Why is 'Socialism' such a dirty word in the USA?

[NickD 202]

so·cial·ism (s½“sh…-l¹z”…m) n. 1.a. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community. b. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system. 2. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.

dic·ta·tor·ship (d¹k-t³“t…r-sh¹p”, d¹k“t³”-) n. 1. The office or tenure of a dictator. 2. A state or government under dictatorial rule. 3. Absolute or despotic control or power.

re·pub·lic (r¹-p¾b“l¹k) n. Abbr. rep., Rep., Repub. 1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order. 2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order. 3. Often Republic. A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France. 4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. 5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters. [French république, from Old French, from Latin r¶sp¿blica : r¶s, thing; see r¶- below + p¿blica, feminine of p¿blicus, of the people; see PUBLIC.]

de·moc·ra·cy (d¹-m¼k“r…-s¶) n., pl. de·moc·ra·cies. 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. [French démocratie, from Late Latin d¶mocratia, from Greek d¶mokratia : d¶mos, people; see d³- below + -kratia, -cracy.]

Social Security is not socialism, if you do not pay into the system, you or your beneficiaries do not get benefits.

Corporations are strictly dictatorial, your superiors dictate how you will behave, when you to to work, what you will wear, even when you can use the restroom. So are our 1525 governmental agencies, can't use logic, reason, you do what you are told to do, or else, the EPA, IRS, and the USCIS are perfect examples of dictatorial rule as was our draft. Biggest enemy on the road are cops trying to nail us for anything, like going 1/2 mph over the speed limit, but when you need protection, they run the other way.

Once we vote a crook in office, can't get rid of him, protected by his own party, our congress is highly dictatorial, old guys in there are telling the new guys what they can or cannot do, speaker of the house is dictatorial, can say what or what cannot be put on the floor.

Nazi Germany, USSR, Chavez in Venezuela are not socialistic governments, dictatorial, common people are not in power by the pure definition of the word, taking away from those that worked hard and keeping most of it for themselves, just dishing out pennies to the so-called poor.

Do we really have freedom of speech, say the wrong thing at a political meeting, or step on the wrong toes, will find either the IRS or the EPA knocking on your door the next morning, I have no idea what the USA is today, but you sure have to watch your back. Our republic form of government is putting dictators in charge of our lives. Wasn't suppose to be that way, but made that way.

[moelarrycheese 0]

I asked this of my very conservative husband some time ago, he knows my political stance and has come to terms with it and vice-versa. I spent some years with my grandparents in Wales who were staunch old school Labour supporters, my father's family were all miner stock, my father worked the mines until he joined the Air Force for 25 yrs. I saw very early on the difference in political views between my own parents and grandparents, and despite my informative years spent with my parents I always remembered and held my grandparents passion.

My husband immediately associates 'socialism' with 'fascism' 'nazism'....and I get offended by that, and the first time he called me a liberal I was HUGELY offended also. I don't regard myself as a liberal in the British term.

I am undecided about the 'change' in this country, I am unsure about Obama...I don't dismiss his policies offhand, I think it is a very interesting and exciting time. But I do find it interesting that most liberal thinking people here also dismiss and shy away from the word 'socialism'....why is it such a dirty word? as really that is what is happening here right?

Happy to hear your thoughts B)

Socialism is a dirty word because everywhere it has been tried, it has failed. It never improves people's lives, it always makes them worse. The utopian ideal is a nice thought, but unfortunately human nature prevents it from becoming reality. There are just too many opportunities at the top for greedy, power hungry politicians to appropriate that which is not theirs. Capitalism is certainly not perfect, but it is the best system there is. It rewards those who are productive in society, and encourages those who are not productive to get off their butts and find a way to be more productive by not rewarding laziness.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Welshie, way back in the day when we were ruled by england. The first american settlers became sickened by the king ripping them off, telling them what they could and couldnt do, and taxing the livin shite out of them. "Socialism" gives the government the right to take and to give whenever they see fit and to whom. Liberty on the other hand gives the individual freedom to reap what he sews with minimal government intervention.

Liberals these days seem to beleive the dream of this is dead and blames everything they can think of, except themselves. Half or more of them have never sweated in a field or know what its like to actually physically work there a$$ off for anything. I picked rasberries when i was 13 in the summer for money. Loaded trucks by hand,picked apples, worked on oil rigs.

Back in the day your grandfather and father are definatly not the same as todays libs. Most libs in power today love to keep theyre flock together by false promises of hope. The mere premise of hope suggests they are in a hopeless situation. If ppl would spend as much time makin a plan to get out of a tough situation as they did waitin on a promise from some worthless politician theyd be much better off.

Id like to see the certificate that said life was gonna be easy or gauranfvckinteed! I hope you see why socialism sucks. Id still like to make california a socialist state then give all the libs and socialists a place they could call their own. Just think they all could pick berries,build solar panels and windmachines. Turn theryre paychecks over to the government and recieve what they deserve.

That actually answers the question I asked earlier. Even though people participate in elections to effect change over their representation, its still seen with the same kind of deep rooted resentment that started the war of independence.

So then is this idea of government for the people, by the people etc only so much rhetoric? I mean, if we're taking for a given that whoever gets into office will always be corrupt and dishonest, why do people bother to vote at all?

[NickD 202]

Two party system, very dictatorial in nature, where we as the voters can only choose between the least of two evils, hardly representation of the people. Our state finally moved the primary elections up a couple of months. Last year, was the first in years where going to vote actually made an insignificant difference. Until then, the primary candidates were already chosen, so why even bother going to vote.

Socialism was tried by the early Christians with a community form of living, with many taking advantage leading St. Paul to say, no work, no food.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I asked this of my very conservative husband some time ago, he knows my political stance and has come to terms with it and vice-versa. I spent some years with my grandparents in Wales who were staunch old school Labour supporters, my father's family were all miner stock, my father worked the mines until he joined the Air Force for 25 yrs. I saw very early on the difference in political views between my own parents and grandparents, and despite my informative years spent with my parents I always remembered and held my grandparents passion.

My husband immediately associates 'socialism' with 'fascism' 'nazism'....and I get offended by that, and the first time he called me a liberal I was HUGELY offended also. I don't regard myself as a liberal in the British term.

I am undecided about the 'change' in this country, I am unsure about Obama...I don't dismiss his policies offhand, I think it is a very interesting and exciting time. But I do find it interesting that most liberal thinking people here also dismiss and shy away from the word 'socialism'....why is it such a dirty word? as really that is what is happening here right?

Happy to hear your thoughts B)

Socialism is a dirty word because everywhere it has been tried, it has failed. It never improves people's lives, it always makes them worse. The utopian ideal is a nice thought, but unfortunately human nature prevents it from becoming reality. There are just too many opportunities at the top for greedy, power hungry politicians to appropriate that which is not theirs. Capitalism is certainly not perfect, but it is the best system there is. It rewards those who are productive in society, and encourages those who are not productive to get off their butts and find a way to be more productive by not rewarding laziness.

See post 12.

There are no industrialized countries which rely completely on the private sector to function, and even in the largest communist country, China, people own and operate their own businesses.

Any fear of the U.S. ever becoming like China or the former Soviet Union is absurd and believing that any expansion of social programs is an encroachment towards a final goal is nothing but a Conspiracy Theory by the Right.

The fact is - most industrialized nations have universal health care.

So for all the socialist fear mongering from the Right Wingers, lets look at which countries have already taken the Big Step towards a socialist state:

Countries with universal health care:

Israel - those bleedin socialists in the ME...pssst and they have nuclear weapons...good God!

India

Singapore

Taiwan

Hong Kong

Thailand

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

England

Austria

Belgium

Bosnia

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Russia

Romania

Serbia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

France

United Kingdom

Brazil

....boy, if having a social program such as insuring a nation's people is truly Socialism working it's evil way into our lives, it doesn't seem to failing but succeeding. So the U.S. should consider going to war with all these Socialist Nations before this cancerous growth takes us down with it!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Two party system, very dictatorial in nature, where we as the voters can only choose between the least of two evils, hardly representation of the people. Our state finally moved the primary elections up a couple of months. Last year, was the first in years where going to vote actually made an insignificant difference. Until then, the primary candidates were already chosen, so why even bother going to vote.

I think it goes back to this idea that people simply want to be ruled; for all the guff about taking personal responsibility very few people are prepared to actually step into politics and prefer instead leave it to a privileged "political class" who are eternally distrusted by a populace too lazy to exercise its own power.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

That list has India in it. The list is bogus. If you've ever been to India and tried to get emergency medical treatment and not had money to pay for it upfront, you know why.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven,

That list has India in it. The list is bogus. If you've ever been to India and tried to get emergency medical treatment and not had money to pay for it upfront, you know why.

Their health system may be broken, but my point is that these countries have some form of state sponsored health insurance and none of those countries listed are communist, nor are they sliding towards a socialist state.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

That list has India in it. The list is bogus. If you've ever been to India and tried to get emergency medical treatment and not had money to pay for it upfront, you know why.

Their health system may be broken, but my point is that these countries have some form of state sponsored health insurance and none of those countries listed are communist, nor are they sliding towards a socialist state.

Sorry, Steven, but that's a joke. State sponsored health insurance? ####### are you on about?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh and one more note about India not being socialist.

India's constitution says it is

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.

Does anyone honestly claim that this is the goal of any relevant political forces in the US?

[Jenn! 918]

I believe it comes down to whether you believe that financial success has any element of luck or circumstance. Yes, I've worked hard for my education and career successes - but I think I was also lucky in terms of my upbringing and the opportunities for success that I was given. I feel that for those who think socialism is a dirty word, their belief is that their success is due solely to their hard work. Those who are poor are poor because they do not work hard enough and they do not deserve support from people who have worked hard to get what they have.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven,

That list has India in it. The list is bogus. If you've ever been to India and tried to get emergency medical treatment and not had money to pay for it upfront, you know why.

Their health system may be broken, but my point is that these countries have some form of state sponsored health insurance and none of those countries listed are communist, nor are they sliding towards a socialist state.

Sorry, Steven, but that's a joke. State sponsored health insurance? ####### are you on about?

You gotta speak their language in order for them to understand your point sometimes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe it comes down to whether you believe that financial success has any element of luck or circumstance. Yes, I've worked hard for my education and career successes - but I think I was also lucky in terms of my upbringing and the opportunities for success that I was given. I feel that for those who think socialism is a dirty word, their belief is that their success is due solely to their hard work. Those who are poor are poor because they do not work hard enough and they do not deserve support from people who have worked hard to get what they have.

Its not only the implication that the poor are lazy, its also that their failures are somehow deserved. I don't think its any coincidence that discussions about poverty seem to revolve around the welfare state and that anyone who is poor or underprivileged fits the bill of some sort of lazy, money grabbing social parasite.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

That list has India in it. The list is bogus. If you've ever been to India and tried to get emergency medical treatment and not had money to pay for it upfront, you know why.

Their health system may be broken, but my point is that these countries have some form of state sponsored health insurance and none of those countries listed are communist, nor are they sliding towards a socialist state.

Sorry, Steven, but that's a joke. State sponsored health insurance? ####### are you on about?

You gotta speak their language in order for them to understand your point sometimes.

What?

I believe it comes down to whether you believe that financial success has any element of luck or circumstance. Yes, I've worked hard for my education and career successes - but I think I was also lucky in terms of my upbringing and the opportunities for success that I was given. I feel that for those who think socialism is a dirty word, their belief is that their success is due solely to their hard work. Those who are poor are poor because they do not work hard enough and they do not deserve support from people who have worked hard to get what they have.

Its not only the implication that the poor are lazy, its also that their failures are somehow deserved. I don't think its any coincidence that discussions about poverty seem to revolve around the welfare state and that anyone who is poor or underprivileged fits the bill of some sort of lazy, money grabbing social parasite.

My favorite is the old "Democrats don't work" bit. Talk about stupid.