences between the three terms, and preferred to describe their own political beliefs by using the term ‘social democracy’ only".[423] There are two main directions, either to establish democratic socialism, or to build a welfare state within the framework of the capitalist system. The first variant has officially its goal by establishing democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[424] In the second variant, social democracy becomes a policy regime involving a welfare state, collective bargaining schemes, support for publicly financed public services and a capitalist-based economy like a mixed economy. It is often used in this manner to refer to the social models and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the later half of the 20th century.[425][426] It has been described by Jerry Mander as "hybrid" economics, an active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions and while such systems are not perfect they tend to provide high standards of living.[427] Numerous studies and surveys indicate that people tend to live happier lives in social democratic societies rather than neoliberal ones.[428][429][430][431] ... Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[438] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy,[439] instead it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[440][441] Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[442] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[443] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[438] Principles that can be described as "liberal socialist" have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe.[444] Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and R. H. Tawney.[443] Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics. People just disagree on how they think these terms are best categorized. Asserting one nomenclature is the absolute "truth", and if you disagree then you're just a moron, seems kind of immature to me. One's frame of reference will dictate which categorization makes the most sense to them.
