Try the political quiz
+

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of

531 Replies

 @PlayfulJusticeSocialismfrom Ohio  disagreed…1yr1Y

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

Winston Churchill was an *** and don't even get me started on the long list of faults capitalism still holds.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…1yr1Y

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest men who ever lived! He saved not only his nation and Empire but also the Christian Civilisation! I have read Andrew Robert's 1100-page biography of him and clearly this man was not the deranged racist you leftists love to paint him as. He had indomitable courage, unshakable conviction, and dogged tenacity. His magnetic leadership skills, inspiration of his people, and oratorical brilliant have scare been paralleled in human history! He led Britain through the horrors of the Blitz, stood equally firm against the two evil socialist dictators of Hit…  Read more

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

I was also referring to Churchill as a person, not in the war effort.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…1yr1Y

And I was referring to Churchill as a person too, he was a wonderful, hilarious, delightfully sarcastic man, an electrifying orator, a courageous fighter for freedom, a brilliant thinker, and in general one of the most interesting men in history. This is coming from 50+ hours of studying him, btw

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

Did you SERIOUSLY just call Hitler a socialist? Honestly, it’s insulting you put him in the same category. He was a fascist, which is an inherently far-right ideology. He was a social conservative, and openly described his revolution as both Christian at heart, and anti-capitalist. Not pro-socialist, anti-capitalist. What he got was Corporatism, a crooked and destructive form of capitalism that lies on the spectrum of fascism. Please, continue arguing about Hitler, I’d love to educate.

  @GloopdevIndependent from Massachusetts  commented…8mos8MO

National Socialism is an ideology which wishes for the nation to sieze the means of production rather than the proletariat. The underlying concept in which one must gain control over production is shared between nazis and socialists. Some classical Fascists believed that a fascist revolution is actually a socialist revolution because they believed certain societies to be proletarian in nature. Regardless, your characterization of corporatism is very volatile, why? What is so evil about corporatism and fascism as a whole that makes you so enraged against it? Lastly, National socialism is not the same as fascism, there are foundational differences regarding the nature of the state and the nation which puts them in different categories.

  @@1876-Elbert from Colorado  commented…3mos3MO

Engaged Socialism

You'll find that many terrible people have called themselves 'Christians' Look at the crusades!

 @B2NZQXK from Minnesota  commented…3wks3W

 @9RYWTRQfrom Guam  commented…7mos7MO

Winston churchill was not the righteous virtuos man you think him to be no matter how well he didfighting the axis in world war two nothing can excuse his advocation for chemical weapon use in afghanistan on the khurdish people as well as the engineered famine in bengal that caused the deaths of 4 million bengali people, he may have done good things but nothing excuse mass death and the advocation of chemical weapons.

  @@1876-Elbert from Colorado  commented…3mos3MO

Engaged Socialism

Don't tell me you actually believe in that entire 'true socialism has never been tried!' nonsense. Yes, it has. It works for one generation and one generation only.

 @9RYWTRQfrom Guam  disagreed…7mos7MO

you cant just quote someone who said something wrong and then act like you said the right thing because someone else said it, socialism does not donote shared misery and this quote is hogwash.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Should people who can't or don't want to work receive the same benefits as those who contribute to society?

 @9HFMWP2 from Texas  answered…1yr1Y

No, People who are more willing to work with their community and to make more efficient communities should have help instead of the people who don't help whats so ever.

 @9HFN6N3 from South Carolina  answered…1yr1Y

Depending on the situation, those who do not work should get at least some of the benefits of those that do work.

 @9HFQKZ8 from Kentucky  commented…1yr1Y

If they choose not to work that is on them and they should not get anything special treatment.

 @9HCNSNP from Arizona  answered…1yr1Y

No, Because the people who do work and contribute the society work hard for that and the ones who do nothing to help shouldn't get anything because they are waste of space that this country doesn't need.

 @9H4QSGS from Kentucky  answered…1yr1Y

No if they are disabled then yes but if they don't want to then they are not a useful part of society

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

If all your basic needs were met by the government, what would motivate you to work or achieve?

 @9H4Z8DD from Texas  answered…1yr1Y

Under a Socialist government the workers have no need to improve or develop anything better besides for personal enjoyment, thus leaving the nation cripplingly bankrupt for ideas. Nothing would ever get better and their would be no motivation.

 @CommonManAmerican Solidarity from Northern Mariana Islands  disagreed…5mos5MO

Socialism basically means socialization of the means of production. In other words, workers become owners of their means of production. (Unlike Marxism-Leninism, a distorted form of bureaucracy, this is real socialism.) In this society, workers are the owners of their companies, so they will have a sense of ownership and work more creatively than before, when they were simply salaried workers.

 @9H4Z6VH from New York  answered…1yr1Y

If my basic needs were met, my motivation for doing work is because I want to work and have have my needs fulfilled, so working would be easier to handle.

 @9H4YQGX from New York  answered…1yr1Y

Getting my family food and water, giving them a nice house, being able to make people happy would help motivate me.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Can you envision a society where people work solely for communal benefit and not personal gain?

 @9HJ6874 from New York  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only to some degree. I only believe that wealthy companies should be taxed in order to prevent them from monopolizing certain businesses.

 @9HJ6CJPanswered…1yr1Y

No, I think people will be selfish and find ways to help themselves over other people.

 @9HJ6M6T from Missouri  answered…1yr1Y

I think that there is no way there could be a society focused on communal benefit because people are self absorbed.

 @9HJ64GF from Michigan  answered…1yr1Y

I think people should work for personal gain and not communal benefit because then people will stop working

 @ISIDEWITHasked…11mos11MO

If the guarantee of financial security was universal, how might that shape your relationships with others?

 @9LCDCZGLibertarian from Missouri  answered…11mos11MO

I wouldn't feel like others were only around me because of my financial situation

 @9LFKWTR from Texas  agreed…11mos11MO

People would feel more equal to the people around them, and it would make some feel less pitied. It would also make some people more humble.

 @9LFB46T from California  agreed…11mos11MO

I feel it would reduce the sort of wealth bubbles where people don't experience different walks of life that are throughout the U.S.

 @9LCDBSRDemocrat from Pennsylvania  answered…11mos11MO

It could make relationships more pure as everyone is technically on the same social standing.

 @9LCDBQT from Missouri  answered…11mos11MO

I feel like it could be a positive thing, get okay with other countries but if one side doesn't agree with a trade it could go wrong

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Should healthcare, education, and basic necessities be free for everyone, and why do you think so?

 @9H3KQ3FDemocrat from Texas  answered…1yr1Y

yes because everybody gets injured no matter your circumstances making it a neccecity

 @9H3LGZT from Oklahoma  answered…1yr1Y

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas  answered…1yr1Y

100% because these things are literally the most basic and foundational needs for a healthy and fulfilling society.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How would the education system change if the job market did not value certain degrees over others financially?

 @9HVGBDJ from Nebraska  answered…1yr1Y

Incomes would be more fair and skewed toward education and experience, not chosen field.

 @9HW56ZZ from Wyoming  answered…1yr1Y

It would be more inclusive so people do what they want to do instead of what they need to do.

 @9HVG5Q2 from New Jersey  answered…1yr1Y

  @GloopdevIndependent from Massachusetts  answered…8mos8MO

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

If you were sure of a comfortable life without wealth, what dreams would you pursue?

  @The-UtilitarianSocialist  from California  answered…3mos3MO

Becoming a writer or artist. If i had grander dreams I'd want to go into the sciences to help develop space travel

 @9HJKXXL from Alabama  answered…1yr1Y

working for apple computers , work for the boston celtics, work for the kennedy center.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How do you perceive the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility in a society that prioritizes equal distribution of wealth?

 @9H3J8DFfrom California  answered…1yr1Y

Individual freedom outweighs social responsability, because we cannot rely on a blind trust upon completely different communities, with different values to uphold their end of the bargain

 @9H3J65Dfrom Virgin Islands  answered…1yr1Y

I don’t like socialism at all. I believe in individualism, free markets and respect to the private property

 @9H3JB7R from Missouri  answered…1yr1Y

Businesses have the right to keep the earning of their hard work. If one businesses does most of the hard work compared to other businesses, then why should they be forced to share their earnings.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas  answered…1yr1Y

"Equal distribution of wealth" means the shared democratic ownership over our own means of production, which is already the most equal combo of individual freedom and social responsibility.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

Not to mention that it’s not a reduction, but an expansion of democracy, the very ideal that so many Americans love.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…1yr1Y

Democracy is BS

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

For all practical considerations, we are a democracy. A republic is a FORM of democracy, with a constitution attached to state the rights and powers of people. Unitary Executive Theory was only really interpreted to a go so far, the way it’s going to be under Trump’s administration is a MAXIMALIST interpretation. You claim to love talking about Natural Rights, and the Enumerated Powers, yet support a candidate who would try to remove 2 Enlightenment ideals in the same term: Separation of Powers, Separation of Church and State

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Should individual success be limited or taxed heavily to support those who have less, creating a more balanced society?

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas  answered…1yr1Y

The issue is that capitalists' success is not their own to begin with. Capitalists unjustly steal the fruits of other people's (the workers) labor for their own personal gain, so eliminating this exploitative practice would be correcting an injustice

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…1yr1Y

Without the capitalists, the workers wouldn't be employed at all, they'd be languishing in some forsaken slum without an income. Take away the profits of the rich, and the rich can't create employment for your beloved "workers" any more. Both suffer.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

That’s why the workers should rule the companies the rich employ them with, since the bigger businesses never cease to fail to provide the pay and resources the workers need. Every penny of excess wealth used to continue the process of this employment that pays poorly is stealing of the highest order, and that’s why the workers must run it, so the stealing disappears and the workers can choose how best to work things.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…8mos8MO

Don't tell me you still believe in the long-disproven labor theory of value. Surely you can't be serious.

 @9H9JCLQDemocrat from Texas  answered…1yr1Y

I believe that there should be some equality but each individual has different unique abilities to succeed.

 @9H9JFXJSocialist from Kansas  answered…1yr1Y

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How would you prioritize your time and energy if all jobs had the same societal value and compensation?

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  answered…1yr1Y

Organising a revolt against the regime of legal plunder that made possible such a nightmare

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

But if it worked, if the government remained in the hands of the people and it was OUR apparatus, where poverty actually decreased, would you revolt then?

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…1yr1Y

Yes, revolt against any government that directly taxes its citizens for whatever reason is justified because it's immoral legalised plunder.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

The government is literally the creator and manager of the market that gave you the money in the first place. You never had a full legal or moral right to pre-taxes income, because you did not create that, that was the reward from the market, the market created by the government, which can not exist without the government either. Anarcho-capitalism literally doesn’t exist, not at a national level such as this, it is merely a reduced government pseudo-laissez faire system, which we have PROVEN doesn’t work, hence the industrial revolution’s atrocities and lack of fair treatme…  Read more

 @9HXHXMR from Minnesota  answered…1yr1Y

I would be happy and very impressed because I think all people should work just as hard as everyone else and get the same paycheck dependent on hours

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How do you define 'hard work' if the outcomes, like salary or status, were the same for everyone?

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

That’s more of a communism type of thing rather than socialism. Status and wealth difference exists, but it’s massive disparities shouldn’t.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…1yr1Y

Communism = an anarchist, stateless, classless society with no private property where (in theory) all the worlds problems disappear, the sun is always shining, and we gather in a field with rainbows and puppies to hold hands and sing koom-bye-yaa. Has never happened in world history.

Socialism = A vast regulatory state that progressively taxes income and redistributes wealth, yielding enormous powers over life, liberty, and property, with minimal freedom for businesses and individuals to run their own lives. Has happened, with deadly consequences, to dozens of countries, resulting in mass starvation, slave-labour work camps known as gulags, and the extermination of one hundred million souls under Stalin.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

Bit of an exaggerated view of Communism, but mostly, yes. Socialism also isn’t inherently meant to be a heavily governmental system either, it can be as that’s one of the easier ways to get things done (every government that actually tries it fails because they lacked the funds and regulation BY THE PEOPLE to make it work). The liberty of business also isn’t necessarily gone either, but the product is shared among the workers and the actually sold goods go to the people rather than just one person. It’s the workers running themselves without a big man with a tux taking 99% of the profits. The whole system of socialism isn’t even inherently authoritarian. History even shows that most socialists of the past were actually some of the staunchest advocates for democracy.

 @9HVGJ7V from New Jersey  answered…1yr1Y

What I define as hard work is to keep working even when you don't have motivation.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Would hobbies and passions become more or less important if they were not seen as potential income sources?

 @9HVGZH4 from Georgia  answered…1yr1Y

I do not think it matters. Hobbies and passions are seen as something done in a person's downtime.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

Likely more, people would gain more time to use them for their benefit, so I’d say it’s increasing.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Would you support a guaranteed basic income if it meant limiting the possibility of becoming extremely wealthy?

 @9HGPHHFPeace and Freedom from Missouri  answered…1yr1Y

No, because if you work for it then you deserve wealth.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

Extremely wealthy is the phrase used. You can still be semi-upper class, but no billionaires, no yachts the size of a football field, and no buying up neighborhoods.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  commented…1yr1Y

Throughout history those luxury products that only the mega-rich have had have gradually come down to the middle class. For example, in colonial days, at the dawn of the free market in America, houses were on averaged 200 square foot blocks of logs with no windows. Now having a 1500 sq foot house with windows, air-conditioning, heating, and two cars is considered pretty normal for middle class Americans. What was once a luxury reserved for the rich has become normal. That's what happens in a truly free market.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  commented…1yr1Y

And I’m not against a market, I just think it needs regulation and a move away from capitalism. I think that in order to fix the problems in this system, we need to move away from it and towards one where our Democratic-republic is expanded into both government and business, not by dictatorial control of business, but by individual businesses electing their leaders and working on collaborating with themselves rather than being managed and manipulated into submission. I think that the extremely wealthy (those upwards of about 10 million dollars) need higher taxation, and that the reward…  Read more

 @9HGP3FK from Florida  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, I am a socialist myself so this is generally a net positive, so long as it is economically viable.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Would the concept of ‘celebrity’ change if society valued contribution over wealth, and how?

 @9J6F6R4 from Pennsylvania  answered…1yr1Y

Yeah, it would be more widely acceptable and manageable to show how they can change the world towards a good goal.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia  answered…1yr1Y

Celebrities wouldn’t be rich pansies, but people that provide to the world, like famous scientists or good people.

 @9J6FG7F from California  answered…1yr1Y

I think more everyday people would be considered celebrities due to the context of their work instead of how well they entertained people.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How would you justify a professional athlete and a teacher earning substantially different salaries?

 @9H3VYWX from Iowa  answered…1yr1Y

Teachers should be paid more if not the same because they do a lot more than professional athletes

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas  answered…1yr1Y

Easy: teachers deserve extremely high pay because they are one of the most important and foundational jobs in society, whereas athletes do not deserve as high of pay because they are merely entertainers.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington  disagreed…1yr1Y

 @9H46SBW from Illinois  answered…1yr1Y

I think a teacher deserves more because they are working their butts of to provide for their family

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...