Newsweek Article

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Why are people in the US so afraid of Socialism? A lot of things Americans take for granted is already Socialist in nature, so why does it induce people to scream 'The End is Nigh'?

because almost no one knows what it is. someone in my english class blamed the ussr's poor economy and human rights violations on them being socialist/communist (which were the same in nearly everyone else's eyes). i almost brought up tsarist russia and modern russia and how they're just as bad as soviet russia and how i'm a socialist, but i elected to hold my tongue and stay off government watchlists and remain the quiet kid in class rather than the commie subversive.

 

in short, the red scare never really went away, our politicians can trump anything they don't like by saying it's socialist/communist/marxist in addition to saying terrorists are quite fond of it because no one cares if it is or not and that we almost had an essentially openly socialist president in 1945 instead of truman. **** mccarthy, **** nixon they ushered in an era of cynicism, love of ignorance, and government secrecy and generally horrible **** thanks guys.

 

 

in shorter, people believe socialism is obama doing this instead of them not being ****ed by the health insurance industry and all that jazz

 

[mimartin]

Why would this upset me? At least Obama is intelligent enough to know that the Federal Government is the only entity that may have the ability to positively affect the economy. Although I personally have my doubts if this will work, but I guess if you have lost your job or if you are under threat of losing your job, then at least this looks like the Government is attempting to help you.

 

For those that do not believe that U.S. policies does not affect people beyond U.S. citizens may I suggest looking at U.S. trade agreements and U.S. treaties with other countries.

[jrrtoken]

Why are people in the US so afraid of Socialism? A lot of things Americans take for granted is already Socialist in nature, so why does it induce people to scream 'The End is Nigh'?

It isn't a very new thing; socialism has been seen as taboo for over a century now. Hence why Upton Sinclair gained little popularity in the US during his time, but was more renowned in Europe. Either way, the Cold War perpetuated the ignorance, and that ignorance is returning with Obama's so-called "radical" reforms, when essentially, FDR enacted similar legislature during the Depression.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It isn't a very new thing; socialism has been seen as taboo for over a century now. Hence why Upton Sinclair gained little popularity in the US during his time, but was more renowned in Europe. Either way, the Cold War perpetuated the ignorance, and that ignorance is returning with Obama's so-called "radical" reforms, when essentially, FDR enacted similar legislature during the Depression.

At least pre-Cold War it was taboo in government circles because robber barons used their sway to stave off progressive policies so they could build extravagant mansions and eat the poor or whatever, now it's ignorance and irrational fear.

[Adavardes]

I'm gonna be perfectly frank here, this whole thread is a farce. There won't be a revolution, Obama's not going to do anything that horrible or destructive to our civil rights or our governmental integrity, which is what it would realistically take for a majority of citizens to rise up and overthrow the government. Our civil rights have not been challenged; in fact, it would seem like they're looking to be expanded upon, or at least brought back to normal levels after Bush's considerable constriction of them. I'm sorry, and I know people don't like pinning things to party members, and to be honest, it's not my favourite thing to do either. But this is nothing more than some conservatives having trouble accepting that they're no longer top dogs, throwing hissies and claiming Obama's going to be the end of us all.

 

As for socialism, I can tell you from personal experience that 9 times out of 10, when you encounter a person that is either terrified or averse to the concept of a more socialist America, they tie most of their fears or doubts to a misguided and ultimately incorrect ideology that socialism is basically the same thing as communism. This is usually due to the fact that they buy immediately into the rhetoric spewed by past officials on the matter, and never bother to do proper study on the subject. It's rooted in ignorance and alarmist slogans, most of which hold a conservative slant, and many of which have been the source for a lot of overly-emotional civilian responses to political actions, or even national disasters. 9/11 is case in point.

 

Obama won this election. By a landslide. The majority of American citizens wanted him as president, and thus far, he has done what many of his voters expected him to do: what he said he would do during the election. For a revolution to take place, he's gonna have to tick off a lot more people than just hard-line conservatives, who are the only ones really upset over this.

[Yar-El]

Government controlled anything is pretty much a horrible thing. I do have to agree with one thing Obama mentioned. We have to hold people accountable for the money we give them; nevertheless, I'm not sure if giving money to failing companies is being responsible. I've been watching the stock market. Its on a freefall after the Treasury spoke up about their revised plan.

 

Socialism is not the way to go. We should allow these companies to fall; thus, allowing us to rebuild the industrial and agricultural sector. Obama's plan will not work in the long run.

[jrrtoken]

Government controlled anything is pretty much a horrible thing.

So you're an anarchist?

I do have to agree with one thing Obama mentioned. We have to hold people accountable for the money we give them; nevertheless, I'm not sure if giving money to failing companies is being responsible. I've been watching the stock market. Its on a freefall after the Treasury spoke up about their revised plan.

It's been doing that forever, no need to panic

Socialism is not the way to go.

So, I guess we should just let the megacorporation make up all of out policies, by giving workers no civil rights whatsoever, allowing employers to make their workers labor 18 hour days. Extreme capitalism allows for a free-for-all in the economy, allowing the rich to essentially control the population, with little oppostion form the government. Let's send little Johnny to the textile mills to get a penny an hour! Oh joy, isn't capitalism great!!!

We should allow these companies to fall;

Yet if that happens, the stock market will most likely crash, triggering a global depression, meaning absolute unemployment. Sort of like what Hoover allowed.

thus, allowing us to rebuild the industrial and agricultural sector.

Agriculture is controlled by the megacorps; there is no such thing these days as the family farmer. Honestly, I think there needs to be a government-sponsored civil engineering project, much like Boulder Dam, that will create thousands of jobs, in addition to providing utilities. For example, solar and wind farms, or highway renovations.

Obama's plan will not work in the long run

They said the same thing about the New Deal, but that worked pretty damn well.

[mimartin]

Government controlled anything is pretty much a horrible thing.

So you are for privatizing the military too? Guess then it would make the possibility of revolution a reality.

[Yar-El]

So you are for privatizing the military too? Guess then it would make the possibility of revolution a reality.

Some of the military is already privatized. You can blame the Republicans and Democrats for that one.

[jrrtoken]

Some of the military is already privatized.

Which is exactly the problem. PMCs such as Blackwater have little government control and oversight, allowing for anything to happen.

[Adavardes]

So, I guess we should just let the megacorporation make up all of out policies, by giving workers no civil rights whatsoever, allowing employers to make their workers labor 18 hour days. Extreme capitalism allows for a free-for-all in the economy, allowing the rich to essentially control the population, with little oppostion form the government. Let's send little Johnny to the textile mills to get a penny an hour! Oh joy, isn't capitalism great!!!

 

Agreed, on all accounts. Capitalism is, undoubtedly, the worst economic philosophy in the long run. Does it produce results? Yes. Are the by-products and costs of it, the corporate control, the bribery, the corruption, worth it? No.

 

I don't trust the government. You'd be a fool to say that you do, unconditionally. But of the two evils, between the government and the corporationism, it is very, VERY much the lesser. At least with government control, we, the people, have a direct influence in what happens. With corporations, we don't. It's all about what can be done to make more money, whatever the cost.

[Yar-El]

Which is exactly the problem. PMCs such as Blackwater have little government control and oversight, allowing for anything to happen.

Why are you not mad? Why will there be no revolt?

 

Agreed, on all accounts. Capitalism is, undoubtedly, the worst economic philosophy in the long run. Does it produce results? Yes. Are the by-products and costs of it, the corporate control, the bribery, the corruption, worth it? No.

Corruption comes from both sides. Your surounded by a corrupted government. Democrats and Republicans are both extremely corrupt.

[Adavardes]

Corruption comes from both sides.

 

Corruption based on bribery comes directly from greed, which is allowed to run rampant by capitalism, as greed is the primary fuel for the economic policy. This has nothing to do with partisanism. Nice try though.

[Yar-El]

Corruption based on bribery comes directly from greed, which is allowed to run rampant by capitalism, as greed is the primary fuel for the economic policy.

We have a problem don't we? Capitalism and Socialism breeds corruption. What do we do about a government that is embodied in corruption?

[Adavardes]

We have a problem don't we? Capitalism and Socialism breeds corruption. What do we do about a government that is embodied in corruption?

 

... How does Socialism breed corruption?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Government controlled anything is pretty much a horrible thing.

Agreed, on all accounts. Capitalism is, undoubtedly, the worst economic philosophy in the long run. Does it produce results? Yes. Are the by-products and costs of it, the corporate control, the bribery, the corruption, worth it? No.

To respond to the both of you, governments are what the people make them or let them become, corruption, bribery, and corruption are inherent in any system that isn't effectively policed by the people. To respond more specifically to Adavardes, I feel both capitalism and socialism are detrimental in the long run depending on a country's goals, generally socialism provides a stable economy, whereas capitalism provides higher growth at the cost of risking massive losses, and ideally we should strike a balance between them.

 

Oh yeah, I just went Eastern on your ass.

 

 

e:

 

... How does Socialism breed corruption?

All forms of government are susceptible to corruption in the sense that private/individual interests can be furthered at the expense of the greater good.

[jrrtoken]

We have a problem don't we? Capitalism and Socialism breeds corruption. What do we do about a government that is embodied in corruption?

You sack 'em and replace 'em with someone more trustworthy. Kinda like what happened when people elected Obama.

 

Oh, and I thought that capitalism is the answer to all of our problems.

and ideally we should strike a balance between them.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But it probably won't happen in America.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. But it probably won't happen in America.

Don't be so negative, we already nationalized more than a few banks!

[Yar-El]

You sack 'em and replace 'em with someone more trustworthy. Kinda like what happened when people elected Obama.

 

Oh, and I thought that capitalism is the answer to all of our problems.

Most historical leaders are forged through experiences. George Washington wanted to retire; however, the founding fathers needed someone as a symbol. His actions of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor caused the people to thrust leadership upon him. Obama is not that man or woman.

[Adavardes]

All forms of government are susceptible to corruption in the sense that private/individual interests can be furthered at the expense of the greater good.

 

Well, I supposed that dirty government officials would go for tax dollars and steal that way, instead of getting corporate cutbacks. Okay, so both sides can lead to corruption. I agree with you that ideally, in a perfect world, we'd have both. But I don't see that happening, so I'll go with the option that takes out the factor of corporate leeches that suck the life out of civilians and breed many social and political evils, such as conformism, wealth gaps, and overseas slave labour.

 

Also, Yar-El, stop repeating the same tired argument that Obama isn't experienced enough. That is SO 2008.

[jrrtoken]

Most historical leaders are forged through experiences. George Washington wanted to retire; however, the founding fathers needed someone as a symbol. His actions of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor caused the people to thrust leadership upon him. Obama is not that man or woman.

Thanks for being off-topic, with little actual factual evidence. That's cool. Obama's just another socialist, and they can't be trusted at all.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Most historical leaders are forged through experiences. George Washington wanted to retire; however, the founding fathers needed someone as a symbol. His actions of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor caused the people to thrust leadership upon him. Obama is not that man or woman.

I most definitely agree that Obama is not that woman, however you have no way of know that he isn't that man, and in the interests of logic and fairness you should at least give him a chance to prove himself.

[Yar-El]

Thanks for being off-topic, with little actual factual evidence. That's cool. Obama's just another socialist, and they can't be trusted at all.

Now I know you don't know your American history. How George Washington became our first president is nothing to shy from. John F. Kennedy was also a similar case. Both men had experience with war and being a leader. This does relate to the subject. Figure it out.

[mur'phon]

Advardes

Agreed, on all accounts. Capitalism is, undoubtedly, the worst economic philosophy in the long run. Does it produce results? Yes.

Are the by-products and costs of it, the corporate control, the bribery, the corruption, worth it? No.

 

Look at the world, which parts of it have been doing good? Capitalism (or, the practicall examples of it anyway) is a wonderfull way of increasing the wealth of all citzens in a society. Of course, it dosen't do it fairly, so the income gap betwen rich and poor end up high. So, how is a system that creates oodles of wealth "undoubtedly the worst economic philosophy in the long run"?

 

But I don't see that happening, so I'll go with the option that takes out the factor of corporate leeches that suck the life out of civilians and breed many social and political evils, such as conformism, wealth gaps, and overseas slave labour.

 

Lets instead enjoy having government leeches, and the evils they bring, like lack of inovation, slow growth, lower quality products etc

 

Yar-El

Government controlled anything is pretty much a horrible thing. I do have to agree with one thing Obama mentioned. We have to hold people accountable for the money we give them; nevertheless, I'm not sure if giving money to failing companies is being responsible. I've been watching the stock market. Its on a freefall after the Treasury spoke up about their revised plan.

 

If you are talking about giving cash too carmakers and their ilk, agreed, they can fall without causing much long term damage. The financial sector on the other hand fuels the rest of the economy, and alowing big parts of it to fall would mean alowing a lot of profittable companies to fall with them.

 

Socialism is not the way to go. We should allow these companies to fall; thus, allowing us to rebuild the industrial and agricultural sector.

 

Err, why would you want to rebuild your industry? It seems to be working alright to me, focusing on what it's best at. As for Agriculture, I hope your idea of alowing companies to fall aplies here too, because a lot will fall if you cut their subsidies, which IMO would be good in the long run.

 

 

@jmac: Tsarist Russia, yes, modern Russia, no. As much as I hate our current administration, they aren't that bad, yet

[jrrtoken]

Now I know you don't know your American history. How George Washington became our first president is nothing to shy from. John F. Kennedy was also a similar case. Both men had experience with war and being a leader. This does relate to the subject. Figure it out.

So? Military honor or leadership is not required for a president to be considered great. Either way, this is totally irrelevant to the topic.