NATION

PASSWORD

Socialismphobia

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
HeresJohnny
Attaché
 
Posts: 66
Founded: Jul 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Socialismphobia

Postby HeresJohnny » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:10 pm

I've been seeing this ad played over and over again on CNN. There is already a thread on it, but that thread is about the commercial itself; this is about the thoughts associated with it.

Why the hell are Americans so petrified of anything bearing any sort of conceivable semblance to socialism? And why is socialism always associated with the USSR? I mean, George Orwell was a socialist for Christ's sake. Here we are, the average Joe and the wealthy separated by a chasm, and this guy and others are warning of socialism coming to the US as if they are prophets. Where do these kinds of thoughts originate? We weren't the only country to see the Cold War, and we sure as hell weren't the closest to the Soviets' stomping grounds. Is this kind of thinking exclusive to America? I've never heard of it being common in Canada or most of Europe.

What is it about the United States that makes it so terrified of socialism, even if what it's afraid of isn't socialism? Personally, I wonder if it is because we were born during a revolution. Perhaps anyone who advocates anything that isn't good ol' fashioned freedom (except for non-Christian non-males) is betraying the ethos of America to a lot of people? What do you think?

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:12 pm

It's an ages old distortion that's been perpetuated by Republicans. By tying socialism to Stalinism in the minds of the American public, they can use it as a convenient scare word to discourage anything from increasing the tax rates of the 1% to increasing regulations on ethically and financially shaky industries.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Hatsunia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1349
Founded: Apr 26, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hatsunia » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:14 pm

Maybe it's the fear of more government control (of production) leading to corruption?
Last edited by Hatsunia on Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hatsunia | 初音国
The first sound of the future, the society of the future

MT/PMT (Cyberprep) | National Day: August 31 | Ignore NS stats/policies | More than an "anime meme nation" | Less waifu, more wi-fi
Wiki (complete) | Space (WIP) | Map | Capital | MEACU | Micronesia | Tropes | Anthem ♪ | Civ ♫ | Futuristic playlist ♬ | Why Japan needs upgrades

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:14 pm

Hatsunia wrote:Maybe it's the fear of government control leading to corruption?

It's a good thing socialism doesn't advocate for government control.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:16 pm

Hatsunia wrote:Maybe it's the fear of more government control (of production) leading to corruption?


Nope, it's the unrealistic fear of America becoming a Stalinist Juche dystopia used to shout down any arguments for sensible moves like increasing the tax rates of the affluent or increasing business regulations.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Hatsunia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1349
Founded: Apr 26, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hatsunia » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:17 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Hatsunia wrote:Maybe it's the fear of government control leading to corruption?

It's a good thing socialism doesn't advocate for government control.

Socialism is commonly taken to mean "government control of the means of production."

I believe in a mixed economy, by the way. I wouldn't want privatized roads, because there would be toll booths just about everywhere.
Last edited by Hatsunia on Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Hatsunia | 初音国
The first sound of the future, the society of the future

MT/PMT (Cyberprep) | National Day: August 31 | Ignore NS stats/policies | More than an "anime meme nation" | Less waifu, more wi-fi
Wiki (complete) | Space (WIP) | Map | Capital | MEACU | Micronesia | Tropes | Anthem ♪ | Civ ♫ | Futuristic playlist ♬ | Why Japan needs upgrades

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:17 pm

Hatsunia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:It's a good thing socialism doesn't advocate for government control.

Socialism is commonly taken to mean "government control of the means of production."

I believe in a mixed economy, by the way.

Commonly=/=correctly.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 129578
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:19 pm

i always though socialism meant government direction of capital.

the question then becomes what is socialism, is there a common definition of it?

i thought marx said socialism was a step on the way to communism.
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:20 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:i always though socialism meant government direction of capital.

the question then becomes what is socialism, is there a common definition of it?

i thought marx said socialism was a step on the way to communism.

Socialism is worker (or community) ownage of the means of production. That's it.
Last edited by Mavorpen on Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:21 pm

I find it funny that there needed to be subtitles for him, but I could understand him perfectly.

On a more serious note, the guy is right about socialism being the wrong way. I'm not going to go into that, since that's not what we're discussing.

And on a relevant tune, I think Americans are so afraid of anything even remotely resembling socialism because most of the people (40-60 years old) grew up either in the Red Scare or during the Cold War. So everyone thinks "If we become like the Russians did, we'll become poor people run by dictators!" So in every way that we can, we've subdued the things that caused the Russian Civil War. Free thinking of new political structures has come to a grinding halt. The middle class is the primary concern, not the low and high classes. Exceedingly stupid politicians are being put into office. It might be a stretch to think about it that way, but I think it's true.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.

User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:22 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:i always though socialism meant government direction of capital.

the question then becomes what is socialism, is there a common definition of it?

i thought marx said socialism was a step on the way to communism.

Socialism is worker (or community) ownage of the means of production. That's it.

in that case my Dad worked for a socialist software company.
He hated every second of working there.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:23 pm

Shnercropolis wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Socialism is worker (or community) ownage of the means of production. That's it.

in that case my Dad worked for a socialist software company.
He hated every second of working there.

...Horrible joke.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:23 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Shnercropolis wrote:in that case my Dad worked for a socialist software company.
He hated every second of working there.

...Horrible joke.

*shrug* it's true.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.

User avatar
Poni
Diplomat
 
Posts: 632
Founded: Feb 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Poni » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:24 pm

Here is my list of reasons as to why most American's don't approve of socialism, or at least half or, I don't know how many to be honest:

1: America has traditionally been capitalist.
2: Socialism, is very, very close in ways to communism, only perhaps less radical and definitely less violent. Even so, socialism is still a dangerous slope in those regards.
3: Socialism can actually hurt business. While its true capitalism can get out of hand, socialism is just the same and too much of it can create an unbalanced scale.
4: The Soviet Union and the Cold War obviously got Americans alert about the potential dangers of communism, and even socialists were considered potential communists. All the socialists really need were a little incentive.
5: The best way for socialism to work is to have a large government, and large governments will always try shoving their noses into everything. Americans for the most part don't feel comfortable being watched all the time. Protected, yes. Babysitted, not really.
6 (Just my opinion at this point.): Michael Moore; Need I say Moore?

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:27 pm

Poni wrote:2: Socialism, is very, very close in ways to communism, only perhaps less radical and definitely less violent. Even so, socialism is still a dangerous slope in those regards.

Communism isn't violent.
Poni wrote:3: Socialism can actually hurt business. While its true capitalism can get out of hand, socialism is just the same and too much of it can create an unbalanced scale.

Bullshit. The workers owning the means of production can hurt business how?
Poni wrote:4: The Soviet Union and the Cold War obviously got Americans alert about the potential dangers of communism, and even socialists were considered potential communists. All the socialists really need were a little incentive.

No, they got the alert about the potential dangers of totalitarianism.
Poni wrote:5: The best way for socialism to work is to have a large government, and large governments will always try shoving their noses into everything. Americans for the most part don't feel comfortable being watched all the time. Protected, yes. Babysitted, not really.

Socialism doesn't call for nor require a large government. In face, early socialists ADVOCATED for free markets, and believed that workers owning the means of production creates a more free market.
Poni wrote:6 (Just my opinion at this point.): Michael Moore; Need I say Moore?

Glad you didn't claim anything as fact.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Kakistopolis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 626
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kakistopolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:27 pm

I believe people are the means of production. Who wants to own people?
My forbidden satire once earned me a 3-day vacation from the NS forums.


"Pacifist ideologues are the worst. You just want to punch them in the face and tell them to accept your culture of libertine violence and destruction." - the entry for "Pacifism" (in its entirety) in the Kakistopolitan Traveler's Encyclopedia

User avatar
Hatsunia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1349
Founded: Apr 26, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Hatsunia » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:28 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:i always though socialism meant government direction of capital.

the question then becomes what is socialism, is there a common definition of it?

i thought marx said socialism was a step on the way to communism.

Socialism is worker (or community) ownage of the means of production. That's it.

And did the workers control the means of production in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Hatsunia | 初音国
The first sound of the future, the society of the future

MT/PMT (Cyberprep) | National Day: August 31 | Ignore NS stats/policies | More than an "anime meme nation" | Less waifu, more wi-fi
Wiki (complete) | Space (WIP) | Map | Capital | MEACU | Micronesia | Tropes | Anthem ♪ | Civ ♫ | Futuristic playlist ♬ | Why Japan needs upgrades

User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:28 pm

Hatsunia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Socialism is worker (or community) ownage of the means of production. That's it.

And did the workers control the means of production in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

No.
Last edited by Shnercropolis on Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:28 pm

Hatsunia wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Socialism is worker (or community) ownage of the means of production. That's it.

And did the workers control the means of production in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

No.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:29 pm

Kakistopolis wrote:I believe people are the means of production. Who wants to own people?

Means of production specifically deals with non-human inputs.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:30 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Kakistopolis wrote:I believe people are the means of production. Who wants to own people?

Means of production specifically deals with non-human inputs.

then how do we produce babies?
:o
SOVIET CLONING PLOT REVEALED!!!
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.

User avatar
Miss Defied
Minister
 
Posts: 2259
Founded: Mar 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Miss Defied » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:34 pm

Gauthier wrote:It's an ages old distortion that's been perpetuated by Republicans. By tying socialism to Stalinism in the minds of the American public, they can use it as a convenient scare word to discourage anything from increasing the tax rates of the 1% to increasing regulations on ethically and financially shaky industries.

*deep inhalation*
well, that's not really how ...
*exhalation*
Oh who am I kidding, this is exactly why.
/thread
"You know you're like the A-bomb. Everybody's laughing, having a good time. Then you show up -BOOM- everything's dead." - Master Shake

User avatar
Kakistopolis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 626
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kakistopolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:35 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Kakistopolis wrote:I believe people are the means of production. Who wants to own people?

Means of production specifically deals with non-human inputs.


Which is the flaw of the whole ideological branch. Give a carpenter all the drills he can carry, he's still never going to be a dentist.
My forbidden satire once earned me a 3-day vacation from the NS forums.


"Pacifist ideologues are the worst. You just want to punch them in the face and tell them to accept your culture of libertine violence and destruction." - the entry for "Pacifism" (in its entirety) in the Kakistopolitan Traveler's Encyclopedia

User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:35 pm

Miss Defied wrote:
Gauthier wrote:It's an ages old distortion that's been perpetuated by Republicans. By tying socialism to Stalinism in the minds of the American public, they can use it as a convenient scare word to discourage anything from increasing the tax rates of the 1% to increasing regulations on ethically and financially shaky industries.

*deep inhalation*
well, that's not really how ...
*exhalation*
Oh who am I kidding, this is exactly why.
/thread

And the republicans are mostly old people who grew up in either the red scare or the cold war, so we have a reason!
/topic
now can we talk about the socialist cloning plot I uncovered?
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:36 pm

Kakistopolis wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Means of production specifically deals with non-human inputs.


Which is the flaw of the whole ideological branch. Give a carpenter all the drills he can carry, he's still never going to be a dentist.

The hell are you talking about? That's what human capital is.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Shrillland, Statesburg

Advertisement

Remove ads