NationStates Jolt Archive

A great many people on here (mainly Americans) get terrified whenever they hear the slightest utterance of the word "socialism". The reason for this is of course linked back to the Cold war. Americans and others asscoiciate socialism with the tyranical autocracy of the Soviet Union and its satalite states. Its quite obvious now that the kind of socialism used there cannot work. However, that was an extreme end of socialism and not so many Americans realise that untill the 1980's Britian practised a form of socialism. Nationalised industries were commonplace in Britian untill stagflation made them fail. This was not the fault of the fact that there were such industries, but the power and control the trade unions had over the government. Magret Thatcher delt with this situation exceptionally well in some peoples opinion, however in my opinion, what she caused an issue as well as solving one. She not only introduced laws which made it harder for the unions to function (reqiring ballots, banning certian secondary picket action etc) she also privatised the industries. It is my belief that it would have been possible to maintain a competative edge even with nationalised industries, but the internal system of such industries needed reform, in the same way that the internal market reformed the NHS. Socialism today no longer exists in the form of nationalised industries, at least in the UK. But that does not mean that it's cause is dead. Americans in many cases have a great anger when it comes to the welfare system, but do not realise just how effective the system can be made, as it has been in Britain. Britian under New Labour has the lowest unemployment rates for over a century. Welfare has to be made as a system of getting people back into work, not only as a system of keeping people in reasonable stead when out of work. Which is what Britain is doing now. Margeret Thatcher tried to do this by making the welfare benefit program give out such little money to the unemployed that they had to find work as they could not survive. However this lead to the poverty trap, as without a minimum wage, in some cases you were better off unemployed than in the kind of jobs that most of the unemployed would be able to take. Now New Labour has been changing things. Courses desinged to improve peoples qualifications are given to those who do not have them, paid for by the tax payer. If they do not attend these courses, the people on the unemployment register will have their benefits removed. The idea of socialism is perhaps dead in its fullest form, but social democracy and the third way are forms of socialism that exist and are not incompatable with the workings of a modern democracy. So I would ask all those who are so scared and fearful when they hear the phrase "Socialism" to rethink their understanding of it.

http://www.workinfo.com/EconHist/thirdway.htm

Bump

paragraph.

paragraph.
coHerent.. zentenses &% grahmmer? !! + wh@ttt?

Define socialism...I'm pondering that right now...from here, and another thread...define Europe...European Culture...define American Culture....

I'd say that America's centeralization of the economy under both World Wars constitues roughly as socialism, only in war time (thus, centeralization). But I'm constantly told I know nothing, I'm being irrational, and then my sexuality is brought into question.

A great many people on here (mainly Americans) get terrified whenever they hear the slightest utterance of the word "socialism". The reason for this is of course linked back to the Cold war. Americans and others asscoiciate socialism with the tyranical autocracy of the Soviet Union and its satalite states.
Not so, young dweeb. Most Americans are aghast at "socialism" because they know it won't work here.

Not so, young dweeb. Most Americans are aghast at "socialism" because they know it won't work here.


A lot of Americans here do seem to think that socialism = communism = What Stalin did and refuse to be swayed otherwise.

What Eut and Monkeypimp just said are both totally valid.

Just butting my nose in here.

What Eut and Monkeypimp just said are both totally valid.

Just butting my nose in here.
Well ... stop it! :D

Yes, I agree. Both statements are valid.

Not so, young dweeb. Most Americans are aghast at "socialism" because they know it won't work here.
It won't work because people don't think it will work. People don't think it will work because it's so fundamentally different to the way things currently are. That's where the real fear comes from; Prospect of instant change.

It won't work because people don't think it will work. People don't think it will work because it's so fundamentally different to the way things currently are. That's where the real fear comes from; Prospect of instant change.
Only partially. Mostly it's from having witnessed the decline, and sometimes fall, of nations which turn to socialism.

Not so, young dweeb. Most Americans are aghast at "socialism" because they know it won't work here.
I dunno about that. I think it's more that most Americans don't like the sound of socialism. Some may simply have a knee-jerk reaction against it, probably due largely to the Cold War, but many others know what socialism is and still don't like the sound of it. Whether or not it could potentially work in the US, many Americans simply don't want it.

Frankly, I'm a little sick of communists and socialists insisting that Americans just don't know what communism or socialism means. I'm also a bit sick of people insisting that Americans are just too selfish to accept the brilliant wisdom of socialism. To me, this sounds just like when one religious sect insists that if only the heathens could see the light, they'd give up their sinful ways and follow the "right" god.

I'm sure socialism and communism work very nicely for some people, and that's all well and good for them, but I would appreciate it if those people would respect the fact that Americans may simply not want to use those particular systems.

Frankly, I'm a little sick of communists and socialists insisting that Americans just don't know what communism or socialism means. I'm also a bit sick of people insisting that Americans are just too selfish to accept the brilliant wisdom of socialism. To me, this sounds just like when one religious sect insists that if only the heathens could see the light, they'd give up their sinful ways and follow the "right" god.

I'm sure socialism and communism work very nicely for some people, and that's all well and good for them, but I would appreciate it if those people would respect the fact that Americans may simply not want to use those particular systems.
Which kind of makes the argument that communism and socialism are a kind of religion. Hmmm.

'instant change' never works, if you change a whole system all at once the institutions used to make it possible won't develop properly. the only way to bring in reforms and make them stick is to do it gradually. suddenly shifting to an 'ideal' system just won't work, it's a proccess of improving what you have and building up a better system, with the means to make it happen given enough time to develop.

-snippy-
Agreed. I wouldn't want socialism in my country.
From my expierence, even socialised medicine is not to be desired. The doctors here in Finland are to health like Republicans are to the US economy.
Not that I like the massive price of medical insurance in the States either.
Gaugh...there's never a good solution.

'instant change' never works, if you change a whole system all at once the institutions used to make it possible won't develop properly. the only way to bring in reforms and make them stick is to do it gradually. suddenly shifting to an 'ideal' system just won't work, it's a proccess of improving what you have and building up a better system, with the means to make it happen given enough time to develop.
But that process doesn't work either when the country is so completely capitalist as to even devote its culture to the benefaction of the self ("Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"...). Any attempt at change from this will be seen as morally repugnant by many due to the ethical evaluation of the capitalist mindset. It won't be given time to develop; just rejected on sight. Radical change is the only possible way it can work, and that will be doomed to failure Unless the people are willing to work with it. When even Religion has been twisted into something posessive, the only possible chance of that is if suddenly, dramatically, the Corporate Culture slips up. And since people seem to double-think their way past that all the time, I doubt anything is going to happen any time soon.

Which kind of makes the argument that communism and socialism are a kind of religion. Hmmm.
Well, I have some theories about learned helplessness and submission to authority...;).

But, all joking aside, I think there are some similar drives behind these systems. I don't think these are necessarily bad drives, nor do I think that all people who follow socialism or religion are stupid or wicked, but I do think those people need to be aware that not everybody is going to share their world-view and their personal desires. In other words, it's not that Americans don't want socialism because it won't work, it's that socialism won't work in American because Americans don't want it.

A religion won't thrive if nobody believes in it, and you can never really force a person to believe. You can make them go along with it, if you use enough force, but the system will never really thrive in that kind of situation. I think much the same is true of socialism. Some people think they can convince Americans to believe in socialism, but that's no different than a Christian who's out to convince Jews to convert.

To borrow a phrase, trying to make a capitalist like socialism is like teaching a pig to sing; it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

Agreed. I wouldn't want socialism in my country.
From my expierence, even socialised medicine is not to be desired. The doctors here in Finland are to health like Republicans are to the US economy.
Not that I like the massive price of medical insurance in the States either.
Gaugh...there's never a good solution.

Generally speaking a National Health Service is a very good idea:

1. Everyone can get treatment, especially the poor who need it most.
2. Treatment is cheaper and more effective because people are more inclined to go to the doctor for a checkup when it's free, this makes it easier to detect serious problems (such as cancer) early and to treat them quickly.

I'm also a bit sick of people insisting that Americans are just too selfish to accept the brilliant wisdom of socialism.

*Humans* - not Americans ;)

To me, this sounds just like when one religious sect insists that if only the heathens could see the light, they'd give up their sinful ways and follow the "right" god.

And they may even be right. However, since it will not happen one should be pragmatic and pick something that actually works in practice.

*Humans* - not Americans ;)

But...Americans are the only REAL humans, right? I mean, that's what they tell us in our civics classes! The world is populated by Americans and by the Others who were not fortunate enough to be born in our Most Glorious Democratic Nation of Awesomeness!


And they may even be right. However, since it will not happen one should be pragmatic and pick something that actually works in practice.
I don't know if I can agree with that attitude. I think people need to be a bit more humble about their own beliefs. I don't think that people, religious or socialist or whatever, should be simply resigning themselves to the fact that the "right" side will not prevail. Instead, they should view it as, "I may be right FOR MYSELF, but what is right for me is not going to be right for everybody else. I need to get off my high horse and quit expecting everybody to share my personal opinions."

And they may even be right. However, since it will not happen one should be pragmatic and pick something that actually works in practice.

But the problem with American style capitalism is that in order for it to work at all, a rich poor divide is needed. And a significent rich poor divide at that.

Frankly, I'm a little sick of communists and socialists insisting that Americans just don't know what communism or socialism means. I'm also a bit sick of people insisting that Americans are just too selfish to accept the brilliant wisdom of socialism. To me, this sounds just like when one religious sect insists that if only the heathens could see the light, they'd give up their sinful ways and follow the "right" god.

I'm sure socialism and communism work very nicely for some people, and that's all well and good for them, but I would appreciate it if those people would respect the fact that Americans may simply not want to use those particular systems.

And equally, socialists and social democrats are fed up of being told

- That they are all evil people
- That they supported what Stalin/Mao/Jong Ill/Hitler did etc
- That Socialism is stupid
- That Socialists are godless

etc etc

And equally, socialists and social democrats are fed up of being told

- That they are all evil people
- That they supported what Stalin/Mao/Jong Ill/Hitler did etc
- That Socialism is stupid
- That Socialists are godless

etc etc
I'm sure that's true as well. Pick just about any group, political or otherwise, and they'll have a laundry list of loathed misconceptions about their beliefs. Hell, I'm a bit sick of people telling me that because I'm godless I must also be socialist :).

The reason most people have such an immense (and irrational) fear of socialism/communism/abolishingfreetrade/etc. is that they've been so well indoctrinated by capitalists, who currently control society, who are opposed to social systems that are in the best intrests of the people because it would hurt their profits.

But the problem with American style capitalism is that in order for it to work at all, a rich poor divide is needed. And a significent rich poor divide at that.
Exactly

Exactly

Thus you look at British style social democratic capitalism which allows for the rich poor divide to shrink. Its much lower than the american one at any rate

Generally speaking a National Health Service is a very good idea:

1. Everyone can get treatment, especially the poor who need it most.
2. Treatment is cheaper and more effective because people are more inclined to go to the doctor for a checkup when it's free, this makes it easier to detect serious problems (such as cancer) early and to treat them quickly.
That's fantastic. However, the refusal to give me anti-biotics for a bacterial sinus infection I knew I had was unacceptable. Bacteria cannot grow into a "supervirus." I told them about my symptoms, how they usually don't show up until the cold/infection has progressed very far, and how I couldn't breathe, massive pressure, and throat irritation. So, they swabbed my throat, told me nothing was wrong, and threw me a 60 Euro bill so I could know something I didn't have. I protested somewhat, but they assured me I was healthy. I was quite irked. A month, and lots of horseradish later, I recovered.

In theory this works, but non-nationals just get screwed over more than they do back home.

Thus you look at British style social democratic capitalism which allows for the rich poor divide to shrink. Its much lower than the american one at any rate
Actually the rich-poor divide is widening in Britain at the same time as we are pumping billions into public services and in doing so bankrupting our entire country. Huzzah for the Third Way!

A great many people on here (mainly Americans) get terrified whenever they hear the slightest utterance of the word "socialism". The reason for this is of course linked back to the Cold war. Americans and others asscoiciate socialism with the tyranical autocracy of the Soviet Union and its satalite states. Its quite obvious now that the kind of socialism used there cannot work. However, that was an extreme end of socialism and not so many Americans realise that untill the 1980's Britian practised a form of socialism. Nationalised industries were commonplace in Britian untill stagflation made them fail. This was not the fault of the fact that there were such industries, but the power and control the trade unions had over the government. Magret Thatcher delt with this situation exceptionally well in some peoples opinion, however in my opinion, what she caused an issue as well as solving one. She not only introduced laws which made it harder for the unions to function (reqiring ballots, banning certian secondary picket action etc) she also privatised the industries. It is my belief that it would have been possible to maintain a competative edge even with nationalised industries, but the internal system of such industries needed reform, in the same way that the internal market reformed the NHS. Socialism today no longer exists in the form of nationalised industries, at least in the UK. But that does not mean that it's cause is dead. Americans in many cases have a great anger when it comes to the welfare system, but do not realise just how effective the system can be made, as it has been in Britain. Britian under New Labour has the lowest unemployment rates for over a century. Welfare has to be made as a system of getting people back into work, not only as a system of keeping people in reasonable stead when out of work. Which is what Britain is doing now. Margeret Thatcher tried to do this by making the welfare benefit program give out such little money to the unemployed that they had to find work as they could not survive. However this lead to the poverty trap, as without a minimum wage, in some cases you were better off unemployed than in the kind of jobs that most of the unemployed would be able to take. Now New Labour has been changing things. Courses desinged to improve peoples qualifications are given to those who do not have them, paid for by the tax payer. If they do not attend these courses, the people on the unemployment register will have their benefits removed. The idea of socialism is perhaps dead in its fullest form, but social democracy and the third way are forms of socialism that exist and are not incompatable with the workings of a modern democracy. So I would ask all those who are so scared and fearful when they hear the phrase "Socialism" to rethink their understanding of it.

http://www.workinfo.com/EconHist/thirdway.htm
I am american
my family in the Netherlands divides pretty evenly
about half christian democrat
half socialist, i think theres one liberal(in the european sense, in the classical sense)
so i was exposed to socialist ideas
when i first talked about politics with my elderyl aunt
i thought my god! this women is a communist!
she was a christian democrat..
yeah socialism is a very dirty word here
people dont like paying taxes or helping"THEM"
EVERYTHING IS VOLUNTARY AND FREEDOM AND KEEP YOUR HANDS OF MY GUN
unless your differnet and then its time for a cros burning
i was going to say you were all wetand that sjust a niave stereotype of americans
but it realy isnt
when i was younger i considered myself a socialist
and if i said os people would not get angry
they would actually laugh
and condescending inform you you were stupid and or crazy
to be a socialist in the land of milk and honey
never mind we have the highest levels of crime and poverty and murder
thats because of THEM
in many way i think i romanticized socialism
great ideal
lousy model
it never works
and in many ways is truelly unfair
you take money from productive hard working people
and give it to lazy morons who refuse to work(like me);)
i think if the US were a bit more like Canada it would be good
less shooting:mp5:
moregay marriage:fluffle:
but for the most part
every one hates us because we are greedy warmongers/
not really
the yhate us because we are successful
losers hate winners and want to drag them down
maybe its a good thing socialism is a dirty word here
and beleive me new labour would still be old labour
if it werent for americans like miltion freidman
and arthur lauffer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer

A paean to the third way!

All hail Tony Blair!

Yeah, right. New Labour got rid of Old Labour economic policies under the pressure of Thatcherism and the threat of their own destruction. They held on to the Old Labour tendency to big government, and solving everything by regulating it ad infinitum.

New Labour has done some good things in this country, had some good ideas. But the philosophy behind it is utterly vacuous. Ministers, even the P.M., have been asked what they believe in, what they stand for, and stuttered; before giving specific policies and targets. There is no great ideal to it.

This hinges on the fact that proper socialism is discredited, and so the Left, and partisans of big government, high spendign, all that, lack a rallying point beyond the 'stakeholder society' and 'Third Way'.

The problem is that the same has happened to laissez-faire. The mindless villification of Thatcher even by people who werent alive when she was in power and have no other interest in politics or history (admittedly, I was only just alive in Thatcher's 'rein' but I have at least researched the subject and come to an objective conclusion) has forced the Tories to do exactly what Labour were forced to do and basically become New Labour as well. It's pointless. British democracy has been reduced to a question of "Which spin-laden Social-Democrat-Lite Party do you distrust the least?" and it's shameful. We need some inspiring leaders who actually stand for something, not career politicians (Blair) and failed marketting executives (Cameron).

Blair's not a career politician, he's a failed barrister.

Apart from that, I couldn't agree more.

Actually the rich-poor divide is widening in Britain at the same time as we are pumping billions into public services and in doing so bankrupting our entire country. Huzzah for the Third Way!

Yeah, there's even evidence: in REAL newspapers no less, I remember reading this article when it was out: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article307942.ece :mad:

As a social democrat, although it is possible the unions in UK were too powerful in 70s & 80s, I haven't researched Thatcher's government myself, so can't say whether this is true or if Thatcher went too far. Although I was alive during some of this, I was born in 1984, so obviously wasn't really interested in politics until recent years.

However, I wouldn't mind if (e.g.) the railways were nationalised, provided they were actually run well, by people who know what they were doing, and were relatively free of top-down government interference, maybe in style of BBC. Although you can argue the BBC has been more than a little discredited recently: as far as I can see that seems to have been individual people (Gilligan, Greg Dyke) not doing their job properly, rather than the whole organisation at fault.
I do feel that the NHS, schools etc are subject to too much interference: didn't realise it til recently, but my year in school was apparently the first to have various tests in primary schools, SATs in Year 9, also first to have A/S-levels. Nothing seems to be left alone long enough to find out if it works. And now we've got 'Nu'-Labour's lovely City Acadamies, run by religious organisations and car salesmen... We don't want CHOICE, just DECENT F*CKIN SCHOOLS!

[Rant over] Anyway: I voted for the Lib Dems last time, since they were the only ones who seemed to have a substantially different programme. True, it was confused/confusing in places (e.g. local income tax), at least they wee proposing a higher top rate of tax, rather than leaving it or as Tories seem to be thinking, a flat tax. I won't go into that: may start a thread on progressive vs flat taxation, actually... :)

Yes everyone reported the rich-poor thing. Very few newspapers are reporting the fact that our economy is being ruined by the social democrats and that:

- Our tax burden / GDP has overtaken Germany's. And it's rising whilst they're desperately trying to get it to fall.

- Corporation tax is spiralling, causing businesses to relocate their headquarters overseas for tax purposes and meaning those that stay have to earn an average 25% than companies in other industrialised nations for the same end profit that can be reinvested or paid in dividends.

- As we do not protect our industry from foreign purchase whilst everyone else does, we have lost 5% of the FTSE100 in 3 years whilst recouped hardly any of it in foreign purchases (admittedly, this is the fault of soc. dems. in other countries.

Labour is a terrible mix of all the worst bits of capitalism and socialism.

I'm going back just a little bit to the original question.

Seems to me that the philosophy behind market-economy allows for only 2 serious responses.

Response A] In a market economy, my economic outcomes depend on my personal efforts. My conditions are directly corelated to my own efforts. And that's the way it should be.

Response B] In a market economy, I may find conditions that do not merely stop me from enjoying my own efforts, but that even stop me from making any serious effort at all. ( illness for one example. ) I consider this dangerous, and accept paying an economic penalty to safeguard me against such conditions. And that's the way things should be.

Response B] is imho fairly typical for the left.
But as it happens.. most Americans don't like the idea at all.
That being so, the difference between various strands of socialistic thoughts ( by what means do we ensure solidarity? ) are utterly beside the point.

Response B] means, under all circumstances, an abrogation of the principle that my conditions are directly corelated to my own efforts. A principle sacrosanct to your average American, and to me as well.

This is not a matter that can be decided upon by figures.
This is a matter of which principle appeals to you, and between principles, there can be no compromise.

Response B] is imho fairly typical for the left.
But as it happens.. most Americans don't like the idea at all.
That being so, the difference between various strands of socialistic thoughts ( by what means do we ensure solidarity? ) are utterly beside the point.

Response B] means, under all circumstances, an abrogation of the principle that my conditions are directly corelated to my own efforts. A principle sacrosanct to your average American, and to me as well.

This is not a matter that can be decided upon by figures.
This is a matter of which principle appeals to you, and between principles, there can be no compromise.

The problem is that it is not always true that your economic outcomes are determined solely by your own efforts. Society is far more complex than that. People have to understand that society creates things that are not tangable but none the less there and thus must be delt with or circumvented to one extent or another. Right wing economics does not allow for this.

The problem is that it is not always true that your economic outcomes are determined solely by your own efforts. Society is far more complex than that. People have to understand that society creates things that are not tangable but none the less there and thus must be delt with or circumvented to one extent or another. Right wing economics does not allow for this.


Did I deny that????
I rather think I specifically pointed out that such circumstances that stop you DO exist.
The thing is that both sides ( including me) have a philosophy that says in effect: you pays your money and you takes your chances.

What they differ in is what chances you take...

Social democracy? That's just watered down leftism. I'm for real working class revolution, not élites regulating capitalism to a degree that people think the Government Cares About Them™. Real freedom cannot be granted; it can only be seized by people actively freeing themselves. Social democracy isn't the answer, I'm afraid.

Only partially. Mostly it's from having witnessed the decline, and sometimes fall, of nations which turn to socialism.

Do you have any example of that ? ;)