It must be some sort of crazy religious thing that makes Americans hate socialism...

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ1jLxpfYCs

Apparently, Obama was a part of a quasi-socialist, progressive party back in the early 90s. Well, the media is digging some archived web pages back up in order to slander him. Now granted I don't believe that Obama is a socialist, nor for that matter a progressive at all, but I am stunned as to how even being associated with anything remotely left in this nations brands you as an evil, evil person.

Do we not live in a Republic? In a Republic serveral differing parties with competing ideologies are supposed to compete for the people's vote. Why does there only have to be ONE ideology that rules this nation? ONE ideology that breaks off into two factions; right business party and left business party?

If you go to ANY advanced nation in the world; Japan, France, Canada, Spain, the UK, Australia, Chile, etc. there has always been atleast one or two Socialist/leftist parties that have ran for office and won. None of those nations fell into despotism or turned into Cuba. It doesn't make any sense to me as to why Americans won't allow for other parties to try and compete. I thought this nations was all about competition!

There has to be some weird religious mania in this nation that keeps people from understanding socialism or progressive ideas. It has something to do with some flawed reading of Chrisian doctrine and why 'capitalism' is God's true way of running things. That is the only way I can explain how several years of the labor struggle in this nation was washed away from the history books in favor of outright distrust of unions, progressive ideas, and socialism in general. 60 years ago you couldn't convince a worker to vote for free trade, corporate subsidies, war or globalization. That would seem treasonous to him. But today, nearly EVERY working class to poor family is against any form of wealth redistribution and things that would benefit them. Instead, they choose to deny themselves the basic necessities for a "chance" that they might become rich one day to afford those things.

[FreeFocus]

The creators of that video incorrectly defined socialism and communism, as is usual. New Party was at best social-democratic.

Moreover, certainly the religious thing is a prominent component, but American culture itself has always been antithetical to socialism and its principles.

[RadioRaheem84]

The US culture has always been skeptical of socialism but instead has always supported quasi-socialist worker politicians like Huey Long. Progressive candidates like William Jennings Bryan and other candidates that believed in spreading the wealth. The only thing is that they refrained from calling themselves socialists even though their proposals have always been somewhat progressive or semi-socialist.

When ever I debate a person about the benefits of socialism, they one argument they use to end the the debate is that it's un-godly. Whenever they can't defend their position anymore they resort to the notion that socialism goes against God's plan and is a humanistic, atheist, anti-Christian doctrine.

Little do they know that most of the original socialisist theotricians were very religious men like Robert Owen. It really wasn't until Marx came along that Socialism was associted with atheism and un-godlyness.

[Muzk]

We've had threads like this before, propaganda/mass hypnosis kind of dominated the rest

[RadioRaheem84]

what boggles my mind is that most other advanced nations are firm on the notion that their nations must be run as a market based economy yet they have elected left politicians. Granted some of them are more social democrats than actually socialist but atleast they weren't belittled in the media as being boogeymen or agents of satan.

Yet, in the US, socialism is somehow seen as a dirty word that when uttered records scratch and eyes widen. Even among liberal people that is just a word that you dont associate yourself with.

I mean does it not bother Americans to consider the fact that while we live in a supposed Democratic-Constitutional Republic, that we really only two factions of the same party running things?

[chegitz guevara]

The only thing the New Party ever stood for was changing ballot access laws. I remember Solidarity trying to work with them in the mid90s around IPA (independent political action) and my asking, what do they stand for, and no one ever being able to give me an answer.

[The Douche]

A defense I often see used is that the US is a "republic" and not a "democracy". (which is true) And that in a republic majority rule does not necessarily equal law, because the rights of a minority will be protected dispite the will of the majority in a republic.

They view "socialism" not as collective ownership of the means of production, but as large social welfare programs, unions, and the occasional government involvement in business. So they see things like welfare, national healthcare, etc as programs which they pay for (their rights being infringed) to provide for others because of a majority vote (which is anti-republican). So they come to the conclusion that socialism is an idea which is completely incompatible with the US republic.

They are right. Socialism, whether we refer to their misunderstood concept of social democracy, or real socialism, is not compatible with republican form of government, because it relies on the majority (proletariat) siezing the property of (violating the rights of) a minority (the bourgeoisie).

[RadioRaheem84]

VERY good point. But then again, why have most socialist governments in the past been republican or at least described themselves as republican on paper?

Secondly, their misunderstanding of socialism does play a part in their distaste of it. For some reason, they think that its a lazy man's system. Where do they even get that idea? How can a WORKERS party, that favors the struggles of the working class be considered a "lazy" political system? I mean welfare cannot be all that they assume socialism to be about. Even so, that is such a small, miniscule notion the socialist parties support in order to get workers back to work. The social safety nets that we support are NOT what we are all about. We are about the fundamental restructuring of an oppressive economy to favor the workers, not the rich. How 'welfare' seems to be the only issue they understand about us is beyond me.


So they see things like welfare, national healthcare, etc as programs which they pay for (their rights being infringed) to provide for others because of a majority vote (which is anti-republican).

But if the majority voted for such proposals, then why can they not be enacted? If they fundamentally disagree with such things they can campaign against it and vote in politicians to repeal such laws. Whenever I hear the argument, "why do I have to pay for someone else's health care", I cringe because I think well why do you have to pay for my defense, my k-12 schooling, my postage, my retirement money, my housing, fire department, etc. I mean if we had that attitude for everything else, then we wouldn't have anything what so ever. Do they not know that all the governments job is to redistribute wealth (i.e. out taxes), whether that be for roads, schools, etc.? Why do they all of a sudden stop at certain notions they deem "socialist"? They should've stopped at the introduction of public schools if they want to be frank about it.

[The Douche]

VERY good point. But then again, why have most socialist governments in the past been republican or at least described themselves as republican on paper?

Its just semantics. Most people do not bother to differentiate between "republic" and "democracy". But that fact is that socialism is impossible in a republic, it can only exist in a democracy.


Secondly, their misunderstanding of socialism does play a part in their distaste of it. For some reason, they think that its a lazy man's system. Where do they even get that idea? How can a WORKERS party, that favors the struggles of the working class be considered a "lazy" political system?

Because they don't see socialism as the collective ownership of the means of production, they see it as social programs inside of the free market system. If you ask the average conservative what socialism is, they will probably tell you its "something for nothing". When in reality such programs only exist under capitalism.


I mean welfare cannot be all that they assume socialism to be about. Even so, that is such a small, miniscule notion the socialist parties support in order to get workers back to work. The social safety nets that we support are NOT what we are all about. We are about the fundamental restructuring of an oppressive economy to favor the workers, not the rich. How 'welfare' seems to be the only issue they understand about us is beyond me.

The average US conservative has no idea what socialism is, they believe it to be "what they have in France" or "what Obama wants". In my mind welfare and similiar social programs are not only not socialist but are in fact anti-socialist, as the individual is not giving "from their abilities" but are still recieving "according to their needs".


But if the majority voted for such proposals, then why can they not be enacted? If they fundamentally disagree with such things they can campaign against it and vote in politicians to repeal such laws.

Majority rule is the basis of democracy, not republican government. The whole point of a republic is that a majority cannot infringe on the rights of a minority. So socialism is anti-republican.


Whenever I hear the argument, "why do I have to pay for someone else's health care", I cringe because I think well why do you have to pay for my defense, my k-12 schooling, my postage, my retirement money, my housing, fire department, etc. I mean if we had that attitude for everything else, then we wouldn't have anything what so ever. Do they not know that all the governments job is to redistribute wealth (i.e. out taxes), whether that be for roads, schools, etc.? Why do they all of a sudden stop at certain notions they deem "socialist"? They should've stopped at the introduction of public schools if they want to be frank about it.

You should understand that there are different types of conservative thought, just as there are different types of socialist thought. A moderate conservative (like a US democrat) doesn't have a problem with government services (but would have a problem with worker control of the means of production). But a radical conservative or a classical liberal (like a Ron Paul supporter) thinks that the only job of government is to provide for the common defense, regulate interstate/international commerce, and handle treaties. Per the republican form of government, they are right. The government only exists for those tasks, and they consider things like public schooling to be socialist and they are opposed to it.

Taxation is not the redistribution of wealth in and of itself. While it can be used for such a purpose (i.e. welfare), most of it is not. The construction of a road is not wealth redistribution, nor is a defense budget.

[Pogue]

I don't think it is 'religious'. I think it shows the power that an omni-present media machine has over a populace.

[RadioRaheem84]

Its just semantics. Most people do not bother to differentiate between "republic" and "democracy". But that fact is that socialism is impossible in a republic, it can only exist in a democracy.



Because they don't see socialism as the collective ownership of the means of production, they see it as social programs inside of the free market system. If you ask the average conservative what socialism is, they will probably tell you its "something for nothing". When in reality such programs only exist under capitalism.



The average US conservative has no idea what socialism is, they believe it to be "what they have in France" or "what Obama wants". In my mind welfare and similiar social programs are not only not socialist but are in fact anti-socialist, as the individual is not giving "from their abilities" but are still recieving "according to their needs".



Majority rule is the basis of democracy, not republican government. The whole point of a republic is that a majority cannot infringe on the rights of a minority. So socialism is anti-republican.



You should understand that there are different types of conservative thought, just as there are different types of socialist thought. A moderate conservative (like a US democrat) doesn't have a problem with government services (but would have a problem with worker control of the means of production). But a radical conservative or a classical liberal (like a Ron Paul supporter) thinks that the only job of government is to provide for the common defense, regulate interstate/international commerce, and handle treaties. Per the republican form of government, they are right. The government only exists for those tasks, and they consider things like public schooling to be socialist and they are opposed to it.

Taxation is not the redistribution of wealth in and of itself. While it can be used for such a purpose (i.e. welfare), most of it is not. The construction of a road is not wealth redistribution, nor is a defense budget.

I beg to differ. Sometimes construction can favor a certain sectors of the economy. The Federal Highway Acts supported the suburbanization of America which in general led to the growth out the automobile industry. The government can contract out certain construction projects to private firms. Wealth redistribution doesnt have to mean 'take from rich and give to poor', it can also mean 'take from poor to give to rich'. Defense budgets are all about the nanny state feeding corporate giants.

It just seems like Americans are picky and choosy about what is wealth redistribution. Obamas health insurance plan was just going to be another public expenditure to private health insurance firms and hospitals. Why is that all of a sudden socialistic but not the what I mentioned above?

Cannot the public wish and vote for their government to put those taxes into social programs that will benefit the public under a republican system?

[*Red*Alert]

I think the media in the US has a hell of a lot to answer for when it comes to this issue. I had the displeasure of watching Fox News on Digital TV over here on the day of Ted Kennedy's funeral and the bile that was coming from the Right wing host and a Right wing guest against one Democrat was hilarious, they actually contradicted themselves several times.

The man was not even buried and they were attacking his legacy as a "failed politician", who represented the "losing side" (the Democrat's social democracy) and that the attempt to name the upcoming health care bill after him was simply attempting to soften a policy that would rob Americans, blah blah blah.

When millions of people have this being beamed into their homes, restaurants, bars, work places, and even through their car stereos, it works like a popular music track embedding itself in people's mindset by skewing facts and making them think that any attempt to provide for the less well off is direct robbery of their own wages.

It was actually revolting to watch but what frightens me is that media over here is going the same way, the constant dumbing down of the masses to react in a volatile way to anything which they have not been programmed to receive.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why can't they look at it as in investment in people to keep the economy going? If we're having people die, fall ill, and cannot get adequate health care in the nation, become bankrupt, etc. then wouldn't that damper the economy and hurt the workforce?

[The Douche]

I beg to differ. Sometimes construction can favor a certain sectors of the economy. The Federal Highway Acts supported the suburbanization of America which in general led to the growth out the automobile industry. The government can contract out certain construction projects to private firms. Wealth redistribution doesnt have to mean 'take from rich and give to poor', it can also mean 'take from poor to give to rich'. Defense budgets are all about the nanny state feeding corporate giants.

It just seems like Americans are picky and choosy about what is wealth redistribution. Obamas health insurance plan was just going to be another public expenditure to private health insurance firms and hospitals. Why is that all of a sudden socialistic but not the what I mentioned above?

Cannot the public wish and vote for their government to put those taxes into social programs that will benefit the public under a republican system?

I don't think that counts a "wealth redistribution". Infrastructure development does benefit the economy, but at the same time, the increase in use of automobiles led to the creation of jobs. Its not really wealth redistribution. And providing for the common defense certainly isn't.

I don't get what you're pursuing with this point. How is providing for the military wealth redistribution? Yes, you have to buy supplies for them, so you think that spending money on uniforms counts as wealth redistribution to the rich from the taxpayer?

That isn't wealth redistribution. Corporate bailouts would be an example of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.

All social programs are counter-republican, they rely on the taxation of workers to provide for those who do not work, it represents the infirngement of the rights of certain citizens because of the vote of other citizens, that is what republicanism is supposed to prevent.

The ability to undo such policies through the vote represents democracy, the republican system is supposed to prevent that from happening at all.


Americans who are attachted to the concept of republicanism will always oppose socialism, whether its the bullshit social democracy/welfare state that they currently perceive, or legitimate socialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think that counts a "wealth redistribution". Infrastructure development does benefit the economy, but at the same time, the increase in use of automobiles led to the creation of jobs. Its not really wealth redistribution. And providing for the common defense certainly isn't.

I don't get what you're pursuing with this point. How is providing for the military wealth redistribution? Yes, you have to buy supplies for them, so you think that spending money on uniforms counts as wealth redistribution to the rich from the taxpayer?

That isn't wealth redistribution. Corporate bailouts would be an example of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich.

All social programs are counter-republican, they rely on the taxation of workers to provide for those who do not work, it represents the infirngement of the rights of certain citizens because of the vote of other citizens, that is what republicanism is supposed to prevent.

The ability to undo such policies through the vote represents democracy, the republican system is supposed to prevent that from happening at all.


Americans who are attachted to the concept of republicanism will always oppose socialism, whether its the bullshit social democracy/welfare state that they currently perceive, or legitimate socialism.


OK, so basically creating an unsustainable way of life (suburbanization) also based on fossil fuels and evironmental degradation to benefit certain sectors is not corporate welfare to you?

The same with supporting a system based on endless war? The money doesn't just go to uniforms but weapons, equipment, etc. that is supposed to go toward defense. This is good to some extent but also perpetuates a cycle of endless confrontations and arms races. Another unsustainable endeavor to benefit certain sectors.

Even the Cato Institute disagrees with corporate welfare. What is your defense? So its ok for the government to benefit certain industries with tax cuts, subsidies and bailouts but its not ok for your neighbor to receive health care (even if it does benefit soem private firm too) ?

The concept of Republicanism will not always clash with socialism as many republics have elected socialist politicians. Granted I highly doubt they adhere to genuine socialism.

[The Douche]

OK, so basically creating an unsustainable way of life (suburbanization) also based on fossil fuels and evironmental degradation to benefit certain sectors is not corporate welfare to you?

The same with supporting a system based on endless war? The money doesn't just go to uniforms but weapons, equipment, etc. that is supposed to go toward defense. This is good to some extent but also perpetuates a cycle of endless confrontations and arms races. Another unsustainable endeavor to benefit certain sectors.

Even the Cato Institute disagrees with corporate welfare. What is your defense? So its ok for the government to benefit certain industries with tax cuts, subsidies and bailouts but its not ok for your neighbor to receive health care (even if it does benefit soem private firm too) ?

The concept of Republicanism will not always clash with socialism as many republics have elected socialist politicians. Granted I highly doubt they adhere to genuine socialism.

No, government spending is not the same thing as "wealth redistribution".

Where have I argued in favor of corporate welfare? Where the fuck did I say I support giving tax cuts, subsidies and bailouts to business but not spending money on health care?

If you think socialism can exist in a republican form of government then you do not know what republicanism is. If a republic has undergone a socialist revolution then they are no longer a republic...

[RadioRaheem84]

No, government spending is not the same thing as "wealth redistribution".

Where have I argued in favor of corporate welfare? Where the fuck did I say I support giving tax cuts, subsidies and bailouts to business but not spending money on health care?

If you think socialism can exist in a republican form of government then you do not know what republicanism is. If a republic has undergone a socialist revolution then they are no longer a republic...


What are the semantics behind most of the movements out there that were and are socialist and republican? I am confused about this. Perhaps you can explain.

[The Douche]

What are the semantics behind most of the movements out there that were and are socialist and republican? I am confused about this. Perhaps you can explain.

I don't understand what your question is.

Do you know what republicanism is? And how it relates to and has been formed in the US? While republicanism may have some differring qualities through out the world, it is generally acceptted to be a representative form of government based on voting. In the US we have a constitutional republic, in which the rights of the minority (garunteed to all citizens in the constitution) are garunteed and protected, yes, even from a majority vote. This is the meaning of the US form of government, that is the kind of government we have had since the country was established.

Can other countries form a government based on republican principles while implementing socialism? Yes I suppose, but their constitution would obviously be very different from the US constitution.

In the US we are tied to the current form of government (a constitutional republic). Socialism is not compatible with the form of government we have, because, I have said, socialism means depriving a minority of the rights garunteed to them by the constitution. So in order to have socialism in the US we must either a)abandon the republic or b)rewrite the constitution.

That's why many citizens hate socialism, because it is unconstitutional.

[Raúl Duke]

what boggles my mind is that most other advanced nations are firm on the notion that their nations must be run as a market based economy yet they have elected left politicians. Granted some of them are more social democrats than actually socialist but atleast they weren't belittled in the media as being boogeymen or agents of satan.Prior to the 2nd red scare, the U.S. has elected openly socialist candidates in local governments, etc in some areas. Part of the problem now has to do with the cultural baggage from this era (McCarty era) carrying over and being sustained by the current media.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Its just semantics. Most people do not bother to differentiate between "republic" and "democracy". But that fact is that socialism is impossible in a republic, it can only exist in a democracy.
That is incorrect. The fact is that the term "republic" does not have any clear definition in the modern world. It used to mean something centuries ago, but today it can be - and often is - used by anyone to mean anything.

Originally, the term "republic" referred to a form of government in which public office was not hereditary. In other words, a republic was a government in which a son could not automatically inherit the political position of his father. A few centuries ago, this was a radical new idea. It was advocated by the (non-hereditary) bourgeoisie in its struggle to break the power of the (hereditary) aristocracy. Today it's pretty much accepted as an obvious, common-sense rule of politics almost everywhere in the world. So, by the original definition, almost every country in the world is a republic.

The idea of republicanism has been rendered obsolete by its own success. If everyone supports a republic, there is no point in talking about it any more. But the word "republic" still sounds good, so many people have decided to use it as a name for various ideas that have little or nothing to do with its original meaning.


Socialism is not compatible with the form of government we have, because, I have said, socialism means depriving a minority of the rights garunteed to them by the constitution. So in order to have socialism in the US we must either a)abandon the republic or b)rewrite the constitution.

That's why many citizens hate socialism, because it is unconstitutional.
Actually, that's not true either. Most Americans (especially conservative political pundits) seem to have no idea what the US constitution actually says. Read it here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

On the one hand, yes, the constitution (or to be more exact, the 5th amendment) forbids a transition to socialism by banning the nationalization of property without compensation. But it is only the transition, not the socialist system itself, that goes against the constitution. There is nothing in the US constitution to say that the means of production must be private, or that the economy must be market-based. If the workers somehow magically found themselves in possession of the means of production, they could set up a socialist system and it would be entirely constitutional.

Also, we should never forget that a piece of paper has no power in and of itself. The US is not ruled by the constitution, it's ruled by the capitalists. For practical purposes, it doesn't really matter what the constitution says. It only matters what the capitalists say.

[The Douche]

That is incorrect. The fact is that the term "republic" does not have any clear definition in the modern world. It used to mean something centuries ago, but today it can be - and often is - used by anyone to mean anything.

Originally, the term "republic" referred to a form of government in which public office was not hereditary. In other words, a republic was a government in which a son could not automatically inherit the political position of his father. A few centuries ago, this was a radical new idea. It was advocated by the (non-hereditary) bourgeoisie in its struggle to break the power of the (hereditary) aristocracy. Today it's pretty much accepted as an obvious, common-sense rule of politics almost everywhere in the world. So, by the original definition, almost every country in the world is a republic.

The idea of republicanism has been rendered obsolete by its own success. If everyone supports a republic, there is no point in talking about it any more. But the word "republic" still sounds good, so many people have decided to use it as a name for various ideas that have little or nothing to do with its original meaning.


You're right, but as I did make clear later in thread, I am referring to the constitutional republic which exists in the US.


Actually, that's not true either. Most Americans (especially conservative political pundits) seem to have no idea what the US constitution actually says. Read it here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)


It is indeed true. And you're right, most people don't know what is in the constitution, I would say that especially revleft posters are oblivious to it. I however am not, my father is a constitutionalist and I have read the constitution a thousand times, as well as the complete federalist papers more times than I care to remember.


On the one hand, yes, the constitution (or to be more exact, the 5th amendment) forbids a transition to socialism by banning the nationalization of property without compensation. But it is only the transition, not the socialist system itself, that goes against the constitution. There is nothing in the US constitution to say that the means of production must be private, or that the economy must be market-based. If the workers somehow magically found themselves in possession of the means of production, they could set up a socialist system and it would be entirely constitutional.


What an absurd arguement! Why would even take us down a road like this. Socialism is not unconstitutional, just making socialism is...So fucking what? Jesus christ, talk about semantics. It doesn't matter that the constitution does not explicitly forbid socialist economics if it forbids the siezure of the means of production.


Also, we should never forget that a piece of paper has no power in and of itself. The US is not ruled by the constitution, it's ruled by the capitalists. For practical purposes, it doesn't really matter what the constitution says. It only matters what the capitalists say.

Of course, but the point of this discussion is not the legality of socialism. The point, and the question asked was "why do americans (sic) hate socialism?". The answer is (aside from a general lack of knowledge) that it runs counter to the constitution, which is the founding document of the modern US government.


If you want to actually debate the constitutionality of socialism then I'd discuss that with you in another thread. But its not suited for this one.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You're right, but as I did make clear later in thread, I am referring to the constitutional republic which exists in the US.

It is indeed true. And you're right, most people don't know what is in the constitution, I would say that especially revleft posters are oblivious to it. I however am not, my father is a constitutionalist and I have read the constitution a thousand times, as well as the complete federalist papers more times than I care to remember.
Ah, ok, I did not know that.


What an absurd arguement! Why would even take us down a road like this. Socialism is not unconstitutional, just making socialism is...So fucking what? Jesus christ, talk about semantics. It doesn't matter that the constitution does not explicitly forbid socialist economics if it forbids the siezure of the means of production.
Oh, of course it's of no practical significance. Even if the constitution allowed the seizure of the means of production, it would still be of no practical significance, since the bourgeoisie would still do everything within their power to stop us, constitution or no constitution.

But since many Americans are so attached to the idea of constitutionality, it may be a worthwhile argument to point out to them that socialism is, technically, constitutional. It could be useful in our propaganda.


Of course, but the point of this discussion is not the legality of socialism. The point, and the question asked was "why do americans (sic) hate socialism?". The answer is (aside from a general lack of knowledge) that it runs counter to the constitution, which is the founding document of the modern US government.
I'm not sure I can agree with the second part of that answer. Given that most Americans don't know what the constitution actually says, the words of the constitution can't be all that important in shaping public opinion.


If you want to actually debate the constitutionality of socialism then I'd discuss that with you in another thread. But its not suited for this one.
I agree.