Clearly the use of “socialism” in the title of this site refers to state intervention in the economy, public services, higher taxes, etc. Putting aside any disagreement about which is the “right” definition of the word (although the one used here is by far the more common), doesn’t it seem ridiculous that pro-”socialists” are coming on here and arguing in favour of Marxist “socialism”, when either: they’re talking about Marxist Socialism, in which case their comments are irrelevant because that’s not what the site is about; or: they themselves are so confused about their ideas that they don’t recognise the distinction between “higher taxes etc” and “the abolition of the wages system, and the establishment of a society in which the means of production are commonly owned and labour is voluntary”.

Also I agree that socialism doesn’t really exist as any functioning society, but the Soviet Union was at least supposed to be socialist and tried from the start to implement the ideas of Marx. This was not the case with the American New Deal.

The New Deal did not attempt to implement the complete ideas of Marx. But it did implement many socialist ideas. It was not just “thought up by a group of capitalists/politicians to serve their own interests at the expense of the people.” That was not the purpose of Social Security, the SEC, etc. If it were, why don’t we get all the liberal politicians to agree to get rid of it all at once?

It is true however, that often when the government (i.e. politicians) gets its hands on other people’s money, the outcome benefits special interests with political ties more than the “people”. It happened in the Soviet Union, which was socialist, just did not achieve the socialists’ supposed goals, and it happens in the U.S.

The New Deal was not socialism. The New Deal was thought up by a group of capitalists/politicians to serve their own interests at the expense of the people. Similar things was also going on in Europe before the emergence of socialist ideas and was actually part of the problem that socialism was supposed to solve.

And by the same token, the Soviet system was not socialist. It was thought up by a bunch of dictators and oligarchs to serve their own interests while the rest of the populace starved. You see, this illustrates the main point of this post. If you’re going to define socialism as a system that promotes equality, fairness, and the welfare of the “people”, then socialism doesn’t exist, because socialism doesn’t do that. If we want a large controlling government that takes from one group of people and gives to another, we’re also going to get corruption, manipulation by self interest, and huge amounts of waste. One comes with the other.

I am not for the dictatorship of the proletariat or anything of the sort though, I am just saying that state capitalism does not equal socialism.

What is “state capitalism” anyway? A system in which industry is owned or tightly controlled by the state is socialism.

And Reagan was no less of an “elite” than FDR, Clinton or Obama. In fact I believe he was the retard who started the “War on Drugs”, which wasted billions of taxpayers money.

Oh, yeah, “retard”. Are you taking lessons from Rahm Emanuel?

However, If by America for real Americans you mean the stock holders of a select few big companies then you might be right that his system worked for positive interests.

Indeed, only stock holders of a few select big companies have ever benefited from the American system during the Reagan era. The rest were starving on the streets working for slave wages. No small business owner has earned more than pittance to barely feed his family. None of the 50% of middle class households who own stocks has made any money off of them. And the big companies such as Apple didn’t make anything useful that anyone enjoys. They only stole money from the people, never providing anything in return.

I am not for the dictatorship of the proletariat or anything of the sort though, I am just saying that state capitalism does not equal socialism.

And Reagan was no less of an “elite” than FDR, Clinton or Obama. In fact I believe he was the retard who started the “War on Drugs”, which wasted billions of taxpayers money. However, If by America for real Americans you mean the stock holders of a select few big companies then you might be right that his system worked for positive interests.

it was called the “New Deal” and it worked superbly on destroying America.

many years later America was blessed with a Savior named Mr. Ronald Reagan. Those were some of the best golden years America ever lived.

Mr. Ronald Reagan brought us a system that also worked, but for the POSITIVE interest of America for real Americans!

…and that fat **** michael moore doesn’t count as an American even if he was born here.

Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth – by Ludwig Von Mises
written in 1920, this book demolishes the idea that Central Planning can *ever* work. You might say that, in this work, Von Mises predicts the downfall of the Soviet Union. It didn’t need Reagan to fall on its face. The seeds of its destruction are in its design.

Socialism – by Ludwig Von Mises
“…much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war, socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology. In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead yanked out the collectivist mentality from its very roots”

both available here:
http://mises.org/store/Mises-Collection-C17.aspx?s=Name%20ASC&p=1