yeah i do remember it, and im STILL referring to a complete and total change into socialism
which we are not, and never will be, because its just begging for a revolt
if there is one thing we learned from history.....its that we didnt learn shit
If you read the other posts in this thread, we are not discussing "absolute" socialism. Socialism and capitalism depend on one another to maintain a delicate balance of equality and liberty.
I also agree that absolute socialism would be undesirable. So would absolute capitalism, which is why we have a mixture here in the US. Our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that a society built on pure capitalism would NOT be beneficial for the people, which is why they outlined a system that could include both.
it seems the only thing we are lacking compared to nations with comparable economic and political atmospheres is a universal health care program, and opponents of "socialism" aren't putting us any closer to that due to the negative spin that's being employed.
Socialism is not inherently "bad", just as capitalism is not inherently "bad" either. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and left unchecked both can cause undesirable outcomes for the people.
Imagine for a moment that our law enforcement system were not "socialized", and that we had a "free market" emergency response system. Your child has been kidnapped, and in order for the police to do anything to help you - you first have to pay them $65,000. Or your home catches on fire, and the fire department wants $10,000 to come put it out.
Ridiculous, right? Emergency services shouldn't be for-profit! They deal in matters of life and death!
Well, apply the same thinking to health care and you have your reason why ALL socialism isn't "bad".