What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?

1. 85

   internpeteposted 14 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 answers.

   replyreport
2. 62

   dabeanerposted 14 years ago

   It hasn't been good for any other country.  Why should it be any different for America?  BTW, replacing our present corporate fascism (Benito Mussolini of fascist Italy termed it "corporatism") with socialism (a more polite term for communism/Marxism) will be of no benefit to the average NON-GOVERNMENT worker.
   
   So, if you are a young person, join the U.S. Fascist/Communist Party ASAP.  By that, I mean, register as a Democrat or Republican (one of the two wings of the U.S. Fascist/Communist Party) and try to get a political office or an apparatchik sinecure with them or their bureaucratic apparatus.  Your salary will be twice that of the average non-government person, and you will receive generous pension and medical benefits the average person will not have access to (even with "health care reform".) Your object is to live at the expense of the decreasing few who actually contribute to society.  Cash in while it lasts.

   replyreport
3. 76

   LetusPonderposted 14 years ago

   Ronald Kessler wrote an article about the socialist Soviet Union.  Most anyone can relate a similar story where people here in America just don't care and are just putting in their time to get paid, quality and service be damned.
   
   Like the Democrats who want to provide coverage for all Americans, the Soviets had good intentions. They reasoned that if the government ran everything and distributed wealth equally, everyone would be happy. But like the Democrats, the Soviets were naive and shortsighted.
   
   Under their government-run economy, Soviets had no incentive to work hard or to produce. They got paid the same regardless. Because prices of goods bore no relation to their actual cost or their value to consumers, they did not serve the normal function of regulating supply and demand.
   
   In a free economy, if sneakers or chocolate is in short supply and in demand, their prices rise, spurring entrepreneurs to produce more. That was missing in the Soviet economy, where ponderous bureaucracies regulated supply.
   
   As a result, entering a grocery store was like walking into a tomb. On most days, grocers had nothing to sell except potatoes and onions. When available, meat was almost entirely fat. Chickens appeared to be a different species — all skin and bones.
   
   Milk was sour when it was purchased. Apples were tiny and shriveled. Oranges were still green. Grapes, if available, were rotten. To meet plan quotas, tea was mixed with tiny branches and leaves of other plants to increase its bulk.
   
   To buy apples, you had to try to wedge your way into a crowd to get a peek at the prices. Then you stood in line for a half an hour to get to the cashier to pay in advance. Finally, you waited in another line for another half hour to present the chit to a second clerk, who weighed the apples and gave them to you without a bag or wrapping.
   
   Everything was made so cheaply and maintained so poorly that virtually nothing worked properly.

   replyreport
4. 85

   internpeteposted 14 years ago

   Dabeaner and LetusPonder,
   
   Thank you for your responses. I think you both have raised some very good points and i agree with what you wrote. I had not realized that USSR included socialist in the name, which is very interesting that they thought they were a socialist group of states where we (USA) thought they were really communist (which they were).
   
   As i saw somewhere else on hubpages, Karl Marx said something like Socialism is the highway between Capitalism and communism. Seems all to true and very scary with the way our current government is trying to go.
   
   Thanks for your responses and I would love to hear more from others.

   replyreport
5. 73

   someonewhoknowsposted 14 years ago

   We have had a mixed economy for quite a long time.At least 75 years now,ever since the great depression through the 1930's
   People who had lost their jobs lined up at soup kitchens,this was before social security or even unemployment benefits.
   
   Ceo's of bankrupt corporations jumped out of their office windows when their stock became worthless because of manipulation of the stock market by corporate insiders.
   
   How soon we forget the negative events of our economic history.
   
   How often have we as a society allowed central banks and even state banks in the pre twenieth century era take unfair advantage of the people through the manipulation of their state or countries economic markets?
   
   The Salvation Army and Purple Heart ,The Red Cross and other such charities were formed to try to help those who needed it.They were all publically funded.Unfortunately it wasn't enough .Though the Salvation Army and the Purple Heart both have done a lot in providing inexspensive clothing and other household items to those who could not afford them otherwise,while at the same time provide them jobs as well The concept of community involvement in their government is still something foreign to most people.It appears that unless we end up in the same situation as those who already have ,we tend to put our "faith" and make no mistake ,that is what it is "faith" in our government. The very same government that allowed the economy to get as bad as it has.
   
   Dictators become dictators as a direct result of the majority of the people allowing them to take over ,with the mistaken belief that they will do what they say.Dependency is not te answer to our problems including being dependent on a dictator.They end up controlling the people with the help of those they employ with your backing.If,that's not socialism I,don't know what is.Communist countries are being slowly capitalistic in ways,but their leaders are still in control ,not the people.Is,our system any different,remember the Waco massacure by our military against a group of people ,when they could have easily arrested their leader while he was shopping in town? What about "Wounded knee" at one of our universities where students were shot and killed for demonstrating against the government?
   
   "Just let George do it" attitude. If, capitalism depends on continual war for it to be prosperous,I say,it's a corrupt form of  capitalism. A capitalism that won't allow new energy  technologies to come into being,because it competes with the one's we already have,even if we are destroying our environment in the process.As well as costing the average person an enormous amount for the energy costs we will pay in the future.That is not the kind of capitalism I want to live under.

   replyreport
6. 71

   Mr. Happyposted 14 years ago

   Why does everyone think socialism means that a few carry the rest who are lazy, useless and abusing the system? And by the way socialism does not equal communism ... Sweden is not a communist state it is socialist ... Canada is a pretend to be socialis ... not a communist state either ... there are other examples as well.  Communist countries (failures) existed and still exist: North Korea, Cuba; in the past Romania, Vietnam, Russia and so on. There is a difference between Sweden and North Korea, is there not? Then, why keep saying that socialism is communism?!?!
   Now let me return to the argument that a few carry the rest of the 'useless' people in a socialist country. That happends I am sure in the United States as I know it does in Canada. I know some people who work 'under the table' for cash without paying taxes while they collect welfare ... that is ... I don;t even know what to say ... I don;t know how they sleep at night and how they don;t choke on their food knowing that while they make money they also take from the pool of money (Welfare) that is used to help those who find themselves in real financial trouble. From personal experience I can say that in my early teens my father and mother collected 'Welfare' for about eight months I think ... we were in 'deep #$&% so to speak and we really needed it. I felt really shameful ... as a teen I did not know that it is not ashamed to find yourself in financial difficulties and I started working part-time jobs as soon as I was able and legally allowed.
   So the problem is not wealfare but those who abuse it. Then, there must be a system by which people can be better checked in terms of their finances. I knew a drug dealer a while back (he died of cancer about nine years ago) who also collected Welfare ... he was a good friend but he like to "Scam the government, who gives a $&$%?!" as he used to say. And if I was a little smarter back then, I could have argued with him on that but he was a good friend and I did not have much concern for things such as Welfare and ripping off the system at that time. I never said anything.
   Thus, once again the problem is not the Welfare but the people who abuse it. I am sure we are quite intelligent creatures that can come-up with a system that is not so easily corrupted and abused. People should not be allowed to collect 'Welfare' indefinately as some do now. We (in North America) have a lot to learn from the Northern European countries - they are much better off and the people there are much happier.

   replyreport
7. 60

   PeytonFarquharposted 14 years ago

   If you're referring to to the current headlines re: health care, then I have news for you.  Socialism has been here since 1945 when Harry Truman created the Medicare Program.

   replyreport
8. 61

   SheriSappposted 14 years ago

   My opinion, socialism sucks. I work as a teacher, so I really couldn't be called one of the wealthy elite, but I want to keep what I work for. Look at it this way, I once asked my students how they would feel if I totalled the points they earned on a test, and divided them equally so they would all have the same grade. Guess what? These 15-18 year olds told me how completely unfair that would be. If one person studied all night and another student slept through class daily, but they were given the same grades, WHY would any of them WANT to do any extra work for NO REWARD!!! Even the youths can figure out stuff that is this easy to comprehend!!!

   replyreport
   1. 53

      domainer4986posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thats a very easy and good way to look at socialism, I know damn well I wouldn't have studied lol. Checks and balances need to be in place, but to rid america of a free market is asinine

      replyreport
9. 57

   J.Dizzleposted 13 years ago

   It's a loaded question with a million possible answers.  I read many of the answers from people and most have valid points one way or the other.  For any form of government to work the people in the government need to do their jobs correctly.  That doesn't happen.  The citizens need to carry their own weight to make it "fair."  That won't happen.  In Socialism the dead beats will milk the system and and get all the freebies while the hard workers pay for their freebies.  I think we have that happening now.  With capitalism we have the greedy people putting money above human life most of the time.  So to answer the question; I think either way bad things happen.  Unitl greed and laziness are a thing of the past both systems are very flawed.  It's not the form of government that is the problem it's the people running the government along with the people being governed that are the problem.

   replyreport
10. 70

    tritrainposted 13 years ago

    For the first time, I am actually doubting socialized stuff.
    
    I think it's a great safety net, but it is being relied upon too heavily and is ripe with abuse.
    
    I think the US would benefit from health care competition to bring the costs down and maybe the service up, but I'm not very keen on the way it is being implemented.

    replyreport