And none of them achieve the unrealistic expectations they set out to do. I wouldn't want to live under any of them. Some of them have proven to be fatal to live in. No thanks. Seriously SH, if you like the concept of the "socialisms" why did you not emigrate to one of the Euro-Socialist states instead of here? Why not now go join one of the "Revolutions" taking place currently in Nicaragua, Cuba, or Venezuela? Can you please answer that? I haven't seen a socialist state in any form I'd wish to live in.

Many concepts of a social democracy, while the doctrine is not openly expressed in the United States through the form of representation by an official party, have been incorporated into American life. Environmentalism, the regulation of businesses with labor rights and consumer protection, multiculturalism, we've got a foreign policy that has spreading democracy as a main goal (also a goal of the Bush administration), and there's also the advocacy of social, civil, and human rights in the country, not to mention the high value of civil liberty.

Really, you do live in a socialist country; a social democracy, but it's socialism nonetheless. Actually, child labor laws are a result of the appeal of social democratic beliefs. The only reason we're not seen as a social democracy is because we like to think and say we're not in any way socialist, instead favoring capitalism and the ideas of a republic. A social democracy can still use some parts of capitalism, however. Don't make the mistake and think it can't.

Communism has, but that's why I'm not a communist.

Because nations that are officially social democracies are... well- to put it bluntly, non-existent. The US is the next best thing.

Because I'm not a communist, I'm a social democrat...

Probably because when people hear the word "socialism", they immediately think of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim-Jong Il, and communism; when in reality, there are many different forms of socialism.

No, the US is not a socialist country. We still have a Constitution, and just need a return to those principles. We are still a Representative Republic. We do have a government that is at this moment very overreaching, has ambitions for statism as policy, and is larger than Constitutionally mandated. And we do have programs that are way overdue for elimination in the public sphere. Nobody said the US doesn't have the right to regulate itself. But there is a tendency for some to want to overregulate and get their hands on things they have no business interacting with. Like financial compensations and such. Regulation should occur where there is a need to ensure consumer or employee safety.

I merely see that as part of the social contract and doesn't imply a "socialist" government. Just like taxes. They must be reasonable , and part of the social contract to ensure that we can run the necessary government functions that are needed and benefit the citizen at large. Not the other 85% of junk passed by corrupt congresses like the current and former. None of that gives you a socialist country. We do see the socialist elements in our nation now going broke or running inefficiently. Social Security is a boondoggle that is going dead broke soon, and Medicare/Medicaid are bloated and totally inefficient. Too bad some people can't learn why they fail.

If you want socialism, you have to truly go where it is? And you have not done that. Seriously, we don't have cradle to grave here yet, nor do I think it's possible within Obama's first term. Nor will he get another if he keeps pushing. If you wanted a more cradle to grave which implies socialism....you should have emigrated to Europe or Canada.

Oh yeah. I need to address this too. Communism and Socialism share many similarities to the point they can be viewed as the same to a different extreme. Both give you the model of producing and distributing goods that are owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. To varying degrees they both seek to enforce a collectivist mindset over resources and people, and they seek to force an unrealistic "equity" system that just isn't workable in any way. Both are also dreadful to basic human freedoms, choices, and human incentive. And neither have produced very high standards of living for regular people despite the glorious propaganda both produce.

@ First post > NOPE

You certainly support and utilize many concepts of it, though.

Hence it's like a social democracy.

Well I'm not going to argue with you on this point since you have a right to your opinion.

We have to regulate companies though. They can't be trusted; that's the problem. If you let them have too much freedom, they'll go crazy and abuse it to no end. I agree that consumer and employee safety are definite priorities, but what about false advertising that many of them get away with as a direct result of deregulation? Things like these weight loss products that cause liver failure and cancer later on in life are allowed to be sold because corporations and businesses can slip through loopholes in the system.

It's not right, but it's legal...:nope:

But would you not agree that they have great impacts and effects on our lives? That's why I think opposite of your opinion. When you step back and see how important they are on living in the United States, it seems to amplify their origin, of the socialist democrat doctrine.

They're failing because we haven't bothered to amend them to keep up with the changes that have come with the times. Social security worked great for decades and it still works today, just not as well as it once did. The same can be said for Medicare and Medicade, which incidentally are the reasons that 75% of physicians have the ability to go to residency and training schools/programs.

I am a social DEMOCRAT, and I reside in a country that borrows many ideas from it's doctrine. That's all I've got to say. If I was a communist (which really communism is just a branch of socialism), I'd go to Cuba. If I was a national socialist... well, I'm a little late to find any Nazi countries. But I'm not a communist and I'm not a national socialist.

Perhaps I should have. The Euro is worth more than the dollar right now, but Canada isn't even a really country anyway.:haha::O:

Mainly because communism is a part of socialism, and vice versa (although the concept of mainstream socialism, the first official and original form, has been around for longer than communism, which really didn't come around until Marx wrote his manifesto).

Depends what type of the socialist system you're looking into. A social democracy discourages a single-party centralized government, seeking out a power of the people forged by the people concept.

For communism, these points are absolutely true. Communism's problem is that it relies too heavily on the cooperation of people and their desire to do the right thing and do nothing but live up to the Communist Manifesto, but the problem here is that people are inherently flawed creatures that can be corrupted easily by greed and desire (let alone the fact they can be bastards). For socialism, it again depends on what form of it you're looking at.

Communism works GREAT if your the 10% that's calling all the shots.

The 90% that's doing all the WORK are screwed.

Looking at the western and global labour markets, the big business economy and big corportation and chain stores, it is much the same with capitalism, isn't it. Even more these present days.

I always thought that the resulting outcome in reality of communistic planned-economy and capitalistic "free" market economy have much more in common than any of the two finds convenient to admit. esoecially for the proiteering elites it does not make any difference. for them, in both systems the old Orwellian truth from Animal Farm remains true in both ways of running an economy: all people are equal, but some are more equal than the others.

What's the old saying... "under communism, man exploits man; under capitalism, it's just the opposite."

US workers are the highest paid in the world.

@ Skybird Take your BS to the streets of Germany. :hmph:

Exactly.

No. Much of it is BS "made in the USA", sweetheart.

I sometimes wonder whether a properly applied socialism wouldn't be the best thing. But I have two problems:

1) The free market happens by itself, whereas any type of socialism is artificial, i.e. it has to be applied from above, and enforced.

2) Said enforcement always requires giving someone enough power to make it work, and I have yet to see anyone in office I would want to trust with that kind of power.

Comeing on to me isn't going to work. :har:

Homey don't play that game.

You get as much as you give. Become noisy - don't wonder a noisy echo.

I'm sorry to offend anyone but I think the general sceptism to socialism in the US comes from some deep cultural heritage that perhaps is hard for europeans to understand. If you want a sucessfull "socialist" country I would choose sweden as an example, the market and many other aspect of life are controlled by the state, more than in many other european countries. Still sweden ranks very high on most rankings even though it is by no means a lucky country when it comes to natural resources (like it smaller brother and even more communistic norway). Of course comparing two countries with a total inhabitants of less than 15 mill with the US is perhaps meaningless but I did it, sue me..