Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Socialism is, in truth, is at odds with liberalism, because it restricts individual choice.
You can do better than that.
First is to distinguish between the Leninist-Communist interpretation
and the Social Democracy form of government that actually does work
(and which btw is what is actually being discussed)
First is to distinguish between the Leninist-Communist interpretation
and the Social Democracy form of government that actually does work
(and which btw is what is actually being discussed)
Not really. Spend some time talking to a businessperson in Europe who has to navigate the Byzantine regulations and punitive tax codes. One of my biggest clients is on the verge of moving a large percentage of his operations here from Germany and France for this very reason.
Leninist-Communist (And, by the way, Fascism) and the more benevolent Democratic Socialism is the question of degree. All involve some kind of centralized government sayso in the economic destiny of the individual that's heavier-handed than a more capitalist society.
It depends on where and when you lived. My grandfather, born about 1900, voted socialist his whole life. Milw. Wi at one time had a socialist mayor. I think socialism was more popular during the great depression.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146
I'll give my best answer on this topic and this is coming from a staunch Libertarian. I think that many American citizens are emphatic to the causes of inequality and poverty. Yes our hearts bleed immensely. However, it is more difficult in todays times to satisfy everybody only because funds are so limited. .
Funds aren't limited. There is more wealth than ever in this country. Records profits, record amounts of cash (even in real dollars). The amount of wealth is not the problem. The distribution is.
The biggest difference is with the anger and venom that now gets aligned with those buzz words. They're meant to inflict and exhibit maximum Pavlovian Dog response. Say buzz words -> foam at the mouth. Say buzz words -> spew hate and ignorance.
America has always had a variety of philosophies and types. In earlier and more informed and enlightened days, people just accepted the differences without to much heartburn. Now, it's all about verbal and emotional warfare. It's a sign of the times, and more of the dumbing down of America. Glorify the primitive, squelch the rational. The powers that be understand the ease in getting action through emotion, instead of the more difficult use of wisdom and intellect. Emotions are easy to wrangle and manipulate; a strong mind is resistant to nonsense.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 01-23-2019 at 02:04 PM..
Socialism rapidly became socially unacceptable in the US once the Cold War started. Before that, it was just what left-leaning people who were maybe a little more tolerant of "out-there" ideas would embrace; it wasn't the dirty word it was throughout the second half of the 20th century. (Of course, socialism also wasn't associated with intersectional social justice the same way the modern socialist movement is.)
Appropos of Jack London, I do not think the fact that being relatively conservative makes a difference. No conservative in his right mind would advocate the kind of working conditions and deprivations of rights that were typical during that era.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, OP. Business will get away with as much as it can, in terms of cutting back expenses, and getting more work out of people, while paying less. These days, employers no longer need to do that to American workers, for the most part; they can just fire the Americans, and hire foreigners, either via H1b visa programs, or via unskilled labor coming into the US illegally, not to mention -- the outsourcing craze.
Or, if they employ US citizens, they cut way back on benefits, or run non-union operations, like Wal-Mart, whose entry-level, and just above entry-level employees, studies have shown, tend to rely on public assistance to make up the difference between what employers provide, and the basic necessities life requires. Wal-Mart doesn't even provide consistent full-time employment; hours are cut across entire job categories, as their stock value grows or shrinks.
And many agricultural workers in California (I don't know about other states) are US citizens, born in the USA, and raised working in the fields in the summers, after school hours, and/or on weekends. They get paid no better than non-citizens, and conditions in the fields are the same.
You can't credibly dismiss contemporary labor issues with a glib and snarky wave of the hand over "trans-gender bathrooms". Take a look at meat-packing plants. What about the auto industry, which used to boost unskilled workers into the middle class, but no longer does, due to large cuts in pay and benefits? Employers are cutting of their nose to spite their face, because by shrinking the middle class, they're ensuring, that few members of the American public will be able to buy the products those employers produce. Pretty dumb.
And last, but by no means least---I hope you're not equating "socialism" with liberalism. Socialism as it has historically played out, was anything but liberal. Please don't attempt to change the meaning of the term. Capitalism with a safety net =/= socialism, contrary to what FDR's detractors would have everyone believe.
If what you really intend to discuss, is capitalist economies that provide a safety net as well as other public benefits (free education through a basic college level, and medical care, say), you, as well as such a system's advocates, need to come up with a different term, to differentiate it from historical socialism, which, btw, is still alive and kicking in some parts of the world, for better or for worse.
P.S. Jack London's work, as you describe it, sounds horrific! I'm glad I never had his literature inflicted on me in school. The novels I did have inflicted on me were traumatic enough. The one you describe doesn't sound appropriate at all for young-adult school kids.
Socialism rapidly became socially unacceptable in the US once the Cold War started. Before that, it was just what left-leaning people who were maybe a little more tolerant of "out-there" ideas would embrace; it wasn't the dirty word it was throughout the second half of the 20th century. (Of course, socialism also wasn't associated with intersectional social justice the same way the modern socialist movement is.)
The bolded is an interesting point. Socialism was, and still is, in radical sectors of Latin America, anti-intersectionality. It requires everyone to leave ethnic identity behind, and bond over their shared working-class status. That tends not to work out in multi-ethnic societies, especially where Indigenous people are concerned.
Socialism rapidly became socially unacceptable in the US once the Cold War started. Before that, it was just what left-leaning people who were maybe a little more tolerant of "out-there" ideas would embrace; it wasn't the dirty word it was throughout the second half of the 20th century. (Of course, socialism also wasn't associated with intersectional social justice the same way the modern socialist movement is.)
Well, people who aren't objective look at FDR's massive government interventions as successful treatments for the Great Depression rather than contributors to it. Left-leaners to this day worship FDR and his New Deal as if he resurrected the American economy. It is a false assumption that does not hold up to scrutiny.
One of the greatest myths about that period was that Herbert Hoover was a do-nothing president who espoused free market solutions while the country's economic house burned down around him. But during his administration, he increased government spending 50% and tripled the top income tax rate. The predictable thing happened after that: Investment dried up. Of course it didn't help that the Federal Reserve choked off the money supply and that we foolishly started an international trade war with Hawley Smoot. But none of those are the work of an administration that sat on its hands, doing nothing.
Another myth is that FDR got up on his inaugural speech, said, "All we have to fear is fear itself," and then unleashed an alphabet soup of government programs that got the country back to work. Propaganda aside, he simply adapted Hoover's approach and built on it. Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, said as much.
The result? Unemployment was almost as bad in 1938 as it was in 1933. In fact, the Depression deepened in 1937 as new tax hikes took place. In other words, many of those "Out There" ideas didn't work. You can apply similar scrutiny to LBJ's Great Society program. Fifty years later and trillions of dollars later, the US poverty rate has budged only incrementally. Yet it can be argued the taxes required to fund those programs created an economic headwind that actually worked against the overall reduction of poverty.
If we look at their goal of reviving the US economy, the programs of Hoover and FDR were failures. Sad to say, the savior of the American economy was Adolf Hitler. World War II resulted in full national employment. At the same time, because rationing meant there was nothing to spend one's paycheck on, it created a huge amount of savings.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 01-25-2019 at 06:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
