Socialism ... Just what exactly is it??... It sure scares Americans..

[RethugAssKicker]

No kidding. That word is so misunderstood... I don't quite understand it...

Does it have multiple meanings?.. Can it be used multiple ways...

For instance, I as a liberal and democrat see this country as an
economy based on Capitalistic principles but with socialistic policies to improve the life of its citizens...

Is not all social programs "Socialism" ?

So why do we run from this word so much?.. Is it because the USSR had the word socialist in it.
Or is it because the Nazi party also referred to itself as Socialist?

And the Rethugs in this country absolutely hate anything socialistic! Matter of fact you are
considered an enemy of the state in their eyes!

[BootinUp]

1. from wikipedia

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.<1> As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state or community ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct — exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils — or it may be indirect — exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[xchrom]

2. just like republicans and what they believe have changed --

it's the same with socialism.

''purity'' is a descriptive -- but does little good in recognizing what really goes on.

americans haven't moved beyond their 50's notions of socialism -- and socialists.

meanwhile the world is using more and more effective ways of getting corporations to serve the interests of their countries rather than the other way around like it is here.

[HappyWeasel]

3. I think it means when the state controls more of the economy than individuals do.

There are no socialists in American politics anymore.....not even Sanders. "Socialist" is just a neo-clown lie.

[meganmonkey]

4. Propaganda

Decades of propaganda

on edit: that's why Americans run from the word, i mean

[EFerrari]

29. Right. "Socialsim" is any time that people don't buckle to corporations.

Used to be just American corporations, now it's also multinational corporate interests.

See also: "Leftists" "Communists" and "Far Left".

I've been reading a little on our history in Latin America -- that other part of America. And boy, the propaganda gets really clear, really fast. :wow:

[QuestionAll...]

5. it scares the 1%ers. not americans.

gotta have that cheap labour force, scrambling.

[The Gunslinger]

6. Greed

[personman]

24. I disagree.

but we are entitled to our own opinions. You'll note my non-existent yet even more detailed counter-argument to your non-existent detailed argument.

[The Gunslinger]

28. It's all that needs to be said

People dont want to share.

Stuff thats what this country is all about. You see it on TV. People judge you success in life by how much you have. I try not to live like this, but the bottom line is people dont want to government to take their stuff. When people think of Socialism they think that they will loose their stufff. Look at welfare. I've heard it called Socialism all the time. People with wealth dont want to pay into it.

[personman]

38. Oh, sorry, think I misunderstood...

When you said "Greed" I thought that was your answer to "What is socialism?".

Sorry about that. You can keep the snark, I have more hehe.

-personman

[Rainscents]

7. It's Anti-Corporation!

Enough say! Bernie Sander is Socialist!!! I love Bernie!!!

[HappyWeasel]

8. no...

he's just pro-labor. You can be capitalist and pro-labor.

[Rainscents]

12. He doesn't hate corporation...

He want corporation out of peoples business and they are the one who is taking over the country. Bernie is true American hero! Bernie is the ONLY congressman who NEVER taken one cents from lobbyist or from corporation whores! He really represent us.

[H2O Man]

45. Nope.

He's a socialist.

[leftchick]

10. bingo!

And the social programs in this country are slowly being privatized/corporatized. Guesss how well Big Pharma did in the last year since the medicare "drug benefit" went into effect?

[Ron Green]

9. It's the child mind . . .

Socialism is the "adult" part of society, the one making decisions for the benefit of the group.
Capitalism runs on the "child" wants and needs, and flourishes when people are most unfulfilled and needy.
The Right Wing have done a good job of convincing masses of people that the Market must be left alone to work its "magic," without interference from the State. This is like allowing a child to plow through a supermarket and eat whatever he wants.

[meganmonkey]

11. Here's an interesting link:

I haven't read this whole thing yet, but it looks pretty good...I was trying to find info about a guy (who's name I forget) who essentially created a campaign in the US in the 30's to make 'socialism' a a bad word, and I think he was hired by the gov't to do so - but since I can't remember his name I am getting nowhere. I found this, though:

http://danawilliams2.tripod.com/american_socialism.html

"The only thing most American know about socialism is they don't like it. They have been led to believe that socialism is something to be either ridiculed as impractical, or feared as an instrument of the devil."

- Leo Huberman

The above Huberman quote is one that rings very true of my experience with other American's perception to "socialism". For instance, when talking with an American about socialism (even in passing reference), their eyes squint, face contorts, and a scowl usually passes over their facial expression. Often a facial tick of some kind is elicited. In short, the average American's physically reaction to the mention of "socialism" appears to be the product of systematic, negative conditioning.

The United States is one of the few countries (if perhaps the only country) to have been primarily founded by joint-stock corporations. This unique origin contributes to an attitude and system that prevails today, with the emphasis of society on brash individualism and profit. Not surprisingly, the ideas of socialism have been thus smeared and downplayed in the US and, even if Americans wished to engage in a realistic discussion over the merits of socialism, the cultural environment and conditioning make such a discussion horribly lopsided and ill-informed.

In mentioning "socialism" to a foreigner, there is usually never the look of insurmountable horror that one receives from an American (which is often akin to profanity expressed in the presence of one's grandparents). People who are not born and raised in the United States have different impressions of socialism, and while this does not, of course, mean that they always agree with socialist ideas, they do not discount it out of hand, nor recoil in shock from its very mention.

Part of the reason for such shock on the behalf of Americans is the effect of years upon years of anti-communist propaganda. Ever since the rise of socialism as a formidable force in Europe and the growth of labor unions in the US, corporations have been fearful of their risks should the public at large decide that they want a complete overhaul of the economic system. The government propaganda, which often came from private sectors, such as the John Birch Society, accelerated when revolution hit Russia. This propaganda was primarily used to deflect the premise that there were other alternatives to capitalism that were legitimate and realistic. Many European states have popular Socialist or Left parties, with active welfare states and aborad, functioning social contract.

Although, later the US wouldn't need to bend the truth all that much when it talked of dictatorship and mass murder, immediately around 1917 the US was afraid that the example of overthrowing the wealthy and aristocratic classes of society was feasible and convincing. Thus they often made up the "evils" related to communism, and by association, socialism. There was a remarkable shift in the propaganda in the early 1940's, where the US was shouting about how Americans should unite together with their Russian brothers and sisters in fighting Hitler's Reich. Even though this campaign was short-lived, it speaks of the remarkable lengths that policy makers will go to (even in contradiction), to achieve a certain political end, international or domestic.

more at link...

http://danawilliams2.tripod.com/american_socialism.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

32. excellent essay

Thanks!

[eallen]

13. Depends on what you mean by "socialism." If all you mean is social programs...

No one is against it. There will be bickering, of course, about what kind of social programs. But everyone except anarchists believe in courts and a criminal justice system, i.e., a social program for handling retribution.

I think it's sort of silly to call this socialism, though, since social programs of all sorts antedated Proudhon, Fourier, and Marx and the other socialists by many centuries, and in some cases, by millenia. I use "socialism" to mean the variety of economic systems proposed by the 19th century socialists, where the means of production is not privately owned, but either owned directly by the workers using it, or nationalized by the state. And I oppose socialism, in that sense. As a liberal, I oppose it vigorously for two reasons. First, it takes considerable state involvement to manage all a nation's means of production, and that historically has led to very intrusive, illiberal forms of government. The anarchist variety of socialism I consider just pie in the sky, for if there is no legal framework to prevent it, the means of production would again be traded and leased and managed in all the forms of exchange that the socialists find evil, but implementing those legal constraints devolves the system into state socialism. Second, socialism has a terrible economic track record. Capitalism essentially works by implementing a genetic algorithm by which business processes constantly evolve, and the means of production continually shifts, as old businesses die and new ones are created. That fluidity of capital and business destruction requires the separation of labor and capital, which separation is precisely what socialism forbids.

[wurzel]

14. Today it is "Managed Capitalism"

Most socialists seem to believe that certain social requirements must be taxpayer financed and goverment controlled: like roads, healthcare, police, prisons, energy supply, and military. The production of non-essentials like toys, cars, clothing etc. should remain in private hands, but regulated to prevent monopolies. They are not sure what to do about food production and housing.

[codjh9]

15. Jim4West is probably more correct than I am, and I agree the Repugnicants got a

lot of their fear from 1) the fact that USSR has 'Socialist' in it, and 2) the constant twinning of 'communism' and 'socialism' in ignorant conservative rants - BUT, I thought that in recent times (i.e. last 50 years), socialism was primarily the Western European model, with national control (in varying degrees) of healthcare, universities, retirement(?), some housing, railroads, etc., but capitalism in all or almost all other types of businesses. To me it's a kind of 'have your cake and eat it too' kind of society, but not to conservatives. Kurt Vonnegut said something like 'ugh, Socialism - free healthcare, universities and retirement - who would want THAT?'. :^)

[Jim Warren]

16. One parallel comes to mind

Think of it something like christianity: a belief system often talked about but not really ever put into practice.

[eallen]

26. Which suggests that both are incongruous with humanity.

People have tried just about every kind of belief system and social practice that can be tried. They certainly have put an effort into Christianity, in a broad variety of ways, for the last two millenia, and likewise for socialism, the last two centuries. If they have failed to achieve either, more than anything, that suggests these theories are simply incompatible with human nature.

Christianity claims as much, referring to man's inherently sinful nature, which will tarnish all he practices until he is resurrected in heaven. Interestingly, communists have made a similar excuse/explanation with regard to Marxism. Since the economic system determines human nature, everyone today is tarred by the capitalist system. True communism will be achieved only hand in hand with the creation of a new man.

[Cerridwen]

17. Socialism puts people before businesses and corporations.

It's very threatening to those who would protect their business interests; especially if those interests profit on the back of "the people."

As meganmonkey said, it's decades of propaganda. I'll add that the propaganda and enculturation includes much of what we learn in school (K-12).

Some interesting reading to get a feel for the socialist ideas which have permeated the U.S. consciousness since the "founding" of the U.S., is Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States"

We are not yet completely capitalistic though the "ruling elite" are working on it. It's very scary to those who have grown up with the idea the capitalism is the only viable economic system and that it's "natural" for some to have and others to have not. I credit much of the political activism of the 60s with bringing to the fore, our history of socialistic tendencies.

[smtpgirl]

18. Because Socialism works better than Democracy,

even though the US is a Republic, not a Democracy

[demosincebirth]

19. Socialism was a growing politcal party in the U.S., untill WW1

Its biggest supporters were labor unions.

[irislake]

20. If you ask me Americans are

completely irrational about socialism. Many are also very uninformed and believe that Canada is a socialist country -- because we have universal health care. (Don't you have universal education? Does that make you a socialist country?)The Conservatives are a minority government in Canada now. Ordinarily the Liberals are in power federally.Both parties are usually left of your Dems but Stephen Harper is a Neocon. Wish had Socialist government. To most Americans Liberal is a dirty word. God only knows why. Must be the steady brain-washing you get from your corporate media.

[personman]

25. The people who really own the country don't want us getting any crazy ideas

about what our own best interests are.

[RethugAssKicker]

46. Agree with you completely... except

We have universal education for K-12 only.. A college education here in America, is far from universal..

I tell people all the time that what we consider liberal here (like the Democratic Party) would be considered conservative in Canada and Europe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. It calls for the equality of the races.

So way back when, the rich used race baiting to scare the poor people into hating socialism.

[RethugAssKicker]

47. an continues till this day !

[GeorgeGist]

22. It's the opposite of ...

anti-socialism which too many Americans covet.

[personman]

23. Dictators love words like 'socialist'

because it implies they are working on behalf of the people. (Someone see how often dubya says 'democracy'?)

To me socialism means 'to benefit the people'.

Then you have your state-socialists or your libertarian-socialists (anarchists).

[hsher]

27. I love Democratic Socialism, but...

I think it's because of the negative connotations of three things:

1) The Nazis (National Socalists), who were actually as far from Socialist, being fascists, as left is from right, using that in their name;

2) Right-wing idiots using the word as an instant, microwaveable pejorative so their uneducated sheep listeners, who haven't even looked up the word "Socialism" in a dictionary - and probably don't own dictionaries - will immediately equate it will evil;

and

3) The Socialist propensity for using Communist rhetoric and symbology on their websites.

a) Comrade this, comrade that
b) Upraised fists clutching hammers
c) Too much f*cking red color

Anyone for helping me design new imagery for American Socialism? I was thinking some t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc., with updated, new, relevant imagery. Any graphic artists out there want to give this a go with me on Cafe Press?

[Doll Parts]

30. you can't be a liberal and a socialist at the same time.

You just can't. A modern American liberal is one who supports the capitalist system, and the ruling class in power, (at least a segment of the ruling class, i.e., the Democrats) even though they probably don't think they're being ruled. A socialist, a true socialist at least, supports and advocates working class revolution where the working class takes state power (I'm speaking from a Marxist point of view) and run things democratically.

Reformist socialism is things like universal health care, social security, etc. In my opinion, I think that's far from socialism. The origins of modern socialism lie with working class self-emancipation, not preserving the economic system that oppresses and exploits them. You can reform the capitalist system all you want, but inequality, classes, exploitation, and oppression will still remain. Capitalism must be replaced.

I'm not a liberal, I don't support the Democrats, and I'm sure some of you would wonder why a Marxist is here. I actually used to be a liberal back in the day, but after doing some reading and studying, I've abandoned liberalism. I'm not being condescending to liberals or anything. I've actually been wanting to make a post or reply for some time now because it seems there's this big misrepresentation of what socialism/communism/Marxism really is.

[rman]

40. Sure you can

you can support having both capitalism and tax-funded social services, as it has been in the US and in Europe for ages. The alternative is being created as we speak: total capitalism, everything privatized.
Heck, there ever are RW-ers who don't think it's a good idea to privatize everything.

[RethugAssKicker]

48. we'd have to use a different term than 'Socialism'

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. It is the power of propaganda

[upi402]

33. union workers say the label "socialist" with a sneer

but unions are the very definition of socialism to me.

they are brainwashed by the Hanity Limbaugh zombies

[Naturyl]

42. You're very right.

It's unbelievable to me that any union member could go Republican. They clearly don't know what a labor union actually is...

[Odin2005]

34. Socialism is the control of the means of production by the workers themselves

In Capitalism you have a parasitic "Investor class" that steals most of the wealth generated by workers as profit, Socialsim gets rid of the parasites.

One common misconception is that the Soviet economy was socialist, it wasn't, it was State Capitalist (the economy fuctioned as a single, government-owned corporation), which is much closer to Fascism then it is to real socialism. a true socialist economy would be dominated by co-ops that interact in a strongly regulated market economy.

[RethugAssKicker]

50. BINGO !..... 100% Accurate.

[ComerPerro]

35. Socialism is extremely wrong for America, here's why

we have too many Republican assholes here for it to work.

That's the reason Socialism can't work anywhere. Right Wing assholes.

Who among the freepers, for example, would actually only take according to their need, and actually give according to their ability?

Not a one.

They would drag society down.

[upi402]

36. Social Security, unions, medicaid ...

Considered socialist and wingnuts hate it. So they're happy, plenty to hate and be miserable about!:party:

[Selatius]

57. ComerPerro does bring up a good point, regrettably

If we study examples of socialism in action, we see that most examples found in history ended because they were either crushed by stalinists or were crushed by fascists with much bloodshed. (See Spanish Civil War and the Anarchist communes) If there were a way to create a new continent where socialists could move and then shut the door behind them to prevent those who seek only personal profit and domination over others, then maybe socialists would be left alone to do what they want instead of being killed or persecuted to challenging the pre-existing power structure.

[area51]

37. socialism

Considering that we have a socialist military, police force, fire dept., road repair, medicare, medicaid, all paid for out of our tax dollars, there's no reason why we can't join the civilized countries & have universal healthcare.

[Naturyl]

39. Socialism is good, but humanism is better.

I have a lot of sympathy for socialism, and I'm generally of the view that capitalism should be "phased out" as technology continues to improve and makes adequate living standards for all a realistic possibility. However, I oppose socialism's singular focus on the working class. I think we should have an economic order that serves the "human class" - all of the people, working or otherwise. I call it "economic humanism," and it is an approach which holds that all human beings have a right to the necessities of life as an entitlement. I don't oppose work, but I do oppose setting any conditions on people's right to be fed, clothed, and housed in a society which claims to be "civilized."

[eridani]

41. People often associate socialism with state ownership of the means of production

That isn't the only kind. There is the alternative that everybody owns their own means of production, either as individuals or collectively at any level. Me, I don't think anybody should own anybody else's means of production, but I recognize that in our present world most people just don't want to take that much responsibility for owning their jobs.

The Repubs call anything that is in the public sphere (transportation infrastructure, fire and police, schools, etc.) socialist, and wish that feudal lords could own all of this stuff privately. It is socialist in a sense--taxes from everybody that are used to benefit everybody. (Most other industrial countries put health care in the infrastructure category instead of in the iPod category.) All the private activity involved in producing most consumer goods stands firmly upon decent investments in public infrastructure. This is what Repubs are trying to destroy when they holler "socialist" all the time.

[and-justice-for-all]

43. Because Socialism WORKS or at least could....

...I have, for a long while, thought that it should be the basic fullfillment of a societies Governmental indeity to provide the basic livining needs to its citizens.

Like:
Water, Natural Gas, Electricity, Health Care and Primary Education.

There would be an average set for untilities and if you exceeded that you would have to pay the difference.

Health Care should not be a compatition or a race for sick or even dying customers; depending on the size of a city there should be 1 health care facility. As the population of that city grows so does the health care facility. Phamacutical companies should also be made to work on immediate cures or vaccines rather then drugs that just drag out the illness. The Govenment should not hesitate in funding medical advancements like Stem-Cell research; dogma should never be a weihing factor on the betterment of society.

Speaking of cures and dogma, here is something VERY disturbing that I just read in "Letter to a Christian Nation." Reginald Finger, an Evangical memeber of the CDC's Advisory Committee on the Immunization Pratices, recently announced that he would consider OPPOSING an HIV vaccine- thereby condemning millions of men and women to die unnecessarily from AIDS each year- because such a vaccine would encourage premarital sex by making it less risky. This point, along with many others only proves that religious beliefs are lethal. Reginald Finger, with others that agree with him, would be committing genocide. I attest that those people are the primary reason as to why there has not been an HIV/AIDS vaccine!

[TheBaldyMan]

44. Socialism in a nutshell : progressive economic and social policy n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I Like John Lennon's Definition Of Socialism

In his last interview which was done by Playboy before his assassination he was asked if he was a socialist. He said if socialism means the government should pay for granny to have her teeth fixed then he's a socialist...

I favor a free market system as long there is a minimum standard of living that no person who wants to and is able to work falls below...

[treestar]

53. The populace of the country has such an all-or-nothing view of everything

I agree with you, why not have "socialism" that works up to a specific point and let it be free market after that?

It's like the absurd welfare program, where they can't graduate it at all but as soon as you get a minimum wage job with no health benefits, you're off the rolls and now have no health coverage, which you did while on welfare.

They could at least do it as to health care coverage. When the opponents whine about how inefficient that is, the answer would be it is better than nothing for the poor, and the rich can always spend their money on extras.

[Naturyl]

56. But non-working people can just die?

Why exclude millions of Americans?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. I Think You Should Read More Closely...

Of course if you are physically or mentally challenged to the point where you can not work then a humane society should see you're being looked after...

[treestar]

51. I have this debate going with right wingers

that I know - they insist on using the label "socialist" for anything that has the least element of collective from the whole to distribute to the needy.

I'm waiting for them to find insurance companies "socialist." When you get to essentials, that is what insurance is. So if we can spread the risk for auto accidents or the like, we could spread the risk for poverty, but right wingers want to believe it is a reflection of their virtue that they have escaped poverty.

They label everything from welfare to social security as "socialism" but never see it that way if our taxes are spent assauging their exaggerated fears of terra or of losing our way of life and have to fight them over there if we don't fight them over here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Their Favorite Institution Is Socialist

The military...

[Selatius]

55. Insurance companies are most definitely not socialist

An insurance company, like any for-profit entity, exists to enrich shareholder value first and foremost. Providing a public service in the form of coverage is considered secondary to the first imperative. As a result, not everybody is covered because not everybody is considered profitable to cover. This is why the sick and the elderly have trouble being covered for their medical expenses. Sometimes the insurance company drops them for being too much of a liability on the company.

Socialists and Anarchists have condemned this "but this is business" philosophy as stifling and inhumane.

[Selatius]

54. Joe McCarthy and Woodrow Wilson made socialism a dirty word

Socialism is a description of an economy where the means of production are owned by workers and administered by workers in a democratic fashion.

The Soviet Union, by that definition, was not socialist by the fact that the state was neither democratic nor equitable in its distribution of resources to the population. Resources were hoarded by the Party, and only those who proved most loyal to the Party received the most. It sounds like the description of your typical Fortune 500 corporation, and it is, which is why most reformist state socialists and anarchists (aka libertarian socialists) have condemned the Soviet model as state capitalism in reality.

Capitalism is a description of an economy where the means of production are owned by a small number of people, where everybody else is made dependent upon them by virtue of the fact that everybody depends on the means of production for survival. That's the US economy to a certain extent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Tony Blair clames to be a socialist, Ken Livingstone claims not to be - it's a useless word.

Socialism is not a well-defined term. Some communists use it to mean "communism, and nothing but"; some right-wing Republicans use it to mean "any form of government expenditure on health, welfare, education etc".

There are a great many things called socialism that I would vigorously support, and a great many I would fight to the death against.

Saying "I am a socialist" or "I am not a socialist" tells me a lot about how you want me to view you, but very little indeed about what you actually believe.

It's a word that's become sufficiently ambiguous that it's not worth using. Say "I believe in XYZ" instead, rather than trying to use "socialism" as a shorthand.

[annabanana]

60. Word's been poisoned by corporate propaganda for decades.

The dunderheads just see it as another manifestation of Satan.

[Selatius]

61. Want to see what REAL socialism looks like?

George Orwell wrote this observation in his book Homage to Catalonia during his time as a fighter 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.

It is important to note in many Anarchist areas of Spain during that period that this was going on. Factories, farmlands, etc. that were abandoned by previous owners in the chaos became collectivized and operated by the people in libertarian communes. Even restaurants, shops, etc. were collectivized by the workers. Factories and other firms were run by assemblies of workers who delegated power and managed production themselves. They, more often than not, produced at a higher level of productivity than before the collectivization, and in some areas, money either fell out of use completely, or it was replaced by labor notes and vouchers. Some goods, as a result, where as much as a quarter the cost as a result.

In the end, the "experiment" came to an end through a combination of stalinist and fascist attack. When fascist dictator Francisco Franco won and assumed power over Spain, the communes were crushed. Thousands were imprisoned and tortured in the following years.