Americana Socialism
Rarely do I get involved with Politics -especially American. However, recently, I came across several photos depicted the US President with the likeness of one A. Hitler. I really do not see the comparison. Good and close friends of mine fled völkisch nationalism and can tell you first hand, socialism is not communism and it is definitely not an autocratic dictatorship. Truth be told, the nationalist party greatly attacked and literally killed many Social Democrats, among others, who held power of the TOV and also attacked communism at great length. Likewise many former communist ruled friends will tell you the stories of their forced labor, meager conditions, corruption that would make Cosa Nostra look like Mother Theresa.
Still, what is this connection between nationalism and socialism? These depictions of Mr Obama as a Autocratic Dictator? Really? I mean, as a leader, he is very much green and too soft in areas. But an autocrat, really?! I really do not think he is even a socialist or even a democratic socialist. My feeling is he is an Ivy League Capitalist, who got lucky, and is in over his head.
Socialism is based on society of the people, who share commonality, where extreme equality is allowed and assisted, if necessary, by the governing laws of the country. In the US, those Laws would be the Constitution, BOR, represented and upheld by constituents on a state-by-state basis, via election.
While, personally, do not prefer Social Democracy, it seems to be a cornerstone in the socialism direction for America. Possibly the only move that will save her from implosion -based on 80+ years of debt, resulting in the collapse of the entire system, from housing to infrastructure, save the few short years of Dot Com.
Socialism was designed as a system that focuses on the health, welfare, prosperity, education and protection of its citizens, with a governing body, to insure equality is provided/distributed evenly to every citizen, regardless of position -not driven by singular agenda/dictation, as is communism and nationalism, to a large degree.
Social Education not a good thing? Social Medicine not a good thing?
Social Commerce {actual fair market trade system} not a good thing? Can anyone tell me then, why most have a Facebook Account? It is a social system based on these same ideologies. The sharing among people, be it ideas, possessions, information, overseen by an unbiased governing authority.
Granted, communism would strip you of all rights to any possession, etc and work you to death, while telling you to be thankful for it. Equally, nationalism would make the country swell with wealth for a small majority of supporters of that regime within a racial stereotype, while the remainder used as slaves -or worse- exterminated {think Egypt circa 3000 BCE} and more recently Iraq.
Why are Americans so hellbent against their own foundation? What do I reference? History. Most importantly, the Constitution. The entire system was based on a social ideology. A collection of country-states / self-governing provinces watched over by three sets of legal variances, to promote, defend and protect the right of every citizen to: "life, freedom and pursuit of happiness". This is precisely what socialism is designed to do. Certainly, the powers that be fudged it, for capital greed for starters and war for another. Just look at the stock markets, overcrowded prisons, internal hostility among citizens, etc. The modified social idea, coined Democracy, is crumbling at a rapid pace. But, it does not mean these errs cannot be corrected and the burden of governing reduced, on both the federal and state levels, further empowering the people to be their best. Even providing them the tools to achieve and/or removing the obstacles that hinder those possibilities.
As you look at these Occupy Wall Street & Occupy Main Streets power struggles, do we see what is happening? America is tired of failed ideas and half-hearted, money-driven authority under the guise of Democracy. The people want their freedom back. The same freedom they demanded from George III...
James.James. those thought is utopia. Without God no nation survives.
There should be no doubt that the American constitution supports the tenants of a free market society. Socialism is a pathway to societal destruction, because it causes the standard of living to decrease for everybody. When there is no incentive to excel in anything there is no longer a desire to output anything to advance in technology, science, medicine, etc. It is an undeniable fact that all the innovations that socialist countries enjoy and share with one another come from societies that support the free market.
This is because the only thing that truly motivates people to produce, or to better the environment of those around them is their own self interests. When you take self interest out of the equation you will get very few instances of forward movement because you are relying solely on the benevolence of others to throw their talents into the pot without any benefits or monetary compensation.
This is precisely why America puts out 24% of the worlds GDP with only 5% of the worlds population. We are uniquely economically nimble because we embrace the free market, which is diametrically opposed to Socialism. And thus economic planning in all of its forms is in diametrical opposition to true freedom.And yet another person who does not know what socialism is or how it works.
That's because we have something better than Socialism and don't want it.
And misses the fact that "socialist" Europe has a higher GDP than the US!
Fantastic. This is the Untied States. keep your Socialism to yourself. Thank you.
... and more companies on the Fortune 500 list than the US.
If individual citizens can be "regulated" for things such as drunk driving, theft, arson, etc. I fail to see the reasoning as to why should corporation be spared such common sense restrictions which are there to regulate market failures. It is basic economic theory which ever 1st year business student knows, that social transfers and regulations are merely a method of dealing with market failures.
In my opinion, the political narrative applied in the States, manages to convince the poorest, and most vulnerable segments of society to fight for the rights of the wealthy under the guise of conservative values.
I absolutely do know how socialism works.
The Government intends to plan the economy based on its historic output of goods and services, implements policies to distribute the earned income based on the "needs" of the individual according to their dictates and policies. As the output of goods and services declines, (as it always has and always will), the totalitarian regimes which were built up under the guise of defending the poor and the average working class citizen exterminate the members of society who can not justify their existence by proving that they have put into the system as much as they have taken out of it.
And that's how it works. Hundreds of millions of people are murdered.
Hence socialism never has and never will be given a real chance to be implemented in a society that is based on individual freedom, and it will always lead to totalitarianism.If you knew the first thing about socialism you would never have said something as horribly incorrect as:
his is because the only thing that truly motivates people to produce, or to better the environment of those around them is their own self interests. When you take self interest out of the equation you will get very few instances of forward movement because you are relying solely on the benevolence of others to throw their talents into the pot without any benefits or monetary compensation.
The fact that you believe that socialism somehow operates on the basis benevolence or charity shows with no doubt whatsoever that you have no knowledge at all on the subject. What you know is sound bites that you have heard.Well it seems to be a striking coincidence that you, being a proponent of socialism have stated; "Loves: the selfless and those who strive to make a better world for others. Hates: those who base their views on self interest"
This is very typically the leftist mentality and is completely antithetical to free market capitalism when applied economically. I agree however that socialism is not charitable in the least, although it is under that guise that socialist causes, (social security, welfare, socialized medicine, etc.), are furthered.46.2 million people in the US live in poverty. I bet they love living in a free market.
That may be true but poverty in America still beats being poor in every other country.
Not true. I'd rather be poor in Denmark or Australia or several other industrialised nations, than in the US. Statistically, if you're poor in America, you have a much higher chance of ending up in jail than you do in many other countries.
That's only if you break the law. It's nice to know that the police do such a good keeping criminals behind bars.
What a simplistic view. Don't you think there's something amiss when you consider that the US makes up 5% of the world's population but has around 25% of the world's prison population?
People don't go to jail for being poor. They go there for committing crimes.
Poverty breeds crime, but the American punishment system and it's hopeless prison recidivism rate means it has proportionately largest prison population and sixty % of the people released from prison end up back in, compare that to just twenty percent in Norway and one can see that the American justice system in itself breeds crime.
Really? Vagrancy is a crime last time I checked.
Yes, and with vagrancy in place, if you're poor then it's a crime.
But that graph only shows "households" The homeless are not households.
Yes but the poverty index you referenced earlier includes a staggering number of people who actually live in houses and apartments. It is somewhat difficult to count how many people are homeless in America because for the most part it is a temporary issue.
"As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week. Most were homeless temporarily. The chronically homeless population (those with repeated episodes or who have been homeless for long periods) fell from 175,914 in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007." -Homelessness in the United States
So I would still rather be homeless in America because most likely within the year I will have found a place to live with all the commodities that I previously referenced.
Personal choices and state regulation are unrelated, socialism does not function on charity nor does it endorse the idea of charity "he who does not work neither shall he eat" socialism is about properly rewarding those who work rather than those who do nothing.
As I said you don't know what you are talking about.Sure, on paper. But it's a completely different story when applied to the real world. You see in a socialist country everyone has to comply with the economic standards which the government applies to them in order for it to work, and if anyone wants to choose to do it differently they will be put into jail for profiteering. In a free society people can choose to live the way they so desire. They can even set up their own little socialist communes if they wish, and be happy throwing all their money into a big pot.
That is until the doctor gets tired of living the stress induced life that he earned through a decade of medical school just so he could share it with the lazy dude who works half time at the local car wash and spends his afternoons on the couch smoking pot.
I personally think it's enough of a challenge to get your own kids motivated enough to move out after the school system is done telling them what precious little snowflakes they are. Now I've got to worry about everyone else in the neighborhood getting off their butts so they can add to the collective in order to raise my standard of living? Screw that!
But hey it sure sounds like a lot of fun to be stuck sharing your paycheck with 43 million people who are just like all those bad roommates you had in college. That's worth going the extra mile for.You don't have to go the Eastern European whole hog. The kind of socialism I would like to see is one where government provides a good infrastructure, offering a reasonable standard of health, education and housing to all it's people. You can still have capitalism and initiative keep plenty of money for yourself. You can also still have private health, private schools etc but people should have to pay for these themselves and not have funds leeched out of the public system. As mentioned earlier, a healthy, housed, educated population is conducive to economic growth and benefits the whole of society. The way things are at the moment is incredibly inequitable, with the vast bulk of the pie in the hands of a very few and the gap is growing. The so-called trickle-down effect is a myth.How many millions or billions do the uber-wealthy really need? Why are there so many working poor?
Let's look at an example of where socialism can work. Finland, which has been the repeat winner of top results in a global ranking of national school systems, has an approach which works on the premise that every school is a good one and not just good schools for those who can afford it. Teachers are well paid, have high status and you need excellent marks to become one. It's valued as an occupation and schools co-operate with each other, rather than being encouraged to operate competitively. There are no tuition fees and meals are also provided free. It's an equitable system which provides all children with a good standard of education.
Australia on the other had which used to have an egalitarian system but has gradually changed to a US style system and which subsidises private schools at the expense of public ones, has been slipping significantly in the ranks over the years. Australians have been encouraged to remove their children from government schools and as a result they have become degraded and inferior. We are now way down the list.
(edited to add) Yes, the Finnish system is payed for via taxation but then, with that high standard of education, there is no need for people to fork out money for expensive private schools and the whole of the society benefitis from a well-educated populace.You not only don't understand socialism, you blatantly refuse to and continue to misrepresent it.
People slobbing around smoking pot is a product of capitalism, not socialism.
Remember, socialism says that if you do not work, you do not eat!
Capitalism says we have no work for you to do so we'll leave you for taxpayers to support because we don't see why we should waste our profits.You really don't get it at all. Where did you get this idea that everyone is paid the same and more importantly what you are saying is completely of track. In some socialist countries for example people are paid on the basis of how desirable their job is, so if everyone wants to be an engineer for example engineers will be paid less than something no one wants to be like a sewer worker. In socialist systems college education is not only free but one is paid to study (as long as they get decent grades) through college/university so often enough a sugar cane cutter is paid more than a doctor because more people want to work as doctors than be outside in the hot sun all day working manually.
Jo, I am guessing by his/her posts, they really assume socialism means "free meal ticket". No sense hashing it over.
Provision/Access to Provision of the best in: health {food water, sanitation/hygiene} housing and education is what makes true socialism effective. these 3 basic necessities -not luxuries- are what is stalling humanity @ being their best. Certainly, it will deplete profit considerably. Long term it could be much more beneficial.
James.College is never free. The idea that goods and services are provided at nobody else's expense is the precise reason why socialist countries fail. It's simply the perpetuation of the illusion of entitlement.
HA! Those who compare the POTUS with Hitler thought Palin would be a good second choice for president. Nuff said!
Palin?
She got famous for being a loser!
Excellent post... well argued. My answer as to why Obama is branded as a socialist by his fellow citizens is the following: I have yet to meet an American who actually knows the meaning of the word socialism (NOT the McCarthy era Red-scare propaganda). Europe has embraced the idea of shared social responsibility a long time ago, and even nationalist parties in any European country would not dare mess with things such as health care and public education since it would provoke mass unrest.
In the States on the other hand, the narrative in the media has managed to convince the population that European style socialism is EVIL, without giving them the truth on what it represents.European patients would like to be treated in US if they could.
What on Earth gives you that idea?
Why would anybody want to travel 3000 miles or more to be bankrupted?Not to mention the fact that the quality of care is not that much better state side. I don't find the NHS here in the UK to be horrid in comparison to medical care I received growing up in the states. There was as much incompetence to be found in the states as here, but at least here you don't have to pay as much for it.
Human fallibility is everywhere and isn't eliminated by money.
I'm sure that doctors and nurses in the US have bad days,just like their British counterparts.
We haven't gone quite as far down the road of suing for every little blip as the US has either.
I remember talking to an old boy once. His wife had had a bad time in hospital, something had gone wrong,I don't remember what.
As he was apparently one of the "everybody must pay" school, I asked him tentatively if he was going to sue.
"Good lord no" he said "If I were to do that it would cost the NHS money which they then wouldn't have to treat other people and they would be more reluctant to carry out procedures"According to the World health organization the quality of care in the US is much worse.
Because medicine, beds, doctors are in shortage. I worked in medicine in Europe since I finished medical school.
You realize the US also has bed shortages right?
Last hospital stay nearly two years ago now, not a sight of a bed shortage, doctor shortage, or medicine shortage.
Looking at the stats it seems your bed shortages are about the same as ours, of course factually you guys get a lot more beds for the same money and provide better care and have a higher survival rate and have a better years of life lost index.
The UK system is infinitely better even though it's quite flawed. Of course in your evil "socialist" system you also don't let 45 000 innocent people die every year because they don't have insurance 50 000+ people die because their insurance limit ran out or refuse people urgently needed care because your aim is to save the insurance company a buck so... Oh those evil socialist programs how dare they save tens of thousands of lives!
Comparison: The UK spends 2815 international dollars per person on healthcare yearly, the US (before Obamacare) spends 6719 per person and yet the UK gets all of the above and the US does not.I am talking about your dreaming socialism. This is what you want?
Many also don't know that there is an American socialist party which usually gets about 0.1% of the vote, they should just briefly compare the stated aims of the two to see that Obama is no kind of socialist (I wish he was).
Am inclined to agree. The fundamentals of Americana are, without a doubt, socialistic based. Much propaganda has kept the two parties on top; one being very much Social Democratic, the other a Capitalist Republic.
Mr. Obama's rise to power is certainly indicative of the population. Primarily, his connection to the people. Even now he is continuing to capitalize on that social core. An area his opponent is deeply lacking. The society of Mr. Romney, etc is a very old one -as you put it the McCarthy era, circa 1947. Post WW2/Cold War. Even HRH is apart of that generation.
American society, today, is much different and more open about its wants/needs. A society not seen since, perhaps, its revolutionary foundry less than 300 years ago. If fact, the common people are leaning heavily toward that original base of socialism -hopefully without the Puritan "prude-ness". They have seen how both a Republic and Social Democracy have left them divided, stranded and straining at golden gnats.
After reading his books and doing some research, I came to the assumption this fellow sees the inevitable. He saw the social shift from the inter-city view, straight through West Virginian racism right across to the still very much Wild West -now mining for data, instead of gold. Even more interesting is the advice received, midstream, via Europe where he amassed a cool half-million socially idealistic people. Top that off by a hearty welcome by some of Americas largest enemies, spoilers, who, even though gruff to the idea, will not dismiss it entirely, if it means keeping their people happy.
But, regardless of that, I think he is too uncertain which direction is best for the country, as a whole. Perhaps he is too philosophical for his own good; too optimistic? And no doubt, the old powers are on him, like wet on water, as the Cronkite Generation slowly dies out, like other monarchies do. His vision of Social Aristocracy seems more in tune to a Recovery Effort, while his opposition tries desperately to hold on to their Elite Plutocracy.
Europe, certainly -and even Russia to a vast degree- has long embraced true socialism. It is not altruistic by any means, but it is not off the table either. It does appear the Americana core has come full circle -reluctantly or not. I wonder if the world will be supportive of this or capitalize on it, as many seem to think.
Either way, the idea of him being an autocrat, radical nationalist is absurd, to say the least...
James.One unable to learn from the past mistakes lives in blind spot of future.
Obama is not a socialist, and (disagreeing with Josak) I believe that's a good thing. I think capitalism works, and socialism doesn't. America is not and shouldn't be far right, but it is and should remain a capitalist country.
However, things like healthcare and education are good socialized. Obamacare is the conservative option here, and it was the right option. It's obvious that US healthcare needs reform, and the two best options are the ACA and single-payer. Let's make the right choice, and choose the ACA.I agree that capitalism seems to be the best system but because it's profit driven and therefore will only provide for human need when there's money to be made, it needs to be mitigated both by regulation and by a good government infrastructure which takes the human equation into account.
There's nothing to fear from the word *socialism* - many countries in the world successfully meld aspects of socialism with capitalism - Australia and Scandinavia, for example. Societies are more than just economies and people are more than economic units.
From a non-US, outsider's point of view, many Americans seem to have built up a mythology around the individual, which includes a deep-rooted fear of government and an unwillingness to view any sort of collective social benefit as being anything other than an infringement of individual rights. They often cite *choice and liberty* as bulwarks against any move toward anything faintly socialist, yet there are few choices and not much liberty for poor people in the US, many of which are in jail. it's a strange irony that a country which places such a high value on individual liberty should have the highest incarceration rate in the world.I agree; there is a fear of socialism in the US, which I admit I am not always immune to. I believe in many of the ideas in socialism, but I can see the potential for abuse very clearly. i don't feel this is necessarily a bad thing, because implementing policies carefully, being sure to preserve liberty, is the best way to improve society.
Very well stated.
many Americans seem to have built up a mythology around the individual, which includes a deep-rooted fear of government and an unwillingness to view any sort of collective social benefit as being anything other than an infringement of individual rights. They often cite *choice and liberty* as bulwarks against any move toward anything faintly socialist,
This is very evident simply by reading through these forums on any given day. Sometimes when I read through a thread, I wonder why people no longer care about those in need. As you said so well, societies are more than economies and we are much more than an economic unit.
When we become so far removed from humanity itself, we bring the same destruction we fear.God is God of plenty. Why we should be orientated of lacking anything? Is is not system which created needy?
Let me be clear...
There is this thing whereby if you disagree with ACA you don't care for others. That's drivel.
Now...that having been said..we just came under a law that puts 300 million under liability to 30 million. This was done through the executive and legislative branches and upheld by the judicial. No voting citizens got to vote on it and no the election of Barack Obama did not mandate health care reform.
Anything this sweeping and onerous should have been a national referendum. Plain and simple. Just because someone gets elected to Congress does not make him an expert on anything, certainly not healthcare unless they also happen to have been a doctor previously.
Plenty of people want to help and the great lie of the uncaring Conservative is just exactly that, a great lie.
I don't mind helping others but when it is shoved down the throats of the nation,and oh yes indeed because we couldn't know what's in it till we pass it MS Pelosi, it was most assuredly shoved down our throats.
That's why we call it tyranny and that is exactly what it is.Rebekah,
Your bold type makes me think this is why there is such strong feelings about the US second Ammendment prevail even today. With the US founding fathers I can understand protecting citizens of an emerging nation from State and Federal harm especially if the British back then had won against America. But today?
It seems improbable to impossible for another civil war to happen in these times.Kangaroo_Jase. Regarding gun control. German Nazi, later Communists confiscated all weapons to avoid revolt against brutal systems. Now in USA the same? Why? It is in Constitution on purpose. Cars accident occurs are we going to band the car? People kill people. It is moral issue.
I believe that strong opinions are formed often from ignorance of how and why the Constitution was framed as it was. There are Americans who seemingly want to take our country backwards rather than forward. It is not 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has deep roots in Anglo-American history influenced by the Magna Carta and the Parliament's Bill of Rights.
The framers knew the Constitution was not a perfect document but felt it was necessary at that time in history.So there can't be any genuine disagreement? So difference of ideas? There is one correct opinion and anything else is just ignorance?
Yes scaring of government. Government (socialistic one) which do not know anything but papers, money and power, having not expertise to anything.
Profit driven mind was created by contaminant of socialistic-materialistic hunger for money. It is sick capitalism seen in recent time.
*** If one will eliminate capitalists, eliminates investors. All will become equally poor, dependable and controllable. Communistic politicians have no moral values since they are godless materialists. They are not concern about people but about themselves. They are initially concern about people only in their mouth. Can anyone expect from materialists and not loving money? I lived with communists in my prime time life.
We completely forgot role of Christianity which their principles builded our country. Noticed how many Christian’s hospitals, universities were built, how many voluntairs worked.
I seen many commentators are not very well read. Have you read: What's So Great about America and What's So Great about Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza?Weirdly enough I am reading Crime and Punishment right now. It seemed logical after all the American Noir stuff I had been devouring.
And in Crime and Punishment it is the 'immorality' of materialism and self-aggrandizing individualism of Western thought that corrupts Raskolnikov and drives him to murder.
In other words, deeply conservative, Russian Orthodox, devout Dostoevsky blames everything most people here believe in for the evil engulfing his country.
Perhaps you are a descendant of this tradition, Vladimir.Will, not sure what you mean: "Perhaps you are a descendant of this tradition, Vladimir".
I'm gonna check those books out, thank you. If you have an Amazon capsule with them, please let me know and I'll use it. Thanks!
- Chris Hughposted 11 years ago
0Comparing someone to Hitler is what people do when they run out of things to say. People on the left do it to people on the right. People on the right do it to people on the left. It's a shorthand way of saying, "Hi! I can't think. Don't bother listening to me!"
Yup, that is what Godwin's Law is all about
I also am not convinced Capitalism, or even a hybrid Socio-Capitalism {which many friends support}, is the solution. Society in general, in the States, is very -what's the word- agitated. You can feel it. In the last 85 years, under Capitalism, the country has seen less than a sporadic decade of surplus, for starters. The division into now two social classes, has placed them in quite a spot. It is now a strange unica of Warren Buffet~Tony Robbins versus whatever the new class is titled {poor, motivationally inept, etc}. The central majority, once middle class, is now dissolved/defunct. The Social Democracy and no doubt Socio-Capitalist idea has no where to float. Hence, the implosion.
I agree during its time Capitalism worked for what can be called necessity. The shift to Social Democracy and now Social Capitalism seems relative. They too are now giving way to the foundry, which is socialism, refined. Given twenty even thirty years, at the present rate of industry {pro capitalization} Americana debt will go from 2 Trillion {which was less than 200 million before dot com bubble in 2000} to nearly 350 Trillion. No one can carry that much paper. Even now, China and Japan, the largest carriers of US debt, are struggling.
And yes, the word sends shivers down the backs of many, because they do not understand what socialism really is. They think Perestroika {which is actually a revolutionary restructuring term and not a death sentence} or Ugandan genocide. Visions of their children in tin roof houses {as happened in New York not so long ago}, flies dancing on their faces as a missionary camera crew from an elite country films them for a web cast fundraiser. But, socialism is much different. And I do not think it causes people to lose their drive to be better. Just the opposite socialism increases the individuals drive to be better because the "typical" burdens of living -the basic necessities- are no longer a restriction. Whereas the aforementioned systems rely on the manipulation, control, limiting of those basic necessities to springboard their gains -financial or otherwise- and seemingly motivate the population to produce more, better, faster. Fair trade goes out the window for the sake of production and profit, while the governing body is forced to impose more taxation to keep up the pace.
JamesCapitalism with God-moral values is the answer. Otherwise there is not hope for us.
Capitalism with God moral values is an oxymoron.
I think he hit the nail on the head. As John Adams said; "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The constitution supports individual freedom which is antithetical to systems of economic planning. Hence the only way to let true freedom prevail is to give it to a moral and religious people.Morality and religiosity have nothing to do with each other, indeed as the rate of religiosity falls so does the crime rate. Individual freedom is far from opposed to economic planning, there is no need for it to be whatsoever.
There have been several syndicalist/socialist governments and alliances that have given their populations far more individual liberties than the constitution does while still practicing economic planing.The most restrictive of true freedom are moral and religious people!
Moshka and John Holder. Thanks Mr. Moshka for correct direction. I lived in Soviet occupation. One time they were looking for true Christians to manage money. They hated Christians but they did not have choice. They were looking for people who do not steal.
John Holder, here is lack of knowledge on your side. I do apology for this statement.
I see can many people here do not understand, what socialism is.I sure wish you would write a hub to educate some of these folks on what reality is. They want us to believe we are supposed to want what you escaped.
Socialism is not communism which in turn is not Stalinism. It is you who does not know what socialism is.
"They hated Christians but they did not have choice. They were looking for people who do not steal."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
no seriously stop it's too funny.
In the words of Mr. Tony Benn: "... Choice depends on the freedom to choose and if you are shackled with debt you don't have the freedom to choose... See I think there are two ways in which people are controlled, first of all frighten people and secondly demoralize them. An educated, healthy and confident nation is harder to govern..."
I am relatively new on Hubpages, so I humbly apologize if this would infringe on some Forum rule. however in this discussion I believe that the following youtube link of a Newsnight debate on UK TV would give our American friends an overview of where are differences in opinion lie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZNXfXtH … re=relatedWell Said. And, in my opinion, is what a truly social system creates. A society of people who are well educated, healthy and confident in themselves, one another -whereby removing excessive controls of governing and increasing prosperity, without feeling indebted to another, but rather intuitive to another.
Thanks for that. Tony Benn made an interesting point there, when he said that the real power and decision-making is more and more out of the hands of elected governments and in the lap of non-elected bodies like the Central Bank. I also listened to his "People before Profit" video...it's amazing to think that, in historical terms, not that long ago only 2% of the people could vote and they were the wealthy landowners. People really were under the screws of the ruling classes.
It's called control. It's called using the poor. It's called slavery.Some people like to live in an imaginary world where they can control the imagery to fit their perspectives.
In reality, however, one has to look at the on the ground situation and then respond.
I work with youth living in poverty.
The assistance that you now criticize gives hungry children access to food.
One past student of mine, his father is a boxer. He (the father) had a criminal record, and it was incredibly difficult for him to find work(an aspect of created poverty that we fail to address). His alternative was boxing. He doesn't have an education, and with a wife to support and four children to feed, his focus is on earning money.
He's not a very good boxer, though. He doesn't like doing it, but he carries on.
I remember one appointment in particular. I was working with this young student, he's in the third grade at the time, and he was having difficulty focusing on his work. (Instead of pushing him to work harder, I could tell that there were issues needing "airing"...so we did just that)
He told me about a fight his father had since I last had seen them. He shared how his dad had been hurt bad, and how he couldn't remember his name when he saw his son after the fight. I saw the father a couple days later. He has brain damage. There is no denying it. He was sitting at a table waiting for me to finish my appointment with his son. He looked up at me, and his eyes were very different...his ability to speak has been impaired, and his hands would tremble noticeably.
With no ability to fight for quite awhile, there is also no income. In the future, he will have no future as a fighter, and his family will suffer. He has made mistakes, we all do. He hasn't made the best decisions...none of us do all the time. They utilize the same resources that you now criticize.
His family needs support, and so does he.
They already have a huge burden, but now you obviously seek to undermine the key support that will help these children have, at least, nutritional security.
To take specific cases and turn them into b.s. analogies about animals in a park is ludicrous, insulting, and showing of your own "out of touch" condition.I do not agree in such government programs, like social security, food stamps, welfare, etc. Why? They should not have been instituted in the first place. These programs were created because the Capitalist driven ideology of the New Deal. A failure resulting in serious troubles for the "blue collar", middle class, pushing nearly half the population into poverty. Then taxed that poverty to cover the losses and fund these programs. Then of course came charities and church to balance the equation. A gentleman by the name HC Hoover opposed these concepts, resulting in him becoming a scapegoat for the Depression, and the creation of Hooverville USA {just over 75 years ago - not long at all really}, even though -using a socialism concept- assisted Belgium, China -even Russia from starvation. Today's society is still very much at or barely above that level.
These programs gave power to Statism, and what some might call Liberty in Economic Slavery, which was all powerful, up until a few decades ago, when the collapse began. In short, people became reliant on assistance, not because they wanted to but because they were forced into assistance, else die in the streets. Under true Socialism said programs would not exist -save maybe FEMA. Even that is a stretch. Maybe SEM [state emergency management] programs would be best -as are many volunteer programs like firemen.
The only reason poverty, in the States, exists is because of said system. A system where its citizens are forced into a cattle run, working to death, just to exist, nevermind affordable luxuries. The concept of Americana under the present system is "Ethical Slavery". Withholding excellent education, living conditions, health {via food, water & medicine} and fair market wages. Because if these items are provided/enabled for self provision, no one would remain a slave. But, as said, they are now hypnotizing folks with a mentality of Tony Robbins-Warren Buffet: "Learn to master {The Secret of} your slavery and become a millionaire, maybe a billionaire -a citizen above another."
James.They exist for the exact reasons I mentioned. Control. Putting people in a position where they are beholden. Just like in that article which is real by the way, people have been given without having to produce for so long they no longer see the need to.
Also they will have transportation to the polls when it is time to vote. They will see to that.
That article didn't deal with that boxer because he hasn't given up...and you know that.
That article deals with the folks that have given up and won't do anything now unless the government hands it to them and you damn well know they exist.I guess this depends on what you mean by "give up".
What if the situation is "give out"....as in his body?
Do you perpetuate poverty into the next generation? His kids need lots of help, and there are few free/low-cost options that don't in some way get their money from the government, local, state, or federal.Not all of the people living in poverty are able to box. Any economy which is export driven will never provide full employment, resulting in a vast number of people, who, at some stage in their lives, will 'have to, Need to' collect benefits in order to survive. Blaming the poor for their poverty and suggesting that they don't want to work, is a nasty right wing media ploy which deflects from the real issues.
The poor, at least a good portion of them have been given to to the point they don't know why they should have to do anything.
That's the problem.Nonsense.
Keep living in your world of vague generalities.You know, you cannot possibly be that naive Mike.
You tell me you work among the poor and you will tell me that does not exist?
I don't personally work with them but know enough who do who will repudiate that it does not occur.Well, that settled it. Thanks for the insights.
Poverty is artificially created. All it is about money and control.
On that I would agree with you. A fine product of capitalism!
Indeed.
Today's society believes/is hypnotic in self-[inset term here] that will remove the artifice. Sadly, the only ones getting rich are the ones selling the snake oil of zen-capitalism.
Okay James,
I've given your post a little thought and I'm not for socialism on any count. That even includes releasing the Social Security program, the Medicare program, the Medicaid program.
Release= means do away with.
However, this isn't an easy task to do.
I will have to say that I don't see a future problem if America stuck to a Capitalistic Republic society structure. By all accounts, equality and equal rights are to be the foundation. It means that access to education and affordable health care can be obtained for each person who chooses to use those services.
Equality- The ability to have a level playing field in America's economic structured economy. Equal enforced regulations/laws/rules which are applied to all, not just some.
Public education should be rid of the religious and political views. People need to have specific critical knowledge to live within a Capitalistic Republic and if they don't have it, then it won't work.
Eventually, programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid(as well as all other forms of government assistance) wouldn't be needed and government can focus more on what it should be and less on the citizens within it's borders.I think a larger part of the New Deal was Socio-Capitalism, because they found out the hard way -or maybe intentionally- that raw a Capitalist Republic does not work; more expressly in today's technological world.
By Socio-Cap, I mean the programs mentioned and forced division of society into {now} two classes. I read up on Hooverville and the global effect. To say the least, was shocked. I learned some of it, from a European perspective years ago, but never saw the full picture.
Since then, Capitalism, to survive, has spawned 2 major global wars and many, many smaller publicly centered and not-so-publicly centered --and it is only war, violence, that has managed to keep Capitalism afloat. That makes me a tad leery...Hello, Education and Healthcare availability and who will pay for it are two different matters.
And with your limited ability, I don't expect you to understand.
The Constitution is an amazing document. It spells out what the Federal government is allowed to do. Everything else is given to the states. Anything not listed in the document is left to the states to decide.
Great premise for a lasting government.
Unfortunately, governments are loathe to change. The Constitution is even harder to change when very few of our elected leaders want to follow it.
Instead of complaining that Obamacare is somehow trampling on our liberties, what we need to do is update the Constitution to reflect the world we actually live in.
What we need is an amendment to the Constitution saying that church and state are officially separate. We don't need laws like the one in Texas where kids are no longer being taught to think.
We also need to update the bill of rights to include two things:
1) Healthcare is a basic human right, it should be provided to all citizens at a reasonable cost.
2) Education is a basic human right. It will be taught in a fact-based manner to all students. This will eliminate students being taught that evolution is false because of the Loch Ness Monster. Increase pay to teachers. Stop teaching to tests. Allow the educational system to be a process that engages students instead of teaching mindless facts. At this rate, we might as well just let kids Google all the facts they supposedly need to know for tests.@Vladimir Uhri... If you lived under the Soviet Union, what u experienced has nothing to do with Socialism... in fact the correct term used currently in academia is Stalinism.
The best examples of true Socialism, historically, both in theory and in practice, are the Scandinavian countries of today (i.e. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland)... Oddly enough, they are also the happiest nations of the world.startupninja. OK believe what you want. Every system starting with socialism has initial euphoria. Scandinavian countries are only temporary set up. But see how much they pay taxes. Then morality, highest suicide rate. Is is happiness? *** Because of failed Soviet system now socialistic teaches telling us "boloney" to explain bad socialism. "Stalinism" In my classes Marxism-Leninism they say we know about mistakes, but we will not repeat them. Aha. Jame Atkins said rightly "Socialism is not good idea with mistakes, it is bad idea, period". It utopia system.If materialism dominates, it is not "wrong" to steal kill and destroy.
No materialsm = socialistic capitalism. You do not even know what you have.
You are just wrong, it means no such thing.
I was born into an oppressive dictatorship too and I am a socialist, indeed in my country the socialists were the only ones who fought the dictatorship so just because you aren't born free does not mean you won't be a socialist.It is matter of mind.
I have Jewish friend who was in concentration camp. He escaped from socialistic country. Still he is socialist/leftist. People were brainwashed and some "communists" had fair life. I had offer to joint communist party. When I was in army I got good work reward, recommendation to joint communist party. They told me my world will be open to anything I want. However, that socialistic devil steal, kill and destroy. When you like to be socialist it is OK with me. But do not take my freedom.
Today monopoly, hungry money is promoted by socialistic capitalism. It will be easier to take over by that devil.Do you have any idea how many brutal dictatorships have been capitalist? my entire family in my country and most of my friends were kidnapped, tortured and in the case of the women raped for months then killed by a capitalist country, economics has nothing to do with oppression, authoritarianism and dictatorship is the problem.
Socialistic capitalism!!!!
That is a new one on me!
I'm well aware of what we have, capitalism with a few vestiges of social programmes but never socialistic capitalism, the two just don't meet.
Perhaps you mean state capitalism?I know they do not mix. But even healthy can be infected, right?
I am truly enjoying the spectacle of a few here trying to tell a refugee of the former Soviet Union that he didn't experience what he experienced and does not know what he is talking about!
Perhaps you should send him to a re-education camp? Ya think?You've got the wrong end of the stick. The point people are trying to make, which Vladimir (and apparently you also) seems to keep missing, is that no-one here is advocating Soviet-style communism. He...and you, are railing against a strawman.
He..and me...are stating that's the eventual end.
I see. So Scandinavians are headed for the gulags?
Well we are stating that you are wrong by the evidence. Of the dozens of socialist countries that exist most of them are becoming more free and respectful of liberty.
What some of us would call state capitalism and others would call Stalinism is not what any of us would call either socialism or communism!
Here...argue with her:
actually listen now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rT76vN … plpp_videoLook until you learn the difference between communism and socialism you are making no point at all, there are no communists in this discussion, you saying socialism does not work because communism failed is like me saying conservatism doesn't work because fascism failed, it's a lot further to the extremes and no one here is debating it. if you want to have that discussion there is a hubber called Comrade Joe, he is a really nice guy and will be happy to have that conversation with you, he is also a professor so you might find yourself outclassed but regardless it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Yep, You paid no attention past her opening remarks.
I watched until she said there was no incentive to work which was more than 3 quarters of the way in, but she kept talking about communism so I shut it down.
And what sorts of things did she describe in her environment where she lived?
She talked about rationing, her parent's divorce, relatives crossing with goods, guns being taken away, i watched it I have relatives from the union, some who liked it some who did not, it's nothing I have not heard before.
Yes nationalized healthcare is a part of Communist, progressive, socialist, liberal, third way and in many place centrist doctrine trying to suggest that because they also have nationalized healthcare we are going to become communist or whatever illogical insinuation you are trying to make is foolish it so happens that almost all the first world nations in the world have nationalized healthcare, it's as dumb as me saying: you believe in patriotism right? You know who else believed in patriotism, Nazis, obviously you are a Nazi, don't use that kind of argument it's sad and insulting to everyone involved.
I watched too and I'm sure it was horrible for many people in East Germany but again her experience was Soviet communism, which no-one here is supporting.
It's false to claim that all forms of socialism lead to such horrors as brutal dictatorships, oppression and forced labour camps. Scandinavia is not like East Germany is it? Australia has socialised healthcare and we have not collapsed into rabid communism. At one point she mentioned that rhetoric about "helping the poor " was the first step toward the kind of communism she had escaped, implying people who discuss such things aren't to be trusted. I didn't find that very rational.Let me be clear:
I don't intend that socialized medicine itself will turn everything Socialist.
However the administration and it's leadership now have more ideas than just that. We get accused of obstructionism by a Senate majority leader who will not allow the opposing parties bills to even hit the floor for a vote.
There is a bigger picture here that the statists in power want enacted.Let me be further clear then, nothing that Obama is suggesting would be considered new in a country like Australia which has individual liberties and also an economy that is much much healthier than the US, possibly the best in the world.
So I am wrong and just plain stupid then in not being happy that our Senate majority leader is being an obstructionist while accusing others of it?
And calling them murderers? And terrorists?Nope, both houses are being terrible it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion though
Not really. He represents what is being reputed as the good guys and the media backs that up to the death. He represents the ideals you tell me I am supposed to want. So is that the path to what we need to be.
I mean it would be just as easy to eliminate the opposing party as you won't allow their ideas to be voted on anyway.
You also said you knew of no racist liberals and I sent you at least two videos of them which I doubt you watched either.
No i said I knew no racist liberals and I knew no public figures who were racist and liberal, you never provided either of those, and even if you had it would not have weakened my statistical argument at all.
Kruschev:
I have personally witnessed the heart-rending results of the loss of freedom. I have talked face-to-face with the godless Communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Khrushchev for a half-day when he visited the United States. Not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor.
As we talked face-to-face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under Communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his, and all other grandchildren, will live under freedom, he arrogantly declared, in substance:
"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright. But we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."HAHAHAHA as usual the ignorance... What Marx called socialism is not what we call socialism, Marx had a process by which capitalism would become communism and he named the interim period socialism but Marxist socialism is not economic socialism. Again it's like me suggesting we will make you fascist by letting you slowly become conservative, conservatism is a right wing ideology just because you embrace it does not mean it will led to the inevitable creation of Fascism and it would be stupid to suggest it, it's the poorest form of argument possible.
Josak:
He calls socialism and communism two different things.
Here's Nikita Khrushchev himself and of course you know better than he.Communists always twisting according to their needs. This is why they had special propagandist schools. No I do not know everything. I share only my experience. Read this please:
Many like now socialism. It is natural euphoria until socialism become irreversible. Then people had to be adjusted to live in socialistic jail.
First we became poor. The government change money overnight, gave us only $50 live on to the end of the month. My dad was the capenter. He was worker’s class. He lost all savings saved in case…
We went throught the same process. Nobody could do anything with that. Since we did vote for it, being totaly fool. We did not make any homework then we paid for it dearly.Socialism is prelude of communism. Each Marxian textbook say so. I already described difference I do not want to repeat myself. I have university level of Marxism - Leninism Dialectic Materialism and Political Economy and have state board of it. I studied in University of Brno.
Yes. But try and tell them that. They don't want that known so there gets to be a large argument.
so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun:
1 A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
2 (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism
As it says in the dictionary in Marxist theory socialism has a different definition.
I am not saying I am more intelligent or better informed he is just using a different definition of the same word.
so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun:
1 A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
2 (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism
See I am using the first and he is using the second, even the dictionary acknowledges it.Josak:
When you read his words he states that one will lead to the other. Not that they are the same thing.Look at the definition, when he says socialism ti means something else, that's why it has a different meaning according to the dictionary, socialism in Marxist theory is not what I believe in nor is it what we call socialism, if you want to know what it is read Marx.
This is not a complex thing to understand, the dictionary makes it very clear that socialism can mean two different things, he is using the Marxist definition because lo and behold he was a Marxist!
Do you know what the tagline of socialism is "he who does not work neither shall he eat" can you now see how dumb it is to post something like "when half the population gets the idea they don't have to work because the other half will support them" as a critique of socialism? It's laughable
I also wanted to add that most of that becomes untrue in a socialist system for example "the governemnt cannot give to anyone anything they did not take from someone else" (paraphrased) which in a socialist system is simply not true since the public owns industry and business.
Of course not but that does not change the above statement.
The problem is you don't know what socialism is "he who does not work neither shall he eat" and "from each according to his ability to each according to his work" you are assigning the liberal reward for not working ideology to socialism and as I explained recently liberalism and socialism are very different I have much less patience for rewarding people who don't work than you do.
Socialism is a workers movement born from the fact that workers are not fairly compensated for their labor and from economic inefficiency the founders of this ideology were people who worked 14 to 16 hours a day in brutal conditions, not people looking for a handout.See what I can't get across to you is that regardless of what YOU feel Socialism is....it's not the same thing they are attempting to bring about here.
If you agree to Harry Reid's tactics that is not the path I want to travel and it's hardly the "bi-partisanship"they call for.
Before someone chimes in I could give a good rip what George Bush did. I didn't agree with it then either.I know they are not trying to bring about socialism here as I have told you as far as I am concerned Obama is a right wing politician, as I have made clear i am not a liberal and I don't like Obama. Having said that having grown up under the heel of a patrician class I know the alternative is worse.
I don't support giving to those who don't work... in all it's forms, see Romney is a good example born into money and privilege (not that Obama is much better) he made his wealth by using that money to play with companies and stocks, in my eyes that is not work either, so I support giving to the welfare leech as much as I support giving to the owner who spends his days playing golf and giving his stock agent instructions.Josak the moon is not made of green cheese and Barack Obama is not right wing. Maybe he's right wing in your views but ideologically he is a statist.
Being a statist is not left wing, statism can be left or right wing, fascism like under Mussolini is a perfect example of right wing statism.
Barack Obama is not right wing. His own words in his books tell you so.
Yeah and according to Kim Jong Il he believed in a strong democracy. I am sure he considers himself a leftist but in global perspective he is not.
Let me get you into what I mean:
When i mentioned Bill Ayers.....co-founder of the Weather Underground,bombed the Pentagon, murdered a law enforcement official....that's a close associate.
Van Jones..........wrote of his convert to Communism years ago.
There are others. Why do I want this?Honesty I don't know if that is true but just from what you say (I plead ignorance) then you shouldn't please understand I am not going to defend Obama I don't really like him, I should also mention that maybe he is personally quite leftist but his policies are not.
which is not to say that someone who killed a law enforcement agent or a communist necessarily have nothing useful to say, I was a member of the armed resistance in Argentina...Well...that may have been quite different. I would rather try to deal with a talking suit like Romney than an activist like Obama.
It was a little scary how many politicians in his own party complained about his policies but none had the courage to oppose him in the elections.
That's because they will be labeled racist and that will be the end of a Democrat politician career.
That's not someone I trust or want to follow.
If you could have a one-world government would you?
Tough question... I think not simply because it's putting all your eggs in one basket, if you mess it up there is no refuge if it becomes authoritarian there is no where to run. No I support sovereignty, I don't let that get in the way of considering every person from every country to be equals though.
Well the people around Obama would have one-world government.
I don't see any evidence of that, American internationalism as I have seen it has always been strongest under conservatives, I felt personally the effect of the US treating the South American continent as it's "backyard" and trying to make all those countries like the US by force if necessary.
When he starts bypassing Congress and the people on a regular basis as he is now he is not looking out for his citizens. He is supposed to be our employee.
Let me put it to you differently for me voting in the US is like if you were given two choices Stalin and Chavez, you would not like either but at least one is closer right?
Related Discussions
- 19
Is the Separation of Powers BROKEN in the USA?
by Arthur Russ 24 minutes ago
In a true democracy there should be a separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature. No democracy is perfect, but how imperfect is the American democracy?While browsing the web in relation to a question on the Separation of Powers in the USA (in another forum) I...
- 60
What is the big deal about socialism?
by Peeples 10 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies are quite happy AND well provided for. So what is the big deal? Why are so many...
- 11
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?
by Peter V 10 years ago
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?I have my own opinion but what do you think of the current direction America is heading (towards socialism)? Do you think this is very bad and goes against what America was founded on or is this generally a good thing? Please support your...
- 271
Socialism and Communism?
by Sophia Angelique 13 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity, etc.Socialism is part of democracy and Canada, the US, the UK, all countries in...
- 65
Aren't Socialism and Communism more Conservative than Liberal?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...
- 37
Is social security a socialist program?
by SportsBetter 7 years ago
Is social security a socialist program?