Why do Americans hate socialism so much?

[LeninistKing]

DEAR SOCIALIST FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN USA: I am not a psychiatrist, nor psychologist nor sociologist so i dont really know what is the main cause of why americans dont like socialism. I think that the USA-left needs a forum and seminar on the psychological causes of why most americans hate socialism. Because lately ive encountered some violent opposition around where i live, with my family and in the internet with people from America who are real violent against socialism. So i think that the US left needs to digg deeper to find the causes of why if the US economy is so bad and if most americans are beating the bullets economically and USA capitalism is no longer the dream of liberty, why do americans are so reluctanct and hard-headed against socialism ideology.

.

.

[sarmchain]

well for over 150 years americans have been told how great capitalism is and how communism will take away all your freedoms....

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

1) Cold War rivalry, sentiments of nationalism, identification of patriotism = military
2) Fundamentalist Christianity
3) Anti-communist propaganda
4) Some fucked up shit done by people claiming to be communists
5) Pride of American superpower status/imperialism
6) Racism (the communists are going to take your shit and give it to the Black people!)
7) Deeply ingrained patriarchy
8) Media/gov't creation of the "middle class" idea
9) Genuine misguided belief that the US is a force for good in the world as is

Among others...

[LeninistKing]

Thanks a lot for those main points on the main causes of why many people in America reject socialism ideology. And i thik that you also forgot to add another relevant point to that list, which is the idea that capitalism means USA and USA is equal to capitalism.

Remember that one of the main traits of slavery, of being a slave like most americans are, is not knowing the meanings of words (poor philological knowledge), and many americans have this wrong definition of capitalism thinking that capitalism means a land, a country. And they think that capitalism is actually United States with all its natural resoursces so if you are anti-capitalism, to many americans it means that you hate USA along with all its rivers, land and natural resources.

.



1) Cold War rivalry, sentiments of nationalism, identification of patriotism = military
2) Fundamentalist Christianity
3) Anti-communist propaganda
4) Some fucked up shit done by people claiming to be communists
5) Pride of American superpower status/imperialism
6) Racism (the communists are going to take your shit and give it to the Black people!)
7) Deeply ingrained patriarchy
8) Media/gov't creation of the "middle class" idea
9) Genuine misguided belief that the US is a force for good in the world as is

Among others...

[The Douche]

I think the main reason is that people think socialism is for the poor, instead of for the working class, and even when you point that out, virtually nobody in the US thinks of themselves as working class. In the US class has come to be defined as how much you make/the car you have/if you own a home, and not in your relationship to the means of production.

Thats why politicians and the general population is always screaming about the "middle class", because they have been taught that they are actually part of it (and that now their presence therein is threatend).

[Guerrilla22]

Years and years of being force fed propaganda.

[LeninistKing]

You are right, in USA people think that just because they can eat 3 meals a day, own a car, and live in a mortgaged house they think of themselves as part of the middle bourgeoise class. Even if they are actually low-wage proletarian workers like most people in USA are working their backs and bones 12 hours a day just to afford to live in that house, while eating cheap foods high in carbohydrates. Man if that is middle class, maybe they think that in order to be part of the oppressed lower working-class you have to live under a bridge.

I think that they label themselves "middle class citizens" because of conformism and because they dont want to face the ugly reality that they are oppressed, depressed, exploited and live in harsh conditions. Because like Cyphers in The Matrix who says: "Ignorance is a bliss"


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


The character Cypher, the movie The Matrix, is the traitor who delivered the Morpheus to Agent Smith, Cypher is the "Judas" in modern times.

Tired of living in the world, where he took the red pill, Cypher decides deliver Morpheus to Agent Smith, in exchange for him to make Cypher return to the Matrix.

We have here two opposites:

Cypher confesses to Agent Smith, who is tired of living in the "real world", who wants to be rich and do not want to remember anything ...

The Agent Smith, wants to know the "codes" to enter into Zion, and that he is tired of living in the "Matrix", whereas a prison ...

Cypher also says: "Ignorance is blissl" ... But we all know that the only thing that frees us, is the truth ...




.

.



I think the main reason is that people think socialism is for the poor, instead of for the working class, and even when you point that out, virtually nobody in the US thinks of themselves as working class. In the US class has come to be defined as how much you make/the car you have/if you own a home, and not in your relationship to the means of production.

Thats why politicians and the general population is always screaming about the "middle class", because they have been taught that they are actually part of it (and that now their presence therein is threatend).

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'd say that Americans in general don't hate the left, as much as they fear the left. This fear was/is instilled in them through constant capitalist propaganda in almost every aspect of their daily lives, about all the crazy things that commies want.

[syndicat]

I think attitudes towards socialism in the USA vary depending upon class, race and age. In recent polls, more young people say they are sympathetic to socialism than say they are sympathetic to capitalism. The younger generation faces declining prospects, unlike previous generations, and is thus has more reasons to not like the present system.

Notice that the bogus "American Dream" -- the ideology that says you can make it if you work hard, and if you're poor it's your own fault, is part of the problem. It's an ideology that serves the interests of the dominating classes.

Also, a problem is that people don't know what socialism is, or what all the variants are, because of the left's lack of visibility, it's small size, and failure at communicating. So, even among the working class, who would be more open to it, there is a lack of familiarity.

Thus people associate "socialism" with the state running or controlling things. They don't associate it with increased actual grassroots power of ordinary people. And there is the fact that state socialism has failed. The social democratic parties in Europe have largely abandoned their former socialist ideals, and the Communist regimes were authoritarian class systems and one-party police states. To the extent that ordinary people think positively about socialism, it's likely they're thinking of higher levels of social benefits provided by European welfare states.

[RadioRaheem84]

To the extent that ordinary people think positively about socialism, it's likely they're thinking of higher levels of social benefits provided by European welfare states.

Yes, Americans think of socialism as social democratic welfare state.




I think the main reason is that people think socialism is for the poor, instead of for the working class, and even when you point that out, virtually nobody in the US thinks of themselves as working class. In the US class has come to be defined as how much you make/the car you have/if you own a home, and not in your relationship to the means of production.




This is also true. Americans do not see themselves as poor because income and net worth is overshadowed by consumption and cheap credit.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

In my experience, a lot of Americans don't hate socialism - they do however hate the word itself and the stereotype associated with it.
I'm sure if you presented most Americans with the ideals of socialism and the system in which they're living, without using any explicit terminology, you would find that many of them would prefer to live in the socialist society - and infact some Americans believe their system has fulilled the goals of a socialist government (ie freedom and equality).
Many people hate the terms we use as they are asosciated with the lies they have been taught in regards to the USSR and China (although I do disagree with a lot of Stalinist and Maoist stuff).

[Red Commissar]

In my experience, a lot of Americans don't hate socialism - they do however hate the word itself and the stereotype associated with it.

Upton Sinclair said as much, as you can see from his letter to Norman Thomas.


The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.

[Klaatu]

Why do Americans hate socialism so much?

They hate it because they are told to hate it. 99 out 100 people do not even know what socialism is.
They associate it with the Soviet Union or China. Neither of these two countries are socialist, despite
their names. They are authoritarian systems.

Socialism is actually where the people own the government itself, and the means of production.
In that sense, the original 13 American colonies, immediately after the American Revolution,
actually neatly fit this definition. (at least the government part) America was born as socialist,
but has slowly degraded into a powerful capitalistic plutocracy.

The founders were technically socialists, and almost a century before Marx.

[Invincible Summer]

Socialism is painted as being "incompatible" with "freedom" and other "Western" values. It's only for the weak-minded, brainless sheep.

In the West, we're taught to uphold freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of choice, etc as values which embody "our" great culture and system - one that is superior to all others.
What we're hardly ever told is that freedom of speech and assembly do not exist for those who question the ruling classes, and freedom of choice is a joke as it's about the choice between exploiting bosses or brands of canned food. The superior system that we're taught to accept and uphold is a bunch of superficial slogans - it's ironic that Orwell's 1984 is always used to describe "socialism" or "communism," when it's more accurate to apply it to capitalist systems.

Socialism had been mercilessly attacked since the early 20th century, leaving a lot of false rumors and lies about socialism/communism within N. American society. We always hear about the "heartless murderers" of communism, and the "enslavement of people" of "evil communist dictators." The problems of Soviet-style and PRC socialism are exaggerated and taught as the only results of socialism, ignoring any benefits it may provide. Basically, no one hears about how socialism can benefit ordinary people - only how it conflicts with "our liberal, democratic society."
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the free marketization of the PRC, etc, socialism/communism is taught to young people as a "failed" or "debunked" ideology for hopeless dreamers.

[ArrowLance]

Why do Americans hate socialism so much?

They hate it because they are told to hate it. 99 out 100 people do not even know what socialism is.
They associate it with the Soviet Union or China. Neither of these two countries are socialist, despite
their names. They are authoritarian systems.

Socialism is actually where the people own the government itself, and the means of production.
In that sense, the original 13 American colonies, immediately after the American Revolution,
actually neatly fit this definition. (at least the government part) America was born as socialist,
but has slowly degraded into a powerful capitalistic plutocracy.

The founders were technically socialists, and almost a century before Marx.

No, socialism has nothing to do with whether or not people own the government itself. Further more the early USSR and PRC did further socialism and democracy in their countries and so could easily be called socialist and communist.

Even further the American Revolution brought NOTHING even close to resembling socialism, it was a capitalist revolution against debt and 'high' taxes. The whole 'no taxation without representation' ramble was largely a facade for the farmers. Edit^Additionally: Slavery, yay socialism.

I'm sorry you see no place for authoritarian policies such as defending the revolution and disenfranchising capitalists and other assorted counter-revolutionaries; then proceeding to educate and prepare the working class in an effort to progress socialism and democracy.

[Klaatu]

Socialism had been mercilessly attacked since the early 20th century, leaving a lot of false rumors and lies about socialism/communism within N. American society. We always hear about the "heartless murderers" of communism, and the "enslavement of people" of "evil communist dictators." The problems of Soviet-style and PRC socialism are exaggerated and taught as the only results of socialism, ignoring any benefits it may provide. Basically, no one hears about how socialism can benefit ordinary people - only how it conflicts with "our liberal, democratic society."
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the free marketization of the PRC, etc, socialism/communism is taught to young people as a "failed" or "debunked" ideology for hopeless dreamers.

Exactly. If the present American plutocracy was so great, it would not need to be so fiercely defended.
It would stand on it's own merits, without the relentless rhetoric spewed forth by those who benefit
the most by the exploitation which they practice on those less fortunate.



No, socialism has nothing to do with whether or not people own the government itself.

It could be argued either way, in that, the framers wanted self-government. It is not as though the
people actually "owned" the government (bad choice of words) rather, they had a lot of power to
actually bring about change for the good, much more so than is so today, where the wealthy control
everything. Of course, back then, women, slaves, non-property owners, etc could not vote, so it
might not have been all that different after all than it is today? At least the right ideas were there...

[La Comédie Noire]

There are historical and material reasons for why the U.S. lacks class consciousness, many of them listed in Copn's list. But a big one is how well the United States made out in both World Wars, especially at the end of World War 2. Where as most of Europe and parts of Asia were fucked to death by war, the U.S. got by unscathed. I'm willing to wager France and England instituted National Health and other social welfare at the end of World War 2 because the ruling class feared revolution.

[ArrowLance]

Exactly. If the present American plutocracy was so great, it would not need to be so fiercely defended.
It would stand on it's own merits, without the relentless rhetoric spewed forth by those who benefit
the most by the exploitation which they practice on those less fortunate.


It could be argued either way, in that, the framers wanted self-government. It is not as though the
people actually "owned" the government (bad choice of words) rather, they had a lot of power to
actually bring about change for the good, much more so than is so today, where the wealthy control
everything. Of course, back then, women, slaves, non-property owners, etc could not vote, so it
might not have been all that different after all than it is today? At least the right ideas were there...

No the right ideas weren't there. It was about manifest destiny, imperialism, and business from the start. There was no real opportunity for change. The ideas of the American Revolution were those of business.

[Klaatu]

But a big one is how well the United States made out in both World Wars, especially at the end of World War 2. Where as most of Europe and parts of Asia were fucked to death by war, the U.S. got by unscathed.

That is one very good reason that the upper (ruling) class in the U.S. had consolidated their power
and grew into the present monster that it is today. That with the help of popular propagandist politicians
(especially Reagan) that pushed along the idea that filthy rich is good, but regulation and taxes are bad.
What the heck, with the billions being spent on hype ads and opinion TV (e.g. Fox News) how else might
we expect things to turn out - favoring a corrupt system - just look around and you'll find this everywhere
(interest rates, inflation, insurance, you name it. They've got us where they want us)

And guys like Glenn Beck attack the government for this. It is not the government - it is the upper
(ruling) class of plutocrats and other organized crime groups in the private-sector (who own the
congress) Why does Beck want us to believe the government is at fault, while ignoring the obvious?
Because he is one of them, that's why. He and Limbaugh are filthy rich, bloviating and promoting
a system which is in the process of failing (for the common man) yet reaching glorious fruition
(for them and their ilk.)



No the right ideas weren't there. It was about manifest destiny, imperialism, and business from the start. There was no real opportunity for change. The ideas of the American Revolution were those of business.

Of course they did rebel against the equivalent of the modern day mega corporate trust. That would
be King George. It could be said that the revolution was fought for political reasons, but it can also be
said that it was fought for economic reasons. In other words, the king was ripping off the colonies,
and he represented the tyranny. Thus the "business" of which you speak of would not seem to be
what we might call "big business" that is, they would have hated domination by corporate "rulers."

True, they favored small business - but I seriously doubt they could have imagined what America was
to eventually evolve into: the big mess which exists today. If they had this foresight, they would have
put into place greater safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the strong class from domination,
it would seem.

[ArrowLance]

That is one very good reason that the upper (ruling) class in the U.S. had consolidated their power
and grew into the present monster that it is today. That with the help of popular propagandist politicians
(especially Reagan) that pushed along the idea that filthy rich is good, but regulation and taxes are bad.
What the heck, with the billions being spent on hype ads and opinion TV (e.g. Fox News) how else might
we expect things to turn out - favoring a corrupt system - just look around and you'll find this everywhere
(interest rates, inflation, insurance, you name it. They've got us where they want us)

And guys like Glenn Beck attack the government for this. It is not the government - it is the upper
(ruling) class of plutocrats and other organized crime groups in the private-sector (who own the
congress) Why does Beck want us to believe the government is at fault, while ignoring the obvious?
Because he is one of them, that's why. He and Limbaugh are filthy rich, bloviating and promoting
a system which is in the process of failing (for the common man) yet reaching glorious fruition
(for them and their ilk.)


Of course they did rebel against the equivalent of the modern day mega corporate trust. That would
be King George. It could be said that the revolution was fought for political reasons, but it can also be
said that it was fought for economic reasons. In other words, the king was ripping off the colonies,
and he represented the tyranny. Thus the "business" of which you speak of would not seem to be
what we might call "big business" that is, they would have hated domination by corporate "rulers."

True, they favored small business - but I seriously doubt they could have imagined what America was
to eventually evolve into: the big mess which exists today. If they had this foresight, they would have
put into place greater safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the strong class from domination,
it would seem.

Not at all, the rebellion against King George was not at all noble. It was ALL about economics and an attempt to sherk the debts owed to British merchants. From the very start the constitution and other systems were set up to protect business and oppress the working class. Land ownership was important and slavery was protected. It was a big mess back then too.

[Psy]

True, they favored small business - but I seriously doubt they could have imagined what America was
to eventually evolve into: the big mess which exists today. If they had this foresight, they would have
put into place greater safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the strong class from domination,
it would seem.

The US founding fathers was a landed aristocracy (the British empire gave them title to their land under the social hiarachy of colonial feudalism) after the war of indepenece the landed aristocracy became beourgisie as it better justified their claim on land to the masses.

[Klaatu]

Not at all, the rebellion against King George was not at all noble. It was ALL about economics and an attempt to sherk the debts owed to British merchants. From the very start the constitution and other systems were set up to protect business and oppress the working class. Land ownership was important and slavery was protected. It was a big mess back then too.

But I would submit that it could have been both economic as well as political. From a careful reading of
the Declaration of Independence, it would appear to be almost entirely politically-motivated. But yes,
I can see how it could be read as having an economic impetus. So let's just call it a draw.



The US founding fathers was a landed aristocracy (the British empire gave them title to their land under the social hiarachy of colonial feudalism) after the war of indepenece the landed aristocracy became beourgisie as it better justified their claim on land to the masses.

Of course, not everyone in the colonies was related to, nor descended from, British aristocratic class.
This does make one wonder why the framers wrote a bill of rights, which guaranteed things that had
little or nothing to do with economic wealth for all (freedom of religion, for example). Also, it states
that land can be taken away for the common good. (Perhaps they meant land from the peasantry,
not land from wealthy landowners?)

One would think that the framers would have written the text a bit differently if their primary motive
for declaring independence were entirely economic. For example, they might have merely adopted the
existing British system, with little modification, for themselves (which would tend to have preserved
their own status quo) But not so. Instead, they invented an entirely new system, benefiting all equally,
(or so it appears) not one in which moneyed landowners are favored or posses special powers. In other
words, the framers would have acted in their own selfish interests, as is claimed, rather than granting
unlimited property rights, etc, to the common man, if their motives were entirely economic.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why do Americans hate socialism so much?
They don't. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx)

[Psy]

Of course, not everyone in the colonies was related to, nor descended from, British aristocratic class. This does make one wonder why the framers wrote a bill of rights, which guaranteed things that had
little or nothing to do with economic wealth for all (freedom of religion, for example). Also, it states that land can be taken away for the common good. (Perhaps they meant land from the peasantry,
not land from wealthy landowners?)



One would think that the framers would have written the text a bit differently if their primary motive for declaring independence were entirely economic. For example, they might have merely adopted the
existing British system, with little modification, for themselves (which would tend to have preserved their own status quo) But not so. Instead, they invented an entirely new system, benefiting all equally,
(or so it appears) not one in which moneyed landowners are favored or posses special powers. In other words, the framers would have acted in their own selfish interests, as is claimed, rather than granting
unlimited property rights, etc, to the common man, if their motives were entirely economic.

It was a defensive act to passivity the working classes. Think about it for a moment, what was stopping the artisans, farmers, slaves and the proletariat after the war of independence having a revolution that overthrows the new US state.

[RadioRaheem84]

They don't. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx)

While this is good, it's nearly impossible for the average american to know what socialism really means without a definite study of the system. On the outset, it just means social democracy to people or worse state capitalism. It's more of an outcry for the government to help them not an willingness to have democratic control of the means of production. At least that's what I gather from what socialism means to people in the States.

People in Latin America, Europe and even Japan have more of an understanding of what socialism generally means than Americans because we've been fed a heavy, heavy dose of mass propaganda. NO where else in the world do you see large swathes of the working class join the petit-bourgeois to protest against social benefits.

[Red Commissar]

They don't. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx)

I've seen that poll before, but remember even then it's still 36%... there's still a considerable portion of the population that will cringe at the very word. And there's no knowing whether those who replied "yes" were simply becoming hateful of capitalism or have an image of socialism as purely regulatory.

The first matter is to get over the massive propaganda they've been fed like RadioRaheem said. In most other parts of the world, even if socialism isn't followed by or seen in a favorable light by the majority of the people, they will still acknowledge it as a legitimate political belief.

[Klaatu]

It was a defensive act to passivity the working classes. Think about it for a moment, what was stopping the artisans, farmers, slaves and the proletariat after the war of independence having a revolution that overthrows the new US state.

Lack of education?

[The Ben G]

Do you think Americans hate Socialism so much because they have had 50 years of anti socialist and communist propaganda? I think that that is the main reason.

[Klaatu]

Do you think Americans hate Socialism so much because they have had 50 years of anti socialist and communist propaganda? I think that that is the main reason.

IMHO, I would say that Stalin really screwed up the socialist cause. Socialism is a very fair system. Too bad that maniacs like Stalin gave it a bad name. If it were not for this insane man, we might actually have a fair system now, in the world. And the Cold War would never have happened. We do have a long way to go...

Stalin set the socialist cause back centuries. But that is just my opinion.

[GPDP]

IMHO, I would say that Stalin really screwed up the socialist cause. Socialism is a very fair system. Too bad that maniacs like Stalin gave it a bad name. If it were not for this insane man, we might actually have a fair system now, in the world. And the Cold War would never have happened. We do have a long way to go...

Stalin set the socialist cause back centuries. But that is just my opinion.

Sectarian shitstorm in 5, 4, 3...

[Klaatu]

I have read books.

The Gulag Archipelago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag_Archipelago

[The Ben G]

IMHO, I would say that Stalin really screwed up the socialist cause. Socialism is a very fair system. Too bad that maniacs like Stalin gave it a bad name. If it were not for this insane man, we might actually have a fair system now, in the world. And the Cold War would never have happened. We do have a long way to go...

Stalin set the socialist cause back centuries. But that is just my opinion.

I beleive you 100 percent. Without Stalin or Truman, we would still have some sort of Power other than Cuba.

[GPDP]

ITT we subscribe to Great Men theories of history.

[Klaatu]

Why stop there? Read William Blum's Killing Hope.

Thank You. I am ashamed of my country's imperialism. We have interfered in many areas of the world
(we were afraid of the Soviets) This includes Iran (and we wonder why they build a bomb - perhaps to
defend themselves from invasion - after all the US is at their east and their west)

[Klaatu]

I beleive you 100 percent. Without Stalin or Truman, we would still have some sort of Power other than Cuba.

Yes Truman was an asshole too. He vaporized two Japanese cities.
Was this right? I don't know - all I know is, violence and war are wrong...

[Bright Banana Beard]

Blame it on Lenin, we got Red Scare before Stalin and it actually harmed the socialism movement in America.

Bolshevism was seen as the first cause for not having revolutionary socialism.

[ArrowLance]

But I would submit that it could have been both economic as well as political. From a careful reading of
the Declaration of Independence, it would appear to be almost entirely politically-motivated. But yes,
I can see how it could be read as having an economic impetus. So let's just call it a draw.


Let's not, because it isn't.

The United States was set up by people who weren't even against monarchy; they definitely weren't socialists. The declaration of independence, while far from being socialist, was mainly a document for its own sake. The United States was not terribly revolutionary at all, in fact many of the aspects of its government are based directly on the British one at the time and they history behind it.

[Raúl Duke]

Of course, not everyone in the colonies was related to, nor descended from, British aristocratic class.
This does make one wonder why the framers wrote a bill of rights, which guaranteed things that had
little or nothing to do with economic wealth for all (freedom of religion, for example). Also, it states
that land can be taken away for the common good. (Perhaps they meant land from the peasantry,
not land from wealthy landowners?)

One would think that the framers would have written the text a bit differently if their primary motive
for declaring independence were entirely economic. For example, they might have merely adopted the
existing British system, with little modification, for themselves (which would tend to have preserved
their own status quo) But not so. Instead, they invented an entirely new system, benefiting all equally,
(or so it appears) not one in which moneyed landowners are favored or posses special powers. In other
words, the framers would have acted in their own selfish interests, as is claimed, rather than granting
unlimited property rights, etc, to the common man, if their motives were entirely economic.


It was a defensive act to passivity the working classes. Think about it for a moment, what was stopping the artisans, farmers, slaves and the proletariat after the war of independence having a revolution that overthrows the new US state.

In a sense, you are right...

The constitution and the bill of rights were made after some "troubling events" to the elites such as Shay's rebellion among other ones that are usually omitted in high school american history.

Americans dislike more the term/misunderstanding than what actual socialism is about. Socialism is conflated with Stalinist totalitarianism (and yes, the day an anti-revisionist M-L party that up-holds Stalin takes power in the U.S. will be the day I turn into superman).

There's also the issue of the amount of propaganda, usually subtle, that the U.S. has. For example, people here mentioned the class issue and how many people identify with this "middle class" when they may in fact not belong to said middle class.

[Klaatu]

Let's not, because it isn't.

The United States was set up by people who weren't even against monarchy; they definitely weren't socialists. The declaration of independence, while far from being socialist, was mainly a document for its own sake. The United States was not terribly revolutionary at all, in fact many of the aspects of its government are based directly on the British one at the time and they history behind it.

You are right to some extent, but still, I am reading a decidedly political document, but (like you said, perhaps
economically-driven document,) and that is only if one reads between the lines, as it were. I guess we can
only be sure if we read into Jefferson's writings, as he had personally written most of the declaration.

One thing I do know is that Jefferson was a condescending racist, (he believed whites to be intellectually
superior to blacks), a hypocrite (he owned slaves while being an abolitionist), a jackass (in his dealings
with opposition), a heretic and something of a kook (he cut passages out of his bible with a razor blade
and rewrote parts of it himself.)

Being that Jefferson was a bit of an eccentric, what can we make of the declaration? IMHO, because he
was a "dick" we can actually thank him for the document itself, for it might never had been written with
so much passion, if written by someone with less chutzpah. The point I am trying to make is, what was
Jefferson himself thinking when he wrote the document - was he being political, or economic? Or both?

BTW I concede that Jefferson and his contemporaries were not socialist. (At least not as in our definition
of it would apply)

[Klaatu]

Blame it on Lenin, we got Red Scare before Stalin and it actually harmed the socialism movement in America.

Bolshevism was seen as the first cause for not having revolutionary socialism.

There was actually much support for socialism in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Yes there was a red scare - I'm not entirely sure that had to do with fear of revolution (political) or socialism (economic) - but this would have been meager when compared to post-WWII rhetoric spread by Winston Churchill (who had coined the term "The Iron Curtain.") Of course Stalin's escapades were of no help, nor were Truman's.

[Klaatu]

Americans dislike more the term/misunderstanding than what actual socialism is about. Socialism is conflated with Stalinist totalitarianism

TRUE, and what a shame that is. Like I said, Stalin may have set back the cause by decades or even centuries...
What a spoiler. Thanks a lot Stalin, for messing up a good idea. :(

[RadioRaheem84]

Socialism is conflated with Stalinist totalitarianism Conflated with Stalinism by detractors and Welfare State/Social Democracy by sympathizers.

By and large though, socialism is largley understood as state-capitalism in the United States. Even by our experts in high offices, the media, and academia.

[Klaatu]

To anyone who is interested, I hereby recant my claim that the American Founders were socialist.
(I was a bit drunk when I wrote that) I cannot go back and edit-delete my post, in that it has already
been quoted by others.

I should have said that they were progressives. My line of reasoning is that certain conservative
tv-radio talking heads continually refer to the "founding fathers," while at the same time bashing
progressives, not realizing that the founders themselves were progressive. (It is a very progressive
thing to break away from the mother ship and form a new country, one can reason) The 18th century
colonists that were conservatives would have remained loyal to the Crown, and not wanted revolution
at all. That is simply because conservatives, by definition, dislike change.

And since conservatives dislike change, and are against progression and new ideas, they tend to
unknowingly favor political and economic stalemate. (Could this be why the country is presently in the
monstrous grip of recession - the wake of eight years of conservative rule?) I seem to recall eight years
of progressivism (from the prior American regime of Clinton) where the economy absolutely boomed,
with a budget surplus even, as a gift for the next regime, back in year 2000. Conclusion: conservatives
unwittingly favor economic stagnation. (Why can't they see this?)

[Psy]

Conflated with Stalinism by detractors and Welfare State/Social Democracy by sympathizers.

By and large though, socialism is largley understood as state-capitalism in the United States. Even by our experts in high offices, the media, and academia.
These people also have a poor understanding of capitalism so they don't really understand what state-capitalism is either.

[Wolf Larson]

DEAR SOCIALIST FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN USA: I am not a psychiatrist, nor psychologist nor sociologist so i dont really know what is the main cause of why americans dont like socialism. I think that the USA-left needs a forum and seminar on the psychological causes of why most americans hate socialism. Because lately ive encountered some violent opposition around where i live, with my family and in the internet with people from America who are real violent against socialism. So i think that the US left needs to digg deeper to find the causes of why if the US economy is so bad and if most americans are beating the bullets economically and USA capitalism is no longer the dream of liberty, why do americans are so reluctanct and hard-headed against socialism ideology.

.

.

Because most Americans are like you. They watch and believe Alex Jones videos or his MsM equivalent Glen Beck.

[Klaatu]

Because most Americans are like you. They watch and believe Alex Jones videos or his MsM equivalent Glen Beck.

And people like Beck have sponsors that have deep pockets. (See how
capitalism thrives - how money begets lies begets money begets lies...)

[RadioRaheem84]

These people also have a poor understanding of capitalism so they don't really understand what state-capitalism is either.


Yes. They also still believe that most economic policies or agreements are really between nations and not internal to major corporations. They speak as if China can tweak their economic policy a little to favor the US and better our trade deficit, totally ignoring the capitalist dynamics of transnational corporations.

[Psy]

Yes. They also still believe that most economic policies or agreements are really between nations and not internal to major corporations. They speak as if China can tweak their economic policy a little to favor the US and better our trade deficit, totally ignoring the capitalist dynamics of transnational corporations.

More importantly they view markets in a vacume, thus why they looked at the shortages in the Warsaw pact as being a result of them not being more like the western markets. Even when the markets of Eastern Europe contracted after the fall of the Berlin wall the predatory nature of capitalist markets was not understood by many thus why you still have people viewing the shortages in Cuba as being caused by economic policy.

[Klaatu]

Yes. They also still believe that most economic policies or agreements are really between nations and not internal to major corporations. They speak as if China can tweak their economic policy a little to favor the US and better our trade deficit, totally ignoring the capitalist dynamics of transnational corporations.

And slowly but surely, creeping capitalism takes over the world. Most agreements happen behind closed doors, with a facade of nationalism.

Biblical scholars have been predicting "one world government." This may be true. But only after the ultimate merger of the world's corporations - even China will be involved. It will be "one world corporation." This will be a dictatorship. And "Mark of the Beast" may not be a hoax after all?

The solution is for the workers of the world to rise up. Before it is too late.

[RadioRaheem84]

And slowly but surely, creeping capitalism takes over the world. Most agreements happen behind closed doors, with a facade of nationalism.

Biblical scholars have been predicting "one world government." This may be true. But only after the ultimate merger of the world's corporations - even China will be involved. It will be "one world corporation." This will be a dictatorship. And "Mark of the Beast" may not be a hoax after all?

The solution is for the workers of the world to rise up. Before it is too late.

I wouldn't have put it in such nefarious terms but yes you're right. The neo-liberal movement is heavily vested in the interests of financial firms and transnational corporations at home as well as abroad.

While the world is becoming increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few, the neo-liberals are dealing with two fronts yet again; communists/socialists and nationalists.

In the US, the nationalists are the conservatives who include a mixed bag of neo-liberals as well but mostly ardent productive capitalists against finance capitalism.

Listen to arch-conservative Ann Coulter explain what she believes needs to be done if the US wants to achieve conservatism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNbfewjkfQ&NR=1

Elimination of the New Deal regulations
Social Security Administration
Department of Commerce
EPA
Department of Agriculture
The Federal Reserve
The CIA, surprisingly!
Department of Education
Cut down the IRS

So basicall they want a return to Hoover's America while clamoring that they'll bring back the 50s and 60s America, most Americans wish a return to.

[Red Commissar]

Ann Coulter holds a lot of paleo-conservative views, of which has heavy anti-socialist/communist themes. She has often defended McCarthy just for the sake of him happening to bag a couple of Communists in the process.

She generally belongs to the camp of people who equate government with socialism, and to that end see FDR as a socialist.

susZ2ceEHwk

However, it's not just the ignorance that wingnuts like Coulter spread that is the problem, but unfortunately there were tons of leaders we had in the past who claimed to be advancing a "socialist" revolution, but in the process associate it with dictatorial tendencies and oppression. So it's a two pronged problem there...

And to make maters worse, Americans are heavily indoctrinated into a materialist mindset and constantly want more and more things... and that mindset of trying to take everything for yourself and fuck the rest won't be compatible with socialism in anyway.

[Wolf Larson]

Yes Truman was an asshole too. He vaporized two Japanese cities.
Was this right? I don't know - all I know is, violence and war are wrong...

Of course it wasn't right. Truman and all other US presidents who have firebombed, nuked and pulverized hundreds of thousands and millions and scores of children, women and men should rot in hell [if there were a hell]. As should all the scientists who work with the DoD because they get billions in funding for other projects. I hate America. Obama is the new murderer in chief and too many of us fake ass revolutionaries are sitting on our hands because Obama is the first black president. The man is a Trojan horse for more Bush era murder, corruption and death. Makes me want to bump that hate Amerikkka beat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s)
<br><br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKbEaZ-Jnws&feature=related

[Psy]

However, it's not just the ignorance that wingnuts like Coulter spread that is the problem, but unfortunately there were tons of leaders we had in the past who claimed to be advancing a "socialist" revolution, but in the process associate it with dictatorial tendencies and oppression. So it's a two pronged problem there...

Yet the bourgeoisie would have associated it with dictatorial tendencies anyway. What really messed us up was the Stalinist/Maoists jumping through hoops to justify all the policies of the U.S.S.R and China rather then focusing on the grievances of the proletariat.

[Klaatu]

And to make maters worse, Americans are heavily indoctrinated into a materialist mindset and constantly want more and more things... and that mindset of trying to take everything for yourself and fuck the rest won't be compatible with socialism in anyway.

Here is a great video to go with that. (grab a beer - it's 20 minutes long, but a very informative 20 minutes!)

The Story of Stuff (video documentary)
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[Klaatu]

"Listen to arch-conservative Ann Coulter explain what she believes needs to be done..."

Coulter is so stupid - doesn't she realize that there was a "glass ceiling" in the past which tended to
hold back female advancement in the corporate world? Or she might have just been a disgruntled
housewife if she had lived in the 50s. Not to mention the good possibility of sexual harassment, if
she were actually in the workplace, or if she had lived before 1920, could not have voted...

Elitist Ann needs to work in a factory for a few years - she couldn't take the jabs from the hoi polloi
without getting a nervous breakdown. Things weren't always so rosy for women, Ann. I would like
to put her into a time machine and send her back so she can learn a few things... (what the hell
I'd like to send her on a one way trip)