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.
Seriously.... Why are Americans so Anti-Socialised? Reading on this forum I am speechless.
They hate government restriction, hate labor law protecting workers, and so pro corporates. Are people brainwashed or whats going on?
Take a look at Germany as an example... Socialized nation with lower unemployment rate than us, higher quality of life, much less or no poverty, and largest economy in Europe. They have 82 million people, still a lot.
Most of the Americans who "hate" socialism couldn't write a coherent paragraph about it, couldn't explain the differences between Michael Harrington and Rosa Luxemburg, couldn't name three living, self-identified Americans socialists (e.g. Mike Davis, Chris Hedges, Stephanie Coontz). They know nothing about it whatsoever. The are just repeating what they hear on right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and read in right-wing rags life FrontPage.
Most of the Americans who "hate" socialism couldn't write a coherent paragraph about it, couldn't explain the differences between Michael Harrington and Rosa Luxemburg, couldn't name three living, self-identified Americans socialists (e.g. Mike Davis, Chris Hedges, Stephanie Coontz). They know nothing about it whatsoever. The are just repeating what they hear on right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and read in right-wing rags life FrontPage.
Completely irrelevant.
I don't need to inspect a dog turd under a microscope to know that it stinks.
Socialism eschews individual achievement for shared mediocrity.
If thats the way you wish to live your life then I'm sure any number of mediocre countries would be glad to have you....don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
I get it. Chenika is trying to pretend America's rejection of socialism is based on irrational emotion ("hate"), rather than the real source, a coldly realistic appreciation of the tremendous harm it has done to nearly every country that's ever tried it.
If he can pretend it's all emotional, then he never has to face the truth about it.
So move there. Please don't mess this country up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
I get it. Chenika is trying to pretend America's rejection of socialism is based on irrational emotion ("hate"), rather than the real source, a coldly realistic appreciation of the tremendous harm it has done to nearly every country that's ever tried it.
If he can pretend it's all emotional, then he never has to face the truth about it.
Why are you posting the same thing twice, pages apart? It's weird. And kind of sad.
Last edited by Sally_Sparrow; 07-28-2013 at 05:58 AM..
Seriously.... Why are Americans so Anti-Socialised? Reading on this forum I am speechless.
They hate government restriction, hate labor law protecting workers, and so pro corporates. Are people brainwashed or whats going on?
Take a look at Germany as an example... Socialized nation with lower unemployment rate than us, higher quality of life, much less or no poverty, and largest economy in Europe. They have 82 million people, still a lot.
It's largely a historical accident. The US, unlike it's European counterparts, never developed powerful unions and the socialist parties that often derived from them in the 19th century because at the time the US was still expanding and gorging on resources long since used up in the Old World. Socialism was coming into its own in Europe when that continent's countries were consolidating and facing the effects of a highly urbanized, increasingly educated populace that sought a voice in politics to rectify the horrifying injustices of unbridled capitalism as it existed then - 16 hour work days, child labor, no labor protection, no social safety nets, low wages... - At the same time the US was still expanding, land was still available and cheap, cities were still being founded and growing, opportunity was everywhere and the kind of class differences that characterized European societies had yet to come into full force on a national scale - upward mobility was more easily achieved in the US at the time because the economy was in an earlier phase of development, resources were plentiful, fertility rates higher and still sustainable... Thus the type of stark class differentiation that had, by that time, become obvious in Europe was still developing and in its infancy in the US (plus the US, with no aristocracy, offered much more equality of opportunity in it's earlier years - capitalism, of course, develops its own aristocracy over time...). The states of Europe were far older, more developed and culturally cohesive than the US and socialism, of a type, was a cure to the worst excesses of the political-economic system that had become entrenched. It was not a cure for American problems at the time because we weren't there yet, and in some ways never would be given difference of situation. Socialism was, as a result, far more attractive in European countries because the justifications for it were much more clear and deeply felt.
Meanwhile, Europe was democratizing and political parties were replacing aristocrats as the source of political power: parties that wanted to succeed needed clearly articulated principles and policy proscriptions in order to secure votes and the promises of socialism, being so attractive, allowed powerful socialist parties to organize and win elections - many of these parties still remain dominant in most European countries to this day. The parliamentary form of government coupled with the electoral systems found in most European countries further facilitated this by allowing more than two parties to compete meaningfully giving those with any type of socialist leaning a more articulate, focused and sustainable platform from which to pursue their policy objectives. Socialism at the time was different than now, of course, and would fracture into innumerable different ideological derivatives - some, like Communism, would prove disastrous, but more moderate views would evolve into what today is known as Social Democracy which viewed government as necessary and important for reigning in the worst parts of capitalism while still allowing a large and competitive private sector. Experimentation, facilitated by different political cultures across countries and more political parties, allowed these countries to find effective ways of reconciling a 'Welfare State' with capitalism in a way that maintained democracy and the core values and rights associated with it.
The US never had any of this, unions were never as powerful here and by the time they really started catching on the two-party system was already entrenched. And then, of course, the US faced a civil war and was deeply divided on issues of no relevance to Europe while enjoying economic prosperity without too much pain due to it's being essentially 'younger.' Thus, there was no real room or reason for socialist ideas to become powerful within American political institutions. This did change when the Great Depression arrived and FDR became President, but despite FDR's ability to build huge support for socialist programs like Social Security it was too late and/or bad timing because WWII arrived and we found ourselves fighting the Nazis, who referred to their party as Socialist despite being the exact opposite (fascist), and then the USSR which sought to use Socialism to bring about a Communist paradise and extinguish Western values, economics, etc. through a very radical view of the ideology that is not at all characteristic of modern European socialism. But they, like the Nazis, came to be associated with the term 'socialism' despite not actually being anything like what we call socialism today... the Cold War and McCarthyism solidified the term's negative connotation in the American political lexicon while the Democratic Party eventually sought socialist reforms under LBJ while also fighting a war in Vietnam and undergoing major social upheaval with the Civil Rights Movement... opponents of LBJ's Great Society muddled down the major socialist health reforms he sought, dividing supporters by giving the most powerful supporters (elderly voters) Medicare and the poor Medicaid so that although it seemed LBJ won, political support for truly universal healthcare dissipated because many of its major supporters had access to such healthcare through the limited, targeted Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and Democrats underwent a social realignment over civil rights and Democrats, associated with Socialist programs, were denounced for such support - further cementing a hate of so-called socialism in the minds of many voters who disapproved of other things the Democratic Party was doing at the time.
Thus, while many Americans actually support socialism when asked about specific programs, they recoil when they hear the term socialist and immediately disapprove of anything with that label. Yet, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Schools, School Lunches, Unemployment Benefits, Child Labor Laws, Food Safety Regulations... they are all socialist...
I usually say because the American public is brainwashed and too stupid to find the answer themselves.
But... the previous post to this is a great answer with good detail (thumbs up). Especially the last part. Funny thing is that the most anti-socialist people I know work for some very socialist programs. One rants about socialist ideals (and our current president) but in the same token will talk about the "Expected" pay-grade increase year after year, the "expected" retirement benefits, the formulas that are applied to workers,.... formulas in which individual accomplishment and effort are missing.
Extremes are bad... to find a happy medium you still have to understand the extremes and learn from them.
Wealthy suburban counties are often beneficiaries of corporate welfare and tax breaks but we don't want to talk about that type of "socialism." Taxpayers are paying for this corporate welfare, and businesses can leave a particular location- leaving the place with higher taxes and a lower tax base...
Really?
Allowing someone to keep more of what they EARN is hardly "welfare".
Taking something from someone unearned is "welfare".
Seriously.... Why are Americans so Anti-Socialised? Reading on this forum I am speechless.
They hate government restriction, hate labor law protecting workers, and so pro corporates. Are people brainwashed or whats going on?
Take a look at Germany as an example... Socialized nation with lower unemployment rate than us, higher quality of life, much less or no poverty, and largest economy in Europe. They have 82 million people, still a lot.
Simply because Americans are stupid as a collective (explains why the quality of our education is rated so low).
Grammar schools conditioned us to play a word association game in our heads whenever the topic of socialism arises. We are taught about the failures of oppressive regimes such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China, and we're lead to believe that NOTHING socialism has to offer is good.
Socialism as a whole DOESN'T work, history has shown us that it becomes a complete contradiction of itself. It was suppose to create equality but instead it created disorder and oppression.--In my opinion-- inequality shouldnt be combatted it should be embraced. However, that isn't to say that we cant take some implications of Socialism and use it today. Social Democracies in Europe have shown us, Universal Health Care is more efficient and CHEAPER then our own health care system (Before and after Obamacare). Its true that countries such as France and Germany spend alot on health care, being two of the best systems in the world. But you can also look at Japan, their healthcare system is mimicked from Germany's Bismarck model. However, instead of over spending they under spend, and they're system is still much better than America's.
Unions are not a problem unless they're giving out large pensions (Detroit), but they are a necessary. We need them to keep the corporations in check. I guess it's just American culture to not give two damns about the quality of life (no wonder European countries are MUCH happier than us).
We hate borrowing ideas and we love to act like we're innovative, even though, we have t done anything remotely innovative in decades. We can learn a little something from every type of government all across the political spectrum, Europe did it. Social Democracies overseas kept the social implications that simply work, but overall, became more capitalist in the long run.
Ever Adrift = "...the Nazis, who referred to their party as Socialist despite being the exact opposite (fascist)"
Fascism is rooted in Marxism just as is Communism. They are not opposites - the policies are much the same with varying degrees of state control. Fascism is 'right wing' only to someone further left. Both ideologies are left wing compared to free market capitalism.
"...use Socialism to bring about a Communist paradise and extinguish Western values, economics, etc. through a very radical view of the ideology that is not at all characteristic of modern European socialism"
This is the technocratic viewpoint - we'll do it better than those "disastrous" Communists, or Pan-Arab Socialists, or Juche, or African National Congress. Instead of better, people get Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad, the Kim dynasty, and Robert Mugabe.
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.
