Home | About | Donate

Bring Back Eisenhower Socialism

#1

Bring Back Eisenhower Socialism

Chuck Collins

Beware of the specter of socialism!

Anytime a politician proposes a wildly popular idea that helps ordinary people, a few grumpy conservatives will call them “socialists.” Propose to reduce college debt, help sick families, or ensure the super-rich pay their fair share of taxes — suddenly you’re a walking red nightmare.

0 Likes

#2

Does the author understand what socialism really is?

The welfare state contribute to a false belief about the state’s beneficent potentials. By providing helpful and even vital services, the welfare state legitimates the continuing inequality and exploitation inherent in the capitalist system. Many respond to the misery we encounter everyday by advocating for the expansion or, at least, the maintenance of the capitalist state’s ‘safety-net’ protections. They do so even though they understand that we remain perpetually vulnerable by a profits- system that inherently causes exploitation, inequality, hunger, ill health, and early death. Yet we persist in legitimising and advocating for the welfare state that sustains the system.

0 Likes

#3

and bring back the Eisenhower Top Marginal Tax Rate

Here’s the chart

2 Likes

#4

The term ‘socialism’ means different things to different people, due to decades of misuse and abuse in the propaganda battles of the Cold War. It is by now a useless word, very bad at representing a concept with clarity, but very good at arousing muddled emotions. Bernie knows that, so he never refers to himself as a ‘socialist’. He is, instead, a quintessential Social Democrat, the system long followed in Sweden and Norway, and therefore defined not by words, but by actual practice. These countries are regularly voted the best places on Earth to live.

Cold War era usage of ‘socialism’ implies that the state owns enterprises, large or small. Wed this to a single political party control of the country, as has been the case in every self-styled ‘socialist’ country in the 20th century, and you have the makings of a disaster.

Party cadres running companies is an invitation to corruption. Appointments to corporate management is an invitation to incompetence. Both invitations were happily accepted by every single ‘socialist’ country in the 20th. century. Everyone was a failure.

0 Likes

#5

You obviously have no understanding of what Socialism is or what the purposes of Representative Government is.

Why do YOU think peoples collect together to form Governments? By what authority , just as example , do property rights come from?

If I decide I want the house you live in and bring along ten of my friends with Guns to throw you out of it and claim it as my own who do you turn to for restitution and on what do you base any claims you make that what I did was illegal?

Do you understand that NOTHING is illegal without a Government that makes and enforces laws?

If a Government can make and enforce laws and policies thats helps Capitalists get ever richer, they can make and enforce laws that help the poor. The “free market” is a fiction. Libertarianism as advocated by those in the USA is nonsense.

4 Likes

#6

[quote=“alanjjohnston, post:2, topic:61283”]
Yet we persist in legitimising and advocating for the welfare state that sustains the system./quote]
Yes indeed we do, for many of us need some relief now, in the short term. A pure Socialism will take a long time to achieve in these (Dis-) United States, if ever. In the meantime, working people and the poor need improvements to their everyday struggle to survive.

0 Likes

#7

Here’s the thing: despite the top marginal tax rate being 91% in the 1950’s, the effective rate actually was 42%. Additionally: “The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.” (Sorry, guys, they won’t let me post the link. It’s at the tax foundation dot org site it you want to research it.)
The reason for the economic good times was due to public purpose federal spending, not the alleged high tax rates. This is important to understand, since the spending of a monetary sovereign like the US is never revenue-constrained, only resource-constrained. Moreover:
“Within capitalism, there is still the federal government at the head. It is the centerpiece of a modern monetary economy and issues the currency necessary which capitalism uses to function. Universal healthcare is not socialism. Free primary and secondary education is not socialism. Police and roads are not socialism. A federal Job Guarantee is not socialism. It is capitalism functioning properly and efficiently within a modern monetary economy.
When the state seizes control over the entire means of production, issuing three and five year plans for production across every, single sector, then you can call it socialism – not before.” (Again, sorry, but they won’t allow the link to be posted. Google Ellis Winningham, public purpose spending is not socialism for the article.)

1 Like

#8

The STATE seizing control of the means of production across all sectors is NOT Socialism. That is State Capitalism. When the USSR under Lenin seized control of all Industry Lenin himself referred to it as “State Capitalism” indicating that this step needed before they could transition to Socialism. They never got around to Socialism.

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production such as occurs in worker owned Co-operatives,

0 Likes

#9

Donnie “King of Assholes” Stump is the reason I joined the Socialist Party of the United States. Shrub drove me from the Republican party, and now this walking pile of shit has completed the job.

0 Likes

#10

“If a Government can make and enforce laws and policies thats helps Capitalists get ever richer, they can make and enforce laws that help the poor.” Somehow you have lost sight that Special Interests quite literally own and manipulate Congress for their own purposes. That’s why they support Capitalism and help the rich get richer. They don’t give a crap about the poor, they can’t do anything for Special Interests. Expecting that our Government is going to help the poor is a complete joke and essentially very naive on your part. Our Government officials have their head so far up the asses of Special Interests, they only see sunshine when they yawn. Wake up people, if you’re expecting your elected Congressmen to “fix” the problem, I have some swampland you might be interested in.

0 Likes

#11

I both agree and disagree with you. The high tax rates allowed the govt to fund govt projects that served our economy and nation well. Without the revenue, the projects wouldn’t have happened which also would have lessened revenues and dragged the economy down. NOW, we have no revenue and no govt projects to employ the people, also reducing revenues.

0 Likes

#12

Yeah, no. As previously stated, the effective tax rates were not that high. Plus, federal govt. always spends into the non-govt. sector FIRST before removing any of its money from the economy as an offset. That’s just operational reality.

0 Likes