One of the most common arguments that I hear for the case against universal health care and other like programs is that their introduction will bring socialism to the US. Setting aside the issue of whether or not this is true, why is socialism something to be avoided and/or feared? Why do so many people (especially the older generations) immediately reject anything which they perceive to be associated with socialism, communism, etc? If these things truly are reprehensible in some fashion (moral? society will be worse off in some way?), then there must be at least one logical reason for why this is so.

9/7/2009 12:54:16 AM

The US has been socialist for decades now. Socialism ISN’T bad a priori, but the right knows that using the term “communism” has no credibility, so they need this strawman to take its place.

If the Democrats were smart, they would come up with some snarky label for the Republicans and start using that.

9/7/2009 12:58:56 AM

because, obama is a commu.....err...uhh....socialist.


and i'll be damned if i spent 3 weeks in a rice patty in danang to let ho-chi-minh enforce his policies here in america.

9/7/2009 1:34:18 AM

because we don't want EVERYTHING to be run like the DMV

...

btw... I actually think that socialized healthcare would be a GOOD thing

[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2009 1:37:17 AM

POST OFFICE!!!!!!!!

AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!

9/7/2009 3:45:34 AM

maybe its the capitalist in me, but i for one welcome competition in the marketplace

public option 2009!!

9/7/2009 5:03:58 AM

Quote :

"because we don't want EVERYTHING to be run like the DMV Bank of America"

9/7/2009 8:02:26 AM

Because history has taught us time and time again that trusting someone who claims capable of leading the world or the country into a grand socialist utopia, where everyone's needs are taken care of and no one has any unfulfilled needs is a lying con man and following through is a good way to fast track your way to an oppressive government. Socialism can and does work on small limited scale where everyone naturally buys in, but as it gets larger, the chances for corruption, abuse and apathy also get larger, until at a certain point buy in becomes mandatory at the point of a gun. Once you reach this point, the socialized system becomes ripe for corruption and abuse.

All governments will fall to corruption and abuse, even a democracy, but socialism encourages that corruption by implicitly declaring that someone else knows better than you and yours exactly what you need to do with your time and what you need in life. And since large groups of people inherently form governments, usually that someone is the government.

9/7/2009 8:10:14 AM

^ i could replace “government” and “socialism” there with “businesses” and “capitalism” and it would seem equally apt.

Why isn’t the term “captialism” treated with the same contempt?

How many people do you know that actually like the big corporations like wal mart, best buy, mcdonalds and herald the competency of their employees?

it seems to me it’s easier to manipulate peoples’ contempt for gov. because there’s only 1 gov. but many different corporations.

9/7/2009 10:22:16 AM

No you couldn't replace the terms because then the argument would make no sense. I know today people like to think that everything is really equivalent and there's no difference between things, but government != businesses and socialism != capitalism.

9/7/2009 10:37:43 AM

moron the difference is choice. You can decide for yourself that you wont shop at a store that treats its people poorly, thus making them go out of business if enough people do the same. However, I cant decided to not pay my taxes bc I disagree with how our country is being run.

And if the basis of those agaisnt capitalism is that people are corrupt, then you should prefer capitalism over socialism, bc the damage of one corrupt person is far less when the person runs a company vs. the govt.

9/7/2009 10:45:27 AM

You’re right. No business has ever been corrupt or oppressive. Human corruptions is only a factor when government is involved. Money is not power.

9/7/2009 10:45:57 AM

Quote :

"i could replace “government” and “socialism” there with “businesses” and “capitalism” and it would seem equally apt. Why isn’t the term “captialism” treated with the same contempt? How many people do you know that actually like the big corporations like wal mart, best buy, mcdonalds and herald the competency of their employees? it seems to me it’s easier to manipulate peoples’ contempt for gov. because there’s only 1 gov. but many different corporations."

It really isn't the same. I don't care how big a corporation is, they don't have the power to take money from you. They don't have the power to force you to do anything. All they do is employ people and provide goods/services in exchange for money.

More importantly, corporations can't use money like government. If a business were to run a deficit every single year, it wouldn't continue to operate, it would go bankrupt. But suddenly, when government does it (and devalues our currency in the process, which fucks every last one of us), it's acceptable. Honestly, when you take an objective look at it, our government has much more power than corporations have ever had in this country.

Quote :

"You’re right. No business has ever been corrupt or oppressive. Human corruptions is only a factor when government is involved. Money is not power."

A business itself cannot be corrupt. Individuals are corrupt. If they do something unlawful, or unethical, they can be punished under the law, or consumers can choose to not buy their services. It's back to the issue of force.

[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ]

9/7/2009 10:46:49 AM

Quote :

"I don't care how big a corporation is, they don't have the power to take money from you. They don't have the power to force you to do anything. All they do is employ people and provide goods/services in exchange for money. "

You are not familiar with American history, are you (and probably other countries’ histories but I don’t know for sure)?

It may seem like it now that business don’t have this power, and they don’t compared to the past. But this is only due to GOVERNMENT’s socialist intervention on behalf of the people.

Quote :

"If a business were to run a deficit every single year, it wouldn't continue to operate, it would go bankrupt. But suddenly, when government does it (and devalues our currency in the process, which fucks every last one of us), it's acceptable. "

This is only true for the US and maybe some of our peers. No one is going to call us on our debt because we have the biggest guns. But take a small country and have them try to run a massive debt, and you get like what’s happening all over Africa. INSANE inflation and a poor population. Debts DO matter for countries, just not the one on top.

Quote :

"Individuals are corrupt. If they do something unlawful, or unethical, they can be punished under the law, or consumers can choose to not buy their services. It's back to the issue of force."

Only because our strong socialist government is looking out for the people. Go to a third world country where the rule of law isn’t as strong, and things are quite different.

[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM. Reason : ]

9/7/2009 10:48:41 AM

Quote :

"You are not familiar with American history, are you (and probably other countries’ histories but I don’t know for sure)?"

I'm familiar, but I'm not a scholar.

Quote :

"It may seem like it now that business don’t have this power, and they don’t compared to the past. But this is only due to GOVERNMENT’s socialist intervention on behalf of the people."

Businesses shouldn't have the power to take anything from you. That's an area where government should be able to step in. If a corporation is forcing anyone to do anything, governments should make laws to stop that, or punish the individuals responsible - but that's not "socialist intervention." That's a legitimate function of government. My point is that government is the only entity that is legally allowed to force you to do something.

Quote :

"This is only true for the US and maybe some of our peers. No one is going to call us on our debt because we have the biggest guns. But take a small country and have them try to run a massive debt, and you get like what’s happening all over Africa. INSANE inflation and a poor population. Debts DO matter for countries, just not the one on top."

We're not really on top. The rest of the world is recovering from the recession. Here, it's getting worse. If you think debts don't matter for us, then I've got bad news for you.

Quote :

"Only because our strong socialist government is looking out for the people. Go to a third world country where the rule of law isn’t as strong, and things are quite different."

I think you're confusing having a government that can make and enforce laws with socialism. They aren't the same. It's worth repeating - government should look out for the rights of the individual, and there's nothing socialist about that.

[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ]

9/7/2009 10:53:04 AM

Quote :

"You’re right. No business has ever been corrupt or oppressive. Human corruptions is only a factor when government is involved. Money is not power."

Are you really this stupid or do you just like to argue.

That is seriously your response to me saying this.

Quote :

" bc the damage of one corrupt person is far less when the person runs a company vs. the govt. "

9/7/2009 10:53:41 AM

Governments protecting individuals from coercion by others != socialism. Until you can make that distinction moron there's no point in discussing this further with you.

9/7/2009 11:05:24 AM

^^ i didn’t realize you had posted in this thread, and I was not responding to you.

^ what do you think socialism is at it applies to our country?

Are we now a socialist country or a capitalist country? Are the things mutually exclusive?

Were we socialist or capitalist 50 years ago? 100?

I may be wrong, but it seems you are using entirely meaningless definitions of the words “socialism” and “capitalism.”

and it’s not just coercion that gov. has been protecting people from, it started out being unsafe working conditions, and child labor issues.


[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

9/7/2009 11:07:28 AM

My apologies moron.

9/7/2009 11:15:26 AM

you can always move to a different country.

There are alot of them.

9/7/2009 12:04:23 PM

Socialism as I am referring to it is where the means and results of commerce are dictated by forces external to those directly involved in the transaction. In regards to the US the external force is usually the government (but can also be private entities given the power to act as a government or influence the government).

Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive from one another and can be and often are found mixed. A significant example of this is minimum wage laws which dictate the price of labor, thereby exerting an external control over one aspect of a mutual transaction. Neither one will ultimately protect the freedoms of the individual, but where as one provides control over economic activity to "society" (read the government), the other provides that control to those with capital.

It's easy to see then, how capitalism tends to slide into socialism, because those with capital tend to become those in the government or in positions to influence the government. The desire to stop socialist tendencies and the fear of socialism is mostly a fear of allowing others to dictate the terms of your life and the transactions you will make. It's all about the slow crawl towards giving power to those who would abuse it.

9/7/2009 12:18:42 PM

Because the wealthy have to pay for it.

I know. Boo hoo.

9/7/2009 7:19:45 PM

Anybody hear the experiment that a econimics teacher did, he asks if people thought the socialist idea of taxing the rich for most of government income would be a good idea. Most of the class thought it would be, so the teacher said "ok, then we will average all the class exams and everyone will get the same grade to make it fair". On the first test everyone did their usual and the average was a B. The second exam all the people that studied a little, studied even less because the would rely on the people who study more to carry the average. The people who studied alot studied even less and the average was a D. The trend continued and for the third exam everyone failed. This professor never had a single person fail while he was teaching. It goes to prove that if there is no reward, the people who are at the top of the class don't try anymore and the average people rely on the top to get by and everything fails. History has proved that countries that support a socialist idea, there economies don't last very long.

9/7/2009 7:49:35 PM

What does it mean for something to be bad a priori?

9/7/2009 7:51:32 PM

The IRONY of the ZOMG COMMIE scare this country has been paranoid of is that the supposed biggest "Communist" country in the world China, is better at implementing many Capitalist ideals than we are in our current state.

Quote :

"Anybody hear the experiment that a econimics teacher did, he asks if people thought the socialist idea of taxing the rich for most of government income would be a good idea."

Lets base our whole economic policy on some anecdotal class room experiment

Quote :

"It goes to prove that if there is no reward, the people who are at the top of the class don't try anymore and the average people rely on the top to get by and everything fails."

I am no fan of Socialist policies but you act like this is a Us v. Them, black v white issue. History just as easily proves
that the aristocratic hyper capitalistic regimes of many countries also get toppled during a revolution or coup of the underclasses.

[Edited on September 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM. Reason : l]

9/7/2009 8:48:12 PM

Quote :

"What does it mean for something to be bad a priori?"

It means to be bad before any other consideration, regardless of context; to say it is bad a priori is to say it is bad before any other discussion of context. It is intrinsically bad.

9/7/2009 8:49:43 PM

Quote :

"Why is socialism bad a priori? "

there is a lot of words itt. let me put it this way.

I would fight in a war to defend my right not to have a government / czar / congress / king / president shovel more BS down my throat. And yes I'm talking about more than healthcare -> also public schools, public safety, public [insert any word here]. This discussion isn't about why "socialism is good or bad." It's about why we aren't going to allow a the biggest money waster in human history try to take down another sector of society as it fails.

but yeh, what a total waste of time with you losers. 'soap box' ha.

9/7/2009 10:07:22 PM

Quote :

"History just as easily proves that the aristocratic hyper capitalistic regimes of many countries also get toppled during a revolution or coup of the underclasses."

Can you name one of these "hyper capitalistic" regimes of the past?

9/7/2009 10:08:02 PM

I've been up for over 48 hours so I don't have the time or mental faculties to read all the responses but my objection is this; socialism -- any form of collectivism really -- implies that part of your labor, and by an extension part of you, are the rightful property of the state, which is of necessity the final arbiter of all "public" goods.

The ability to possess, and the protection of, private property rights are the surest guarantee for Human Liberty.


Granted, the founders of the American Republic acknowledged the necessity of ceding some of the inherent rights of man to the state for the common welfare, but there was never any contention that those rights emanated from the state.

9/7/2009 10:29:46 PM

the founding fathers never foresaw the extent of laziness, apathy, and complete demand and reliance on the gov't's funds as it happens now.

when ODB cashes a welfare check on MTv, certain problems are immediate issues.

at least the nazi's were a socialist party reliant on the demand of people working

9/7/2009 10:39:29 PM

Quote :

"to say it is bad a priori is to say it is bad before any other discussion of context."

I can't think of anything more useless than to consider something as good or bad without considering its consequences in the world.

9/7/2009 11:09:06 PM

Quote :

"I can't think of anything more useless than to consider something as good or bad without considering its consequences in the world."

Hence the OP's question of why socialism is to be considered something "bad" or "feared" even before placed into a context.

9/7/2009 11:10:49 PM

well, in a perfect world and a utopian society, socialism would work, because everyone would work hard to help their fellow man. So a priori, it would work.

In reality, capitalism, in the modern world, is the only sustainable economic policy. Pure capitalism might only work in small nations, but the USSR proved that utopian ideals would not work.

Some sort of divided rule seems to keep things in check. The checks and balance system actually works as does divided government.

Usually, there can be made a good argument for simply leaving the status quo and not rocking the boat. Only in certain times do we need drastic changes (now, with financial regulations). It will be painful, but longterm results will be OK.

9/7/2009 11:16:42 PM

Quote :

"the founding fathers never foresaw the extent of laziness, apathy, and complete demand and reliance on the gov't's funds as it happens now."

I'm sure the founding fathers were plenty aware of how lazy/apathetic people could be. What I don't think they would have envisioned is a government that funds those people.

9/7/2009 11:24:19 PM

Quote :

" No business has ever been corrupt or oppressive."

In our mixed economy, it is often gov't that allows and even encourages corrupt behaviors in companies. Look at the pressure that gov't brought to bear on lenders to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

Most monopolies are gov't created and sanctioned.

In Capitalism, it is a very important part that some poorly run companies go out of business..not propped up and bailed out because "they're too big to fail".

Quote :

"Were we socialist or capitalist 50 years ago? 100?"

I think we were mostly a capitalsit country up to Teddy Roosevelt. But the serious beginning of the end came with the New Deal.

Politicians want more and more power. Socialism is a system of strong gov't control. So politicians will naturally gravitate towards the socialists' agenda. Libertarian proposals and principles are contrary to what politicians want.

Human nature is why socialism cannot succeed. Human nature is why capitalism has been the most successful economic system ever.

9/7/2009 11:26:20 PM

Quote :

"Can you name one of these "hyper capitalistic" regimes of the past?"

Cuba; though perhaps "hyper capitalist" was not the term i was looking for.

Quote :

"the founding fathers never foresaw the extent of laziness, apathy, and complete demand and reliance on the gov't's funds as it happens now."

This is part of the reason why i do not see the same "social" programs enacted, with various degrees of success/failure, in europe
would never work here. Overall I think people in Europe have a different type of mentality about life and have/will not see
the same levels of the ignorant/lazy/free-rider types of people relying on the gov't hammock for their livlihood.

Quote :

"Usually, there can be made a good argument for simply leaving the status quo and not rocking the boat"

Kinda my stance on everything going on.

Quote :

"Most monopolies are gov't created and sanctioned. "

True Carnagie and the oil barons had congressmen in their back pocket.

Quote :

"Libertarian proposals and principles are contrary to what politicians want. "

Not necessarily when you can have your friends of ExXon, Glaxo-Smith, [insert big conglamoration here], shower you with "gifts", "suitcases" as you
vacation in Grand Cayman, and various other gifts for enacting deregulation policies.

9/8/2009 12:15:20 AM

Quote :

"It may seem like it now that business don’t have this power, and they don’t compared to the past. But this is only due to GOVERNMENT’s socialist intervention on behalf of the people."

Any group of thugs with the right to use force against the citizenry becomes a form or layer of government. Governments come in all forms. sometimes they hold elections, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they are large (the city of Raleigh) sometimes they are small (the local drug warlord).

Under this definition, if you ever meet a corporation with the right to rob/steal/or murder its customers, you have not found a capitalist institution, but am arm of, or competitor of, government.

Quote :

"Not necessarily when you can have your friends of ExXon, Glaxo-Smith, [insert big conglamoration here], shower you with "gifts", "suitcases" as you vacation in Grand Cayman, and various other gifts for enacting deregulation policies."

Which they would not. Yes, the bill may be advertised as deregulation, but deregulation never takes place at the request of business. As Adam Smith told us, businessmen are always in favor of regulation, actual deregulation must be imposed upon them. As such, most of the times deregulation has occurred, it occurred in an effort to impoverish, through economic competition, rivals for political power.

[Edited on September 8, 2009 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/8/2009 9:01:42 AM

Quote :

""the founding fathers never foresaw the extent of laziness, apathy, and complete demand and reliance on the gov't's funds as it happens now.""

the fact that only white male landowners could vote kinda refutes this statement.

Quote :

"Anybody hear the experiment that a econimics teacher did, he asks if people thought the socialist idea of taxing the rich for most of government income would be a good idea. Most of the class thought it would be, so the teacher said "ok, then we will average all the class exams and everyone will get the same grade to make it fair". On the first test everyone did their usual and the average was a B. The second exam all the people that studied a little, studied even less because the would rely on the people who study more to carry the average. The people who studied alot studied even less and the average was a D. The trend continued and for the third exam everyone failed. This professor never had a single person fail while he was teaching. It goes to prove that if there is no reward, the people who are at the top of the class don't try anymore and the average people rely on the top to get by and everything fails. History has proved that countries that support a socialist idea, there economies don't last very long."

this "experiment" begins with everyone essentially at the same level (grade). That is not the case in reality. Also the Feudal system lasted for a long time; longer than capitalism has. I guess that's the best system!

9/8/2009 11:36:36 PM

What?! All people aren't equal? Some people aren't smarter than others? Some people don't have as great a work ethic as other people? Some people don't work harder than others? I assume you mean that some people aren't born rich, so they start out with more money and a greater advantage over another. Well get used to it because life just isn't that fucking fair. I'm pretty sure Obama started lower than McCain, and guess whos president... It's called you fucking work for it. Its just too bad he didn't learn enough along the way, he must have skipped economics 101.

9/9/2009 12:07:51 AM

Quote :

"the fact that only white male landowners could vote kinda refutes this statement."

that wasn't codified in the Constitution, though...

9/9/2009 12:22:50 AM

conspiracy theorist level of denial in dismissing facts to support the ubiquitous "strawman" claims itt

socialist nation? because we built a highway system for the military?

so

gust of wind from behind whilst travelling to gramma's = WIND POWERED CAR

yeah i get it

9/9/2009 8:45:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem is essentially an a priori criticism of socialism.

9/9/2009 10:31:23 AM

Quote :

"As Adam Smith told us, businessmen are always in favor of regulation "

I do not know what experience you have in industry but i can assure you my company was not in "favor" of regulations licensing our use
of raw materials, requirements to utilize a certain level of pollution abatement, and enact various over-the-top employee safety OSHA standards.

Quote :

"Some people aren't smarter than others? Some people don't have as great a work ethic as other people? Some people don't work harder than others? I assume you mean that some people aren't born rich, so they start out with more money and a greater advantage over another. Well get used to it because life just isn't that fucking fair. I'm pretty sure Obama started lower than McCain, and guess whos president "

I agree which is why i mostly disprove of Afirmitive action and many socialist gov't heart felt policies.

9/9/2009 12:02:15 PM

How can you be born and raised in the US, call yourself an American, and post this thread? This is truly a sad time when a generation of retards like yourself think your American but dont see anything wrong with something completely un-American.

9/9/2009 2:56:50 PM

^agreed 1000 times over.

9/9/2009 4:50:53 PM

also, WHY CANT YOU PEOPLE JUST BELIEVE IN GOD AND JEEZUS LIKE REAL AMERICANS?

inspirations behind socialism, such as collective action towards common goals, common good, attempts to reduce the importance of class, is something i'd consider desirable. the problem comes when you start talking about forced collectivization, which isn't as universal of an idea, imo. some people just don't see themselves as having much in common with others goals. it's enough to keep some groups from killing each other, how are you going to make them share the world's food supply equitably? instead, we just rely on individual initiative by those with common goals, and it works decently well.

i would hope that one of those common goals would be something like, say, universal healthcare, but then again, why should i care about fat unhealthy people, right?

[Edited on September 9, 2009 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2009 4:54:18 PM

Socialism is baaaad, mmmmmmKaaaaaaaaay?

9/9/2009 5:25:46 PM

Quote :

"How can you be born and raised in the US, call yourself an American, and post this thread? This is truly a sad time when a generation of retards like yourself think your American but dont see anything wrong with something completely un-American."

Responses like this are why I have asked this question. Instead of discussing what are the disadvantages/dangers of socialism, you immediately resort to ad hominems. Do you have an actual reason for being against it that does not revolve around blind patriotism?

9/9/2009 9:52:20 PM

Quote :

"I do not know what experience you have in industry but i can assure you my company was not in "favor" of regulations licensing our use of raw materials, requirements to utilize a certain level of pollution abatement, and enact various over-the-top employee safety OSHA standards."

Based upon this information, knowing nothing about your company, I suspect you are not the largest player in your industry. Otherwise, you would welcome the increased barrier to entry such laws place upon your competitors.

That said, regulation is a shotgun blast. A bunch of large companies somewhere wanted OSHA standards, and so all of you got them, because they had lobbyists and your company either had no lobbyists or failed to notice the law being proposed. But I assure you, some congressmen somewhere pronounced the phrase "even industry supports this legislation!" in some form and was being honest.

9/10/2009 12:15:51 AM

Quote :

"What?! All people aren't equal? Some people aren't smarter than others? Some people don't have as great a work ethic as other people? Some people don't work harder than others? I assume you mean that some people aren't born rich, so they start out with more money and a greater advantage over another. Well get used to it because life just isn't that fucking fair. I'm pretty sure Obama started lower than McCain, and guess whos president... It's called you fucking work for it. Its just too bad he didn't learn enough along the way, he must have skipped economics 101."

It seem conservatives love using the "life isnt fucking fare" line and I believe its used mainly by lower middle class people to somehow separate themselves from "poor" people. People who are truly gifted and intelligent and earn money in the process seem to make it a priority to enrich the lives of others. There are always exceptions and bad apples but people who come from humble beginnings and become wealthy try and help others.

The fact that you post on tww means chances are you will wallow in middle class purgatory your entire life. I enjoy my simple middle class life and understand that if through hard work or luck I become very successful I will owe my success not only to myself but everyone around me as well. Your attitude is more in line with a bear in a state park that thinks he's the shit but is only alive because hunters cant get to his sorry ass to make a fur coat.

also after reading what I wrote I'm asking for the "well why have taxes and let people do what they want with their money and give to charity bla bla bla". It would be great we could rely on people to give voluntarily but if this was the case we wouldn't have gone to a state funded school and we would be ass deep in dept.

9/10/2009 12:51:12 AM