I've just finished reading a post on here where socialism was used in a very negative way. I was wondering, and I'm not looking for right wing or left wing non-sense, just a genuine question.

Why do Americans have such a negative view on Socialism, I know it has flaws, but so does the centre, centre right and right wing of political views. Why is there such an anti-socialism view in the U.S.? (By the way, I realise socialism is a left wing view, but in the US you don't have even a left of centre option)

Also, I'm interested to know if there are any Americans who like the idea of Socialism at all?

 

This is a simple and honest question, which requires a simple and honest answer.

This country was not founded on socialism, it was founded on individual rights and liberty.

 

Socialism, the mere definition makes it unappealing to most in the US.

 

It is un-Amercian = not good for you ....
.... [ Ooops ! ..... I mean it takes away from MY wealth and power. ]

Blunty..You are brainwashed into believeing it would destroy the US of A [ Which it would if those in power were socialists. ]
A little socialism is good for YOU.

But do not take my word for it .... check out the rest of the WESTERN WORLD.

itiswhatitis

 

NO.....socialism is not good for anyone, charities are, the giving to, and the receiving from.

For the people, by the people,,,,,,,,NOT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

 

There are two main reasons socialism has been less popular in the United States than in Europe, although many intellectuals favored it during the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Vietnam War era.

First, the United States has never had a hereditary, leisured, titled aristocracy whose wealth was based on land ownership. There has usually been more social mobility in the United States than in Europe. As a result, young people in the United States hope to become rich, and middle aged people hope their children will become rich.

Second, the American working class, or let us say, the American class of employees, has always been heterogeneous. It has usually been easier for white employees in the United States to identify with their white employers than with co workers of other races and ethnicities.

This may be changing, however. According to Rasmussen Reports: "Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

According to Gallup: "More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of socialism."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

This is curious, because no one in the United States with national name recognition is advocating socialism. Nevertheless, Americans see capitalism up close. Many do not like what they see.

I like the idea of democratic socialism. However, because it does not exist anywhere, I am not sure how well it would work in practice. Social Democracy, which may be seen as a moderate form of democratic socialism, does exist, and I think it works better than the American free enterprise system.

 

You make a very valid point Distant Lover, in regards to the land and class systems in Europe. I've never thought of that before.

I always wondered why this was the case in the States, how a democracy has no voice from the left of centre.

I, personally, think socialism is a good thing. That is my own belief and I come from Scotland where, in effect, we have voted in socialism for ca 50 years. So it is almost impossible to find someone who was not born into money who has a right of centre view on politics. So it's kind of the norm to talk to people with this view.

I think the fear element is a sad state to be in, as it doesn't allow for grown up debates. I think we will see something similar when we have our independence referendum, where fear will be used by the unionist parties instead of having a proper, grown up debate.

I'm glad most of you have answered honestly and not spouted on about the Cold War and Communism. So many thanks for that.

 

As always, DL, your analysis is pretty good.

However, I think it's more fundamental than that. The American Experiment has always been a liberal one. I mean liberal in a classical sense. It's the defining characteristic of what it means to be an American and the one thing that unites all of the states. Nowhere is the liberal nature of the US more apparent than in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. We must remember that the American War of Independence was launched over the issue of property rights. The Founding Fathers made no qualms about expressing the fact that personal liberty is inexorably linked to economic liberty.

So, I guess the easy answer to your question, taylor, is that the US Constitution and the country's federalist legal structure cannot support any meaningful form of socialism and that's why socialistic policy initiatives have not been as widespread as they have in Europe.

As for why there hasn't been a socialist uprising? Believe me, regions came close several times in our history--mostly during depressions--but the de-centralized nature of the American populace, and (as DL noted) the heterogeneous and cross-cutting nature of American political factions have prevented such socialist revolutions from gaining any potent traction. Again, we really came close. Think Free Silver/Farmer's Alliance during the 1890s.

 

Strangely enough, this is correct. Seems too simple, but, yeah...

 

Interesting Book and Lecture

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/186958-1

​

 

You said at the beginning of your post you didn't want to hear right wing or left wing nonsense and then in your second paragraph you start in on right wingers. LOL

 

At what point have I "started in on right wingers"?

 

You are looking at "individual rights and liberty" through the eyes of employers, and the class of employers. Most employees feel the power of their immediate supervisor more heavily than the combined power of their local, state and federal government.

Also, the United States was founded on rights we no longer respect, such as the right of a white person to own a black person. During the American Revolution slavery was legal in each of the thirteen rebellious colonies. It was illegal in England.

In his essay, "TAXATION NO TYRANNY: AN ANSWER TO THE RESOLUTIONS AND ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN CONGRESS," Samuel Johnson," asked, "If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
http://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html

During the American Revolution British military authorities issued several emancipation proclamations to American slaves. The line in the Declaration of Independence, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us," complained about British efforts to encourage American slaves to fight for their freedom.

I have not found it on the internet, but years ago I read that when American slave owners went to British General Charles Cornwallis to demand their slaves back, Gen. Cornwallis replied, "The former slaves have indeed flocked to the British flag, which is understandable, because its protection is offered to the victims of tyranny throughout the world. However, they are not kept here against their will. If any choose to return to their former owners, and resume their previous conditions of servitude, they have the liberty to do so."

None of the former slaves took advantage of the General's offer.

 

Do you not see the double standard you're setting up?

 

Yeah,,, whatever.

 

Ther are somethings only Gov't is equioped to do .... It is Gov't-s job to look after the people it represents.....

Health would be one ........ don't freak on ME ....

Interesting to me.... the country most like America is left out of peoples equations when looking at various issues .....

THE socialists in CANADA have made life much better for the average Canadian .......... :excited:

 

There are very, very few things indeed that ONLY a government can do. There are a huge number of things for which you can make a case that it's GOOD for the government to do them; but for almost all of those things, you can also make a case that it's bad for the government to do them.

The right wingers would also take umbrage at your second sentence, and argue that it's people's own job to look after themselves; and, if they are fortunate enough to be able to do that in comfort, it is then their responsibility to look after their friends, relatives, neighbours... who cannot do the same.

Socialists would have government control the industrial base of a country and run it in the best interests of the country as a whole ... capitalists will tell you that having government leave well alone and let people just do what they want, actually works out better for the country as a whole than having government try to organise it. (Lunatic right-wingers will tell you that socialists are evil for even wanting to do what's best for the country as a whole. But they're no more insane than the equally lunatic left-wingers, so let's ignore them.)

 

There is a man in the White House that would love to get rid of capitalism in America. Hopefully he isn't re-elected.

 

I have no gripes with the way Canada runs their system, if that is what Canada wants, Canada can have that system.

The U.S. does not want socialism or the idea of socialism, the free market and capitalism is what the U.S. thrives on and is in love with. Is it a perfect system, yes it is, but only for those that are not victims of the greedy weasels. That's where personal responsibility comes into play,it's your money, dont be foolish with it.

Socialism does not promote individual rights or liberty,it only promotes a nanny state, something the U.S. can do without.

 

Socialism is generaly regarded as an un-American idea. The idea of America is that anoyone with a dream has the liberty to pursue that dream but is generaly expected to do so at thier own risk. Nobody is going to pick you up if you fall flat on your ass. Socialism dictates that a share or portion of what everyone has is contributed to a central authority for distribution to support those in need or who have suffered failure to sustain them either temporarily or indefinately depending upon the individual circumstances.

Communism on the other hand dictates that the state posseses everything and distributes to everyone according to need. If you run a business, that business is proerty of the state but they allow you to run this business and will provide specific items according to the need. Food, money, clothing, transportation, medicine...everything is ultimately property of the state althogh it is easier and more efficient to allow certain items to be "privately held" since the management of literaly everything would be an overwhelming task. Nobody wants to try to keep track of how many pairs of socks you have.

Whay has generaly been discovered by governments throughout history is that some form of social assistance programs are essential to the survival of the state. The Romans had the public graineries to feed the poor. They were stocked with grain that was paid to the state by the farmers in leu of taxes. The point was to keep the inevitable poor masses fed well enough to keep them docile and nonviolent. Grain riots would break out in years when harvests were poor and the graineries ran dry.

In the U.S. we have a number of social programs that were intended to keep the poor fed, educate the masses, provide for the elderly, protect the disabled and generaly practise some sort of social justice. Saddly, many of these programs are very poorly managed and opperated, creating problems in both distribution and relative cost versus benefit. In the early 1990's for example, the federal government opperated a program to provide school lunches for poor students whos families couldnt afford regualr meals. Kids could qualify for school brakfasts as well, thus ensuring that these underprivilaged students would recieve at least two good meals a day. Schools who wished to participate had no less than fifty...50...yes...thats right fifty diferent government agencies and departments that needed to be contacted for money to provide these no cost meals to students. When a school maxed out one source they had to call the next one and so forth. This would go on until either all the students that qualified were fed or they ran out of people to call to recieve partial support. The volume of paperwork required was staggering and many school administrations would simply give up and eat the cost instead since that was cheaper than hiring a full time staff to negotiate the intracacies of federal funding.

This is the greatest failing of social programs in the United States today. The complexity and convoluted nature of the inevitable bureaucracy creates probelems and costs far beyond the cost of the actual benefits provided to those who recieve them. In the world of non-profit cherities there are grades given to organizations in regard to the percentage of the money they take in that catulay goes into helping the intended recipients. There isnt a single local, county, state or federal agency that could manage better than a D- grade and most would fail if they were expected to adhere to the same standards as private non-profits.

There is a common complaint among conservatives about the cost of these programs and that all these "dead beats" need to be kicked off the programs because they cost too much. The reality is that while a handfull of "welfare queens" who have taken advantage of the system and managed to rake in alot of money and make news headlines, the vast majority of recipients barely recieve enough to survive. The system is a very complex one and for those who qualify it is literaly a full time job to manage the benefits you recieve and manage your contacts to make sure that all the requirements of these benefit programs are met. I am in medical transportation and the people I deal with every day are recipients of many of these benefits. None live well. Most spend several hours a day in contact with social workers, program advisors, benefits offices, doctors offices, counselors offices, case managers, etc. It is literaly a full time job just to be on benefits. And the benefits they get often leave them without needed medical help, food or money for things like clothing.

But thier case workers average $49,560 anualy plus full benefits. And there are dozens of them.
This is the great failing of socialism in the U.S....its not that people are getting money for nothing, its that so many have jobs that dont need to exist and stand in the way of those who need benefits and cost the taxpayers epic amounts of money.

I am reminded of a family that I transported a few years ago. The father was a commercial fisherman with two boats, a home,two cars, a wife and four kids. Very nice family...very close family and very salt of the earth people. In the course of conversation I found out that while one of his boats was in dry dock he fell while working on it and broke his back in three places leaving him in a wheel chair. When he reported this to his insurance company they decided that they werent going to cover his injury or any of his other expenses and because he had assets like boats and houses the state wouldnt help him out either. They eventualy lost everything and when I met them the whole family was living in a fifth wheel trailer in a trailer park. It was loosing everything that finaly qualified them for some benefits after loosing a lifetime worth of work. But it was in this time that they had a real change in thier philosophy about welfare. They suddenly realized how hard it realy was to be on welfare and how hard it was to get it in the first place. They also discovered the humiliation and degredation that welfare recipients have to endure every time they pick up a phone or go to a meeting or appointment. Thier attitude toward welfare had always been very republican...kick em all off the rolls and make them get jobs! Thier story changed once they discovered what its realy all about. Its not entirely unlike being a slave.