NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever since the Cold War and the fight of Americans against the "red menace", it seems any government policy remotely resembling socialisim follows an acusation that the government is going Stalin on the people and it is thrown out of Capital hill laughing. What I want to know is that is it the Cold war which make the Americans have a complete lack of socialist representation on there political front. In Britain the parties show a pretty logical progression of ideology. Labour (socialist), Liberal Democrat (Liberal, obviously) and Conservative (speeks for itself). While they are not always true to those ideologies the basic set up is there. True Labour revoked clause 4 and that's proberbly what made them electable and slightly more right wing, but the basic essence of socialism is still there (New deal etc). Is it the Cold War that instilled such a fear of socialism in the American public that made any kind of American socialist party an imposability? Or is there some other reason?

(Edit: I know there are only 3 options, its all I could think of)

The Cold War did do alot of damage to the social structure in my opionion. But it has healed somewhat, as I don't see too many people running around screaming about how "Red China" is coming to destroy our way of life.

But, on the rare occasion I do encounter these people, I just remind them...in a calm voice...

"Shhh...It's okay...The Cold War is over...The Russians are our friends now...no more Communists...Just go home and have a ham sandwitch..."

The Cold War did do alot of damage to the social structure in my opionion. But it has healed somewhat, as I don't see too many people running around screaming about how "Red China" is coming to destroy our way of life.

But, on the rare occasion I do encounter these people, I just remind them...in a calm voice...

"Shhh...It's okay...The Cold War is over...The Russians are our friends now...no more Communists...Just go home and have a ham sandwitch..."

No, I dont mean did it damage society, I mean did it destroy societys perception of the socialist idology.

Just go home and have a ham sandwitch..."

Yeah, because those hamless stone witches really suck. Not to mention that they are too heavy to fly their brooms. As witches, they do leave a lot to be desired, if you ask me.

No, I dont mean did it damage society, I mean did it destroy societys perception of the socialist idology.

Oh. Yeah, I think it did. I still see alot of people who instantly associate Communism with evil...and half these folks don't even fully understand what communism and socialism are all about.

While I don't think there's full-on Bolshevik party, there are parties who want certain degrees of socialism aren't there? Like having various industries nationalized or taxing more punitively. There are people who want those sorts of things over there aren't there.

While I don't think there's full-on Bolshevik party, there are parties who want certain degrees of socialism aren't there? Like having various industries nationalized or taxing more punitively. There are people who want those sorts of things over there aren't there.

Yep.

What the poster is really complaining about is why their debunked socialist policies don't dominate the political landscape.

Because, in a rare moment of reasonability, the american public realized whats good for them, and rejected socialism.

Yep.

What the poster is really complaining about is why their debunked socialist policies don't dominate the political landscape.

Debunked?

Like.... ohhhh ..... the way Canada spends less per-capita in federal dollars on health care and yet can afford to make it both universal AND have better longevity and infant mortality rates?

Debunked?

Like.... ohhhh ..... the way Canada spends less per-capita in federal dollars on health care and yet can afford to make it both universal AND have better longevity and infant mortality rates?

Only in the US, socialism = communism.

Back in the 60's, in the heat of the Cold War, America was basically socialist. We had tax rates for the richest at over 90% for a while, it didn't go down to even 50% until 1982. The "Great Society" was the biggest push for government programs since the "New Deal."

Anto-socialism attitudes have shown up before communism took over Russia. For example, during the 1890's as a reaction to the growing labor unions. We have a huge respect for private property, both culturally and legally.

Why is it Europeans always seem to think that their way is the "default" or "standard" way, and anything else needs to be explained as though it were some quirk? Europe and America have different historical experiences re: capitalism, and I'm talking going way back here, not just to the cold war. Socialism was never very palatable here. I would suggest looking into 19th century social history for why the alien ideological spectrum of Europe did not magically transplant itself into American society.

Americans, for the most part, are brain-dead and don't know the beauty of socialism.

It was, in part, the end of the cold war that has helped people to realize that socialism is a failure and that capitalism is king. Since Ronald Reagan both political parties have been rolling back socialist policies. George H.W. Bush cut back the US military to historic lows, Bill Clinton cut back welfare benefits, and George W. Bush has cut taxes again and wants to introduce more market oriented reforms to Social Security, long considered the sacred cow of american politics -- Social Security had it roots in the socialist tendancies of President Roosevelt in the Great Depression.

Americans, for the most part, are brain-dead and don't know the beauty of socialism.

Utterly poor troll. No cookie for you!

Americans, for the most part, are brain-dead and don't know the beauty of socialism.

What is so "smart" and beautiful about socialism? North Korea is neither.

Americans, for the most part, are brain-dead and don't know the beauty of socialism.

Government wasting money it stole from the populace is a beautiful thing.

What is so "smart" and beautiful about socialism? North Korea is neither.

Again, only in the US: communism = socialism.

"Social Justice" in my mind is code for "social engineering". That is something I don't want the government to do. I want the government to leave my pocketbook and my bedroom alone! No to social justice!

Again, only in the US: communism = socialism.

That is because socialism and communism are the common opposite of individualism. Americans are fiercely individualistic because we do not trust the government to manipulate society to the so-called ideals of the snobby intellectuals.

There's enough of the "pioneer spirit" left in America for many Americans to seek assistace from themselves first, followed by family, then the church, then neighbors, community, charitable organizations, and finally government as a last resort. At least in many American small towns, the church and neighbors will often "pitch in" to help families in distress without being asked. :)

It's a cycle.

The Cold War was nothing to do with a red menace or American capitalist exploitation. It was about the domestic issues of each country. In the USA, it was a chance for southern senators to push through their own self-serving policies e.g. The Committee in 1919 discussing the 1917 revolution eventually passed legislation blocking those of a different colour from entering the country? How was that meant to affect Russia a largely white country.
The USSR was the scapegoat for corporations to promote their own agendas. Eventually (after the "scary" 1930s where FDR actually realised Stalin had improved Russia's economy and was considering harmonising relations) this fear of the USSR embedded on the people.

In the USSR, Stalin had to stop his people looking at the west with any degree of fondness after his country was ravaged by WWII. He had to portray America as the bastions of corporate fascism and thus, to the Russian people, nothing more than another bunch of nasty Nazis in order to stop the people realising that they were living in a mess and trying to remove the man at the top of that mess (Stalin).

I believe american society naturally opposes socialism for many reasons.

1. Many of our enemies have been socialist or communist.

2. Americans don't believe in paying high taxes.

3. We don't believe in giving money to people who haven't earned it.

4. Socialism erodes your sense of individualism, which was what this country was founded upon(although it doesn't erode individualism nearly as much as communism)

5. We like money to ourselves.

America is capitalist and baseball players dont want to be paid less the the president

The president gets 400,000 a year for doing what should be a hard job

Baseball players get over a million a year for playing a sport most people have played

America attacked innocent countries for fear of the domino affect which was a stupid theory

Russians, our friends now? Anatoliy Golitsyn begs to differ. Golitsyn is no conspiracy theorist whacko. Golitsyn was a high-ranking member of the KGB until he defected to the West. Almost every one of his predictions- from 'perestroika,' to 'glasnost,' to the opening of the Berlin Wall, has come true. Read New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception for details. Stanislaw Lunev (the highest-ranking Russian defector in history) of the GRU also begs to differ. Read his Through the Eyes of the Enemy. For details on the threat China continues to pose (and the U.S.'s treasonous policies that helped them become a threat), read In the Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett, Betrayal and The China Threat by Bill Gertz, and Red Cocaine by Dr. Joseph Douglass, Jr.

That is because socialism and communism are the common opposite of individualism. Americans are fiercely individualistic because we do not trust the government to manipulate society to the so-called ideals of the snobby intellectuals.

With those words written by you, I understand why you have difficulties distinguishing socialism from communism - you simply don't know enough about them.

And your comment about "snobby intellectuals" makes no sense. What does socialism have to do with "intellectuals", snobby or otherwise?

America attacked innocent countries for fear of the domino affect which was a stupid theory

No, the domino theory was correct. Don't believe me? Ask the Vietnamese, the Laotians, and the Cambodians.

Government wasting money it stole from the populace is a beautiful thing.

*Applause*

If I could pick anyone to rule the world, I'd definitely choose you!

Why is it Europeans always seem to think that their way is the "default" or "standard" way, and anything else needs to be explained as though it were some quirk? Europe and America have different historical experiences re: capitalism, and I'm talking going way back here, not just to the cold war. Socialism was never very palatable here. I would suggest looking into 19th century social history for why the alien ideological spectrum of Europe did not magically transplant itself into American society.

Hey, I am just interested. Dont go mocking all Europeans. Besides, Britain is doing better economicaly under a centre left government than America is under a right wing one ATM

What is so "smart" and beautiful about socialism? North Korea is neither.

A perfect example of American ignorence of what socialism is. There are socialist authoritatin regiemes, but that is not what socialism means. Britian is under a socialist government at the moment and is doing well.

Hey, I am just interested. Dont go mocking all Europeans. Besides, Britain is doing better economicaly under a centre left government than America is under a right wing one ATM
Using what as a measuring tool?

The unemployment rate is less in Britian, but GDP growth is higher in America. The US is expected to outpace every Western country in GDP growth. Industrial production and retail sales are higher in the US. Wages are rising faster in the UK. Its hard to say one country is doing much better than the other...

Using what as a measuring tool?

The unemployment rate is less in Britian, but GDP growth is higher in America. Its hard to say one country is doing much better than the other...

The fact that America is in serious recession and Britain isnt.

The fact that America is in serious recession.
We haven't been in a recession in over a year.

Maybe you forgot the definition of the word "fact".

Socialism has proven to be an utter flop. Compare capitalist Rhodesia, which had a robust, thriving economy, to communist Zimbabwe, with its 70% unemployment rate, inflation in excess of 600%, and mass starvation. Also, compare Chile under communist Salvador Allende (inflation over 500%) to Chile under Pinochet (Chile becoming the most prosperous country in Latin America).

No, the domino theory was correct. Don't believe me? Ask the Vietnamese, the Laotians, and the Cambodians.

Ask the Indonesians, PNGians and Singaporeans, look how communist they are. Don't tell me you honestly believe the Vietnamese and Chinese were greedily planning continental domination but never got around to it.

The domino theory was based on the irrational McCarthiast[sp?] fears of a great Euro-Asian Communist monolith that would devour all. What they failed to see were different nations of differing ideologies, that culminated with violent clashes.

Hell, part of the Viet Cong manifesto was a free and NEUTRAL Vietnam, as opposed to the pro-capitalist/fascist/american dictator of South Vietnam.

Just a few statistics to remind everyone of the true nature of Communism:
• USSR: 20 million deaths
• China: 65 million deaths
• Vietnam: 1 million deaths
• North Korea: 2 million deaths
• Cambodia: 2 million deaths
• Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
• Latin America: 150,000 deaths
• Africa: 1.7 million deaths
• Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
• Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.
There are those among us who would like to ignore these facts. It is telling that none of them are disputing the statistics. Wake up and smell the coffee. Communism is inherently evil and must be opposed.

Britain is doing better economicaly under a centre left government

What centre-left government is that then?

Ask the Indonesians, PNGians and Singaporeans, look how communist they are. Don't tell me you honestly believe the Vietnamese and Chinese were greedily planning continental domination but never got around to it.

That's not how the domino theory worked at all. The domino theory was a theory that, if any nation fell to communism, neighboring nations would immediately be in danger of having the same happen to them. The domino theory has proven correct in every case. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos all fell in quick succession, and during that period, communist insurgencies threatened Thailand and the Philippines. Once Angola and Mozambique fell to the communists, Rhodesia quickly followed, and eventually Namibia and South Africa. After Nicaragua was communized, El Salvador and Guatemala faced communist insurgencies.

Communism is inherently evil and must be opposed.

Nice to see you're objective and open to discussion.

Socialism has proven to be an utter flop. Compare capitalist Rhodesia, which had a robust, thriving economy, to communist Zimbabwe

Again I must repeat, only in the US: communism = socialism.

Just a few statistics to remind everyone of the true nature of Communism:
• USSR: 20 million deaths
• China: 65 million deaths
• Vietnam: 1 million deaths
• North Korea: 2 million deaths
• Cambodia: 2 million deaths
• Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
• Latin America: 150,000 deaths
• Africa: 1.7 million deaths
• Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
• Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.
There are those among us who would like to ignore these facts. It is telling that none of them are disputing the statistics. Wake up and smell the coffee. Communism is inherently evil and must be opposed.

COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Would you people PLEASE learn that fact.

Just a few statistics to remind everyone of the true nature of Communism:
• USSR: 20 million deaths
• China: 65 million deaths
• Vietnam: 1 million deaths
• North Korea: 2 million deaths
• Cambodia: 2 million deaths
• Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
• Latin America: 150,000 deaths
• Africa: 1.7 million deaths
• Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
• Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.
There are those among us who would like to ignore these facts. It is telling that none of them are disputing the statistics. Wake up and smell the coffee. Communism is inherently evil and must be opposed.

The number in the U.S.S.R. is over 50 million. The number in Vietnam is 2-3 million people killed by the communists (read Death by Government by Professor R.J. Rummel), and the Latin American number seems a little low.

Again I must repeat, only in the US: communism = socialism.

Communism is a form of socialism. I was comparing them economically, not politically. I never said socialism and communism were synonymous.

Communism is a form of socialism. I was comparing them economically, not politically. I never said socialism and communism were synonymous.

Communisim is socialism taken to its extreme. In the same way Fascism is conservativesim taken to its extreme. Both have serious flaws but I am not discssing the extremes.

Communism is a form of socialism. I was comparing them economically, not politically. I never said socialism and communism were synonymous.

Then why mention communism at all, when socialism is the topic? That's like mentioning anarcho-capitalism when regular capitalism is the issue; a skewing away from the topic, and pointless.

There is a clear delineation between communism and socialism.

Because a great deal of Americans on here think socialism and communism are the same thing, and both evil.

They are both evil. Someone already posted the death toll for communism. Socialism, while benign in theory, is legalized theft under the guise of helping the poor. People are robbed against their will, and their money is then given to people who did nothing to earn it.

McCarthy "I want to fight communists but not communism".

Means?

He wanted to use the communist card to discredit his opposition. When asked on Communism in europe and asia, McCarthy didn't care at all. He was merely serving his own interests and that of his supporters.

They are both evil. Someone already posted the death toll for communism. Socialism, while benign in theory, is legalized theft under the guise of helping the poor. People are robbed against their will, and their money is then given to people who did nothing to earn it.

Wow, you really believe that.

McCarthy "I want to fight communists but not communism".

You obviously know nothing about McCarthy.

That's not how the domino theory worked at all. The domino theory was a theory that, if any nation fell to communism, neighboring nations would immediately be in danger of having the same happen to them. The domino theory has proven correct in every case. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos all fell in quick succession, and during that period, communist insurgencies threatened Thailand and the Philippines. Once Angola and Mozambique fell to the communists, Rhodesia quickly followed, and eventually Namibia and South Africa. After Nicaragua was communized, El Salvador and Guatemala faced communist insurgencies.

You still fail to explain why i don't live in a communist country (Aus), because propaganda and physics dictated that dominos roll forward, maintainin momentum. What stopped them? Economics? You don't need money for a revolution, you need communists with more kitchen knives than government bullets.

Besides, if you look at the underlying (and in some cases short-lived) ideologies and policies of these "insurgents" you'll find the interests of the people at heart.

Yay!

Wow, you really believe that.

Taking something that belongs to someone else=theft

You obviously know nothing about McCarthy.

That's what he said. You can argue it all you like.

*Falls back on history degree*

You still fail to explain why i don't live in a communist country (Aus), because propaganda and physics dictated that dominos roll forward, maintainin momentum. What stopped them? Economics? You don't need money for a revolution, you need communists with more kitchen knives than government bullets.

Besides, if you look at the underlying (and in some cases short-lived) ideologies and policies of these "insurgents" you'll find the interests of the people at heart.

Yay!

The peples' interests at heart? Is that why so many millions of Asians fled Southeast Asia, or why over 150,000 people fled Nicaragua upon its takeover by the Sandinistas? Or why the communists had to resort to terrorism to achieve their goals?

Taking something that belongs to someone else=theft

Now, why does this simplistic hogwash not suprise me?

They are both evil. Someone already posted the death toll for communism. Socialism, while benign in theory, is legalized theft under the guise of helping the poor. People are robbed against their will, and their money is then given to people who did nothing to earn it.

Have you considered that a lot are not poor because of the fact that "they did not earn it". Poverty is much more complicated than that.

That's what he said. You can argue it all you like.

*Falls back on history degree*

Name your source.

Have you considered that a lot are not poor because of the fact that "they did not earn it". Poverty is much more complicated than that.

That's where private charity comes in, my friend.

The peples' interests at heart? Is that why so many millions of Asians fled Southeast Asia, or why over 150,000 people fled Nicaragua upon its takeover by the Sandinistas? Or why the communists had to resort to terrorism to achieve their goals?

3 things:

1. Not all socialists/communists are actually socialists/communists

2. Not all real socialists/communists are nice

3. How the #@$% else do you overthrow a fascist governent with the support of an imperial power...

That's where private charity comes in, my friend.

And you rearly believe that private charity has ever worked on a scale which would help an entire countries poor?

That's where private charity comes in, my friend.

Private charity is an outlet for those who feel/are seen as dirty by gaining their money through exploitation in which they wash themselves of guilt.

Name your source.

Dr Jonathan William Bell. The Liberal State on Trial: The Cold War and American Politics in the Truman Years (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004)

3 things:

1. Not all socialists/communists are actually socialists/communists

2. Not all real socialists/communists are nice

3. How the #@$% else do you overthrow a fascist governent with the support of an imperial power...

You obviously have no knowledge of what the word 'fascist' means.

Dr Jonathan William Bell. The Liberal State on Trial: The Cold War and American Politics in the Truman Years (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004)

Thanks.

Here are mine:

1.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Dr. Medford Evans
2.McCarthy and his Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell
3.McCarthy by Roy Cohn
4.The Lattimore Story by John T. Flynn
5.Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Likos
6.Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951
7.Joseph McCarthy : Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator by Arthur Herman
8.Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress by Joe McCarthy
9.McCarthyism: The Fight for America by Joe McCarthy
10.America's Retreat From Victory by Joe McCarthy
11.Who Killed Joe McCarthy? by William Bragg Ewald Jr.
12.What is Senator McCarthy Really Trying to Do? by John T. Flynn
13.The New American, May 11, 1987
14.Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Late a Senator From Wisconsin, Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress (published by the U.S. government printing office in 1957)

You obviously have no knowledge of what the word 'fascist' means.
Really, and what basis then do you have to tell me about socialism?

Thanks.

Here are mine:

1.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy by Dr. Medford Evans
2.McCarthy and his Enemies by William Buckley and Brent Bozell
3.McCarthy by Roy Cohn
4.The Lattimore Story by John T. Flynn
5.Who Promoted Peress? by Lionel Likos
6.Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy 1950-1951
7.Joseph McCarthy : Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator by Arthur Herman
8.Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress by Joe McCarthy
9.McCarthyism: The Fight for America by Joe McCarthy
10.America's Retreat From Victory by Joe McCarthy
11.Who Killed Joe McCarthy? by William Bragg Ewald Jr.
12.What is Senator McCarthy Really Trying to Do? by John T. Flynn
13.The New American, May 11, 1987
14.Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Late a Senator From Wisconsin, Memorial Addresses Delivered in Congress (published by the U.S. government printing office in 1957)

And none of them, contain that quote? Surprised. By the way, are you calling me a liar?

And none of them, contain that quote? Surprised. By the way, are you calling me a liar?

He isn't!

You provided his source and he provided you with his.

BTW: I'm going for a history major of my own as well as a Political Science Degree.

And none of them, contain that quote? Surprised. By the way, are you calling me a liar?

Not at all. Those books don't contain that quote, but they do show the real McCarthy, who was far from the demon our communist media portrays him as.

He isn't!

You provided his source and he provided you with his.

BTW: I'm going for a history major of my own as well as a Political Science Degree.

His source for what(?) IS I am saying. I provided my source for where I read that quoter. What was he trying to prove? That he's read books? Good for him.

Not at all. Those books don't contain that quote, but they do show the real McCarthy, who was far from the demon our communist media portrays him as.

I never said he was a demon.

What he was, was a failed lawyer who turned to politics and blackened the name of other politicians with a "label" in order to improve his own ends.

No different to most politicians nowadays.

For the record, I am a centrist btw.

Communist media? Never seen those two together in such a positve sentence

The private sector handles money much better than any government, simply because if companies waste, misplace, and mismanage thier money they go out of buisness. So the private sector when involved in matters of charity, planing for riterement, utilities, and so on has to do a good job or people will contract other companies. This is not possible with government which wastes money at an astounding rate. Socialism scares us because its unAnmerican in that it is unfair and achieved at the price of personal liberties. Socialism robs the rich to give to the poor. The rich aka buisness owners are then inclined to lower wages and raise prices of goods and services, this ultimately puts everyone in a less than desirable situation relying on the government for handouts, subsidies, and so on. The only thing we need government for is providing justice by maintaing courts and a police force, national defence, and certain aspects of public transportation. More government involvment leads to less personal responsibility, less dignity, and less rights.

That's why America, wheather consiously or not, opposes socialism.

But capitalism still instills a measureable class system upon the populace, as oposed to the equal opportunity that a socialist system presents. (Assuming the whole Ogliarchy/Stalinism crap doesn't come into play)

I never said he was a demon.

I never said you did. However, most NSers think he was one, which is why I listed the sources before the communists came in.

What he was, was a failed lawyer who turned to politics and blackened the name of other politicians with a "label" in order to improve his own ends.

Every person McCarthy called a spy was just that. Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, Mary Jane Keeney, Annie Lee Moss, John Carter Vincent, Philip Jessup, Irving Peress, Gustavo Duran, etc.

But capitalism still instills a measureable class system upon the populace

A class system that people can go up and down on freely.

I never said you did. However, most NSers think he was one, which is why I listed the sources before the communists came in.



Every person McCarthy called a spy was just that. Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, Mary Jane Keeney, Annie Lee Moss, John Carter Vincent, Philip Jessup, Irving Peress, Gustavo Duran, etc.

I never said he was inaccurate did I?

A class system that people can go up and down on freely.

*Applause*

*Hands Corneliu an ubercookie*

A class system that people can go up and down on freely.
Depends on the level of education, which can be impacted on by how much money you have.

I never said he was inaccurate did I?

No, you didn't. But you did say he 'labeled' politicians to achieve his own end, or something to that effect.

*Applause*

*Hands Corneliu an ubercookie*

*Enjoys his ubercookie* :)

Depends on the level of education, which can be impacted on by how much money you have.

Tell that to the owner of the Jacksonvile Jaguars.

*Applause*

*Hands Corneliu an ubercookie*
wow, someone came up with a relavent come-back for you...

No, you didn't. But you did say he 'labeled' politicians to achieve his own end, or something to that effect.

Those were what I believe to have been his motives. Naivety would suggest he didnt stand to gain from it.

The private sector handles money much better than any government, simply because if companies waste, misplace, and mismanage thier money they go out of buisness.

Surprisingly enough this does not seem to be necessarily the case in several European countries. IMO the Dutch goverment was better at running the Dutch railroads than the privatised company is for example. Same can be said about cable-tv providers and electric companies. Then again, it is indeed quite horribly inefficient in other areas.

And of course the question "is efficiency everything" becomes iomportant here. The government ideally sees the need of the population as a whole, while a company focusses on its own interests. Maybe a less efficient organisation can have beneficial effects which would be of no interest to a company. Creating jobs elsewhere for instance. Or reducing pollution.

Tell that to the owner of the Jacksonvile Jaguars.
Do tell...

Anyone in America can get an education. Government grants, numerous easily obtainable scholarships, and a little bit of work can put anyone through a state school, which are generally very nice and accept most in-state students.

I personally know people that have gone from destitute poverty to wealthy medical doctors and buisness men.

Anyone with a plan can start their own buisness with a low interest loan having little or no education and still do quite well.

Socialism isn't fair for the people who work the hardest in society.

I suppose that silence is meant for suspense right?

Do tell...

OK I Will:

Wayne Weaver:

In 1978 he walked away from being Whoel Shoe Company! He was their NUMBER 2 man.

Founded Nine West

Bought Liz Claiborne Footwear while at the sametime launching the Jacksonville Jaguars.

He never graduated from college.

Its all in the Super Bowl XXXIX Program I bought yesterday.

The private sector handles money much better than any government, simply because if companies waste, misplace, and mismanage thier money they go out of buisness. So the private sector when involved in matters of charity, planing for riterement, utilities, and so on has to do a good job or people will contract other companies. This is not possible with government which wastes money at an astounding rate. Socialism scares us because its unAnmerican in that it is unfair and achieved at the price of personal liberties. Socialism robs the rich to give to the poor. The rich aka buisness owners are then inclined to lower wages and raise prices of goods and services, this ultimately puts everyone in a less than desirable situation relying on the government for handouts, subsidies, and so on. The only thing we need government for is providing justice by maintaing courts and a police force, national defence, and certain aspects of public transportation. More government involvment leads to less personal responsibility, less dignity, and less rights.

That's why America, wheather consiously or not, opposes socialism.

Poverty is not just based on those who dont work hard, as seems to be the common American belief. Because of that the government needs to introduce systems which help people to get into work and support them while they are not. The British new deal system works that way, gives people unemployment benefits but only if they can prove they are actively looking for a job and puts them on a database for job offers. You can support people and they dont become dependent. Also, surely if you consider that taxing the rich to help benefiting the poor is "steeling", surely you oppose the nature of taxing at all, regardless of where its going. The government is taking something from you which belongs to you?

Socialism isn't fair for the people who work the hardest in society.

Could you give an any more baseless comment.

Socialism isn't fair for the people who work the hardest in society.

Qunatify "hard work". Manual labour often pays much less than corprate fianance work.

I oppose graduated income tax, flat tax rates without large loop-holes are the only fair taxes. Unemployment benifits are one thing, but full blown welfare is the all consuming beast I was attacking. The US and Britain are very different countries obviously, so what works for one may not work for the other. There is certainly no shortage of jobs here so MOST Americans without disabilities have no excuse for not working other than a desire to live off of the government. Now, I understand the for an economy to be healthy a certain percent of the work force must be unemployed, it is a symptom of economic growth and expansion.

Just a few statistics to remind everyone of the true nature of Communism:
• USSR: 20 million deaths
• China: 65 million deaths
• Vietnam: 1 million deaths
• North Korea: 2 million deaths
• Cambodia: 2 million deaths
• Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
• Latin America: 150,000 deaths
• Africa: 1.7 million deaths
• Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
• Communist movements or parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths
Nearly 100 million deaths. Not casualties of war, but civilian slaughter. Deaths in gulags and concentration camps. Deaths from a bullet to the head. Most of all, deaths by starvation - the result either of planned famines, meted out as punishment to internal foes (as in Stalin's USSR), or unintended consequences of central policy.
There are those among us who would like to ignore these facts. It is telling that none of them are disputing the statistics. Wake up and smell the coffee. Communism is inherently evil and must be opposed.
nobody has picked you up on this yet...but most (if not all) of those werent communist countries.

they said they were communist, they claimed they were communist, but they werent communist - only in theory

take the example of the USSR under Stalin. thats a Stalinist coutnry, not a communist country

true communism doesnt kill people like that

Qunatify "hard work". Manual labour often pays much less than corprate fianance work.

Hard work means more than physically demanding work. Hard work in American society often refers to working towards one's own social and economical advancement. Not only through a job but furtherance of education or training.

MOST Americans without disabilities have no excuse for not working other than a desire to live off of the government

Can you prove that? Also poverty stems from a great many other sources than lazyness. Also would you oppose the British new deal system being applied in America. IE the Government setting up a large database of job vacencies and putting people on this database to match them up with jobs and only giving them unemployment benefit if they could prove that they were actively searching for a job.

nobody has picked you up on this yet...but most (if not all) of those werent communist countries.

they said they were communist, they claimed they were communist, but they werent communist - only in theory

take the example of the USSR under Stalin. thats a Stalinist coutnry, not a communist country

true communism doesnt kill people like that

True communism and communism in pracitce are very different things yes, but since every example of communism for the last 100 years has been violent and murderous ture communism seems increasingly more like and impossibility. Communism as we all know it outside of theory is opressive.

Hard work means more than physically demanding work. Hard work in American society often refers to working towards one's own social and economical advancement. Not only through a job but furtherance of education or training.

Nice question doging. You said that socialism is unfair to those who work hardest in society. I ask you how you quantify working hard and you say the one with the most money? Ok, so how do you judge who gets the most money? By those who work the hardest etc...

Can you prove that? Also poverty stems from a great many other sources than lazyness. Also would you oppose the British new deal system being applied in America. IE the Government setting up a large database of job vacencies and putting people on this database to match them up with jobs and only giving them unemployment benefit if they could prove that they were actively searching for a job.

I understand that the cause of poverty isn't nesecarily a result of laziness, but poverty in a free market is perpetuated and worsened by laziness in conjunction with bloated beaurocracy.

I am not well enough informed about Britian's new deal to either support or oppose it, only to say that the American system has worked for over two hundred years based on limited government involvment.

True communism and communism in pracitce are very different things yes, but since every example of communism for the last 100 years has been violent and murderous ture communism seems increasingly more like and impossibility. Communism as we all know it outside of theory is opressive.
mainly because none of the countries got to communism the way they are meant to (ie through a slow progressive change), but instead went with revolution - which installed a dictator.

most definitely in contradiction of communist ideals...they ended up excessively authoritarian

so, im going to wait for a proper communist state to arise before i make judgements on whether or not communism can work in practice if its given a proper chance

Karl Marx farther of modern communism writer of The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital called for violent revolution in these documents, slaughter of the middle and upper class, the clergy, and the educated by the working man.

don't tell me that communism isn't intended to come into existence through violent revolution.

I am not well enough informed about Britian's new deal to either support or oppose it, only to say that the American system has worked for over two hundred years based on limited government involvment.

I just "Informed" you. But to make it clear, here is how it works

- The government gives out unemployment benefit to those who need it
- However in order to prove you need it, you have to prove that you are seekign a job
- If you cannot prove you are searching for a job, your benefits are revoked
- You prove you are seeking a job via aquiring proof of job interivews/aplications and a series set apointments with a civil servent in a job centre

Basicly its benefits, but only if you look for work for them.

Also, the American system has proberbly created one of the largest rich-poor divides ever known. I am unsure why that is a good thing.

Karl Marx farther of modern communism writer of The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital called for violent revolution in these documents, slaughter of the middle and upper class, the clergy, and the educated by the working man.

don't tell me that communism isn't intended to come into existence through violent revolution.
communism should come through two stages...first by the middle classes gaining the most political power, and then the working classes

a violent revolution upsets society far too much and invariably ends in an oppressive dicatatorship - a gradual change is what communism needs to work

Karl Marx farther of modern communism writer of The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital called for violent revolution in these documents, slaughter of the middle and upper class, the clergy, and the educated by the working man.

don't tell me that communism isn't intended to come into existence through violent revolution.

For the [insert large number here]th time, we are discussing SOCIALSIM NOT COMMUNISIM. Go regail someone else with the evils of communism. Thats not what this thread is about.

The divide of rich and poor in America isn't really as large as people in Europe percieve it. It has only increased to the point that it has due to government interferance since WWII. Baring the depression which was niether caused exasorbated or helped by any politician, but rather world events America had a very well balnced economy and one of the world's largest middle classes.

In my opinion the sucess of a democracy is the size and prosperity of the middle class not the difference between rich and poor.

Reguarding Britain's New Deal, for me to consider myself truely informed I would like to know more of the specifics and numbers. I try not to form opinions about things I don't have a pretty firm grip on.

For the [insert large number here]th time, we are discussing SOCIALSIM NOT COMMUNISIM. Go regail someone else with the evils of communism. Thats not what this thread is about.


I'm not regailing anyone, only discussing economic theory that is quite relevant to socialism. I didn't even bring up the topic of communism.

I'm not regailing anyone, only discussing economic theory that is quite relevant to socialism. I didn't even bring up the topic of communism.

By that logic, Facism is relevent to conservatism. Communism and Facism are extreme forms of the left and right wing respectively.

You all seem like you could use hugs :D .

I'm curious, does socialism make people grumpy?

:fluffle:

Group hug time!!

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Americans, for the most part, are brain-dead and don't know the beauty of socialism.

there is nothing beautiful about socialism. Socialism is legalized robbery by envious people to get money from those who actually work and earn money.

And the US does have a socialist party, they're called Democrats and they put one commie after another up for president. John Kerry being the latest, Al 'Greenie' Bore the previous one.

WE DEFEATED COMMUNISM BY DEFEATING KERRY!

By that logic, Facism is relevent to conservatism. Communism and Facism are extreme forms of the left and right wing respectively.

quite wrong actually, historically speaking it was socialism that spawned forth both communism and fascism.

Both communism and fascism brought forth totalitarian states with one party rule and programmes of mass killing of either class opponents (communism) or racial enemies (fascism). Both relied on a massive repressive state police to keep track of enemies, both despised democracy, both ideologies were expansionist. Strangely enough, even though both killed millions, only one is hated and the other (communism) is not, and I disagree with that. Communism should be despised also.

The main differences between communism and fascism are that communism is internationalist while fascism put nationalism first. It can be argued that during WW II the Soviet Union became a fascist state.

Fascism and communism are very much alike, and only have a few differences.

The man who 'founded' fascism was Mussolini, an extreme left wing socialist so radical that the socialist party threw him out. He founded his own party with a radical socialist programme which, quite unusual for socialism, was also a strong nationalist party. Hitlers NSDAP platform contained radical socialist ideas, added to the nationalist and racist elements.

there is nothing beautiful about socialism. Socialism is legalized robbery by envious people to get money from those who actually work and earn money.

And the US does have a socialist party, they're called Democrats and they put one commie after another up for president. John Kerry being the latest, Al 'Greenie' Bore the previous one.

WE DEFEATED COMMUNISM BY DEFEATING KERRY!
the Democrats are about as socialist as the British Conservative Party....ie, not at all socialist

you dont know what socialism is

the Democrats are about as socialist as the British Conservative Party....ie, not at all socialist

you dont know what socialism is

yes I do, and i don't like it:

socialism: envious and/or lazy people legalizing theft by taking money from honest hard working people to give to the lazy bums and illegal immigrants

...here is how it works

- The government gives out unemployment benefit to those who need it
- However in order to prove you need it, you have to prove that you are seekign a job
- If you cannot prove you are searching for a job, your benefits are revoked
- You prove you are seeking a job via aquiring proof of job interivews/aplications and a series set apointments with a civil servent in a job centre

Basicly its benefits, but only if you look for work for them.

FYI- that is how the US unemployment agencies currently work.

yes I do, and i don't like it:

socialism: envious and/or lazy people legalizing theft by taking money from honest hard working people to give to the lazy bums and illegal immigrants
you used the democrats as an example of democrats, and called Kerry a communist

they democrats are definitely not socialist

taking money from hard working people to feed lazy people?

its more like taking money from rich businessmen who spend all day sitting in an office and make millions a year, and giving some of it to people who spend the day doing manual labour and stuff like that but still dont earn enough to support their family

or those who have been fired because the rich business man didnt need them anymore, and havent been able to get a job

FYI- that is how the US unemployment agencies currently work.

Ive only stated the basics, it gets more complicated

Debunked?

Like.... ohhhh ..... the way Canada spends less per-capita in federal dollars on health care and yet can afford to make it both universal AND have better longevity and infant mortality rates?

No. Like the way Canada is a fart in the wind as far as being relevant to my statement about the poster's intentions!

Hey, I am just interested. Dont go mocking all Europeans. Besides, Britain is doing better economicaly under a centre left government than America is under a right wing one ATM

Sorry, I was under the impression you had an honest a historical inquiry, not just another excuse for a transatlantic pissing contest. My question remains unanswered, though: why can't you accept the fact that there is no one "true path" that all western countries have followed, that historical experiences on one continent should not be expected to be duplicated on another? It isn't about who's right. North America has its uber-capitalist system, Europe its mild socialism, Eurasia's apparently always been locked into some form of authoritarianism regardless of its economic systems, and then there's the third world, which is just a patchwork of fuckups largely the work of European and American meddling. Each is the product of distinct histories, not just some deviation from the "golden mean." Frankly, I used to wonder the opposite thing about Europe -- what's wrong with those weird Europeans? What accident caused them to veer off so far to the left? -- before I realized it's just a stupid question, because Europe Is Not America.

Now, if you're actually interested in explaining the differences, try a comparative approach. Where was European socialism in, say, 1850? What was going on in Europe then? Compare that to America. There's your answer.

I was going to wax lyrical on this..but...The USA has no need to investigate socialism...it was "birthed" fully formed from a desire of the common man to be free. Its system is not perfect , its still reinventing itself on a daily basis. But in the long haul (human nature being what it is) I see it outliving some nebulous concept of mutual misery.

And you rearly believe that private charity has ever worked on a scale which would help an entire countries poor?

absolutely. Charity between relatives and friends. Charity from religious organizations. From community groups. There is a ton of it.

I think on this matter the Hartz thesis remains the best answer. He certainly overlooked some things, such as the republican and evangelical traditions in America, but he basically had us pegged.

It's because socialism doesn't work. Plain and simple.

Our country use to be a battle between federalist and anti-federalist. They debated on the power of the federal government, but both wanted the size of it's finanaces very limited. Essentially we were born a libertarian country, and that meme (or idea) is very prevalent in America.

Most Americans accept Capitalism, and understand that a system of socialism is not part of their history and they remain very weary of it. Our culture was born on the idea of 'working for a living,' and not just deserving it. I'm very proud that we were born under ideas of Individualism, and I just won't see it as America if it becomes something other than that.

As long as we don't forget our history, we'll be okay....

I just "Informed" you. But to make it clear, here is how it works

- The government gives out unemployment benefit to those who need it
- However in order to prove you need it, you have to prove that you are seekign a job
- If you cannot prove you are searching for a job, your benefits are revoked
- You prove you are seeking a job via aquiring proof of job interivews/aplications and a series set apointments with a civil servent in a job centre

Basicly its benefits, but only if you look for work for them.

Also, the American system has proberbly created one of the largest rich-poor divides ever known. I am unsure why that is a good thing.
The statements that you highlughted with this - ,to my knowledge, mirror umemployment benefiets in the US.

Also what level of divide between the rich and poor is acceptable?

It's because socialism doesn't work. Plain and simple.

Its sweeping generalisations like that that make people angry

Also, tell that to the British Government.

Most Americans accept Capitalism, and understand that a system of socialism is not part of their history and they remain very weary of it. Our culture was born on the idea of 'working for a living,' and not just deserving it. I'm very proud that we were born under ideas of Individualism, and I just won't see it as America if it becomes something other than that.

As long as we don't forget our history, we'll be okay....

- Poverty does not just come out of "not working". Many Americans are to oversimplistic about this. It is cultural and social, and many families are sipley born into a cycle of poverty, each generation having the same problem. Poverty does not have one cause. Please understand this

- Wouldnt you agree that there is a certian standard of living everyone should expect.

Simple really.

This country was founded on beliefs that oppose Socialism. Capitalism, Freedom of Speech, Christianity (Say Freedom of Religion if you want but this country was found on Christian beliefs, as are most of the Western Powers.) and as has been proved time and time again, socialism/communism/marxism is not applicable in the real world, certainly not for a world power. Here are some examples:

USSR: Collapsed, gone, only lasted 76 years.
Cuba: Still in shambles, partly due to the US Sanctions, but hey, that's life.
Vietnam: The only true socialist success, and it is still a poor country.
North Korea: North Korea has been going through the shitter while South Korea (democratic, capitalist) has prospered, in statistics we would call that a matched pairs test and it clearly shows that when people are free to do as they please they tend to be much happier and much more productive.
China: Once they start introducing democratic reforms their economy starts to go through the roof, now that they are all but capitalist (Chinese Communism is a joke, it just doesn't exist anymore.) their economy will soon rival America's.
Others: Tens, if not hundreds of failed coups by Marxists in the America's, Asia, and Africa.

Socialism is a flawed system only because man is flawed, it can work in small groups and poor countries, but not in a large, technologically advanced country, but for a country like Vietnam it works great

It's because socialism doesn't work. Plain and simple.
Based on what? The travesty in Russia claiming communism and communism is of course the same as socialism?

USSR: Collapsed, gone, only lasted 76 years.
Cuba: Still in shambles, partly due to the US Sanctions, but hey, that's life.
Vietnam: The only true socialist success, and it is still a poor country.
North Korea: North Korea has been going through the shitter while South Korea (democratic, capitalist) has prospered, in statistics we would call that a matched pairs test and it clearly shows that when people are free to do as they please they tend to be much happier and much more productive.
China: Once they start introducing democratic reforms their economy starts to go through the roof, now that they are all but capitalist (Chinese Communism is a joke, it just doesn't exist anymore.) their economy will soon rival America's.
Others: Tens, if not hundreds of failed coups by Marxists in the America's, Asia, and Africa.

Socialism is a flawed system only because man is flawed, it can work in small groups and poor countries, but not in a large, technologically advanced country, but for a country like Vietnam it works great

SOCIALISIM IS NOT COMMUNISM. Would you people PLEASE understand that!

SOCIALISIM IS NOT COMMUNISM. Would you people PLEASE understand that!

I know Socialism is not Communism.

It's Communism Light. It's just like Communism, just minus the brutal dictatorships, the gulags, and fierce nationalism. Of course, it has a few added side affects(such as less loyalty to ones country and more hippies), but it still has the same affects you've always loved: Free health-care for the unworthy, an erroded sense of indivuality, and huge taxes!

Order some Communism Light(otherwise known as Socialism) from Happy-go-lucky Economic Systems for only 10,000 payments of $19.95!*

Call NOW!

1-900-SOCIALISM-4-ME

Shipping and Handeling not included
*Minus taxes. With taxes, its 10,000 payments of $40.00

I know Socialism is not Communism.

It's Communism Light. It's just like Communism, just minus the brutal dictatorships, the gulags, and fierce nationalism. Of course, it has a few added side affects(such as less loyalty to ones country and more hippies), but it still has the same affects you've always loved: Free health-care for the unworthy, an erroded sense of indivuality, and huge taxes!

Order some Communism Light(otherwise known as Socialism) from Happy-go-lucky Economic Systems for only 10,000 payments of $19.95!

Call NOW!

1-900-SOCIALISM-4-ME
Well, rather huge taxes to support huge social programs than moderate taxes going into blackholes and money being conjured up from thin air to spend on stuff

Well, rather huge taxes to support huge social programs than moderate taxes going into blackholes and money being conjured up from thin air to spend on stuff

Are you talking about our new product Capitalism? If so, you must have stolen the money from our top-secret labs, so now we will sue you for $1,000,000,000,000. Have a nice day!

(If you don't get this joke, then you obviously don't know anything about Capitalism. At least American Capitalism)

Why isn't the US a welfare state? It's very complex, and an amusing road to go down, but I think I can get at least to the basics.

Almost all American's can trace their ancestors only so far in this country. We're a nation of immigrants and their descendents.

These immigrants, they were ambitious people. They were very often too ambitious for the social structure in which they lived. They were quite truly being held down for various reasons in the old world, either by aristocracy or just plain class immobility. So, they saw something in the west. A new nation, lacking the well developed forms that they had so come to despise. But it was risky, but these immigrants were risk takers, they were ambitious and they came in droves to the US. They made a gamble.

They were given opportunities that some could have never imagined. Polish peasants could, for the very first time, own their very own land, and not owe this ownership to a Magnate. The Irish fled famine and oppression, and while they found hard labor, they also found freedom, they were allowed to make their way however they wanted. The Chinese saw something they could have never imagined on the American west coast in California, they saw freedom from a failing system, that was being ripped apart by outside powers, even though they faced racism, they were courageous, they worked hard, and they eventually climbed the ladder. Today, immigrants from Latin America and Africa seek to live here, they see freedom from corrupt regimes, and such, they still face problems, but they are willing to take on the challenge.

And who were these immigrants? The rich and famous? No! These people were the one's down the totem pole, they were merchants, skilled craftsment, peasants and day laborers. They were, and still are common people, who have made a nation with their own sweat and blood. And the fact that Americans realize that our own families, were the one's who made this nation, not some far off prince or king, but that they were the one's who did it, that the nation is derived from individuals, this is most certainly a factor.

Now, one might wonder, what does this have to do with today? It has to do with the main mode of transmission of values, the family. Many Americans were taught that they could do anything with their lives. But that it was their responsibility, and if they needed help to get it on their own. America is still a nation with a tremendous amount of the "bootstrap ethic." A belief that your life is your own, and it's your job to make it better. That if you surrender this responsibility, you surrender yourself. And that's not something I'm willing to do, are you?


That sounds psychotically patriotic, I know, I wrote it off the cuff, but I hope it helps the discussion.


And, if the cold war played any role in this at all, the only effect it had was to perhaps make this pre-existing situation stronger.

So, in view of this piece, the obvious counter arguement is then, why did the US start down the road in the first place?

It's easy to tell. The things done by the Roosevelt administration are often misconstrued as being attempts to lead the US down the road to socialism, but they were really attempts to stop it in it's tracks. Roosevelt was concerned, and the quote "I'm that kind of liberal because I'm that kind of conservative" gives us a far better idea of what he was doing.

How about Johnson? This one's more obvious. What happened was the US was reaching into the pit of doubt, the US was struggling with the scourge of outright segregation, we were locked in what seemed to be a death-struggle with the Soviet Union, we were in a war that was increasingly unpopular that didn't seem to have any direct effect on us and a million other things. Until the 1980's Americans did suffer from the Malaise Jimmey Carter told us of. That's why we started down the road.

But, it should be noted that Americans don't lack a sense of social justice, they just have a different sense of social justice than Europeans. You see, America was hit by the libertarian revolution in a much more powerful manner than Europeans, as a result of the previously described attitudes, we Americans fell in with the theories of Nozick and Friedman. We came to believe that justice was the result of the mutual consent between two or more free individuals. That individual choice had everything to do with justice, and that a just distribution was not one that was engineered by the state or someone else, but is created every time you or I exchange labor for money, or money for goods. We do it freely, and if we didn't like the rate of exchange, then we wouldn't do so.

This image was embraced by so many Americans. We felt the pallor of the American Malaise lifted. We saw hope again. Ronald Reagan, an old man was beaming with a pride in our nation and our way of life that seemed to break through the dark clouds of the cold war, and all sorts of other problems of the times. I wouldn't know this from first hand experience, I was born in 1985 after all, but from the accounts of so many older people, my parents, my grandparents, my aunts, uncles, all sorts of different people, they saw hope. And in this hope America embraced Reagan and economic libertarianism, and we haven't gone back since.

It's been twenty-five years since Reagan won the Presidency, and while the various conceptions still see-saw back and forth on a this, we are still on the same path we chose twenty five years ago.


Wow, that really sounds Reagan worshiping, I'm not really that fanatical...

[QUOTE]- Poverty does not just come out of "not working". Many Americans are to oversimplistic about this. It is cultural and social, and many families are sipley born into a cycle of poverty, each generation having the same problem. Poverty does not have one cause. Please understand this

Why shouldn't I understand this? I was in a very, very, poor family. We nearly lost our house many times. Often I wore the same clothing for years. I recall the talk my family had, and the fear of not having a place to live. So I'm not oversimplifying anything.

- Wouldnt you agree that there is a certian standard of living everyone should expect.

No, not by force. We got help from our family and from I heard later on...charity. We were humble enough to ask those we cared about, and those whom really cared...we didn't steal from anyone.

This sort of point of view makes me mad, honestly. Everyone assumes I always was a middle class American whom never saw trouble in my life, and says 'well, people deserve it, and you wouldn't understand.'...fuck that. Do they even donate to charity? Have they ever influenced people on the high-end of their jobs to have charity fundraisers, and really help society? Probably not.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm done far more than most people, and I don't plan to revert to some brute form of benevolence.

I know Socialism is not Communism.

It's Communism Light. It's just like Communism, just minus the brutal dictatorships, the gulags, and fierce nationalism. Of course, it has a few added side affects(such as less loyalty to ones country and more hippies), but it still has the same affects you've always loved: Free health-care for the unworthy, an erroded sense of indivuality, and huge taxes!

Order some Communism Light(otherwise known as Socialism) from Happy-go-lucky Economic Systems for only 10,000 payments of $19.95!*

Call NOW!

1-900-SOCIALISM-4-ME

Shipping and Handeling not included
*Minus taxes. With taxes, its 10,000 payments of $40.00

Thats like saying Facisim is conservatism light. It is by your definition. Wake up and smell the RED roses, Britian has been under many a socialist governement and does well. Do you want me to lump America with Nazi Germany?

Who does not deserve healthcare? Why should anyones chances of life be based on how much money they earn.

Why shouldn't I understand this? I was in a very, very, poor family. We nearly lost our house many times. Often I wore the same clothing for years. I recall the talk my family had, and the fear of not having a place to live. So I'm not oversimplifying anything.


You said "Our culture was born on the idea of 'working for a living,' and not just deserving it" implying that you beleieved the poor were only poor because they were not working hard enough.


No, not by force. We got help from our family and from I heard later on...charity. We were humble enough to ask those we cared about, and those whom really cared...we didn't steal from anyone.

Are you calling tax theft


This sort of point of view makes me mad, honestly. Everyone assumes I always was a middle class American whom never saw trouble in my life, and says 'well, people deserve it, and you wouldn't understand.'...fuck that. Do they even donate to charity? Have they ever influenced people on the high-end of their jobs to have charity fundraisers, and really help society? Probably not.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm done far more than most people, and I don't plan to revert to some brute form of benevolence.

People like this may not BE ABLE to contribute to society. By society helping them, they may be able to help society. And many of them are in key low paid jobs, but still in poverty.

I think this has gone *a bit off topic*. since when did capitalism and communism get involved? i also saw that someone mentioned things *screw up* when you have an oligarchy. exactly how is america not an oligarchy? *ruled by the few*. in america you need money to get anywhere in life. money means everything, without money and donations from companies to win an election, you most certainly wouldn't get into government. people who become citizens of the united states but who were born in a different country aren't allowed to ever become the president.

and whats this i heard about defeating socailism and defeating al gore? al gore got more votes than george bush, and should have also got more electoral points. but you know when *jed bush* said he would *deliver flordia to his brother* he most certainly meant it in an undemocractic way.

england's ecomony *at the moment* certainly is performing better than america. at the moment the dollar is weak, and central banks are starting to change their reseves from dollars to other currencies, such as the sterling, euro and yen. the dollar *at the moment* shows no signs of strengthening and if something isn't done soon (like invade iran and change their reserves back... just like iraq) then america could be in for some problems.

lastly on topic, americans who are out of work get paid money by the government... that is socailism, why don't you see this as evil??

In the middle of the Cold War, secret treaties were made between Russia and America. However, America didn't release this info to the general public, because the theories of people like Donald Rumsfeld knew that if people were afraid, you could make them do anything. Look at how people have reacted to the Patriot Act - a lot have said that they can give up some rights if it means to eradicate the terrorist threat. Let's get one thing straight. There is no terrorist threat. Are you going to believe the Government when they say that Osama conducted 9/11 from a bed and a dialysis machine (Osama's had kidney problems for a fair few years)?

The administration at the moment doesn't want a socialist government because it means less money for the rich people at the top of the chain of America - who the tax cuts go towards. Socialism means fairness, and fairness means less money. Conservatives are all about "me." And the rich ones, the ones that run the USA, they don't like the flow of money to them being slightly hindered by socialism.

Welcome to humanity's engine. The Greed Turbocharge is just around the corner.

You said "Our culture was born on the idea of 'working for a living,' and not just deserving it" implying that you beleieved the poor were only poor because they were not working hard enough.

Actually, I could live with mild socialism....if it was temporary and if it meant a person had to put effort into being independent. I live in California, and it's disguisting how many people manipulate the system.

I wasn't imply that it merely was the non-working. I understand the situation more than most.


Are you calling tax theft

Yes.


People like this may not BE ABLE to contribute to society. By society helping them, they may be able to help society. And many of them are in key low paid jobs, but still in poverty.

Yet I still see some rise and others faulter. The most libertarians in this country are black (percentage wise). They hold the biggest percentage to their population in comparison to white people's percentage. I've know many that have went through simliar things and they understand that the government has been their societies problem. And thank god they finally don't need them. I'm proud of these people.

I believe american society naturally opposes socialism for many reasons.

1. Many of our enemies have been socialist or communist.

2. Americans don't believe in paying high taxes.

3. We don't believe in giving money to people who haven't earned it.

4. Socialism erodes your sense of individualism, which was what this country was founded upon(although it doesn't erode individualism nearly as much as communism)

5. We like money to ourselves.

Speak for yourself.

Thats like saying Facisim is conservatism light. It is by your definition. Wake up and smell the RED roses, Britian has been under many a socialist governement and does well. Do you want me to lump America with Nazi Germany?

Who does not deserve healthcare? Why should anyones chances of life be based on how much money they earn.

In America everyone has access to healthcare. You can not be refused healthcare because you have no money/insurance or other means of payment. If you are sick and need a doctors assistance you can get it.

Liberals and Europeans have constantly lumped America with Nazi Germany. So why would you be any different.

There is no terrorist threat. Are you going to believe the Government when they say that Osama conducted 9/11 from a bed and a dialysis machine (Osama's had kidney problems for a fair few years)?

HAHAHA you got to be kidding me right? You do know that Moore is not an historian and majority of his "Facts" have been disproved. If you believe what Moore has to say, I have a condo on the beach in Cuba for you. Real cheap too

edit: Realized I didn't post why I chose what I did.

I like many others here that have already posted. Believe that it is just not in Americans to accept such a system of Government that wishes to punish those that are successful. It has been that way since the first settlers landed here.

A class system that people can go up and down on freely.

I don't post often on English forums, because my English is not so good... but I just have to react on this. I think it's the most naive sentence I've ever read.

If people could really go up and down freely on this class system... why are there poor people then? It's not just because some people are too lazy to work. It's far more complex than that. Some people are just born in an other kind of social environment (poor ghettos). They don't manage to go up on the class system, because they THINK they can't. They have no faith in society, they don't believe in education. That's not their choice. They're just brainwashed by what they see and hear every day. That's because they don't have the possibility to get good education, outside of the ghetto they live in. Here in Belgium, primary school and high school are free and everyone can go to the school they want, even if it's the other side of the country. That's what I call freedom.

How "free" is American capitalism, if your entire life depends on where you were born and how lucky you are?

I call it "American capitalism", because European socialism is also capitalistic. We have a class system too. The only difference is that in Belgium, people get support from the government if they really need it. This way, poor people also get the possibility of going up the class system.

Also, there's a very big difference between communism and socialism. In a communist country, people aren't really free, because they are not seen as individuals. They are merely seen as parts of a big machine that can only work if everyone does what's expected from them. This also means that you can't get rich in a communist country. In socialist countries, there is a free market, there is concurrence, there are multi-nationals, there are very rich people, ... it has nothing to do with communism.

(I hope my English is not too bad :))

I don't post often on English forums, because my English is not so good... but I just have to react on this. I think it's the most naive sentence I've ever read.

So far your english is good. Now its time for me to disect your comments.

If people could really go up and down freely on this class system... why are there poor people then? It's not just because some people are too lazy to work. It's far more complex than that. Some people are just born in an other kind of social environment (poor ghettos). They don't manage to go up on the class system, because they THINK they can't. They have no faith in society, they don't believe in education. That's not their choice. They're just brainwashed by what they see and hear every day. That's because they don't have the possibility to get good education, outside of the ghetto they live in. Here in Belgium, primary school and high school are free and everyone can go to the school they want, even if it's the other side of the country. That's what I call freedom.

If you work hard enough, you can beat being poor. Yes, poor people have a disadvantage but not as big a one as people claim they have. They have to work that much harder to succeed and they are committed to it, they will make out in the end. The problem is, many poor people, not all but some, are happy to live off of government handouts. The others just don't have what it takes. Some of these people do need a helping hand and most do get it through special scholarships. As for not having faith, I don't agree with it. I find that most of these people are probably more religious and think that God will provide them with their necessities. As for no possibility having a good education, that is incorrect. As I said before, there are special scholarships for people to get a good education. As for Education, President Bush (May God Bless him), has made it possible for parents that are IN a failed school system to have their child transfer to a better school. This has help several kids but since it is relatively new, it'll be awhile before stats come out for it. Just because people are poor DOES NOT mean that they are in a hopeless situation. They just have to work harder to succeed.

How "free" is American capitalism, if your entire life depends on where you were born and how lucky you are?

In our country, it doesn't matter where you were born. If you are committed to succeeding, you will succeed and if you're not, you won't.

I call it "American capitalism", because European socialism is also capitalistic. We have a class system too. The only difference is that in Belgium, people get support from the government if they really need it. This way, poor people also get the possibility of going up the class system.

We really don't have a "Class System" per se. Yes we do have poor, and wealthy and people inbetween, but people can move up and down that ladder. The poor, if committed enough, can move up to social class. My grandmother on my mom's side(may God rest her soul), was on welfare but managed to succeed in raising four kids by herself. She wasn't rich and her family was somewhat poorer but she managed to make it.

Also, there's a very big difference between communism and socialism. In a communist country, people aren't really free, because they are not seen as individuals. They are merely seen as parts of a big machine that can only work if everyone does what's expected from them. This also means that you can't get rich in a communist country. In socialist countries, there is a free market, there is concurrence, there are multi-nationals, there are very rich people, ... it has nothing to do with communism.

Don't have to tell me that. I know this. LOL

(I hope my English is not too bad :))

Your english was quite good.

So far your english is good. Now its time for me to disect your comments.



If you work hard enough, you can beat being poor. Yes, poor people have a disadvantage but not as big a one as people claim they have. They have to work that much harder to succeed and they are committed to it, they will make out in the end. The problem is, many poor people, not all but some, are happy to live off of government handouts. The others just don't have what it takes. Some of these people do need a helping hand and most do get it through special scholarships. As for not having faith, I don't agree with it. I find that most of these people are probably more religious and think that God will provide them with their necessities. As for no possibility having a good education, that is incorrect. As I said before, there are special scholarships for people to get a good education. As for Education, President Bush (May God Bless him), has made it possible for parents that are IN a failed school system to have their child transfer to a better school. This has help several kids but since it is relatively new, it'll be awhile before stats come out for it. Just because people are poor DOES NOT mean that they are in a hopeless situation. They just have to work harder to succeed.



In our country, it doesn't matter where you were born. If you are committed to succeeding, you will succeed and if you're not, you won't.



We really don't have a "Class System" per se. Yes we do have poor, and wealthy and people inbetween, but people can move up and down that ladder. The poor, if committed enough, can move up to social class. My grandmother on my mom's side(may God rest her soul), was on welfare but managed to succeed in raising four kids by herself. She wasn't rich and her family was somewhat poorer but she managed to make it.



Don't have to tell me that. I know this. LOL



Your english was quite good.


With "faith in society", I just meant believing in and trusting society. I didn't mean religion.

I do believe that poor people CAN get out of their poverty. But many of them don't believe they can. Now I'm talking about people who grew up in poor ghetto's and don't know much about how society works. They've seen poverty around them every day and they don't believe they can ever get out of it. As a result of this, they also don't believe education can help them out. And without decent education, they won't get a decent job. That's why I believe very much in the Belgian school system: all schools are free and there's no big difference in quality. The quality of Belgian schools is very high, because they get much government funding. School is compulsory untill the age of 18. I think education is the most effective way to get poor people out of their ghetto, into society. The Belgian system is based on high-quality education and it works very well. Of course there are also problems with socialism, but every system has it's flaws.

I also have to say that I don't think socialism is the best system. I just think it's better than right-wing capitalism.

That is because socialism and communism are the common opposite of individualism. Americans are fiercely individualistic because we do not trust the government to manipulate society to the so-called ideals of the snobby intellectuals.
Hmm, they seem to be pretty happy in sacrificing individuality to socialists in the form of neocons and religious fundamentalists.

Speak for yourself.

What do you mean?

Alot of Americas enemies have been Socialist or Communist. That's a fact.

Alot of Americans hate high taxes.

Alot of Americans don't like people who aren't working(or, in the case of old people, haven't earned in the past), but magically get money.

Socialism baisically means that you work more for the state than yourself.

Alot of Americans like to keep what they earn, not have it taken away and given to some hobo.

If you had given an actual reply, we could have a meaningful debate.

Speak for yourself.
And most of America

Socialism, despite what it claims to do, serves to promote the collective over the individual, and takes away rights. Immigrants to America came here precisly for the opposite reason, and because of its success, their decendents wish to perserve it. There was a socialist experiment in the US from the Great Depression until the late seventies, but Americans got tired of it.

Since this debate seems to be dying, a little CPR by focussing on a related, and already briefly mentioned aspect ;)

The private sector handles money much better than any government, simply because if companies waste, misplace, and mismanage thier money they go out of buisness. So the private sector when involved in matters of charity, planing for riterement, utilities, and so on has to do a good job or people will contract other companies.

It is my personal observation that this statement is not necessarily true in practice. But I would also like to focus on the theoretical aspect of it by asking: is handling money efficiently everything ? And is it really this simple ?

Examples:
Is a company that makes 25 million $ /year by outsourcing labour to low wage countries better than the one that makes 20 million $/year with only native labourers ? And better for who ? The second one provides more jobs for the native society, meaning less unemployed and less benefits payments needed, while the first seems better for the stockholders. You can expand this to companies buying supplies from native contracters, instead of the much cheaper things found abroad.

Is a company that makes $50 million a year using child labour better than one who makes $20 million that employs only people of acceptable working age ?

Is a company that makes $50 million a year using heavily polluting technology which society will need to clean up in 20 years time better than one that makes $20 million and takes measures ?

Is a public transportationsystem that makes a modest profit, rides on time but needs to charge high ticketprices to break even better than one run by the government, which doesn't make a profit or loss but is affordable to all ?

Just a few examples ;)

Socialism, despite what it claims to do, serves to promote the collective over the individual, and takes away rights. Immigrants to America came here precisly for the opposite reason, and because of its success, their decendents wish to perserve it. There was a socialist experiment in the US from the Great Depression until the late seventies, but Americans got tired of it.

How exactly does socialism remove rights? And what is this concept of "individualism" that Americans on here keep on ranting about supposed to mean? Individual in what sense? I am not sure I understand what its supposed to do.

In America everyone has access to healthcare. You can not be refused healthcare because you have no money/insurance or other means of payment. If you are sick and need a doctors assistance you can get it.


So how exactly does the system work in America. I know its not the same as the NHS but you seem to be making it look like it. I'm at a loss here, I thought you had often extoritnate medical bills.

Socialism, despite what it claims to do, serves to promote the collective over the individual, and takes away rights.
I don't think that socialism pretends to be individualist. Even its name implies that it is centred on the well-being of society.

I don't think that socialism pretends to be individualist. Even its name implies that it is centred on the well-being of society.

Your avoiding the issue. What does individualism mean in this context? How does socialism errode it? Why is that a bad thing?

The reason that the US has no real 'socialist/communist' political representation, is that it perceives itself as a 'christian' nation - and has had half a century of propoganda levelled at it, about the evils of communism... largely because "communist" Russia forbad religion.

In the rest of the world - people might disagree with communism or socialism as political models, but other government regimes haven't put as much work into demonising the 'godless communist'.

I don't post often on English forums, because my English is not so good... but I just have to react on this. I think it's the most naive sentence I've ever read.

If people could really go up and down freely on this class system... why are there poor people then? It's not just because some people are too lazy to work. It's far more complex than that. Some people are just born in an other kind of social environment (poor ghettos). They don't manage to go up on the class system, because they THINK they can't. They have no faith in society, they don't believe in education. That's not their choice. They're just brainwashed by what they see and hear every day. That's because they don't have the possibility to get good education, outside of the ghetto they live in. Here in Belgium, primary school and high school are free and everyone can go to the school they want, even if it's the other side of the country. That's what I call freedom.

How "free" is American capitalism, if your entire life depends on where you were born and how lucky you are?

I call it "American capitalism", because European socialism is also capitalistic. We have a class system too. The only difference is that in Belgium, people get support from the government if they really need it. This way, poor people also get the possibility of going up the class system.

Also, there's a very big difference between communism and socialism. In a communist country, people aren't really free, because they are not seen as individuals. They are merely seen as parts of a big machine that can only work if everyone does what's expected from them. This also means that you can't get rich in a communist country. In socialist countries, there is a free market, there is concurrence, there are multi-nationals, there are very rich people, ... it has nothing to do with communism.

(I hope my English is not too bad :))

It isnt just your English that is impaired, you are also logically and factually challenged. Class mobility doesnt imply that the poor or the rich wont exist, it means that being born to one class doesnt prevent you from moving to another.

Poverty is also defined by income, a very poor measure. Spending would be a much better measure. Would you call a person who is makng $9,000 a year but has paid off his house and cars and only has to worry about paying utilities and food poor? The census dept does. It makes no distinction between a young man starting out in life with no expenses and a middle aged man with many expenses and an elderly with limitted expenses.

In my eyes, a person who has many expenses and is only making $10,000-$20,000 a year is poor, while someone living in a rural area and has paid off his home ect is not. I know people making $100,000+ per year whom I would barely call middle class while I also know people $20,000 - $30,000 a year who are solidly middle class. Income is a godd measure for many things, it is lousy for determining poverty.

That and the fact that poverty measures EXCLUDE govt programs. Meaning food stamps and housing and utilities ect are not included when the govt figures out how many poor people there are. How much do you really need to ear if the govt is paying for your housing and food and utilities?

The reason that the US has no real 'socialist/communist' political representation, is that it perceives itself as a 'christian' nation - and has had half a century of propoganda levelled at it, about the evils of communism... largely because "communist" Russia forbad religion.

In the rest of the world - people might disagree with communism or socialism as political models, but other government regimes haven't put as much work into demonising the 'godless communist'.
That's certainly an interesting interpretation, but very few scholars believe that the reason for this is because Americans are a fairly religious bunch. Theres no doubt it played some role, but I think you're overstating it in a major way. Just my opinion though.

So how exactly does the system work in America. I know its not the same as the NHS but you seem to be making it look like it. I'm at a loss here, I thought you had often extoritnate medical bills.
Well, high medical bills do occur, but only in instances of extreme illness and the like (cancer, severe forms of trauma requiring long stays in the hospital, etc.) but the vast bulk of insurance plans typically cover these fairly sufficiently.

I know that if someone does not have insurance, the hospital will still take care of them, and I think there's a system to repay the hospital over time, but I'm not totally sure how it works, as I know no one who lacks health insurance.

Your avoiding the issue. What does individualism mean in this context? How does socialism errode it? Why is that a bad thing?
Individualism means the right to decide what to do with yourself, your resources and your talents. It also means taking responsibility for your own person and well being. A reliance upon yourself, not others.

How exactly does socialism remove rights? And what is this concept of "individualism" that Americans on here keep on ranting about supposed to mean? Individual in what sense? I am not sure I understand what its supposed to do.

Rights are just made-up...don't get me wrong, but man makes up the concept of rights. There is no 'rights' but that which the moral majority or the law put down.

Individualism:Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.

I consider myself an individualist, which is related to the above definition.

Individualist: One that asserts individuality by independence of thought and action.

Those whom support Individualism are more than likely individual rights advocates ie they support the right to ones own life, pending they don't interfer with the life of another. So when someone says you're removing a 'right' with socialism, you are removing individual rights.

I don't dislike socialism in particular, I dislike statism...individualism in the only political/social view that denounces statism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism *always a good link on this*

The reason that the US has no real 'socialist/communist' political representation, is that it perceives itself as a 'christian' nation - and has had half a century of propoganda levelled at it, about the evils of communism... largely because "communist" Russia forbad religion.

In the rest of the world - people might disagree with communism or socialism as political models, but other government regimes haven't put as much work into demonising the 'godless communist'.

I'm not a Christian, and I would never live under pure socialism of communism.

America first political battles were among the federalist and the Democratic Republicans (which were basically anti-federalists to a degree). Jefferson being advocate of a 'pure republicanism' won, but on a limited term. Jefferson believed that an active government would eventually lead to tyranny. He supported the Constitution, but in half-ass way.

His political beliefs were somewhere in between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. He didn't want the Federal government to have too much power, in other words...although he wanted it to have some.

His era of political dominance ended after 50 years... Not he himself, but his ideas. The south latched on to his economic beliefs, and happened to be the losing side of the Civil war.

Personally, I've always found it odd that Christians have supported a free-market to some degree. Although I've always viewed the Republican party as errored since Lincoln took power. It's even more odd, is that the dems of the 1860's would become the Republicans of the modern age. Their leaders would be very similiar to Lincoln...pragmatic, manipulative, and forceful.

That's certainly an interesting interpretation, but very few scholars believe that the reason for this is because Americans are a fairly religious bunch. Theres no doubt it played some role, but I think you're overstating it in a major way. Just my opinion though.

I don't know, really.

I work in Georgia - which means I am blessed enough to have the 'pleasure' of listening to a LOT of 'christian' radio.. and I would say that I have yet to pas an entire day without at least ONE of the programmes, mentioning the 'evils' of Communism... specifically, the 'godlessness', and how Communists would like to 'export' that to the 'god-fearing USA'.

Coupled with the 'ways' in which the US countered Communism... by introducing 'god' into areas where it had never been an issue before... isn't THAT the point at which the "Under God" got pasted into the Pledge?

It seems that the US specifically demonised (in a very real sense) communism, as being anti-christian... and, as the last election shows SOME testament too, the US is (nominally) a largely 'christian' country... politcally, at least.

Rights are just made-up...don't get me wrong, but man makes up the concept of rights. There is no 'rights' but that which the moral majority or the law put down.

Individualism:Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.

I consider myself an individualist, which is related to the above definition.

Individualist: One that asserts individuality by independence of thought and action.

Those whom support Individualism are more than likely individual rights advocates ie they support the right to ones own life, pending they don't interfer with the life of another. So when someone says you're removing a 'right' with socialism, you are removing individual rights.

I don't dislike socialism in particular, I dislike statism...individualism in the only political/social view that denounces statism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism *always a good link on this*

How does socialism threaten individual rights? What exactly does it do?