What, exactly, is objectionable about "socialism"?

[TripletDaddy]

Pure capitalism has never existed. We have always been a socialist country in that the government takes our tax dollars, redistributes them to the community, has social programs, welfare, etc...

You folks are also the same people who claim that the US is a "democracy."

So this fear that the US will become socialist......we have always been socialist.

I have to run now....gotta go pay back my government subsidized student loans, drive on public roads, maybe get pulled over by the police, who are paid via our collective tax dollars....

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Pure capitalism has never existed. We have always been a socialist country in that the government takes our tax dollars, redistributes them to the community, has social programs, welfare, etc...

You folks are also the same people who claim that the US is a "democracy."

So this fear that the US will become socialist......we have always been socialist.

I have to run now....gotta go pay back my government subsidized student loans, drive on public roads, maybe get pulled over by the police, who are paid via our collective tax dollars....

Now, you're the jokester. We have not advocated a pure capitalistic society, and you're oversimplifying the arguments for the sake of absurdity, but its the degree of focus upon the principles. In a society focused upon capitalism, reliance upon government institutions impedes the workforce and the economic growth.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now, you're the jokester. We have not advocated a pure capitalistic society, and you're oversimplifying the arguments for the sake of absurdity, but its the degree of focus upon the principles. In a society focused upon capitalism, reliance upon government institutions impedes the workforce and the economic growth.

Actually, no. The Repubs are the one crying regime change. I have made no claims of any loss of capitalism, nor any increase in socialism as a result of this coming election.

I am pointing out a simple fact.....we are a socialist country already. So all these laments (yours included) that we are "headed" towards "european style socialism" are ridiculous and scaremongering......the preferred tool of the GOP.

Read your very own post....there is no real substance to it. You make claims of "degrees of focus," yet have absolutely no real way of measuring these degrees.

Yawn.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Actually, no. The Repubs are the one crying regime change. I have made no claims of any loss of capitalism, nor any increase in socialism as a result of this coming election.

I am pointing out a simple fact.....we are a socialist country already. So all these laments (yours included) that we are "headed" towards "european style socialism" are ridiculous and scaremongering......the preferred tool of the GOP.

Read your very own post....there is no real substance to it. You make claims of "degrees of focus," yet have absolutely no real way of measuring these degrees.

Yawn.

Since your post assumes a specturm or continuum, how do you propose it be measured?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

Since your post assumes a specturm or continuum, how do you propose it be measured?

Truthfully, I dont even think it is worth measuring. People are fearing a move towards socialism? what for? we have had over 40 presidents....most have raised taxes. Now all of a sudden we are at risk of crossing the tipping point and spilling into socialism?

our economy stinks, we are fighting an unpopular and expensive war.....there is a massive housing crisis and more people are losing jobs right now.....and we are lamenting that under these circumstances, the government might step up some social programs to help out?

These cries of "socialism" are akin to the crazy homeless guy with the sign that says, "The End is near."

If people don't want their taxes raised, then just say that. But they should not hide behind sweeping claims of "european style socialism" and "marxism."

I guess one thought is that in citing "european style socialism," are those folks admitting that there is a "US style socialism?" If so, then I can get on board with that.

[ERCougar]

My concern would be along the lines of BYU71. I'm not afraid of the label of "socialism" if we reach the kind of society that I would like to be a part of. I think the thing that frightens conservatives is the holding up of Europe as the "ideal". Europe (France, at least) seemed very caste-like, as BYU71 pointed out. I know there are statistics that show that mobility between classes has steadily declined in the US--I'd be curious to see the comparison with France. Maybe this is just a function of a much older government and society.

Additionally, the average French citizen seemed worse off than the average American--it was rare to have two cars, rare to even have a clothes-drier or a microwave, to point out a few examples. At the same time, there were fewer poor and certainly a better safety net. So where do our collective values lie--a Rawlsian ideal or one of individualism? We as a country have always favored the latter, so the term "socialist" is fairly effective as a scare tactic. Perhaps we're shifting.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

My concern would be along the lines of BYU71. I'm not afraid of the label of "socialism" if we reach the kind of society that I would like to be a part of. I think the thing that frightens conservatives is the holding up of Europe as the "ideal". Europe (France, at least) seemed very caste-like, as BYU71 pointed out. I know there are statistics that show that mobility between classes has steadily declined in the US--I'd be curious to see the comparison with France. Maybe this is just a function of a much older government and society.

Additionally, the average French citizen seemed worse off than the average American--it was rare to have two cars, rare to even have a clothes-drier or a microwave, to point out a few examples. At the same time, there were fewer poor and certainly a better safety net. So where do our collective values lie--a Rawlsian ideal or one of individualism? We as a country have always favored the latter, so the term "socialist" is fairly effective as a scare tactic. Perhaps we're shifting.

France is an interesting case study. On the one hand it is held up as an example for nuclear energy, on the other hand it is used as a sledge hammer in debating whether to move even an inch left on the scale.

I think the French culture itself is a very big part of their economic troubles. When you have a nation where truck drivers feel empowered to bring economic activity to a standstill, that's a toxic cultural characteristic you wouldn't find here. I can't imagine any scenario where Americans would tolerate that kind of selfishness by one group.

For example, here's a private-only action that would be a national disaster - what if all the home owners who are under water on their mortages decided to "strike" until they got more favorable rates and/or lowered mortage loans. It would be a calamity... but no tax money would be involved!

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

For the sake of argument, let's say Obama is a "socialist". (We're really talking about the "Social Democrat" part of the political spectrum, but that's a debate for another day.)

So, what?

How is this a full repudiation of capitalism / the market system? How is the modest raising of taxes in exchange for a broader safety net such a bad thing? Does anyone really believe this is the first step toward complete socialism/communism?

Exactly how is freedom eroded in this hypothetical? Doesn't broader (practical) access to healthcare result in greater "freedom" for many (hell, for all, when we're talking about the end of sharp cost-shifting)? Aren't the (growing) gaps in coverage we have now a form of "unfreedom"?

I get the hard-right, purist libertarian view that taxes for roads, for instance, is a form of unfreedom. I'm talking about the more generic conservative view.

It seems to me that trading in the really high rollercoaster for a more tempered material existence would be attractive to just about everyone. How many genuinely need that extra 500 sq ft in a home of 4000? Isn't this part of how we got to the current situation?

(And can we avoid talk about "Satan's plan" and ad hominem smears of "Marxist!")

Doesn't this really all boil down to an aversion for (even the potential) for higher taxes? "I got mine, let everyone else figure out how to deal with their own problems" (I would argue that low taxes + higher deficits amounts to selfishness for the today, deferring problems to later generations, but that's a debate for another day.)

I guess I'm really struggling with how greater government involvement in economic matters is such a horrific development that leads to inevitable calamity.

(For the record, I favor a much more centrist approach and believe that Obama will push in that direction in the interests of forging greater national consensus.)

LOL - I'm counting a whole lot of questions in this post... but go get 'em!

See Canada, pre-Thatcher UK, and France. I think government control is also a slippery slope. So see the USSR, the PRC, Cuba.

People are still praising the U.S.'s resiliant capitalist system. Remember when Europe called this financial crisis largely a U.S. phenomenon a few weeks ago? Well, what really was happening is U.S. lenders, less enmeshed with the government, were quicker to discern and publicise their catastrophic problems than European counterparts. But for U.S. leadership, iroically stemming from U.S. free enterprise's original self-diagnosis, all the socialist countries of Europ would still be staggering along in a blind torpor, heading for depression and untold human mysery. If the U.S. goes socialist, it will destry an essential part of what makes the U.S. great, what makes it the most innovative and dynamic society in history.

But I'm starting to think the whole country has gone wussified like you, Ma'ake.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

See Canada, pre-Thatcher UK, and France. I think government control is also a slippery slope. So see the USSR, the PRC, Cuba.

These are bizarre examples of a slippery slope towards heavy government intervention given that pretty much all of these countries used to have kings, monarchies, aristocracies, czars (or tsars, for crossword puzzle purposes), etc.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

These are bizarre examples of a slippery slope towards heavy government intervention given that pretty much all of these countries used to have kings, monarchies, aristocracies, czars (or tsars, for crossword puzzle purposes), etc.

Shallow. The UK has been free of monarchy for longer than we have, as a practical matter. In fact, a thousand years from now historians will recognize that the Americal Revolution was just the climax of a long road climbed by Britons for millenea. This is the irony: because the UK restored free enterprise and civil liberties absent from our world since Julius Caesar without having to kill its royalty, it never had to kill its royalty and they still live as ornaments.

UK's experimentation with socialism and abridgement of civil liberties (still ongoing) is actually a cautionary tale for us. We and our mother country are comparable, indeed of a piece, in our historical fight agains authoritarianism. When Hitler, Stalin, Marx, etc. railed agaisnt the filthy, materialistic capitalist nations (as Waters' and Lebowski's friends the Islamofacists do now), they were primarily talking about Great Britain, though GB's maturing and restless offspring to the west loomed large.