Socialism is a theory of social organization where the 3 pillars of an economy (production, distribution, exchange) are managed by the collective. Note that regardless of how free the market may be in the US it is most assuredly not unfettered. Particularly in regards to the 3rd pillar. The exchange of goods is very much managed. Not only interstate, but also internationally via various trade agreements.
So far the only arguments I have heard are absolutist ones that can essentially be summarized as cheerleading for US "capitalism" (while ignoring all the socialized aspects that DO exist within the economy). Then calling everything else that remotely smells of social organization "socialism", falsely equating it to "communism", and then damning 50% of the fiscal-political spectrum "because hitler". It is utter nonsense.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154748

Everything about this OP is wrong.

The educational system in this country teaches the real definition of socialism in world history. The unit on the Isms (communism, socialism, capitalism) is one of the harder units in world history for the current crop of freshman or sophomores (depending on the school).

The right is one confusing people by calling everything socialism, when in most cases almost everything the right calls "socialism", isn't.

Hitler wasn't a socialist, Pol Pot was more of a communist than a socilaist. Stalin was but was also a brutal dictator. So was Pinochet, Bautista, Diem, Armas, Somoza, the Shah, and plenty more - all conservative right wing dictators who killed plenty..

People like to cite sheer numbers for Stalin and Mao because their two countries are two of the most populous on earth. Pol Pot certainly leads the list in terms of percentages of his own people, but lets not forget about Leopold II, who enslaved and killed millions in the name of capitalist profit (upwards of 15 million Congolese).

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154718

Unfortunately, I was ordering on Amazon and missed the fact that I bought an abridged version - although it was done by Solzhenitsyn himself, I feel kind of cheated. I've read accounts of the process of devolution that occurs under Socialism before (Mao's Great Famine - Frank Dikkoter, also Nothing To Envy: Ordinary Lives In North Korea, biography of Lenin, etc.) so I feel familiar with the process, what makes Solzhenitsyn fascinating is that he specifically focuses on the psychology of the participants. I'm debating whether I should go back and buy the original so I don't miss out, but there are also a lot of books on my reading list I want to get to!

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154725

Except that the world envisioned by Ono (written by John) was of a people sufficiently 'enlightened' to realize that longing and attachment are the root of human misery (Buddhist philosophy), and voluntarily willing to live on a stone bed, with 3 bowls of rice a day.

The only problem is, the ones pushing for socialism here, now, are like the pigs in 'Animal Farm -- 'Some animals are better than others.' -- who have every intention of grabbing everything they can for themselves, and screw the rest.

Hardly the sort of place you would want to be in -- unless you are planning on being one of the (supposed) 'ruling class'.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154731

I dunno, TUS. In over 50 years, I have yet to see anything that the government runs well outside of the US military - and it's job is to break things. Even then, a good percentage of the time it's a snafu.

My experience with federal level employees (and even state level) is generally bureaucratically inefficient, coldly impersonal, lazy or inept. Sometimes a combo package. On rare occasions I find some who are pleasant and/or helpful - but what incentive does a government employee have to be this way? They have an absolute monopoly on what they do. It isn't like I can go to a rival who provides better service. Add to this the one-size-fits-all approach, plus inevitable cost-overruns, and it's such a winning combination.

I want the government running things as little as possible. They are much better at oversight, making sure the people who actually do things and produce things and deliver things, do it safely and legally.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154751

Yes...to one degree or another. I think it stems from the concept of the "social contract." That we enter into "communities" and, in exchange for a portion of our individual freedom gain the advantage of "safety in numbers." From there, I suppose you could add the Utilitarian concept of Jeramy Bentham's "the greatest good for the greatest number. And, from there to a perspective that gives equal (or more) weight to "labor" than to capital. And, I think you's have to say it places "the community" above that of the individual.
But, I also think it's a "relative term" that must be compared to its alternatives within a particular milieu.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154752

I'm reading the Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn's account of the Russian labor camps, and this is in the introduction, by Solzhenitsyn:

"If it were possible for any nation to fathom another people's bitter experience through a book, how much easier its future fate would become and how many calamities and mistakes it could avoid. But it is very difficult. There always is this fallacious belief: "It would not be the same here, here such things are impossible."
Alas all the evil of the Twentieth Century is possible everywhere on earth."

Not only will the useful idiots not read Solzhenitsyn's account, they aren't even aware that such a volume exists. As I said before most have never even heard of the Great Leap Forward - and don't believe you when you try to enlighten them. They are truly brainwashed.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154724

Lol you don't know much about Universal Health Care, do you?

Universal Health Care is CHEAPER than our current system. Right now we spend money curing sick people. That's expensive. Under UHC, a lot of those sick people would have had preventative care (which is much cheaper) and never gotten sick in the first place. Keeping people healthy is A LOT cheaper than curing them from sickness.

Medicare for All will cost $3T, but that's not on top of the $3T we already pay for healthcare. It will replace it. We will hardly need to raise taxes at all, and as our nation gets healthier, we won't need any higher taxes to pay for it. We can pay for it just using the money we were already paying for healthcare.

Edit: you also clearly have no idea how much wealth the 1% has. The wealthiest 1% owns about 40% of the wealth in this country, which comes out to around $24 Trillion. Even if Medicare for All costs $3T on top of our current healthcare spending, a 13% tax on the 1% would cover it.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154742

On a large scale, I'd say communism never has actually been tried.

First of all, I agree that Communism is a bad idea. Theory and practice tend to be two completely different things.

But that's true of a lot of ideas. The American Dream, for instance. The idea that everyone has equal chance to "succeed" in this country regardless of race or socioeconomic status absolutely makes me laugh. But I bet you "believe" in it as deeply as anything.

Any idea can be abused, corrupted, and co-opted for ulterior purposes by people in power. That means political, economic, or religious ideas. The USSR was an authoritarian state and Communist only in theory.

Socialism is not the same thing. There are scales and degrees. But it looks like you're trying to reduce socialism to its most pared down definition so you can present it as inherently flawed, equate it with communism, and accuse the Democrats of being, essentially, communists.

That's essentially the argument this dumbass article is trying to make, isn't it? That the Democrats want to "turn us into Venezuela"?

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154746

And Trump said during his campaign, "We have a Beautiful Health Care Plan I think you're gonna love". Do you remember him saying that?
Then he offered us TrumpCare, that was so pathetic that it went down in Flames Twice, even though Trump had a REPUBLICAN Congress.
His Brilliant plan allowed Insurance Companies to decide whether they covered Hospitalization or not, covered Emergency Room visits , or not, accepted people with pre existing conditions, or not, AND allowed them
to charge whatever price they wanted. It also gave $800 BILLION Dollars in Tax breaks to the wealthy while taking $600 BILLION Dollars away from Medicare.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154760