Are democrats socialists?
The majority of present-day Democrats don't know what they are. They don't understand the issues, can't even identify the major politicians that shape our government (see video below), and have no cohesive philosophy. So many Democrats, principally the self-professed ultra liberal ones, don't even understand the definition of the terms they are dealing with. For example, if someone is touting a new government program, all they have to do to lure the clueless, hapless Liberal is to present the idea as being the fulfillment of social justice, that it is a program of generosity. Libs eat this stuff up, but they don't realize what is being put before them is pure Socialism. Soviet dictator Khrushchev once observed: "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas You may think I am being dismissive of Democrats, but in my experience, Conservatives think, Liberals just feel. I once had a heated argument with a Liberal. When I produced a copy of the Constitution and conclusively proved that what he was talking about was not written there, he didn't admit that he was wrong. He just shot back, "Oh yeah? Well......... it should be!" That is the Liberal attitude in a nutshell. They don't care about reality. They believe that whatever they conceive as being best should be adopted, no matter whether it is sensible, practical, or if it is even Constitutional.
Does Socialism lead into Communism?
Surprisingly, no. But first we need to make sure you know what's what.Socialism is the second-to-last stage of the evolution of the economic systems, according to Marx. In socialism all property belongs to the State. Everything. Factories, coffee shops, schools, massage parlours, dressmakers, newspapers, movie companies is owned and run by The Government. The last stage is communism, where the State itself disappears and all property is held in common.Sure, one century and 100 million dead people later, we now know it's all baloney. Both socialism and communism are just excuses for a small group to expropriate the vast majority and treat them as cattle.The most common definition of socialism is that it is whatever its defenders want it to be. In particular, given the bias of the general media, socialism is anything perceived to be kind or sensitive to the promotion of rights and the general welfare of people.The real-world definition of socialism is simply an authoritarian political regime where a giant State controls everything with an iron hand and is itself controlled by a few people for their own benefit and profit, all under the disguise of being a "people's government".So what are the socialists countries ? It depends on the definition you are using. According to the theoretical definition, probably only North Korea.The countries that are, or were, communist jumped straight into it from capitalism or, in some cases, feudalism (think Russia and China). Again, this contradicts Marx, who said that capitalism was a necessary stage before socialism and communism.But the fact that socialism does not lead to communism does not reduce the negative impact that socialist ideas have on society and the general welfare of mankind. Socialism always involves a powerful state and powerless citizens, and the equality it promotes applies to everyone but to those who run the state (think Animal Farm).Socialism is not a good thing, as I argue here: Socialism: Why is socialism superior to capitalism? by Roberto Motta on The Critical Mind
If socialism is so great, why do people run away from socialist countries?
Apparently, people don't like being enslaved by idiots. Unless you've been reading Cult Deprogrammers, you are unlikely to get anywhere with this, unfortunately. You forgot East Germany, and that nasty wall with buckshot and razors. It's funny what is and is not "REAL communism" or "REAL socialism" according to modern pinkos on the internet. Apparently all those movers and shakers in history, all those thinkers too, just needed to live long enough to read on the internet that they were something else. I've always thought that if X country wasn't really socialism/communism(depends on the angle, the discussion, etc.), then there is no so thing. "TRU COMMUNIZM!" does not exist. Ever. Not in the present, not in the future. All the people labeling themselves as such are liars and are not true whatevers either. If it hasn't already existed in the past, it does not have any members/believers and it never well. None of them are true socialist-flavor-of-the-moment. They're all liars, every one. I'm pretty sure Lenin is more socialist/communist than internet denizens. He is, THEY aren't. Of course these are the same people who covered for the USSR in the New York Times, etc. And we all know people ran away from Cuba and the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics because FOX news told them too!!!!
With socialism and communism isnt the goal for everyone to be equal and make the same amount of money?
There is no incentive, other than total fairness. But it does not work and never did. Socialism is just the government owning the means of production, not like communisim which is that and running the entire economy of the nation. It does not work, and innovation, and freedom are stifled completely. Life isn't fair, and making it so didn't work for Russia and will not ever work.
"Nazi" is the abbreviation of "National Socialist", and socialism is a left-wing ideology, so why are Nazi and neo-Nazi political parties, particularly in Europe, considered far-right political parties?
Yes, they should be considered left wing by today’s standards. Let’s look at the results of Hitlers rule.Pro Gun ControlTaxes in excess of 50% for the top 4% of wage earnersConfiscation of resources from “opponents” (like jews and conquered states) used to fund a massive welfare stateStrong minimum wage lawsState run healthcareState control and confiscation of private propertyHeavy union support and proliferationHitler called himself a socialstFelt Christians were evil and a threatCreated an immensely powerful central governmentIndividual rights granted and provided by the “generosity” of the state (unlike the US constitution, where are rights are “endowed by our creator”)Wanted to create a “collective” society, think Borg or beesI think there’s a bunch of old crusty pseudo-intellectual, closet socialists and communists, that want to propagandize and associate the “right wing” with the racist, evil aims of Hitler’s rule. They’ll make unsupported, circular logic statements like, “Hitler was fascist and fascists is right wing, therefor, US right wingers are like Hitler” but don’t actually take the time to think about what he actually implemented and stood for.A right winger believes in private property, separation of powers, and a limited central government that exists to protect the rights of the individual. A strong military exists to protect our way of life from outside enemies. The principals of individual rights, private property, the constitution and separation of powers are there to prevent the possibility of an overbearing government (like Hitler, Stalin, 18th Century England, etc.).