The Most Socialist States in America

[muzzled dogg]

http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/moneyinvesting/news/most-socialist-states-america

[QueenB4Liberty]

Texas is the third least socialist state. :D Yay!

And I'm surprised California and New York aren't on that list.

[fisharmor]

Texas is the third least socialist state. :D Yay!

True, and when you guys file suits to get rid of socialized medicine it might count for something...
Sic Semper Tyrannis, number 6!
:p


And I'm surprised California and New York aren't on that list.
Yeah, me too... no New Jersey either.
And Illinois being second least surprises the hell out of me.

[Inkblots]

Yay! Go Missouri!

[BamaAla]

Third most socialist state! At least we can have guns second least socialist state!

[TC95]

Missouri is the 9th least socialist state? At least we voted against ObamaCare. Yeah!!! :cool:

[Kylie]

I'd almost call BS on this.

Illinois the second least socialist state? Have they been here???

[Anti Federalist]

2nd Least Socialist State: Illinois

Well, I call bullshit on this whole survey then.

Of course, just like neo-con, "socialist" gets thrown around quite a bit without understanding what you are trying to explain.

These states are not socialist, and what we are suffering under is not really socialism, it's a form of fascism, which has as one of it's prime indicators, a heavy handed authoritarian streak.

But on the surface, it can appear to "work". Adolph Hitler had a great deal of support in this country through the 1930s, when the "liberal" economic model was failing, NAZI Germany was a "rising star", much like authoritarian China is today.

Only difference is that then we had enough sense not sell our entire industrial base off to the Germans.

[ForeverAlone]

I'd almost call BS on this.

Illinois the second least socialist state? Have they been here???

Maybe they forgot to take Chicago into account when doing this survey. Way to many Obama worshipers here for Illinois to be 2nd least socialist.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/moneyinvesting/news/most-socialist-states-america

Laws, what a gimped up list. The entire ranking system is set up as a simple ratio of budget over GDP. Low budget to GDP gets you ranked "not socialist" while high budget to GDP gets you ranked as "socialist." That has NOTHING to do with the specific set of social policies called 'socialism.' :rolleyes:

[oyarde]

Laws, what a gimped up list. The entire ranking system is set up as a simple ratio of budget over GDP. Low budget to GDP gets you ranked "not socialist" while high budget to GDP gets you ranked as "socialist." That has NOTHING to do with the specific set of social policies called 'socialism.' :rolleyes:

So states with lowest GDP will look the worst ?

[FrankRep]

Texas is the third least socialist state. :D Yay!

And I'm surprised California and New York aren't on that list.


I love Texas!!
http://i.thestreet.com/files/tsc/mainstreet-photos/photo-gallery/art-gallery/12_dallas.jpg

[Icymudpuppy]

This list is just a comparison based on simple numbers.. GDP vs State spending. Illinois spends a lot of money, but it makes a lot more than it spends. There is still a lot of industry in Illinois.

The totalitarianism policies of the respective governments are not taken into account. Only the state spending vs state GDP. That has more to do with Geology than policy.

[GunnyFreedom]

So states with lowest GDP will look the worst ?

Correct, and the states with the highest GDP will tend to look the best -- quite regardless if their social policy. Dumb list is dumb.

[Batman]

It has to be BS. My state isn't on here.

[Anti Federalist]

Dumb list is dumb.

That ^^^^

[Legend1104]

In my states defense (Mississippi) we do not have a lot of manufacturing or tech. jobs. There is not really much here to do. A lot of people only have the option of a government job. If you notice. Many of the poor states are on that list and I bet that has a lot to do with the ratios.

[Fox McCloud]

I don't see how this is accurate, at all...Nevada? #1? This is a state where the Government owns, what, over 50% of the State land? How is that not socialist?

[Koz]

Laws, what a gimped up list. The entire ranking system is set up as a simple ratio of budget over GDP. Low budget to GDP gets you ranked "not socialist" while high budget to GDP gets you ranked as "socialist." That has NOTHING to do with the specific set of social policies called 'socialism.' :rolleyes:

I agree, this list is BS.

[TruckinMike]

If anyone has ever been to the HEB grocery store on the south loop 610 and I-45 in Houston, then you know that there is NO way in hell that Texas is third on the list (that store alone would knock it down 5 places). I've never once been in that store and seen customers pay with anything but a "Lonestar card"(Thats Texan for food stamps).






TMike

edited inflammatory comment

[muzzled dogg]

tough crowd with this link i guess

[james1906]

I had a lady in front of me at Food Basket in Oak Ridge North hold up the line because she didn't speak English and paid for a third of her stuff with her WIC card, a third of her stuff with her Lone Star card, and a third of her stuff with cash. And this is Oak Ridge North, I shudder at what it's like at Supermercado de Walmart on Long Point.

[GunnyFreedom]

tough crowd with this link i guess

meh, the link provides that 'socialism' is determined by a pure mathematical function of spending over GDP. We don't generally like it when mass media plants false ideas as we are the ones who will eventually have to go in and uproot those false ideas in order to accomplish our goals. Also, any list that puts Illinois as the 'second least socialist' in the nation is blatantly wrong.

I can just see one of our actvists trying to work in Illinois and talking about the march towards socialism, and the respondent saying, "No man, you're wrong! There's this list, see, that says Illinois is one of the least socialist States in America!"

So while it's good for us to know that such a list like this exists, it's existence is actually harmful to our efforts to save America.

[Ricky201]

I am sorry but Wyoming #7 and Alaska #2? I call shenanigans! And my home state of Washington the 10th least socialist!? BAHAHAHAHA!

[Todd]

Poll is bs. Nevada, specifically Las Vegas, represents alot of what's wrong with this country. Stupidity, excess and illusion

[Pericles]

Poll is bs. Nevada, specifically Las Vegas, represents alot of what's wrong with this country. Stupidity, excess and illusion
Exactly, Las Vegas represents everything I don't like about the USA. My parents like to make a couple of trips there each year and don't understand why I have not wanted to come along since I was in my early 20s.

[JamesButabi]

Only 10th most? I wouldve pegged RI in the top 5.

[Elwar]

Any poll that doesn't have Vermont as the most Socialist state in the country is way off.

[pcosmar]

WTF?
No Michigan. This has been a welfare state my whole life.
Fact is the whole country is. Since the Fabian Coup of 1913. It has affected and infected every state, some worse than others, but all of them.

To not see Michigan in the top ten, :confused:

[Inkblots]

I am sorry but Wyoming #7 and Alaska #2? I call shenanigans! And my home state of Washington the 10th least socialist!? BAHAHAHAHA!

Um, I don't know about Wyoming, but Alaska really is a very socialist place. For Heaven's sake, every Alaskan gets a check from the Permanent Fund every year. It's the only state in the Union in which EVERY citizen is on the dole.

[Inkblots]

meh, the link provides that 'socialism' is determined by a pure mathematical function of spending over GDP. We don't generally like it when mass media plants false ideas as we are the ones who will eventually have to go in and uproot those false ideas in order to accomplish our goals. Also, any list that puts Illinois as the 'second least socialist' in the nation is blatantly wrong.

I disagree. Basically, socialism just means 'state ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources'. Thus in a perfectly socialist state, government spending would be 100% of GDP. Measuring how close each state is to that state of perfect socialism by evaluating their current ratio of spending to GDP is a good, clear, objective measure of how far along the path to socialism they really are, perceptions otherwise to the contrary.

Socialism isn't the same thing as authoritarianism or nanny-statism. Illinois (Chicago especially) has a very developed nanny state, but as the list points out, the amount of the state economy controlled by the government is actually quite small compared to the national average. This list is useful for making that distinction.

[GunnyFreedom]

I disagree. Basically, socialism just means 'state ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources'. Thus in a perfectly socialist state, government spending would be 100% of GDP. Measuring how close each state is to that state of perfect socialism by evaluating their current ratio of spending to GDP is a good, clear, objective measure of how far along the path to socialism they really are, perceptions otherwise to the contrary.

Socialism isn't the same thing as authoritarianism or nanny-statism. Illinois (Chicago especially) has a very developed nanny state, but as the list points out, the amount of the state economy controlled by the government is actually quite small compared to the national average. This list is useful for making that distinction.

I disagree. State control over the means of production (or even State ownership of all industry) which is the dictionary definition of socialism, does not imply any relationship between government spending and GDP whatsoever. A governement could technically own and control all production and spend almost nothing. According to the OP link, that would mean it was the least 'socialist' State on the planet (bullets are cheap, you know) all the while being the most socialist state on the planet.

Socialism is not an equation. Socialism is government control over industry. ie "nanny statism"

[Inkblots]

I disagree. State control over the means of production (or even State ownership of all industry) which is the dictionary definition of socialism, does not imply any relationship between government spending and GDP whatsoever. A governement could technically own and control all production and spend almost nothing. According to the OP link, that would mean it was the least 'socialist' State on the planet (bullets are cheap, you know) all the while being the most socialist state on the planet.

Socialism is not an equation. Socialism is government control over industry. ie "nanny statism"

Gunny, I respect you and all you do for the freedom movement mightily, but I must persist in disputing with you. As I said above, socialism is state ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. Now, if the state owns every factory within its borders, say, then the salary of every factory worker counts at state spending. Think on the British state-owned industries before the Thatcherite privatization campaign: their employees were considered to be government employees, and their revenues and expenditures were included, nisi erro, in the portion of GDP stated as belonging to the state sector. I presume this list follows the same metric. So therefore, no, a government that owns almost everything can't spend almost nothing, unless it doesn't pay its employees or buy raw materials for its factories. It might spend a smaller amount than a free market would, simply because economic growth is stunted by state control, but that's why we're examining the ratio of government economic activity to total economic activity, and not merely the absolute amounts of government spending. Even in your hypothetical example, which I again say couldn't happen, if the government spent almost nothing, but controlled almost all economic activity, total GDP would be miniscule as well, so the ratio of state to total spending would still be high, and a good indicator of the socialism of their economy.

Socialism is indeed government control over industry, but that can be expressed in objective terms as equation. It isn't just some nebulous subjective concept, as if something can only 'feel' like socialism, but can't be quantitatively evaluated as such. And again, 'nanny statism', more properly 'health and safety enforcement' is separate and different from socialism. They often coincide in the real world, but you can have one without the other.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, I respect you and all you do for the freedom movement mightily, but I must persist in disputing with you. As I said above, socialism is state ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. Now, if the state owns every factory within its borders, say, then the salary of every factory worker counts at state spending. Think on the British state-owned industries before the Thatcherite privatization campaign: their employees were considered to be government employees, and their revenues and expenditures were included, nisi erro, in the portion of GDP stated as belonging to the state sector. I presume this list follows the same metric. So therefore, no, a government that owns almost everything can't spend almost nothing, unless it doesn't pay its employees or buy raw materials for its factories.

Socialism is indeed government control over industry, but that can be expressed in objective terms as equation. It isn't just some nebulous subjective concept, as if something can only 'feel' like socialism, but can't be quantitatively evaluated as such. And again, 'nanny statism', more properly 'health and safety enforcement' is separate and different from socialism. They often coincide in the real world, but you can have one without the other.

Before I replied, I actually looked up the definition of socialism just to make sure.


1 a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2 an economic system based on state ownership of capital
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

State ownership of industry does not imply that every unit of currency spent is spent by the government. The government can let the proles keep all the capital they want, but if the government dictates HOW that capital is spent, it's still socialism.


socialism [ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm]
n
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj.
See also: Politics
a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole.
See also: Government

-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialismI mean, I have a pretty good handle on the English Language, and I don't see how ANY of the definitions above require that all spending be spent from the government's wallet. It seems pretty clear to me that dictating how others are allowed to spend 'their' money is just as on point to socialism as had the government spent it themselves.

If the government says "you will buy Chevy Volts or we will imprison and kill you" then people will buy Chevy Volts. Voila, a socialist economy, and government spending does not account for purchases of Volts.

That's just a more extreme version of what we have going on already.

Socialism is simply not a function of government spending over GDP, it's a statement of government control over industry, and even allowing the additional characteristic "and allocation of resources" does not imply that all spending is state spending. Even when our government still owned GM outright, not a penny of worker salary was considered 'government spending.' That is even less so when government merely 'controls' companies rather than holding the note of ownership outright. But that's still socialism.

You could have the most socialist government on the planet with the lowest ratio of spending to GDP in the world. It's about social control, not capital.

[pcosmar]

Socialism is indeed government control over industry, .

What industry is not Government controlled? Ron Paul uses the term Corporatism. Not a bad description. The Govt is deeply embedded in all aspects of business.

So what industry is free from Regulation, taxation, licensing,,,,Control.??

:confused:

[GunnyFreedom]

What industry is not Government controlled? Ron Paul uses the term Corporatism. Not a bad description. The Govt is deeply embedded in all aspects of business.

So what industry is free from Regulation, taxation, licensing,,,,Control.??

:confused:

"Corporatism" is the inverse of socialism -- it is corporate control of government. We have kind of a mix, really. I like to use the term "Social Corporatism" as being more accurate. However, "Corporatist Socialism" would probably be more universally understood.

Socialism is government control if industry. Corporatism is corporate control of government. Social Corporatism is corporate control over the government, which in turn controls the industry.

IMHO, anyway.

[Inkblots]

If the government says "you will buy Chevy Volts or we will imprison and kill you" then people will buy Chevy Volts. Voila, a socialist economy, and government spending does not account for purchases of Volts.

That's just a more extreme version of what we have going on already.

Socialism is simply not a function of government spending over GDP, it's a statement of government control over industry, and even allowing the additional characteristic "and allocation of resources" does not imply that all spending is state spending. . .

You could have the most socialist government on the planet with the lowest ratio of spending to GDP in the world. It's about social control, not capital.

Ah, now I see the misunderstanding. Gunny, in a purely socialist economy, nearly all, and theoretically every worker in the economy is a state employee, and so all salaries are state salaries. All investment in capital formation will also be state spending. Therefore, government spending will asymptotically approach 100% of GDP.

Now, government control and direction of industry and the economy, but without explicit ownership, isn't socialism. It's corporatism or fascism, two words with similar meanings. Fascist governments exercise control over private property but do not nationalize it - and as in your Volt example, above, they can compel consumption by force of law, to benefit private interests. But that should be 'Voila, a fascist economy', not socialist as you say.

So yes, this list isn't a measure of corporatism, or freedom in each state. But it is a measure of socialism in each state, which is all that it claims to be.

[Inkblots]

What industry is not Government controlled? Ron Paul uses the term Corporatism. Not a bad description. The Govt is deeply embedded in all aspects of business.

So what industry is free from Regulation, taxation, licensing,,,,Control.??

:confused:

Ron's exactly right. I was being unclear. Socialism needs explicit ownership by the state, while corporatism only needs state direction and control of privately owned means of production.

[pcosmar]

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
Have we come to a conclusion of just how many angels are dancing on this pin?