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

[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.

What?

When Right Wingers refer to socialism or say that Obama is a socialist, they are referring to the Socialist State (Communism). They make no distinction between socialism of say, Europe, and the former Soviet Union. To them, most of Europe is only a few steps away from becoming another USSR. So going back to the OP's question - the reactionaries are thinking along those lines. I tried to demonstrate the difference. Sorry if I failed by including India as having some form of state run health care, but again, none of those countries, including India, are on the verge of becoming anything remotely close to the former Soviet Union.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's self-delusion at work here, I think. Because of the adversarial, hostile nature of this country's political climate - its become accepted practice to demonise people in order to avoid having to contend with their arguments. Hence the poor can only ever be lazy, undeserving or "dead wood" - doesn't matter if you grew up in the projects in Baltimore and had no access to higher education and a means of making a decent living; or if you were recently bankrupted by healthcare expenses and lost your job - noone cares why you're poor, only that you are - and by extension that it must be your fault.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's self-delusion at work here, I think. Because of the adversarial, hostile nature of this country's political climate - its become accepted practice to demonise people in order to avoid having to contend with their arguments. Hence the poor can only ever be lazy, undeserving or "dead wood" - doesn't matter if you grew up in the projects in Baltimore and had no access to higher education and a means of making a decent living; or if you were recently bankrupted by healthcare expenses and lost your job - noone cares why you're poor, only that you are - and by extension that it must be your fault.

At this point, some bright conservative (ha) will trot out some tired old story of them sleeping in a car.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't doubt it - and I wouldn't knock those stories either.

Destitution and homelessness isn't a purely American problem of course, but it seems that if you do fail in this country - there's a lot further to fall. In some of its attitudes at least - this country can be an extremely brutal place.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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?

In one of the articles (cant remember which one)it explains the reason for the three branches of government was to protect the electorate from smooth talking individuals with bad intentions,combine that with an ignorant electorate and bingo.

Obama has circumvented this by choosing all of his czars which none have gone through the selection process but hold lots of power.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If Obama had circumvented the three coequal branches of government, your old #### would be in a death panel somewhere and Private Pike would be presiding.

[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?

In one of the articles (cant remember which one)it explains the reason for the three branches of government was to protect the electorate from smooth talking individuals with bad intentions,combine that with an ignorant electorate and bingo.

Obama has circumvented this by choosing all of his czars which none have gone through the selection process but hold lots of power.

Its a valid concern, certainly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

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?

As a matter of fact, yes. The counterforce to the Blue Dog Coalition is the Progressive Coalition. I participated in a teleconference last night with my Rep, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), one of the charter members. They are actively pursuing single-payer healthcare, and the 46 members will not vote for any bill that does not contain a "strong public option", while supporting the Weiner substitute that will replace the proforma bill, with one that will institute single-payer healthcare in the US.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In related news, Rahm recently asked the progressive caucus to STFU

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

There's self-delusion at work here, I think. Because of the adversarial, hostile nature of this country's political climate - its become accepted practice to demonise people in order to avoid having to contend with their arguments. Hence the poor can only ever be lazy, undeserving or "dead wood" - doesn't matter if you grew up in the projects in Baltimore and had no access to higher education and a means of making a decent living; or if you were recently bankrupted by healthcare expenses and lost your job - noone cares why you're poor, only that you are - and by extension that it must be your fault.

At this point, some bright conservative (ha) will trot out some tired old story of them sleeping in a car.

The depression caused lots of weathy people to become destitute. I bet that warms your soul! Do you know the story of GM? It was started by a man named William Crapo that sold horse buggies, then along came Henry Ford with his automobile that just about busted him financially. of course he could of laid down and started bawling like a fvcking baby whinin, pissin and moaning about how unfair it was.

The projects in baltimore or anywhere else dont hold a candle to days gone by, there were none back then you did what you had to, to survive.

Oh and one more thing "the projects" are the perfect example of a social program that has miserably failed the individuals put in them. That same politician doing a ribbon cutting out front and getting a standing O from the very ppl that would be imprisoned there.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In related news, Rahm recently asked the progressive caucus to STFU

I haven't started Googling yet, but that is on my list, along with the interview with the Deputy Press Secreatry Burton and Meghan Kelly on FNC this morning.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If Obama had circumvented the three coequal branches of government, your old #### would be in a death panel somewhere and Private Pike would be presiding.

If Im old, you might wanna check your diaper.

[HAL 9000 96]

Last time I was in school, we learned about nomenclature. Heck, everything has a name: an idea, material goods, sexual organs, et cetra.

Socialism does not equal democracy. Both groups in the US are not moving into socialism. Period. However, there are those who accuses one group over another group. An example can be from threads that posts rhetorical ideas that were probably researched using secondary sources such as the media commentaries. Although, I remembered in college that any research I do must be primary source. Reading about someone opinion is not really objective.

Its kind of like the difference between science and religion. They're two different systems of thought altogether. The more histrionic can't seem to understand this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Last time I was in school, we learned about nomenclature. Heck, everything has a name: an idea, material goods, sexual organs, et cetra.

Socialism does not equal democracy. Both groups in the US are not moving into socialism. Period. However, there are those who accuses one group over another group. An example can be from threads that posts rhetorical ideas that were probably researched using secondary sources such as the media commentaries. Although, I remembered in college that any research I do must be primary source. Reading about someone opinion is not really objective.

Its kind of like the difference between science and religion. They're two different systems of thought altogether. The more histrionic can't seem to understand this.

[HAL 9000 96]

Last time I was in school, we learned about nomenclature. Heck, everything has a name: an idea, material goods, sexual organs, et cetra.

Socialism does not equal democracy. Both groups in the US are not moving into socialism. Period. However, there are those who accuses one group over another group. An example can be from threads that posts rhetorical ideas that were probably researched using secondary sources such as the media commentaries. Although, I remembered in college that any research I do must be primary source. Reading about someone opinion is not really objective.

Its kind of like the difference between science and religion. They're two different systems of thought altogether. The more histrionic can't seem to understand this.

*Some* people have a real hard time differentiating economics from political systems of guvmint.