Socialism in America

[Flopper]

The United States has never been a socialist country, and most likely it never will be. Our economy is a modified (that is, regulated) capitalist economic system, as is the case for all the major economies in the world.

In response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the political establishment of both major parties in America began embracing the European notion of welfare state. That is, we accepted and institutionalized the idea that the state has an interest in preventing major portions of the population (in the case of Social Security, the elderly and disabled) from falling into poverty.

The notion of a welfare state has had an independent history from that of the economics notion of socialism (that is, state ownership or control of the major sectors of the national economy). The problem is, today, the Republicans conflate these two ideas in a SCARE TACTIC-type attempt to gain traction with conservatives. The Right sees socialism in everything, public education, social security, government regulations, taxes, Congress, and the White House. The Republican plan for America seems to be based on hate and fear. I wonder whatever happened to family values. I guess it doesn't fit into the new plan.


Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Repubs can't distinguish socialism from welfare state (interstate, weapons, highway) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-D

 

[G.T.]

This is a decent OP, but I'm not sure it's 100% this cynical. There's certainly a basis in reality for welfare leading to a lowered incentive for hard-work(so the GOP montra is never "totally" out in left-field), and there's a line that noone wants to talk about between letting the poor suffer as the rich inhale, or letting the poor live a decent standard on the back of the rich while earning doughnut themselves.

The problem with these discussions is that everyone assigns these deep dark cynical motives to the opposing view, and they turn into cartoon discussion to anyone with more than four brain cells.........and those with three or less brain cells hero-worship people like Beck, Olberman, Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. (for lack of popular Sensationalists on the left to name).

And the problem with having the discussions on "political" message boards, is that the "fans" of these douche-bags come here, for discussion, and mock all other viewpoints like their Demigods do in a cartoonish fashion. Insecurity at its finest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism: it's why Progressives consider the Great Depression so darn great

 

[G.T.]

Socialism: it's why Progressives consider the Great Depression so darn great

= painting a cartoon of all opposing viewpoints. Convenient, corny, but hey, I'm immature 78% of the time so touche'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe you missed this the first 200 times it came up.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/125346-the-imaginary-greatness-of-fdr.html

Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong

 

[G.T.]

That you totally ignore residual effects of past Senates, Congresses, and Presidencies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That you totally ignore residual effects of past Senates, Congresses, and Presidencies.

No, I give Progressives 100% of the credit for the harm they've inflicted.

 

[G.T.]

That you totally ignore residual effects of past Senates, Congresses, and Presidencies.

No, I give Progressives 100% of the credit for the harm they've inflicted.

Of course you do, because Conservatism is flawless and Liberalism is evil. Conservatism is so flawless, they manage to lose power over and over and over again throughout our Nation's history. There's great leadership. You know, the whole keeping leadership, thing. They're so strong, and leadership savvy. Such an ability to maintain power and keep everything on the right course. Good thing Conservatives are such great leaders and are always in power, or else America might get off Conservative course.

 

[JBeukema]

The United States has never been a socialist country, and most likely it never will be.

Actually, its been a socialist nation for some time.

Public libraries? Social security? medicare and Medicaid? Rural electrification?

Our economy is a modified (that is, regulated) capitalist economic system, as is the case for all the major economies in the world.

It's a mixed economy featuring the capitalist mode of production.

The notion of a welfare state has had an independent history from that of the economics notion of socialism (that is, state ownership or control of the major sectors of the national economy).

Not really. Consider the origins of the social democrats.

 

[Flopper]

This is a decent OP, but I'm not sure it's 100% this cynical. There's certainly a basis in reality for welfare leading to a lowered incentive for hard-work(so the GOP montra is never "totally" out in left-field), and there's a line that noone wants to talk about between letting the poor suffer as the rich inhale, or letting the poor live a decent standard on the back of the rich while earning doughnut themselves.

The problem with these discussions is that everyone assigns these deep dark cynical motives to the opposing view, and they turn into cartoon discussion to anyone with more than four brain cells.........and those with three or less brain cells hero-worship people like Beck, Olberman, Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. (for lack of popular Sensationalists on the left to name).

And the problem with having the discussions on "political" message boards, is that the "fans" of these douche-bags come here, for discussion, and mock all other viewpoints like their Demigods do in a cartoonish fashion. Insecurity at its finest.

If you take the time to read the positions of the two parties, you will see nothing even close to what is on these bulletin boards. But the position of the parties is not what wins elections. Sad to say it's character assignation, quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, and plain old lies that make the difference in tight races. That you will see in abundance on these boards. Surprisingly, there is some really good political discourse, but you have to look for it. So many posts are just name calling. Others are just repeating inaccurate information from blogs and partisan publicans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That you totally ignore residual effects of past Senates, Congresses, and Presidencies.

No, I give Progressives 100% of the credit for the harm they've inflicted.

Of course you do, because Conservatism is flawless and Liberalism is evil. Conservatism is so flawless, they manage to lose power over and over and over again throughout our Nation's history. There's great leadership. You know, the whole keeping leadership, thing. They're so strong, and leadership savvy. Such an ability to maintain power and keep everything on the right course. Good thing Conservatives are such great leaders and are always in power, or else America might get off Conservative course.

Actually Reagan, with a hostile Congress managed to do more good than any Progressive ever did. Immediately afterward, the Republican Party, who did not support Reagan in the first place, went and strangled the careers of any other Conservatives in their crib.

 

[G.T.]

No, I give Progressives 100% of the credit for the harm they've inflicted.

Of course you do, because Conservatism is flawless and Liberalism is evil. Conservatism is so flawless, they manage to lose power over and over and over again throughout our Nation's history. There's great leadership. You know, the whole keeping leadership, thing. They're so strong, and leadership savvy. Such an ability to maintain power and keep everything on the right course. Good thing Conservatives are such great leaders and are always in power, or else America might get off Conservative course.

Actually Reagan, with a hostile Congress managed to do more good than any Progressive ever did. Immediately afterward, the Republican Party, who did not support Reagan in the first place, went and strangled the careers of any other Conservatives in their crib.

Yea, such a good precedent he set that we've had all conservative Presidents since

 

[Flopper]

The United States has never been a socialist country, and most likely it never will be.

Actually, its been a socialist nation for some time.

Public libraries? Social security? medicare and Medicaid? Rural electrification?

Our economy is a modified (that is, regulated) capitalist economic system, as is the case for all the major economies in the world.

It's a mixed economy featuring the capitalist mode of production.

The notion of a welfare state has had an independent history from that of the economics notion of socialism (that is, state ownership or control of the major sectors of the national economy).

Not really. Consider the origins of the social democrats.

So the country is socialist if it has public libraries or an old age pension system? Using your line of thought, every nation on earth is socialist. All nations have some degree of socialism, but we don't regard them as socialist countries.

 

[hortysir]

The United States has never been a socialist country, and most likely it never will be. Our economy is a modified (that is, regulated) capitalist economic system, as is the case for all the major economies in the world.

In response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the political establishment of both major parties in America began embracing the European notion of welfare state. That is, we accepted and institutionalized the idea that the state has an interest in preventing major portions of the population (in the case of Social Security, the elderly and disabled) from falling into poverty.

The notion of a welfare state has had an independent history from that of the economics notion of socialism (that is, state ownership or control of the major sectors of the national economy). The problem is, today, the Republicans conflate these two ideas in a SCARE TACTIC-type attempt to gain traction with conservatives. The Right sees socialism in everything, public education, social security, government regulations, taxes, Congress, and the White House. The Republican plan for America seems to be based on hate and fear. I wonder whatever happened to family values. I guess it doesn't fit into the new plan.


Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Repubs can't distinguish socialism from welfare state (interstate, weapons, highway) - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-D

black-bolded highlight: Embracing = Hugging
Well, isn't that just all warm and fuzzy?!
How has that "interest in preventing major portions of the population from falling into poverty" worked out so far?
What is it? When that didn't pan out, you turned your focus to the uber-rich and the corporations to even the scales for ya?
Which brings me to
red-bolded highlight:
By your own definition socialism = state ownership/control of major sectors of a nation's economy.

Can I ask you a serious question?

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE?


If you'd like to embrace a welfare state that controls major sectors of the economy, normally I'd tell ya to catch the next flight to Moscow but, at this pace, all ya gotta do is wait another year or two.

 

[JBeukema]

The United States has never been a socialist country, and most likely it never will be.

Actually, its been a socialist nation for some time.

Public libraries? Social security? medicare and Medicaid? Rural electrification?

It's a mixed economy featuring the capitalist mode of production.

The notion of a welfare state has had an independent history from that of the economics notion of socialism (that is, state ownership or control of the major sectors of the national economy).

Not really. Consider the origins of the social democrats.

So the country is socialist if it has public libraries or an old age pension system? Using your line of thought, every nation on earth is socialist. All nations have some degree of socialism, but we don't regard them as socialist countries.

Fail. Not all nations are socialist. However, all developed countries tend towards socialism.

the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
​

America today sees exactly these imperfect implementation of socialist principles in welfare, progressive taxation, public education, the mixed economy, market regulations intended to prevent oligopoly (thought I'd say they're failing miserably), social security, WIC, and other social programs.

Modern America can be accurately called a social democracy (new school[welfare state]).

 

[Flopper]

Actually, its been a socialist nation for some time.

Public libraries? Social security? medicare and Medicaid? Rural electrification?

It's a mixed economy featuring the capitalist mode of production.

Not really. Consider the origins of the social democrats.

So the country is socialist if it has public libraries or an old age pension system? Using your line of thought, every nation on earth is socialist. All nations have some degree of socialism, but we don't regard them as socialist countries.

Fail. Not all nations are socialist. However, all developed countries tend towards socialism.

the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
​

America today sees exactly these imperfect implementation of socialist principles in welfare, progressive taxation, public education, the mixed economy, market regulations intended to prevent oligopoly (thought I'd say they're failing miserably), social security, WIC, and other social programs.

Modern America can be accurately called a social democracy (new school[welfare state]).

Well, I’m glad to hear you don’t think all nations are socialist. Using your definitions of socialism, then I suppose developing nations might tend toward socialism since they do eventually provided public education and pubic libraries. However, I seriously doubt that public education and libraries provide any serious threat to capitalism and the free market.

I agree market regulation is far from perfect, however I believe it is a major improvement over no regulations which is pretty much the case in the late nineteenth and early twenty century. The problem with rejecting market regulation leaves us with pure capitalism, which is just as impractical a philosophy as pure socialism.

I do believe a society without social programs could provide a foundation for increased economic growth. The question to be answered is this the kind of society that Americans want. A society in which 36 million people, either find jobs are starve. 12 million children in poverty would have no education since there would be no public schools. Then there are 11 million Americans with serve disabilities who can not hold down a job. Millions of low payed working mothers would have to just dump kids on to the streets since there would be no affordable childcare. Then there are the millions of seniors that received Medicare. The wealthy that can afford a hundred thousand dollar hospital bill survive, the rest die. I suppose the one good thing that would come out of this, is there would be a large work force that would work for practically nothing, then we could compete with the Chinese. We would also clean the nation of the sick, mentally ill, and those unfit to contribute to society. Seems like there was this Germany guy who had that idea.

 

[JBeukema]

So the country is socialist if it has public libraries or an old age pension system? Using your line of thought, every nation on earth is socialist. All nations have some degree of socialism, but we don't regard them as socialist countries.

Fail. Not all nations are socialist. However, all developed countries tend towards socialism.

the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
​

America today sees exactly these imperfect implementation of socialist principles in welfare, progressive taxation, public education, the mixed economy, market regulations intended to prevent oligopoly (thought I'd say they're failing miserably), social security, WIC, and other social programs.

Modern America can be accurately called a social democracy (new school[welfare state]).

Well, I’m glad to hear you don’t think all nations are socialist. Using your definitions of socialism, then I suppose developing nations might tend toward socialism since they do eventually provided public education and pubic libraries.

As nations develop scientifically, culturally, and in terms of infrastructure and development, they all tend towards socialism. Unadulterated capitalism or mercantilism never ends well.

However, I seriously doubt that public education and libraries provide any serious threat to capitalism and the free market.

And? Socialism is not inherently a threat to capitalism. Many socialists embrace the capitalist mode of production as well as the market. Indeed, oft the point of socialist measures is to put into effect regulations to ensure a free market and combat oligopoly.

You mustn't rely on talk radio for your understanding of what socialism is.

I agree market regulation is far from perfect, however I believe it is a major improvement over no regulations which is pretty much the case in the late nineteenth and early twenty century.

So you agree, socialism > unadulterated capitalism

The problem with rejecting market regulation leaves us with pure capitalism, which is just as impractical a philosophy as pure socialism.

Hence mixed economies and the emergence of social democrats.

I do believe a society without social programs could provide a foundation for increased economic growth.

For whom?[/quote]...Seems like there was this Germany guy who had that idea.
[/quote]
You know what NAZI stood for, right? Reductio ad Hitlerum is especially ridiculous here.