Agnostic.com

22 2

Is socialism bad for the USA?

#USA
Marine 8 Sep 16
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

10

Well, my people, the Danes, are frequently number 1 on the measures for happiness. No system solves all the problems but greedy capitalism seems to create really dangerous & inhumane ones.

Truth

7

Of course not! Look at how we live now...police, fire, education, Medical health care, street repairs, trash pick-up, and dozens of other services I can't recall at the moment....all provided through our taxes via the government.

We really must stop equating the word ''socialism'' with ''communism''....which is what we were force-fed back in the ''cold'' war.

Ever traveled to countries which use a democratic socialistic system? DELIGHTFUL!

People have jobs and can afford to live lives with health care, good education, the expectation of comfort and nobody grumbles because they know they're fortunate to live in a nation where people actually care about one another.

7

I kind of like having highways, a power grid, an EMS system, and police and fire service. Those are all socialist programs. It would be nice though if we could have some of the cool socialist stuff that smarter countries have.

JimG Level 8 Sep 16, 2018

Just an FYI, a lot EMS systems, at least in the US, are run by private corporations, many if not most on a for profit basis. Not saying it’s how it should be...

@Rignor That's true but they use the 911 communications system.

7

Most Western European countries have socialist things like NHS. Seems to work a lot better than here.

7

the inequities of capitalism need a check.

6

If you mean socialism for the rich; in other words, billion dollar tax cuts, YES. If you mean redistribution of wealth by the government to give poor people money they should have been paid by corporations so they can live on an 8 hour a day job, NO, not at all.

Ford motor company is nearly bankrupt, because they have specialized in low cost cars for the middle and lower paid wage earners. However, the minimum wage is so low, that group of people cannot afford cars. Thus, a major automobile manufacturer is suffering. Automation will drive costs down and eliminate jobs. When no one is required to run corporations, people will not be able to buy goods and services unless social programs distribute tax money to the people.

4

It's bad for oligarchs, but if you look at the countries that practice Democratic Socialism in Northern Europe, on average, they have a higher standard of living than we do here in the U.S.

Historically the growth of income inequality has always led the an economic collapse.

The U.S. has a lot of socialism inspired attributes already. However, Peopel are hust nto really aware, and those who are tryign to say it are not doing a very good job of it

4

As was recently pointed out e are socialist in many ways already.Roads,services,airports are all socialist endeavors and I strongly favor them as I do health insurance single payor medicare for all. Illness should not be a factor in a person going broke,loosing a home etc. If small countries can do it there isn't any reason except greed that prevents us from doing so.

3

America already has certain aspects of socialism that it embraces. Medicare, Medicaid, social security are all socialist programs.

Correct

2

Uuuummm, a society should be about enhancing life for those in it. Period.

2

Lot's of "If-by-whiskey" arguments in this thread

[en.wikipedia.org]

Personally I find it horrifying the number of US households bankrupted by a family member's illness. Fully half of the bankruptcies involve people who were fully insured at the time of initial diagnosis.

Nice place to visit but for that reason alone I could never live there.

2

Let's first look at pure socialist systems that are part of American lives: Highways and public infrastructure systems, law enforcement / police departments, fire departments, public libraries, public schools, social security, governmental help of any kind, the infrastructure of our political system, all branches of the military, TSA, coast guard, and many others. Again, every one of those systems is not kind of like socialism; they are socialism in its purest form. Conservatives in the US tend to confuse socialism with communism. Nobody in the US wants a 100% socialistic system or communism but many different systems simply cannot function unless a socialistic system is incorporated. Scandinavian countries rely more on socialism than we do but they do not want 100% socialism any more than we do yet they embrace their system. I was there recently and many locals seemed to go out of their way to point out what the government provides for them and everybody is equally aware that they are heavily taxed to provide all of it. They wouldn't have it any other way and the people are far less stress that Americans. Most European governments provide health care through their taxes. The additional freedom that proves people in terms of making a living in creative ways is amazing. People in the US with families MUST HAVE HEALTH CARE and cannot engage in creative entrepreneur endeavors without risking having to go without health insurance because of the high cost. When people say they don't want socialism in the US ask them if they are willing to do without Highways and public infrastructure systems, law enforcement / police departments, fire departments, public libraries, public schools, social security, governmental help of any kind, the infrastructure of our political system, all branches of the military, TSA, and the coast guard.

OCJoe Level 6 Sep 16, 2018

Thanks for this! I didn't have time to think of all of them.

2

Citizens are what's really bad for the USA. Socialism, capitalism, communism all are 'tools' with pro/cons. It's how and to what extent they are implemented. Capitalism drives innovation and business efficiency, communism drives worker rights and efficient operations, socialism drives community safety and security. We also can see the negatives in these. Given our greed, laziness, apathy, and ignorance...we can't seem to make good, rational, achievable decisions to address many of the problems faced using the right tool for the job.

See comment below.

2

Pure anything is bad politically.
It is in the conflict between sides like yin and yang, or conservative vs progressive, that balance is found.
Seek the middle path always.
You need something like the Canadian system, of a Government run system in open competition with the free market.
If the Government is doing a good job, then people have a social platform to help them.
But if the free market can do better, then everyone does better.

2

To the extent that it enables government to encroach on our lives, our freedoms, it is bad; but to the extent that it preserves, saves and betters our lives, it is good.

cava Level 7 Sep 16, 2018

I don't understand this philosophy at all. It's as if some people just don't want to acknowledge the fact that we live in close proximity to others. Why don't you ALL read Rousseau? If you're going to be involved in a social order then you automatically accept a social contract ... with that agreement being that you ALL accept that some of your freedoms might be curtailed to the extent that they collide with that of others. You no longer have the unfettered right to swing your fist or listen to your music as loud as possible next to others.

@kauva Very well stated.

@kauva Historically it has not worked out as you portray it. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party, the political movement that brought him to power and supplied the infrastructure of the fascist dictatorship over which he would preside, was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Marx's communistic state when realized is fully socialistic an ideal state whose pursuit lead to the death of millions upon millions last century.

@cava this comment is disingenuous. I'm not advocating for any ethos, just understanding the issue. Saying communism killed all those people is ignoring that it was actually authoritarianism that cause such a massive loss of life. Add in brutal authoritarians to any system will yield horrible outcomes. You said millions died under that system, but wouldn't it be interesting to calculate the number of deaths by the Rockefellers, Carnegies, etc. types with horrible working conditions and genocide of indigenous peoples for access to raw materials, but we don't like to think about that because it was us, not those people far away.

@dokala If you are trying to understand the issue, then understand that historically there have been downsides to Socialism. The structure of state control under socialism, enables authoritarianism.

@cava that's purely one sided and ignoring complexities.

@dokala

I am for a democratic socialism, one where the rights of minorities are respected and preserved and everyone has the right to pursue goals that do not infringe on the rights of others. I am not in agreement with authoritarian socialism, especially where some form of nationalism or religion is utilized by those in control to rationalize the actions of their regime.

@cava Thoughts?

"[Nazi] ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy."

Joachim Fest [en.wikipedia.org]

@cava Sweden and Norway seem to operate without any problems, they have health care provided,free education and their workers get a month off with pay and do alot of travel so they must have the money to do so.

@Marine I noticed that Sweden has a growing alt-right party that wants to take control. How dangerous is this for people who don't culturally match up with the majority in Sweden.

@Marine, @DoctoralZombie

"Fest explained Hitler’s success in terms of what he termed the "great fear" that had overcome the German middle classes, as a result not only of Bolshevism and First World War dislocation, but also more broadly in response to rapid modernisation, which had led to a romantic longing for a lost past."

Great fears seem to historically re-occur in many societies and scapegoats are found. The Middle Class seems to be rapidly disappearing in the US, and Trump has capitalized on the fear (and nostalgia for the good old days when white meant right) of a downward spiral...caused by among other things, Immigrants and Muslims.

@cava just because the nazis called themselves socialists doesn't mean they were socialists. they were strictly authoritarian. "The structure of state control" is not the predictor of social form. The question is: are policies designed to benefit the masses or some person/group. Nationalism is not socialism. Nationalism is authoritarianism. The nazi party only used the word socialist because it was a buzzword of the day.

@kauva Socialism is about the centralization of power in the hands of government. National Socialism was adopted by Nazis to enable it to be electable, once in power it enabled it to sway Germany's Middle Class to accept Hitler as the Fuher as part of its democratic process.

The function of power structures in a society determines if it is authoritarian or not. There are many countries which can be described as authoritarian socialism rejecting the liberal democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus and freedom of expression. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism)

@cava no. socialism is not defined as by where power resides. it is defined by who receives the benefit.

1

we need to keep the greedy narcestis out of governement

1

All lazy people love it. I am willing to pay my share for the infrastructure, but will resist paying for most welfare.

Of course, I'm living on Social Security.

@tfg1929 Social Security is NOT ''welfare''....nor is it an ''entitlement.'' You paid for it and so did I.

1

Socialism is neither good nor bad. It is often conflated with Communism which it is not. Communism calls for the violent overthrow of the existing order and a subsequent military dictatorship to reorganize the masses into the efficient and obedient society necessary for worker equality and sacrifice for the common good. Socialism really means that the government strives to provide for a basic quality of life for the people. Business ventures are tightly controlled so as to provide the maximum benefit for the workers and the profit motive is secondary to the social benefits they provide. This may occur with the consent of the governed. Socialism may coexist with a capitalist system where property may be owned and developed by private interests who can receive a return on their investments as long as the public good is served in the undertaking and is not harmed in the process of profit taking.

1

I don't think that socialist security has hurt anyone. In fact it gives a littler money for older people to live on so others can go about being productive and making more money for themselves and the government at large. Without it many productive people would be out of the workforce and taking care of their older relatives with many living in squalor.
In case you wanted an answer that involved Communism that is a whole other matter.

1

It depends on your definition of socialism. For some, anything that obligates them to others or takes money out of their pockets to pay for anything that isn't to their direct benefit is "socialism". In my mind, socialism is the mass control of everything in society, where the majority controls and directs the individual; which would clearly be harmful.

There's a middle ground where social programs provide a safety net for the less fortunate and help lift people up to the middle class, without dragging down the very fortunate. That's where we need to get. How do we do it? That's the mystery.

0

Lol, no
socialistic aspects that already exist: public schools, libraries, parks, Social Security, Medicare and more.

0

it hasn't been, so far. see ocjoe's post, in which he lists many ways in which socialism has been working well for america. i will add that in addition to confusing socialism with communism, people (not just conservatives -- and by the way, there are no more conservatives, just regressives) confused socialism, an economic system, with various forms of government, and thus see it as incompatible with democracy, whereas in fact socialism, or a form of it, has been quite compatible. it's rampant capitalism that is bad for democracy. i myself am something of a socialist i suppose, but not exactly. i had to make up a term to describe myself; i am a social free enterprisist, free enterprise encompasses the good parts of capitalism. capitalism as it is now (rampant) is not the same as free enterprise; it is an enemy of free enterprise. enterprise isn't free when it is run by capitalists.

g

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:180291
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.