Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

reply to post by Rob37n

Because we are a Constitutional republic, thats what we where founded on ,
Everyone just forgot that

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by JonoEnglish


I wish I could consider myself wealthy! Firstly, I agree 100% with your statement about responsibility, thus limits on how long someone can take from a social program, and yes, responsibility...if you are on food stamps, you should not be buying beer, cigarettes, etc. If you live in subsidized housing...that damn community better look like it is well kept!

As to fair...I just do not agree, every person has the ability to better themselves...at what point should the needs of the recipient class outweigh the rights of the provider. I am not against helping people, or social programs...I am against it being a way of life.

Originally posted by BigFrigginAl
reply to post by JonoEnglish

 

As to fair...I just do not agree, every person has the ability to better themselves...at what point should the needs of the recipient class outweigh the rights of the provider. I am not against helping people, or social programs...I am against it being a way of life.

I'm against it being a way of life too. Living off the benefits system is wrong when you don't contribute anything back.

Socialism is more than a benefits system or social programs.

It's a way of balancing Corporate America. Like I say, people fear the government becoming powerful and have the chance to change that government through elections. The big corps are run by unelected representatives, who are only out to make $'s for themselves and not in the interests of the American public.

Socialist government run organisations that may supply electricity, water, transport, gas etc will allow fairness to all Americans who use them services. The pivate competition will be kept in check by the government in power. The government won't actually profit or own them organisations, it will be every American who pays tax that will reap the rewards.

That's the fairness I mean. See, it's actually more about looking after every American not the few.

reply to post by Rob37n


Because both of those ridiculous systems dont work, and more importantly, they are unconstitutional.

case closed.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Rob37n

 

Because both of those ridiculous systems dont work, and more importantly, they are unconstitutional.

case closed.

Communism is wrong.

Socialism is great for society. Why can't you allow Capitalism to wok alongside socialism, or even contemplate it?

reply to post by JonoEnglish


Socialism is great for society? Maybe for the bottom rung of society, yes, but as for others....no way.

True socialism is an enemy of freedom.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by JonoEnglish

 

Socialism is great for society? Maybe for the bottom rung of society, yes, but as for others....no way.

True socialism is an enemy of freedom.

Well you can say, capitalism is an enemy of freedom as you don't have a democratic right to change the direction of the big mega corps that have an impact on every American.

reply to post by JonoEnglish


Of course you have the right. You can vote for politicians who dont take corporate money.

You can also vote with your dollars by not giving them to those evil corporations.

The problem isnt with the system, but with the government.

So now we have practically every form of governance thrown into the mix. Still many would like to throw Capitalism and Corporatism in as if they're a form of Government. Many have so far confused them with Democracy and True Socialism.

There are no true Democracies or Socialist Governments on Earth. The US is not a Democracy. It was founded as a Federal Republic with Democratic principles. [Some say and I agree] which was hijacked. Europe on the other hand is a mixed bag of predominately modified Socialist based Governments attempting to create a single Democratic entity the "EU".

Mid 20th century we saw the rise of "Communism/Socialist" nations in Eastern Europe and China. The result was a human tragedy. I said this before and I'll repeat it now. Greed, Corruption and Human Ego will ruin any form of Governance. The US founding fathers wrote out the Declaration of Independence, in it was a warning that many are either ignorant of or have simply ignored it's true meaning.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

Then it continues with a rant against the King etc. So where are we today? We in the 21st century have modified Democracies and Modified Socialist nations. Are any of them perfect? Hell no. No form of Government is or will ever be perfect. However we can sit here and pick apart each form and many will provide no real answers to the over all question. Which is the best form of Government? Some say Socialism with a Capitalist twist. Others will say Democracy with a Socialist twist. I say whichever form suits your nation the best as long as your basic Human rights are not trampled on.

Originally posted by Rob37n
Why do Americans have such a great hatred of Socialism and Communism? .

- Because it's slavery to the state and I don't want to be a slave.
- Because productive people should benefit from their work and not have to give it away.
- Becaue Socialism and Communism produce lazy people who won't pull their fair load.
- Because, as history shows, it's doomed to fail.
- Because less government means less intrusion into our private lives.
etc etc etc

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Oh yeah, if i were to refuse giving my moeny to the big corps I''d starve and sit in an unheated home.

I'm not against Capitalism at all, jus the huge corps that screw over the middle or little man.

We all want to have freedom to choose or have influence, yet that can only be achived through democracy and socialism.

Well I'm off to hug a tree and spend a few £'s in Asda (walmart) dam them

reply to post by JonoEnglish

The pivate competition will be kept in check by the State run competition.

Oh Wow. Can you not look around you and see the result of just such non-sense? Government intervention has led to world wide economic collapse and still the majority of people believe it is needed... Sigh!

Government intervention is what has allowed certain politically connected corporations run roughshod over the the people not free competition. Have you not learned that supposed government regulation done in the name of protecting the public against unfair practices is nothing more them protecting markets and stifling real competition for politically connected corporations?

Did the Wall street bail outs not tell you that those corporations are politically protected from natural free market competition?

How abut the health care bill does that not tell you the Drug companies are also politically protected?

How about the New FDA bill does that not tell you those corporations are politically protected.

Somebody has got to say it but all of you who believe the non-sense quoted above are brain washed. You blame capitalism and then give examples of it by referring to the companies I just mentioned. That is not free market capitalism, we haven't had free markets in nearly a 100 years! Get that through your thick skulls!

Free markets are the only proven method of keeping competition fair. All those corporations I mentioned above were only able to gain the power they have BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION STIFLING ANY OF THEIR COMPETITION! Otherwise they all would have failed by now!

True free markets force companies to provide a fair and sound product or service or consumers will vote with thier wallets and go elsewhere. Why do you think they have and are passing laws forcing people to have insurance, health care, banning natural health remedies, forcing people to use one currency, etc etc etc? it is because those companies can't stay in business any other way and you people sit here on these boards and claim we need more government interventions... Big huge sigh!!!

Wake up!

reply to post by nenothtu


I just have to say living here in california it is so refreshing to hear that there are still people out there that are awake. Thank you for saying everything I want to say and better. You give me hope for my children.

Communism has left over 100,000,000 dead since it's creation.

I think that's a good enough reason to dislike ti.

reply to post by hawkiye


That my friend is down to your political system. Big corps pulling the strings in government.

Those corps are privatley owned and not by the people. Your people elected the government, they cast the vote in the ballot box.

It's corruption that is the problem, not the concept of socialism.

edit: again, I'm not against capitalism, it's just forms of socialism are good for society that has capitalism to keep mega corps in check.

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Oh yeah, if i were to refuse giving my moeny to the big corps I''d starve and sit in an unheated home.

I'm not against Capitalism at all, jus the huge corps that screw over the middle or little man.

We all want to have freedom to choose or have influence, yet that can only be achived through democracy and socialism.

Well I'm off to hug a tree and spend a few £'s in Asda (walmart) dam them

You are perfectly free to grow/slaughter your own food and purchase a wood burning stove to heat your home.

You choose to give corporations your money.

[. Communism and socialism have failed historically, I agrre with the communism but socialism has NEVER failed here in the Netherlands everybody has enough for everyone and it will allways be that way. Capitolism like in the USA is very Baaaaaaaaaaaaad only the rich people are in control they decided who lives or die.
Very very very bad system. I can't wait when it all crumbles in the states it allready has begun. :-)

The good guy

reply to post by Rob37n


Have you ever met a wealthy Russian who experienced the Soviet lifestyle and is now enjoying the free market Russian economy?

I have.

Boy, do they love to spend the money they are rolling in now. Boy, do they laugh at Americans who think they will find Utopia in socialism/communism.

Boy, those wealthy Russians who've lived through the Soviet era and are now making tons of cash, boy, are they a lot smarter than Americans who think socialism/communism is a good idea.

And why do wealthy Canadians go to South Florida for medical treatment rather than remain in Canada for their socialized style of medicine?

All this is rhetorical....except for those who think they can find Utopia in socialism/communism.

Socialism is Communism Lite.

Originally posted by nenothtu
True enough. It doesn't have the same eloquence, or even words for some concepts, and hence no conception of those things. Words have a certain power, and without a word for something in a given language, that thing doesn't "exist" to people of that language. If it can't be named, it is not, it does not "be", to them.

This is exactly why I've been attempting to find more disarming language when discussing communism. English is supposed to be a living language... It just seems to incorporate sounds and not meaning. I haven't had much success communicating my ideas with out using socialist verbiage and so I just brace for impact and hope for the space to give explanations.

It's my understanding that was the original concept of the American Government. You could think of a State government as a "Tribal Council", but on a somewhat larger scale, and the national government as an "Intertribal Council". They are supposed to have taken the concept from the Iroquois League of Five Nations. The States were meant to be the "Nation", and the Federal Government was meant to be the "League".

That was more or less the idea... but the problem is that they don't come from collectivist cultures. They appropriated the idea and it didn't work for them because I think they failed to understand the mechanism behind it.

I just can't abide by collectivism on the national scale. The way it gets set up is insane to my mind. To my way of thinking, the greater enemy is over-centralization of command and control, which so far has been an unfortunate feature of most, if not all, implementations of collectivism on a national scale.

The way it gets set up?

Let me pitch you my idea....

The over all goal is the decentralization of power. Removing the control of our destinies from the state and putting that back into the hands of the people. This is impossible in Capitalism as you will just a have a new "Corporate State" arise in place of a Federal Entity. The struggle is against two masters.

True, but the two are interdependent - at least they have been in every implementation so far, whether capitalist or socialist. The State has to rely on the economic model for operation funds, and the economic model has to rely on the State for regulatory control. For the State to obtain the necessary funds to operate State sponsored social programs, the economic model takes on even more importance. I don't see any way to run a wide scale, State sponsored social program without taking unfair advantage of a socialist economic model, and placing an unfair burden on the fruits of the worker's labor.

My idea continued...

And so the issue here is how labor is intrinsic to one's own capabilities. One can not lay claim to what doesn't belong to them or else it is theft. I believe that we would still have to have a monetary system. That system instead of being a fiat currency should be a Labor Dollar. The cost of production is based on the amount of labor required to produce a commodity.

There is, of course, a corollary problem in the corporatism we have right now. The corporations and CEO's simply take the place of the State in taking unfair advantage of the fruits of the worker's labors. Then you get what we have now - the ratio of CEO salary to workers salaries has increased something like 700 percent in the last 30 years or so, I believe.

We are in agreement. I would like to add that I see America as a Corporate run state and the USSR as a State run Corporation. Both concepts are flawed since we will always see the revolutionary vanguard stalled and stamped out by the state in it's attempts to reclaim centralized power structures. It is there that the fallibility of the human condition come to light.

One absolute master is as bad as the next to my mind...

Hence why not only the means of production must be seized by our collective interests but also the deconstruction of the centralized power structures into a more decentralized communal system of stronger checks and balances.

That's why I prefer to stand and fight for my own land, and try to minimize interference by the State in my own affairs. I can leave the "Corporation" with the turn of a car key.

I disagree. The rise of a Corporate State is well under way and is far more overreaching than any thing we've seen so far.

Collectivist in nature, perhaps, but it's a matter of scale and control...

"You can not legislate morality."

We would have no need for wealth redistribution if the only thing traded as value was labor. You can not take one's labor and give it to another. Just to be sure we would decentralize state powers and put that into the hands of the people.

I have a slight grin as I'm typing this...

I would recommend reading into it. Subcommander Marcos has written extensively and has been nothing more than a tool of the people. I believe that teh EZLN stands as a perfect model to accomplish what I am talking about here.

I realize, though, that it's a personal problem on my part, and a bias. I don't know that the EZLN is of the same character. If their people are happy with their performance, then so am I. So long as they confine their control to Chiapas, and their own people, I have no beef with them.

Well, the "control" they exhibit is a function of the people. Marcos is SubCommander because the People are the commander. He takes no military action with out the people coming to a decision first. Because this is an Indigenous Resistance movement they are only interested in Chiapas for them personally but still seek to counter and deny the tools of the State that seek to further deprive them of Liberty.

Subject of another thread, I suppose. My mega replies are already spamming this one out. We're probably not so far apart. I draw the line at European-style Marxism. It has no more place here than European style colonialism, and I gotta tell you, all the bells, whistles, and catchphrases it carries with it really set me off. I take them to be code words for much more nefarious undertakings.

Well I've already derailed this one so the damage is done. lol

We are in agreement. Marxism is dead. I don't know of any communist to date who would disagree. I can understand how the words take on different meanings than the ones I intend, that is the nature of this language.

The heart is what matters...

Yes, I think like this also.

I suppose each individual must draw his own line. That's where he drew his. Your mileage may vary. Is it better for your people if you fight the "national" government, and die in that fight with no improvements for them, or is it better if you combine your power with the power of that government, and defend your own from a common threat? Does it matter if the others gain the same benefits as your own, as long as your own are taken care of?

I find myself in agreement with Zapata, "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

I have thought about this question for years and I have come to the conclusion that it is better to fight with no improvements and die on your own terms than to die as tool of the State in hopes of improvements that will never come.

The entire purpose for a warrior is to protect his People. That, and nothing more. It's not to defend a government or a flag or a philosophy, it's always for the People. What is in the heart determines why one does what he does, it doesn't determine the route he takes to do it. That is often determined by expediency

What you describe here is the revolutionary vanguard.

It serves to protect the people from their collective enemies. What has to be done on our end is coming to an agreement as to what/who these enemies are. I don't think that would be all that difficult.