Why Does Socialism Have a Negative Connotation?

[hippie_hunter]

Culture and the media go hand in hand. They both feed off of each other. In some ways, the media sets cultural standards and pushes the boundaries.

Like I said though, even before the age of mass media, Marxist ideology just did not have a good reputation in the United States. In a lot of ways, they acted the way the extreme right does today. The Marxists were a fringe minority that alienated the average American.

 

[chaseter]

Socialism rewards the ambition-less. Capitalism rewards the heartless. Both are predicated on the notion that humans will work hard and be giving to the less fortunate. Unfortunately, too many people are lazy and/or greedy. Both systems reward the bad in humanity.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

It's my opinion that socialist policies should be those that everyone benefits from. There are many examples, but the obvious ones:
1. Education. No one wants to deal with uneducated people.
2. Safety. Everyone benefits from fire departments, safe roads/bridges, etc.
3. Health. Everyone benefits from your neighbors being healthful.

The arguments can come about when we talk about just how much schooling a person should receive, etc. But the acceptance of public schooling as a right is pretty universal.

It also begs to question certain other social reforms like minimum wage. Certain social constructs that don't necessarily benefit everyone. Or where, at the very least, there's varying opinions on the matter.

But in the end, when I imagine a world without public school/fire departments/bridge maintenance/etc. I seriously wonder how a person can say, "socialism is evil."

 

[hippie_hunter]

Basic government services are not socialism

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Why because... socialism is bad?

Basic government services are socialized. I hate to break it to you.

EDIT I don't mean to sour the tone of the thread so I'll elaborate. I guess i dont understand how public elementary school isnt considered socialism but public college is. Or why public law enforcement/public transportation isnt considered socialism, but public healthcare and social security is. Why was PWA a socialist reform, but bridge repair is not?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Why because... socialism is bad?

Basic government services are socialized. I hate to break it to you.

EDIT I don't mean to sour the tone of the thread so I'll elaborate. I guess i dont understand how public elementary school isnt considered socialism but public college is. Or why public law enforcement/public transportation isnt considered socialism, but public healthcare and social security is. Why was PWA a socialist reform, but bridge repair is not?

No, because things like these were around centuries before socialism was even conceptualized. And it's a really, really, really bad argument. It's an argument that socialist sympathizers like to use to justify socialism's existence and why it isn't dead. With your logic, just about any thing is socialism including things that even the most ardent of socialist haters would support like building a damn road or a fire department. You're presenting the absurd option of anything is socialism against pure chaos. The free market is never going to provide those services. The free market is never going to provide for things that are never going to be profitable like a fire department or a police department.

Now when you have services that go beyond the most basic of government services, like public education, public transportation, public health care, etc. then you have more socialistic tendencies. The free market is capable of providing these services, but the government providing a free version of it.

 

[Kelly]

Why because... socialism is bad?

Basic government services are socialized. I hate to break it to you.

EDIT I don't mean to sour the tone of the thread so I'll elaborate. I guess i dont understand how public elementary school isnt considered socialism but public college is. Or why public law enforcement/public transportation isnt considered socialism, but public healthcare and social security is. Why was PWA a socialist reform, but bridge repair is not?

Public school as a whole is THE example as far as our government is concerned....unfortunately it probably isn't the best example to show the merits of Socialism and paint it positive....

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

No, because things like these were around centuries before socialism was even conceptualized. And it's a really, really, really bad argument. It's an argument that socialist sympathizers like to use to justify socialism's existence and why it isn't dead. With your logic, just about any thing is socialism including things that even the most ardent of socialist haters would support like building a damn road or a fire department. You're presenting the absurd option of anything is socialism against pure chaos. The free market is never going to provide those services. The free market is never going to provide for things that are never going to be profitable like a fire department or a police department.

Now when you have services that go beyond the most basic of government services, like public education, public transportation, public health care, etc. then you have more socialistic tendencies. The free market is capable of providing these services, but the government providing a free version of it.

I definitely get that the idea of the government controlling wealth-producing institutions is what people are afraid of when we talk about socialism. But to say that one is any different than the other is what's absurd to me.

For instance, you postulate that no private institution will ever build roads because they are not profitable. Certain (in fact many) pureblooded capitalists, including anarcho-capitalists would disagree with you there. Prison is another topic entirely, but by today's prison standards, we can very easily see how that can be used as a profitable enterprise.

I guess where our opinions clashed seemed to be roads/Fire Depts. Because it sounds like you agree schools, healthcare, and public transit are in the realm of socialism. Where some would consider these things general public services.

And quick note, I would agree with Kelly (and most Americans) that Public schools suck. But I'd rather have crap public schools than no public schools (granted, having never seen the alternative myself).

 

[hippie_hunter]

I definitely get that the idea of the government controlling wealth-producing institutions is what people are afraid of when we talk about socialism. But to say that one is any different than the other is what's absurd to me.

But it is different. People developed government for the very reasons for the most basic of necessities. You can't say that the Romans building roads before the time of Christ is socialism when concepts like socialism weren't even around and were designed to several purposes beyond just economics. Basic law and order aren't exclusive to socialism.

For instance, you postulate that no private institution will ever build roads because they are not profitable. Certain (in fact many) pureblooded capitalists, including anarcho-capitalists would disagree with you there.

Except how will one be able to profit off of emergency services? People aren't going to subscribe to a police service. People aren't going to pay for the privilege to drive on Main Street. But at the same time, these are essential services that need to exist.

Prison is another topic entirely, but by today's prison standards, we can very easily see how that can be used as a profitable enterprise.

I would say that the prison system is an example of a government service that shouldn't be privatized. Considering the poor conditions, the borderline slavery, etc.

I guess where our opinions clashed seemed to be roads/Fire Depts. Because it sounds like you agree schools, healthcare, and public transit are in the realm of socialism. Where some would consider these things general public services.

I will certainly agree that they are considered to be general public services, even I consider them to be general public services. But it's far, far, far easier to develop a private alternative for organizations to profit off of these things than it is off of emergency services and roads.

Before governments around the world started offering public alternatives to these products, they were primarily controlled by private hands. All government did, was expand accessibility to those who wouldn't be able to afford such services beforehand. Vastly different as opposed to something that would not exist period without government like roads and emergency services.

And quick note, I would agree with Kelly (and most Americans) that Public schools suck. But I'd rather have crap public schools than no public schools (granted, having never seen the alternative myself).

It's not like I'm denouncing general public services like public schools. I don't see socialism as a dirty word that many unfortunately do. There are somethings that the Marxists do get right (While it has failed in government and economics, they do have valid critiques when it comes to foreign policy and history). And without government providing these general services, they would be restricted only to the elites who can afford it.

My annoyance with the everything is socialist argument is essentially the same with the right using it. They denounce things like Obamacare, gun control, basic rules and regulations as socialist when they really aren't.

 

[The Overlord]

I think the big problem is in the US you have right wingers who say both Norway and North Korea are socialist and try to equate to the two.

However Norway is a social Democracy (a blend of capitalist and socialist economonic polices that is within a democratic frame work), while North Korea has a bizzare political system based on racism and xenophobia and simply use socialism as a justification for its existence to the outside world, these two places have nothing in common.

You also have American right wingers saying China is socialist, when China has moved on to a state capitalist system a long time ago.

In the eyes of American right wingers socialism just means "big government for its own sake" and that ignores the actual ethos of socialism, that government is just a tool to achieve an end, its not supposed to be an end in of itself. Anarchists are the most radical left wing group out there and they don't care for big government either. This is a flawed idea and ignores various right wing big government regimes (various theocracies around the world, military dictatorships like the one in Chile in the past, etc.)

Also saying the Nazi Party was socialist is rather silly, considering they got into power through a coalition with various German conservative parties (who thought the Nazis would be their puppet) and the Social Democrats were the only party that voted against the Enabling Act that allowed Hitler to turn Germany into a dictatorship.

I also find the idea of "free markets equals freedom" ignores the conformity and herd mentality our current commercialist and crony capitalist system tries to create. If small businesses get constantly get squeezed out by bigger stores, do we really have the same level of choice as we did before?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

But it is different. People developed government for the very reasons for the most basic of necessities. You can't say that the Romans building roads before the time of Christ is socialism when concepts like socialism weren't even around and were designed to several purposes beyond just economics. Basic law and order aren't exclusive to socialism.


Except how will one be able to profit off of emergency services? People aren't going to subscribe to a police service. People aren't going to pay for the privilege to drive on Main Street. But at the same time, these are essential services that need to exist.


I would say that the prison system is an example of a government service that shouldn't be privatized. Considering the poor conditions, the borderline slavery, etc.


I will certainly agree that they are considered to be general public services, even I consider them to be general public services. But it's far, far, far easier to develop a private alternative for organizations to profit off of these things than it is off of emergency services and roads.

Before governments around the world started offering public alternatives to these products, they were primarily controlled by private hands. All government did, was expand accessibility to those who wouldn't be able to afford such services beforehand. Vastly different as opposed to something that would not exist period without government like roads and emergency services.


It's not like I'm denouncing general public services like public schools. I don't see socialism as a dirty word that many unfortunately do. There are somethings that the Marxists do get right (While it has failed in government and economics, they do have valid critiques when it comes to foreign policy and history). And without government providing these general services, they would be restricted only to the elites who can afford it.

My annoyance with the everything is socialist argument is essentially the same with the right using it. They denounce things like Obamacare, gun control, basic rules and regulations as socialist when they really aren't.

I don't really have an issue with anything you've said. And I don't feel like you were denouncing public schools. In fact, this argument as a whole, is extremely nitpicky on both sides. Particularly for those who use it to forward their political agendas. To say something is or isn't socialism and whether or not that makes it inherently good or bad is the nutty thing.

But to rephrase my original point, I think the important socialist constructs are the ones that directly or indirectly benefit everyone. Not just the poor or disenfranchised. The things that populate society with educated, healthful, non-criminal people. Anything beyond that is where one could begin debating.

But they should all be scrutinized and reassessed over time because things like USPS and public transit are often just failures in comparison to the private sector.

 

[wiegeabo]

I also find the idea of "free markets equals freedom" ignores the conformity and herd mentality our current commercialist and crony capitalist system tries to create. If small businesses get constantly get squeezed out by bigger stores, do we really have the same level of choice as we did before?

Crony capitalism is the antithesis of free market capitalism. The two cannot co-exist.


Unfortunately, lobbyists and big business have been able to convince the public the two are one and the same (or, at least, can be integrated together) and should both be called "free market".

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Crony capitalism is the antithesis of free market capitalism. The two cannot co-exist.


Unfortunately, lobbyists and big business have been able to convince the public the two are one and the same (or, at least, can be integrated together) and should both be called "free market".

Thats why campaign finance reform is the country's most glaring need. I also feel that the house should extend terms from 2 years to 4 and put a 4 term cap on it.

 

[The Overlord]

Crony capitalism is the antithesis of free market capitalism. The two cannot co-exist.


Unfortunately, lobbyists and big business have been able to convince the public the two are one and the same (or, at least, can be integrated together) and should both be called "free market".

Personally I believe an absolute free market system is a fantasy that doesn't work in the real world. A absolute free would end up dominated by the stronger, more ruthless companies, its the same reason I don't believe in anarchism. An absolute free market is the economic equivalent of Hobbs' state of nature, I prefer something more structured.

I also think its weird how we talk about the free market nowadays, we treat it like its a some sort of god. We talk about trying to appease the free market like the ancients talked about appeasing Zeus or Odin. The free market is nothing more then a human creation and should be treated as a tool that humans control and is subject to human whims, to treat it as something else, to anthropomorphize it is not helpful to anyone. Saying we can't interfere with the free market seems ridiculous to me, because it is just something humans created. There is no Invisible Hand, its just a wild place that is often based on speculation and innuendo. Any sort of market should be our servant rather then our master, because we created it and it exists due to our whims, its not something found in nature.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I know virtually nothing in regards to this topic, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion being had

 

[Lilbaz]

You do realize that you do though, right?

Nope. Only in a materialistic world have people made money all important. We survived and flourished as a species well before currency was invented. Pride, prestige, legacy etc... drove ambition, and still does. Money itself has no value, it is only what we do with it.

I'm not saying we should become socialists but soon we will have to change. 85 people in the world have the same resources as the bottom half of the population and everyday they get more and others get less. Even lord saatchi (advisor to thatcher) has said capitalism is broken.

 

[Lilbaz]

It's my opinion that socialist policies should be those that everyone benefits from. There are many examples, but the obvious ones:
1. Education. No one wants to deal with uneducated people.
2. Safety. Everyone benefits from fire departments, safe roads/bridges, etc.
3. Health. Everyone benefits from your neighbors being healthful.

The arguments can come about when we talk about just how much schooling a person should receive, etc. But the acceptance of public schooling as a right is pretty universal.

It also begs to question certain other social reforms like minimum wage. Certain social constructs that don't necessarily benefit everyone. Or where, at the very least, there's varying opinions on the matter.

But in the end, when I imagine a world without public school/fire departments/bridge maintenance/etc. I seriously wonder how a person can say, "socialism is evil."

It isn't. It's just people don't like to pay for it. Even though taxes are factored in when employers decide on how much they pay their employees.

 

[Silvermoth]

I guess it's just negative branding. They do say the difference between god and the devil is one has a better PR Agent.

Also kind of funny because pretty much all the top ten happiest countries are socialised democracies

 

[Matt]

I guess it's just negative branding. They do say the difference between god and the devil is one has a better PR Agent.

Also kind of funny because pretty much all the top ten happiest countries are socialised democracies

Not for nothing, but this is the ultimate false equivalency. There have been numerous studies that have shown precisely why those models are heavily reliant on variables that, simply put, cannot be replicated in the United States due to things such as larger population, a government that is rooted largely in state autonomy, cultural norms, competing interests between states, differing economic needs of the different countries, etc. You simply cannot point to a Norwegian socialist state and say "LOOK HOW WELL IT WORKS FOR THEM! THAT MEANS IT WILL WORK FOR US!" It just doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and is a gross over-simplification.

 

[terry78]

Basically the things that make us great are the things that also divide us, lol.

 

[Matt]

Basically the things that make us great are the things that also divide us, lol.

Simply put, yes. Any attempt to replicate what foreign socialist democracies do would be instantly stymied by our federalist government. It would require a complete and total overhaul of our Constitution for such a thing to work. This is near impossible (not to mention, likely undesirable). And that is just one logistical hurdle of many, which says nothing regarding whether or not a such a system could be sustained with our population size, while balancing other economic needs.

And none of that speaks to the cultural aspect. Free market capitalism is hardwired into our country's DNA. It would take a massive cultural shift to get the kind of support needed to transition into a more socialist economy. Make no mistake, you need popular support. We are a democracy. 1/4 of the country doesn't get to just decide that we are socialists now and override the will of the other 3/4s. Contrary to what Bernie Bros may think, in a democracy you don't get your way because you throw the loudest temper tantrum. We would need a massive cultural shift to get the majority behind a socialist shift in our economy. That would require some sort of game changing catalyst. And frankly, if the 2000s didn't do that, what with the housing market crashing, the Great Recession, and Enron and Madoff scandals, I'm not sure that anything will create such a seismic impact needed to prompt such a shift.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Not for nothing, but this is the ultimate false equivalency. There have been numerous studies that have shown precisely why those models are heavily reliant on variables that, simply put, cannot be replicated in the United States due to things such as larger population, a government that is rooted largely in state autonomy, cultural norms, competing interests between states, differing economic needs of the different countries, etc. You simply cannot point to a Norwegian socialist state and say "LOOK HOW WELL IT WORKS FOR THEM! THAT MEANS IT WILL WORK FOR US!" It just doesn't reflect the reality of the situation and is a gross over-simplification.

But there should at least by an attempt to cherry pick the Nordic model and see what could work on a state and/or national level.

Right know there's very little discussion about the Nordic model specifically.

The Tea Party, Libertarians, the Alt Right and even Democratic Socialist are for more popular.

Are those ideals any more pragmatic than cherry picking Social Democracy to help the US working class?

 

[Matt]

But there should at least by an attempt to cherry pick the Nordic model and see what could work on a state and/or national level.

Right know there's very little discussion about the Nordic model specifically.

The Tea Party, Libertarians, the Alt Right and even Democratic Socialist are for more popular.

Are those ideals any more pragmatic than cherry picking Social Democracy to help the US working class?

States have tried to implement Nordic models. They have failed. It is largely due to the intricacies of our federalist system. A state would be unable to sustain a Nordic model without federal funding. Federal funding toward a single payer system in a handful of states (while other states receiving nothing of the sort) would create legal battles, Congressional dick measuring, etc. A sustainable Nordic model cannot exist without a federal shift to Nordic models, which is more or less impossible as things stand today.

In my perfect world, the US would go single payer. But this isn't a perfect world. It is easy for Bernie Sanders to propose a bill (which is merely political grandstanding as he knows it will fail) calling for a single payer system. But no one has been able to adequately articulate how we implement it and keep it sustainable in a country of this size, nor has anyone articulated a way to do so without impeding upon Constitutional safeguards in our federalist system.

 

[Herofan]

It's not surprising that it has a negative connotation given that it was the ideology and goal of major authoritarian/totalitarian countries although enough time has passed that that's becoming less influential. But even aside from that background, with its focus against income inequality and for redistribution a lot of people would fear that socialism would tend to be anti-growth and lead to everyone, or at least a lot of people, becoming equally poor.

I think Americans are unique in, to a greater extent than others, perceiving themselves as middle class so they would especially resent that socialism would be most helpful to the poor (which they perceive themselves to not be) and most harmful to the rich (which they want to be) while they themselves would get squeezed a lot if not being even more harmed than the rich.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

States have tried to implement Nordic models. They have failed. It is largely due to the intricacies of our federalist system. A state would be unable to sustain a Nordic model without federal funding. Federal funding toward a single payer system in a handful of states (while other states receiving nothing of the sort) would create legal battles, Congressional dick measuring, etc. A sustainable Nordic model cannot exist without a federal shift to Nordic models, which is more or less impossible as things stand today.

In my perfect world, the US would go single payer. But this isn't a perfect world. It is easy for Bernie Sanders to propose a bill (which is merely political grandstanding as he knows it will fail) calling for a single payer system. But no one has been able to adequately articulate how we implement it and keep it sustainable in a country of this size, nor has anyone articulated a way to do so without impeding upon Constitutional safeguards in our federalist system.

What I meant by cherry picking was only adopting aspects of the Nordic model that are possible.

If a single payer system is impossible how about a public option?

If free college is impossible for everyone, then how about programs for good students from low income families?

If a minimum wage that matches inflation (22 /hr) then how about 15 /hr?

Instead we get all socialism is evil argument.