Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the Americans who "hate" socialism couldn't write a coherent paragraph about it, couldn't explain the differences between Michael Harrington and Rosa Luxemburg, couldn't name three living, self-identified Americans socialists (e.g. Mike Davis, Chris Hedges, Stephanie Coontz). They know nothing about it whatsoever. The are just repeating what they hear on right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and read in right-wing rags life FrontPage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300
Completely irrelevant.
I don't need to inspect a dog turd under a microscope to know that it stinks.
Socialism eschews individual achievement for shared mediocrity.
If thats the way you wish to live your life then I'm sure any number of mediocre countries would be glad to have you....don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
Wrong, Dooley.
Read this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever Adrift
It's largely a historical accident. The US, unlike it's European counterparts, never developed powerful unions and the socialist parties that often derived from them in the 19th century because at the time the US was still expanding and gorging on resources long since used up in the Old World. Socialism was coming into its own in Europe when that continent's countries were consolidating and facing the effects of a highly urbanized, increasingly educated populace that sought a voice in politics to rectify the horrifying injustices of unbridled capitalism as it existed then - 16 hour work days, child labor, no labor protection, no social safety nets, low wages... - At the same time the US was still expanding, land was still available and cheap, cities were still being founded and growing, opportunity was everywhere and the kind of class differences that characterized European societies had yet to come into full force on a national scale - upward mobility was more easily achieved in the US at the time because the economy was in an earlier phase of development, resources were plentiful, fertility rates higher and still sustainable... Thus the type of stark class differentiation that had, by that time, become obvious in Europe was still developing and in its infancy in the US (plus the US, with no aristocracy, offered much more equality of opportunity in it's earlier years - capitalism, of course, develops its own aristocracy over time...). The states of Europe were far older, more developed and culturally cohesive than the US and socialism, of a type, was a cure to the worst excesses of the political-economic system that had become entrenched. It was not a cure for American problems at the time because we weren't there yet, and in some ways never would be given difference of situation. Socialism was, as a result, far more attractive in European countries because the justifications for it were much more clear and deeply felt.
Meanwhile, Europe was democratizing and political parties were replacing aristocrats as the source of political power: parties that wanted to succeed needed clearly articulated principles and policy proscriptions in order to secure votes and the promises of socialism, being so attractive, allowed powerful socialist parties to organize and win elections - many of these parties still remain dominant in most European countries to this day. The parliamentary form of government coupled with the electoral systems found in most European countries further facilitated this by allowing more than two parties to compete meaningfully giving those with any type of socialist leaning a more articulate, focused and sustainable platform from which to pursue their policy objectives. Socialism at the time was different than now, of course, and would fracture into innumerable different ideological derivatives - some, like Communism, would prove disastrous, but more moderate views would evolve into what today is known as Social Democracy which viewed government as necessary and important for reigning in the worst parts of capitalism while still allowing a large and competitive private sector. Experimentation, facilitated by different political cultures across countries and more political parties, allowed these countries to find effective ways of reconciling a 'Welfare State' with capitalism in a way that maintained democracy and the core values and rights associated with it.
The US never had any of this, unions were never as powerful here and by the time they really started catching on the two-party system was already entrenched. And then, of course, the US faced a civil war and was deeply divided on issues of no relevance to Europe while enjoying economic prosperity without too much pain due to it's being essentially 'younger.' Thus, there was no real room or reason for socialist ideas to become powerful within American political institutions. This did change when the Great Depression arrived and FDR became President, but despite FDR's ability to build huge support for socialist programs like Social Security it was too late and/or bad timing because WWII arrived and we found ourselves fighting the Nazis, who referred to their party as Socialist despite being the exact opposite (fascist), and then the USSR which sought to use Socialism to bring about a Communist paradise and extinguish Western values, economics, etc. through a very radical view of the ideology that is not at all characteristic of modern European socialism. But they, like the Nazis, came to be associated with the term 'socialism' despite not actually being anything like what we call socialism today... the Cold War and McCarthyism solidified the term's negative connotation in the American political lexicon while the Democratic Party eventually sought socialist reforms under LBJ while also fighting a war in Vietnam and undergoing major social upheaval with the Civil Rights Movement... opponents of LBJ's Great Society muddled down the major socialist health reforms he sought, dividing supporters by giving the most powerful supporters (elderly voters) Medicare and the poor Medicaid so that although it seemed LBJ won, political support for truly universal healthcare dissipated because many of its major supporters had access to such healthcare through the limited, targeted Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and Democrats underwent a social realignment over civil rights and Democrats, associated with Socialist programs, were denounced for such support - further cementing a hate of so-called socialism in the minds of many voters who disapproved of other things the Democratic Party was doing at the time.
Thus, while many Americans actually support socialism when asked about specific programs, they recoil when they hear the term socialist and immediately disapprove of anything with that label. Yet, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Schools, School Lunches, Unemployment Benefits, Child Labor Laws, Food Safety Regulations... they are all socialist...
Now that's how you write a logical, thoughtful, and coherent reply.
If this was true, then please explain the existence of millionaires and billionaires in social countries.
Lol, that's easy. There are always the corrupt few on top that horde the benefits of these wonderful equal socialist societies. This is also the true reason socialism doesn't work. At it's core, if you had a true socialist nation where everyone truly adhered to the ideals of socialism it would work and could even be described as a utopian society. Problem is, there are always those on top who think they deserve more. And those are the people who actually benefit from socialism while the masses are left to equally stand in bread lines.
1) A person who is healthy and capable of working yet prefers to be "lazy" and live off the system.
2) Constant flow of free money, food, cellphones etc.
And how many people do you personally know (not what you heard about on right wing radio and Fox News) or have seen engage in such activities (i.e. - collecting free food, money, cellphones, etc.)?
Lol, that's easy. There are always the corrupt few on top that horde the benefits...
It sounds like you're talking about capitalism (corporatism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
These wonderful equal socialist societies.
A Freudian admission of truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
This is also the true reason socialism doesn't work. At it's core, if you had a true socialist nation where everyone truly adhered to the ideals of socialism it would work and could even be described as a utopian society.
Another Freudian slip?
Actually, if you substitute "capitalist" for "socailist" and "capitalism" for "socialism", then you might be onto something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
Problem is, there are always those on top who think they deserve more.
A second capitalism description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH
And those are the people who actually benefit from socialism while the masses are left to equally stand in bread lines.
Change "socialism" to "capitalism" and you have a third description of capitalism.
Wow, you're almost there, Reads2MUCH. You're that close.
Maybe you should be asking yourself what's wrong with this picture?
Why should you work hard and have to pay a 28% or higher tax rate, yet, an "investor" makes millions or even billions and only has to pay a 15% rate (which some complain is too high)?
Maybe you should take a look at tax rates vs. effective tax rates. If you are actually paying 28% of your income in taxes, you have an idiot for an accountant.
As for the tax rates on investments, considering that the investment has already been taxed numerous times (original purchase money came from income so it was taxed, money that was invested by other people came from income so it was taxed, etc.) why should investment income be taxed at the same rate as wages?
You are making no sense. The state is not an individual person. If it belongs to a state it doesn't belong to anyone in particular, it's publicly owned.
So is a corporation a public entity? Or is it often a private entity with a few people on top reaping the benefits while the property of the corporation still belong to the corporation?
It's your personal opinion based on your personal worldview. The US uses other countries as examples as well.
The US interstate highway system is modeled after the German autobahn for example.
By the way, do you have food stamps and free cellphones in Germany? If not then Germany is no socialist enough.
It is not just my personal opinion, there are thorough studies on that where they analyze how much of the world's resources a country consumes per capita.
If everyone followed the US example (Canada and Australia have basically been copying the US), we would need 9 planets...
Interesting that you mention the Autobahn network. I don't think that was a good example for others to follow, either.
Food stamps and free cell phones have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism has a specific meaning, you can't just associate with it everything you don't like.
All these people hate socialism with a passion, but clearly have no interest in learning about it past two sentences of a wikipedia article.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
etc.
