Why do the Republicans think "socialism" is so evil ??

[kentuck]

Since they are the probably the higher income earners in this country, they would probably receive more in monthly Social Security checks than the average Democrat. And that is the #1 "social" program in this country. In just about every government handout, they receive more "social" dollars than the Democrats, so what do they have against "socialism"?

Do they think it corrupts people and makes them lazy and dependent? Or do they think it takes from the greediest and gives to the neediest? What exactly do Republicans dislike about socialism since they do so well at taking our tax dollars and giving it to their own kind??

[neuvocat]

1. Its easier to call something evil than deal with their own guilt.

[The Straight Story]

2. Because in a weird way

it opposes, to them, evolution - the most fit must help the weakest. If it is survival of the fittest then socialism to them would be against nature....

[99Pancakes]

3. Can't make us all slaves

That's the republi-can't agenda: A handful of RICH and millions of poor wiping their butts.

[NVMojo]

4. try telling them you are sick and tired of Republican socialism for the

rich and the corporations. Watch them go ballistic!! HAHAHAHA!!!! Been there, done that!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. They don't know what it is.

[newscott]

6. I think they also confuse it with the

"communism" practiced in China and the former Soviet Union.

[HereSince1628]

7. Socialism suggests everyone recieve according to their needs

Which one one level means that the haves take care of the have nots.

Republicans go off the deep end and see every social program as a
path into communism where they fear that capital will be siezed and owned by everyone, which you must admit is sort of hard on the standard business model.

[murdoch]

19. well that's communism, not socialism

Marx defined communism (actually he borrowed this from someone else, who probably borrowed it from someone else - actually Acts of the Apostles even has something similar to this) as "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

The Soviet constitution at one point defined socialism as "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their work". Molotov was always unhappy about this though, because he felt the first part of it was incorrect. He didn't think people could live up to their fullest potential under socialism, only under communism.

For those unfamiliar with Marxian theory, Marxists think that societies go through eras, take Rome for an example. Not going into even earlier forms of society, ancient Rome under the Roman republic was a slave state. 1000 years later it was a feudal state. A few decades/centuries ago it became a capitalist state. The next stage in Marxian theory would for it to become socialist, e.g. workers keeping all the wealth they create instead of giving part of it to a capitalist (e.g. their boss, the company owner). The stage after that would be communism - people produce what they can, people take what they need, without regard to an exact trade of work hours.

I should note the Italian communist party technically won the election in 1948 but it was stolen from them, helped by the US. This monkey business continued right up to today - in 1976 they got over one third of the vote, and lost the election by less than 5% of the vote.

[gratuitous]

8. They think "socialism" is evil only when . . .

YOU are getting the benefit. When a major corporation bails out on its pension obligations and dumps it on Joe and Jane Taxpayer, then socialism is just fine!

[raccoon]

37. Yes, and when a single mother and kids are on Medicaid

they resent that...but when they get their Social Security checks and are on Medicare, that's just fine.

[Up2Late]

9. It make screwing the Poor almost imposable,

Plus, everyone usually gets affordable healthcare.:evilgrin:

[Mountainman]

10. Repukes are a bunch of self centered individuals. They care about

number one, themselves.

Socialism is just the opposite of that idea. They would have to admit to social ills caused by their selfishness.

I read once that a major part of a conservative's make up is the ability to not care about other people's suffering.

If you take the repuke agenda to it's final end what there will be is two classes, the wealthy and the working poor. The repukes are working to put the wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Socialism works against that. They won't admit it but repuke believe in redistribution of wealth. They take it from us in taxes and spend it on themselves.

[Lexingtonian]

11. they're colonialists

By descent and by ideology. The exploitation of others' labor, minds, and land is the true job for which all white Christian Americans have been put on this Earth by Jesus.

RICHES, n.

A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." - John D. Rockefeller

The reward of toil and virtue. - J.P. Morgan

The savings of many in the hands of one. -Eugene Debs

To these excellent definitions the inspired lexicographer feels that he can add nothing of value.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)

[xray s]

12. For starters, they don't know what the hell the term socialism means

here is the actual definition;

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Social programs are not socialism. They have nothing to do with the state owning the means of production. An effective not-for-profit health insurance program like Medicare isn't socialism. Publicly funded education isn't socialism. Environmental regulation isn't socialism.

They have taken any government program that benefits society as a whole and labeled it socialism and we let them get away with it.

Socialism is merely a word that elicits a Pavlovian response deep in the American brain, a response that Republicans exploit to enrich themselves and hold other people down.

Simple greed is really all they are about.

[demwing]

18. Thank you

It is not necessary to be an apologist for socialism in order to argue against the corporate sponsored greed of the right. Only the theocons believe such nonsense.

[eallen]

13. "Socialism" has a broad variety of meanings....

I take the liberal's stance on economics, which I think is a combination of two things: (1) Capitalism is good for its adaptability and productivity. It is no accident that European nations with deep social programs, such as Finland, nonetheless rely on a capitalist economy to generate the wealth needed to fund those programs. (2) Capitalism isn't a pure good, but is the result of a political framework that needs also to take into account issues other than pure economics, that should guard against the excesses and externalities of capitalism, and that has to be concerned about its citizens who are born into the world helpless, who leave it aged, and who resemble homo economicus only imperfectly, and only for a middle period of their lives.

To me, the term "socialism" isn't so much about social programs, which is how the original poster used it, but rather describes a government that nationalizes the means of production, or at least, that aims to somehow eliminate the capitalist component. As a liberal, I think that is a bad idea, because I think that capitalist component is the goose that lays the golden eggs. By all means, talk about penning it, cleaning up its shit, and keeping it away from the children. But let's not kill it. Of course, some people use "socialism" to mean that, so...

:bounce:

[kodi]

14. it impedes their greed quest

John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that modern conservatives were engaged in that hoariest of philosophical exercises -- the search for a moral justification for selfishness.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Solon]

21. You lost me at the first sentence...

First you shot off with the myth of "Welfare Mothers in Welfare Cadillacs" right off the bat, not a good comparison, considering it is largely a MYTH!!!! Hate when people use Republican lies to form opinions.
Source:
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-welfaretrap.htm

Second, the American Federal Government isn't a monolithic entity, regardless of how you were taught about it. To give an example, the most WASTEFUL department is the DOD, versus Medicare(overhead costs of 3%, versus for private health care its more like 20-30%).

As for your last paragraph, yes I agree we have a knee jerk, erronious, negative reaction to the word socialism, mainly due to comparisons between it and the USSR. Also you make an erronious comparison between AirBus and Boeing, for Airbus is partially(About 30 percent) owned(through EADS) by 3 different governments through holding companies of those governments(France, Britian, Spain). Boeing is not owned, in any part, by the US government, hence is not nearly as regulated as Airbus is.

This puts Boeing at an economic disadavantage, despite the fact that EADS is still number 2 right now. However, the response, by our government, makes no sense, because we give them money, without any strings attached, that may not turn into any benefit for our national interest at all. Instead we get some of the worst cases of waste in government ever seen, such as the Osprey(how many test pilots dead so far?), or the F-22(hey, It only became obsolete last year!). Don't get me started on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, how many times was it rebuilt and redesigned again, at the cost of billions?

Note, not all of these are a result of Boeing contracts but both combined stupidity of CEOs and Generals and also includes companies like GM, Lockheed-Martin, and Ford as well.

Basically my view on government subsidies of private corporations is simple. If they cannot compete in any market without subsidies from the government, then they do not exist in a free market(think Airlines and jet fuel prices), so, why have a pretense of that at all? Why not just have the government outright own certain corporations, and run them as well? If you think this idea is radical, think about this, how many NG companies supply gas to your home? I would bet one, and the reason is this, Natural Gas lines cannot be shared by competitors, one company's natural gas cannot be separated from anothers in the same line, and building multiple lines in a single neighborhood is both expensive and unsafe. So, as a response, natural monopolies were created that were either totally or partially owned by local governments, to both lower prices, and to have price fixing.

This applies to most utility companies in some form or another, except for maybe AmerenUE or other power companies. However, the government gives them money for rural, non-profitable electrification, an FDR program initiative, to provide electricity to farmers and rural towns. Same deal for Telephone companies as well. Spread the cost, and none of us would have to pay through the nose. Of course, de-regulation throws a huge ass wrench into this, to give an example, our gas company was recently deregulated, tripling gas prices, and the problem is, there is no free market, they are a MONOPOLY, I don't know what the government was smoking.

On a last note(I know, I'm long worded), on your choices, they are already limited by economics, what's the quantitive difference. As far as I can tell, at least in theory, we control the government, but, unless you own 51% of the shares of specific companies, you don't control them. Also, before you say we "vote with our dollars", that simply means we have a privatized plutocracy, because the poor have less votes than the rich in this case, where is the democracy in that?

[Lost147]

wow good info

I must say after reading your post and looking into the link (which seems much more than likely to be credible) I agree with a lot of the points you make.

[Lost147]

30. wow good info

I must say after reading your post and looking into the link (which seems much more than likely to be credible) I agree with a lot of the points you make.

[Cats Against Frist]

38. Yeah, I agree with much of what you said, and it would make a lot of sense

EXCEPT that the "other party," who is supposed to be in favor of limited government, in fact, is NOT, and are right-wing authoritarians, corporatists and theocrats. I'm a minarchist, and for decentralization, and while I am still in support of social programs, I think they should all be created and administered on the local level.

The problem with the GOP is that they aren't "free market," at all -- bailing out corporations, barring drugs from Canada (limiting consumer choice), having family members of huge companies writing US policy, and expanding the prescription drug benefit, as a handout to pharmaceutical corporations isn't "free market." Neither is prohibiting the sale of drugs and pornography, and regulating gambling and television content -- pet projects of the religious right.

If this were a "free market" and things were decentralized, I think that is a good first step. Problem is, the GOP is just as unwilling to go there, as the Democrats. Conservatives have their own agenda -- and it IS NOT freedom or small government. It's patriarchy, order, authoritarianism and aristocracy. Same thing they've always been about.

[area51]

16. republinazis don't like socialism...

... so therefore, they shouldn't get any Social Security checks, shouldn't send their kids to public schools, shouldn't drive on the freeways, use the services of police or fire depts./ambulances, shouldn't have the military protect their sorry asses, shouldn't use Medicare, etc., b/c all of these things come from our tax $, & are socialistic. I think I just heard freepscum heads explode. :evilgrin:

[Lone_Wolf]

17. There are many reasons why the Repuke leaders dislike it...

The Corporate Repukes hate it for two reasons:

First, it means less available money for the kind of socialism they like: corporate welfare.

Secondly, they like to see the masses as desperate as possible. This makes the masses more dependent on the rich for their livelihoods. Thus, the masses willing to work for lower raises and benefits.

The Repukes leaders from the Religious Right hate socialism because they feel it takes people away from their churches. Historically speaking, churches provided people with welfare which had the effect of increasing the number of members a church had. The more members a church has then the more influence and power it wields. When government provides welfare (i.e socialism) it makes people less dependent on the church and decreases membership in churches. If you want to see Christian fundamentalism REALLY grow in this country, then take away government welfare. Even better, you could give government money to the churches and let them administer welfare to the most vulnerable and needy in society...

oh wait...

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. Bernie Sanders - an open socialist -wins Republican Counties by landslides

:bounce:

Here are some good articles that give a clue to how he does it:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2126

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

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/05/anatomy-of-progressive-campaign.html
:bounce:

[Bluerthanblue]

20. control=power=money and...

i personally belive that many people who call themselves republicans feel very out of control- and very afraid.
Money gives them the illiusion that they can 'control' the world- and thier 'fate'- That is also the drive behind alot of fundementalist religious 'mind-sets' (i learned that one, from personal experience).

"Your not the boss of me" often times, because "the boss of them" was not a 'very nice person'- and history repeats itself, unless one makes the CHOICE- and does the WORK of changing generational failures.

GW is a prime example- of one who has failed to learn from the past- From what i saw of the 'family examples' of John Kerry, he saw the 'flaws' and made the choice to not allow them to carry forth onto his children.

people who hoard, and are suspect of everyone and everything, and look for the 'worst' in others, are quite often pretty scared, insecure old in years, but stuck in childhood.

sad, huh?

[election_2004]

23. Here's why....

My parents are Republicans: they are convinced that "socialized" anything (not the least of which is the concept of "socialized medicine") will be giving the government more power to limit their choices in life.

[LuPeRcALiO]

24. because they don't like the idea of paying anybody else's way.

1. selfishness, 2. greed, 3. reinforcement from various religious ideas about election and reprobation. But basically #1.

[LittleClarkie]

25. Because they just don't know what to do with themselves

since the Soviet Union went bye bye. Gotta hate and fear SOMEbody.

[TorchTheWitch]

26. They have no idea what socialism is

They bought the rightwing spin that socialism equates to cold war era USSR... say "socialism" and they've been programmed to think "KGB/Pravda/can't even buy a single lemon anywhere in the whole country/eeeeeeeeeekkkkkk!"

[Selatius]

27. Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism

The school of socialism holds many differing camps. Socialists are divided on how to achieve a socialist order. Some advocate using the state and legislating it in, while others advocate direct organization and education of the people in order to build socialist structures outside the framework of government. It's the difference between state socialism and anarcho-socialism (aka libertarian socialism, anarchism, or liberal socialism).

To be a capitalist means to be in a state of ownership over capital, an owner of the resources and means of production others need to survive as well, and people wishing to use them must pay in somoe way for the privilege of using them. This is a great way to control people, but it's a system that actively encourages people to divide themselves and fight and compete against each other.

I advocate a way that is fundamentally different than that. I advocate mutual, sustainable cooperation for all not just for the sake of humanity but for the long-term survivability of earth as a living planet.

I consider myself more of an anarcho-socialist or a socialist with a very large libertarian bent. Concentrated decision-making power can become tremendously dangerous, and I say rather than a community choosing someone else to make decisions for them and thereby giving up its own power and entrusting someone else with it, the people in the community should aim to make decisions for themselves, and anyone appointed would only be empowered to carry out the mandate given him or her, not make decisions for the people. If that is not possible, then try to come as close as excruciatingly possible to that goal.

I aim for a form of socialism that is highly democratic in nature but also aims to respect the liberty of each individual to choose a path of living. Some dub it "voluntary socialism" or "laissez-faire socialism."

I aim for a society George Orwell encountered and wrote about about when he was fighting in the Spanish Civil War:

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life – snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. – had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

Here is background on the form of socialism I advocate:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anarchism

[Old_Fart]

28. Because it causes people to discuss the issues and put programs together

Look at how they treat abortion for instance. They want the kids to have babies but after the baby is born they want to starve it and make it live on the streets.

Socialism doesn't promote hypocrites. Republicans are greedy hypocrites. They would walk on their parents in order to pick up a penny that fell on the streets out of someone else's pockets.

Republicans are the Robin Hoods of modern times except they are the exact opposite. They rob from the poor and give to the rich.

[NuttyFluffers]

29. because they are conditioned lab rats.

we keep getting these questions, we keep coming to the same answer. wading through these people's deepest thoughts would barely moisten your robe's hem. sheeple, kool-aid cultists, zealots, fanatics, nimrods, pavlov's dogs, whatever, it's the same thing. these are people who are devoid of any thinking processes. morans, the lot of them.

[sendero]

31. Because...

.... they can't make as much money in a socialist society.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING the Republicans and their main constituencies do comes down to property. Everything.

[leesa]

32. Because the GOP bid corporate folks have convinced them that

private firms function better despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. They make big bucks and the yokels vote to keep them in power against their own interest.

[KingFlorez]

33. Socialism

I think everyone else explained it perfectly. To me, it's their fear that the poor will be given a level playing field and greed will disappear. I consider myself a Social Democrat.

[deutsey]

39. Also: it's not enough for Republicans that they win.

For them, someone else must lose as well.

Socialism is a system designed around the premise that we can all win by building a society dedicated to allocating resources for the common good.

[JerseygirlCT]

34. They don't play well with others. nt

[leftyclimber]

35. Because it is a philosophy that assumes everyone really IS created equal.

We can't have that now, eh? :eyes:

[stranger81]

46. exactly . . . . . it offends their sense of hierarchy

as they say, some animals are more equal than others.

[bitchkitty]

36. Because they are greedy.

And they hate the poor.

A blanket statement, no doubt, but a big blanket, covering a lot of Republicans.

[Chavez_in_08]

45. so true!

i have a die-hard republican uncle, who oft times quips "screw the poor i aint one of them" and yet he dares calls himself chrisitan?! hmm on another note, notice how the repukes are perfectly fine with giving billions of dollars in aid to companies, that kind of welfare is ok because it helps the rich and screws the poor, but if we try to help and empower the poor to become better they might challenge the system and that is not acceptable to the republicans

[leftofthedial]

40. their prime reason for existence is to protect the capitalst status quo

anything that takes wealth from everyone to be used for the common good is evil to a capitalist. A capitalist believes that the only legitimate use of wealth is to create more wealth for the wealthy individual.

They believe fundamentally that taxation is socialism.

[seabeyond]

41. it doesnt allow for individuality

i think that is the scariest for people. look at some of the issues on board, it is about taking individualism away from people and directing them to live one way, by rule.....not allowing for independent decision making. i personally dont want to live that way. as much as i want to get bush out, the last couple days listening to some of the issues, i am getting scared of democrat power over me. attacking me on my individualism from another direction.

where as the patriarch system of the republican is ruling me, that they are my father and need to make decision for me, being the all powerful white male, and i am to follow their instruction obediently.

not going to happen, either way.

[neoblues]

42. Survival of the fittest...

I wonder why Republicans/Conservatives who in the main oppose Darwin's theory of evolution when it comes to biology, cling so tightly to the notion of survival of the fittest when considering economics?

In any case, Socialism is such a hated word for them because it would mean the end of their advantage in terms of wealth, power and privilege. While there are wealthy members of both political parties, the Republican party decidedly represents the wants and desires of the ultra-wealthy, corporate/big business. That is, they are blatant supporters of capitalism and the so-called free-market. That's just another way of saying their guiding principle is greed. Socialism, which would bring much greater fairness in the distribution of wealth would be catastrophic for them.

Of course, they make full use of the available arguments against such a system. That includes the "apparent" historical examples of socialism. Unfortunately, oppressive, totalitarian regimes have used aspects of socialism to justify their existence. That they took ownership of the means of production as a means to control and dominate their populations may let them claim to be socialistic, but they don't represent a true, proper examples of socialism. Even so, these abuses do make it easy to discredit Socialism in the minds of those who don't know much about the subject.

Socialism has never been tried by a nation capable of adaptive behavior, such as a democracy (democratic republic such as ours). A government of, by and for the people which also actively seeks to pursue the best, most fair economic system for all of it's people (rather than actively seeking to enrich and empower only it's leading political party or dictator), might actually succeed beyond our best hopes!

In any case, theories of Socialism have had significant complications or problems. However, great thinkers haven't stopped considering the topic of fair and just human society and economic organization...
You'll find links to the most promising theory I've come across below...

"Participatory Economics" (Parecon for short) is a type of economy proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalism. The underlying values are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutions are workers and consumers councils utilizing self managed decision making, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning... see

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

for more.

[LSK]

43. because Socialism = USSR

And they have been PROGRAMMED to believe the USSR was the evil empire, the dire enemy of all good Americans.

You are giving repukes too much credit to think that they analyzed it any deeper than that.

[Blue_Tires]

44. ttt n/t

[moondust]

47. Taxes.

A major ingredient in their Kool-Aid is taxophobia. They know that socialism usually means big taxes. They're typically too narrow-minded, selfish, and greedy to think or care about larger concepts like "the greater good" or "the public weal." They don't give a rat's ass about the public beyond what they can soak it for.