Isn't the basis of it taxing the rich to help out the poor? What's so bad about that? correct me if i'm wrong about that, but I've researched it and that's what usually comes up.

Anyway, the rich have plenty of money to help out the poor, I don't see what's so bad about sharing money, sure you earned it, but you're not going to help little Timmy who is your best friend's son survive his fight with a cold because his family can't afford it? I do not see what is so bad about this concept, and why people would even care if Obama is socialist or not. also, not everybody who is poor is a "lazy dirt bag" stuff happens, most people in this class work their hearts out. I know from personal experience.

So correct if I'm wrong, but what is so bad about this concept?

Pure Socialism is just horrible economics. You don't even have to look at China or the USSR, because you could make the excuse that both of them previous to their revolutions were even worse, you could just look at Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), when it was independent it was one of the biggest exporters of rice in the world, it was more prosperous than its neighbors, about 40 years of Socialism later and it's one of the poorest and most repressive nations on Earth. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that if you're in Socialism you generally treat people equally, so those people who succeed more than others get the same reward as someone who's a janitor. It puts way too much trust in the central government and way too much hostility to the rich. It just doesn't do what it's supposed too and ends up horribly.

China or the USSR

I thought those were communist, not socialist.

At 12/21/12 06:49 PM, Entice wrote: I don't have a problem with aspects of socialism or with socializing certain industries, but when it comes down to it I value freedom more than security.

Socialism is a form of economy, not government.

At 12/21/12 07:21 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

China or the USSR

I thought those were communist, not socialist.

Communism is a type of Socialism, it's the more radical form which literally tries to blame all the bad things in this world on rich people. In the Communist doctrine you're supposed to first go through Capitalism, then the workers would rise up and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which would be Socialist, through this they would work on correcting society and creating an end society where everyone is equal and all of their work is all done. If the Socialist stage did not work then the whole thing falls apart, which it did.

At 12/21/12 07:25 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/21/12 07:21 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

China or the USSR

I thought those were communist, not socialist.

Communism is a type of Socialism, it's the more radical form which literally tries to blame all the bad things in this world on rich people. In the Communist doctrine you're supposed to first go through Capitalism, then the workers would rise up and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which would be Socialist, through this they would work on correcting society and creating an end society where everyone is equal and all of their work is all done. If the Socialist stage did not work then the whole thing falls apart, which it did.

With those things you listed about Socialism being bad, correct if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada and Norway have socialist economies that aren't exploited by their leaders that much? if they are they seem to be doing fine, especially Canada, which, at this rate is doing better than the United States.

At 12/21/12 06:26 PM, Warforger wrote: you could just look at Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), when it was independent it was one of the biggest exporters of rice in the world, it was more prosperous than its neighbors, about 40 years of Socialism later and it's one of the poorest and most repressive nations on Earth. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that if you're in Socialism you generally treat people equally, so those people who succeed more than others get the same reward as someone who's a janitor. It puts way too much trust in the central government and way too much hostility to the rich. It just doesn't do what it's supposed too and ends up horribly.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. You're missing the most important aspect of the discussion: US involvement in SE Asia, particularly the Vietnam War and the Korean War. Myanmar went a completely different horrible route that is no better than what happened to Vietnam. In SE Asia we basically enabled Communism to gain a huge foothold by vastly increasing instability in an already unstable, de-colonializing region that had begun to foster Communist insurgencies due to colonialism (I say due to because everyone from Pol Pot to Uncle Ho basically cut their commie teeth in student groups in Paris). Myanmar's reaction to colonialism was to go Democratic and then to unfortunately fall to a military coup during the Vietnam war that has essentially continued to this day. Then again, British colonies and French colonies had very different post-colonial histories in Asia. I'm not sure if this was because of the extremely pro-Communist socialism that was picked up in Paris by revolutionaries or because of some institutional factors differing in British colonies, but the proof is in the pudding. It gets even more fucked up in a lot of ways after we pulled out, with Communists basically stopping Communist aggression in a couple of cases and all kinds of crazy bedfellows. Communism in Asia was much less monolithic than we tended to paint it as, but then we never understood Asia and misinterpreted it as if it worked like Europe anyway.

At 12/21/12 07:28 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: With those things you listed about Socialism being bad, correct if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada and Norway have socialist economies that aren't exploited by their leaders that much? if they are they seem to be doing fine, especially Canada, which, at this rate is doing better than the United States.

I would say Norway is properly described as an example of social capitalism, not socialism per se.

At 12/21/12 07:36 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/21/12 06:26 PM, Warforger wrote: you could just look at Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), when it was independent it was one of the biggest exporters of rice in the world, it was more prosperous than its neighbors, about 40 years of Socialism later and it's one of the poorest and most repressive nations on Earth. There are many reasons for this, one of them being that if you're in Socialism you generally treat people equally, so those people who succeed more than others get the same reward as someone who's a janitor. It puts way too much trust in the central government and way too much hostility to the rich. It just doesn't do what it's supposed too and ends up horribly.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. You're missing the most important aspect of the discussion: US involvement in SE Asia, particularly the Vietnam War and the Korean War. Myanmar went a completely different horrible route that is no better than what happened to Vietnam.

Myanmar wasn't exactly ruled by the same type of Communists as those in Vietnam. They certainly were as radical, but they were not say going after "bougiouse" elements of society and they intertwined Buddhism into their concept of Communism, think of those Socialist dictators like Qaddaffi or Hussein, Qaddaffi is the better comparison because he intertwined Islam with Marxism much like Ne Win intertwined Marxism with Buddhism (but he wasn't heavy on ideology, he overall was not a very smart person). That of course meaning the Burmese Socialist Programe. Even without Ne Win's dictatorship Burma had taken up Socialist reforms under their Democracy in the 50's and it weakened the economy then. Overall US intervention had little to do with this, sure they bombed neighbors but the most intervention they ever did was supporting the Nationalist Chinese when they invaded the Northern states of Burma to build a base to invade Communist China. Other than that the policies of Autarky under the BSPP essentially cut off Myanmar from the rest of the world so that it may be independent, which is not a very smart thing to do for a nation whose economy is based on exports.

In SE Asia we basically enabled Communism to gain a huge foothold by vastly increasing instability in an already unstable, de-colonializing region that had begun to foster Communist insurgencies due to colonialism (I say due to because everyone from Pol Pot to Uncle Ho basically cut their commie teeth in student groups in Paris). Myanmar's reaction to colonialism was to go Democratic and then to unfortunately fall to a military coup during the Vietnam war that has essentially continued to this day.

The coup was in 1962, well before the Vietnam war escalated to its higher levels, it had nothing to do with America or Vietnam and everything to do with the weakness of the National government which was due to the constant conflict that started in 1948 and never fucking stopped.

Then again, British colonies and French colonies had very different post-colonial histories in Asia.

Myanmar in itself was sort of an exception to the prosperity of other British colonies.

I'm not sure if this was because of the extremely pro-Communist socialism that was picked up in Paris by revolutionaries or because of some institutional factors differing in British colonies, but the proof is in the pudding. It gets even more fucked up in a lot of ways after we pulled out, with Communists basically stopping Communist aggression in a couple of cases and all kinds of crazy bedfellows.

Yah I heard about the influence of Western Universities on future leaders of 3rd world nations. I mean Morsi went to the University of Southern California, one of the Presidents of Pakistan went to UC Berkeley after all. I guess those aren't exactly good examples but Morsi at least is basically a centrist in his country even if he is part of the literal equivalent of the Republican party (no seriously, his party has a religious orientation and it is all for Classical Liberalism, it's sort of odd how similar they are, yet at the end of the day hate each other).

Communism in Asia was much less monolithic than we tended to paint it as, but then we never understood Asia and misinterpreted it as if it worked like Europe anyway.

Communism in general was painted much more monolithic than we thought it was. I mean during the 20's-40's was the heyday of worldwide Communist unity, after Stalin died the movement broke apart.

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Isn't the basis of it taxing the rich to help out the poor? What's so bad about that? correct me if i'm wrong about that, but I've researched it and that's what usually comes up.

That's not necessarily what socialism is. Socialism is a system where the government controls much of the business and economy of a country, and 9 out of 10 times, there is usually something that goes horribly wrong with any country that practices socialism to a high extent. While in many of these countries, there are free education and health care for all citizens, they all come with a steep price in terms of taxation and personal wealth, which is one of the reasons why most people in America hates socialism in the first place, never mind the people who leave socialist countries to come to America or other more capitalist countries.

Also, in a socialist society, there is little incentive to work harder than your co-workers, considering that you get virtually the same pay and the same benefits. Sounds good in theory, but in reality, this simply would encourage half-assing on the job, or even outright laziness in select circumstances, which means that the quality of life as a whole tends to be much lower than in capitalist countries.

There are numerous examples of mixed economies before doing pretty well from themselves, but they are generally more capitalist than socialist, and the standards are generally not as high as it is in America. Contrary to popular opinion, socialism is not exactly that good of a system at all on it's own, and the negatives far outweigh the positives, no matter what anyone else says.

At 12/21/12 10:49 PM, orangebomb wrote: Sounds good in theory, but in reality, this simply would encourage half-assing on the job, or even outright laziness in select circumstances, which means that the quality of life as a whole tends to be much lower than in capitalist countries.

Right, they're higher. Things like universal healthcare and lowering the price of food tend to raise the living standard in those countries. It's one of the few good points about Socialism. In the US by comparison minorities tend to lose out on healthcare and their death rates mirror that of a developing country rather than the US.

At 12/21/12 11:03 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/21/12 10:49 PM, orangebomb wrote: Sounds good in theory, but in reality, this simply would encourage half-assing on the job, or even outright laziness in select circumstances, which means that the quality of life as a whole tends to be much lower than in capitalist countries.

Right, they're higher. Things like universal healthcare and lowering the price of food tend to raise the living standard in those countries. It's one of the few good points about Socialism.

Did you read my entire post? Universal Healthcare is not cheap, and in most cases, the taxes in countries that have universal health care are very high, in which a good chunk of people can barely afford, and one of the many reasons why much of Europe is in severe debt, and some of them are asking for a bailout. Universal Healthcare is a good thing, if only it weren't so expensive to implement and maintain.

And if they have it so good in a socialist country, why are so many people leave those places to come to America then to work and study and even live? It's because the standard of living in their old country isn't as high as America's, or if it is, they have really no incentive to succeed there, which outweighs any possible perks of Socialism.

At 12/21/12 11:44 PM, orangebomb wrote: Did you read my entire post? Universal Healthcare is not cheap, and in most cases, the taxes in countries that have universal health care are very high, in which a good chunk of people can barely afford, and one of the many reasons why much of Europe is in severe debt, and some of them are asking for a bailout. Universal Healthcare is a good thing, if only it weren't so expensive to implement and maintain.

Mismanagement is what got those countries in trouble, not the healthcare. You're right it is expensive, yet at the end of the day it's cheaper than in America, you merely have to see how much America spends on Healthcare in comparison to "socialist" countries.

And if they have it so good in a socialist country, why are so many people leave those places to come to America then to work and study and even live? It's because the standard of living in their old country isn't as high as America's, or if it is, they have really no incentive to succeed there, which outweighs any possible perks of Socialism.

Oh right going ahead and making generalizations. I myself am an immigrant from Bulgaria and the only reason I'm in America is the fact that many of the best universities are here (oh and they tend to be in states which give a damn about funding education like CA or MA). After I graduate we're probably going to try to move back to the EU because living here sucks ass. It does not have much to do with the standard of living , which is lower in America than in countries in the EU. Obviously in this case it does since Bulgaria's economy tanked after Capitalist reforms were made, but to say that is the only reason some Europeans immigrate means you don't understand why they do. In fact many of them are appalled that they pay so much in taxes yet the government does little for them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Canada has "free" health care and they're doing as good if not better than the U.S.

also, Orange, those immigrants that you said left their countries were probably communist, not socialist.

Socialism- great on paper, unworkable in practice.

At 12/22/12 01:14 PM, Ononymous wrote: Socialism- great on paper, unworkable in practice.

Canada and Norway practice it I believe and they are doing better than the U.S. especially Canada.

At 12/22/12 01:24 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

At 12/22/12 01:14 PM, Ononymous wrote: Socialism- great on paper, unworkable in practice.

Canada and Norway practice it I believe and they are doing better than the U.S. especially Canada.

They don't fully practice it. They practice some policies such as Universal healthcare and Public education, but they're not full on Socialist just a compromise between Socialism and Capitalism. So the governments of Norway and Canada don't control all industries. The US is much of the same as well but they're alot more hostile to government expansion if it helps some people. In Pure Socialism the government would be in control of the entire economy, in practice the government doesn't know how to use such power effectively thus it fails and everything gets worse. But like I said, certain aspects work very well, such as Universal Healthcare, Universal Education and cheaper food all of which tend to raise the standard of living, but all other parts don't seem to work out as well.

At 12/22/12 03:52 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/22/12 01:24 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

At 12/22/12 01:14 PM, Ononymous wrote: Socialism- great on paper, unworkable in practice.

Canada and Norway practice it I believe and they are doing better than the U.S. especially Canada.

They don't fully practice it. They practice some policies such as Universal healthcare and Public education, but they're not full on Socialist just a compromise between Socialism and Capitalism. So the governments of Norway and Canada don't control all industries. The US is much of the same as well but they're alot more hostile to government expansion if it helps some people. In Pure Socialism the government would be in control of the entire economy, in practice the government doesn't know how to use such power effectively thus it fails and everything gets worse. But like I said, certain aspects work very well, such as Universal Healthcare, Universal Education and cheaper food all of which tend to raise the standard of living, but all other parts don't seem to work out as well.

Yes, I just get mad at people who make out socialism like it's a really bad thing, like the Republicans who called Obama a socialist in promos for the election, I mean who the hell cares? are some of the rich so greedy they can't help out the poor? It also disgusts me how some people stereotype poor people as "lazy piles of shit" and therefore won't help them out. Which is the biggest pile of trash I've ever heard. I've known from personal experience that not all poor people are bad.

At 12/21/12 10:41 PM, Warforger wrote: Myanmar wasn't exactly ruled by the same type of Communists as those in Vietnam. They certainly were as radical, but they were not say going after "bougiouse" elements of society and they intertwined Buddhism into their concept of Communism, think of those Socialist dictators like Qaddaffi or Hussein, Qaddaffi is the better comparison because he intertwined Islam with Marxism much like Ne Win intertwined Marxism with Buddhism (but he wasn't heavy on ideology, he overall was not a very smart person).

That's really more Stalinism than anything else. Ne Win himself wasn't a very religious person. I'd make the argument that Gaddafi and Ne Win were people who believed that the model for socialism was via authoritarian dictatorship, and religion was just a convenient means to an end to ensure rigid nationalism. Of course Stalin himself was a staunch atheist who chopped down crosses, but the authoritarian part remains true.

Even without Ne Win's dictatorship Burma had taken up Socialist reforms under their Democracy in the 50's and it weakened the economy then. Overall US intervention had little to do with this, sure they bombed neighbors but the most intervention they ever did was supporting the Nationalist Chinese when they invaded the Northern states of Burma to build a base to invade Communist China.

I guess we'll never really know for sure, but I think anti-colonialism was a catalyst for the rise of socialist reforms. It's worth mentioning that Yangon University was the epicenter of the anti-colonial movement and was the central hub of Burmese nationalism. U Nu, Ne Win all went there, along with nearly all Burmese nationalist politicians. The sentiments were there since the 20s, so while the socialist reforms probably would have happened without the United States, I'm sure we didn't do much to quell their anxiety. Regardless, the economy didn't reach rock bottom until the Burmese way to Socialism took full effect and cut off all foreign aid, but that's not to diminish U Nu's disastrous economic policy of central planning. Burma was the second richest country in SE Asia during British occupation.

Other than that the policies of Autarky under the BSPP essentially cut off Myanmar from the rest of the world so that it may be independent, which is not a very smart thing to do for a nation whose economy is based on exports.

Exactly.

The coup was in 1962, well before the Vietnam war escalated to its higher levels, it had nothing to do with America or Vietnam and everything to do with the weakness of the National government which was due to the constant conflict that started in 1948 and never fucking stopped.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, the coup probably would have happened regardless, but I think our involvement in Vietnam and Laos certainly sped up the process, considering Burma was one of the most radical anti-colonial countries at the time and staunchly nationalist. Asian Communism consisted mostly of home grown insurgencies fanned by nationalist, anti-colonial sentiment, and Ne Win is a good example of that. Myanmar bordered Laos, China and India, and I think the regional political climate at the time also had influence on where it was heading.

Myanmar in itself was sort of an exception to the prosperity of other British colonies.

Back to back nationalization of all private industries (except agriculture) and central planning will do something to your economy.

At 12/22/12 05:23 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, the coup probably would have happened regardless, but I think our involvement in Vietnam and Laos certainly sped up the process, considering Burma was one of the most radical anti-colonial countries at the time and staunchly nationalist. Asian Communism consisted mostly of home grown insurgencies fanned by nationalist, anti-colonial sentiment, and Ne Win is a good example of that. Myanmar bordered Laos, China and India, and I think the regional political climate at the time also had influence on where it was heading.

Well I don't think it was anti-colonialism as much as it was how compatible Socialism is with some cultures. Not all cultures had say Classical Liberalism as part of their politics at one point. I guess I may have worded that out wrong but I mean take Ancient Greece, the society back then resembled modern Socialism than modern Capitalism. Thus Communism/Socialism has a much stronger basis there. Or say Germany, the radical Christian theologies all over Central Europe may have led the way to Socialism policies considering their views toward private property and the way they treated society. Or better yet look at France where the French Revolution took place for economic equality, all leaving their imprint on the political cultures. Or going into Islamic countries, Islam dictates that you must provide welfare to the poor, thus that may have influence the acceptability of Socialism in the Middle East. Thus I may say that the ideals of Communism/Socialism may in fact in some of the South East Asian cultures be Right wing rather than Left Wing, so that may explain how well they mingled in those countries.

Otherwise I think you're arguing about the Domino Theory, which may not have as much been true for Communism but I agree though it certainly has a good basis for revolutions in general. For example, when Mussolini took power it inspired more Fascist revolutions, to Germany to Spain to Portugal to Romania to Hungary etc. To an extent the Russian revolution had a similar effect as Communists in Bavaria Turin and Hungary revolted as well, but only the Communists in Hungary lasted a couple months and had any real chance.

At 12/22/12 06:16 PM, Warforger wrote: Well I don't think it was anti-colonialism as much as it was how compatible Socialism is with some cultures. Thus I may say that the ideals of Communism/Socialism may in fact in some of the South East Asian cultures be Right wing rather than Left Wing, so that may explain how well they mingled in those countries.

That's a really good point. It goes beyond that; we simply didn't understand the way the cultures worked there. We also didn't bother to pay attention to what was going on at the time. We got in on the tail end of colonialism and managed to subvert colonialism quietly while subverting nationalist sentiment overtly. That's the biggest mistake Johnson made: he wasn't containing communism in Asia, he was merely fighting Vietnamese nationalism.

Let's not forget that China and the USSR's influences often ran counter to each other. It's not like there was one monolithic push towards communism, the two fought far more often than they cooperated. As a result you ended up with one side's puppet fighting the other (for example Soviet-backed Vietnam going against the Chinese backed Khmer Rouge) while the quest for international workers' liberation stayed very much in the background. As a result of that, I think the USSR and China did far more to curb the expanse of communism in Asia than the US could ever have hoped to do.

Otherwise I think you're arguing about the Domino Theory, which may not have as much been true for Communism but I agree though it certainly has a good basis for revolutions in general.

The theory of the domino effect in the Cold War was that the US would intervene to prevent the domino stones from falling, i.e. to prevent further communist revolutions as a result of the first regional communist revolution. Whereas, for example, in South America, the US has done quite the opposite: they are making the domino stone fall, hoping that other stones will fall with it, when they support the democratic revolution in the region. In the context of the Vietnam war, I'm doubtful that Myanmar would have gone communist. If Myanmar was going to go communist it would have done so after we pulled out of SE Asia.

Socalism is a terrible idea. I mean, have you seen what people are like in Southern California? Why would anyone want the rest of the world to be like that?

Happy holidays, guys.

At 12/22/12 07:27 PM, Feoric wrote: The theory of the domino effect in the Cold War was that the US would intervene to prevent the domino stones from falling, i.e. to prevent further communist revolutions as a result of the first regional communist revolution. Whereas, for example, in South America, the US has done quite the opposite: they are making the domino stone fall, hoping that other stones will fall with it, when they support the democratic revolution in the region. In the context of the Vietnam war, I'm doubtful that Myanmar would have gone communist. If Myanmar was going to go communist it would have done so after we pulled out of SE Asia.

It was at first, but political scientists saw the theory and applied it not just for Communism but for other things in general, i.e. if one thing happens in one country it can spread to others. For example, in the election of 2012 when Virginia went to Obama it pretty much meant that the rest of the swing states would as well.

For a discussion on the merits of socialism I see little discussion of socialism. In fact the OP doesn't seem to understand what socialism is.

For clarification socialism is collective (democratic) ownership of the business, it can be divided into two sub categories
Top down socialism such as state socialism
and
Bottom up socialism such as syndicalism ie when workers control/own their place of employment.

For the former economically speaking is unmanageable as large bureaucratic structures can't adapt quickly to market changes. Socially speaking it restricts freedom as well.

As for the latter well it's just that most people are unable/unwilling to make informed decisions about the direction of a company.

Now what the OP was asking, I believe, is what is wrong with a welfare state, the traditional arguments are it violates individualism, and liberty.

Of course both of those arguments are bullshit as in the case of individualism we act collectively all the time, personally I don't think it right to be willing to act collectively to throw someone in jail but not be willing to avoid sending said someone to jail by providing them with basic food/shelter/etc, especially when it is cheaper.

As to the it violates liberty by taking someones property, the problem of course is that IMO property in the large sense is a positive right, not a negative one and stored wealth is definitely a positive right.

At 12/23/12 02:34 AM, Knis wrote: Now what the OP was asking, I believe, is what is wrong with a welfare state, the traditional arguments are it violates individualism, and liberty.

In a way it's true, in an ironic way. Here in America lots of people willingly subjugate themselves to defending stagnating wages and terrible working conditions all in the name of bootstraping their way to achieve the America Dream, whatever that may be. I think they quite like it, as it segues directly into justifications for their political rhetoric (lazy poors, demonizing welfare, etc). I don't entirely understand it, but I think the "individualism" and "liberty" argument is a euphemism for "why don't you just shut up and take it in the ass like I did?!"

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Isn't the basis of it taxing the rich to help out the poor? What's so bad about that? correct me if i'm wrong about that, but I've researched it and that's what usually comes up.

Are you defining socialism as the taxing of people of higher income for people of lower income? or are you talking about that as an aspect of Socialism that is seen as most objectionable and hence worth discussing.

At 12/22/12 07:28 AM, Cootie wrote: Socialism isn't a bad thing at all if it is implemented correctly. I believe in market socialism myself (socialism without a planned economy) and it seems like a good deal. Socialism wants economic power to be in the majority instead of a very small minority, and I do think that the workers should have a greater share of the profits that they make and should have more of a say in the matters of a business.

People have too many misconceptions about what socialism is. Socialism doesn't even state that "all people make the same money" like so many people claim. Doctors would still make more than the fry cook, but the difference is that the fry cook could work forty hours a week and still provide for his family.

Here is the thing, it becomes entirely based on what the government deems fair, I don't know if you know this but humans are easily corrupted by their very nature, and in many countrys' history you can easily find millions of examples of government officials outright screwing with laws that might have helped the countrys' stability, simply so that they could get a bigger chunk of cash, or so that they can make someone else look bad.

Capitalism for the most part removes political gain from the equation and while yes the rich folk might try to give themselves as much money as possible, they also happen to need to keep the company in question afloat and that means competing. As long as a monopoly is not formed, for the most part the economy stays stable for much longer. But there has never been a country in human history, with any form of economic stability that lasted more then 200 years before it at least hits a few near crashes. What happening now all over the world was going to happen eventually, this was no surprise and nothing really could have stopped it from happening to many countrys with their economy tied to each other, once one started to tip a bit to far all the others were dragged in.

I can't believe that no one's touched on the fact that the United States has always had socialist aspects to it ever since its inception and especially after the New Deal.

I know that you all are focused on a completely abstract discussion of straw man ideas of socialism vs capitalism in this thread and no one will pay attention to a comment that actually speaks to reality, but anybody who is decrying socialism in this thread needs to get off of the Internet, first of all. Second, since most of you went to public schools and many of you probably attend community colleges, you need to give back all that knowledge you got from there also - paid for by taxpayers.

Also if your house has ever been on fire or you have ever been scared and called the police, you need to erase 911 from your phone as well and don't use it. And if you have borrowed any federal monies for your education, give those back, too.

Socialism has existed side by side with capitalism in the United States for years. It is ingrained into the fabric of the society.

Also, to those who say that socialism is an economic and not a political system, umm, socialism wouldn't work without the government having a monopoly on force aka political power. You can't separate the enforcement of socialism from the idea, because without enforcement on taxation, there is no socialism, which would mean anarchy in my view, or at best, organized crime cartels running the economy (I guess the government is kind of that way anyway).

Anyhow, you people on the extreme need to come on back to center, because you have used public resources and didn't even know it, socialist pig. LOL

At 12/24/12 03:31 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: I can't believe that no one's touched on the fact that the United States has always had socialist aspects to it ever since its inception and especially after the New Deal.

The thing is that Socialism at the time of the creation of the US hadn't fully developed into a concrete philosophy. There were always government institutions before Socialism so I hate it when its used as a blanket term for institutions run by the government and given to everyone. For example, Public Schooling was part of Classical Republicanism because it was used as a way to improve the state as a whole i.e. the idea that the state had priority over the individual because while the individual may at best be there for a family the state is there for everyone. The line has to be drawn somewhere though, because I guess the intention has to be part of it. Whereas Socialism is all about creating equality Classical Republicanism is all about creating a strong state, thus while they may share aspects the intentions are quite different.

The fact is this country is starting to get overrun by idiots who want their money handed to them instead of working for it. They want everything handed to them by the government. And the problem with that is, if the government is furnishing the people with money and everything else (complete socialism), they've got you by the balls. They can make you do anything they want or they can just cut you off.
So just stand up to the government you say? How? Most socialists are also liberals who want guns banned. And a full gun ban would come with full socialism.
Though some aspects are present in this country, full socialism has no place in it.