Socialism in the US
 

How many of you believe that the US has become too socialistic in nature. If you don't believe we have become to socialistic in nature when do you believe that line is crossed.

Define "too socialistic."

The US is hardly socialistic... It could probably use a little more "socialism".

(of course I am using my definition... what's yours?)

I agree with Charlatan here. Not sure how you could think we are "too socialistic". Could you post your view on it so I can understand where you're coming from?

Yeah...that's a little vague, and tries to encompass too much. I suppose in "this area" we're a little too socialistic, whereas in "this other area" we could stand to be a little more socialistic. If I were to be pressed, I'd have to say that overall and as a whole...no.

Its open to the opinion of the reader. My point which was not made very well was what is considered socialism, and do we have it to some degree in the US. Yes i have the text book definition. I'm just wondering what the people here think about our goverment being controlling and over stepping its boundries.

I would say we're not nearly socialist enough in a number of areas.

I think, in a society with as many resources as we have, the disparity between rich and poor is unconscionable. If we have people who are worth billions and billions of dollars, and we still have people without health care, then shame on us for pretending to be civilized. I think the basic needs of all people should be met (food, shelter, health care) before we start bitching about the perils of progressive taxation.

I think the government is not controlling enough when it comes to corporate responsibility, both in terms of fiduciary responsibility and environmental responsibilty. I don't think it has to be all punishment for violations - we could be doing a lot to provide incentives for companies to implement environmentally sound practices that, once you get over the cost of implementing them, actually save money.

Those are the only two areas I can think of right now, but I'd love to see the US adopt a more Scandinavian attitude toward social policy in general, especially subsidized child care, paid higher education, legalizing drugs, etc.

Exactly.

I would like to see where we are "too socialistic". If you could share one with us we could compare notes.

I'd say the U.S. is pretty lacking in a lot of its programs which Lurkette pointed out and I agree to an extent.

Welfare has always been flawed in the U.S. and seriously needs a revamp before we can put in the other programs.

its funny how the U.S. can try to be advanced in everything yet lag sorely behind because people simply think its something "un-american"

when compared to europe, we're a capitalist paradise. our taxation doesnt resemble a socialist nation and our programs dont reflect it either.

agree w/ the people on this thread that we should be a lil more socialistic.

Let's face it the US just needs to be more like Canada... :D

Amen, brotha!

In some ways maybe, in other ways no way.

You could just move to canada. I'm sure you would fit in just fine. send a postcard

It actually is not that easy. When Bush took office I looked into moving to Canada. It is a lot of work trying to move to there. I got the feeling they were trying to keep us Americans out!

I'd say at the moment, the US is more corporatist than socialist.

And we know what corporatism leads to...

Social programs should be left largely to the states. Federal programs (like national healthcare, for instance) are incredibly expensive, and largely unnecessary. Leave it to the states to decide how to approach social issues, as they most likely will either find a better solution or find a chunk of its population moving out.

*shock*

I agree with seretogis!!!

:p

I get very fuzzy in my use of the words "government" and "state" when I argue about this stuff, but I agree that at least allowing the states to administer programs allows them to adapt more efficiently and effectively to situations that are most relevant to their people. However, the money has to come from somewhere. Tax at the state level, tax at the federal level, tax cigarettes, whatever, it's not going to come willingly from the private sector.

A Starbucks on every other corner?

as a society grows, it becomes more complex. As a society becomes more educated, a higher standard of living becomes inevitable. Things leaves us with a vacuum and an ironic twist. The higher standard of living that accompanies high wage, intellect intensive jobs, the more "shit" jobs need to be filled to support this "educated" class. Now as the rift grows, we experience a middle class, and we have no choice but to give some aid to all, to provide that "neccisary" goods do not become prohibitivly expensive. We did this with food, then power, and taxes. Eventually when the needs to compete in the society expand to overlap higher functioning technologies, and services; they will become part of the list of neccisary goods.

like rail travel
soon air travel
probably telecommunications in the far future (more than 30 years)
and hopefully health care (soon please)

I don't think it's socialist enough, by far, but I do wonder if America is actually emotionally suited to socialism -- as least as it's practiced in other countries, with zillions of rules and regs and a lot of decisions up to some undermotivated drone with a clipboard who can look down his nose at you and decide, on his very own, whether to make your life hell or not. Facetiously, I'm wondering whether there's a reason why most heavily socialist countries also have serious gun contro. Maybe it's necessary to protect bureaucrats :-).

That said, what forms of socialism we do have grew out of the New Deal of the 1930s Depression. It gained support then because people reevaluated what gov't should do for them. Previously, most people thought that only bums needed gov't assistance, and if you were a good and enterprising person you'd do all right. Then millions of "good people," including many in the middle class, found themselves out of work and needing help. But.... they didn't think of themselves as bums... so maybe gov't social services were really necessarily sometimes.

In the 70 years since the Great Depression, the New Deal impetus of social programs has grown, burgeoned and now in later years begun to decline as, once again, a lot of Americans believe that only the lazy and undeserving ask for it. But if we have another economic/social disruption that hits the middle classes, they'll once again reevaluate the need for social services -- especially if _they_ suddenly need them -- and we may have a new New Deal. I'm expecting in within 10 years.

Actually, I'm thinking that the US is moving increasingly towards socialism. What with the prescription drug benefits and all that seem to be gaining bipartisan steam in Washington.

I dunno, I'm pretty much a capitalist libertarian bastard myself, but I'm OK with the direction of the country. If everyone (or a majority) votes to add more socialist policies, well, I can live with that.

Bill Moyers gave a speech in June that talked about how the US got to where they did with worker's rights, public education and all those other "socialist" things. They were a reaction to the abuses of the moneyed class around the turn of the last century. It makes for some fascinating reading:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-11.htm

If only all libertarians were like you, this world would be a better place. I'm tired of some of my libertarian friends refusing to pay their taxes because government is an illegal institution or whatever. If you don't like the way its run, vote for someone who will change it. Simple as that. Democracy makes it so that socialism is ineviatable. Whenever a poor person has just as much power as a rich one, policies will reflect that. When there are 100 times more poor people than rich people, the poor will even the playing field. True demacracy makes the situation where the highest percent of people are happy with their lives, and personally, I see that as a good thing.


ps - libertarians are for open boarders yet very very few immigrants would be pro libertarian. Just a thought.

I would dispute the idea that a poor person has as much power as a rich one. True, 1 person=1 vote, but the wealthy have much more say over government in our country than the poor. The poor by and large can't afford lobbyists, or massive campaign contributions and the implied quid pro quo they carry. Something like half of this term's freshman congresspersons are millionaires. Voting often isn't enough power when the choice is between one corporate puppet and another corporate puppet. Not that all politicians are bought and paid for, but they know where their campaign contributions are coming from and they have to make a deal with the devil if they want to get re-elected and push their constituents' agendas through.

God, I miss Paul Wellstone. :(

Lurkette: I completly agree with you but I have to point out that America is not a democracy, we are a republic and inherant in any representative government is corruption among the representatives. In a true demacracy, one person would equal one vote. I know direct demacracy doesn't scale, but there are other options than having elected officials who are prone to bribes and contributions run the government.

Hell, I've always said that if *everyone* was like me, the world would be a better place.:D

As for the power of the wealthy to influence representatives, don't forget that the vast majority of celebrities are liberal. So when you have someone who makes $20 million per movie contributing to a campaign, or testifying before Congress (gag), that counts for a hell of a lot too, if you accept the stipulation that government is a "pay or play" system in this country.

It's not the same as CEOs or the Bushies making donations to get kickbacks, since it isn't the poor themselves that have the influence, but it has the same end result.

UUUHGGGG!

Would you really want those limitations put on you? Not me. I see traces of it coming, I hope our Republic never sees a day under total socialistic rule and you can count me in on the battlefield should it ever attempt to force its way upon.

I grin and bare the fact of allot of scams the public has become complacent to and/or accepted; I think going full out socialism in America would cause another civil war.

In the view of some neo-conservatives:

It's patriotic and good for everyone to kick in tax dollars to pay for national defense to help save American lives...

-but-

...a socialist nightmare to kick in tax dollars for a national health plan to help save American lives.

As far as health care goes the point will soon be moot as the boomers start dying they will begin voting themselves all the pro "their" life politicans into power anyone could possibly require.

2Wolves