Why are some people so strongly against Socialism?

[ck4829]

First off, Socialism is NOT Communism. Communism was sort of a Left Wing Hard Line response to the plight of the workers. Socialism is NOT a hard line approach to that, but takes a more diplomatic approach to it.

Socialism also WORKS. Look at Western Europe, it's doing very well. As for the US, it has been saved by Socialism, this was the New Deal that was enacted by FDR.

Socialism is more reviled than Communism though. There is no huge death toll associated with Socialism that Communism has. And, those that have killed and who are 'Socialists' are usually dictators and such. And Socialism is all about the People, so a Dictator can't be a true Socialist IMHO.

I consider myself to be a Socialist, I favor equal rights for GLBT people, gender equality, racial equality, health care for everybody, quality education for all, accountability in government, term limits, welfare for the poor, and so much more. I don't want to see a violent revolution, nor do I want to see the rich thrown off cliffs, but if you listen to RW'ers they make Socialists out to be Stalinists or something. Why is this? Are they afraid that it will actually work and be an improvement over the Conservative/Capitalist system that runs the show today?

[VelmaD]

1. easy...

because they don't really know what it is. They've gotten their impression of socialism from the right-wing media. And they've never bothered to actually find out for themselves.

[leftchick]

5. yes indeed

The TV edumacated amerikan public has no fucking clue.

[Bad Penny]

65. True dat

and I'd also argue that the same shit for brains lot hasn't got a clue what fascism really is. They support it by believing they're somehow opposing it. The right wing media is a most dangerous thing when you mix it with reactionary, incurious sheep. Huey Long was spot on

[Joe Chi Minh]

89. That's why it's so important to them to run down the public

education system. It's been relentless since Thatcher's day. Parents even have to buy their kids' school books now, I believe.

Also, of course, the less people who can afford tertiary education, the more privileged the position of their own children.

[Fleshdancer]

76. I agree

The first thing I do when someone starts ranting against Socialism is tell them to define it. Not once has anyone told me the correct answer. Most of the time they don't say anything or they just mumble something about Communism. :wtf:

[kysrsoze]

85. They don't know it's been alive and well here for almost a century

Idiots.

[jayfish]

82. The Only Response This Thread Needed. -NT-

Jay

[boolean]

2. Because they play with the English language

The fascist freeptard repukes have been defining words for decades now.

People are afraid of the word "liberal" and "socialist" for this reason.

Long story short: People are dumb.

[insanerepubs]

6. I am not dumb

...so please explain to me the benefits of socialism over the free market system.

[razors edge]

9. No benefit.

both are merely systems to control society in a peaceful way. That said the problem with both is corruption of the principals by the powerful in said society. All systems fail, as will ours, when corruption erodes the foundations it was built on.

[Hav]

20. .

Good points. I grew up in a country that was supposed to be following "socialism".
The way both systems were realized had their flaws. But looking at today's world with all its problems, then I consider those who believe that capitalism is the only system that can work just as wrong as those who only believed in the flawed realizations that turned to dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

[razors edge]

38. The ebb and flow

from one system to another (imho) is fueled by the dispossessed regardless of the system. The grass is always greener kind of thing. But neither will last without honest leadership that can address the concerns of all involved.

[emanymton]

15. Welcome To DU.

[insanerepubs]

45. Thank You

I really enjoy reading the posts here. I have lurked for some time but I fanally got the nerve to join.There are so many smart people here. The ideas and suggestions I see here are so good it is hard to ignore them.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[insanerepubs]

46. Sorry

I am sorry if you feel that I am dumb, perhaps I am. I have never been the brightest bulb in the string. I ask questions because I want to hear the opinions of others. If I want to be insulted because of my low IQ I can find a Republican discussion forum...

[Cameron27]

92. Ignore it.

Welcome to DU, and no you are NOT asking dumb questions.:-)

[Lefta Dissenter]

47. nice...

:eyes: nice way to engage in discussion...

[Mnemosyne]

59. Pretty stinking rude there boolean. And

against DU rules.

[Cleita]

21. For one thing we don't have a free market system.

Large corporations are dipping into the Treasury for what only could be described as corporate welfare. Many of these corporations could not survive in a free market without government handouts in tax cuts, bloated contracts and using government services like WalMart's health plan using Medicaid because they are run incompetently from the top with executive officers that can only be described as mafia capos.

In welfare states, many services are contracted out to private businesses. Like health care in Canada is done by private practice doctors and hospitals. The difference is that the government pays their fees and everyone is covered regardless of their financial circumstances. Funding is from taxes, but the taxpayer gets something back like the security that they will get health care when they need it without going bankrupt.

[pnorman]

23. For one thing,

disabuse yourself of the idea that that the people behind Bush & Cheney are striving for ANY form of "free market". It's much closer to the Corporate State than any other administration has ever approached.

pnorman

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Okay, let's just look at some of the social democracies of Europe

(which are mixed economies, with some socialist and some "free" market aspects)

1. No one is forced to beg to survive

2. No one is homeless

3. No one goes bankrupt because of health care costs

4. No one is kept out of higher education because of lack of ability to pay

5. Good wages, good working conditions, lots of vacation time. If you're unemployed, you can still survive.

6. Extra allowances for families with children and often highly subsidized or free daycare, as well as generous parental leaves

7. People can still own businesses and become very wealthy (e.g. the founders of Nokia in Finland), but they can't do so by exploiting and underpaying their workers

European economies are often criticized for having high unemployment, but the fact is that they COUNT their unemployed more honestly, including those who have just left school or those who are working part time when they'd rather be working fulltime. Under our system, you're counted as "employed" if you work as little as ONE HOUR per week. Tell me, is such a person really "employed"?

I was in England this past summer, and while it's down at the heels, thanks mostly to Margaret Thatcher's wrecking program, mostly continued by Tony Blair, it's still quite livable. I haven't been to continental Europe or Scandinavia for a long time, but even years ago, those countries struck me as being thoroughly livable and pleasant.

Look at the immigrants around you. In the past World War II era, it was mostly Europeans, partly due to the quotas, partly due to refugees. Now very few Europeans emigrate to America unless it's for a specific job or to marry an American.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

114. Ever been to Toronto?

1. No one is forced to beg to survive

2. No one is homeless

People sleeping on the streets and begging for money as in any other American city.

No pure system is possible or desired. Pure Socialism is as detrimental as any other system. Because, dare I say it, workers can and do exploit the employers and the governement systems.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. Canada isn't socialist and it isn't in Europe

:shrug:

It is more to that edge than the U.S., but it's not like the Scandinavian countries, which do fit that description.

[Blue-Jay]

41. The Market cured my herpes!

The Market kicked chuck Norris' ass!
The Market can throw a frisbee into orbit!
The Market is warm and fuzzy.

"libertarian" mode: off

those little "libertarian" fellers are so cute.

[Schema Thing]

48. sorry to be so frank, but it's dumb to contrast socialism

as diametrically opposed to the free market system. A blend of socialism and free markets are providing the best governments going in the world today.

[boolean]

56. EVERYBODY READ THE ABOVE POST

sorry to be so frank, but it's dumb to contrast socialism as diametrically opposed to the free market system. A blend of socialism and free markets are providing the best governments going in the world today.

Bin. Go.

[Pharaoh]

57. DITTO

[mogster]

78. That's true

A blend is preferrable as it introduces other goals; important society functions should not be measured by cost only. Not all privatizations are good and successful. To the contrary, many services privatized has returned reduced quality if you look at any other factors than cost.
The most important is to have an open and just society, though. Democratic. The modern corporatism works against that.

[Bad Penny]

66. something about making greedy, selfish capitalists

pay their fucking taxes, play by the rules, and like it

[stepnw1f]

69. What "Free-Market"?

That's a right wing unsubstantiated MYTH!

[TankLV]

91. Socialism IS part of the "free market system" - they're not mutually

exclusive.

That's your FIRST mistake...

[SOS]

53. Re: Language and propaganda

How many times has the Wall Street-owned media informed us that "The American worker is the most productive in the world."?
It is false.
Four European countries have higher hourly productivity than the US.
They use total productivity in their lying propaganda, as opposed to hourly.
As if it's a good thing that Americans have to work 60 hours a week to pay the rent.

And let's not forget the endless horror stories of European medical care.
I've received medical care in Germany and Austria and both were superior to what I am subjected to here.
When I left the clinic in Salzburg, I asked "How much do I owe you"?
The doctor responded that I owed nothing, even as a US citizen.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Libertarians promoting a flat tax used the slogan:

"Never fill out a 1040 form again."

Socialists and social democrats could use the slogan,

"Never deal with an insurance company or pay college tuition again."

[Speck Tater]

3. The cold war generations and their parents and children...

... have all been subjected to constant indoctrination to the effect that Socialism IS Communism, and as such is pure evil. The word "Socialism" has been irrevocably tainted by this indoctrination and is no longer a viable name for any social or political movement. This includes such adjectival phrases as "the worker's (whatever)", "The people's (whatever)" and others.

[knowbody0]

4. because this is ameriKa

and we have been programed to believe it is evil, like the dreaded communist threat to our civil liberties.

What we have now under capitalism is the extreme downside of the united corporations of ameriKa, they are the power here and appear to have us by the balls.

We are "socially secure" :sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

7. 50 years of brainwashing

funded by the rabid capitalist elite

[Richard Steele]

8. For the same reason that "liberal" is a dirty word nowadays.

Just brainwashing and propaganda which have demonized
the WORD... at the same time that 'socialist' programs
have improved the lives of every US citizen.

[Cleita]

10. Because they feel their pockets are being picked.

Yet, if you explain to them that they too will benefit like with health care and other safety nets, they often come to an agreement with it. Also, when you point out our social programs that do work like public education and the military, (well up until now), they start to get it.

The point is to make it egalitarian. Even my stepdaughter who doesn't agree with welfare or handouts said, well if we got some of our tax money back THAT way, I wouldn't mind paying taxes so much.

The big hurdle is the conservative canard that the government screws up everything they do. You have to point out that Medicare and Social Security are very successful government programs that are efficiently run. The only time we get bad governance is when the Republicans are in charge because they outsource to the corporations what the government should be running itself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Because capitalism WORKS!

For the bosses.

[emanymton]

12. I Am A Socialist. It Is The Future And It Works.

People are important. Socialism works because the idea is to try to make the most good for the people from the people's efforts.

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. It is a question involving

economic systems and money. Any student of behavioral finance would tell you that your answers lie in considerations of fear and greed. Assuming, of course, that ignorance is not an additional factor.

[insanerepubs]

17. What

is behavioral finance?

[Coyote_Bandit]

33. It is the study of

human behavior with respect to financial matters. It is most commonly applied to investment research and decision making. Level 3 of the Chartered Financial Analysts exam specifically tests behaviroial finance materials. I believe the material is also tested in the CFP exam. And it was covered in my MBA program.

[Jcrowley]

14. Let's simplify

Capitalism- privatizing the benefits while socializing the burdens

Socialism- sharing the benefits and the burdens

Very crude simplifications but also fairly accurate in theory anyway.

The amount of energy that has gone into propagandizing Americans about the "benefits" of capitalism is beyond comprehension starting in the early 1900's and continuing unabated 24/7 in all facets of society.

[insanerepubs]

27. What happens

If I don't want to share the burdens, just the benefits?

[VelmaD]

30. then you're too selfish..

to be allowed in society and should go live on an island by yourself somewhere

[insanerepubs]

51. Who

pays for that? I don't have much money?

[rman]

131. We can pay your one-way trip

Because collectively, we are quite wealthy.

[TankLV]

93. Exactly!

And he'd be a cood repuke - but he has already proven to be the troll he is, I see!

[Jcrowley]

32. Nope

Not a good lesson for the children but definitely the aspiration of the disengaged American consumer.
Sorry no free lunches, everyone chips in and in fact that creates the bond, the solidarity, the connection.
But I guess if you just refused ardently enough you'd be put out to fend for yourself. After the hunger set in you'd come running back and put your hand to the wheel. ;)

[SOS]

63. That's easy!

First, use your family connections to get into Yale. Then get an MBA from Harvard and head to Wall Street.
Become a successful investment banker. Specialize in the oil and defense sectors.
Make $400 million a year.
Now hire a team of top tax attorneys to shelter your money, utilizing every loophole in the tax code.
Kickbacks go into the Cayman's account!

There ya go.

[raccoon]

118. I knew that one was a troll....he had the smell of one. nt

[bobbolink]

16. Because there are many here who are in favor of the corporations!

If you read what is said, at the bottom of it, they are fully in support of Big Money.

I don't know what it will take for people to get that we are shooting ourselves in the foot, and in danger of losing our country, if we don't tone down the big corporations.

[951-Riverside]

18. Why are some people so strongly against Communism or Nazism?

Hmmm?

[Cleita]

26. Brainwashing since WWII.

Commie, bad! Capitalist, good!

The thing we didn't like about the Soviet Union should not have been the communism, but the totalitarian police state that administered it and badly.

[SOS]

50. The Democratic Socialism of Sweden

for example, is being compared to Nazism?
Do you really think these two systems are the same?

[Solon]

86. Thank you for demonstrating the mindset of the ignorant...

congratulations!

[TankLV]

94. Nominate this post as the most ignorant post of the day/week

Very ignorant post...

[readmoreoften]

100. Double recommend for the dumbest post of the month.

Nazism (Germany's National Socialist party) has the relation to socialism what "global neoliberalism" has to do with being a "liberal" in the US. Or better yet what Progressive car insurance is to being a progressive. Are all the people in the Republic of Haiti also "Republicans"?

The problem is totalitarianism under any economic system: capitalist (Italy), socialist (Russia), or a blend of both (Germany)

[951-Riverside]

105. I asked the question that most of you havent bothered to answer

The fact that some of you resorted to calling me names shows that I hit a nerve. :) Its funny because I would get the same reaction if I went to freerepublic and asked why they continue to blindly support a war based on lies. :rofl:

[tkmorris]

106. Umm, no

If someone were to say for example "Democrats are terrorist enablers", they would get a fairly strong reaction. It is not however because they "hit a nerve", but rather because it is an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Equating Socialism with the Nazi Party is ignorant. I mean, I want to be nice here, but it really is a stupid thing to say and it's clear that your motive for doing so lies somewhere outside the realm of civilized intellectual discourse, so any perceived obligation to treat the position with respect is removed.

[SOS]

117. LOL

Why are people against Nazism? Did you really expect an answer to this question?
Yet you ignored my question.
Do you think the modern socialism of Sweden is the same thing as Nazism?
Hmm?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

140. Yeah, writing utterly imbecilic statement DOES tend to hit nerves. -nt

[LostInAnomie]

22. Knee-jerk reaction to the word, instead of actual knowledge.

The reaction to the word "socialism" is another brilliant success for the RW noise machine. Much like the word "liberal" they've managed to redefine the word "socialism" into something that doesn't even resemble it's actual meaning.

We've been co-opted by big money and big media to believe that the "free market" is always the solution, and that government regulation is always the problem. We've never been trained to ask ourselves if the free market solution is actually the best one us, the people, or our country. We just take it on faith that it is.

Like most complex ideas socialism doesn't fit into a neat, simple slogan. This makes it unpalatable to the the catch-phrase addicted public.

[JVS]

24. Because only the hardline approach has any hope of working

Socialist parties treat the symptoms of the capitalist society's sickness without addressing the fundamental causes. The socialists throw money around to try to ease capitalisms problems but never confront the cause, eventually they get to a point where they have to make "cut backs" to their programs and constantly softening the meaning of "socialism" to the point where it's just capitalism with a smile.

[cadmium]

25. great question.

It is disheartening but a reality check to watch fellow Americans scared by these polemics. It works though.

The phrase "socialized medicine" shuts down sincere debate about reforming our health system.

For myself I call myself a liberal. I agree with you totaly that "socialist" has been unfairly demonized. Got me thinking when I hear someone like a right-wing cousin (or co-worker) call someone or an idea socialist I will calmly ask him to describe what he means by a socialist. The authoritarian aspects of socialism they cite are increasing here in the USA under conservatives.

Good post. Good question.

[sam sarrha]

28. The Soviet Union, China and Cuba are NOT 'Communist' they are Totalitarian

Bureaucratic Dictatorships.

the Iroquois nation was a Communist society.. and was one one of the finest nations ever.

it is the Running Yellow Dog Capitalists that Lie and change history because they are scared shitless of a Socialist Society, in which they cant survive... because socialist societies exist for the good of the society not to create Plutocracy's.. and the Fascists they need to police the people they disenfranchise and cause to suffer.

[ngant17]

62. I don't think Cuba falls into the totalitarian category

I've travelled to Havana myself and I didn't see anything that would have caused me to think otherwise.

[sam sarrha]

84. whatever... return to origional point

[ngant17]

97. if your original point was about Cuba being totalitarian

then I beg to differ.

As for anyone having a knee-jerk reaction against communism and/or socialism, that is a different matter.

When I visited East Europe (Prague and Budapest), I met people who lived under communism and the current capitalist system.

For example, in Czech Rep, someone told me that overall things were much better during the communist times. In fact, the person owns a very nice 2-story house with a large garden, specifically due to the socialist policies which were in effect back then. He was given this subsidized house as a reward for getting married early and having a family. Today, with the pervasive influence of US capitalism everywhere you go in CZ, to try to acquire a similar kind of dwelling would be prohibitively expensive. It simply would not be possible
today.

The pervasiveness of US culture is bringing many negative things
for the people in CZ. There is more greed, more self-centered
attitudes. Those kinds of social relationships were unheard of,
during the communist time. People were more friendly and
helpful. Now the slogan seems to be, "What`s in it for me?" or
"In what way does this benefit me first?"

Until we actually live under socialism and/or communism, we should withold our judgement until we can speak from personal experience.

[earth mom]

29. Because the Corporate Bastards control this country & they hate Socialism.

They own the media and therefore control the message that Socialism is bad, even though it isn't. :puke:

[Traveling_Home]

31. But what does this have to do with Socialism

"I consider myself to be a Socialist, I favor equal rights for GLBT people, gender equality, racial equality, health care for everybody, quality education for all, accountability in government, term limits, welfare for the poor, and so much more"

Socialism is an economic doctrime. How do you relate your philosophy directly to economics - private ownership, capital, government involvement, workers, management unions and more? I don't think a Social Welfare state equates with Socialism though it's been more than 35 years since I studied economics.

I think your statement says - YOU ARE ONE OF THE GOOD FOLK

;-)

[JVS]

36. Nothing

And the Social Welfare state that exists within a society with a capitalist economic structure is still a capitalist state.

[genie_weenie]

34. At what level if any does Socialism not work?

Should the entire world be under one government? Should we do away with Nation-States and allow the UN (or a new similar, perhaps better body) to distribute goods/monies to those in need?

Or should we bust up the Nation-States into smaller bodies?

Is their a size limit or are we at this point limited not by the theory of Socialism but by some other factors, which could be allievated by a discovery of say cheap energy via cold-fusion?

If someone does not wish to contribute should they be forced?

Do you really think the New Deal saved America? Please explain how.

Do you believe in top-down socialism or bottom-up socialism?

[bowens43]

37. Because they're selfish pricks

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. You're Definition Of Socialism Is Amazingly Flawed.

You said:
"I consider myself to be a Socialist: I favor equal rights for GLBT people, gender equality, racial equality, health care for everybody, quality education for all, accountability in government, term limits, welfare for the poor, and so much more."

Guess what, I favor those things as well, but damned if I'm a socialist. I have no real problem with captitalism and free enterprise, but it's still quite easy for me to be in favor of those things you list. Maybe cause they have nothing to do with a system of socialism vs capitalism.

[readmoreoften]

101. Universal health care, universal education, and welfare

are absolultely all socialist principles that run counter to a capitalist society. If you believe in these ideas you do have a problem with unchecked captalism. Many socialists believe in protecting private essentials-- such as oil reserves, water, electricity, air waves-- from private ownership but still believe that bookstores, boutiques, mechanic shops, restaurants, etc. can all be privately owned.

[michaelpush]

40. FEAR is why...

People who have wealth and power don't want to give it up, and, those who are on their way up want to have the opportunity to be wealthy and powerful and to hell with the rest of the world! Pure "Socialism" is not possible due to human nature.

[Stardust]

54. Right -- unless greed is eradicated, pure Socialism, however lofty

and admirable (by some of us) can never work.

[OllieLotte]

67. Exactly right. Greed has been around for a long time.

I don't see it going away any time soon.

[Subdivisions]

42. I don't know enough about the mechanics of socialism as

an economic methodology but I will say that the distribution of wealth in this country is beginning to look alot like the distribution of wealth between CEOs and those that clean their offices.

[Speck Tater]

43. Read this quote to see what we're facing

From http://gmhaddad.us/democratism-1.htm

Basically the difference between socialism/communism and democratism in today’s American political atmosphere is only in degree and not in principle. As a Socialist the aim is to control; the objective of the Communist is to own; and the main tenets of the Democratist is an embracing of both.

We have, in this instant, a distinction without a difference. To allow for difference between these entities would be to allow for a modicum of dignity for the so-called Democrat party. To understand that there is little difference is to face reality.

--------------------

You probably won't want to contaminate your computer by actually clicking on that link, but if you're interested in what the "morans" are thinking, there's some pretty scary stuff there.

[BootinUp]

44. labels are weapons

You would just be handing the other side a weapon to tout Socialism. What would it take to remove the stigmatism? People don't embrace change generally unless they have little choice. In FDR's time the economy collapsed and drove the policy changes.

[BootinUp]

49. Also

the brand of socialism you are thinking of is really capitalism with certain industries or services controlled by the government. Calling it socialism without more qualifiers will lead to misunderstandings to be sure.

[calico1]

52. The explanation lies right in your first

sentence. The fact is, many people believe that Socialism=Communism. They do not understand it nor understand that many countries they consider Democracies are in fact, socialist.

[OwnedByFerrets]

55. I am probably completely wrong, but this is what I think is the

answer to the question. Someone can find the faults in my thinking and correct me if they wish.
Americans have a dream to hit it rich and be something more than "middle class" The dare to think that they will hit the lottery or invent that magic device that will make them rich. Unfortunately, only a scant few will live that dream.

They do, however, believe that a capitalist society gives them the best chance to obtain that dream. They have been taught thru years of programming that with socialism they can ever attain the dream, thus its not an option. And, for some reason, and we cannot swallow the thought that everyone shares everything. Its just not "ammerican".

We have all been programmed to believe that there MUST be rich, middle class and poor people living here. Unfortunately, the middle class is a endangered species in the usa.

[Irreverend IX]

58. I don't think socialism is more reviled than communism.

Communism was the bogeyman, the incarnation of Satan on Earth for a generation of Americans. In any case, the only way to have a sensible economic policy is with a mix of capitalism and socialism. The closer you get to either of those extremes, the more social problems you'll have. The US during the robber baron era was fairly close to pure capitalism, while the Soviet Union made an attempt at pure socialism. Europe and the US of the 60s and 70s achieved a fairly good balance, but now we have to work to regain that.

[BelgianMadCow]

60. Wellll, on this side of the pond...shocker! (and thread needs R's)

have a look at the composition of the EU parliament :

The European Parliament has 626 members, elected for a five year term by proportional representation in one or more constituencies in each member country.
(Results for each member country)

European Parliament: 10-13 june 2004 732

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

European People's Party-European Democrats EPP-ED 268
Party of European Socialists PES 200
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe ALDE 88
- European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party ELDR
- European Democratic Party EDP
European Greens/European Free Alliance EG/EFA 42
European United Left - Nordic Green Left EUL/NGL 41
Independence and Democracy IND/DEM 37
Union for a Europe of Nations UEN 27
Non-affiliated right-wing (VB/FN/AS/FT/FPÖ/LPR) n.i. 16
Non-affiliated others n.i. 13

-----------------------

The ones in first place are actually the christian democratic center parties.
In mpany countries, socialist are either the largest party or are part of the government.
The total "left" meaning red+green is pretty big.

And I like it & living here.

[Igel]

61. Because of the second "S" in "USSR".

But, of course, the country was governed by the KP, the "kommunisticheskaya partiya", 'communist party'. So a Russian didn't say, "Ya sotsialist", but "Ya kommunist" (Ya = 'I'). They didn't keep it very clear themselves, although the KP always said they were "building communism", not that they had "achieved communism". In English, the difference between 'communist' and 'socialist' is blurred in popular usage, and frequently includes as much political baggage as economic. Usage determines meaning, we don't have an Academia real de la lengua inglesa (or Academie royal) to impose meanings on us.

At the same time, those defending either of the two systems define them in such a way that only good examples can be found, frequently also engaging in a bit of distortion, while those attacking loosen the definitions to include some horrendous examples.

Then there's the political scientist/economist definitions, which can also vary by scholar in non-trivial details, depending what they want to defend/advocate or attack/criticise. And lets not forget that "pure" versions of these systems are probably not attested (depending on the definition chosen, of course).

Every discussion of either socialism or communism should include an explicit definition of the term, including two short lists. One list should be of prominent examples that are deemed to meet the definition, and one should include some near-misses, countries or systems that nearly meet the definition but crucially violate one or more provisions of the definition. Otherwise they accomplish little.

[Solon]

87. And this is different from the "Pro-Capitalists" how?

Look, throughout the world, there are no "Free Markets" they simply don't exist(discounting Somalia), yet you see people defend them voriciously, as if they exist. Every nation on Earth has mixed economies, whether that mixture favors capitalism or socialism generally determines things like quality of life or economic power. However, at the same time, the governments of said nations can vary as much as Direct Democracy, to One Party rule or dictatorships.

Part of the problem is that people associate the economy with political freedoms, when, in reality, they aren't related at all. A Dictatorship with a capitalistic system is still oppressive, even if you can get rich in it, just as a Dictatorship with a socialist system is just as oppresive, even if you won't't starve.

Neither system have "Pure" forms in the real world, for the simple reason that this is impractical to implement. So there are really no fingers to point at, and this can be aggrivating. What people seem to forget is that this isn't an either/or position. I, above most others, would HATE to say that we need a "center" but we do.

I'm not interested in having the government run a widget factory for items we don't need. Nor am I interested in deregulating our infrastructure and services that are required for our citizenry to have. For the reasonable, taking the best out of both system, the stuff that works, and implementing it, is what really counts.

[w4rma]

68. I prefer a hybrid social capitalism/capitalist socialism sytem, myself. nt

[BelgianMadCow]

72. Over here it's called capitalism with social corrections

and to me it's about right.

[readmoreoften]

102. How about socialism with "market corrections"? Why not? /nt

[Idioteque]

70. You are describing social liberalism, not socialism.

Progressive taxation, a social safety net, public education...you are describing social liberalism.

Once you get to the state setting prices and planning the market, THAT is socialism. It is extremely innefficient and doomed to failure.

[w4rma]

74. An important note.

The state should set prices that give an acceptable profit (or no profit if the "monopoly" is state run and owned) for utility monopolies such as phone, electricity, sewage, trash pickup, and cable while keeping these monopolies from using their monopoly power over their captive customer base to set extremely high prices.

This is, of course, the only situation where the state should set specific prices.

Also, the state also must be able to regulate the way buisnesses can do buisness in free market industries.

[TankLV]

95. No - what you described is COMMUNISM, not socialism.

Socialism does NOT"set prices and plan the market"...

Ignorance is bliss for you I guess...

[nam78_two]

71. IMO its kinda complex

There are certainly some people who have never really looked into it, bought the media stereotypes or are strongly libertarian (an ideology I have very little love for).

But in some cases, I think distrust of the government could have a lot to do with it.
There are a lot of people (just from my personal experience) who may have lived under some regime that claimed to be socialist while in fact being just a corrupt kleptocracy.
This seems to have in many cases left a deep imprint on how some people I know view government programs. I doubt that some of them actually think the redistribution of wealth is in itself a bad thing. This is especially true of some people I know who lived in the USSR or China.
I think if some of them could be persuaded that agovernment doesn't have to be filled corrupt, ill-intentioned thieves, I think they would be open to the idea of suporting government programs aimed at the common good.

I have always wondered if people would feel better about paying higher taxes (the better off people) if they could actually see -I don't know how practical or feasible this is- if they could actually monitor the money they put in and see it being put to good use, i.e to help the elderly, the disabled, the environment, helping education systems, helping children and so on....
So they wouldn't feel like its being gobbled up by some government machinery, wasted or worse go into the pocket of some Abramoff clone.

One of the saddest parts of the Bushco culture of corruption imo is going to be the distrust people are going to have of agencies like the EPA, FEMA, FDA, USDA etc. They will be more open to buying into the "big goverment is bad" stuff, when the actual issue is not big govt so much as a bad, corrupt govt.

[Swede]

73. Greed.

I got mine,you ain't gonna get it.

[whirlygigspin]

75. you sound like a commie, partner

I think it's called 'red baiting'

Everytime a union, or workers in the US tried to organize to get decent wages or safety measures, bang!
it must be a 'commie' conspiracy, send in the army...

Some things never change, ask the old coal miner's in Harlan County Ky, they were treated like garbage, welcome to wall-mart, too bad your company is too poor to give you health benefits. lol
Thank you for votin' republican...

Smedley Butler spent a good part of his life killing dirt poor people so the United Fruit Company could have it's way...and it made him sick.

Now these poor guys in Iraq, doing the same old same old, while Bush and his buddies laugh all the way to the bank.

It's a sad thing to see.

[citizen snips]

77. socialism. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[moondust]

79. Bolsheviks.

Lump socialism and communism together (along with most everything else intended for the greater/common good) and use the Bolsheviks as an example of what could happen here! It'll scare the hell out of a lot of people and you'll soon have them lined up asking what they can do to help prevent its spread! Give it catchy names like "Red Menace" and the "L Word" that simpletons can quickly grasp and remember to hate.

[Festivito]

80. ..because of extremism ON BOTH SIDES. Socialism and Capitalism.

Black and white thinking. It's not just for Freepers.

My take is that WE NEED BOTH. We need the incentives of capitalism AND we need the national altruism of socialism.

What we have are people ...
//
looking at the worst effects of capitalism and then in turn they look to the EXACT OPPOSITE, pure, unadulterated altruism, pure socialism, the ONLY INCENTIVE: altruism: national love of party/nation/, national love of all; it'll all work out if we just make it more pure, ... and thusly, it really really really PISSES the capitalists
//
who look at the worst effects of socialism and they in turn look to the EXACT OPPOSITE, pure, unadulterated incentive-system, pure capitalism, the ONLY ALTRUISM: incentives; love of personal greed, a nation of individually responsible persons; it'll all work out if we just make it more pure, ... and thusly, it really really really PISSES the socialists.

That's why we are strongly against socialism. That was your question. People who call themselves socialists tend to really believe that they are not PURE CAPITALISTS therefore they are socialists. Same for the other side. Frankly, it's all a bunch of who-ey. (I mean that as a euphemism of fecal matter, which you probably guessed.)

Why does it continue? Because no one points out that if you're against socialism, you're against Social Security -- and you shouldn't take it! Fat chance. .. "I paid into it." Yes, SS has its alruistic aspects AND incentives. The same with our Constitution, which is a social contract. One man one vote is SOCIALISM. Almost pure. But, not entirely pure. How the vote is counted for instance. Yikes! Transparency! But, I tangent..

On the other side are capitalist corporations, who run their workers 24/7 without sleep. Well, there are none of those, but all they get is six hours of sleep a night, well, none of those either. Even in the worst corporations, the top brass attempts to herd the backstabbers into occasionally doing something productive beyond corporate politics. It'll never be pure.

So, have some fun and help yourself and others, or is that others and yourself. I am so in need of some perspective! Just, please, avoid the extremes. Please?!

[rman]

88. But socialism DOES include incentives

(work more = more wealth)

It looks like you confuse socialism with communism.

[Festivito]

98. I say it DOES. Even gave an example to say it DOES. SS.

Sure, more work, more wealth. The difference is how the wealth distributes. Socialism: evenly, Capitalism: unevenly: more to whomever is in position to capitalize on the "more work" takes the "more wealth."

Communism is a specific implementation of socialism. It has some incentive, per the point of my prior post, that there is no perfect socialism. That the Capitalist looking at Communism REFUSES to see any incentive and thusly becomes STRONGLY opposed to it -- which is my answer to the OP's question.

Please, take a moment and reflect if you might have fallen prey to the extremism I outlined. I appreciate the response. Have fun.

[rman]

110. How would it be that my saying socialism does include incentives,

is a symptom of extremism?

And if you mean to say Social Security is a socialist incentive, then we have a misunderstanding; i thought by incentive you meant "incentive to work", no so much incentive to choose for either socialism or capitalism.

[Festivito]

112. . because you tried to say I hadn't, when I had.

(The final sentence has phrasing I find unusual and I interpreted it in just one way.)

I would hold that SS HAS(not "is") socialistic incentive to work for the good of all and capitalistic incentive to work individually.

My point is that, for example, a capitalist extremist sees SS, dismisses that it has individual incentive to work because, in their extremism, they assume socialists want to remove that individual incentive to work. Doesn't matter that it is not true or doesn't ever happen. Finally, he gets angry at the pure socialism, and STRONGLY holds it as bad.

[Stockholm]

81. Freedom, Equality, Solidarity and Democracy

Some scary shit! :rofl:

http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/Internationellt/Other%20Languages/WhatisSocialDemocracy.pdf

[roguevalley]

83. For my Grandpa, socialism and unionism was next to godliness-ism

Probably why I am so radical. :) I loved my grandpa.

[TankLV]

90. Pure, simple IGNORANCE...

There is NOTHING wrong with socialism...

[GOPS Worst Fear]

96. What's worse? Socialism or Fascism?

I say fascism by a country mile!

[readmoreoften]

103. They are not opposites. One has nothing to do with the other.

*Simplified*

Socialism/Capitalism are both economic systems.

Socialism is an economic system where the public shares major resources-- oil, water, air, land.
Capitalism is an economic system where private interests compete for resources-- hard work is rewarded, the lazy suffer and starve.

Totalitarian/Democracy are contemporary types of government

A country can be a socialist democracy (Currently Spain/Bolivia) or a capitalist democracy (the US) or a mixture of the two (the majority of the first world-- though leaning towards capitalism)

Communism is a totalitarian government with a socialist economic system.
Fascism is a totalitarian government with a capitalist economic system.
Theocracy is a totalitarian government with either economic system.

[slackmaster]

121. A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot

Fortunately those are not the only options. I prefer a libertarian-leaning system that has sufficient provisions to take care of people who cannot support themselves - in housing, education, and health care; yet does not punitively tax the most successful people.

[KingFlorez]

99. Because they don't know what it is

They associate it with everything bad, when it's just an economic theory. Some people also think it involves social issues, which is a misconception since some socialist are very right wing when it comes to social issues. But that aside, socialism cannot be blamed for causing problems, because it's been used effectively in several countries.

[many a good man]

104. Because of the myth of American Supremacy

People here mistakenly believe our economic model is the best. Read here:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030901&s=hutton

[raccoon]

120. Thanks for the link to the great article. nt

[LWolf]

107. Addiction to propaganda. n/t

[hsher]

108. Socialism is NOT Communism: It's the only system that's fair and works.

I'm a Socialist. I will vote Democrat until Socialism is finally instituted, and probably after that as well. Democratic Socialism removes the red artwork, the Lenin and Marx references, and the "workers" and "peoples" propaganda, stripping Socialism down to its bare essentials. I think a Socialist Democracy is the answer.

[Odin2005]

109. Ignorance.

Even here on DU it seems like most of the posters are ignorant about what socialism actually is. Socialism is NOT about government control over the economy. The Social Democracies of Europe are NOT Socialist. Socialism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive, you CAN'T have a hybrid of the two. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by the employees themselves (as opposed to Capitalism, where the means of production are controlled by private investors). Socialism is fully compatible with a market economy, it does not necissarily require a planned economy (a part of the ignorance about socialism is that Civics textbooks propagate the "Socialism = Planned Economy" and "Socialism = government intervention in the economy" lies). A Market Socialist economy would have a mix of co-ops, small private bussinesses (single propriatorships, AKA "Mom-n-Pop" businesses), state corporations, and state-run investment banks that loan money (capital) to new or expanding co-ops.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

111. Because a lot of people use Socialism to mean Communism

"Socialism" is no longer a meaningful word - I gave up on it when Tony Blair claimed that he was a socialist and Ken Livingstone claimed he wasn't.

It's used to mean anything from "out-and-out communism" (by many communists) to "income tax and publicly funded education" (by many American conservatives).

It's worth remembering that both the Russian and Chinese communist governments referred/refer to themselves as "socialist" far more often than "communist", as I think do most other communist governments.

I regard the economic system I would institute were I appointed dictator-for-life as socialist, but I wouldn't bother referring to it as such because it wouldn't communicate any useful information.

There are a great many things that could be referred to as "socialism" that I do support, and a great many that I don't.

[bryant69]

113. Socialism is a word that means whatever you want it to mean

If we are talking about small s socialism - the idea that we aer all in the same boat and there fore it's in our best interest that all the kids get good schools, that the safety net goes for everybody and so on and so forth I'm keen on it.

If you favor socialism as an alternative to capitalism - i.e. let's have a state run economy as opposed to a free market society - I'd be opposed to that. Similarly Marxist Socialism is not something I can get behind.

Oh and it's an ideologically charged word as well; so while I can see a lot of groups using it rhetorically and changing it's meaning chameleon like, others believe that socialism has a concrete solid meaning, that they know what that meaning is, and any deviation from that meaning makes the deviator a liar or a heretic.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rman]

116. The economy we have now is regulated by rules made by the State

so even though it is called "free market", by your definition it is a state run economy.

Hard-line capitalists prefer no government involvement in the market whatsoever, so that they can use the advantage they have in the market because of their aggregated capital to play the market to their own advantage in order to aggregate more capital still. This has nothing to do with hard work, and is inevitably to the detriment of many.

[bryant69]

122. by my definition?

Where did you get my definition? The Bryantionary isn't out for another three months.

Capitalism requires regulation to work - because the sorts of things business want are not always the things that are good for the economy as a whole. The most obvious example is monopoly - every business would like to be a monopoly - the only game in town, and therefore be allowed to charge whatever they want. But there's no question that monopolies are bad for the economy as a while.

When I say State Run economy I mean that the state makes all decisions. As it is now, GM makes decisions on how many cars to make and what models, within certin parameters set by the market and the state. In my idea of a state run economy - National Auto makes all the cars not based on market forces, but by government fiat. This is of course similar to the managed economies of the Soviet Bloc companies.

Bryant

[rman]

123. Did you not define socialism as

"let's have a state run economy"? - even though you're not the only one who uses that definition?
And did you not contrast it with capitalism being a free market? - even though you're not the only one who uses that definition?


"When I say State Run economy I mean that the state makes all decisions."

What if corporations make the decisions about what decisions the state makes about corporations? Such as weakening environmental regulations and labor rights, allowing offshore banking, no raising the minimum wage, disallowing citizens to sue corporations for mallpractice, etc.

The problem isn't so much with the state making decisions about corporations - the problem is with which decisions are made; who the beneficiaries of those decisions are - a wealthy and powerful small minority, or "the people".

If "the government", "the state" is supposed to represent the interests of "the people" but instead represent the interests of Big Money, it doesn't matter if it is classified as "the state running the corporations" or as "corporations running the the state".

In that respect there is no significant practical difference between capitalism-as-we-have-it-now, and so-called communism as it was in the Soviet Union.

If otoh the state does represent the interests of "the people", and makes decisions about corporations in the interest of the common good - where the common good definately does include the economy - then what would be wrong with that?

[bryant69]

126. I do appreciate you proving my point

It is gratifying. Socialism means whatever you want it to mean.

Obviously I'm dissatisfied with how the system operates now - the question is whether or not capitalism is going through a pretty bad flu or is in the last stages of terminal cancer - I believe it's bad, needs to be fixed, but current conditions aren't fatal.

As for why state managed economy in the hands of the people would be bad, it's because people tend not to give a damn about what they don't own. Some do, but most don't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rman]

127. People tend to care about what matters to them:

things like minimum wage, health care, education, the environment, the economy.

In line with your view on the meaning of socialism, i submit that capitalism to can be taken to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

[bryant69]

128. Exactly right

for some capitalism is like virginity - the moment the state gets involved, it is no longer capitalism, but capitalism's cheap sister Socialism. I don't believe that myself.

As for the first part - you are talking about caring as a voter, vs caring as a bureaucrat. Two different things. People always care where their next meal is coming from or what their health car bill is going to be. They don't usually stress over where their neighbors meal is coming from, much less that filipino family down the street.

Bryant

[rman]

132. Aren't bureaucrats supposed to represent the interests of the voters?

It's a matter of electing the right bureaucrat.

It is not realistic to expect an elected representative to put your interests above those of your neighbors.
I think the egotistic attitude you describe is an important element of the subversion of democracy that has taken place over the past century or so. People used not to be that self-centered and even today there are people who are not that self-centered.

[bryant69]

133. Maybe you should study how the bureaucrats did in the soviet union

To see how a state run economy works. Check it's environmental record while you are at it.

Bryant

[rman]

134. I imagine the soviet union's environmental record is quite bad,

much as the environmental record of capitalist nations.

[bryant69]

135. Far Worse in some respects

Europe is made up of capitalist nations by the way.

Bryant

[rinsd]

119. Western Europe and the New Deal are not socialism

That is a rw talking point to scare people. Which is unfortunate because the rw has more to fear from real socialism than what exists there.

In reality Western Europe & the New Deal are examples of regulated capitalism. Or possibly a quasi hybrid of socialism/capitalism. And even that is stretching it and fits into the right wing model.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Xactly...

I remember John Lennon's final interview in 1980 in Playboy where he was asked if he's a socialist. He said that if socialism means granny should have her teeth fixed for free then he's a socialst.

I like that definition...

[rman]

129. Try explain that to hard-line RW-ers, Reaganites, neocons,

and the industrialists why tried to overthrow FDR.

Truth is that although neither western Europe nor the New Deal are purely socialist, both do have socialist characteristics - essentially: spending tax money on the common good rather than on a wealthy and influential few. Fascists and capitalists hate that.

[rinsd]

136. "spending tax money on the common good"

I don't consider that to be a socialist characteristic but a humanitarian one that could be part of any economic system.

Same goes for the bullshit argument that roads are examples of socialism when they orginate because of a need for trade routes.

"Fascists and capitalists hate that."

Except fascists like to do that sort of things as a means of control. See all the public works projects Germany enacted under the Nazis.

Capitalists do not hate it anymore than socialists intend to end private property. It is so much bullshit rheotoric.

[VOX]

125. For the 1st time, the Forbes 400 Richest Americans are ALL billionaires...

No millionaires, but *billionaires*. These are the power-brokers and the king-makers, and their god is Obscene Profit. They will not willingly or easily turn that wealth over for the greater good.

This is were the Republican Party comes in, with its unholy alliance of big money and the super-righteous, hyper-religious faction. The former group is promised more wealth in giveaways and handouts, a further lessening of the environmental standards, fewer and fewer governmental regulations, etc. The later faction is promised that no gays will marry, no women will have abortions, and that faith-based organizations will be able to tap the governmental till *and* keep their tax-exempt status. And so these odd bedfellows work hand-in-hand to keep the status quo.

Anything vaguely socialistic flies in the face of this current setup. Even Social Security has been embattled.

And all the while, hate radio and cable news beats the drum against the "demon liberal," who will turn America over to "the terrorists," and would raise taxes to infinity.

It's a helluva scam that's being run by the right wing.

[rman]

137. Combined they own half of the world's wealth.

Anyone want to share a pie?

[Xithras]

130. Many people consider it anti-freedom.

For example: I own a very small non-union software development company (eight employees, and they're non union because I pay them ridiculously well and they prefer to deal directly with me). Now, let's say that client X needs to have a large software project completed. My competitor, Behemoth Software, bids $5 million for the project. Why so much? Because they have 1000 union employees to support. My company, on the other hand, can do the same project for $2 million because we have less overhead and fewer employees to pay for.

According to most socialists, BS should get the project because they are union AND because they have more workers to support. It doesn't matter if my company does better work, it doesn't matter that we have lower prices, and it doesn't matter that the extra money buys no additional services. When looking at the transaction from the worker perspective, Behemoth Software is simply the better choice.

And that's where my rub with socialism comes in. To defend jobs, it ultimately ends up eliminating competition and reduces production to only a handful of state regulated companies. If you have a "better way", you're SOL because the state isn't going to let you implement it. This is anti-freedom, and ultimately leads to technological and economic stagnation.

[ProfessorGAC]

138. Western Europe Is Not Socialism

It is a fully capitalist society with gov't intervention into the social fabric, which requires money. That money comes from within a wholly capitalist economy.

The macroeconomic construct is not a Marxian, Engelian, or Socialist system.

I understand what you're trying to say. I disagree with your premise.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

139. Ooops. Dupe

.