Wanting free education for all, universal health for everyone, gun control, economic parity, etc. how could the Dems do it without being socialist or communist?

This is a pretty explanation of democratic socialism. “Gun control” is a different issue and things are not “free” (this is what taxes are for).

Firstly, gun control is not a socialist issue. It is totally unrelated to economic systems.

You make it seem as if socialism is evil. No country in the world is purely capitalist or purely socialist. There are some things that are best done on the free market and other things best done by government.

One thing that government does better than capitalism is education. Having educated people is in everyone’s best interest. Everyone benefits from having workers educated so that they can contribute to the economy. Roads and other forms of infrastructure is also a shared benefit. So is health care, which is why so many companies offer it to their employees.

Government is also best at handling hidden costs, like pollution and loss environmental degradation.

As for economic parity, the economy is being divided between rich and poor. The middle class is disappearing. Trump got the support of many working class whites who were hurt by the decline of jobs available to those who do not have a college degree. There is something seriously wrong. It is quite a challenge to handle the loss of jobs due to outsourcing and automation.

Wasn’t Jesus Christ a socialist in some respects?

Contrary to retarded beliefs, europe, where all those things exist and work, is not socialist.

“They are all for making more money, to a point, if you make as much as the top 1%ers”

Citations please. Make sure that “they all” are included.

You know, you do this all the time. You bait. You’re really not interested in any rational, cogent answers because your questions aren’t rational or cogent. So, what’s your purpose?

Here. Let me give you a little education. You obviously have never bothered to look up the definition of socialism. Below is the definition of socialism. I wrote it very slowly so you can understand.

Socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

What the hell, here’s some more.

Social Democracy:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy; and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy.

Capitalism:
An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Representative Democracy
is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.

Democratic Republic:
is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens. However, in practice countries that describe themselves as democratic republics do not always hold free or fair elections.”

Now. You see the similarities and the differences. Are any of the issues you have in your details exclusive to Socialism?

Medicare is socialist, food stamps are socialist, social security is socialist. America as it stands now has plenty of socialist programs and still chooses to call itself a generally capitalist country. It’s not black and white. Bernie Sanders ran while openly referring to himself as a socialist. It’s time we lost the 50’s connotation of that word with “evil.”

@canidmajor “Gun control” is a different issue and things are not “free” (this is what taxes are for).
Is it not a de facto policy? If no one had guns then the government can control them without fear of any rebellion.

@LostInParadise You make it seem as if socialism is evil.
I am speaking from what I have heard from people in these parts whom happen to be Democrats. I have no qualms with any system so long as I can make as much as I can within my abilities legally.

No country in the world is purely capitalist or purely socialist.
Don’t I know it, any system where man is involved he will always be disingenuous to his own beliefs?

As for economic parity, the economy is being divided between rich and poor. The middle class is disappearing.
If everyone owned everything the same, there would be no middle, upper, and poor class of people. If the middle class are vanishing, it would be a byproduct of capitalism where some are not or cannot make the most effective use of it.

@janbb Wasn’t Jesus Christ a socialist in some respects?
Yes, but the way He suggested to apply it was a perfect way man could never do.

@Espiritus_Corvus Citations please. Make sure that “they all” are included.
Remember, this is not all of the Democrats, just the ones I have spoken with from this area, and the emphasis is whom I actually spoke with, it doesn’t cover all of them all-encompassing.

Now. Does this even remotely address any of the subjects in your details?
[Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperativeownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.] via Wikipedia
By reason to have that happen where everything is distributed and owned equally, and the people supposedly are the government, then the government owns it all. If things are in the hands of individual people, then education, health care, etc. would be controlled cost wise by whoever provided the service. Then you have other industries such as insurance getting in the mix offering services that they feel the market can bear, so no one would own everything collectively and some will make a profit while others would just make due, if they can.

^^^ Public schools. Libraries. Roads and sidewalks. Running water. Sewer systems. Snow removal. Fire departments. Postal service. Courts. Garbage collection. Parks and public beaches.

These are all examples of socialism that touch our lives every day. Socialism isn’t a bad thing; it benefits each and every one of us in varying ways. I think it’s unfortunate that the word is viewed as negative, and that so many Americans, both liberal and conservative, are afraid to associate themselves with it.

“If no one had guns then the government can control them without fear of any rebellion.” That was the train of thought back in the 1700’s when the second amendment was ratified and the height of weaponry was muskets and black powder; nowadays if the government wanted to fuck with us our little guns would be pretty ineffectual against their tanks and nuclear warheads.

^ That was the train of thought back in the 1700’s when the second amendment was ratified and the height of weaponry was muskets and black powder; nowadays if the government wanted to fuck with us our little guns would be pretty ineffectual against their tanks and nuclear warheads.
Sun Tzu says: [In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.] A lesson failed to be adhered to several times by Uncle Sam and many other governments. If sufficient citizenry has weapons and entrenched, the government will have to fight them street to street and block by block, the Soviets surely taught Hitler that lesson and the Afghans taught it to the Soviets when they forgot it. Likewise the Vietcong taught it to Uncle Sam who forgot when they invaded Iraq. What good would it be to nuke Scottsdale, Arizona, for instance, if you will do trillions of dollars in damage to the infrastructure to get a handful of rebels that will not crush the rebellion? That is on top of not being able to use that land for decades. Tanks are virtually useless unless you are trying to level a building but if you clear the rebels out but leave yourself with trillions of dollars to make it usable again, that doesn’t seem very sensible.

Universal education and universal health care are absolutely Capitalist tenets. It is called investment in human capital, a well known economic principle usually discussed in first year macroeconomics.

Gun Control is not an economics issue. Saying it is doesn’t make it one. In fact, Capitalists would love to have all firearms under strict corporate control. And, if you want to discuss a situation where there is no gun control, look at Syria.

“Parity” has never been a Democratic party item. Dems have traditionally wanted to raise people out of poverty.

Communism is a form of socialism and there are more than 20 forms of socialism. If the US is devolving into something else like every other democracy without exception has throughout history, then possibly the Democrats, as well as the Republicans and everybody else involved, can come up with a form of socialism that works. After all, we are Americans!

Don’t forget that “gun control” is not the same as “nobody can own guns.”

Very simple adjustments to the existing process of aquiring a firearm in this country would go a long way…

As far as socialism not being evil. I agree it’s not. The US government has traits of many types of governing, economics, and inner workings. Same as almost every current form of government.

This is the type of discussion I used to hear when I worked selling guns. It’s like a bad joke.

Two rednecks heard the same thing on the way to the store while listening to Glenn Beck, or Retard Limbaugh. Now it’s time to combine their ignorance with their fear of losing their guns,and set to boil…

Those same sheep are the ones realistically concerned that the Democrats want to round up all Americans in death camps. After electing Obama king, and making the country Muslim. Then hand the country over to Mexicans, and women. But somehow control them all as well. For what benefit? They can’t think of the benefits because that would require a small amount of logic.

THERE ARE NO DEATH CAMPS HERE. YOU WILL KEEP YOUR GUNS, AND RELIGION. WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT WHAT TAXES ARE. SOCIALISM ISN’T COMMUNISM.

@Hypocrisy_Central

The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(My added emphasis)

There is a long history of effort by some capitalists in this country to privatize things that “promote the general welfare” in the US. From private toll roads and bridges, to privatization of public education (charter schools), to attempts to privatize Social Security, to name only a few. It is relatively recently (the past 70 years or so) that providing for the “general welfare” has been considered Communist or socialist.

It’s no surprise that there is a strong push-back concerning anything even heading in the direction of universal health care. Especially with the Big Pharma/Insurance cartel that is running that show in this country.

@zenvelo “Parity” has never been a Democratic party item. Dems have traditionally wanted to raise people out of poverty.
Then if the Democrats manage to get those at the bottom better so that collectively the majority of the people will have 30% of the wealth but none in squalor, they are good with those at the top keeping a bulk of the wealth they already have, or is it something different?

@Hypocrisy_Central Yes. Since “bulk” means anything over 50%, they aren’t want ting to return to Eisenhower’s 90% marginal tax rate. But maybe 40% marginal rate on the top 1%.