Ques for Liberals Only........(Please no immature answers) Serious Question Here

Question

In listening to a lot of answers on yahoo, I am truly getting confused.

I'm only asking this to "true Liberals" because I am interested in seeing what you answer will be. What do you think the difference between Socialism and what Obama is proposing is? These are some of the things he is proposing. What is the difference between Socialism and these?

(Universal Medicare, Government Regulated Companies from Oil to Produce, a "One World Nation", The Global Poverty Act, and there is more than that, but please with just those answer the question about the difference between Socialism and these things that Obama wants to introduce.

Answer 1

You aren't getting any answers from "true Liberals" so I will give one.

Technically, none of his proposed policies are true socialism.  True socialism is government seizing and operating segments of the economy for the benefit of society.  His universal health care is to provide government assisted health insurance to anyone that wants it but anyone that wants private insurance would still have that option.  The regulation of the oil companies could get to that level depending on how far Congress would allow it to go.  Global Poverty Act is wealth distribution but not true socialism.  

Answer 2

I'm more of a moderate, if that's OK.

Start with the fact that in a Democratic primary, Democrats are anxious to propose all sorts of programs in order to appeal to the base. They no doubt know that some, if not most, of these programs will never get through Congress. So there's a certain degree of posturing going on. By everyone.

Universal health care is not the same as socialized medicine. We already have medicare and medicaid to cover seniors and the poor, but millions still are uncovered. Politicians are trying to figure out a way to cover those people. We are not talking about everyone.

While government probably should invest in ways to decrease dependence on foreign oil through research and development in new energy sources, no one is suggesting that we nationalize the oil countries, like has been done in Venezuela.

The Global Poverty Act was designed to step up foreign aid by all of the so-called wealthier nations. There's a certain amount of humanitarian aim in that, which is good. And some no-strings-attached aid to the Third World might help America's image in those countries, which has taken a pounding in recent years.

Every country takes elements from capitalism and socialism. We saw in previous centuries that pure capitalism has its drawbacks (child labor, as a for instance), and we saw in the last several years how well socialism/communism works. The United States won't be China if Obama is elected. Heck, it won't even be Sweden, or France. Would it move a little more left than if McCain was elected? Probably.

Answer 3

First, while it is true that Socialism, in Marxist theory, is considered the first step on the road to Communism, that is only one definition.  Socialism is a system in which the government owns and operates the means of production and distribution.  Communism is a supposedly classless, stateless society where the means of production and distribution are held in common, not by some government.  Both are a little more complex than this, but those are the basics.

Now, as to the specifics of your question:  nothing that you claim Obama is proposing above has anything to do with the government owning and operating the means of production and distribution.  Providing universal health care and trying to alleviate poverty in the world is not socialist.  Neither is government regulation of businesses, as opposed to the government actually owning and operating them.  

Look, you can choose to define Socialism and Communism any way you want to.  But what Obama is proposing is neither, by any widely accepted definition.

Answer 4

I'm an independent voter, but will answer your question as best as I can- we are told that universal health care is socialism and is very bad. We are told that government regulation on businesses is socialism and that is very bad. We are told that Obama is for socialism and that is very bad. What we are not told is that the government practices socialism on a regular basis each and every time it bails out a company by giving it billions of dollars in taxpayer monies. It is practicing socialism each time it gives tax breaks to the big oil companies after they announce record profits- The government practices socialism any time the giant corporations need the money- this is socialism for the rich- welfare for the rich- where is the outcry over this socialism? Every one is falling victim to government brainwashing and repeating exactly what the government wants the debate to be about. Let's fool them and make it about socialsm for the elite instead and get it all stopped. They're playing games with us.

Answer 5

"A rose by any other name" would still be socialism. FDR first introduced socialism during the great depression, it helped save the USA. A great step is now required to save this country-- a different world than your parents knew. I don't support or defend socialism. It will become our form of government no matter what it is called.

Answer 6

if we apply your logic, then all of europe is communist, yet they have lived with the threat of communism for 50 years.

Answer 7

Socialism is much more broader than that. It requires the nationalization of major industries and Obama is not proposing that.

But there are a few things in the US that simply cannot go on being administered by the private sector such as health insurance.

They're there for the profit, which is their right, but we need to take care of people who the insurance companies cannot make money off and are left in limbo, and suffer because of it.

The regulation of businesses is practiced around the world by capitalist as well as other forms of government.

And to want to work to make of this a better world is also an endeavor many capitalists and people from other ideologies and religions are proud to be a part of.

Obama is very well known for working with the powers that be in order to win elections and improve the economy. He's shown that in Chicago and he's doing it again during this presidential race.

To me, really, he's just another politician trying to make a name for himself.

But I still vote for him just to see how a university scholar would do as President of the US, compare to the neanderthal we now have.