jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (7 posts)

Has the united states ever commit acts of socialism in any form?

  1. BakerRambles profile image86
    BakerRamblesposted 6 years ago

    Has the united states ever commit acts of socialism in any form?

  2. Jonesy0311 profile image60
    Jonesy0311posted 6 years ago

    I suppose that Social Security could be considered a socialist idea. Of course, like most great ideas in government it failed miserably and remains a shadow of its former self. The trouble is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

  3. someonewhoknows profile image76
    someonewhoknowsposted 6 years ago

    Socialism- A theory of social organization based on government ownership of the means of production,distribution and exchange of goods and services.

    I think we did during world war two ,because of shortages of basic materials that were being used for the war effort.At,least that's what I remember hearing about.I've seen a few movies that portrayed that scenerio.Like the movie - "It's a wonderful life with Jimmy Stewart who played a small town savings and loan officer who volunteered to conduct salvage drives for rubber,etc.
    It,definitely was a movie that portrayed the socialist and capitalist viewpoints.It,had a character who one would identify with the character Scrooge in pther movies that had a socialist bent.They were ment to potrtray the socialist-capitalist viewpoints and they both had moral Implications at the end of the story.It,is better to give than to recieve.Almost a religious tone to them.ALTHOUGH since I'm not into religion. I see them more as simply a way to teach morality and ethics.
    I have to say though the Idea of Santa Claus seems to have been intended to have significance both to socialists as well as capitalists.Both want something.and yet they both seem dependent on eachother for what they want.The only difference seems to be how they go about getting what they want.
    Pure Capitalists only care about money
    Pure socialists don't seem possible.
    Someone has to realize that we need both to be in a particular balance for the whole to benefit.
    Not just the capitalists or the socialists.

    If,we could somehow balance the two we would "all" be better off .

  4. BakerRambles profile image86
    BakerRamblesposted 6 years ago

    Thank for responding, I wanted to know how other people felt about the question, as I feel as though our government is slowly turning into a one sided government, or a form like Athens where the senate debated and tried to push ideas, but authoritative powers drove the real answers to the problems, and so pushed the common people to the dirt...

  5. leroy64 profile image81
    leroy64posted 6 years ago

    Have you considered the Amish communities?  They are not federal entities; but, they do function within our political system.  Although,they might qualify as communist instead of socialist.
    Also, I seem to remember from my college history classes that a number of US socialist/communist experiments were started in the nineteenth century.  All were small scale and most were private ventures using incorporated communities.  I was researching utopian visions of that era.

  6. Rock_nj profile image93
    Rock_njposted 6 years ago

    There is socialism all over the place in the United States.  Next time you drive on a "freeway" keep in mind that it is not only paid for by federal fuel taxes but also by a lot of other revenues that the federal government takes in from various sources like income taxes.  Federal highways are publicly owned, financed, and operated.  The same goes for state and local highways and roadways.  Most local roads are thanks to the local property tax payers with some help from state money.

    As far as Social Security failing miserably.  I'm not sure how that arguement can be made when Social Security has kept tens of million of elderly out of poverty and achieved that goal quite well.  Would you prefer the alternative of having eldery dying in the streets (we may see that soon with the budget cuts coming).  Also, Social Security has not run out of money, and isn't close to running out of money any time soon, and it would never run out of money in the foreseeable future if the Social Security fund hadn't been raided by politicians for decades and instead earned interest on the money it takes in.  The problem is that Social Security taxes are spent on everything but Social Security, including wars and other wasteful spending.  The problem with the Social Security is that the money is not being managed well.  Perhaps a good arguement for privatizing the investment of Social Security taxes, so the politicians can't raid it.

  7. Freeway Flyer profile image90
    Freeway Flyerposted 6 years ago

    It depends on how broadly you define the term. In this political environment, some people seem to define any form of government spending as socialism. Many in America, however, would define any form of government social service program - medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, etc. - as a form of socialism. When the government is engaged in some form of wealth redistribution, I guess that it is a form of socialism. The bulk of the U.S. economy, however, is still capitalist.

    http://hubpages.com/hub/What-is-the-Lea … ing-Crisis