The Communists seek to abolish ALL private property and create a classless society. Certain conservatives here like to equate the Democrats with the Communists, but I have yet to see any evidence that the Democrats want to abolish ALL private property (or create a classless society, for that matter). After all, I can't help but think that if that were the case, Mr. Capitalism himself, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't have ever supported the likes of Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair in Britain.
2007-10-02 13:10:11 · 12 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Steven C: You must have a reading comprehension problem, because you completely missed the point of my post.
2007-10-02 13:20:13 · update #1
I do not know why some Conservatives equate socialism with communism directly. Leftovers from the Cold War, or something someone has told them if they are too young to remember. Socialism like all forms of socio-economic structures has different flavors and it does not necessarily devolve into Communism everywhere it is applied. I would class most liberals in a socialist democracy mindset, but do not believe that they are communists. I just believe that many cannot separate the two for whatever reason. To go a step further, many Conservatives do not seem to understand that most societies employ forms of socialism to the benefit of all citizens. It seems as though they believe we exist in a purely capitalistic society, which is certainly not true.
Some beneficial socialist ideas which are applied in our society:
1) Public Schools
2) Police Departments
3) Fire Departments
4) Public Roads
Goldenrae9: With all due respect Hillary's plan smacks of socialism. Anytime you start discussing redistribution of wealth that is taken directly from socialist doctrine. Under Hillary's plan all people would be required to have insurance. Sounds good on the surface. How exactly does she prepose to force those of less means to be insured? In her plan she states that she will use tax breaks. How do you provide tax breaks to people who either don't pay taxes, or pay very little? The answer is tax subsidies. This is redistribution of wealth, because it would involve taxing someone else more to pay for those who have less. I am not one of those people who throws around the word socialist like it a curse word, but I wish Democrats who favor these types of proposals could honestly accept that they do have socialist tendancies.
If you like, I will start the ball rolling. I am a devout capitalist, but I do have some socialist leanings. These generally revolve around things which are beneficial to society, rather than unduly burdensome to it.
2007-10-02 13:25:20 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A couple of ignorant answers here....I don't hear them saying that worker's comp, healthcare benefits, public education and a 40 hour work week are socialist. Without those things, this would be a dictatorship with a few people running the show (kind of like what we are headed for), and all you "self made" people who put yourselves through college would not be where you are now, you'd be under the mighty thumb of the reactionaries. Please educate yourself before you start quoting dear old dad who got HIS info from the McCarthy era.
2007-10-03 02:24:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Democratic party doesn't advocate the complete abolition of all private property and never has. Where do you get all that clap trap?
What the ubercons are trying to do is scare people and also because they are scared to death to talk REAL issues they resort to childish name calling and personal attacks.
2007-10-02 13:35:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Throwing around Communism is an easy way to discredit someone. After all it worked for Joseph McCarthy. If anyone actually read Hillary's health care proposal (which I attached) they'd note it's barely related to socialism and works within the current system.
It's just a backhand rhetorical way to discredit people.
2007-10-02 13:16:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
There is no private property any longer. We lease our property from the government. Neglect your property taxes and see who owns it.
This is not a democrat or republican issue. It is a government out of control issue. The government can take your property any time they wish. That is the new law of the land.
2007-10-02 13:52:19 · answer #5 · answered by John himself 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism.A Communist-dictatorship is the ultimate goal of socialism. Namely a global one. A New World Order.
socialism
NOUN: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
2007-10-02 13:18:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The radicals and reactionaries from both parties seem to be in on some sort of conspiracy to drive the rest of the country insane.
There seems to be no logic and reason behind their claims but they seem to feel that if they shout loud enough they will convince someone.
2007-10-02 13:15:49 · answer #7 · answered by Info_Please 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I leave a quote of Hillary Clinton regarding fiscal policy:
"Many of you are well enough off that...We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
2007-10-02 13:14:44 · answer #8 · answered by Jon B 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Oh, the Republican party calls them every name in the book. It's nothing new and they don't always mean something by it. They just like to name call.
2007-10-02 13:18:30 · answer #9 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
then its a good news for every one
2007-10-02 14:04:46 · answer #10 · answered by only kewal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋