Could Socialism work in America?

[unkachuck]

I'm not educated nor smart enough to invent a new workable Socialist economic system but there should be scholarly people, somewhere on the Left, that could invent such a system. All I hear today is the Left spitting out the same economic garbage and babble as the Right with the end goal of maintaining a concentration of wealth at the Capitalist top. I believe intuitively that there must be a better way to organize our economic lives, mainly because our current Capitalist model works so poorly for so many Americans. I need help in understanding why my fellow Americans, many of whom would directly benefit from a more equitable model, will not support any significant change in our current economic system.

Would the majority of Americans ever accept some form of structured, fair and equitable, wealth distribution system?

[Arkana]

1. No, for the same reason it doesn't really "work" anywhere else.

Human nature isn't accepting of an egalitarian society. There will always be people who try to elevate themselves above the others and oppress those below.

[Truth2Tell]

12. Which is why humans adopt

democratic systems and communities designed to counteract those impulses in a systematic way. There will always be people who simply want to rob you at gunpoint also. But we don't declare that systems and communities designed to prevent such things "really don't work." This is the same old tired Ayn Rand argument about humanity that simply misses a huge aspect of our nature.

If you don't think an egalitarian society is even possible, then why bother with politics at all? :shrug:

[readmoreoften]

17. Yes. Backed up with the mounds of evidence you've cited.

:eyes:

[Drale]

2. I don't believe that any one pure system can work for the long term

what we need is to take the best parts of different systems and create a hybrid system.

[JDPriestly]

3. I agree. The terms "socialist" and "capitalist" really aren't that meaningful.

Most societies that work need people to work together but also to compete. And I think that is the way our society has worked best in the past. Barn-raising was a really important part of early America as were community harvests later. Public schools are a wonderful example of communities working together as were the old volunteer fire departments.

But, on the other hand, people with original ideas need the economic freedom to try them out. I remember a shopping trip in Yugoslavia years ago. (I was traveling up from Greece to Northern Europe.) It suddenly got cold, so I needed something warm to wear. The coats were very cheap and quite warm, but all the coats were either gray or black. That was the extent of the "choice."

Life can be pretty drab and depressing when people don't have the freedom to experiment and innovate in their businesses.

So I think a natural mixture of working together toward economic goals and also having the freedom to start your own business and make your own financial decisions is the most desirable economy.

Of course, when a very small percentage of people accumulate too much of the money, capitalism cannot exist because only those with money can enjoy the freedom to run their businesses. I think we are headed more in that direction right now. We need to put the brakes on with regard to allowing the very few to accumulate so much of the wealth and depriving other creative people of the opportunity to contribute their ideas and products.

[Drale]

5. Just one quick note

Volunteer Fire Departments are not dead. My towns fire department is all volunteer, most of them are people who want experience to either later become a paramedic or maybe go work for the Chicago fire department.

[JDPriestly]

18. That is interesting. A volunteer fire department would not be workable

in a city the size of Los Angeles. I think that there were volunteer fire departments in a couple of the small country towns I lived in as a child.

[unkachuck]

9. I think I see what you're saying....

....but I still don't quite understand....in our 'hybrid' system, the 'working together' people are often at odds (and in cross-purposes) with the 'original ideas' people....our 'hybrid' structure normally favors the 'original ideas' people at the expense of the 'working together'....

....even within this 'hybrid', it appears there's a winner-take-all system structure that perpetually disadvantages one half of the equation....it appears to be like oil and water; they don't seem to mix and they separate with one being on top while the other is on the bottom....

....how would fairness and balance ever be possible?

[Drale]

22. That can change

and the first steps would be to create a national health care system and a national bank, to force the private industry to play fairly.

[begin_within]

4. Americans are too selfish for it, nowadays.

Sorry, but I think on average, most Americans think of themselves too much and socialism requires thinking of society as a whole rather than just yourself. I think at this point, Americans are simply too childish and selfish for socialism to work in America.

[OHdem10]

6. Mixed economies seem to work the best. We have a mixed

economy which worked pretty well. Some Capitalism Some
Socialism. Once Reagan and Conservative Movement changed
our Economy to Free Market Capitalism with the help of
Conservative Democrats, it has become more and more inequitable.

Canada has Mixed Economy leaning toward Socialism. Seems
to work there.

[elocs]

7. Nope, it won't work. Not socialism in its totality. A huge chunk of too many dead set against it.

This nation is far too polarized for any type of socialism in the Scandinavian sense of the word. Even unionized workers are getting fewer and fewer here. "Socialism" has become the new red flag buzz word here like "Communism" once was even if most of those against it do not even know its true definition. If they did know its definition they would not be calling so much socialism now that clearly is not.

[applegrove]

8. Socialism doesn't work anywhere. Not even in Cuba. What works is a mixed

market economy with a few socialist programs.

[xchrom]

10. Sweden is a socialist country, Cuba is communist - sort of.

America is socialist, England as well.
All western democratic countries embrace socialism on all
Kinds of levels.

[applegrove]

11. Cuba is instituting market forces as we speak. All the countries in the world are now

mixed market economies.

[Maru Kitteh]

13. No. But only in the sense that you could not call it socialism

and expect it to survive.


Otherwise, some aspects of socialism are alive and well and functioning quite well for everyone here, thankyouverymuch.

[angryfirelord]

14. That depends on your definition of what socialism and capitalism is

For different people, it means different things. Socialism to one person may mean egalitarian values whereas to another person it represents tyranny.

From my point of view, I am a Keynesian capitalist, meaning that I support the general premise of capitalism, but I believe that it can lead to flaws when it is left to its own devices. The common viewpoint of some free market schools is that government interference creates boom and busts, but from what Keynes saw, boom and busts have been with markets for years. Therefore, it is important that some oversight is required in order to maintain order in an economy.

Now, for socialism, do I think that we will see a revolution in the traditional concept? No, in fact, I'd say the top-down socialist structure is pretty much dead in most modern economies. What I do see, however, is a possibility for continued social capitalistic progress. That may include direct state intervention to correct the offending negative externalities or it may be corporations who act generously on their own, such as creating a lesser environmental impact.

[leftstreet]

15. It seems to work pretty well for Wall Street n/t

[TBF]

21. +1 nt

[Jamastiene]

16. Could it work? Yes.

Keywords: "if given a chance"

THAT is the main obstacle. If only there was a way to give it that chance, it would work, but getting that chance would be damn near impossible unless we could manage to inspire enough charismatic people to lead the way. It would absolutely have to be more than one person leading the way and there would need to be many fronts spreading the message that now is the time. Oh, and we would have to put up with many in our own party going against even trying it too.

Keywords: "if given a chance"

[Chemical Bill]

19. Other:

Roads, police and fire departments, city water and sewer departments are all examples of socialism that works in America.

As for wealth (re)distribution, hearken back to the fabulous '50s, when the top tax rate was about 90% and everyone did better than we are now.

As for why people would resist this, it's called the monopoly of the corporate media.

Bill

[bemildred]

20. I'm still waiting for "capitalism" to not need a public bailout every ten years or so. nt