Because, if America was to be seen as one individual person, that person would be seen as being anti social, be disliked by his neighbours and eventually have an ASBO slapped on him.

 

Really? I think if you read the post properly, I pretty much say that all systems have there failings. The point being, why is it socialism and left of centre views are "un-American". Really thought it was a pretty unbiased statement.

Anyway, tim929, really enjoyed reading that piece. I know in our (the U.K) welfare state, there are plenty of problems. But, in general, if you fall on hard times there will be help out there for you. However, in a paradox, there are generations of families who have grown up and none of them have contributed to the "fund". This is the down side to the welfair state.

 

Why do you equate socialism with left-of-center? Traditionally, the term socialism has been used interchangeably with communism. You can thank the Red Scare and Cold War for that...

The word socialism connotes a left-winger in the US. Left of center views are actually pretty popular. Look at Social Security.

 

Scotland is not a socialist country. Industry, property and material distribution are owned predominantly by the private sector. This is not possible under a socialist government.

You might believe that Scotland has certain programs that are socialistic, such as health care, but that does not equate to the country being socialist.

 

Socialism is a more or less thing, rather than an either or thing. Nearly every country has aspects of both economic systems.

 

The Leisure Class, the Working Class, and Socialism

Americans know what is meant by the terms “leisure class” and “working class.” Nevertheless, we seldom if ever use the term “leisure class” and seem uncomfortable using the term “working class.” That is because these terms express an un American perception of the relation between wealth and work.

Most Americans agree with Proverbs 10:4 He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand but the hand of the diligent maketh rich.

Nevertheless, in virtually every country there is a class of people who get nearly all of their income from interest, rent, and dividends, and a class of people who get nearly all of their income from pay checks. Those in the first class nearly always get quite a bit more income than those in the second class. If they are well situated, they have plenty of leisure.

Moreover, in the United States economic growth increasingly goes to the class of owners, rather than the class of workers. We can see this from the following two articles:

Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter [of 2010], according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years agoAmerican businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html

This may be responsible for the growing, if clandestine popularity of socialism, which I documented in my comment #6 in this thread. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party has not been able to “capitalize” - if I may use that term - this because most whites associate the Democrats with the defense of black interests, and they associate blacks with social pathology, especially crime.

 

Actually you are correct: no country is a pure Socialist one nor a pure Capitalist one.

However, countries that call themselves Democracies are not purely Democratic or Republican, the US included. We are a Representative Democracy or Republic, depending on which definition you choose. Therefore our economic system is the choice of the representatives elected by the voters, which has been predominantly capitalistic since day one.

To try to take your country more to the socialist side will require the approval of the voter, since they still are the ones who put people in office. Last mid-term election, those voters spoke, the result was a change in the House. The next general election, the people will speak again, it is highly likely that the new majority will expand.

 

Why Rome Fell: A Theory

At one time the Roman Empire was the most advanced civilization in the world. Those discussing the fall of this empire usually blame what they do not like. Protestant Fundamentalists blame Roman decadence and paganism.

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published in six volumes from 1776 to 1789, Edward Gibbon suggested that Christianity deserved part of the blame.

I blame slavery, and the effect it had on economic inequality. The many successful wars of conquest that built the empire caused it to be glutted with slaves. Rich men could afford slaves. Poor men could not. Family farms could not compete with large estates worked by slaves. As peasants lost their farms, they moved to the cities, and the estates became larger.

If this reminds one of the way small shops and stores are going out of business because of the expansion of corporations like Wall Mart, it should.

In the cities some of these former farmers became merchants or skilled artisans. Most became day laborers, and servants, where again they had difficulty competing with slave labor.

As time went on, an increasing percentage of the population of the Roman Empire consisted of slaves and unskilled, propertiless, and impoverished free persons. These had no stake in the Empire, and no reason to defend it. When the German invasions began German tribes were able to conquer territory with many more people than were in the tribes. They occupied populations that believed they had nothing to fight for.

It is interesting to note that the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which became known as the Byzantine Empire, survived until the the fifteenth century. In the Byzantine Empire the government intervened economically in order to preserve family farms in return for military service by the sons of the farmers. Those sons fought to defend the Byzantine Empire because they had something to fight for.

 

Republicans have gone retarded. There is no way Obama is not reelected given the current 'best of the best' they've put forward.

-S-

 

I see no contradiction between a government being a democracy and a republic. The very noun "republic" lacks the significance it once had, because very few governments any more are absolute monarchies. Where monarchy survives, as in the UK, it has become little more than a tourist attraction.

The Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress in 2006, and retained control of those houses while gaining the White House in 2008 because most Americans did not benefit from the Bush economy, and because Bush started two expensive wars he could not win.

The Republicans did not do well in the last election because the Obama administration was too "socialist," but because most of those who lost ground economically from 2000 to 2008 continued to lose ground under President Obama.

During the 1920s the American electorate was to the right of where it has been since. During the 1930s the American electorate was to the left of where it is now. The shift from right to left happened because of at least three factors. First, the economic expansion of the 1920s was very uneven. Those left out kept hoping they would get rich. What they got was the Great Depression. Second, the economic collapse that happened during the administration of Herbert Hoover caused most Americans to lose confidence in capitalism. Third, life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated.

For most people "capitalism," "socialism," and even "democracy" are words. What concerns them is whether and how well something works.

I see nothing in the policies of Republican presidential candidates that will reduce unemployment. The United States may be fated to shift from Democrats to Republicans, and back again with neither party able to reverse the economic decline. If this happens, the survival of the United States as a Union of fifty states is in doubt. If the United States falls, the fall will not be peaceful, like the fall of the Soviet Union was.

 

one simple word

There is one simple word as to why people do not like the idea of socialism. GREED. The personal greed of each makes it impossible to consider the idea of truly sharing anything. People give to charity to sooth their conscinence.

 

Quarter of Republicans think Obama May be the Anti Christ

As a student nurse I would expect you to be too intelligent to think in such simplistic terms. President Obama does not want to "get rid of capitalism in America," any more than he wants the terrorists to win. He was not born in Kenya either. He does not hate white people. He is not the anti Christ.

Unfortunately, many simple minded Republicans believe all of this.
http://www.livescience.com/8160-quarter-republicans-obama-anti-christ.html

 

I disagree. Slavery reached its zenith during the days of the Republic and slavery actually liberalized under the Principate. It was during the Principate that we see a rise in social mobility, and even economic growth.

The Roman Empire was one of the most enduring in history. But, ultimately, the Founding Fathers got it right. Rome declined just like Democratic Athens declined--through the rise of tyranny. It was the dictatorial aspect of the Roman Principate that enabled corruption, disorganization, and financial misappropriation. Like I said, Rome actually prospered under the Principate, but its fundamental structure enabled its decline.

 

You are absolutely right. Scotland is not a socialist country. However, that isn't due to who we have voted for. We can vote entirely for one party and in the grand scheme of things, they could loose the election quite badly. My point was, as a nation we have continually voted towards the left, sometimes more, sometimes less. But, we have quiet a high percentage of people who have socialist tendencies.

With regards to your point origen01, I don't see both as the same, all I was trying to understand was why there was such a negative view of the left in America.

 

Simple answer? Because those in power have convinced the proletariat that what's good for corporations is good for them.

-S-

 

What I find terribly ironic is that while many Americans rail and cry against the evils of socialism, their favourite game wouldn't exist without it.

Football is the biggest, most popular sport in America. The Superbowl is the biggest television event in the world. The NFL wouldn't exist as it does today with all its success without it's socialist policies.

Anyone that is an NFL fan is agreeing with and supporting socialism.

 

Every professional ball team in the United States depends on ball parks that are heavily subsidized by the local city government. Ball teams are always on the lookout for cities that will give them greater subsidies.

There is no multiplier effect with the presence of a local ball team. Money that is spent on tickets is money that is not spent on movies, restaurants, bars, and other forms of recreation.

Money that cities spend subsidizing ball parks is money that is not spent on libraries, public transportation, parks, public education, and other aspects of the public economy. It is money that comes from local taxes.

 

This country cannot afford socialism. Too risky and the blacks might start getting friendly.

 

Well, what's wrong with that?

​

 

When Charles Erwin Wilson said, "what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa," there was some truth in his statement. In addition to paying reasonably high corporate taxes with little complaint, GM provided at least a hundred thousand Americans without college degrees and skills that are difficult to learn with reasonably high wages and good benefits.

Now the two models for the future of the American economy are Microsoft and Wall Mart. Microsoft hires the best computer programmers, engineers, and computer scientists in the world and pays them what it needs to to attract them. In order to be hired by Microsoft one pretty needs to have been born with a genius level IQ. Wall Mart hires those desperate enough to welcome any job they can get, and pays them as little as possible.