Is Socialism Un-American?

[Ryuugu]

No, socialism is not un-American. But I'm not sure the US is prepared for socialism at the moment.

[DaWoad]

No, socialism is not un-American. But I'm not sure the US is prepared for socialism at the moment.

Read the rest of the thread . . .the States already has socialism

[Ryadn]

MINDBLOWING ignorance or historical revisionism.

WHY do people keep repeating this disinformation?

The only thing that modern socialists have in common with the Nazis is the word "socialist" in the name. Which is apparently enough to confuse the best and the brightest of the current GOP.

Its funny how you say that, yet you completely ignore the fact that Nazism means National Socialism. Nazism is very close to Fascism, and while even if it isn't the same as it, it's still Socialist.

Edit : No offense or anything, but I think, after that whole Nazism = National Socialism thing, I think you should just stop trying.

He didn't ignore it. In fact, he addressed it directly--- "the only thing modern socialists have in common with the Nazis is the word 'socialist' in the name." Just because the Nazis were the National Socialist party doesn't mean their politics had anything in common with the beliefs of modern socialists---just as most acknowledge that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a democracy, despite having the word "democratic" in there. Because words get used in different ways by different people. See?

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

MINDBLOWING ignorance or historical revisionism.

WHY do people keep repeating this disinformation?

The only thing that modern socialists have in common with the Nazis is the word "socialist" in the name. Which is apparently enough to confuse the best and the brightest of the current GOP.

Its funny how you say that, yet you completely ignore the fact that Nazism means National Socialism. Nazism is very close to Fascism, and while even if it isn't the same as it, it's still Socialist.

Edit : No offense or anything, but I think, after that whole Nazism = National Socialism thing, I think you should just stop trying.

I strongly disagree. Basically, by adding "National" to the term, fascists took the centralized structure, but left the classes in play. A classless society is at the heart of socialist theory. However,I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

[Srork]

I strongly disagree. Basically, by adding "National" to the term, fascists took the centralized structure, but left the classes in play. A classless society is at the heart of socialist theory. However,I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Not so. I see nothing about Socialism trying to eliminate a 'classless society'. That's Communism.

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... cal_theory

Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism[4], allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production,

They're not trying to make it a classless society, so much as they are actually trying to make it so that whoever is the hardest-working gets more power.

He didn't ignore it. In fact, he addressed it directly--- "the only thing modern socialists have in common with the Nazis is the word 'socialist' in the name." Just because the Nazis were the National Socialist party doesn't mean their politics had anything in common with the beliefs of modern socialists---just as most acknowledge that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a democracy, despite having the word "democratic" in there. Because words get used in different ways by different people. See?

Alright. I'll give you the Korea point.

But the fact of the matter is that Nazism still is heavily based upon Socialist ideas and even advocated them. Like I stated above, Socialism is not trying to create a classless society so much as it is trying to make a society that has people who are hard-workers and dedicated in powerful positions. It makes classes, but those people who take over those classes deserved them, in the Socialist government's eyes. The same thing happened with the Nazis. They gave the best positions to those who were more active in the Nazi party. This was very prevalent in their army, as well as in every day life. The Nazis gave more power to the central government, like Socialists do, and the State was present in every part of their life. Or, at least, according to what I have been taught, it was.

[Chetssaland]

Well, the US was founded on capitalism and it worked. Look at China, they are leaning towards a more free market system and are flourishing. Obama has us working in the opposite direction as China and that won't go well.

[Srork]

Well, the US was founded on capitalism and it worked. Look at China, they are leaning towards a more free market system and are flourishing. Obama has us working in the opposite direction as China and that won't go well.

Woah now. Despite China having a 'free market system', it is still heavily censored and controlled by the government. Businesses that want to get acquainted with China financially have to go through this long and boring process via the Chinese Government. Last time I checked, anyway.

While the U.S. was indeed, founded on 'Capitalism', it sucked initially. Why? Because there was too much of it! The Articles of Confederation were complete bolshevik, and it caused the states to have all the power, and the government to have none. That's why we invented the Constitution, while implementing the Bill of Rights. A Socialist-esque document and a Capitalist-esque document blending together into one. That's what made this country work.

I'm no follower of the whole Obama thing. I don't pay much attention to American politics, because I honestly don't care for it, and it's basically been the same thing for the past few years. Republican party gets pissed over Democratic party having more power, and vice versa. Honestly, I've learned to just stay out of things unless they get bloated and I actually have to deal with it. Good way of dealing with things? Not really. But then, I am but a lad of 16 with plans on going into the military, so for a good seven or ten more years or so, I don't much have to deal with worrying about what the government does, because I'm going to be doing what it says anyway.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I strongly disagree. Basically, by adding "National" to the term, fascists took the centralized structure, but left the classes in play. A classless society is at the heart of socialist theory. However,I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Not so. I see nothing about Socialism trying to eliminate a 'classless society'. That's Communism.

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... cal_theory

Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism[4], allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production,

They're not trying to make it a classless society, so much as they are actually trying to make it so that whoever is the hardest-working gets more power.

He didn't ignore it. In fact, he addressed it directly--- "the only thing modern socialists have in common with the Nazis is the word 'socialist' in the name." Just because the Nazis were the National Socialist party doesn't mean their politics had anything in common with the beliefs of modern socialists---just as most acknowledge that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a democracy, despite having the word "democratic" in there. Because words get used in different ways by different people. See?

Alright. I'll give you the Korea point.

But the fact of the matter is that Nazism still is heavily based upon Socialist ideas and even advocated them. Like I stated above, Socialism is not trying to create a classless society so much as it is trying to make a society that has people who are hard-workers and dedicated in powerful positions. It makes classes, but those people who take over those classes deserved them, in the Socialist government's eyes. The same thing happened with the Nazis. They gave the best positions to those who were more active in the Nazi party. This was very prevalent in their army, as well as in every day life. The Nazis gave more power to the central government, like Socialists do, and the State was present in every part of their life. Or, at least, according to what I have been taught, it was.

To a true Marxist, talking in marxist theory, the two are the same (Socialism & Communism). In practice, nations (or governments) have taken the ideas & called themselves Socialist, communist, or such titles as democatic socialists. However, they have always really been totalirian run state capitalism. When you take what Marx envisioned, it's only existed a brief time after the russian revolt & arguable in native america on a preindustrial level.

[Srork]

To a true Marxist, talking in marxist theory, the two are the same (Socialism & Communism). In practice, nations (or governments) have taken the ideas & called themselves Socialist, communist, or such titles as democatic socialists. However, they have always really been totalirian run state capitalism. When you take what Marx envisioned, it's only existed a brief time after the russian revolt & arguable in native america on a preindustrial level.

That's exactly what it is. Theory. Theory and reality are two different things.

[Anticommunist States]

actually he's got a point. politics used to be viewed as left and right wing, then it was viewed
left, right, authoritarian, anarchist.
now i'd say it's viewed as a sphere certain views will link into one another, others will be polar opposites.

His point isn't a good one. Find the right shade is key? No just let people govern there own god damn lives, and stop taxing people. If people want to put there money towards a government program, then allow them to do so after receiving all of there money. Anarchism for me at least, isn't the absence of government, it's the absence of the state which has a tax monopoly and doesn't have to abide by the rules of every day life.

You are right, I was a little vague - I am in favor of an extremely small national government with the states & counties having the brunt of day-to-day government operations and programs. I feel that if one state wishes to be primarily socialist - it can - it just won't be forcing it's choice on everyone else. And that goes the other way, too. One state may focus on next to no taxes and high individual responsiblity. Nothing wrong with either. As long as it's what the people want. AND as long as it doesn't end with the rest of the country being forced to accept other people's rhetoric. I feel that shrinking the National level of politics down to what it was originally intended - and reverting the states into their own politcal and governmental experiments, is the best way to do business.

Hope that clarifies my position a little better.

[Anticommunist States]

To a true Marxist, talking in marxist theory, the two are the same (Socialism & Communism). In practice, nations (or governments) have taken the ideas & called themselves Socialist, communist, or such titles as democatic socialists. However, they have always really been totalirian run state capitalism. When you take what Marx envisioned, it's only existed a brief time after the russian revolt & arguable in native america on a preindustrial level.

That's exactly what it is. Theory. Theory and reality are two different things.

All communism is socialism - but not all socialism is communism.

[Anticommunist States]

National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Bolshevikism, American Progressivism, and even Asian Communism were sister movements in a world-wide movement toward SOCIALISM. All of these have some slight differences in method and some came to tragic and horrible conclusions - but they are in essence far more similar than they are different. The smear that Fascism is "right-wing" was concocted by the Red's in that era. The brownshirts were basically as socialist as the redshirts, however they were merely rival factions battling for supremacy. In Italy the brownshirts won. In Germany, the brownshirts won. In Russia and in Far-Eastern Europe, the commies. So what? All the Progressives in America just absolutely doted on these "men of action" and their wonderful social experiments. If you do even a modicum of research into this fascinating time of world history, you know I'm not lying. And if you research futher, American Progressives spawned such Left-Wing heroes as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, & JFK.

So - and not implying that American Leftists have any Holocaust blood on their hands - Left-Wing politics have FAAAARRR more in common with Nazi's and Fascists than the American Right. Sorry. I'm not a Right-Winger, but i agree with some of what they say. This isn't propaganda, it isn't a smear, it's historical fact. I really don't have the time to write a small thesis on this, but a good place to start (but not exclusively) is to read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. It's quite fascinating, and he balances the book out by presenting an anti-right wing argument as well. And all his sources check out, too.

[Pevisopolis]

National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Bolshevikism, American Progressivism, and even Asian Communism were sister movements in a world-wide movement toward SOCIALISM.

National Socialism was a nationalist movement that had the word "Socialist" tacked to it to gain support of the German working class.

Italian Fascism... just ask GWO about that.

Bolshevism is Communist, but one of the many derivatives of it.

American Progressivism is moderately pro-regulation of capitalism, and much closer to center-right than any of those other ideologies.

Asian Communism is just re-designed Bolshevism.

[Anticommunist States]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of people reacting in certain ways to the names of different social philosophies. Like for instance, if you listen to conservative pundits and commentators use the word "Socialism", you may notice that they use it in the same context that one may use the words, "tyranny", "oppression", or "evil". It is just a political philosophy dammit. It's not evil, or bad or anything like that. Socialism is guilty of only being poorly executed by human beings. Ditto for capitalism. Until you stop hearing "tyranny", "oppression", and "evil" when you hear an opposing viewpoint - political discourse will go nowhere. I agree that the Obama Administration is putting us on a treadmill under the guise of Socialism. I disagree that the problem is Socialism itself. And I also believe that the Bush Admin. set us up for this crap as well. I believe that the politcal class is all in bed together, Dems, Reps, whatever. It makes no difference to these people as long as they keep us confused and keep themselves powerful. I really don't believe that Socialism can be "owned" by America or any other country for that matter. Because no one has to date implemented Socialism in the best interest of the country and it's people - they have all been implemented as some way to enrich and empower a specific class of people. We need limted National Government with strong emphasis on Indivdual States being able to have a nearly complete set of laws and system of governing from another state. National Government should be for national defence, diplomacy, and for a set of general guidelines (the constitution) as federal law. Education, Social Welfare Programs, and the like should fall exclusively under State responsibility.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of people reacting in certain ways to the names of different social philosophies. Like for instance, if you listen to conservative pundits and commentators use the word "Socialism", you may notice that they use it in the same context that one may use the words, "tyranny", "oppression", or "evil". It is just a political philosophy dammit. It's not evil, or bad or anything like that.

Economic

[Anticommunist States]

National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Bolshevikism, American Progressivism, and even Asian Communism were sister movements in a world-wide movement toward SOCIALISM.

National Socialism was a nationalist movement that had the word "Socialist" tacked to it to gain support of the German working class.

Italian Fascism... just ask GWO about that.

Bolshevism is Communist, but one of the many derivatives of it.

American Progressivism is moderately pro-regulation of capitalism, and much closer to center-right than any of those other ideologies.

Asian Communism is just re-designed Bolshevism.

And you have successfully stated the mild differences between these philosophies. Well done, except that if you actually look at National Socialism, it IS really socialist but plays on the patriotic feelings of Germans by highlighting Teutonic or Aryan superiority.

And once again - I'm saying that these have more in common with American Progressives rather than True Conservatives or Classical Liberals.

And also - I am not some Right-Wing Troll either, I'm just stating the facts.

[Anticommunist States]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of people reacting in certain ways to the names of different social philosophies. Like for instance, if you listen to conservative pundits and commentators use the word "Socialism", you may notice that they use it in the same context that one may use the words, "tyranny", "oppression", or "evil". It is just a political philosophy dammit. It's not evil, or bad or anything like that.

Economic

Socialism has little place in economic method. Capitalism is the superior economic method. Keeping it within the bounds of what is socially acceptable is important, but we can't get carried away with it either.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Unfortunately, I see a lot of people reacting in certain ways to the names of different social philosophies. Like for instance, if you listen to conservative pundits and commentators use the word "Socialism", you may notice that they use it in the same context that one may use the words, "tyranny", "oppression", or "evil". It is just a political philosophy dammit. It's not evil, or bad or anything like that.

Economic

Socialism has little place in economic method. Capitalism is the superior economic method. Keeping it within the bounds of what is socially acceptable is important, but we can't get carried away with it either.

I find socialism to be a more superior method as it really improves the welfare of more people. But I'm not talking about the socialism that histories crazies made up. Just the economic method that most European countries have adopted (and work quite well with).

[Dzvasdvsdv]

Of course it is. It involves giving a shit about other people and showing compassion.

[Kormanthor]

I'm all for helping people in need, however we need to help them become capable of providing for themselves as soon as possible. Not
supporting them there entire lifes. Help them better themselves, don't
hold them down.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm all for helping people in need, however we need to help them become capable of providing for themselves as soon as possible. Not
supporting them there entire lifes. Help them better themselves, don't
hold them down.

JK Rowling was surviving on welfare before her books were published, you know.

[Dzvasdvsdv]

I'm all for helping people in need, however we need to help them become capable of providing for themselves as soon as possible. Not
supporting them there entire lifes. Help them better themselves, don't
hold them down.

What happened to posting in Italics all the time?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm all for helping people in need, however we need to help them become capable of providing for themselves as soon as possible. Not
supporting them there entire lifes. Help them better themselves, don't
hold them down.

What happened to posting in Italics all the time?

Why did he do that?

[Dzvasdvsdv]

Why did he do that?

Kormanthor's a she. And I have no idea, possibly it made it more likely we'd see Jesus's love or something?

[Kormanthor]

Also I would like to remind those of you that have forgotten that Social Security is not a hand out given out of goodness of the governments heart.
For over 35 years they have taken money out of every check I have ever made supposedly so I would have some type of retirement in my golden years. This is no differant then if I had taken that money and invested it in the Stock Market all my life if I had been allowed to keep it. This is why it is owned to me and all the other Americans like me. So don't talk to me about even considering not making good on a promise made to us years ago.