Why does socialism scare the shit out of America?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

It does not.

It scares the shit out of large corporations. Most people would be joyous to see equality with corporate interests.

The very idea of the worker and the middle class having say over who gets what is deadly. There is an upper class the likes of which has not been seen since the 19th Century. These corporations have worked hard to assure a ruling class that only Louis 14 could be proud of.

That's why our government has been bought and paid for. That's why the insurance cabal has such sway, that's why the medicos, the transportation and communications cabals spend so much buying our politicians.

They do not want representation of the people.

Corporations are not people.

It's time to destroy the machine.

It's broken.

[achtung_circus]

1. Because it's the slippery slope

to communizm and faggoty stuff.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Ohhhhh yeah. I forgot.

Socialism leads one to being a pinko commie fag.

It all makes sense now.

:sarcasm:

[achtung_circus]

15. Wut is sarcasmmm?? nt.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. I'm sorry, What is "wut?"

[achtung_circus]

22. Wut I said. nt

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

36. Ohhhh-Tay!

LOL



And thanks for the gratest vote whomever!

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. *lol* Too funny

[dbonds]

2. Right, it is about the current power brokers.

They would loose power and the people would get some back.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Because our Owners have conducted a 120-year

continuous propaganda campaign to keep us ignorant of what socialism really is. They won't even let us have our Labor Day on May 1 like the rest of the world because that date smacks of (gasp)Socialism!

[wurzel]

5. When Capitalism had to compete with Socialism it had to disguise itself.

We owe more to Soviet Russia for our standard of living in the Sixties than anyone would like to admit. One Communism collapse Capitalism could afford to show it's true face. That is a major reason American workers have seen their standard of living relentlessly erode

[Pong]

24. That's not true

considering that many of the socialist programs we have today were established before the sixties. And capitalism showed it's true face way before communsm was popular, which is what caused the regulation.

As for why corporations would be scared of socialism, I could only guess increased taxes to fuel the the programs? I would think that corporations would fear much more a united white collar front or a return to tougher regulations, better maternity leave for mothers, etc. etc.

[Zen Democrat]

64. And just what socialist programs are you talking about?

We live in a corporate welfare state that's threatening the thin safety net remaining.

Social Security is an insurance program - not a welfare program.

[eridani]

72. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Khruschev--

--for Sputnik, which scared the establishment badly enough that they decided to put big bux into higher education in the sciences. I got a great deal out of that.

[bemildred]

6. Propaganda. nt

[deadparrot]

7. Because RWers have tied it in with

Communism-in-practice and the horrors committed in the Soviet Union.

[Deja Q]

105. Ding ding ding!

Though the "party of Lincoln" seem to be silent on Lincoln, is hyping up tilted stories of reagan, and has nothing to say about COMMUNIST CHINA either...

[rman]

8. Effective framing by Repubs

Of course when people are polled on the issues, and you don't mention the S-word, the vast majority is in favor of socialist-like policies. Most people are quite willing to pay taxes if the get good healthcare and social security in return.
But the people do no longer make the policies, corporations do.

[Puregonzo1188]

9. Because most people

cannot tell the difference between Democratic Socialism, Communism, and Stalinism. With as bad as things went with Stalinism in Russia people just don't want to take any chances. Oh and because large corporate power brokers have convinced them it is the same thing. That too.

Can you really even say that Russia under Stalin was a Communist Country? Since in true communism, there are no states, no money, etc. Although there is a transitional Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that’s a bit of a scary idea (I'm skeptical of all dictators Proletariat or not), but still no where close to as scary as Stalinism.

[queeg]

11. scares the shit out of me.

the objective should be LESS government

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

13. What, in some minor detail bothers you about it?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[stepnw1f]

16. Only Ignorance of what You Do Not Know Should Scare You

Ever share something with others around you? That's an example of socialism. Get used to it, because it's inevitable if humanity wants to survive on a planet running out of resources for an exploding population of consumers.

[dissent1977]

17. Does Capitalism really equal small government?

In my eyes Capitalism creates a government which is actually much more dangerous, because it is a government which is unaccountable. It creates a system in which corporations essentially become the government, and control many of our basic services without giving us any say in how they are run. People don't think they are a part of government because they are not a part of the government we learned about in high school, but when they are running many of our basic services they are in essence governing our country although they are doing it with no accountability.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Good point. Corporations are creating a gigantic international bureaucracy

but unlike a democratically elected government, they are not accountable to the people who work for them or who buy their goods and services. Only their major shareholders have any say in how they are run and they are trying to eat away at any government control.

[Yavin4]

113. To Illustrate Your Point Further Look At "Free Trade Agreements"

These are governmental policies that are literally destroying jobs for Americans, but we have no real means to stop it or counteract it.

[Yavin4]

114. To Illustrate Your Point Further Look At "Free Trade Agreements"

These are governmental policies that are literally destroying jobs for Americans, but we have no real means to stop it or counteract it.

[Broken_Hero]

12. True, so true.

I wouldn't mind if our country adopted, or started evoking some aspects of the Socialist Society, but there are a few views of the Socialist's that i don't agree with. Your post makes sense, its never to good to go to far to the left, or right, and right now...we are trudging to far to the RW Christian Conservative side, we need to tug the line back, and make it a little more middle of the road, that is why our country is so polarized. I can't remember a time in my life where the country was so split. This is our current generations Viet Nam. Never in my life, have i had people jump down my throat for saying ill, or bad our current president, and its been over a decade since i have had religious rw rhetoric thrown in my face, but i'm getting it thrown in my face constantly now, the past three years actually....

We need to bring some of these companies down a notch or two, but their is no way to do it, except the examples of what the French did, during their revolution, hopefully we can do something a little less violent, I hope/pray.

[achtung_circus]

18. Question.

What views do you not agree with?

Socialism AFAIK, is merely the agreement among the citizens that there are some things that we cannot do individually, that we can do collectively. Fire departments are socialist as they provide a service to us all, funded by us all.

[gate of the sun]

14. it's a matter of programming

idea's taught that shouldn't be pursued.......it's really simple in a capitalistic society we abhor any idea that will negate the status quo.

[wli]

20. 100+ years of propaganda

[KG]

21. because it's a complex concept that most people can't be bothered

to wrap their little minds around.

[Kalish]

23. because our side can't argue it's way out of a paper bag

the truth is total socialism ain't gonna happen. most americans don't want it, neither do I.

however, there are already elements of socialism in our government that most Americans agree with and want. SS, for starters. What about min. wage laws, child labor laws, those are examples of government control of business. Those are good things.

It shouldn't be that hard to begin to make people realize that socialism is in and of itself not an evil. It all depends on how it is applied.

but our side seems alway stuck in the same ruts, unable to break out.

[Bouncy Ball]

26. So (LOL) what are your "suggestions" for breaking

out of this "rut?"

[KG]

27. more praise for our founding fathers would be a good start!

[Bouncy Ball]

30. ALL PRAISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS!!!

ALL PRAISE!!! BOW DOWN!!!!!

There, does that get me off the hook?

I'm off to worship the devil now! (Liberal, ya know!)

[Kalish]

32. amen

sister

Yeeee-haaaaa!

[Kalish]

28. well

begin to point out that a lot of good things in America are actually a form of socialism. You know, de-contaminate the word for starters.

Our side seems to have no conception of how to fight on this elemental level. It's a shame really.

[Bouncy Ball]

29. Engaging in generalizations is also not a good way to go about things.

"Our side seems to have no conception of how to fight on this elemental level. It's a shame really."

I've pointed it out to people plenty. I've also pointed out the socialistic facets of our government. Reich-wingers vehemently deny it or do the rhetorical equivalent of poking their fingers in their potato-laden ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

But you have fun with that.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

46. Ohhhhh..... You so bad!

Well said, sister!

[The Magistrate]

68. Those Sound Like Odd Conversations, Comrade

Most persons who are truely on the right, at least to a sufficient degree they could be dubbed "Reich-wingers", are quite aware things like Social Security have Socialist qualities, and are eager to see them dismantled and destroyed on precisely that ground. The idea that the New Deal was the "Bolshevization of America" is the ultimate ground of most real rightist belief in our country still today.

People who do not understand, or are not aware, that such things of which they very much approve have Socialist elements in them are certainly reachable. It is true that many of them have no idea what Socialism is, and consider it variously to be a utopianism utterly lacking in practicality, or a state in which government dictates to the smallest detail economic life. Both of these things have sufficient ground in reality as experienced in history to make excellent and convincing propagandas, that have had great success in closing the minds of many to their own best interests in economic questions.

It seems to me the best approach is to commence with first principles. Anyone who works for a wage is aware that they contribute more to the boss than the boss pays them; the boss could not be making a profit otherwise. The starting point is to suggest that they are entitled to a larger proportion of what they actually produce, than they currently receive, and possibly even to the full value of it. Once this is conceded, the rest is just filling in details of how that is to be achieved....

[IrateCitizen]

92. What your last paragraph describes is not socialism, Sir...

It seems to me the best approach is to commence with first principles. Anyone who works for a wage is aware that they contribute more to the boss than the boss pays them; the boss could not be making a profit otherwise. The starting point is to suggest that they are entitled to a larger proportion of what they actually produce, than they currently receive, and possibly even to the full value of it. Once this is conceded, the rest is just filling in details of how that is to be achieved....

What you have just described is not socialism, but rather "social democratic-ism" of the type advocated by Eduard Bernstein. It is best demonstrated in the United States through the trade unionist movement.

The reason that I would not classify such an approach as socialist is that it betrays the fundamental principle of Marxism, which is dialectical materialism. Essentially, according to Georg Lukacs, what made an approach truly orthodox Marxist was not adhering to everything that Marx said, but rather his method. The problem was not getting equal pay for those in the working class, but rather in breaking the contradictions inherent in capitalism and getting the working class to recognize these contradicitons. In essence, it was introducing a new paradigm into the class consciousness, one that recognized economic exchange as a social activity rather than a commodified one.

As Lukacs said in his essay, What is Orthodox Marxism?, the failure to proceed along the lines of dialectical materialism and to instead advocate the policies of trade unionism, is to turn the class opposed to capitalism into the class for itself. He believed that such an approach was doomed simply because it bought into the inherent contradictions of capitalism, and would end up adopting many of them as its own -- which it has shown the propensity to do over the years.

[The Magistrate]

118. In Education, Sir, One Must Begin With Small Steps

And if one wishes to move people to action, it is best to appeal to their simplest self-interest. Nor can Prof. Marx be taken as the end-all of Socialism; the ideas predated him, and expressons of the ideas at its root can be found throughout human history.

Socialism, by my understanding, anyway, is the proposition that those who work should enjoy the full fruits of their labors, without any portion of these being extracted as a return on invested capital accruing to persons who do nothing but make available capital they possess. A common enough formula for this is workers ownership of the means of production, though the concept of ownership, in the full utopian view, becomes a very dodgy thing. A convenient starting point to introduce people to the benefit of this concept is the opening wedge proposed above, namely, "Do you wish a greater share of the value you produce by your labor than you receive?" Surely, if you receive the whole value of that, as in a Socialist order you would in one manner or another, then you are receiving a greater share of it than you do at present. The point of the exercise is to open people's eyes to what the thing would mean to them, and help them see it is not the thing they have been led to believe it is, namely either a rigorous totalitarianism on the lines of the Soviet Union, or its denatured but still irksome cousin, the "nanny-state", or a purely utopian theoretical exercise fit only for ivory-tower egg-heads.

[Bouncy Ball]

102. You don't understand...

I've talked to people who DEFEND the salaries of CEOs in this country, have said who are we to judge how much they are worth, maybe they are worth MORE than what they are getting.

They believe the better the bosses do, the better they will do, automatically. Logic does not seem to come into play.

[The Magistrate]

119. That, Comrade, Is A Problem

And one that seems more psychological than political.

One of the oldest human responses to difficulty is to identify oneself with a powerful protector. The greater the apparent power of this figure, the better and more secure the supplicant feels. The wealth and ostentation of the chief is vicariously enjoyed by the followers, who vaguely perceive themselves as partaking in some symbolic way of that spleandor through their allegiance to its possessor. It does not even matter much if the supposed protector actually treats them as a wolf treats a flock of sheep: so long as they are not the ones slaughtered and gutted for dinner, they will ignore or explain away the doing, to continue to enjoy the psychic satisfaction of identification with splendor and power. Thye things protection is sought from do not even have to be real, and in fact often are not, that is the case we face today, when many minds are full of phantom menaces like "gay marriage" and "persecution of Christians" and the like, and protection from these imaginary bogeys is sought from splendid protectors who actually do them real, if often subtle, harms. How such people can be approached, Comrade, short of a stout stick across the skull, is beyond me....

[SeveneightyWhoa]

106. Wow, you're pretty down on "our side".

Why is that?

[Bouncy Ball]

25. I'm afraid of fascism.

I'm afraid of totalitarianism.

I'm not afraid of socialism. All someone has to do is read about it to see it's not exactly dangerous, LOL! But as you said it IS dangerous (even fatal) to big corporations and bloated ruling classes.

So get the middle and lower classes programmed to instinctively hate and fear socialism without even knowing what it is and badda-bing-badda-boom, you got it made!

[Pong]

31. I'm not so sure

that corporations fear socialism that much. How does SS beat down corporations? I would think increased regulation scares them much more, or a united white collar work force, or laws being passed for better maternity leave. The thing they would have to fear from socialism is perhaps having to pay more in taxes for bigger or new programs, but I'm pretty sure that the heavy end would fall on the worker. For us to be a socialist state such as Britain has, Americans would have to have much more of their income taxed, which is what Americans are afraid of when it comes to socialism. I'm sure you've all heard this before, but it's the main argument of Americans, that they can spend their money better independently than giving it to the government. Of course not everyone has money to independently spend, which is the purpose of socialism, to provide basic needs to everyone and make a leveler playing field. The problem is, most Americans think that the playing field is already level.

[Bouncy Ball]

33. If Americans REALLY knew how wastefully most of their

tax dollars are spent, they would have a cow. And that's in the CURRENT system.

Read about full-fledged socialism and come back and tell me corporations would have nothing to fear from it. The UK has capitalism as well, just like us. They have a mixed economic system (like us). Not strictly socialist.

A true socialistic economic system would make corporations wet their collective (no pun intended) pants!

:rofl:

[mongo]

67. Corporations would fear a united white collar work force,

but business regulation in America favors the biggest players. It is used as a tool to stiffle competition.

A good portion of laws regulating business that get passed are for the benefit of the bigger players. They can afford to comply with the cost of regulations that will force smaller competitors out of business and leave the biggest with more market share.

[stevietheman]

86. This is why Democrats should start saying...

"we're friendly to small and independent business" (and under the breath, "we're against corporate welfare") I've been thinking that line would be the "keys to the White House" for some time now.

[Just Me]

109. ,...which is EXACTLY what unrestrained capitalism leads to - fascism.

When capitalists no longer have to live within the same principles, limits and laws imposed upon common people, you end up with fascism.

In a way, socialism is simply the nemesis of fascism. One side advocates for the best of the many while the other seeks power in the hands of a few.

[H2O Man]

34. I respectfully disagree.

The large corporations enjoy the benefit of a type of socialism. Let me explain an important example. If I have a hobby, or a small business, that creates toxic wastes on my property, I'm responsible for them. If they spread to your well, I'm responsible for them

Under the old EPA SuperFund Sites provisions, if a buisness created a huge toxic waste dump, that spread to a hundred neighbors' properties, they were (in theory) liable for all the clean up and damages. If they refused to cooperate, the EPA could do the clean-up, and charge the business three times the costs for additional damages.

That ended. Now, under a president who is not pro-environment, there is no longer the funding to do this. More, federal interpretations of the MSWL have made it where surrounding communities' are being left with the clean-up costs.

When the general public pays for a private business's expenses, it is an abusive type of socialism. There are numerous other examples, from the tobacco industry to the airlines. They like to scare the general public, but they are getting fat from the public trough.

[Kalish]

37. that's an interesting point

it makes me think ya know corps. are just large institutions, and socialism would be large institutions too....a lot of the same injustices are possible.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

41. I would have trouble disagreeing with you.... But

IMHO, in a well run socialism, the corporation introducing the toxins would have been stopped post haste.

The socialism I see you speak of is a government enforced "socialism."

Not what I see as Socialism.

[H2O Man]

45. On that, we agree 100% ....

Almost everything that has the potential for good has a similar potential for abuse. The corporate world abuses the public good by abusing things that are potentially good. If corporations believe in a free market, they should be responsible for their own "loses." I can only imagine their approach if, for example, I began dumping on their property.

They also abuse the word "socialism." It is used to get an emotional, irrational response. In truth, many of the good things in America are "socialist." Public mental health clinics, public schools, and public highways are not really threats to our welfare. They are socialism. Medicaid and medicare are, of course, socialist programs, too. Certainly, there is the potential for some abuse in each of these, yet only a fool would argue that they do not offer far greater benefits than problems.

The truth is, if public education is recognized as beneficial when offered from K to 12, it should be obvious that the whole of society would benefit -- GREATLY -- by offering free higher education. This should be expanded for not just college, but any trade school. Having a graduate invest a certain number of years in community service is a fair trade off.

The WPA and CCC camps were some of the greatest anti-poverty programs in the history of industrialized society. They were indeed "socialism." They were great efforts that brought out the best in communities.

Thus, having an elite group benefit from the public trough is a disaster. And, allowing corporations to limit the public benefit from "non-elitist" programs is also a disaster. A mixed economy offers us the greatest benefits. (We could reduce poverty in large part, but it, too, has become an industry. Sad.)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

73. Well said.

It's a bit of a paradox.

But, if enough people pushed for that paradox, it just might stand a chance.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. Because Americans have been conditioned to be selfish swine.

Every man for himself. Root, hog, or die.

[Bouncy Ball]

49. I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT I NEEEEEEED IT I HAVE TO

HAVE IT OR I'LL DIEEEEE!!!!!!!

I'm not kidding, I heard a young woman who looked to be in her early 20s say that in a retail store recently to her shopping friends. She was holding a shirt.

I looked her way, thinking she'd giggle, indicating sarcasm. I'n an optimist.

She didn't. Her friends agreed with her. She proceeded to describe her EVIL mother who won't give her money for CUTE CLOTHES! "She's SUCH A BITCH!!! I NEVER GET ANYTHING!!!"

Her friends: "Fuck her." "Yeah, fuck her."

Sorry, your selfish swine comment reminded me of this woman.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

50. There's a sign of the times if ever there was one.

The paradigm that was set in Reagan's years of "greed is good" is obtaining obscene stature in today's clime.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. Yeah, and she's a prime example.

People like that are the very people who'd see socialism as "evil"..."what, you mean I, like, have to subjugate MY desires to the common good? I have to give up some of the things I WANT so everyone can have what they NEED? Fuck that."

All too common an attitude in this country, sadly.

[Bouncy Ball]

52. Remember right after 9/11

when the media/government? was giving out the message that we should keep spending, keep stimulating the economy, etc?

I thought that was the WEIRDEST fucking thing ever. Wha? What kind of thing was THAT to say? That told me point blank where the concerns were of our media and government. Just keep spending, everything will be ok. Succumb to the fix of the credit card. Go take on some more debt, you'll feel better.

:crazy:

Crazy. Just crazy shit. Witness England this month: no dire warnings to Londoners to SPEND MONEY!!!!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

53. I wanted to throw up when I heard that....

The corporate good is tied to the good of America??????


Fuck that.

[Bouncy Ball]

54. Yep, fuck that.

The corporations already suck off the government teat PLENTY. They already have plenty of suckers buying their cheap crap. They don't need me going into debt to support them.

How different it is from the 40s when people were encouraged to scrimp and save and sacrifice, grow their own veggies in Victory Gardens, ration out goods, etc.

Sacrifice is below Americans now, I guess. WE WANT OUR CHEAP CRAP!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

60. Give it another five years and

we won't be able to afford that "cheap crap."

Things are going to come to a head within the next 25 years.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. Yeah. I thought that was pretty bizarre, too.

Especially the way they tried to present it as some sort of patriotic duty. "Get out and spend money! It's the American thing to do! If you don't, the terrorists will have won!"

And as far as that goes, I can't think of any other country where rampant consumerism is so ingrained in the culture...I think Japan would probably be closest.

[Bouncy Ball]

57. And Japan doesn't hold a CANDLE to us.

They're pretty good, but they need to do some work to catch up to us.

We're like the Kings of Cheap Crappy Consumerism. It's a fucking RELIGION. Don't get in our way when we are trying to BUY SHIT, ok?

We OWN rabid consumerism.

Have you ever seen the movie "Finding Nemo?" It's a Pixar animated thing, recent movie. About fish. Well the seagulls in this movie say only one word: mine. Anytime they see anything, they say, in a nasally seagull voice: MINE. The rest of them join in and they say it faster and faster, almost in a panic. MINEMINEMINEMINEMINEMINEMINE! On and on and on. I laughed a little sadly. Americans personified as seagulls.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. America is Gollum.

"My precious..."

[Bouncy Ball]

59. Just one amendment, if you will.

We are Gollum with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that could just blow Middle Earth the fuck away if you mess with our precious ring.

:rofl:

I'm having too much fun with this. It's all incredibly sad, but I think I've reached the point of whatthefuckedness.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. Yeah, and we've got a whole fucking army of orcs, too.

Not too bright (because we need 'em that way), compliant, go where they're told and kill anything in their path.

Sometimes you've gotta laugh to keep from crying, eh?

[H2O Man]

84. It was confirmation

that the need for instant gratification was healthy, patriotic, and godly. All of which is, as you point out, part of consumerism gone mad. It used to be that we were on the look-out for split-second hidden messages in commercials .... today, those messages are 24-7, and conscious thought is something that one would need to be on that split-secnd look-out for.

What effect, for example, does tv have on the human brain? I have been recommending Jerry Mander's "In the Absence of the Sacred," which includes a detailed argument against television. It is certainly unhealthy in large doses for a developing brain. We are now witness to a generation that has, for a number of reasons that involve the effect of the economy on family structures, been raised on tv and other screens to an extent that could only result in the unhealthy behavior patterns that you describe.

[Bouncy Ball]

101. Completely agree.

I never watched much TV growing up (only five channels, no VHS or DVDs, no cable, no remote, one TV, so why bother--we played outside a lot) and then in college, I never had time to watch TV, so I became an adult not much in the habit of watching it. 99% of it is crap, anyway, and I'd much rather DO something--read a book, read things online, listen to music, knit, cook, go outside, etc. It just seems so....inert, for lack of a better word.

If I lived alone (my husband likes TV) I'd not even own one. I'll have to check out that book you mentioned, sounds interesting.

[CrispyQ]

112. I avoid malls as much as possible.

Whenever I find myself in one I feel like a real human being surrounded by pod people who have glassy eyes as they mindlessly walk from store to stores in quest of stuff. You have to constantly be on alert for them as they are not aware of their physical surroundings & often step back into your path or cut you off, right in front of you, to get to a store. It's frightening how robot like they are.

I wonder, when they get home with their new stuff, how long does the good feeling last, a week? A day? How often do they need a new infusion of stuff to maintain the high?

[bliss_eternal]

133. INSTEAD of saying something like go out and volunteer

Help your community somehow, save money and donate it to a third world country, give blood,etc....

Anything would have registered better with me than 'GO out and SPEND.'

[yodermon]

96. ...inspiring this wonderful song by the barenaked ladies:

"Shopping"

Well you know that it's going to be alright
I think it's gonna be alright
Everything will always be alright
When we go shopping
Well you know that it's going to be alright
When we go shopping
It's always lalalalala...
Shopping spree begin
It's always lalalalala...
Everybody wins
So shut up
And never stop
Let's shop
Until we drop
CHORUS
It's always lalalalala...
Shopping never end
It's always lalalalala...
Shopping with our friends
Shopping once again
It's always lalalalala... (x4)
It's never enough
Until you've got all the stuff
When the going gets rough
Just shop with somebody tough
CHORUS (x2)
It's always...
When we go shopping (x3)
It's always lalalalala... (repeat to fade)

no link to the song
here is thier website
http://www.bnlmusic.com/music/default.asp

[tavalon]

80. I'm going to interject a bit of hopefulness here

and say that your 20 something just looked older than she was. I'm guessing she and her friends were between 14-16. I have to have that hope though looking through any women's magazine gives lie to my hope.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Seems to me a large segment of the population is living in a trance

I feel like I'm on a different planet, sometimes.

[Pong]

39. I guess I misunderstood

Bouncy Ball, I didn't know you meant a full-fledged, no capitalism state. I'm pretty sure that's close to communism, which really doesn't work. Capitalism has its good points, the money and materials it is able to produce is what makes social programs realistic in our countries. Capitalism paired with socialism and regulation makes for a good mix. Too much of one and you have the all powerful corporation, too much of the other and you have an all powerful government, avoiding giving too much power to either is the goal.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

42. Capitalism is like a game of Monopoly....

Someone always wins and the other plars are left SOL.

True.

[Zinfandel]

40. Corporate America...They jumped on stopping it. Its why they HATE FDR!

Corporate America, republicans, give a shit about nobody but themselves.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

76. Ka-ching!

Nail on the head.

[blm]

43. Americans have been dumbed down and don't even know what socialism means.

Hell, they don't even know that the corporatism the GOP pushes is really fascism.

[sintax]

44. Because Americans are the most propagandized people

in the history of history. Read Alex Carey's works.

Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce and infinite PR firms are putting the Corp. dreck into peoples bloodstream every second of every day in every way. It is the main form of "education" in the US-Corporatism.

America is a completely controlled corporate dictatorship. Every facet of every life is defined by very narrow parameters. Stray and you are out on the streets. you might be even if you don't stray.

It's time.

[Blue_Tires]

47. very true

and things will only get worse before they get better

[livinginphotographs]

48. Insurance is socialism.

I love pointing that out to my Bushbot co-workers who love private health insurance, but think that all things "socialist" are evil.

Think about it: there are certain risks in life. Instead of having to take the risk of paying for a catastrophic illness, you pay a small amount into a large pool of money, along with a lot of other people, so that if one person in the pool becomes ill, all of the money can be handed out to pay for that illness.

Car insurance, homeowners insurance, health insurance, life insurance....these are all things where large groups of people pool resources to limit risk.

Sounds like socialism to me. :shrug:

[The Great Deceiver]

94. so are fire departments

problem is the insurance industry has been privtaized and turned into a commodity available only to those that can afford it. the general idea of insurance is socialist in nature but it's hardly a good example of socialism when almost 8 million children remain uninsured. pretty pathetic.

[TheMadHatter]

95. True, but insurance is usually voluntary.

I think that in a socialistic situation you wouldn't have any choice - a certain percentage of your income would be taken from you, like it or not.

[livinginphotographs]

99. Taxes are already involuntary.

How is that different from our current system?

[TheMadHatter]

108. Thats what I mean

The insurance would be paid for by higher taxes, which would be taken from your paycheck regardless if you wanted the insurance or not.

As it currently stands I'm free to not have insurance if I don't want to pay the money it would cost.

[livinginphotographs]

111. I'm talking about socialism, not just insurance.

I was using that as an example because most people in the insurance industry are so in love with corporate america that they're only able to see its (relatively few) good points and absolutely none of its bad. So I use their system against them with that explanation.

And higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for health insurance for those who can't afford it doesn't really pull at my heart strings. You know how much the CEO of United Healthcare made last year?

http://www.afl-cio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm?tkr=UNH&pg=1

[zinndependence]

55. I think most people are in denial...

Everybody wants to maintain the current system because they think that one day they could be rich...most people still believe we live in a meritocracy which is of course total bullshit. One reason so many people buy into this crap is because the corporate media loves to hype the "rags to riches" stories. It is not in their interest to talk seriously about poverty, our sorry state of health-care, homelessness, etc.

"Socialism" is one of those words that has been manipulated by "the establishment" to the point where most people don't even understand what it means. When they hear the word, they associate it with something negative. The same thing has happened to the word "feminist."

[hollowdweller]

63. Best post in this thread

I think you are 100% right on!

Most people for some reason think of Nazi's and Commies whent they think of socialisim or like you say just something bad. They never think that everything is kind of relative to the degree, and that about 90% of the people AND businesses would be better off if we had more of it.

Some people might make a little less, and some a little more, but I think overall people would feel more secure knowing stuff like pensions, medical care, unemployment, and paid maternity leave was available.

This whole thing we have now, where Bush and the GOP are pushing all this privatizing of everything, and yet around us the corporate institutions, the kind of moral responsibility that a company used to have for their employees are crumbling under the weight of greed and global concerns. If at any time we needed government health care, and economic security for people it is now, yet they are still pushing the stuff that Reagan pushed in the 80's about some utopia of unrestrained capitalisim where 20 years have shown that it hasn't worked.

[Blue_Tires]

62. ttt n/t

[mongo]

65. I'd like to see us move to the left

Airlines, eclectic and natural gas - we were all better off when these industries were regulated. I could see nationalizing them all.

But I don't want the government to control all means of production and distribution either.

I don't want the only place to buy groceries to be the super gov-mart.

I don't want the government to decide what toys are going to be manufactured this year.

I don't want the government to decide what styles of clothes and shoes will be manufactured and sold.

Capitalism creates ingenuity, creativity and drive. If we were a totally socialist country, would DU exist? If all servers and hard drive space were controlled by the government, they would decide what existed on the internet. How many channels would we have on TV if the government controlled all production of entertainment?

I hope to hell we swing back to the left and take care of our national interests. I hope some day all americans have health care and a real safety net.

But the really great thing about America, is that the cream rises to the top. Yeah, some are born with a huge advantage but if you are smart enough, innovative enough, driven enough and lucky enough you can still make it big here.

Sorry, I am a capitalist. There are some major problems with our system - money is polluting politics. Capitalism and free enterprise don't always mix. The big and powerful always use the government as a tool to stifle competition. But this whole ALL corporations are evil theme is getting old. I am president of a c-corp. Starbucks started out as a coffe shop not too long ago.

We can fix America without tearing apart what made it great in the first place.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

66. The two can co-exist...

You can buy a pair of pants at the collective.
You can buy a pair of Levis from the shop keeper.

You can sell your super widget at the bazaar.

If your Super widget becomes a factor in the ability to live within what is considered a "norm." it would be taken by the collective (after you have made a hefty profit.

Like Microsoft... A great idea that has become a monster. That's Capitalism.

[mongo]

69. I think it's more like a hybrid

where certain industries and services considered vital to our health and well-being are run by the government.

I don't want to have to compete with gov-mart. It's hard enough competing with wal-mart. It's why we don't sell astroglide. Walmart sells it for only slightly more than we can get it from our distributors. If the government controlled most of the production and distribution of goods and services, few could compete with it.

We used to break up corporations when they took too large of a market share - for the good of the people. Not so much today.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

70. I think we're very much on the same page...

There has to be a social arbiter of some sort....

Hence, Socialism.

[Touchdown]

98. This current Government decides what porn you make now.

...although for different reasons than supply & demand. Could the constant watchful eye of government on your industry be at least part of your distaste for a government that seeks to be efficient and for the public good?

Seems to me that Sweden and Norway are much more socialistic than we are, and their choices are not limited. Their rules on porn are much more Laizzes Faire than the social darwinist/zealot moralist controlled US government now. I can't even see DVD box art on the internet anymore. :shrug:

[mongo]

100. That's not a good analogy

since under federal law and in 40 states, ANY explicit movie is technically illegal to sell.

A better example (on the local level anyway), is the the way that some locales bend over backwards to welcome Walmart into the community - it will bring JOBS, they say. Walmart gets tax exemptions, etc to move into a community.

One year later 10 family owned business on main street are closed due to falling sales.

Locally, our county extended it's hand to Walmart - with tax breaks, road improvements, etc. They also agreed to extend bus service to their store - providing that walmart make a connector road from the k-mart next door which was the end of the line for the bus.

Walmart severely re-graded their lot so that when they built the connector road, it was too steep for the bus to go from the k-mart parking lot to walmart. The bus now goes to walmart but not k-mart.

[Stirk]

71. My military buddies all love living the socialist lifestlye.

Of course, the younger ones freak out if you use the actual word- but they love their housing allowances, free medical, etc.

The American people have been conditioned to view socialism and communism as being the same thing. It's the *word* they hate, not the policies. Everyone wants more socialist policies. Well- everyone that's not a corporate CEO.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

74. Thanks for the "gratest vote someone.

Damn, that would nave been a great user name.

[newswolf56]

75. America is terrified of socialism for four reasons:

(1)-decades of methodically malicious brainwashing, starting with the McCarthy Era and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee purges and continuing ever since; (2)-betrayal of humanitarian (i.e., socialist) principles by avariciously careerist bureaucrats (as when the welfare bureaucracy slashed stipends and services by two thirds while inflating administrative costs more than 5000 percent {not a typo} and blaming all the skyrocketing costs on the poor); (3)-the fact that such deliberate bureaucratic malfeasance combines with even more notorious government screw-ups (like $900 toilet seats or the failure of electric-power deregulation) to discredit government in general; and (4)-the infinite, I-might-still-be-a-winner greed of Americans themselves, intensified to pathological madness by advertising and yet further inflamed by growing economic insecurity.

But the ugliest fact of all is that -- precisely as the welfare bureaucracy's behavior suggests -- humanitarianism itself may be truly unAmerican: an impulse utterly alien to the U.S. economy, to U.S. society in general and thus ultimately to the individual American psyche. Look at the worsening viciousness with which we treat the homeless and the poor -- a viciousness that has escalated rapidly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why since then? Because the threat of a Communist revolution so terrified the oligarchy it imposed humanitarian reforms even on itself. The sole reason for the New Deal was the oligarchs' craven fear of an American workers' rebellion backed by the Red Army and the unparalleled effectiveness of the Soviet intelligence apparatus. (During the '30s the Communist Party was the third largest political party in U.S. history -- and by far the best organized. Many of its members openly prophesied a day when economic conditions would become so murderously bad, "the Red Army will be welcomed in the United States as an army of liberation.") And now with the U.S.S.R. gone, the oligarchy has no reason not to revert to true capitalist form -- infinite greed and unrestrained viciousness imposed with a vengeance. Hence the division of all America and eventually the whole world into two classes: plutocrats and victims.

Bedazzled by lust for gold and acquisition, even the most intelligent plutocrats seem to have forgotten that -- beneath China's long-range strategy of using capitalism to fight capitalism (and thus avoiding the fatal economic errors of the Soviets) -- China is still a Marxist nation: ever-eager to export its revolution, whether by agitation, subversion, force or some combination of all three. And the rapidly deteriorating economy here in American and much of the rest of the world is making Marx again wholly relevant: the emergence of global monopolies and the resultant imposition of world-wide wage-slavery is the fulfillment of predictions Marx articulated 150 years ago.

[loudsue]

93. Excellent point.....

"Bedazzled by lust for gold and acquisition, even the most intelligent plutocrats seem to have forgotten that -- beneath China's long-range strategy of using capitalism to fight capitalism (and thus avoiding the fatal economic errors of the Soviets) -- China is still a Marxist nation: ever-eager to export its revolution, whether by agitation, subversion, force or some combination of all three. And the rapidly deteriorating economy here in American and much of the rest of the world is making Marx again wholly relevant: the emergence of global monopolies and the resultant imposition of world-wide wage-slavery is the fulfillment of predictions Marx articulated 150 years ago."

Bingo

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. yep, more and more relevant

[wurzel]

115. Marx was voted "the greatest philosopher" in UK BBC poll.

[me b zola]

130. Best post I have read in a few days

I had never connected those dots until I read your post. Thanks for taking the time to articulate---and hence inform---on the relationship between the fall of the Soviet Union and the unmasked, unabashed corporate take over of our government.

All around a great post!



:toast:

[WeirdHoward]

77. Both have their place

There are terrible ways in which socialism and capitalism can be applied. People can suffer under both systems. There is no magic answer. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
Capitalism has worked wonderfully for America, but we are seeing things pushed to their breaking point, as they were in the 1920's. Government oversight, social programs (social security, the New Deal), kept the system from breaking. A balance of social programs and capitalism can keep the country fit. The question is: When will the system break?

[sweetheart]

78. Its a global balance thing

If you think of things on a global basis, the entire world is
socialist, and a small tiny outpost of american torys are asserting
a neo-monarchy around their king and their treasury of stolen loot.

So they set about creating a media frame and lie to convince the
public of their treason, yet they cannot repress the bugbear at night,
and every night their conscience stalks them.

And they are afraid of God's justice for their misbehaviour, as much
as a small child is afraid of being smacked for beating up her sister.

[zippy890]

79. I'm with you

The 'free enterprise economy' is a myth - we have corporate monopoly, which puts profit before people. Its become a runaway machine and will destroy this planet, extracting all the resources for profit.

The Soviet Union was not socialism - it was state capitalism.

We have yet to see a true socialist country.

Good post -

[ikri]

81. For many people Socialism = Communism

Essentially for 45 years the only time the world socialist was used was in relation to communist countries such as the Soviet Union.

No one ever stepped up and pointed out that socialism is to communism what capitalism is to fascism (and for good reason, would you like to try defending socialism in the 1950's?). If you repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth. Socialism = Communism, Reagan is responsible for the fall of communism, Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

People have been made to believe that in a socialist society, any hard work they do will be for naught as the state will simply redistribute their wages to people who don't work as hard as they do. A modern socialist society doesn't really care if you earn more for working harder, if you earn a million per year, that's great - you can contribute more but you can also keep most of it and live in luxury. If you want to start a business and make loads of cash, that's fantastic - you can employ people and aid society by doing so.

In conversations I've had with friends in the US about socialist systems and their objections to them I've found that I can often make them turn in favor of, for example, a national healthcare system by showing them how much I pay in tax for free healthcare compared with how much they pay in insurance cover, when you can persuade people that health insurance and college loans are nothing more than taxes their views change quickly - especially if you can show that someone on the equivalent wage from the UK actually pays less in taxes than they do when taxes, health insurance and college loans are combined.

Socialism scares the crap out of many on the right because the right has itself changed. Instead of the old style republicanism that wanted to make everyone rich, the modern right just wants to ensure that they stay rich.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

82. Very well said, ikri!

You have hit the nail on the head.

[B Calm]

83. Corporate Socialism scares the crap out of me!

The tax code policy for corporations has successfully provided incentives for US industry to make many CEO's and a few Americans the richest in the world. They exploited our beautiful country and dumped pesticides and polluted our streams. They treated the US like a cash cow to be milked and harvested. The sad thing is now they are using our own 401K's to exploit the world wide.

[blindpig]

85. using our 401k's

Good point. For working Americans to invest in the market is not such a good deal. Of course many find it necessary considering our inadequate social saftey net and lack of extended family. Then there is the greed which as mentioned above has been ingrained deeply into our society by all the means of propaganda called straightforwardly enough consumerism.

As I see it we are just loaning money to the real players for dubious return. Sure there are some winners, a casino has to have some winners. But there's been a lot of losers too, with plenty in the break even zone. I expect that to increase as wealth becomes more concentrated and arrogant. We lend them money which increases their leverage and they use it to increase their dominance, maybe throwing us a few crumbs. Suckers game.

[B Calm]

136. If corporate America would go back to offering employees pension plans

instead of 401K plans, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

As far as global industries are concerned, there are cheaper and more plentiful natural resources elsewhere to exploit, cheaper labor and younger developing consumer markets outside the US that present more attractive investment opportunities. Industry would prefer not to make any further investments into the US, thus capital flight is inevitable (in spite of tax policies), ... The USA is a Cash Cow to be milked and harvested and to funnel our 401K investment funds internationally. The good times have come to an end, and no one dares tell you this, because it might cause a panic.

[stevietheman]

87. It scares thoughtful people too (a nutshell discussion)

Let's try to understand those who have "educated unease" about socialism. Here's three ways it scares people who understand the concept:
1) "Law" of unintended consequences
2) As power accumulates in one spot (i.e., more government), it becomes more corrupt
3) There's a high degree of laziness in socialized work forces

Re #1: Think of drug interactions... the more you take, the more you're unsure how they might interact, and the more improbable it is to even test how they might interact. The same applies to regulations, and regulations necessarily increase from socialistic policies. With too many regulations, industry in general is stifled and the overall economy becomes sluggish. And there's thought from economic libertarians that businesses should be as free as individuals to operate as they please, and "market forces" will magically take care of their errant behaviors (of course, this doesn't work adequately in practice).

We progressives deal with #1 by acknowledging that regulating for the sake of regulating is not a good thing, but smartly applied, limited regulation is healthy for people, the environment and industries themselves. We must "preach" that these occasional doses of socialism help the capitalistic machinery perform better (not just that they are good for people). And we must be open-minded to reverse antiquated regulations in a timely manner--that is, don't cede deregulatory actions to conservatives. Last, we should encourage industry to "self-regulate" as a way to prevent government intervention in the first place (apply "carrot and stick" analogy here).

Re: #2: With more government oversight of business, we necessarily have an expanding government, more in terms of encroachment into business (not to mention personal) liberties but also in terms of absolute size. In other words, more regulations adds power to a centralized government. And with more power, there's greater tendencies for corruption.

We progressives deal with #2 by talking about the reverse: unregulated industry causes too much power to accumulate in big corporations. We must "preach" that too much centralized power in any corner going unchecked is bad for the country. We have to talk about the right of the people to control the destiny of the country and thus should be allowed to keep industry moving with us rather than against us (call this concept "public sovereignty"). We have to say that ultimately, people are far more important than business. And we must share the fear of a government becoming "too large"--as that hurts us all--therefore, we must be vigilant in again reviewing antiquated policies and reforming them on a timely basis.

Re: #3: If you've ever worked in a union or with government employees or with any workforce where the bar for being fired is high, there is a higher degree of employees who only do the minimum required to keep their job, and a signifiant number who don't even meet the minimum. I may be kicked out of DU for making this statement, but this is a "reality pill" for ya. :)

We progressives deal with this by stressing the job security aspect of what we would like to see in the workforce. We should stress the security of people knowing they will have health insurance and other important things taken care of. We should stress that people shouldn't have to work more than one full-time job to support their families... that people should be able to live their lives happily, in balance between work and other life activities. As far as laziness in the workforce is concerned, we need to be more straightforward about acknowledging its existence and finding ways to counteract that--businesses deserve people who do their jobs to the best of their abilities and we should never hamstring the ability of businesses to dismiss people who don't perform, even if the employees of a particular business are unionized.

The above was just a way to let everyone know there are reasoned arguments against socialistic policies. But as we realize that the best system actually is a hybrid of both capitalism and socialism, we progressives have to be vigilant in arguing that these two concepts don't necessarily negate each other, but can be made to work in harmony and produce better results, for both industry and the people.

In short, we should not be "anti-business", but rather "anti-business corruption", "anti-polluter" and so forth. We must focus on correcting the bad (that cannot be corrected by market forces) while letting the good roam free.

[SeekerofTruth]

97. WOW! I agree completely...

DUers should be against business corruption, not big business. Big businesses are required in many aspects of the capitalistic market. (building cars, planes, trains,..etc)

We should be against big government corruption, not necessarily big government. Big government is required to 'provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare'. We have allowed it to go to the level of 'provide the general welfare' for the less fortunate in our society. The problems is, it's now 'providing to whomever has the best lobbyists', and is becoming more corrupt than any big business. IMO

[newportdadde]

88. Simple. Socialisim would nix peoples chance at being one of the top 2 %

They will cling onto forever the dream that someday they too can be there, with millions and millions living those chapange wishes and cavear dreams. They are willing to sacrifice now on the almost impossible chance of being rich because if that day ever did come they would want a system in place that they too could abuse.

89. socialism

It seems like things don't change until things totally collapse, like in the depression. Then someone has to use their vision to bring things back, as Roosevelt did. We took this country away from the indians and small farms were the norm. Now small farms can't make it without government subsidy, and manufacturing is going overseas, and I don't think there is much holding us up. I think it is crazy that the airlines for instance can't adjust to changing numbers of flyers without falling apart and then government bails them out. And newcasts talk about how good this or that corporation is doing, and like what do I care how much money they are making? :P

[dean_dem]

90. What do you mean by socialism?

Increased taxation on the highest income earners?
Expansion of social programs?
State control of industry?

The first two I'm all for. Third one, not so much.

[IrateCitizen]

91. Your analysis is simplistic and wrongheaded, IMHO...

Socialism gained a serious following in Europe and has failed to do so in the US for many reasons. For one, socialism advocates the idea of class interest. In Europe, classes were clearly defined throughout history. Even when European nations began to establish bourgeois constitutional governments and move away from aristocratic rule, class was still a very palpable thing to the average European.

Here in the United States, we pretend that class does not exist, because it never DID exist in the sense that it existed in Europe. The idea of being able to succeed on the merit of one's own skills and hard work (which actually was true, to a degree among white men, at the time of the war of independence) helps to eliminate the idea of people identifying with a certain class, and that idea has stuck with us to this day, even after the process of industrialization turned the notion of a classless society on its head.

Furthermore, Europe was a region that had been populated by Western Civilization for centuries, and its people had experienced for some time what it was like to try and scrape a living out of a land and soil that had been heavily populated for many years. In contrast, the colonization of North America and founding of the US took place in a land of seemingly endless resources, because it was previously inhabited by native peoples who were largely hunter/gatherers or settled in small farming villages. Not to mention the fact that the first waves of colonists found deserted areas because smallpox initially spread by the Spaniards had already ripped through the region, decimating the Native Americans living there. There was never perceived to be a finite amount of resources -- when things started getting tight, you just pushed a little further west, and kicked some Indians off of the land in order to "develop" it.

Also, at the time of industrialization, workers in the US were from many different nationalities and cultures. This inhibited the development of a class conscience among American workers, because they did not have anywhere near the same cultural affinity that European workers did with other workers in their own country. French workers were French, German workers were German, but American workers could be German, Lithuanian, Italian, German, Greek, Albanian, Polish, and so on.

Finally, there has always been far less social cohesion in America as in European nations. We have absolutely razed our public spaces, especially since WWII, where Europe has maintained theirs. We live an atomized lifestyle -- coming out of our single-tract houses to get into our single-occupant vehicles to commute on the highway to an office park to work, while Europeans in many cities will actually go to work by walking, biking, or public means -- a process that results in far more social interaction and a more collectivist mindset. Perhaps this is why the culture industry, as described by Theodor Adorno, has thrived in America more than it has in Europe. Here, we are constantly looking for some imitation of reality (i.e. television) to make us feel better about our daily lives, whereas in European nations they actually have a true reality that adds a social dimension to their lives.

It is for these reasons, and others, that socialism caught on in Europe much more than in the US -- and why European nations have significant communists and socialist representations in government (at least in mainland Europe, the UK is another discussion) and the US does not.

[Wizard777]

103. Socialism is the corporate control of government. See: Haliburton.

Some politicians utilize "General Welfare" as a mask for blatant Communism and Soclialism. It's the General part that they smudge and confuse to do that. It is both broadly inclusive and non specific. General Welfare is like Love. It's at it's best when it's unconditional. The government of the USA can never surrender to an enemy. At the same time they must Surrender to the will of We The People. It's a very procarious position. That is why the checks and ballances are so important.

[loudsue]

104. This is a very important discussion, whose time has come.

When the PEOPLE in a country are secure, healthy and educated, and have a strong infrastructure to support themselves, everyone benefits... the whole world benefits. That, and providing for the defense of their borders, is the reason that taxes are OK. Nobody in their right mind would begrudge paying taxes for those things. And every person needs to pay according to their ability.

People become financially and mentally stronger, as a group, based on TWO things:

1) Their own innate talent, ability and genius, and

2) The decent housing, educational, medical, and societal infrastructure that supports them, and the entire surrounding population, throughout their life.

The first of these is all that Capitalism acknowledges in this country today. All the "haves" think they did it all by themselves. And they think the "have nots" are just lazy.

Todays Capitalist toadies don't want every citizen to be secure, and to have the basics in life. Narcissism is rampant, and even admired in this country now. This mental disease is killing our country, and is being spewed by the airwaves 24/7, and encouraged by legislation.

Socialism, or at least social democracy, is an antidote of sorts to a narcissistic society. Narcissism, left unchecked, leads to sociopathology.

When all members of society have access to housing, education, medical care, good roads, good food and good water....when there is SECURITY for the basics, every single individual is lifted up, and there is the opportunity for good mental health to be established. Good mental health in a society leads to a law-biding society, where individual genius is free to grow safely.

:kick::kick::kick:

[TheMadHatter]

110. No matter what system you have...

capitalistic or socialistic...that a narcissistic society would arise from it. People always want more - it's the same in the US, France, China, Australia, wherever. Humans as a species are narcissistic.

Case in point: I live near Portland, Oregon. A fairly progressive city. We have a good public transit system with many 'nodes' but it takes forever to get anywhere because of all the stops. Now, one day I get sick of the hassle of riding the bus and decide to take some of my hard earned cash a buy a car. It cuts my commute to work from 50 minutes to 15 minutes. Now I don't have to deal with the problems of mass-transit. The trouble is, if too many people think like me then we have roads clogged with cars. But I don't care - even in rush-hour my commute is only 25 minutes instead of the 50 minutes on the bus. My need to get to work in half the time trumps the problem of too many cars on the road (with their pollution/noise/stereos/etc). What should we, as a society, do about this?

It's up to us as a people to best channel that narcissism into something that will benefit everyone in the long run. I think capitalism with regulations is the best way.

[AtomicKitten]

117. Socialism strikes at the heart of privatizing everything,

and god knows how the pubs like to privatize. What is truly sad is all the dumb pubs willing to carry the water for their rich masters, not realizing they are voting and acting against their own self-interests. They ridicule the notion of socialism but only because of the talking points they were given. I'd like to see Hillary give her medical coverage reform another shot. Now THAT scared the beejezus out of the Republicans.

[gravitas87]

120. Socialism

People are scared because they see 10%+ unemployment in Europe, slow economic growth there, too many people on the dole & the resulting decline in the overall work ethic.

[K-W]

121. Why would people be scared of being more secure?

You give good reasons why corporations should be scared, but not regular people.

[gravitas87]

123. Socialism

I would think most people have enough pride & self-respect to desire steady economic growth to attain a better standard of living. Promoting sluggish economic growth through socialism & subsidizing slackers is not the way to go, for those with a good work ethic will get tired of paying most of the taxes that support socialism.

[K-W]

124. Yah, wed all be much happier if we just worked harder for less!!!

[Pithlet]

127. If people could actually attain a better standard of living

through hard work alone, you might have a point. Your point would also stand if not for the fact that most poor people work very hard, and get nowhere. It is no longer true that hard work is all you need.

[TheMadHatter]

128. Agree

You can work hard all your life and still barely pay your bills.

It's not about hard work as much as it is about opportunities for advancement. Smart and/or motivated people create opportunities for themselves all the time. Ignorant and/or demoralized people do not and they get stuck in the quagmire of 'working poverty'.

I think there are many more opportunities in a capitalistic society vs a socialistic one, but of course this tilts us towards an every-man-for-himself national psyche.

[Pithlet]

129. Sadly, I disagree

Plenty of smart and motivated people are poor. I just can't agree that poor people are only poor because they're stupid, lazy, or both. Particularly in a bad economy. There are plenty of smart motivated people who used to have great jobs that are unemployed or are working at Wal Mart, for instance.

Yes, people do often create their own opportunities. But, even still, those opportunities didn't spring into existence all by themselves. Along with the smarts and motivation, a lot of things had to fall into place for that opportunity to happen. People who make it almost never get there all by themselves.

[TheMadHatter]

131. Well...

...I'm not defining 'smart' as in book-smart or college-educated, but rather by street smarts. Capitalism is a game where if you understand the rules you usually progress quickly.

Fortune favors the bold.

[Pithlet]

134. I wasn't talking about book smarts, either.

My statement still stands. Poor people aren't all unambitious or all too stupid to understand how capitalism works. Fortune only favors the bold if they're also lucky. If it were as easy as merely understanding capitalism, then far more people would be rich.

[julianer]

137. I think you need to find out a bit more about

socialism.

What motivates socialists is not to clamp down on individuality or opportunity - quite the opposite. What we argue is that capitalism gives opportunity by luck of birth, and that the vast majority of people never get the chance to express themselves creatively, or in any other way, because we are wage-slaves, living by selling our labour, with no time, opportunity or energy to reveal our true natures and abilities.

Socialism is about us collectively providing what we all need so we can better discover ourselves and each other. Which is nice, really, isn't it?

[evolved Anarchopunk]

122. socialism is a beautiful ideal. thank you for keeping it in

the political mainstream.

true socialism, organization from the bottom up, mmm mm

one day comrade :pals:, maybe our children will have the chance to be more human as a result of our pursuits

[mvd]

125. A general fear of government

People have been trained to think bigger government is bad, when it's just the waste (on programs that aren't helping anything/pet projects) that is a problem. Common folks think that government will raise their taxes or take away their guns. Well, many liberal Democrats like me would like to raise taxes only on the more priveleged Americans. But I won't give guarantees. I think better health care and a higher minimum wage would counter tax increases..

[laststeamtrain]

126. If the polling questions were asked the right way you'd find that they ...

not only don't really fear socialism but embrace some of it's central tenants.

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. why do staunch conservative counties in Vermont keep electing a socialist

to Congress--by landslides?


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

Who is Congressman Bernie Sanders?

Read this article and watch the short video clips:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/who-is-bernie-sanders.html

[merh]

138. Well silly, it's because most Americans have no idea what

the term socialist means. They equate it to communist and everyone knows that communism is very, very bad.

Helping others just must those you help weak :sarcasm: