Americas Socialism Paranoia

[White-hole]

I don't intend this to be another topic on the healthcare bill, but I want to discuss something that has been gnawing away in the back of my mind for a while. When I look at american history and compare it to that of other countries something that jumps out at me is the weakness of socialist and labor movements in general for the last, like, 200 years. I mean seriously, it almost borders on outright terror, as if any kind of welfare system will result in a police state springing up the next day, just look at the cries of "death panels" over something that has been long accepted in Europe for almost 50 years. I have difficulty naming a single country that has had a weaker influence from some form of socialism, communism, Anarchism or some other kind of left-wing thought than America. I know some put down to culture, america being built on the free market(but then, so was Britain), but Socialism travels very easily, from Europe to Africa to China to south america.
So answer me this newgrounds, why is Socialist thought so weak in America?

[gumOnShoe]

Mostly because we had to stand up to the likes of Hitler & Stalin with a cultural memory of removing our selves from the British empire.

Our history courses and culture teaches us that individual freedom is foremost and that maintaining those rights is the most important thing possible. Then for most of the last 200 years we've had to stand up against huge empires that were in reality huge threats to our way of being. The politics that evolved from that have left a stigma because people don't differentiate between then and now and who is doing what. We focused on the malevelant outcomes of socialism while ignoring the benign.

We have plenty of socialist institutions:

Public libraries, Public Schools, Public Swimming Pools, Public Clinics, Public Radio, Public Television, Postal Service, Army, Air Traffic Control, FDA, Medicare, Transportation Authorities, etc etc etc

And none of these things has really ruined anyone's life most of them cause great gains in our society, but we have a hard time divorcing the shadow of the downfalls from the actuality.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: I don't intend this to be another topic on the healthcare bill, but I want to discuss something that has been gnawing away in the back of my mind for a while. When I look at american history and compare it to that of other countries something that jumps out at me is the weakness of socialist and labor movements in general for the last, like, 200 years.

Um, perhaps because the whole point America was founded was to escape govoernment control and founded by the kind of people who despise government control.

I mean when a country is founded by the kind of people who completely cracked the shits when the British government levied a tax on their product (tea, obviously), you know, not even socialism but just tax, obviously the country was never going to be a pioneer in socialist thought.

I mean seriously, it almost borders on outright terror, as if any kind of welfare system will result in a police state springing up the next day, just look at the cries of "death panels"

The healthcare bill actually outlines policies that relate too death panels. It doesn't call them that, but still.

over something that has been long accepted in Europe for almost 50 years.

And most conservatives hate/dislike Europe so obviously that doesn't mean anything

I know some put down to culture, america being built on the free market(but then, so was Britain),

Britain's market was FAR from free.

So answer me this newgrounds, why is Socialist thought so weak in America?

because of its founding principles, and that most Americans love freedom, albeit only their own freedom.

and to be fair Noam Chomsky is a pretty influential socialist thinker

At 3/26/10 03:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: FDA
And none of these things has really ruined anyone's life

The FDA prevents countless life-saving drugs from being sold because they have a small possibility of killing the patient. Which is meaningless given that with most of these drugs the person is facing death anyway, but these drugs would have been their last chance for survival.
So yeah.

[SmilezRoyale]

Well for one gum, as Sadistic points out, there isn't much debate over the fact that more people have died from the FDA than have been saved by them.

As for the rest of what you describe, Not having a public library or not having a public postal service is obviously better than having one provided by the state provided that it isn't too expensive, but few people will actually argue that not having a service provided is better than having it provided by the state. The argument is, almost always, that those goods and services could be provided more efficiently if it was provided on a voluntary basis, or if AT LEAST the government permitted people to compete with them (which due to crowding out is rather difficult) A service is not the same as state provision of a service

As for public schools, it is hard to say whether public schools have over all been worse than the FDA or not. I personally blame the explosion of warfare statism on the recently created public school systems that inculcated an unhealthy level of nationalism in the youth of the various nations. not to mention the fact that parents spend thousands of dollars and kids spend 12 years of their life in schools which are notoriously of bad quality.

[poxpower]

At 3/26/10 07:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Well for one gum, as Sadistic points out, there isn't much debate over the fact that more people have died from the FDA than have been saved by them.

Ok so more people have died as the result of the FDA existing than have been saved?
Wow now I gotta hear that one.

[White-hole]

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Um, perhaps because the whole point America was founded was to escape govoernment control and founded by the kind of people who despise government control.

I mean when a country is founded by the kind of people who completely cracked the shits when the British government levied a tax on their product (tea, obviously), you know, not even socialism but just tax, obviously the country was never going to be a pioneer in socialist thought.

The countries changed a lot from the 1770s, i think you'll recognize, its just that for me, the whole free enterprise basis to one side for just a moment (which was a philosophy that dominated most of the world up about 1870 and had strong roots in Europe), when one looks at america, especially in the past but even now, there were a lot of seeds of which socialism could have been born out of, a huge industrial society with an extensive and often very poor working class, minorities that were generally badly treated and discriminated against, such as Africans and poor first and second generation immigrants, an obvious and extensive income gap between the various social strata (industrialists and workers).

Now I know that labor movements did exist and were prominent, and that the 'ol down with the government attitude is an important part of the American Psyche, but i would have thought these would have been outweighed by a the factors listed above, particularly for those people who had little interest in the Fantastical American dream that had treated them so badly, like poor blacks. Factors like this did produce revolution in Russia, China and various other countries on the extreme end, as well as creating a strong socialist movements in most other countries around the world, from Britain to Ethiopia to Venezuela, So I dont quite buy the cultural argument, there must have more at work.

The healthcare bill actually outlines policies that relate too death panels. It doesn't call them that, but still.

Oh dear.

And most conservatives hate/dislike Europe so obviously that doesn't mean anything

I think thats a bit of an overestimation of Anti-europeanism in America. That section of the right is not gigantic, besides what is America but an offshoot of European peoples and ideas? Most other ideas are pretty easily accepted there, so why not a bit more socialism.

Britain's market was FAR from free.

I'd say America now is far less of a free market than Britain in the 1700s, besides, what was the whole empire based upon before the Indian mutiny?

because of its founding principles, and that most Americans love freedom, albeit only their own freedom.

and to be fair Noam Chomsky is a pretty influential socialist thinker

Quite right.

[Warforger]

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: I don't intend this to be another topic on the healthcare bill, but I want to discuss something that has been gnawing away in the back of my mind for a while. When I look at american history and compare it to that of other countries something that jumps out at me is the weakness of socialist and labor movements in general for the last, like, 200 years.

Um, perhaps because the whole point America was founded was to escape govoernment control and founded by the kind of people who despise government control.

I mean when a country is founded by the kind of people who completely cracked the shits when the British government levied a tax on their product (tea, obviously), you know, not even socialism but just tax, obviously the country was never going to be a pioneer in socialist thought.

Yah, then we realized how wrong our thinking was, and when they remade the nations constitution and added more powers to the Federal Government, it was screamed at as "tyranny" just like the healthcare bill. Even then the split among the political scene was as bad as it is today, so it would be foolish to just say "all the founding fathers would be against Socialism" when even today many people aren't.

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: I mean seriously, it almost borders on outright terror, as if any kind of welfare system will result in a police state springing up the next day, just look at the cries of "death panels"

The healthcare bill actually outlines policies that relate too death panels. It doesn't call them that, but still.

Yah, death panels don't seem to be a political leaning exclusive, didn't Sarah Palin also recommend Death panels?

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: over something that has been long accepted in Europe for almost 50 years.

And most conservatives hate/dislike Europe so obviously that doesn't mean anything

So Conservatives in Europe hate Europe? That, and without Europe we'd have a weaker economy and no way to speak to our enemies.

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: I know some put down to culture, america being built on the free market(but then, so was Britain),

Britain's market was FAR from free.

Like?

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: So answer me this newgrounds, why is Socialist thought so weak in America?

because of its founding principles, and that most Americans love freedom, albeit only their own freedom.

and to be fair Noam Chomsky is a pretty influential socialist thinker

Socialism? Socialism has nothing to do with freedom other then the freedom to make the basic essentials, which you could just join the government to do. You can still run a company and the like in Socialism, there is still competition because it still is a free market.

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:00 PM, White-hole wrote: At 3/26/10 03:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: FDA
And none of these things has really ruined anyone's life

The FDA prevents countless life-saving drugs from being sold because they have a small possibility of killing the patient. Which is meaningless given that with most of these drugs the person is facing death anyway, but these drugs would have been their last chance for survival.
So yeah.

Like what?

[fli]

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The FDA prevents countless life-saving drugs from being sold because they have a small possibility of killing the patient. Which is meaningless given that with most of these drugs the person is facing death anyway, but these drugs would have been their last chance for survival.
So yeah.

FDA also prevents people from selling snake oil from a guy who promises that it will cure everything from genital warts to a receding hairline.

And the recall dangerous products that kill people.

Phen-fan, anyone remembers????

[Stoicish]

At 3/26/10 05:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Um, perhaps because the whole point America was founded was to escape govoernment control and founded by the kind of people who despise government control.

Yes, because the Founding fathers were orginally Anarchist. The Sex Pistols stole "Anarchy in the U.K." from the puritans who treked to the US in the Mayflower.

America hated being ran by a King when we thought we could control our own desitiny.

The healthcare bill actually outlines policies that relate too death panels. It doesn't call them that, but still.

Which specific part inside of the bill actually details this exactly?

And most conservatives hate/dislike Europe so obviously that doesn't mean anything

It's kind of wrong to hate/dislike a place you never been to in the first place. Which most of them haven't.

because of its founding principles, and that most Americans love freedom, albeit only their own freedom.

We do love our freedom, but when do we (as a society) start becoming to selfish? Besides this isn't government control. Everyone is really complaining that this has the potential to becoming government control. That wonderful slippery sloap theory.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/27/10 01:20 AM, Stoicish wrote: It's kind of wrong to hate/dislike a place you never been to in the first place. Which most of them haven't.

I agree but it wasn't my point. OP said that they don't like socialism even though its long been accepted in Europe, and given that the low opinion most conservatives have of Europeans this doesn't mean crap to them.

Which specific part inside of the bill actually details this exactly?

Sec. 123, Pg. 30

We do love our freedom, but when do we (as a society) start becoming to selfish?

Unless you're using force to fulfil your selfish desires there's no such thing as too selfish. I mean this in the sense of this selfishness being legislated against. I mean sure selfishness can obviously be bad but not in a way that government should "ban" it.

Besides this isn't government control.

Forcing people to purchase health insurance sounds like a violation of freedom to me.

Everyone is really complaining that this has the potential to becoming government control. That wonderful slippery sloap theory.

It will almost definitely lead to a single payer system.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 3/27/10 03:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/27/10 01:20 AM, Stoicish wrote:

Everyone is really complaining that this has the potential to becoming government control. That wonderful slippery sloap theory.

It will almost definitely lead to a single payer system.

How exactly will that happen? There is no public option. If anything, this is the biggest give away to insurance industry to date. Now the insurance companies have a captive consumer base, government subsidies, and a floor on the price of policies. It is the exact opposite of a government take over the insurance industry.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 3/26/10 08:47 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/26/10 07:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Well for one gum, as Sadistic points out, there isn't much debate over the fact that more people have died from the FDA than have been saved by them.

Ok so more people have died as the result of the FDA existing than have been saved?
Wow now I gotta hear that one.

http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml

[Stoicish]

Actually, according to factcheck.org, this is what pg. 30 says:

Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a "private-public advisory committee" headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly private sector "medical and other experts" selected by the president and the comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power "to recommend" what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

[Korriken]

At 3/27/10 04:41 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

How exactly will that happen? There is no public option. If anything, this is the biggest give away to insurance industry to date. Now the insurance companies have a captive consumer base, government subsidies, and a floor on the price of policies. It is the exact opposite of a government take over the insurance industry.

simple. you regulate the insurance companies into the ground. keep passing more and more laws that make it harder for them to even turn a hairline profit, eventually they will go under and be forced to shut down.

Either that or keep hiking special taxes on their executives to force them to abandon the industry, then without decent leadership they sink like the titanic.

then the libs get to point their finger at the insurance industry and yell, "You see that? They can't operate under fair conditions! the government is the answer! the government is the answer! We'll take care of all of you!"

you don't need a public option to destroy an industry. you just need a bunch of greedy power hungry arrogant assholes in power that are willing to do the deed.

[ChristianAndJustice]

The whole point of America is to live in a country where the government doesn't dictate your life... Unfortunately Socialism is creeping in.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/26/10 03:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Our history courses and culture teaches us that individual freedom is foremost and that maintaining those rights is the most important thing possible. We focused on the malevelant outcomes of socialism while ignoring the benign.

We have plenty of socialist institutions:

Public libraries, Public Schools, Public Swimming Pools, Public Clinics, Public Radio, Public Television, Postal Service, Army, Air Traffic Control, FDA, Medicare, Transportation Authorities, etc etc etc

And none of these things has really ruined anyone's life most of them cause great gains in our society, but we have a hard time divorcing the shadow of the downfalls from the actuality.

Nicely put Gum.
I would like to point out from my Canadian point of view, people (as a group) in general
- Have A Fear Of The New -
Especially if what you know about something new, (or possibly the fact you actually don't really know shit !)... & what you may be hearing isn't say, 100% factual but has been...... spin doctored a little bit.

I am confident most Americans & Canadians are glad that they have Police services. Public Schools & Libraries, not too forget Private schools & Private Libraries...those are rights we have that a great many places in this world do not. We can aspire & achieve an enviable lifestyle , simply (for us) by going to school & working towards personal goals. That with work & time often have payoff's because of that 'schooling' for the people who have used the opportunity

But most peoples opinions (& no I'm not bothering to back that claim up, it'll take away from my reply)
What gumOnShoe has listed as socialist institutions... are considered by most people as " Essential Services " !

WE NEED THEM.....or do we ?

That's where I see a dilemma.
I personally believe we need police & fire services.
I want public schools & have absolutely no problem with private ones either .Libraries IMO go along with schools.

But do we need public swimming pools ?
Why does a portion of my taxes have to pay for that ? make it private...go swim in a lake or river..we do up here in Canada ... I've got a 40 mile drive to my nearest pool ! A river runs along the back of my property !!

Taxpayer funded 'public' transit authorities. If the public mostly traveled on public transport...we wouldn't have traffic rush hour's ! Why is my money helping pay for that ? I live in the sticks no public watersupply (so I don't have to pay for it, no public sewage system...no charge either, no sidewalks same thing & I'm not complaining, I want to live out here & i don't want to change in any of those ways. I'm self sufficient & take care of my own systems.
But my County tax rate has a charge for bus service in the city over 30 miles away (there is no bus service within a 20 mile radius of me )... & we the local residents don't want any.

I see Postal Service (damn bills are always on time 'eh) the Armed forces as a necessary services we need, I don't see public radio, tv, or air traffic as necessary, let those using them pay for them. Or let these businesses figure out ways to pay for themselves.

I see Health Care as a necessary service.
The good health of a society, allows for more productivity IMO.
In my experience
Knowing there will be help (& having to have help for myself) for yourself or your family if anything happens & Hospitalization, surgery, rehab doesn't cripple you financially or cause you to have to choose what you can 'afford' to see you get better to your maximum potential, is just as important as being able to call the firemen or police in time of need.
its obvious to me, that many Americans don't agree.

How does one hang onto freedom & not end up in a very socialist society, if the good of a portion of society needs are paid/subsidized by the taxes everyone pays, but still decide "what are & retain Essential Services" ?
And
Can you do that & still keep an open mind for possible additions or change in future ?

[Ytaker]

At 3/27/10 06:49 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I see Health Care as a necessary service.
The good health of a society, allows for more productivity IMO.
In my experience
Knowing there will be help (& having to have help for myself) for yourself or your family if anything happens & Hospitalization, surgery, rehab doesn't cripple you financially or cause you to have to choose what you can 'afford' to see you get better to your maximum potential, is just as important as being able to call the firemen or police in time of need.
its obvious to me, that many Americans don't agree.

More, they want different reforms which work to make healthcare cheaper, more efficient, focus on catastrophic insurance. Republicans have plans to aid health insurance, just different ones to the democrats. The democrats like to portray the republicans as having no ideas, but the party line isn't necessary true. There's debate.

Plus, america's in general good health now. They're not gonna get much more productivity out with any healthcare reforms. The debt on the other hand will hurt productivity.

[Gunner-D]

At 3/26/10 03:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: We have plenty of socialist institutions:

Public libraries, Public Schools, Public Swimming Pools, Public Clinics, Public Radio, Public Television, Postal Service, Army, Air Traffic Control, FDA, Medicare, Transportation Authorities, etc etc etc

When you put it that way, I kinda like socialism. And although I hate having taxes taken out of my wallet to fund it, all these programs are very good for society. Thank you! You've made me feel proud to be socialist!

[Ytaker]

At 3/27/10 08:47 PM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 3/26/10 03:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: We have plenty of socialist institutions:

Public libraries, Public Schools, Public Swimming Pools, Public Clinics, Public Radio, Public Television, Postal Service, Army, Air Traffic Control, FDA, Medicare, Transportation Authorities, etc etc etc

When you put it that way, I kinda like socialism. And although I hate having taxes taken out of my wallet to fund it, all these programs are very good for society. Thank you! You've made me feel proud to be socialist!

Few are especially socialist. Socialism involves control of the means of production. The unions of those things are more socialist. That's what your tax dollars are mostly funding. High wages for teachers, postmen, and such.

The socialist ones are- healthcare, since that's a huge part of the economy. Student loans, likewise.

[Gunner-D]

At 3/27/10 10:49 PM, Ytaker wrote: The socialist ones are- healthcare, since that's a huge part of the economy. Student loans, likewise.

Student loans HAHAHA. Now that is something that is going to bankrupt America. I've been out of school for a couple years now, have worked ever since then, and I still don't have to start paying them back, and hopefully never will. There isn't even interest accrual. The system fails yet again.

I hope Geitner's cronies aren't reading this!

I see what you mean by owning the means of production. Owning car companies and banks is not something the tax payers really should be invested in... We're just setting ourselves up for failure when the next wave of toxic assets emerge.

And healthcare, IMO government involvement helps the industry, but it will cost us way more than we could expect in the long run.

But yeah, schools, libraries, radio.... the sweet nectar of socialism I guess.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 3/27/10 04:16 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/27/10 04:41 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

How exactly will that happen? There is no public option. If anything, this is the biggest give away to insurance industry to date. Now the insurance companies have a captive consumer base, government subsidies, and a floor on the price of policies. It is the exact opposite of a government take over the insurance industry.

simple. you regulate the insurance companies into the ground. keep passing more and more laws that make it harder for them to even turn a hairline profit, eventually they will go under and be forced to shut down.

So is that this bill, or would we require further bills to do so? I'm interested in how the current reform itself will lead to a full take over. If not this bill, then objecting to this bill based on this grounds would be nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy.

[fli]

At 3/27/10 07:29 PM, Ytaker wrote: [...]Republicans have plans to aid health insurance [...]

Name them, these plans they had for health insurance.

The one and only strategy I heard is, "Well, elect us back into power... and we'll get to business afterwards."

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/26/10 11:26 PM, fli wrote: FDA also prevents people from selling snake oil from a guy who promises that it will cure everything from genital warts to a receding hairline.

So...stopping people wasting money is more important than saving lives?

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 3/28/10 07:18 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3/26/10 11:26 PM, fli wrote: FDA also prevents people from selling snake oil from a guy who promises that it will cure everything from genital warts to a receding hairline.

So...stopping people wasting money is more important than saving lives?

I will not be satisfied until I have my Colgate Lead-Infused Toothpaste!

[Ytaker]

At 3/28/10 05:11 AM, fli wrote:

At 3/27/10 07:29 PM, Ytaker wrote: [...]Republicans have plans to aid health insurance [...]

Name them, these plans they had for health insurance.

The one and only strategy I heard is, "Well, elect us back into power... and we'll get to business afterwards."

McCain's plan. $2500 credit for all individuals who don't buy through their employer, to put power back in the hand of the people and away from insurance companies. Give people an option to send their money and a tax credit to the government, so the government can pay their insurance company, and so that it's guaranteed even if they lose their job. Working with states to form individualized guaranteed access plans for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Allow patients to buy across state lines to break monopolies. Tackle obesity at the source, childhood. Tort reform.

http://article.nationalreview.com/356191 /the-right-rx/john-mccain

http://www.hsinetwork.com/McCain_HSI-Ass ess_10-08-2008.pdf

It's estimated, if enacted immediately, 27 million uninsured would be insured at a cost of 300 billion per year.

http://www.lewin.com/dyn/healthpolicies/

This one estimates 21 million.

And I can't be bothered to go through Paul ryan roadmap for america.

Or the republican's healthcare bill.

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media /PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf