Why does America hate Socialism?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Capitalism is the most moral and effective system for bringing wealth to countries that man has ever devised or known

[Mavorpen]

Capitalism is the most moral and effective system for bringing wealth to countries that man has ever devised or known

It really isn't.

[Galbion]

My own view is that the massive amount of anti-socialist propaganda during the Cold War is the main factor.

Hmmm.

I think that there are two reasons.

First, the United States is a place where we are sort of the last bastion of absolute capitalism, and it is very easy for right wing opinions to propagate because, well, all it takes is money in the United States to defeat a new idea. It is very easy for the capitalist wing, or the right wing, to talk the lower classes into voting for things that are against their best interests.

: runs for cover :

Second, the political system in the United States is a very conservative, not absolutely democratic one that does not lend itself well to social experimentation.

In the Westminster Model (UK and Canada, for example), you can allow yourself the freedom of experimenting with radical ideas, because we have a mechanism for turning around. In the United States, once you begin amending the law to allow such a turn, it's a really big deal going back. In the United Kingdom, you could allow a radical reformation like the almost communist years of Lord Wilson's reign, with the full knowledge that if it ever appeared that the people had lost faith, you'd just use your constitutional mechanisms to fire the government and call for elections designed to give a new government authority.

After the radical years, Britain and Canada have moved farther to the right and have a very good, happy compromise of capitalism v. socialism, and their systems work very well. We can argue about socialized medicine all we want, but in Britain we are blatantly predicting an impending new race of "super centenarians" who because of all the preventive care will live well beyond 100, and be far more useful to society for far longer than anybody could have imagined just one generation ago.

So, anyway, that's what I think. It's just hard to get a new idea across in the USA, whereas it is easier in the monarchies where you know you have a mechanism to yank the government around when it gets out of hand. :-)

[Petrovsegratsk]

So much ignorance, my god.

Here's how to make it simple for you people.

Soviet Union started as Socialist, then under Stalin it went Communist.

Other nations eventually became Communist after WWII.

They were Communist nations. Stop denying it.

Most of which collapsed before the 90's because of corruption and their economy dieing.

Some of the strongest Commie nations collapsed in the 90's(USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.).

Cold War ended.

Only Red nations left are mainland China, N. Korea, VietCongnam, Laos, Cuba.

Those nations were and are Communist nations, and their all fucked up.

Which is why you deny their Communist nations.

Socialism died with Lenin.

Communism will die with whoever-the-hell-will-be-the-last-leader-of-whichever-Communist-nation-that-will-be-the-last-to-collapse.

DEAL. THE FUCK. WITH IT.

[Petrovsegratsk]

Capitalism is the most moral and effective system for bringing wealth to countries that man has ever devised or known

So much truth & wisdom in this, I must quote it.

[Mavorpen]

So much ignorance, my god.

Here's how to make it simple for you people.

Soviet Union started as Socialist, then under Stalin it went Communist.

Other nations eventually became Communist after WWII.

They were Communist nations. Stop denying it.


Those nations were and are Communist nations, and their all fucked up.

Which is why you deny their Communist nations.

Communism will die with whoever-the-hell-will-be-the-last-leader-of-whichever-Communist-nation-that-will-be-the-last-to-collapse.

DEAL. THE FUCK. WITH IT.

So in otherwords you don't know what Communism is. Socialism didn't die with Lenin.

[Petrovsegratsk]

So much ignorance, my god.

Here's how to make it simple for you people.

Soviet Union started as Socialist, then under Stalin it went Communist.

Other nations eventually became Communist after WWII.

They were Communist nations. Stop denying it.


Those nations were and are Communist nations, and their all fucked up.

Which is why you deny their Communist nations.

Communism will die with whoever-the-hell-will-be-the-last-leader-of-whichever-Communist-nation-that-will-be-the-last-to-collapse.

DEAL. THE FUCK. WITH IT.

So in otherwords you don't know what Communism is. Socialism didn't die with Lenin.

Yes, it did. It died with Lenin... well, it didn't nessecarily DIE with Lenin, but more as it 'feel asleep' with Lenin. I guess.

[New Freedomstan]

So much ignorance, my god.

Here's how to make it simple for you people.

Soviet Union started as Socialist, then under Stalin it went Communist.

Other nations eventually became Communist after WWII.

They were Communist nations. Stop denying it.

Most of which collapsed before the 90's because of corruption and their economy dieing.

Some of the strongest Commie nations collapsed in the 90's(USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.).

Cold War ended.

Only Red nations left are mainland China, N. Korea, VietCongnam, Laos, Cuba.

Those nations were and are Communist nations, and their all fucked up.

Which is why you deny their Communist nations.

Socialism died with Lenin.

Communism will die with whoever-the-hell-will-be-the-last-leader-of-whichever-Communist-nation-that-will-be-the-last-to-collapse.

DEAL. THE FUCK. WITH IT.

Ahem. Read a dictionary lately? Communism is a statesless and classless society. Now, no-one on earth would argue that dear Comrade Stalin did not operate within the parameters of a socialist state (an economy where the means of production are commonly owned). The USSR was not Communist. It was trying to become communist. Which is an important distinction, don't you think? Would you say a runner halfway through the race have reached the goal?

[Mavorpen]

How? It is still prevalent today.

[Camelza]

because BARNACLES!! D:<

[Petrovsegratsk]

So much ignorance, my god.

Here's how to make it simple for you people.

Soviet Union started as Socialist, then under Stalin it went Communist.

Other nations eventually became Communist after WWII.

They were Communist nations. Stop denying it.

Most of which collapsed before the 90's because of corruption and their economy dieing.

Some of the strongest Commie nations collapsed in the 90's(USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.).

Cold War ended.

Only Red nations left are mainland China, N. Korea, VietCongnam, Laos, Cuba.

Those nations were and are Communist nations, and their all fucked up.

Which is why you deny their Communist nations.

Socialism died with Lenin.

Communism will die with whoever-the-hell-will-be-the-last-leader-of-whichever-Communist-nation-that-will-be-the-last-to-collapse.

DEAL. THE FUCK. WITH IT.

Ahem. Read a dictionary lately? Communism is a statesless and classless society. Now, no-one on earth would argue that dear Comrade Stalin did not operate within the parameters of a socialist state (an economy where the means of production are commonly owned). The USSR was not Communist. It was trying to become communist. Which is an important distinction, don't you think? Would you say a runner halfway through the race have reached the goal?

Another example of denial. You, like all Communists, deny the fact the USSR was a Communist country.

Why don't you stop watching propaganda for like 5 seconds and actually take a dive into history.

Enlighten yourself, then come back to me when you've realized the truth.

[Mavorpen]

Petro are you ever going to make a legit argument?

[Idealismania]

People don't think that every important service should be provided by the government since that will make the government huge and probably corrupt. The probablem with the socialist mentality is that it is assumed if the government doesn't do it then it won't get done. The churches used to be the source of local welfare, but once the government got involved, local churches felt less of a need to be the source of money to those going through tough times financially. Also, things ran by the government use tax payer dollars, and there are programs that people would absolutely hate the thought of funding. Most people would be ok funding basic defense, roads, and power, but some absolutely hate the idea of giving to welfare or funding things like abortion.

[Chestaan]

Capitalism is the most moral and effective system for bringing wealth to countries that man has ever devised or known

This statement is incorrect in so many ways. Firstly capitalism is in no way moral. Secondly it only brings wealth to countries that already have plenty of wealth. First world countries exploit third world countries by paying them ridiculously low prices for their raw materials. The only reason first world countries are so well off under capitalism is because they have exploited poorer nations. Hardly what you could call moral.

[Chestaan]

For the more economically minded of you, I have an argument to make in favour of socialism.

Firstly consider the idea of utility and specifically the idea of diminishing marginal utility. It is generally accepted by economists that the utility derived from each additional unit of a good decreases. Now, consider money. The utility of money also diminishes as a person receives more and more of it.

So what does this mean for socialism? Well consider the socialist idea that people should be given greater economic equality. Let's see if this actually benefits society. Say for example I have $10000 to give to eitheir person A or person B as in this economy these are theonly people who exist. Person A earns $10000 a year while Person B earns $1 million a year. Who will gain greater utility from receiving the $10000? Both our intuition and the law of diminishing marginal utility would point to Person A receiving greater utility as the $10000 given to him is proportionally greater when compared to his original income than it is when compared to Person B's income. Therefore the total utility of society would be higher if Person A received the money.

Therefore I have showed that the marginal utility of money diminishes. Now say for example I take $100000 from Person B in tax and I give it to Person A. Firstly the income disparity in the economy would decrease, which is a positive. Secondly the marginal utility gained by Person A will far exceed the loss in utility experienced by Person B. Therefore society is better off from the more equal distribution of wealth as society's utility increases.

Now, of course in reality there is not only two people in the economy, there are many but the principle is exactly the same. Of course in reality the tax taken from Person B would be redistributed to all the members of society who needed it.

I am not claiming that the above is an example of a socialist society, I am simply using the above example to show that greater income equality increases society's utility. I predict that society's utility would be maximised when the cost of redistribution is equal to the utility gained by redistribution, i.e this is the point where everyone would have more or less equal resources at their disposal.

The problem with this scenario is that it relies on Person B to want to help Person A. It's likely that Person B will instead choose to leave the country and take their highly-marketable skills elsewhere, as they can even probably afford to do so.

A valid point. However all economic theories require very specific conditions. For example the law of comparative advantage relies on the assumption that transport costs do not exist etc. But my basic point that creating a more equal society makes society as a whole better off still stands.

If we want to consider things practically however, if all nations were under a socialist system then there would be no where for the rich to flee.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

If we want to consider things practically however, if all nations were under a socialist system then there would be no where for the rich to flee.

That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard

[New Freedomstan]

Another example of denial. You, like all Communists, deny the fact the USSR was a Communist country.

Why don't you stop watching propaganda for like 5 seconds and actually take a dive into history.

Enlighten yourself, then come back to me when you've realized the truth.

Comrade. Please, for one brief second, try to understand this concept. Let's do a comparison, shall we?

A capitalist country is a country that tries to be rich (for the sake of argument). Does that make capitalist countries like the Congo, rich? No. They are not. They are capitalist, but not rich.

A socialist country is a country that tries to become communist. Does that make socialist countries communist? No. They aren't. They are socialist, but not communist.

Now, claiming that the USSR was a classless and statesless society... Now THAT sounds like denial, doesn't it? Do you honestly claim that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a country without any form of classes nor any form of state? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

The USSR was a country that was ruled by communists (for the most part. Gorbachev was not a communist in the slightest). It was not, however, a communist country. The definition of a communist is one who wishes to live in communism, not a person who lives in communism. Communism, again, being a classless and stateless society (ie, a society without any form of exploitation). So, you tell me... that the USSR was a paradise where no-one was exploited and there was no massive state-apparatus? Honestly... you're the one in denial here.

[Chestaan]

If we want to consider things practically however, if all nations were under a socialist system then there would be no where for the rich to flee.

That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard

I notice you aren't replying to many of my arguments. Have you finally realised that your believe in the free market fairy makes no sense?

[Svobodu]

To put it as briefly as possible, I hate socialism because I am being forced to give up my property (income) without voluntary agreement. I kind of view taxes as theft.

[Grave_n_idle]

To put it as briefly as possible, I hate socialism because I am being forced to give up my property (income) without voluntary agreement. I kind of view taxes as theft.

On the other hand, the people that don't have anything aren't losing nearly as much. Because they don't have anything.

[Svobodu]

To put it as briefly as possible, I hate socialism because I am being forced to give up my property (income) without voluntary agreement. I kind of view taxes as theft.

On the other hand, the people that don't have anything aren't losing nearly as much. Because they don't have anything.

Not my problem.

[Emile Zola]

To put it as briefly as possible, I hate socialism because I am being forced to give up my property (income) without voluntary agreement. I kind of view taxes as theft.

When I read this post all I see is "get the guv'mint off my legal tender". Which they print so you can be paid and exchange for goods and services. Would you prefer to have a barter system or lug gold plate around?

[Svobodu]

To put it as briefly as possible, I hate socialism because I am being forced to give up my property (income) without voluntary agreement. I kind of view taxes as theft.

When I read this post all I see is "get the guv'mint off my legal tender". Which they print so you can be paid and exchange for goods and services. Would you prefer to have a barter system or lug gold plate around?

Government are not at all necessary to print money. Money originally was a bill of credit issued by the BANK.

Hong Kong doesn't print money. It's private banks do. You are wrong when you think government is required for a currency to exist.

[Raeyh]

When I read this post all I see is "get the guv'mint off my legal tender". Which they print so you can be paid and exchange for goods and services. Would you prefer to have a barter system or lug gold plate around?

Government are not at all necessary to print money. Money originally was a bill of credit issued by the BANK.

Hong Kong doesn't print money. It's private banks do. You are wrong when you think government is required for a currency to exist.

Money still is a bill of credit issued by the bank. The government just regulates how much it is worth and offers insurance. However, due to the Great Depression, hardly anyone is going to trust banks without that insurance.

[Natapoc]

Because the government and large corporations know that if the people ever got together to work collectively for mutual advancement and protection that they would be out of a job and would no longer be able to live such cozy luxurious lives off the backs of others.

The lazy rich and the plutocrats, and their protectors (the cops, the military, and the endless number of enforcement agencies) do not want to surrender thier power.

For the last decades they have paid some of the finest minds to create propaganda in favor of capitalism in hopes of turning back the progress that unions made during the past.

The goal is 1850 reborn.