Why is it people who scream "socialism," don't know what the word means?
Reading Midcentury Journey by William L Shirer, an accompolished journalist who wrote "Rise and Fall of TheThird Reich," who wrote this book in 1950. And if you're looking for a way to counter this stupid "socialism: argument here's what he wrote in 1952:
And yes, Fred Reiss of Fred For Your Head typed this out.
"The businessmen, for example, complained the nation had succumbed to socialism..Socialism, by any definition is a system based, as Webster put it, "on collective or government ownership and democratic management of the essential means of production and distribution of goods." Socialism does away with private profits. Had this happened in America?
I find no evidence of it. The facts and figures--the truth, that is--pointed to just the opposite, In 1932, the last year ther Republican administration, which presumably subscribed completely to untrammeled private enterprise, the nation's corporations didn't make any profit at all, taken as a whole. In fact, they lost money that year--3.5 billion. AFter four years of Democratic administration, which even then, IU was told, was being called 'socialistic.' private profits of our corporations were at least a moderate size. In 1937 they came to 6.3 billion (private profits.)..4.7 billion after taxes.
How can you call a system 'socialistic' when it enabled privately-owned enterprises to make a profit?
Shirer also states: "What puzzled and asontished me was thaty Roosevelt was never foregiven by those he had rescued and whose banks and fortunes he not only saved, but in the end, helped make stronger and richer. Aftyerr all, it was not 'socialism' or even government interference and control which brought about our economic debacle in the thiriers, The failure was the responsibility of private enterprise."
Huh, I guess, in today's world, it proves history doesn't repeat itself--it regurgitates!