what gives?

why are Americans afraid of socialism?

Originally posted by nsdrguy
why are Americans afraid of socialism?

40 years of the cold war falsely conditioned them into believing that socialism was synonymous with Bolshevism.

Originally posted by nsdrguy
why are Americans afraid of socialism?

What gives? From what I can gather, the Libertarians have to give their houses to paedophiles and eugenicists. And might be forced to wear cycle helmets. That seems to be why Americans are afraid of socialism.

Originally posted by nsdrguy
why are Americans afraid of socialism?

Because everyone in America "knows" that Socialism is Evil. It's the Religion of Hitler and Stalin. It's all about concentration camps and gulags.

If you asked the average American what the difference was between socialism, communism, and fascism, you'd probably get a lot of blank stares - or they'd all tell you they're all the same thing - Evil Evil Evil.

Then they'd check their mailbox to see if their Social Security check has arrived.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Because everyone in America "knows" that Socialism is Evil. It's the Religion of Hitler and Stalin. It's all about concentration camps and gulags..

Yeah. I think this just about shows how much you know about socialism.

Stalin was a State-capitalist and Hitler was a fascist.
Nowhere, in either ideology, do the producing classes control production and distribution.

And that is socialism.

I reckon Americans just like being abused by bosses.

Actually, I think most Americans like the advantages of capitalism and are not terribly impressed with the quality of services when they are provided by government.

Socialism in a small community might be doable. Socialism on a federal scale is a disaster. I am not afraid of people choosing to live a socialist lifestyle. I am afraid of people who want to force it.

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, I think most Americans like the advantages of capitalism and are not terribly impressed with the quality of services when they are provided by government.

Most Americans like their own education system (even if they complain about the system in another town). They like their police forces - they like their highways - they like their parks - they like their Social Security and Medicare - they like their defense system (even if they disagree with how its being used).

Obviously, people also love to complain - and it's always good to look for better or more efficient ways of doing things. But even the people who spend all their time whining about the government - if you hooked them up to a lie-detector, almost all of them would admit that they like most of the things that government does.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Most Americans like their own education system (even if they complain about the system in another town). They like their police forces - they like their highways - they like their parks - they like their Social Security and Medicare - they like their defense system (even if they disagree with how its being used).

Obviously, people also love to complain ...[text shortened]... etector, almost all of them would admit that they like most of the things that government does.

I agree with what you are saying that Americans do like some governmental functions. That does not mean they are socialists. I means they are not anarchists. I also do not think that it is inconsistent to like all the things you mentioned and be against expanding the role of government. So you could be against governmental healthcare, against higher taxes etc. The US was built on a capitalistic model and I certainly would not scrap a sucessful model because of an economic downturn.

Originally posted by dryhump
Socialism in a small community might be doable. Socialism on a federal scale is a disaster. I am not afraid of people choosing to live a socialist lifestyle. I am afraid of people who want to force it.

People are used to viewing a country as necessarily being run from the top-down. With a 'ruler' who is in charge to some degree. It doesn't have to be this way. Society could be composed of a network of small, autonomous communities who are responsible for running their own affairs. These communities could be grouped into larger associations for mutual support and to coordinate production between them. In the latter model, the power starts at the bottom and flows upward in a 'bottom-up' fashion.

Originally posted by rwingett
People are used to viewing a country as necessarily being run from the top-down. With a 'ruler' who is in charge to some degree. It doesn't have to be this way. Society could be composed of a network of small, autonomous communities who are responsible for running their own affairs. These communities could be grouped into larger associations for mutual supp ...[text shortened]... the latter model, the power starts at the bottom and flows upward in a 'bottom-up' fashion.

Sounds like you've read your BF Skinner.

Originally posted by dryhump
Sounds like you've read your BF Skinner.

No, Emma Goldman.

Originally posted by rwingett
People are used to viewing a country as necessarily being run from the top-down. With a 'ruler' who is in charge to some degree. It doesn't have to be this way. Society could be composed of a network of small, autonomous communities who are responsible for running their own affairs. These communities could be grouped into larger associations for mutual supp ...[text shortened]... the latter model, the power starts at the bottom and flows upward in a 'bottom-up' fashion.

this sounds a lot like Republicans when they talk about reducing the size of "big gummint" and moving power and responsibility back to states and local communities - with lots of emphasis on the "grassroots". Michael Steele might be giving you a call soon. 😀

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, I think most Americans like the advantages of capitalism and are not terribly impressed with the quality of services when they are provided by government.

I see, as opposed to corporations which, given the "freedom of the market", would be all to happy to enlist slaves and provide no services at all.

Originally posted by Badwater
I see, as opposed to corporations which, given the "freedom of the market", would be all to happy to enlist slaves and provide no services at all.

Maybe we need to go over some basics corporations do not enslave workers. They pay them for work. I guess some people find it repudnant that they don't magically get a check for free but capitalism expects something in return for the check. Business sell goods or services. If the services that they provide are not wanted they will not make money and will go out of business.