why hate socialism?

[caspofungin]

watching the campaigns over the last few months, and reading these forums, it's become pretty obvious that most americans hate socialism. it's used as a club against anyone (not just obama) who dares talk about fiscal reform, new health care policies, etc.

if you equate socialism and communism, that would be incorrect, but i would understand it. but if socialism means increasing taxes to pay for health care, schools, etc, without imposing on civil liberties, why the blind hatred?

or am i missing something?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

watching the campaigns over the last few months, and reading these forums, it's become pretty obvious that most americans hate socialism. it's used as a club against anyone (not just obama) who dares talk about fiscal reform, new health care policies, etc.

if you equate socialism and communism, that would be incorrect, but i would understand it. but if socialism means increasing taxes to pay for health care, schools, etc, without imposing on civil liberties, why the blind hatred?

or am i missing something?

Yes. I'm opposed to it because it will kill our economy. On the health care acpect of it, I have mixed feelings. I am willing to pay for the quality over the quantity. The people that truely need the health care need the help, but soon everybodies "illness" will be covered. There is too much abuse in the health care system that needs to be dealt with.

the increase in taxes thing never ends. One innocent tax increase leads to another and another, then the majority of your pay-check is gone. It's my $#%$^% money. I worked for it so keeps your hands off it. If you don't like capitalism, go live in Cuba. I lived in Russia for a little while and I got to see what a socialist system can do.

[Zachstar]

Any 1st world gov is a Hybrid anyway.

Otherwise you would have Toll roads EVERYWHERE.

Roads: Socialism period.

As for healthcare. A "Go in for a sniffy nose" policy is crap but our current policy is just as crap because it allows 1000 dollar cases become 100000 cases before it starts giving a rats ass.

Preventable measures and Early detection needs to be 100 percent paid for by the government period. Because it will save taxpayers when we do not have to have Medicare gutted by people with conditions that could have been treated when things were far cheaper. THAT is capitalism/socialism hybrid

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

In the end a "capitalist" government will tax you just as much as a "socialist" government, the only difference is in where the money goes.

Funny, I lived in Russia for more than a little while, but I'm still a convinced socialist. It's true, socialism can go wrong - but then whether there was any real socialism in a place like Russia is debatable. I don't think there was.

People underestimate the positive impact socialism has had historically. In fact, I would say that were it not for socialist agenda being rationally implemented in the West in the form of labour regulation (work hours, minimum wage policies, unions), healthcare and improved public funding for other public services in the early 20th century, there would have been a revolution akin to the Russian one. The West cut it very close in those years, and many of those fixes were rather painful to the system and resisted almost to the extreme by some elements in society. But the fixes ultimately helped to save society and enhance democracy by creating a working middle class, something that's a necessity to maintain a free, democratic society in balance.

The problem is that now the balance is again threatened. There's going to need to be similar fixes as the system is basically breaking down. There is, of course, the other side to this where the social services themselves are in need of reform because they're getting abused (see the infamous "damn immigrants on welfare!" argument). The problem is that in all of this, a lot of upper-middle-class people and, shall we be honest and say "rednecks", are not seeing the bigger picture here. A lot of libertarian ideologues polluting their heads with the idea that if you have it, you've earned it, and if they don't have it - f them. The problem is that once you lose your middle class, you can say goodbye to democracy. You then might as well legalize slavery because that's what the situation will equate to. All that is good about the West's liberal democratic system and its social freedoms stems from economic balance and a predominance of a solid middle class.

What I've learned by growing up in Russia is not that socialism is bad. What I've learned is that a situation in a highly developed society where there is no middle class, but instead a small elite and a predominantly impoverished majority, is inherently impossible to maintain a fair, democratic system in - and furthermore results in major social collapse. It's a very tragic thing to watch. And if anyone for a second thinks that something like that is impossible in the West - well, time will tell. And I will say that if you don't protect your middle class and with it, a neccesary social balance, you're going to end up with a very tragic situation on your hands. There are fixes that, as in the early 20th century, the socialist agenda can offer. It's up to the society whether to accept them or not. But I'm afraid that if you think things will fix themselves, you're sadly mistaken.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

What I've learned is that a situation in a highly developed society where there is no middle class, but instead a small elite and a predominantly impoverished majority, is inherently impossible to maintain a fair, democratic system in - and furthermore results in major social collapse. It's a very tragic thing to watch. And if anyone for a second thinks that something like that is impossible in the West - well, time will tell. And I will say that if you don't protect your middle class and with it, a neccesary social balance, you're going to end up with a very tragic situation on your hands. There are fixes that, as in the early 20th century, the socialist agenda can offer. It's up to the society whether to accept them or not. But I'm afraid that if you think things will fix themselves, you're sadly mistaken.

100% agree. And what you describe - actually already happens while writing this, in a growing number of European nations, and in the country of extremes, America, anyway.

We lost much of our balance in a multitude of regards, and we lose the rest of it right now. Extremes rise, in economy anf finance, in education, health care, social integrity, political power of nations, ideology. This polarisation causes our future conflicts. Much of the developing crisis has the potential to rip Western nations apart again. Nobody wants to hear that. when it has happened, nobody will accept the responsibility for it, and point fingers at his opponent in matters.

[frenzied]

One aspect I feel that causes some of the hatred of socialistic tenancies in governments (e.g. health care, supporting unemployed people so they have a better chance of getting a job, supporting students so they can actually study, etc.) is pure blind greed. A substantial portion (I don't count them, so I'm not going to give a concrete number) of people saying they hate socialism give a reason of "my money, get away, it's mine, you can't have it." Yes this is rather harsh, but I can't think of another way to put it at the moment.
Now I don't want my money taken away from me either, but I am willing to pay extra taxes for things like health care, education, defence, roads, and all those other things that I don't want controlled by corporations. Partly this is from selfishness - if health care is free, I will be more likely to go in for health check-ups (as an example) early and thus be healthy, and not have huge bills when problems get serious. Partly this is from a desire for a country to be strong - homeless people just suck at the economy, but if you give them unemployment benefits some will be able to get back on their feet.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

watching the campaigns over the last few months, and reading these forums, it's become pretty obvious that most americans hate socialism. it's used as a club against anyone (not just obama) who dares talk about fiscal reform, new health care policies, etc.

if you equate socialism and communism, that would be incorrect, but i would understand it. but if socialism means increasing taxes to pay for health care, schools, etc, without imposing on civil liberties, why the blind hatred?

or am i missing something?

Socialism is a dead end, just like communism, only more gradual. When you strip all these ideas down, at the core you have to ask, will this work long term with human beings as they are now? Self-interest and socialism don't mesh, and before anyone bashes self-interest, be aware the hypocrite filter is working in this thread Socialism forces people who are responsible to cover costs for people who....well, can't or won't, it's hard to distinguish between them. Forces, as in no choice, you have to do it. And that penalizes the main driver of the economy: initiative.

And increasing my taxes to pay for someone else's health care does impose on my civil liberties. I agree that there needs to be something done about health care, but I feel everyone should pay for their own; right now a lot of people use the emergency room as their clinic to avoid paying. I think everyone should pay a "health care tax" if they are not currently paying for health insurance. Kind of like when you take a loan to buy a car or house, the bank tells you to get insurance. If you don't, they get insurance for you and put it in the loan. In the end, you pay for your own insurance. I am willing to pay for my insurance and health care, and my family's; I am not willing to pay for some other guy's health care, especially when he has put his own health care priorities below his car, his big screen TV, his Harley-Davidson, fishing trips, $180 Nikes, $4 Starbucks coffee, his gaming computer and high speed internet connection (which he uses to get on forums and complain about his lack of health care), etc.


The funny thing about socialists (another word for beginner communist), history has shown since Lennin that as the people begin to want out of socialism, the leaders and enthusiasts will do anything to keep them in. No civil liberties there.

So, if you want socialism, fine, go to Sweden or France, no problem and more power to the socialists. I wish you luck. Prove us wrong. But I strongly oppose converting America to socialism. And as a free man, I have the right to oppose socialism. And since I'm not a college kid or dreamy radicalist, I feel I have the obligation to oppose socialism, too.

[Skybird]

How should one not resignate when reading generalisations like this.

[Hanomag]

I am a pure Facist and really... I think you should all be shot....

Maybe we should go Roman.. didn't they have the Pax Romani (1000 years?)

Regardless, when it all collapses .. I am ready. Hell I am ready for the Zombie Apocalypse! So bring it!!

[Digital_Trucker]

Given the US governments track record at efficiency, I don't think I want them in charge of how to spend money for health care or anything else that doesn't absolutely have to be done at a federal level.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

How should one not resignate when reading generalisations like this.

"Resignate" any way you want. Nice try to dismiss in one sentence, 4 points.

[Skybird]

I had a long reply instead of that oneliner, and deleted it. It would be completely in vein. You already have made a decision never to see the many negative costs of capitalism that lead to incrasing distortions and conflicts in the world, make few and fewer people even richer, and more and more people falling down the sopcial ladder. Nationally. In the West. Globally. I also had a reference to the TV docu they just have had on TV, about the conditions in not few ERs in major cities that make mockery of what you said.

I think most people will not start looking beyond themselves before they get hit themselves.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

And since I'm not a college kid or dreamy radicalist, I feel I have the obligation to oppose socialism, too.

Neal, that's not really a nice generalization. I'm sure that wasn't pointed at anyone in particular, but still - that's not exactly what socialism comes from. Sure, the intelligentsia brought plenty of ideas, good and bad, and has equally made good points and screwed up when it came to social issues. Still, I personally resent that, having lived among poor working people who fought tooth and nail to get anywhere in life, not for personal gain but for the good of others. It's a matter of perspective - from mine, I could likewise suggest that libertarians are by and large rich, selfish people whose fortune arises from an advantageous social position rather than hard work - but that's not really true either.

I personally strongly disagree with economic incentive as the be-all, end-all in human progress. It works to a point, but when unmoderated it paves a path straight to hell by the way of greed and exploitation. The society, in my view, has a broken view of wealth and gain - I've been rather poor most of my life (heck, I spent my early years in living arrangements with an average of 3.5 people / room), but I've lived within my means and I honestly never really saw the virtues of getting greedy beyond a certain point. And people really need to consider the real cost of things - because if they don't pay the price, someone else generally does. I'm not at all happy with a very common present-day arrangement where the system works largely through exploiting low costs permitted by the exploitation of the poor - at home or abroad. Having grown up around people exploited in this fashion, I take offence at the idea that being poor is necessarily a condition resulting from being lazy. That's simply not true.
There's a systemic failure at work here, and I don't think any reasonable socialist today (besides the usual radicals) would suggest that the whole point now is to break the system - no, but unless fixes are brought in, I'm afraid quite a lot of Americans will wind up in position to be exploited without a way to fight back, owing to a nasty social imbalance which I see gradually creeping up. The right to own guns isn't going to help much there, either.

[AntEater]

No need for any further comment as the usual french/german/russo-canadian conspiracy pretty much has allready said everything I could come up with


But one thing about healthcare and social spending struck me recently:
When looking at the federal budget of the US, the whole proportions look amazingly similar to that of a "socialist" (in the redneck sense) european country like Germany or France or Sweden.
About a quarter each for healthcare and social spending and defense, with interest and other posts making up the remaining quarter.
It is about the same general division as in the german federal budget.
On the other hand, if you compare what Germany or France provide their citizens with in regards to healthcare and social spending and what a US citizen gets, the picture gets somewhat confused. Don't know about unemployment and social security benefits, but in healthcare I was expecting the US to spend substantially less on the subject than the average european country.
Analogue to "bang for buck" one could say the average US citizen seems to get less "bandages for buck" than the average european.
Where does all that social security and healthcare money go to?
The US seems to spend twice as much money for "socialist" purposes than for defense, yet the US is not renowned to be a welfare state in the european sense.
But on the other hand, the US has some welfare state elements still controversial in Germany, like guaranteed minimum wages.

[Letum]

Who can name the phillosopher who said that the only society one should advocate is on in which
you are happy to take any, even the most wretched, role in?
Because I have forgotten!