• #1
    Education is the only defense against socialism, and the original purpose of public schools. I want my money back.
  • #3
    Public education has become a tool of the left. To that end, it has been money well spent as it has produced a nation of dependent idiots.
  • #5
    So your claim is that schools were socialized in order to teach kids about the evils of socialism?
    Either this reflects poorly on the intelligence of those who came up with that concept or demonstrates the ignorance of history when one makes such a claim.
    Public schools are a socialist policy and we are better off because of it.
  • #9
    @Cheenoguy Students became deficient in basic math skills over the years. Never thought much about it, but it seems that it has taken root in liberal voters who cannot comprehend the national debt. Never mind those zeros! I need more free stuff! Let the 'rich' pay for it!

    Let's see how the 'red states' feel about bailing out the impoverished and penniless blue cities. The big metros have been democrat strongholds for decades, and now they are out of money.

    May want to consider who will be asked to pay, and how willing or unwilling they may be.

    Bah! Just borrow more.:-)
  • #15
    "I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it." - Thomas Jefferson
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    Unless our country actually wants to be socialist then we didn't learn anything, free entitlements bought many who have no idea or don't care the direction this administration want us to go.
  • #18
    Socialism is the pooling of public resources in order to make something available to everyone.
    Public schools are a form of socialism. They have benefitted our country.
    Food stamps and Medicaid are a form of socialism. They have benefitted our country even if some have taken advantage of it.
    Farm subsidies are a form of socialism. They have benefitted our country even if there needs to be a reorganization so that small farmers benefit and not just corporate farmers.
    Public libraries are a form of socialism. They are a huuugggeee benefit to our society.
    Social Security and Medicaid are also forms of socialism that have benefitted our societies.
    Police forces, fire departments, the highway system.... I could go on, but the point is we have adopted many socialist principles and our countries has done just fine.
  • #47
    Socialism and Communism have nothing in common whatsoever. Their definitions dont even have anything in common. For people that messes those definitions up so badly in the work field that they are in is either incredible or they are intentionally doing it knowing that they are being stupid.
  • #52
    In theory, the thought of socialism is great! Everyone is happy and everyone is equal! As true as that may be, one thing socialist fail to realize is that they are blinded by an illusion that everyone, through the "blessing" of government, is entitled to ANYTHING. By spreading the resources to those that don't deserve it, even though many who survive on entitlements are willing yet, not able to, the motivation for success drops. Think about it, if hard-working Joe gets paid the exact same wage as lazy Larry, then what is the motivation for hard-working Joe to do a good job? This type of mentality, unless they are brainwashed by public education that they are the bee in the beehive or the ant in the colony, will make hard-working Joe question why he should work any harder than lazy Larry, especially since they both get paid the same. Now, for the longest time those like hard-working Joe have picked up the slack for the likes of lazy Larry and production seems to run smoothly. Without smooth production and a fine product there would not be a job for either Joe nor Larry. When Joe, and others like him, decide to stop picking up the slack, the product loses quality, which leads to less sales, which leads to less production, which leads to less jobs; not to mention that unions excarebate the problem. You see the idea that hard work should be mined by bueracrats and the result be redistributed among ALL will lead to destruction. Socialism is not the key regardless of how GREAT the theory is on paper.
  • R Load more replies

  • #42
    What we have going on now is not capitalism, but corporatism.

    Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are “egalitarian” economic systems. Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers.

    But our founding fathers never intended for us to have a collectivist system.

    Instead, they intended for us to enjoy a capitalist system where true competition and the free enterprise system would allow individuals and small businesses to thrive.

    The East India Company was the largest corporation of its day and its dominance of trade angered the colonists so much, that they dumped the tea products it had on a ship into Boston Harbor which today is universally known as the Boston Tea Party. At the time, in Britain, large corporations funded elections generously and its stock was owned by nearly everyone in parliament. The founding fathers did not think much of these corporations that had great wealth and great influence in government. And that is precisely why they put restrictions upon them after the government was organized under the Constitution.

    Corporations not only completely dominate the U.S. economy, they also completely dominate the global economy as well. A newly released University of Zurich study examined more than 43,000 major multinational corporations. The study discovered a vast web of interlocking ownerships that is controlled by a “core” of 1,318 giant corporations.

    But that “core” itself is controlled by a “super-entity” of 147 monolithic corporations that are very, very tightly knit. As a recent article in NewScientist noted, these 147 corporations control approximately 40 percent of all the wealth in the entire network….

    This dominance of the global economy by corporations has allowed global wealth to become concentrated to a very frightening degree.

    According to Credit Suisse, those with a household net worth of a million dollars or more control 38.5% of all the wealth in the world. Last year, that figure was at 35.6%. As you can see, it is rapidly moving in the wrong direction.

    For a group of people that represents less than 0.5% of the global population to control almost 40 percent of all the wealth is insane.

    Giant corporations have become so dominant that it has become very hard for small businesses to compete and survive in the United States.

    Today, even though our population is increasing, the number of small businesses continues to decrease.

    Big corporations completely dominate the media. Almost all of the news that you get and almost all of the entertainment that you enjoy is fed to you by giant corporations.

    Big corporations completely dominate our financial system. Yes, there are hundreds of choices in the financial world, but just a handful control the vast majority of the assets.

    Back in 2002, the top 10 banks controlled 55 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today, the top 10 banks control 77 percent of all U.S. banking assets.

    Our founding fathers actually intended for corporations and government to both be greatly limited.

    The following is a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson….

    “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
  • #31
    Not only did this election not educated people about certain labels, it totally distorted the truth in every way possible. I grew up with an old saying, "how do you tell if a politician is lying? If his lips are moving, he's lying". This was the most lying election of my lifetime and that covers some pretty heavy territory.

    Germany is ruled by today's version of Margaret Thatcher in Merkel. They have gone conservative in a big way. But they haven't made the slightest move on their socialized medicine. Because it works. But to hear the right tell it if you support socialized medicine you're a socialist, pure and simple. Yet Merkel is the leading reason for the clampdown on socialism in Greece. She is not having it. Guess which country is the only reason the European Union hasn't collapsed? Germany. They are the most wealthy and they are the most conservative nation in Western Europe. They are a nation of laws and buddy you don't break the rules. They are hard core conservative today. But they have socialized medicine. Our conservative idiots don't think you can do one single thing that is socialist and still be conservative. That's ignorance.

    And by the way right wing? Oil subsidies, farm subsidies, tax loopholes, corporate welfare are not capitalism. That would be socialism for the rich.
  • #23
    I voted NO. Reason is while this might have been an issue of capitalism vs socialism it was really is the "people want stuff", homosexuals, and angry white women turning out to vote for Obama.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #44
    Might be that we should be more attentive to all the tracking of electronic activity that is going on? Could be that informational algorithms could influence our future activities?
  • #62
    Are you saying that someone can call themselves a socialist even if they believe in no government intervention in the economy at all, so long as they perceive themselves to be?
    Words have meanings.
  • #40
    the 2012 presidential election shows that the un educated Americans cast their votes for the Socialist Obama, Because the majority of the younger indoctrinated society are just lazy and expect something for nothing because they have now been taught by radical union teachers and professors that Socialism is good and America should be a Socialist country. These younger people havent been raised to believe in a self reliant society, as us older folks were. Their parents drive Nissans and Toyota's and have not pride in the country for which they live, They have watched their parents not be a military member, and have watched their parents beg the Government for handouts.
    So now they follow in their liberals parents ideals of Government is completely responsible for us. Now we have millions of young stupid lazy voters.
    This country has now completed a 180* turn from the great country it once was.
    Our founders would be ashamed now of the complete and utter weakness of the people.
  • #13
    There was a well written article in Forbes last January giving the various definitions of "socialism" and weighing whether Obama truly fit any of those criteria.

    "The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.

    By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

    By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.

    The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks’ call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party."

    Interesting read if you are really interested.
  • #28
    I concede that the Left is definitely more socialist than the Right. Whether this is a good thing or not is in the eye of the beholder....

    A counter point of interest might be whether the Right has moved closer to Fascism. Again, like Socialism, the definition is in the perception most of the time but I do find this one definition very interesting when looking at where I see the Tea Party of the Right heading. A guy named Roger Griffin came up with three components that are found in Fascism that dovetail quite nicely into some perceptions of the current Tea Party mentality .....

    1- the re-birth myth ...

    2- populist ultra-nationalism ...

    3 - the myth of decadence ...

    Close your eyes and imagine this trend in 1930s Germany.

    No society or political group ever fits neatly into any of the general and generic "ism" terms. And not only is the perception and labeling of the opposing views usually off the mark, but so is the self labeling wrong. The rampant use of labels in recent years does nothing to move us forward. Instead I see the labels we wear not as magnets for other like us but rather warnings to those who would disagree with us. The majority of Americans are not all conservative or all liberal. And when we label each other as such, it only builds the division instead of trying to breach it.
  • #64
    If it had Obama would not have been re-elected! Too many idiots in this country to overcome..sad to me but reality ..anyone that would agree with socialism is uninformed, delusional and voted Obama LOL
  • #56
    Capitalism can be ugly but it is still the best form of government. It's ashame our schools don't educate kids anymore about the evils of Socialism.
  • #59
    Capitalism is not a form of government and you'd better hope to goodness it never becomes such. Capitalism is a form of economy/business.

    It's a shame our schools don't educate kids about the evils of listening to propaganda.
  • #48
    It educated Americans by showing them the face of Socialism, Obama's face. His father was an African Socialist. Obama's friends were activists, Socialists, terrorists. It's sickening the welfare vote is so large that this kind of man could get elected in this nation.
  • #60
    Since you know so much about Obama and his family, do you know as much about the Bush family? Their associations with the Bin Ladens? And with Hitler?

    Funny thing. A man/ family with such associations could be president during the worst terrorist attack in America history by a terrorist related to one of those associations. I'll bet you think that was pure coincidence.
  • #63
    @PayThatCEO I need not see their families or past to see who they are. I bring up Obama's family and past for the ignorant or the Socialists who think they can fool the electorate. I see through Democrats and the Socialists they put up for election. I have watched the Democrat party for forty years change our laws one by one all with the end result of Socialism.
  • #38
    I had to vote "no" on this question, since even here on Politix it seems that those who may have looked up socialism still don't actually understand the meaning of the word. For decades in this country, the word has been demonized, and was misused more often than not in this most recent election cycle.
  • #14
    Most people really need to know what socialism and communism REALLY are.
    Socialism is an economic ideology that calls for group ownership of production and co-operative management of the economy by the working class. Lot's of countries are a slightly socialist.
    The situation in Europe? They're technically "welfare states". A welfare state is a mixture between socialism and capitalism. The government gives you your basic needs and after that you're on your own.
    Communism is more extreme. It calls for a stateless and classless order around common ownership. It calls for complete control of everthing by the government.
    Currently the only commie nations right now are China,Laos,Cuba,and Vietnam. However those four countries are starting to introduce elements of the free market in order to help their economy grow.
    North Korea follows the philosophy of "Juche",an idea heavily influenced by communism,but is not the same as the Marxist-Leninist beliefs that the four countries I previously mentioned follow. Juche says that the Korean masses are the masters of the country's development.The North Korean government removed all references to Marxism communism in their constitution in 2009. Juche is basically their own version of communism.
    Now,is Obama a socialist/communist? Please. Real commies and socialists make Obama look like a conservative by comparison.
  • #10
    !'s the New Normal......where Capitalism goes to die.
    Most of the means of production ARE publicly owned(stock), and the government only exists for the greater good of all.
    Get with the program.
  • #12
    Don't agree, but at least you make a point that shows underdtanding of what socialism actually is based upon. Far more intelligent then others who throw the word around on this site. For that I tip my hat to you.
  • #17
    In that Capitalism is an economic philosophy and Socialism is a political philosophy, it is entirely possible for one to exist with the other. It is even possible for Capitalism to exist with Communism. While the form of Communism in China falls short of the ideal, no one can argue that the Chinese have this Capitalism thing down pretty well. They are kicking our butt at the moment. And it is not because of Socialism. It is because they are better capitalists than we are.
  • #25
    @MRMacrum pretty sure the its because they basically have slave labor and the "1%" is running the country. So now you're condoning that?
  • #29
    @Nemesis3X "So now you're condoning that?" I am condoning nothing. I am pointing out that Capitalism can exist in any number of "ism" type governments. The proof is right across the Pacific.
  • #33
    Yet there arent really any true capitalistic countries or true socialist countries . Neither one actually works. It is the blend of the two that works.