Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/13/2009 6:34:34 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Where you been?

We already have it. What is half of the term "social security"?

Go run for office on a platform of getting rid of SS and see how far you get.


That's certainly the best overlooked reason on this thread for not wanting more of it. Unless you are viewing a broke system, that will fail without major modification a success.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/13/2009 7:57:59 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

(general response directed to no one in particular)

Hypothetical question: Do you believe that the influence of government and insurance (both socialist concepts) has increased the cost of health care or decreased the cost?
"(both socialist concepts)" Uh-huh. You ever hear of a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well"? Well, you've committed it.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/13/2009 7:59:25 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Where you been?

We already have it. What is half of the term "social security"?

Go run for office on a platform of getting rid of SS and see how far you get.


That's certainly the best overlooked reason on this thread for not wanting more of it. Unless you are viewing a broke system, that will fail without major modification a success.

How do you know Social Security is "broken"? What are your sources?

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/13/2009 8:08:18 PM   
missfrillypants


Posts: 124
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: missfrillypants

re: food stamps. first off, it is my own personal idea that in this country, most of the "working poor" spend a lot of time trying to hide the fact that they are poor, because of the stigma attached and because we, as americans like to pretend that we do not have a class system, when in fact every country on earth is going to have some people who are more wealthy than others, that's a natural effect of having a finite amount of resources. there are many people who were born in snug upper middle class families and are unaware of the realities of real people of the lower classes except for those they see on the street who are obviously homeless, those who live in ghettos, and largely what they see on the television, so they don't know why people are complaining or why those lazy people don't just try a little bit harder because they have no idea what it's like to try to live your life without a safety net or a head start. and i usually try to say this by telling people that if they themselves have never been on food stamps, or if their parents were not, then they do not really know what it's like and only have a limited perspective on poverty. this is not always true, but it often is.

secondly, most people on food stamps are women with children. most of them work at least one job and one of the reasons they still cannot afford to feed their child is that they do not have a significant other or their SI also must work to pay their other bills, and finding someone to watch their child is very expensive. (most of the people who are against food stamps are also against abortion, and therefore have no right to say that it's their fault for having children. ) they work, sometimes two jobs, and they are very busy and tired because they also must care for a child, and therefore they buy things like pizza rolls and chips that they can make quickly or that their children can make for themselves once they are old enough to legally be latch key children. many children can-not or will not cook complicated meals, or will refuse to eat them and there is only so much fighting with a ten year old you can do about something like coke or chips when you work 55 hours or more per week. MANY people in this country have junk food addictions, and you know what? healthy food is more expensive. wonder bread is cheaper than even a moderately priced wheat bread. raumen noodles are cheaper than the ingredients to make pepper steak or pasta primavera. there are MANY studies that have come to the conclusion that the reason there is an obesity problem with the poor is that the food that makes you fat is cheaper. even "good food" is made with more fillers and sugar and things like that when you get to the cheaper brands... a cheap canned pasta sauce's second or third ingredient, for example, is usually high fructose corn syrup.

re: Disability
there are a lot of people who get disability, who, if they had the money to get job training in another field, could work again, but can not afford said training, even with disability payments. a person who has back problems may be capable of doing a job where they answer the phone, but many receptionist jobs or things like that now require a person to have at least a tech school degree. or that person with back problems may need to be treated with pain meds in order to think straight, which she gets help with paying for because she is on disability, and which she could not afford on the salary she would get paid if she got the job that would otherwise support her... shame there's not some sort of government system in place that would pay for her meds so she could work, isn't there? or some kind of program that will train her to do another kind of job?



You live in another universe apparently, I grew up on welfare, so I'm not talking out of my ass here. I used to go to the grocery store with my mother, buying food on foodstamps.

Here's the deal some people do need assistance, however, your lame argument that women raising single kids need the government to provide them with pizza rolls, and cokes, is stupid, in the extreme. So, your argument, is since they are single mothers they can feed their kids trash, because they are working 50 hours a week and the state should pay for it! LOL. Insane. You know it's proven that diet in a kids younger years is very important to mental and physical development, so let's just pay for trash food, so the ladies can have a break. Whatever.
I'll tell you what would happen if they could only buy real food with it, they'd cook it and eat it, whether tired or not, because hunger will make you do whatever it takes to eat, and people would be healthier for it, and learn to cook!

Seriously, I simply can't believe you aren't ashamed of even posting that argument. Single mothers need to be able to by Sodas and pizza rolls or else their children will bitch about it. LOL. Grow up. Kids always want bad food, no kid prefers spinach over a happy meal. This fight even goes on in affluent households.

There you go, let's just make the food stamps redeemable at Mcdonalds then no one needs to cook at all. Problem solved. Or let's let them use them for pizza delivery, or even better.

I mean seriously that's just ridiculous from top to bottom. And for the record, and I know more welfare moms than one should meet in a lifetime, most work sporadically or one job. The go getters, and the ones that want off welfare, eventaully get out of the system. If you are a single mom, for example you can go to college for free, in Illinois you could anyway.

Oh, well, in summation, the whole reason I'm against most programs, is because of people that get involved start thinking like you in your paragraphs above. As if, As if, they have a right, to living as leisurely an existance as people that pay for everything they consume. NO, but I don't even think people should be left to starve, I just think maybe they should buy green beans, instead of burritos, if they want money for food.






i do agree that buying pizza rolls may make your money go a little faster than buying some other things, but it IS true that most unhealthy foods are cheaper than healthy ones, and i don't think that just because someone eats junk food is a reason not to let them eat at all. i do not think that pizza rolls qualify as a "leisurely existence." be realistic. the kind of logic you are using is the same kind of logic that would annoy the crap out of you if, say, since your employer paid for your health insurance, they got to decide what kind of food you ate since they would be paying if you someday got heart disease for eating too much. many junky foods are NOT covered by food stamps but just because you can microwave one food and not another does not make it less healthy. there are a lot of foods that if cooked with cheap ingredients are just as bad for you as microwaveables. and the truth is, that not matter how much they would like to, some people can not learn to cook or to cook food beyond grilled cheese, ricearoni type stuff, and noodles, which is not so much healthier than microwave pizza rolls or frozen pizza that you get to be sanctimonious about it. some of the unhealthy things are purchased because they have more calories and will fill a person up more quickly and cheaply. although i am aware that there are some people who do abuse the system, i think that the solution to that is having more caseworkers and having them make regular appointments to speak to people and to make sure on a case by case basis that people are not cheating because a lot of the problems we have come from trying to say that everyone's opportunities are the same when this is not now, nor has it ever been the case. in my state there is a legal requirement that you work or attempt to find more work if you are not employed more than a certain amount of time per week if you wish to receive food stamps, but there is no program to let single mothers attend college for free. if there is, guess what it is? socialism. there are a few programs to help pay for some of the tuition, but they are non-comprehensive. also, i do know a few women who were going to go to trade or beauty school to get more education to find better employment but were unable to because there was no one to watch their young children. i know a lot more people who do not have vehicles and have incredibly inadequate public transport where they live and could get a good job, but cannot get to said job or cannot get to school from where they live. i am not saying that abuse of the system does not happen or that people do not get off of any kind of government assistance eventually if they want to, i know that is true because i've seen it happen, but i do not think that just because some people try to scam the system that no one should ever be helped if say, they need help for six months or something and then get a better job. i think that if people wish to reduce the amount of money spent on food stamps there are many ways to do so, but many of them involve more evil socialism or a change in policy which the religious right does not want to think could possibly be bad for people because that would make them ask uncomfortable questions about their religion.

for example, i think that anyone who is female and capable of getting pregnant should be given free birth control and abortions if the need them (in my state any woman from age 18-24 gets free birth control, pregnancy tests, the emergency contraceptive pill, and things like pelvic exams as long as they don't make too much money. it's called the waiver.) by the government. maybe some small bonus could even be give to women on welfare if they are on birth control. children are incredibly expensive, and they take up a lot of a woman's time and i do know that some women could work more hours if they did not have children at home who needed care, either because they tire them out or because child care is hard to find. once you are not financially dependent on the government, you can feel free to have as many kids as you want, but when you're already so broke you can't take care of what you already have in your life, you should do what you can to not put more on your plate. i do not think anyone should be sterilized, or that any one group is more unworthy of having children, but i think that there are a lot of people in our society who have children for stupid reasons, and lot of the people having children never know how much work and how much money they cost, and during sex ed children need to be taught that, too, in addition to how to use birth control to prevent disease and not get pregnant. if less people have children, it will help to benefit the economy because there will be less people competing for resources, and generally if people wait to have children until they not only can support them, but are mature enough to care for them properly and sure that they actually want to devote their life to having children, the children and parents will have better lives.

providing childcare to people at affordable prices on a sliding scale, and improving public transportation so that people who cannot afford a vehicle at the moment can get a better job which will keep them off of welfare and reduce pollution is also a good idea. so is lowering the cost of education and helping as many people as possible get training for good jobs, and making sure people don't need to go on welfare or disability because they can't afford their medication by providing healthcare for everyone, especially children and those with disabilities of any kind. and of course, a minimum wage increase would also help many people to be able to support themselves with what they already make. i would like to add that the economy that is growing the most at this point in time is china, which has a very socialist system although they are moving towards more capitalism. i am not saying we should adopt a society like theirs, but that their system is working and ours is not, and that's something we need to think about which is relevant to this argument.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/13/2009 8:17:33 PM   
blacksword404


Posts: 2068
Joined: 1/4/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KaineD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou


I understand completely.  However, there are two sides to that coin.  Were do you get the money to pay for these programs?  The government gets money from taxation or borrowing.  Well taxing one group to give money to another group is just wrong,
and it won't solve anything.  The theory that people will go out and start buying televisions and cars once the government cuts them a check is laughable.  People don't spend money when they're broke; they horde it.  We can't borrow it, because no one is lending it right now.  All we can do it print more money to pay for all these proposed programs, and you know what happens when you do that?  You get inflation. 


"It's just wrong" is not a good enough argument in my view.
"It won't solve anything".  If the money is spent in the right places and used in the right way, it would help solve problems.
I do completely understand your point about printing more money to pay for all the programs.  And some of the things Obama would be proposing could be wasteful.

But I don't think that means they shouldn't invest or spend.  What is the alternative?  If the government shouldn't spend money to help businesses and fund programs designed to get people to work, what should the government do?


Cut taxes on corporations to help coax them back here. Cut taxpayer's taxes. Cut away Government departments that are not needed. Have an audit done by an independent agency to find the wasted money. Take half of the money saved and use it for social programs and take the other half and give it back to the taxpayers. And after that stay the fuck out of the way.

_____________________________

Don't fight him. Embrace your inner asshole.

Tu fellas magnus penum meum...iterum

Genuine catnip/kryptonite.
Ego sum erus.

The capacity to learn is a gift, the ability to learn a skill, the willingness to learn a choice. Dune HH

(in reply to KaineD)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 4:33:30 AM   
cjan


Posts: 3513
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I don't think that Europeans are more enlightened than "us", I just think they are, generally, better informed.


While I won't disagree  that many Americans are woefully ignorant of the rest of the world, my experience has been that the rest of the world is as woefully ignorant of us.  We get many people from other countries in our shop during tourist season and some of the things they say... well... we wait until they have left before we starty laughing.  My favorite was the lady from Germany who had been in the United States for ten days and was amazed that she hadn't seen any gun battles yet.



Marc, just to clarify what I meant, I meant that, imo, Americans are more ignorant of their own geography, politics and economics than, generally, Western European. I've travelled extensively and lived in Europe and this is my impression from my own experience.

As to subrob's comment that this ignorance is due to poor schooling, liberal-led or otherwise, there may be some truth to that, although I would point out that the educational systems I refer to in Europe are, for the most part "liberal-led. As I said, I think that  the responsibility for being well informed lies with each individual, regardless of what schools they are a product of. After all, you didn't stop learning the day you got out of school, did you, rob ?


_____________________________

"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall ,frozen , dead, from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."- D.H. L

" When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks in to you"- Frank Nitti



(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 6:19:57 AM   
ThundersCry


Posts: 892
Status: offline
You reap what you....sow.
 
Hopefully nothing ever happens to you...nor anyone in your family that...
 
By an accident or a mental illness...you or they...
 
Need to apply for a disability...
 
Then you become a leech like those you bash...

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 6:53:56 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

Were do you get the money to pay for these programs?  The government gets money from taxation or borrowing.  Well taxing one group to give money to another group is just wrong, and it won't solve anything.  The theory that people will go out and start buying televisions and cars once the government cuts them a check is laughable.  People don't spend money when they're broke; they horde it.  We can't borrow it, because no one is lending it right now.  All we can do it print more money to pay for all these proposed programs, and you know what happens when you do that?  You get inflation. 


I snipped slaveboy's argument because IMO it shows one very pertinent viewpoint.

The United States was founded in opposition to a strong-arm government.  When it was designed, it was specifically designed with three branches to keep each other in check.  The amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms continued this philosophy, that the government is NOT your friend.

This argument permeated Reagan's presidency, at least in talk (he criticized the federal goivernment far more than he actually diminished it). 

The standard liberal argument is similar to KaineD - someone is hurting, so let's use the govrnment to help them.  The standard conservative argument is to not let the government have a hand.  Note that the conservative stance has been hurt considerably when Bush and the neocons grew the government and its spending astronomically, and they never made a peep - they look like hypocrites now belatedly trying to instill some kind of fiscal restraint with red ink all over their hands.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 7:14:24 AM   
aravain


Posts: 1211
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
I blame the ignorance on poor liberal lead schooling. American's have access to the same information that Euro's have, and if the teens were actually taught how to read, write, geography, civics and do proper math, instead of Tommy's two dad's, how to place a condom on a cucumber & oral sex isn't sex, Americans might actually appear to be "in the know".


I don't know where you went to high school...

but mine had an advanced reading and writing requirement (You couldn't get out unless you took English all 4 years), a civic requirement (A US government course, an Economic's course, and at least one US history course), and fairly high math requirements (in the eyes of someone who is horrible at math, being forced to do algebra, geometry, and two other topics it was purely horrible, I barely scraped by). Our grand total of sexual education was one class period in the required Health class where the teacher put a condom on her three fingers, and said that it was the only known method of STD protection. Oral sex was not discussed (though if it were... who would say it wasn't sex, exactly?), and neither was homosexuality; the entirety of the Health course was more focused on various diseases and how they interacted with the human bodies.

Put all that together with the fact that a majority of my school (including the principal at the time) would be *VERY* insulted at the insinuation that they were in any way liberal

I think it was actually what the problem is/was with that district when it comes to having the students (and graduates) be better informed, or know *HOW* to inform themselves, in the topics of politics, and such. An advanced focus on academics in High School is precisely the *PROBLEM* with teaching students how to inform themselves, how not to be ignorant. You don't focus on methods of informing yourself, you focus on knowledge that, quite honestly, isn't *ALL* completely useful for people not going to college (which enough people don't that, really, what we should do is return to the 'track' system of education, in my opinion).

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 9:52:13 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US.

But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view?



Milwaukee has a strong socialist past. The last socialist mayor of Milwaukee is widely regarded in the city to have been the best mayor the city ever had. Frank Zeidler (spelling?) is his name. He probably can be found on wikipedia.

Welfare in the United States actually originated in Milwaukee. Welfare was created in Milwaukee to provide support for widows of Civil War soldiers. Many of the city's early German immigrants (48ers - 1848) were socialists and Catholic with the next largest portion of them being Lutherans.

Over the decades the United States has adopted more and more Government funded social programs and or cash transfer programs. I think as any nation increasingly urbanizes, and when any nation reaches a point were most of its population lives in urban sprawl, Government funded social programs are needed. Urban societies - not necessarily rural societies - subsist off of civilized economies that utilize fiat money to purchase food stuffs from stores. Early United States did not have one currency accepted in all states and some people even survived off of a barter economy and living off the land. Impoverished people living in Detroit or L.A. can't survive in contemporary times that way.

Anyways, in my opinion the United States is to much of a warmongering nation to readily embrace a Government change to a Socialist Democracy. We entered Vietnam so that we could prop up Japan as the central and major economy of Asia and give them Vietnam as a source of raw natural resources. The original intent of propping up Europe and Japan (all of which had their industrial cities bombed to hell) with U.S. money and supplies after WWII was to have nations the U.S. could sell their goods to (having no industrial cities bombed the U.S. became a literal exporting monopoly to the world and consequently became the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth). Given the changes in the world, I suspect the United States will eventually seek war with Brazil and some other Latin American nations - unless perhaps they agree to adopt the dollar as their national currency maybe? I dunno. But within my life time Brazil, India, and China will rise to threaten white world supremacy. India is to far aligned with the United States so I would suspect India would follow the U.S. and the United States lap dog Great Britain into any major war. China and Russia I figure will align and I'm not sure which way Brazil would go. But being that I suspect the U.S. will eventually seek war with Brazil I would then hazard to guess Brazil would align with China and Russia.

The United States is a vast, beautiful, nation with diverse ecosystems. The problem is we have deforested most of the nation and keep a hungry, frenzy of urban sprawl (increased suburbanization) going on. We will have 400 million people soon to support along with a high cultural demand for consumerism. How are we to support that? We need tax paying Mexican immigrants alone just to support our aging population because our birth rate is to low to sustain our economy. Our culture is built on buying new shit, more and more new shit. Capitalism and war is the only way to support that. And lo and behold the enormous nation of Brazil with diverse ecosystems and many parts untouched. Brazil is destined to be a source of water and material support for the rising numbers of consumers in the massive nations of India and China. Currently, Brazil and the United States feeds most the world. Brazil leads in the export of beef but the U.S. has a slight advantage in agricultural exports, but as Midwestern farmers have complained, within my life time that will soon change and Brazil will take the lead in world agricultural exports putting U.S. farms out of business (which are already highly federally subsidized I might add).

So, I think the U.S. will seek war rather than socialism as its solution - if history is any judge at least.

< Message edited by UPSG -- 2/14/2009 9:57:57 AM >

(in reply to 4u2spoil)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 10:04:50 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Where you been?

We already have it. What is half of the term "social security"?

Go run for office on a platform of getting rid of SS and see how far you get.


That's certainly the best overlooked reason on this thread for not wanting more of it. Unless you are viewing a broke system, that will fail without major modification a success.

How do you know Social Security is "broken"? What are your sources?

Feigned ignorance of a highly public and debated issue is not good for ones credibility, just because it's not politically convenient.

A simple search resulted 13 million hits.

Here's a recent snippet from a reuters article. Very short but shows its a real issue, which is what you seem to be confused about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/telecomm/idUSTRS00005620080325

Also it's highly likely the current meltdown will only worsen those dates, as they rely on payroll based taxes, with less working for the foreseeable future, I'm sure more dire predictions will be forthcoming.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 10:05:56 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KaineD

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US.

But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view?



It's a cultural thing, going back to the Cold war.  Politicians at that time were so succesful at drumming up support against commies that the mentality communism and socialism are very very very bad things has been passed down generation to generation.  Sometimes, people don't really understand what socialism is, but they still hate it.  A policy that leans slightly to the left can be exaggerated by the right to look socialist, and you'll have a whole crowd of people convinced the US is going to become a socialist country unless something is done.  Another amusing thing is the dislike towards European countries.  European countries, which function perfectly well, with health care systems far surpassing the US, but nevertheless people stuck in the Cold war do NOT under any circumstances want any policies in government that would make the US anything like "socialist" Europe.

It's crazy.

And ironically, the people MOST like this are usually the people of lower classes, the people that could be helped most with socialist policies.  It's brainwashing, is what I've come to realize.  Years and years of the media and politicians drumming out that capitalism is absolutely amazing.  But capitalism has been abused by the greedy, which is why the US is in its current poor economic situation.  I'm not saying ditch capitalism, I'm not saying wave the flag of Stalin either.

People just need to realize that if something can technically be called socialist, it doesn't inheritely mean that it is bad.


Not to mention Capitalism and Communism have been credited as the sources of global warming - environmental destruction on a wide scale. When you target one ethnicity for annihilation it's called genocide. What is it called when you annihilate all mankind on earth for financial profit? I don't think a word has been made up for that yet. Then again, no one listened to Moses in the fictional tale of the Great Flood so I suppose not to many will be "open ears" to the subtext of my commentary.

(in reply to KaineD)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 10:34:08 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I don't think that Europeans are more enlightened than "us", I just think they are, generally, better informed.


While I won't disagree  that many Americans are woefully ignorant of the rest of the world, my experience has been that the rest of the world is as woefully ignorant of us.  We get many people from other countries in our shop during tourist season and some of the things they say... well... we wait until they have left before we starty laughing.  My favorite was the lady from Germany who had been in the United States for ten days and was amazed that she hadn't seen any gun battles yet.



Marc, just to clarify what I meant, I meant that, imo, Americans are more ignorant of their own geography, politics and economics than, generally, Western European. I've travelled extensively and lived in Europe and this is my impression from my own experience.

As to subrob's comment that this ignorance is due to poor schooling, liberal-led or otherwise, there may be some truth to that, although I would point out that the educational systems I refer to in Europe are, for the most part "liberal-led. As I said, I think that  the responsibility for being well informed lies with each individual, regardless of what schools they are a product of. After all, you didn't stop learning the day you got out of school, did you, rob ?



It might be added, that the public school systems throughout the United States, are generally funded by local taxes paid on property. This is why some more well-to-do areas can afford "better" schools so to speak. Taxes pay for many things actually - like the police and fire departments. I never hear anyone complain that we should privatize those things though.

Personally, I think most public schools get enough money. I think many public high schools that have large numbers of inner-city kids, have the complicated issue of having children that often times come from domestic environments that are far from healthy. Frankly, if I had to grow up in a single parent crack addicted home, without outdoor violence and despair all around me 24/7 I would fair no better than many kids. How some people survive in this world I have no idea, they are certainly better than me.

Speaking of which, some people may talk shit about President Hugo Chavez (someone I greatly admire), but that guy raised himself up out of a mud hut. He is an Abraham Lincoln like story. 

(in reply to cjan)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 10:36:29 AM   
IrishMist


Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view?

Because most who reside in the US are a lot like the 'religious freaks' during the Middle ages.

Anything different than the status quo, anything off the path from what most see as 'right' and 'normal' is seen as horrid, bad, wrong, unpatriotic, and downright treacherous.



_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.


(in reply to 4u2spoil)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 10:36:52 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aravain

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
I blame the ignorance on poor liberal lead schooling. American's have access to the same information that Euro's have, and if the teens were actually taught how to read, write, geography, civics and do proper math, instead of Tommy's two dad's, how to place a condom on a cucumber & oral sex isn't sex, Americans might actually appear to be "in the know".


I don't know where you went to high school...

but mine had an advanced reading and writing requirement (You couldn't get out unless you took English all 4 years), a civic requirement (A US government course, an Economic's course, and at least one US history course), and fairly high math requirements (in the eyes of someone who is horrible at math, being forced to do algebra, geometry, and two other topics it was purely horrible, I barely scraped by). Our grand total of sexual education was one class period in the required Health class where the teacher put a condom on her three fingers, and said that it was the only known method of STD protection. Oral sex was not discussed (though if it were... who would say it wasn't sex, exactly?), and neither was homosexuality; the entirety of the Health course was more focused on various diseases and how they interacted with the human bodies.

Put all that together with the fact that a majority of my school (including the principal at the time) would be *VERY* insulted at the insinuation that they were in any way liberal

I think it was actually what the problem is/was with that district when it comes to having the students (and graduates) be better informed, or know *HOW* to inform themselves, in the topics of politics, and such. An advanced focus on academics in High School is precisely the *PROBLEM* with teaching students how to inform themselves, how not to be ignorant. You don't focus on methods of informing yourself, you focus on knowledge that, quite honestly, isn't *ALL* completely useful for people not going to college (which enough people don't that, really, what we should do is return to the 'track' system of education, in my opinion).



Wow that's great. I went to high school in Livonia which is supposed to be one of the best school systems in MI. I remember my business math teacher in 11th grade asking me to help the kid who sat next to me with his tests because HE COULDN"T READ. But that was ok, he graduated anyway. After all what is more important getting a certain number of kids through the system so they can collect more money or teaching them to read.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to aravain)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 1:09:08 PM   
aravain


Posts: 1211
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline
That actually *emphasizes* my point.

Children like that, who are in high school but who cannot even *read* at that point shouldn't be ON the same track as those who are, academically, on a completely different level.

The beauty of the track system was that *everyone* was in classes that focused them for a future and encouraged teaching them to become an informed citizen.

There were three tracks (and none had any sort of bias or were looked down upon).

Upper: For students who were, usually, academically advanced, this track was dedicated to preparing students for college, not in giving them work skills.

Middle: For students who were better than average at academic classes, this track was dedicated to preparing its students for short-term (associates) degrees, and especially management opportunities, and gave them work and life skills.

Lower: For students who were routinely average (or lower) in academics, this track was dedicated to giving them work and life skills, preparing them, mostly, for labor, usually skilled by promoting opportunities to become skilled.

Of course, most people will claim "IT'S A CASTE SYSTEM!"

It's really not... especially because *every single* person was being prepared to enter a best-fit work force, and could switch tracks (and were all entitled to apply for colleges and such). The focus is shifted from implanting knowledge to actually teaching students essentials skills pertinent to the rest of their lives, such as how to inform themselves.

Of course, students who can't read by 11th grade really shouldn't be in mainstream classes, anyway... really, they should be in special education courses, but that's a whole different can of worms (and not really pertinent to the point I'm making).

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 1:41:09 PM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
The argument that illiterate people can not find employment in a U.S. economy is no longer tenable given how well absorbed undocumented Mexican works who can't read or speak English are in the U.S. economy. Indeed they seem to be given a preference over English literate Black-American males, for non-skilled entry level positions, by companies and employment agencies throughout the U.S.

Economies are not just structured by the citizen individual, as we like to think in the United States, but they are also shaped by Government policies and business practices and protocols of industry.

(in reply to aravain)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 3:56:58 PM   
Prinsexx


Posts: 4584
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US.

But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view?


Socialism is a four letter word Stateside because it is not embedded in consciousness in anything other than associated with fear, with McCarthyism and fears of being outed.
In central Europe, including Britain, Socialism was a cornerstone of academic debate and learning, was a cornerstone of trade unionism and on the tips of the tongues of ordinary workers digging and grovelling for their lives in the coal mines of the earth, selling their bodies for their meager share of the division of wealth.
I would suggest that those who still fear Socialism go back and read the original translation of Das Kapital. My heart is buried in its words as is the heart of Marx in London.
I hate to say I told you so: but the unfolding of history is inevitable and we are in the fying stages of capitalism no matter what the Governments of the Western World still like to call themselves.
And before you all shout show me where communism really works in the world....more people were happy in daily service and stolen vodka across the wastes of central Europe than they are now in the promise of readily available McDonalds. Chips, Barbie doll breasts and falling rquity aren't much of a paradise for me to pass onto the kids.
Me...I own nothing and I am happiest with it like that.


< Message edited by Prinsexx -- 2/14/2009 3:58:15 PM >


_____________________________

Owner of asterion

Metawhore.... the sound of a metaphore when gagged
Free woman
Resident thread finisher
To my stalker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN2lP_7J7GI&feature=fvwrel

(in reply to 4u2spoil)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 4:17:55 PM   
stella41b


Posts: 4258
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: SW London (UK)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: twistedreality

Does the revolutionary war ring a bell? Our fore-fathers fought and died to get us out from under the opression and control of government. Our society was founded on independence, self-responsibility, hard work and character.

Socialism is a smack in the face to these principals. Look around you and see all of those who are milking the system. If government give to those who don't have it; then somebody who works for it doesn't receive it. There is a good reason that "charity" is not in the constitution.


So you've never heard of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevikism?

So that explains why the Soviets worked out the surface of the Moon was so radioactive that nothing could ever land on it some 4-5 years befoee the dodgy 'one giant leap for Mankind' film claiming that someone landed on the Moon?

Funny how unemployment wasn't ever a problem in Eastern Europe until the Western businesses arrived..

'smack in the face'..? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

_____________________________

CM's Resident Lyricist
also Facebook
http://stella.baker.tripod.com/
50NZpoints
Q2
Simply Q

(in reply to twistedreality)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? - 2/14/2009 5:31:23 PM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prinsexx

quote:

ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil

I'm American, but currently live in a European country which is not entirely socialist, but has programs that could be described as socialist. While there are some abuses, and some people who oppose the programs, they are widely accepted. They haven't prevented the world economic problems from hitting this country, but they haven't exacerbated the problem either. Now, in fairness, this economy is the size of maybe two large US states combined, so no one knows for sure if these programs/policies would scale to support the size of the population of the US.

But, I'd still like to know why so many Americans seem to use Socialism as a 4-letter word. If individual states could accept or reject programs deemed socialist, would it make a difference in your view?


Socialism is a four letter word Stateside because it is not embedded in consciousness in anything other than associated with fear, with McCarthyism and fears of being outed.
In central Europe, including Britain, Socialism was a cornerstone of academic debate and learning, was a cornerstone of trade unionism and on the tips of the tongues of ordinary workers digging and grovelling for their lives in the coal mines of the earth, selling their bodies for their meager share of the division of wealth.


That was fuckin awesome! - that second paragraph.

quote:


I would suggest that those who still fear Socialism go back and read the original translation of Das Kapital. My heart is buried in its words as is the heart of Marx in London.
I hate to say I told you so: but the unfolding of history is inevitable and we are in the fying stages of capitalism no matter what the Governments of the Western World still like to call themselves.
And before you all shout show me where communism really works in the world....more people were happy in daily service and stolen vodka across the wastes of central Europe than they are now in the promise of readily available McDonalds. Chips, Barbie doll breasts and falling rquity aren't much of a paradise for me to pass onto the kids.
Me...I own nothing and I am happiest with it like that.



People float from Cuba to Miami and it is evidence communism (or Cuban brand of it, which is not really part run but one man run, which I guess would make it more of a dictatorship perhaps?) doesn't work. When Mexicans or Haitians flee to the U.S. it's not a statement of capitalism though. LOL.

(in reply to Prinsexx)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Why is Socialist a 4-letter word in the US? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141