Is Socialism Un-American?

[Conservatives states]

Bro, slow the fuck down. There is no true capitalist "state". States are beacons of corruption and mismanagement of resources. You can call the state fascist, socialist, state capitalist, and even drop the state behind capitalist. It doesn't make a bit of difference, it's all the same thing. If you want, what the right sometimes refers to as capitalism, and the free market, you can't have a state.

Imo, the more right you go, the more Socialist you become.

For argument sake let's stick with American rightists. The Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are rightist in America.

[Conservatives states]

Bro, slow the fuck down. There is no true capitalist "state". States are beacons of corruption and mismanagement of resources. You can call the state fascist, socialist, state capitalist, and even drop the state behind capitalist. It doesn't make a bit of difference, it's all the same thing. If you want, what the right sometimes refers to as capitalism, and the free market, you can't have a state.

Imo, the more right you go, the more Socialist you become.

Wait, what? The more right you go? If you mean right as in Austrian Liberalism, then yes, but if you mean Right as in Right Wing, then no.

Again for argument sake, let's use 1 definition of left and right. Left being socially permissive, and economically restrained, and right being economically permissive, and socially restrained.

[Srork]

:palm: For argument sake let's stick with American rightists. The Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are rightist in America.

Agreed.

Bro, slow the fuck down. There is no true capitalist "state". States are beacons of corruption and mismanagement of resources. You can call the state fascist, socialist, state capitalist, and even drop the state behind capitalist. It doesn't make a bit of difference, it's all the same thing. If you want, what the right sometimes refers to as capitalism, and the free market, you can't have a state.

Imo, the more right you go, the more Socialist you become.

Wait, what? The more right you go? If you mean right as in Austrian Liberalism, then yes, but if you mean Right as in Right Wing, then no.

Ja, I do mean the more Right you go. Because it seems, in this country, that the more Right we go, the more power we seem to be giving to the Government. I bring up the case of 'Gay Marriage' and 'Abortion', here. In 'Gay Marriage', the government officially says that 'Two men cannot be legally married', that being said, the government is officially issuing a statement and enforcing that statement on people. The statement that two men married cannot be. This eliminates the choice of there being both Straight and Gay marriages, to the point where there is only Straight.

Abortion is another case, in which the government says that a woman does not have a choice, and may only pick one.

Now, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't Socialists, but the Republicans and the other Right-wingers aren't necessarily non-Socialists as well. Let's not forget here what Left and Right was originally about. Those who were on the 'Left', were technically against more government power, and those on the 'Right' were technically FOR government power.

And if you really want to go to the FAR, FAR, FAAAR, Right-wingers, you'll get your Fascists and the like.

Fascists being Socialists.

[Rhodmhire]

In Soviet Russia, slogans read YOU!!

Disclaimer: It didn't succeed--did it?

[Conservatives states]

Is Socialism Un-American?

You may select 1 option

Yes, keep Socialism out of America!

No, everything needs a mix of Socialism in it.

Can we get a third, anarchist option?

[Anticommunist States]

There is no left and right - "pure" forms of governing tend to produce the same results. Whether it be communism, National Socialist, Fascist, Monarchial, Oligarchial, pure democratic (mob rule), corpratist (large companies governing), or pure capitalism (which essentially is anarchy with every man for themself). There is no 3rd path - there are only shades of gray. Finding that right shade is the key. And we should focus on limiting the power of those that govern. Even if they claim to be what we want a politician or leader to be - we must ALWAYS remain distrustful of those that wield power.

And NO, Socialism is American, and should have a place in government - just not at the National Level.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

In Soviet Russia, slogans read YOU!!

Disclaimer: It didn't succeed--did it?

[Conservatives states]

There is no left and right - "pure" forms of governing tend to produce the same results. Whether it be communism, National Socialist, Fascist, Monarchial, Oligarchial, pure democratic (mob rule), corpratist (large companies governing), or pure capitalism (which essentially is anarchy with every man for themself). There is no 3rd path - there are only shades of gray. Finding that right shade is the key. And we should focus on limiting the power of those that govern. Even if they claim to be what we want a politician or leader to be - we must ALWAYS remain distrustful of those that wield power.

And NO, Socialism is American, and should have a place in government - just not at the National Level.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

There is no left and right - "pure" forms of governing tend to produce the same results. Whether it be communism, National Socialist, Fascist, Monarchial, Oligarchial, pure democratic (mob rule), corpratist (large companies governing), or pure capitalism (which essentially is anarchy with every man for themself). There is no 3rd path - there are only shades of gray. Finding that right shade is the key. And we should focus on limiting the power of those that govern. Even if they claim to be what we want a politician or leader to be - we must ALWAYS remain distrustful of those that wield power.

And NO, Socialism is American, and should have a place in government - just not at the National Level.

<snip palms>:

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.

[Conservatives 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.

[Maerngau]

about the Public School system,)

Eh... Charter schools are a lot better then public. Basically a private school where you don't have to pay extreme amounts (I think it is like 30$ a session or something around that area)

The operative factor in a charter school isn't the charter itself or all that "market competition" crap, it's the fact that the parents give a damn about education in the first place. The students self-select to go to a school where they don't have to deal with kids who can't or won't hack it. Believe me, the single most important factor in the success of a school in the respect for work and education (and just plain social skills) that are taught in the home. A *great* teacher can turn things around for some of the students, and a "great" school can turn things around for a few more students. But declining education quality is a symptom of american culture in general.

- Computers and technology don't mean sh!t.
- "Teaching to the test" doesn't mean sh!t.
- 90% of the all the education reform buzzwords don't mean sh!t.


I say this after teaching at an elite magnet-type school for several years, and now teaching in one of the poorest, and certainly the most diverse, district in my state. IE, I've seen both sides of the fence.

[Maerngau]

Now, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't Socialists, but the Republicans and the other Right-wingers aren't necessarily non-Socialists as well. Let's not forget here what Left and Right was originally about. Those who were on the 'Left', were technically against more government power, and those on the 'Right' were technically FOR government power.

Er, no.

The terms left and right, in political discourse, come from the French Revolution. After the king was deposed, in the national assembly, the hard-core republicans (IE, the anti-monarchists - NOT today's republicans) wanted to establish a state "based on reason." They sat on the left side of the the assembly hall. They supported, or had the support, of the Parisian lower classes, which detested monarchy, feudalism, etc. but did support the ancestors of trade unions.

The wealthy bourgeois (middle class bankers and lawyers), groups that didn't want the unwashed masses to have much power, sat on the right side of the assembly. They also weren;t as anti-monarchical as the folks on the left. They basically wanted more political power for rich folks who might not have a noble title. Later on the term broadened to include reactionary monarchists as well.

This is horrendously simplified, but nonetheless, your claim that "The left was against more government power" is incorrect. More like, "against medieval, arbitrary, irrational monarchies."

"Liberal" originally meant pro-business, limited government beliefs favored by the bourgeoisie in post-rev. France. It is really the ancestor of today's Free Market Zombie religion. Nowadays "liberal" is a nearly useless term other than as a pejorative applied to progressives and socialists.

[Rolling squid]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While not the end-all, the fact that the constitution was designed to promote the general welfare means that socialism is no more unamerican than any other system. Whats important is what works, and as far as I'm concerned, socialism does work very well.

[Surote]

Socialism is just like everyother idealogy so no it's not un-american

[Soratsin]

Before you go about trying to prove whether socialism is un-American or not you'd have to come up with a coherent definition of "American", which is practically impossible. So I'd call this thread pointless.

[Srork]

This is horrendously simplified, but nonetheless, your claim that "The left was against more government power" is incorrect. More like, "against medieval, arbitrary, irrational monarchies."

You misunderstand what I mean. When I say they are against more government, I do not mean that they are against governments period, simply that they are against more one-man one-party dictatorship/monarchies that you are describing. That being said, you've already proved my point.

[Tech-gnosis]

Eh... Charter schools are a lot better then public. Basically a private school where you don't have to pay extreme amounts (I think it is like 30$ a session or something around that area)

Do you have a source that says Charter schools are better than public schools? In any case, it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of the thread. Charter schools are publically funded and regulated.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Okay so I'm at a small Memorial Park on the Island, and its the last weeks before tourists finally depart for the north.

I'm hanging out with friends and some guy with his daughter and wife go to the tire swings. He puffed out his chest so everyone can read his stupid shirt.

This was the shirt he was wearing:



Ignore the Obama Logo..

But do you think Socialism is Un-American?

Sadly, socialism in America goes back to colonial days. It failed in colonial days, too.
The pilgrims began the Plymouth colony under a socialist charter and everyone depended on someone else in the colony to work for them. When they ditched their socialist charter and allowed people to profit off of the fruits of their own labor, the colony thrived.

Socialism is failure and failure is un-American.

[Srork]

Sadly, socialism in America goes back to colonial days. It failed in colonial days, too.
The pilgrims began the Plymouth colony under a socialist charter and everyone depended on someone else in the colony to work for them. When they ditched their socialist charter and allowed people to profit off of the fruits of their own labor, the colony thrived.

Socialism is failure and failure is un-American.

Sadly, both the first and second parts of that last statement are untrue. China is the dominant power in this world right now, and it, despite it being part Capitalist, holds a complete Communistic state. It is Socialist.

Nazi Germany was Fascist, ergo, Socialist. That state was not a failure in any regard, save for its ethics.

The USSR could've probably beat the the U.S. in a straight fight back during the Cold War. That was Socialist as well.

Furthermore, Socialism is still present in America, and America's history. It is why we set free the 'Articles of Confederation' in favor of the 'Constitution', which was technically founded on the principle of giving our government more power, which is a Socialist idea.

Failure is un-American you say? Well, you may very well think that. But this Left-Wing Nationalist believes that his country has always truly been about taking things in 'moderation'. So while we haven't always won things, nor always lost them, failures are something we clearly learn from. They are a part of any nation, for how can a nation get any better if it does not have a trial and error first?

EDIT : Didn't know if you were being sarcastic, so I decided to go with 'No', but if you are, just disregard that whole post.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Sadly, both the first and second parts of that last statement are untrue. China is the dominant power in this world right now, and it, despite it being part Capitalist, holds a complete Communistic state. It is Socialist.

Nazi Germany was Fascist, ergo, Socialist. That state was not a failure in any regard, save for its ethics.

The USSR could've probably beat the the U.S. in a straight fight back during the Cold War. That was Socialist as well.

Furthermore, Socialism is still present in America, and America's history. It is why we set free the 'Articles of Confederation' in favor of the 'Constitution', which was technically founded on the principle of giving our government more power, which is a Socialist idea.

Failure is un-American you say? Well, you may very well think that. But this Left-Wing Nationalist believes that his country has always truly been about taking things in 'moderation'. So while we haven't always won things, nor always lost them, failures are something we clearly learn from. They are a part of any nation, for how can a nation get any better if it does not have a trial and error first?

EDIT : Didn't know if you were being sarcastic, so I decided to go with 'No', but if you are, just disregard that whole post.

no, just no. china is not the dominant power.

[Srork]

no, just no. china is not the dominant power.

You're going to slowly explain to me how their more then one million man army and their majority dominance of the U.S's economy does not make them the dominant power.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

You're going to slowly explain to me how their more then one million man army and their majority dominance of the U.S's economy does not make them the dominant power.

because their army is poorly equipped, and they rely on foreign investment to gain much of their dominance of finance.
besides it would be unfeesible to deploy a million man army, the resources required to keep that number of people alive and fighting the enemy would be impractical.
then there's the issue of their civil rights being utter shit.
Their population (which is HUUuuge) is largely living in poor conditions, whereas by contrast many other nations live in better conditions e.g. US, European nations, probably some south American countries have better living conditions than many who live in China.

Their political system is a joke. need i go on?

[Antilon]

Could we move away from this notion of "Un-American" and "American"?

This is pretty much what I was going to say. Our obsession with 'unAmerican' makes us look fucking stupid.

un-American sounds suspiciously like Newspeak; how long before we have "doubleplusunAmerican"?.

[Kogler]

Socialism is a great system - for people who can't or wont think for themselves and wants the govenment to "take care of them".

The United States of America was NOT founded on the tenants of socialism.

It is Un-American.

[Antilon]

Socialism is a great system - for people who can't or wont think for themselves and wants the govenment to "take care of them".

The United States of America was NOT founded on the tenants of socialism.

It is Un-American.

Then why does the U.S. Constitution give the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerece?