he certainly hated aristocracy. maybe because he himself came from shit!
Why are Americans so afraid of Socialism?
- Thread starter lurkingdirk
- Start date
he certainly hated aristocracy. maybe because he himself came from shit!
Facetious
Moderated
I think that the operative word here is "weary"
Socialism, like everything else, should be applied in moderation, I mean, the ASPCA, the Police & Sheriff Depts., Fire & AMTs , public works depts., parks & recs depts., highway maintenance and local county hospitals, † fine, but not socialized everything ! Why kill off the private sector and have to incur the wrath of 80 % income taxes ? :nono:
BTW - In the case Of Barack Obama, Government is the ubiquitous, be all end all for everything. That's not what America is all about.
†Had it not been for the united states dept of education,
I would have listed public education :sighs:
Thank You Jimmah Carter, your education bureaucracy is a disgrace !
No matter what system of government is in place - socialism, communism, democracy, republic or even a non-government like anarchy - someone or something will always assume control and power.
This is the struggle with modern human life.. we conquered the food chain and every organism on Earth and what is left to conquer but ourselves?
This is the struggle with modern human life.. we conquered the food chain and every organism on Earth and what is left to conquer but ourselves?
Yaaawn.
It's pretty interesting that the ones blindly critisizing socialism (at least as far as I bothered reading) came from Texas, Tennessee or the "Midwest" or had a picture of some sort of army wagon in his display picture.
Anyway, I'm not going into stereotypes, and I'm certain you're all good men. But to simply reject socialism as some sort of failed form of government is just ignorant. Socialism isn't Cuba, nor is it the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or China.
Socialism is Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and to a certain degree even the US.
There are numerous great things about America, and capitalism too. But saying it's a great system on its own is blatantly lying. Capitalism has made people suffer just like communism - only with other excuses. And even though you seem to think so in the US, you're far from as liberal or capitalist as you seem to think. There are numerous things in your society that are (gasp) social.
Fact is that the best ideology is probably an inexistent one. A country where people don't smack a label on themselves, and become too proud to admit their own flaws. Because no system is flawless. The best is probably mixing the best of two worlds.
It's pretty interesting that the ones blindly critisizing socialism (at least as far as I bothered reading) came from Texas, Tennessee or the "Midwest" or had a picture of some sort of army wagon in his display picture.
Anyway, I'm not going into stereotypes, and I'm certain you're all good men. But to simply reject socialism as some sort of failed form of government is just ignorant. Socialism isn't Cuba, nor is it the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia or China.
Socialism is Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and to a certain degree even the US.
There are numerous great things about America, and capitalism too. But saying it's a great system on its own is blatantly lying. Capitalism has made people suffer just like communism - only with other excuses. And even though you seem to think so in the US, you're far from as liberal or capitalist as you seem to think. There are numerous things in your society that are (gasp) social.
Fact is that the best ideology is probably an inexistent one. A country where people don't smack a label on themselves, and become too proud to admit their own flaws. Because no system is flawless. The best is probably mixing the best of two worlds.
How do you define socialism?
It never fails to amaze me how some elements in America, define socialism
as being goverment involvement in the economy for example.
I live in Europe.
Many Americans define (incorrectly) the European economic/political model as socialism.
Needless to say, that definition is incorrect.
It is in the interest of the powerful interests that control America, to ensure that economic/political models like the European model, do not get established in America.
If the European model was adopted in America, wealth would be distributed more evenly in the USA.
And the superrich in America, will not tolerate that.
There are many things that I do admire about America and Americans : but it is clear to me that the economic/political model adopted by America since 1980 has failed.
America has lost huge numbers of jobs, it's balance of trade deficit is massive, it's balance of payments deficit is huge, it's unemployment rate is rocketting, and the country is currently mired in two foreign wars which it will never win.
It never fails to amaze me how some elements in America, define socialism
as being goverment involvement in the economy for example.
I live in Europe.
Many Americans define (incorrectly) the European economic/political model as socialism.
Needless to say, that definition is incorrect.
It is in the interest of the powerful interests that control America, to ensure that economic/political models like the European model, do not get established in America.
If the European model was adopted in America, wealth would be distributed more evenly in the USA.
And the superrich in America, will not tolerate that.
There are many things that I do admire about America and Americans : but it is clear to me that the economic/political model adopted by America since 1980 has failed.
America has lost huge numbers of jobs, it's balance of trade deficit is massive, it's balance of payments deficit is huge, it's unemployment rate is rocketting, and the country is currently mired in two foreign wars which it will never win.
Well said.
Yep somewhere the best would be to strike a balance between socialism and capitlism.That really has been what just about everyone in all the democratic govts/countries in the world has been saying and trying to do for a long long time.As you say nobodys ever got it perfect and probably never will,but the goal is good and should always be striven for.I personally think a society with a strong social contract which guarantees some basics is good thing for all.Yes you still need to have a sytem that makes entrepreneurship and innovation and being industrious profitable but that does not mean you let the system be ruthless with no regulation and certain basic standards.There was a time when many worked in dangerous sweat shops and were paid anything the employer felt like.That was socialism when the unions fought and got rights we all take for granted now.
Again I think a society where the majority reap more than one where a minority get the lions share of the wealth is better for all.I know that what the europeans try to achieve and have some conditions for workers that are far better than most americans enjoy but we have probably more rich people.
While the US ahs always lagged in some things like universal health care syatem which we still don't have and all of europe has had for decades we used to actually be superior in some ways like creating wealth that was sperad among the majority and not just flowing disproportionetly to a few at the top.The 1950s and 1960s were a time when average american workers real wages were climbing rapidly as compared to the top ,thats was turned on its head starting somewhere in the 70s when income growth started to sharply decline for the middle and down but soared for the top and that gap was just made wider by people like Reagan.
Time to swing that pendulm back to the side that says we are looking out for the majority more again.Call it a new deal,socialism, great society whatever its what is needed right now as the pendulum has swung the other way enough(too much) and that is not good for us as a country.Strike a fair balance!
Agree with all you said but just want to re-emphasize this part.
Whatever we have been doing since at least 1980 as you say has not had good results.Country worked better when all incomes were rising and their was more of a social contract and all the rest.We were much stronger in all ways when we operated like that.
And your right were not winning those wars.
I agree with this.
To my mind, the only way to create a successful, safe, economic solid country, is to ensure that the middle class account for the majority of the population.
If a country has a broad, inclusive middle class, that accounts for the majority of the population of that country, is the best solution.
That's my tuppence worth!
If socialism was so great which is a system were the government controls who can have money by controling banks and means of production was so great then the countries that employ it would be able to tolerate our systems fluctuations, since it can't it is obviously pretty flawed.
It seems the only fluctuations our own system can't take are self generated.
Sorry mate, you've lost me with this.
Many Americans would describe Europe as being socialist, correct?
I live in western Europe : I can earn as much or as little money as I choose.
The goverment in my country does not own/control the means of production.
And we have a better and more even distribution of wealth compared to the USA, for example.
Statement 1 is correct. America is also not a true democracy; we're a representational democracy. We elect people to rule for us.
Statement 2 might be right, but it might be wrong too. I don't believe you've read anything by Lenin, and it would be nice if you could provide a source other than wikipedia or stormfront.org
Statement 3 is completely wrong. Marx never said that. Marx wrote "Capital" which dealt with capitalism and "The Communist Manifesto" which argued that the working class (the Joe the Plumbers) would rise up and overthrow the capitalists and usher in "communism" but not the communism that Lenin practiced. Lenin's communism was a totalitarianist state where all POWER was centralized and people lived under control from this central state. Marx's idea of communism was a classless society since he saw the history of the world--feudalism and capitalism--as being nothing but a series of class struggles.
Marx wrote his theories around the rise of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. He did not write his theories when the Greeks created democracy.
Are you serious with this thread?
Do you want to make more than 28k/year ever? That is what would be distributed if the United States was socialist. Do you ever want to be able to afford any assets? A house? A car?
Unemployment and programs like that are ok. But socialism does not work. Think about it, why would a potential doctor go to medical school for eight years if he knew he was going to make the same salary as the guy who takes his order at McDonalds?
Do you want to make more than 28k/year ever? That is what would be distributed if the United States was socialist. Do you ever want to be able to afford any assets? A house? A car?
Unemployment and programs like that are ok. But socialism does not work. Think about it, why would a potential doctor go to medical school for eight years if he knew he was going to make the same salary as the guy who takes his order at McDonalds?
I'm sorry but who is proposing a doctor would make the same as the guy at McDonalds.Thats why I didn't post into his thread for a while I knew it would only be about extreme non real choices given by the side against so-called socialism.In europe and canada which are more socialist then the US and have socialized health systems the doctors still do very well and much better than a fast food person.
Deltaoscarbravo asked above if many americans think europe is socialist and the answer is yes at least copmpared to us you are.But I don't think any serious person thinks your anything approaching communism especially as was exhibited by countries like the USSR.But thats what the other side always seems to go to , that socialism equals communism and a total command economy.Western europe isn't like that but just has a better saftey net and strives as Deltaoscarbravo said to see the middle class do well and income growth to be spread around some.As he and I both said we think that makes it better for all.Nobody is talking about some vast income redistribution but policys that lead to such a situation.Its not a question if that will work,we know it will it did in the past and does in places in europe and elsewhere its just a question of will.
Blanket reverse racism ...
Also, I am an American Libertarian-Capitalist. That means I'm against a federal government removing any individual or state rights without a Constitutional Amendment and a supermajority of the states agreeing. If that means I'm a right-winger, then I guess anyone who actually cares about civics is one too.
Carnivore and many FBI, NSA and other programs didn't start with W. Tapping communication lines with secret courts and post-action warrants were not only commonplace in the '90s, but in 1998, the Clinton administration redefined what situations where a warrant was not required. W. then took that one step further.
I like many things about Obama. And it was about time an African American led our nation. There are too many after-thoughts about women, African Americans and Native Americans, with a lot of other politicians paying lip service and nothing more. The ones that push Affirmative Action without looking at the greater problem -- often to the point that the Urban League disagrees with the NAACP (and rightly so) on how to bring the median income of African Americans up to others.
But that ends when Obama and other African Americans attempt to tear down the 10th Amendment. I understand their reasons. But the 9th and lower Amendments, let alone Supreme Common Law, has put down the 10th Amendment as an avenue to deny states the authority over individual, especially not civil, rights.
The problem with rights are responsibilities. The states were irresponsible with their rights, so they had to be overriden by the federal. Just because some are irresponsible doesn't mean you remove rights for all.
Otherwise we might as well just outlaw alcohol and other things. I don't drink. I never have. I've seen irresponsibility with alcohol take the life of people I've loved. But do I call for its outlawing?
I recognize that some rights are required for our protection. I don't throw away my rights because it might "save" people from those who would otherwise be irresponsible with them. That's what Libertarians realize.
But does that mean the 10th Amendment is wrong? What continues to bother me is the great number of African Americans who believe it is wrong to exist.
I think one of the greatest and horrific examples of this in our time is the Duke University LaCrosse episode. The players of that team had their civil rights repeatedly violated by countless people, in the media, in their lives, in their total lack of right to due process. And even when many, responsible minorities "woke up" to the fact that they were -- in full irony and hypocrisy -- violating the rights of others, the established, powerful media basically threatened to destroy their careers if they backed down. Even they were trapped by it!
Garafalo is pushing blanket, reverse racism.
In fact, there are a great number of white analysts and media personnel who were active civil rights activists in the '60s who, today, are merely just trying to stop the insanity that we have built. This country is supposed to be about equality, not special interest. Because it's just more of the same, bullshit lip service that serves no one's interest.
I am an American Libertarian-Capitalists. I live the dream, I help others live the dream, including being partially Native American and having a great number of African American colleagues (who are sick of the bullshit as well). If you want to label me a right-winger racist, and take my very intelligent, very carefully selected statements and put them in a light that is no better than the blanket, reverse racism as Garafalo, then you're no better than her. Hollywood stuck one hell of a corncob up her ass years ago, and to this day, Hollywood -- the absolutely most sexist and racist industry in the US -- makes people like her, among other women -- let alone our fellow African Americans -- her feel violated worse than any other industry they could ever be in.
Such people like her, and apparently yourself, take people you disagree with and replace any real, actual debate with a flagrant and insulting statement that our real agendas are based on racism and dislike of fellow Americans -- instead of the real complaints we do have. So if you really believe that, you can go fuck yourself as hard as Garafalo does.
What "individual" or "state" rights is the DHS squashing that the left care about? Name one please.
Also, I am an American Libertarian-Capitalist. That means I'm against a federal government removing any individual or state rights without a Constitutional Amendment and a supermajority of the states agreeing. If that means I'm a right-winger, then I guess anyone who actually cares about civics is one too.
Here's the deal. I bitched about this during Clinton. I bitched again about it during W. And with this administration, they've shown no sign of slowing down the same trend.
Carnivore and many FBI, NSA and other programs didn't start with W. Tapping communication lines with secret courts and post-action warrants were not only commonplace in the '90s, but in 1998, the Clinton administration redefined what situations where a warrant was not required. W. then took that one step further.
I like many things about Obama. And it was about time an African American led our nation. There are too many after-thoughts about women, African Americans and Native Americans, with a lot of other politicians paying lip service and nothing more. The ones that push Affirmative Action without looking at the greater problem -- often to the point that the Urban League disagrees with the NAACP (and rightly so) on how to bring the median income of African Americans up to others.
But that ends when Obama and other African Americans attempt to tear down the 10th Amendment. I understand their reasons. But the 9th and lower Amendments, let alone Supreme Common Law, has put down the 10th Amendment as an avenue to deny states the authority over individual, especially not civil, rights.
Do you have a reading comprehension issue or something? Or did you not see me say (I'll bold it for you, since you quoted it and missed it) ...
The problem with rights are responsibilities. The states were irresponsible with their rights, so they had to be overriden by the federal. Just because some are irresponsible doesn't mean you remove rights for all.
Otherwise we might as well just outlaw alcohol and other things. I don't drink. I never have. I've seen irresponsibility with alcohol take the life of people I've loved. But do I call for its outlawing?
I recognize that some rights are required for our protection. I don't throw away my rights because it might "save" people from those who would otherwise be irresponsible with them. That's what Libertarians realize.
And where did I disagree with that? I can be repeatedly quoted how the 10th Amendment is not one that allows states to override the 9th and lower Amendments, civil rights and other unalienable rights.
But does that mean the 10th Amendment is wrong? What continues to bother me is the great number of African Americans who believe it is wrong to exist.
"Many"? Sorry, but that's blanket reverse racism. It's just as much of a civil rights violation to accuse people of such as it is to label and ridicule African Americans.
I think one of the greatest and horrific examples of this in our time is the Duke University LaCrosse episode. The players of that team had their civil rights repeatedly violated by countless people, in the media, in their lives, in their total lack of right to due process. And even when many, responsible minorities "woke up" to the fact that they were -- in full irony and hypocrisy -- violating the rights of others, the established, powerful media basically threatened to destroy their careers if they backed down. Even they were trapped by it!
Garafalo is pushing blanket, reverse racism.
Listen. I was very proud to see Americans vote in who they thought was the right man for the job, regardless of his skin color. So don't you dare even paint that brush at me!
In fact, there are a great number of white analysts and media personnel who were active civil rights activists in the '60s who, today, are merely just trying to stop the insanity that we have built. This country is supposed to be about equality, not special interest. Because it's just more of the same, bullshit lip service that serves no one's interest.
Listen. I "hide beyond my porn alias" -- among other "aliases" on various boards of various people and creeds -- because it would be very detrimental to my career if people knew who I was. If you knew me in person, you'd know I have the same opinions and attitudes.
I am an American Libertarian-Capitalists. I live the dream, I help others live the dream, including being partially Native American and having a great number of African American colleagues (who are sick of the bullshit as well). If you want to label me a right-winger racist, and take my very intelligent, very carefully selected statements and put them in a light that is no better than the blanket, reverse racism as Garafalo, then you're no better than her. Hollywood stuck one hell of a corncob up her ass years ago, and to this day, Hollywood -- the absolutely most sexist and racist industry in the US -- makes people like her, among other women -- let alone our fellow African Americans -- her feel violated worse than any other industry they could ever be in.
Such people like her, and apparently yourself, take people you disagree with and replace any real, actual debate with a flagrant and insulting statement that our real agendas are based on racism and dislike of fellow Americans -- instead of the real complaints we do have. So if you really believe that, you can go fuck yourself as hard as Garafalo does.
cause it doesnt work and it ends with you charging a neighboring country's lines in waves untill they hopefully run out of bullets. and if you retreat you run back into your own countrys bullets. not a very promising venture.....
I didn't realize people at McDonalds make $14/hour, yet several people have debated that RNs and MDs in several threads shouldn't make even $20/hour. Furthermore, didn't we have the "people making $100K/year should pay an 90% income tax" prior?
There are a lot of Americans in this country that take home $28K/year. Hell, I've regularly stated that my wife and I live on less than $30K/year.
This concept of "fairness" in the US is always going to be a value judgement where, sadly, the supermajority of people, who make far less and believe they should make far more than the real successful in this nation want to vote in such bullshit. I'm sorry, but it's bullshit.
90% of millionaires are self-made. They did not inherit even $10K of their wealth. They are first-generation. People forget that. People who spend money don't have it within a decade. Those who work and save do. My wife and I live on half or even less what others spend in our neighborhood, with our smallest house of the block and the oldest vehicles in our driveway, of anyone. We live "poor" in the eyes of many.
The US is about free and equal opportunity, not fair and fiscal equality. Don't like it? (NOTE: this is not directed at anyone, just in general) Fucking start your own business and change that! Honestly. I'm so tired of this from most people, hence why I can see and understand the poster's frustration. Especially since people like my wife and I are demonized for how much we make for those that know, even though we live so frugal and so simple, saving for our retirement as the great majority should, but do not.
If people want to make the money I make, then they can do everything I did to get where I'm at. I am constantly learning, reading, working, experiencing, just as my wife. I worked hard early in my education, and never stopped taking opportunities as I could find them or fend them for myself.
Did I get certain "breaks" in my life that some don't? Sure. But in the same regard, I sought opportunities and showed initiative that most never do. In some cases, it cost me a lot of money when some took advantage of me in some of those initiatives as well. Hell, I help a lot of people in my career and professional, I help a shitload with both their troubles and their own, professional training and knowledge, trying to help them along.
I survived. I learned. I moved on. But I still have my values and many, many people respect me for my honesty. As my wife often points out, my honesty scares the fuck out of most people, especially when I admit my faults and my wrongs. I've been backstabbed several times by people I have helped, who had a very interesting way of taking my kindness and help and repaying it with their fears and insecurities in ways that were short of malice.
Ye there are still too many people who take advantage of that, without realizing their own faults, shortcomings and why they keep doing everything other than succeed. It's easier to blame people like me, who make 6 figures a year, instead of wondering how they could, how their alleged "situations" prevented them, as if I had more handed to me than them. In a few cases, yes, that's true. But in the great majority of cases, I've met a lot of people with less than myself who were given a hell of a lot more, and I mean a hell of a lot more. And my wife? Damn if she didn't earn everything she has, and then some.
Hell, to this day it's a turn-on for me every time I realize how strong and successful my wife is, given where she was started and how she had nothing handed to her.
what ARE you talking about? seriously?
i thought president obama's comments to the last question tonight were interesting - saying that he (the fed. government) wants to be the kind of shareholder looking to "get out," because he (and by implication the government) don't want to be running large companies like g.m. he was a lot more adamant on this point than i thought he would be, perhaps he's trying to distance himself from the big-government idea that critics have (maybe correctly or incorrectly) attached to him?
some other points:
1. people, you have to stop believing that everyone in a socialised nation makes the same salary. doctors in socialised countries make more than mcjobs. believing otherwise shows your ignorance
2. why is it that the very topic generates this much discussion, but most people posting have only a very marginal grasp on the facts? what is taught in american schools about socialism?
3. for an interesting perspective on hitler and socialism - a perspective from which many in this forum would benefit, go here.
some excellent points made here, though. keep them coming!
some other points:
1. people, you have to stop believing that everyone in a socialised nation makes the same salary. doctors in socialised countries make more than mcjobs. believing otherwise shows your ignorance
2. why is it that the very topic generates this much discussion, but most people posting have only a very marginal grasp on the facts? what is taught in american schools about socialism?
3. for an interesting perspective on hitler and socialism - a perspective from which many in this forum would benefit, go here.
some excellent points made here, though. keep them coming!
Facetious
Moderated
Doesn't it all really come down to our current personal financial state of affairs whether we're pro socialism or not ? I think so. Some people simply have to get off their asses and apply themselves to something that actually allows for them to be evil and greedy as in make a living. If you took a bachelors degree in the arts, well, that's likely part of the problem. I know, I have 3 neices and nephews that are going through the same thing ":whatthehellamIgonnadowiththisfuckingartdegree?:"
Instead of going home with the neighborhood's only bat and ball, Please resolve this conflict within yourselves, it can be done if you apply yourselves (e.g. take some night classes in financing etc) uppity up your skills.
Instead of going home with the neighborhood's only bat and ball, Please resolve this conflict within yourselves, it can be done if you apply yourselves (e.g. take some night classes in financing etc) uppity up your skills.
The USSR was not communist it was socalist! United Soviet Socalist Republics
The State had total ownership of all means of production and control of the economy that is total socalism, communisim is when there are no differences in social class when applied to a socalist economic system.
In Soviet Russia there were 2 classes the ruling class who had money, good medical care access to foreign medical care, access to foreign education, and there was the common class who did not really have money, shitty medical care, and no access to foreign education with little hope of being able to get it.
That is why as Americans we do not want anything to do with Socalism, because in that system a doctor would not make any more than a manager at a McDonalds.
If Russia had been truly communist they in all likelyhood would have failed long before they did. The ruling class would not have brought themselfs down to the level of the 'common man' so the expense of bringing the entire population up to what the ruling class would have been comfortable with would have broken them before they even got started.
Almost forgot there are more doctors practicing medicine in our country who are not from our country than any other country in the world. The reason is pretty simple they don’t wanna make what the manager at McDonalds is making.
You are mistaken as to the difference between socialism and communism. In short, a communism economy is a demand economy where the government not only owns the means of production but decides what and how much to produce with out regards for the market of the goods or services. In a socialist economy the government owns the means of production but uses the market to determine what and how much to produce. That's a big difference. The uses of a demand economy was one of the reasons the USSR failed.
You can not literally go by the name United Soviet Socialist Republics. It is misleading. Hitler call his party the National Socialist German Workers Party. By your reasoning Hitler would have been a communist.
