By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Leadified on 22 January 2018
Edit Thread
Aeolus451 said:
Leadified said:

I see, I disagree on those proposals being socialist since I follow the definition that socialism is the abolition of private property and worker control of the means of production. Therefore even if Sanders implements the most draconian policies imaginable, it can only be considered socialist till those two conditions are met. Which obviously is more than just redistribution of wealth and liberal social policies and programs. Naturally I don't consider social democracy like Sanders to be socialist but I don't really care to argue about semantics since I don't particularly care to challenge your definition of socialism in this case.

Again I don't think the Venezuela, Sanders comparison holds much water other than fear mongering.

The people means the government or state. The government would ultimately  have to seize the wealth (goods, property, money, businesses) of the rich and the middle class to fund vast social programs and to fund the government.

Canada and the United Kingdom are considered by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) to have more economic freedom (score better on property rights, open markets, UK on business freedom) than the United States, despite both countries having the government invested in social services like healthcare and education. Why would the US turn out any differently if such policies are implemented successfully?

No, the biggest problem with a President Sanders is he would inherent a country with poor labour relations and hostile legislation that any system he would attempt to implement would likely turn out half-assed and dysfunctional.