Why is socialism such a dirty word in the United States. Is socialism always a bad thing?
Most people who decry socialism actually have no idea what it actually is.
I spent tens of thousands of dollars of my own money to start a business. It was a big risk for my family, if it pays off I should be rewarded right? BTW, I live in Berkeley so socialism has a different meaning here than much of the country
Because the media is all owned by die-hard, uneducated,
progressive/elitist capitalists, who must have loads of money to be worth a dime's worth of dust.
Because if we ever elected a truly socialist Government, the rich and powerful could no longer socialize their debts, hence, socialism is a dirty word.
Thanks for that expression, the idea of the wealthy socializing their debts. In fact the nataional debt of any nation is a socialization of outlays spent to a large part to fund the coffers of the wealthy. Take defense spending in the U.S.. Most often contracts allow for up to a 30% profit that goes to the companies. And the companies are 80% ownded by the wealthy.
Yes, they see the tax payer as their personal fortune, to be tapped into whenever the need arises. Up until 2005 I worked for the National offender management service, the Govt of the day gave large contracts to the private sector to work as 'consultants' Employment specialists, housing specialists, they were ALL specialists and consultants [supposedly] delivering a service which was already available through the public sector to clients. For the most part they could not deliver that service because they had to refer to the public sector anyway. The CEO's drove around in Bentleys whilst professing that they were a not for profit organisation. Come the election of 2010, big business pulled their donations from the govt of the day and the opposition party blamed the 'bloated' public sector for the overspend. The public sector are paying with their jobs and pensions.
Now, we are told that there are too may agencies involved with 'problem families' and that the private contractors will co-ordinate this work, thus, cutting expenditure. What they are not saying is that the private sector is just another layer of bureaucracy. Unless these private sector workers are educational psychologists, psychiatric nurses, probation officers, youth offending officers, educational welfare officers, alcohol and substance misuse workers all rolled into one, we are just adding an additional cost. Did I mention who these new *super* contractors were? wait for it....G4S.
So your answer to this is socialism: where the government is so large the banks controlling it can enact a greater tyranny upon all of the population. The banks aren't going to disappear as soon as you have socialism - expanding government in an attempt to get close to socialism is simply expanding the power of the banks. Banks LOVE the word socialism as its principles encourage greater government control: their gunmen have all the more power.
Where the government is strictly limited, the banks power is limited to the market where they have to compete instead of enacting violence through the government.
Rubbish. And here's why, we haven't been able to elect a truly socialist leader for decades, the right wing press and the bankers do not permit it. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron are not socialists- they are but the puppets of the elite. Do you honestly believe that if John Smith (do you remember him) had not died the banks would have been able to behave as shamelessly as they have? It is the 1% that controls Governments and the state, they fund and promote those who work in their interests. A socialist Government, not that we'll ever see one in this country, by its very nature would regulate and reign in those special interests.
Special interests are not going to disappear, what's more is that the government is a special interest in itself - it exists to steal property from and subjugate the populace. You're living in a dreamland if you think the banks aren't controlling the socialist countries across the world too - when so much power exists, it attracts greed, the very thing socialists decry. Socialism, is in short, a lie of the 1% used to subjugate well-meaning people.
The reason why socialist thought is dangerous is because it is used by people like Blair and Obama to expand government control of the people and the economy to a point where there is no liberty left.
I suspect that Americans are so wary of socialism because the hallmarks of the U.S. are believed to be individualism, capitalism, pulling yourself up by your boot straps, etc. I recognize that the U.S. has now and always has had a number of socialistic programs (in fact, government itself is a social, collectivist institution), but that "S" word is just one that doesn't sit well with a lot of Americans.
Because socialism is violence and destroys every society that it comes into contact with - it is another method of banker control in the same way state-capitalism is.
How is socialism violence?
I can see how kicking someone in their 'gentlemen's area' is violence, how slapping someone is violence, dropping a rock on them, etc. but I don't see how socialism is violence?
Also it seems to me that socialist democracy are mainly ones noticeably low in violent crime.
The state acquires every citizen's justly owned property to be distributed how it sees fit, and those who do not consent to this are detained. This is by definition, violence.
Socialism is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't have a precise definition. I was taught in Economics 101 was that socialism was state ownership of the primary industries--iron, steel, transportation, mining and so forth.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
"Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.
"A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.
"As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic system...."
knolyyourself, I find it interesting that the perceived bias of the mass media really depends on one's own personal political bias. I'm basically liberal (but not very far left) and for as long as I can remember I have always thought of the media as conservative, definitely not progressive. I think that is the case even more so today because most media outlets are in the hands of large corporations. Thanks goodness we still have a mostly unfettered Internet where you can find the facts of a situation, but not without some personal effort.
Ideas that can harm other ideas are branded into our minds forcefully by some to sound bad and not the good ones, and so it is...
by JON EWALL 7 years ago
Just recently a report came out regarding employment.The report stated that the average pay in the private market was $40.00/hr. and the average pay in the public sector was $70/hr.In the public sector the fringe benefits also are higher.Could it be that in the public sector 50% of the workers are...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
by marymootoo 7 years ago
The public sector unions have threatend mass stike action over pensions, do you think that this is the right thing to do? Is it fair that in the present climate for a group of people to inflict the threat of misery for personal gain?
by karl 4 years ago
There has been another round of public sector strikes here in the UK with Firefighters, local government workers and teachers (depending on which Union they belong to) amongst the 500,000 - 1,000,000 workers ( depending on who you ask) who decided not to attend work today. Their grievances...
by PR Morgan 7 years ago
Do you think most public workers are overpaid?
by pisean282311 8 years ago
for me it is hollow talks , corruption and dividing people..
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|