Why Does Socialism Have a Negative Connotation?

[Thundercrack85]

Even if you follow Marx's own writings, a country isn't ready for Socialism until it reaches a certain level of prosperity. Lenin kind of seems to have skipped that chapter.

That's always been the great irony of the Soviet Union. Marx's theories were designed for highly developed countries. Russia circa 1917 was probably the worst candidate in Europe. They hadn't even had a bourgeois revolution.

 

[Kelly]

Is that how you see socialism?

As it is trying to be filtered into American economics and politics? yes...

 

[Kelly]

Even if you follow Marx's own writings, a country isn't ready for Socialism until it reaches a certain level of prosperity. Lenin kind of seems to have skipped that chapter.

That's always been the great irony of the Soviet Union. Marx's theories were designed for highly developed countries. Russia circa 1917 was probably the worst candidate in Europe. They hadn't even had a bourgeois revolution.

Marx was a philosopher, a big thinker, he had no clue that his ideas would be used in the manner they were used in the 20th century, and evolving in the 21st century in the desire to make them fit into a US type of Republic and Mixed Economy....

 

[Feenix]

As it is trying to be filtered into American economics and politics? yes...

Can you explain this more clearly? Do you have any specific examples?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I never understood why people put so much stock into one philandering jackass' philosophy. The way the Soviets worshipped Marx, it was borderline fanaticism.

Did anyone try to build a society on Adam Smith's ramblings?

 

[The Overlord]

I never understood why people put so much stock into one philandering jackass' philosophy. The way the Soviets worshipped Marx, it was borderline fanaticism.

Did anyone try to build a society on Adam Smith's ramblings?

To be fair, Marx did not like the idea of a cult f personality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

We also have to realize that when Marx was writing, working conditions in Europe were pretty bad.

I always felt that Marx criticism of capitalism are more thought out then his solutions to capitalism. I think with his solutions he went from economist to sociologist and went out of his comfort zone a bit.

I think the big failure of Marxists today, is an inability to treat past mistakes as something to learn from. Marxists tend to wash their hands of the USSR and blame everything on Stalin, they never see the USSR as something they can learn from. They never adapted Marx's teachings to the post Cold war world and came up with ways to ensure that the abuses of the USSR wouldn't happen in a new worker's state.

This is why anarchism has become the popular ideology of today's young left wing radical, while traditional Marxism has become to be seen as old and tired.

 

[Shikamaru]

I think it should be pointed out that Communism/Marxism and Socialism/North American left-wing politics are two entirely separate entities. Karl Marx's theories are founded in borderline extremism and would be universally rejected by most of today's left. The latter is more in line with the philosophy that states "To each his own contribution."

No one here is condoning full-out Marxism, but that's the problem with raising such issue in the first place. In a society that's taught to think so black-and-white, you can't bring up wealth redistribution without being called a Commie or Marxist.

The idea is to avoid extremism to the extent that it is possible. And though I'll be the first to admit Capitalism has more to offer than Communism, both are ultimately structured in similar ways. A group of people - The One-Government Party and the 1% respectively - controlling all societal facets, who can get away with what they do whenever they do so. Neither are healthy for a society.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Well except some people, from Martin Luther King to Gore Vidal, have described the US economy as "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor". Do we truly have a free market society, if we have things like corporate subsides and bail outs? Do most major corporations even want a real free market society?

No, there is no such things as a truly free market society, just like how there isn't a truly socialist society.

We had people on Fox News who were complaining about "creeping socialism", because some kids soccer game didn't keep score or something, but is a growing divide between rich and poor in America, is that a sign of "socialism"? Conservatives complain about calls for more regulations and class warfare, but maybe those things wouldn't happen if more corporations acted in a moral and responsible manner.

I don't take those criticisms seriously to begin with because 95% of the the time, my fellow right-wingers don't know what they're talking about. And Fox News is a ****** news channel.

America is really different from Norway, but maybe there are some ideas from Norway worth at least looking at, because I don't think the current system we have, a marriage between big government and big business, is good for the majority of people.

The system we have, that is suited for America, is the reason why we're the biggest economy in the world. It's also the reason why we're on far better footing and showing genuine economic growth while other economies like China, Russia, and Europe are slowing down or in recession.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I should have been more specific. Of course universal health care is an action with socialistic roots/intentions, but what I meant to say it *that by itself* does not turn a nation socialist or completely throws out any trace of capitalism.

You're absolutely right. While the health care system of the United Kingdom is socialist, you certainly cannot classify the UK as a socialist nation.

My point was more of a critique towards the ridiculous hyperboles the American right uses by equating anyone who encourages more socialist policies (but not necessarily complete socialism, or at least not all at once) to a full-blooming Commie/Socialist. Which is complete absurdity.

Trust me on this one, I argue with my fellow Republicans on this all the time. Most people don't know what the hell socialism really is in the United States. One of my close friends in college loves to argue how gun control, Obamacare, etc. are socialist, and then when I fully explain how they're not, he just brushes them aside.

Although my favorite comes from my boss' husband who asked me what I would categorize Obamacare as if not socialism. I just simply said "bad policy and crony capitalism." He actually accepted that answer.

It should make one wonder, if their definition of socialism is that diluted, how they would react if they lived anywhere outside of the States. If Obama is a socialist, even a nation like Canada - who is still very capitalistic compared to the rest of the developed world but not as on the right as the States - would still give those people a heart attack.

Probably.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The current system is untenable though. The wealth disparity is insane, and only growing. The middle class is being wiped out, and the working class is struggling. The minimum wage is actually 7 dollars and 25 cents. How are people expected to live on that? And then there's the healthcare craziness.

The CEO of McDonalds makes 9,200 dollars an hour.

America may be the most wealthy country, but at the cost of millions of Americans. Which I suppose, was really always the case, but the country is supposed to be egalitarian now.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The current system is untenable though. The wealth disparity is insane, and only growing. The middle class is being wiped out, and the working class is struggling. The minimum wage is actually 7 dollars and 25 cents. How are people expected to live on that?

But again, far better than what we're seeing in many social democracies right now. What the have in higher wages, they also have much higher unemployment and economic instability with a welfare state that is becoming harder and harder to maintain.

And I feel that your minimum wage argument doesn't properly represent the situation. While the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 and many states are adhering to it, we're seeing more and more states (and cities) adopt higher minimum wage laws. It's a popular initiative throughout the country and we'll see more states adopt higher wage laws in the future to the point where I personally don't think that Federal action is needed. I view it as a state issue and it's something that is working.

And then there's the healthcare craziness.

A system that is in dire need of reform. My biggest problem with Obamacare is that they went after the wrong people. It was never the insurance companies that were easy to vilify, but the pharmaceuticals and lawsuits that drive up the costs tremendously.

The CEO of McDonalds makes 9,200 dollars an hour.

Considering, McDonalds' performance thanks to some really boneheaded moves, he doesn't deserve that.

America may be the most wealthy country, but at the cost of millions of Americans. Which I suppose, was really always the case, but the country is supposed to be egalitarian now.

America has always been about legal egalitarianism, not economic egalitarianism. And what we lack in economic egalitarianism, we make up for having far more social mobility than most countries.

 

[SV Fan]

And I feel that your minimum wage argument doesn't properly represent the situation. While the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 and many states are adhering to it, we're seeing more and more states (and cities) adopt higher minimum wage laws. It's a popular initiative throughout the country and we'll see more states adopt higher wage laws in the future to the point where I personally don't think that Federal action is needed. I view it as a state issue and it's something that is working.

Here is the problem with every city and state deciding what min wage they should have and not the federal government(to a certain level). You could have 49 states that act great about this but all it takes is one state to screw the rest of the country over in a race to the bottom, then all of a sudden all the low wage jobs will go out of there way to locate there. With the Federal government setting a min for the country to adhere to it does sort of stop any state(s) from screwing the rest of the country over.

I do think the Federal Government stepping in and creating a minimum standard on some issues(such as min wage) is important else you will see all states start going up against each other lowering standards on stuff like wages. Imagine if the Government let stuff like environmental issues up to the city and state, Texas would be a toxic waste dump. I do think that the people are much stronger if they have 1 set of rules for everybody then if you have 50 states trying to compete against each other basically

A system that is in dire need of reform. My biggest problem with Obamacare is that they went after the wrong people. It was never the insurance companies that were easy to vilify, but the pharmaceuticals and lawsuits that drive up the costs tremendously.

Only republicans think that Obamacare is somehow "attacking" Insurance companies, making everybody sign up for Insurance is an Insurance company wet dream. Look at stock prices for helth care insurance companies since Obamacare came into effect, I don't think they have been attacked enough(ie insurance shouldn't be a middle man for people's healthcare, take the middle man out health care prices will drop)

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

I'm quite happy with the balance we've maintained in Australia over somewhere like America when it comes to a mixed economy. While America may be a powerhouse, Australians are terrified of their society becoming more like the US. We see your stats on wages, wealth disparity, oligopolies, socioeconomic imbalance, a capitalist-style health system and so forth, and are glad that many of our public sectors have policies that are socialistic in nature.

Which is not to say we are perfect, far far from it. Not least because Abbot wants to brown-nose America even if he suffocates to do it. But I think the US would have a lot to gain from adopting more socialistic principles when it came to health care, government intervention into big business, and so forth.

But then I'm a lefty at heart.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Here is the problem with every city and state deciding what min wage they should have and not the federal government(to a certain level). You could have 49 states that act great about this but all it takes is one state to screw the rest of the country over in a race to the bottom, then all of a sudden all the low wage jobs will go out of there way to locate there. With the Federal government setting a min for the country to adhere to it does sort of stop any state(s) from screwing the rest of the country over.

It's not a race to the bottom as we're currently seeing. You'd have a point if states were lowering their minimum wages, but states are actually raising minimum wages on their own.

I do think the Federal Government stepping in and creating a minimum standard on some issues(such as min wage) is important else you will see all states start going up against each other lowering standards on stuff like wages. Imagine if the Government let stuff like environmental issues up to the city and state, Texas would be a toxic waste dump. I do think that the people are much stronger if they have 1 set of rules for everybody then if you have 50 states trying to compete against each other basically

In a lot of aspects having uniform rules would be very beneficial, like education IMO. But in others, like minimum wage, having the Federal system works best.

Only republicans think that Obamacare is somehow "attacking" Insurance companies, making everybody sign up for Insurance is an Insurance company wet dream. Look at stock prices for helth care insurance companies since Obamacare came into effect, I don't think they have been attacked enough(ie insurance shouldn't be a middle man for people's healthcare, take the middle man out health care prices will drop)

Before Obama had no choice but to accept the fact that he needed the insurance companies, Democrats were pretty vicious on their attacks on the insurance companies. It wasn't until Obamacare passed did Obama and the insurance companies become steadfast allies.

 

[SV Fan]

In a lot of aspects having uniform rules would be very beneficial, like education IMO. But in others, like minimum wage, having the Federal system works best.

Ironically education is one thing I would prefer states take care of themselves. If Mississippi wants to race to the bottom in terms of teaching it's kids more power to them

It's not a race to the bottom as we're currently seeing. You'd have a point if states were lowering their minimum wages, but states are actually raising minimum wages on their own.

As I said you can have most states to do the right thing, it only takes a few states to race to the bottom to ruin it for everybody

 

[hippie_hunter]

Except a few states aren't ruining it for everybody. What we're seeing is the exact opposite of what you're saying.

 

[SV Fan]

Except a few states aren't ruining it for everybody. What we're seeing is the exact opposite of what you're saying.

So let's give all states free reign to do as they please, how many would lower the min wage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

Looking at this list you can count on 2 hands the number of states doing a good thing. Pretty sad honestly

 

[Thundercrack85]

You'll recall Mississippi fought for slavery, so... maybe best not to let them make their own laws on labor.

 

[hippie_hunter]

So let's give all states free reign to do as they please, how many would lower the min wage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States

Looking at this list you can count on 2 hands the number of states doing a good thing. Pretty sad honestly

But we already have a Federal minimum wage in place, so you're bringing up a scenario that isn't going to happen. And more states are going to pass higher minimum wage laws. It's a popular initiative with voters.

You'll recall Mississippi fought for slavery, so... maybe best not to let them make their own laws on labor.

Yes, because bringing up the errors of 150 years ago is completely relevant to today's age in a completely unrelated topic.

 

[Shikamaru]

We should also keep in mind Mississippi hasn't officially ratified the 13th Amendment (regarding slavery) till literally two years ago. In Mississippi it's barely now just the year 1867 , so I'm not sure I'd trust them ether.

 

[hippie_hunter]

We should also keep in mind Mississippi hasn't officially ratified the 13th Amendment (regarding slavery) till literally two years ago. In Mississippi it's barely now just the year 1867 , so I'm not sure I'd trust them ether.

Mississippi's ratification of the 13th Amendment was delayed for YEARS due to a technical error. Mississippi voted to ratify it in 1995, but they never submitted the proper paperwork to notify the US Archivist until some guy in 2013 noticed the error when looking up the 13th Amendment.

Also keep in mind that after Mississippi's rejection of the 13th Amendment in 1865, there really was little need to revisit the issue. It became law one day later with Georgia's ratification and further reinforced by other states ratifying it.

The Mississippi of the modern era ratifying the 13th Amendment when there was no need to is Mississippi recognizing that they have made grave errors in the past and used a PR attempt to try and demonstrate their sorrow in allowing such an egregious atrocity to happen in their state. It's called progress in an area that has been rife with rampant racism. I love it how the American left just looks down upon the South with such utter discontempt and brush aside any progress just to fulfill their own ignorant fantasies about how it's an area filled with nothing but ignorant hillbillies. There are still a lot of obstacles to overcome, not just in the South, but throughout the United States, but a lot of significant progress has been made.

 

[Shikamaru]

Come on dude, it was clearly a joke. Hence the emoticon.

Obviously I'm not proposing the state should be ripped of its freedom to make its own laws based on one particular incident. I hope I come off more intelligent than that.

 

[Thundercrack85]

But we already have a Federal minimum wage in place, so you're bringing up a scenario that isn't going to happen. And more states are going to pass higher minimum wage laws. It's a popular initiative with voters.


Yes, because bringing up the errors of 150 years ago is completely relevant to today's age in a completely unrelated topic.

You make it sound like Mississippi recanted its position on slavery 149 years ago and never looked back. In reality, it didn't officially recant until a little over a year ago, and had virtual slavery until the 20th century. It continues to have some of the worst laws protecting (or rather, not protecting) the rights of workers in the Union.

There's a reason it's the worst state. It's a serial offender.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You make it sound like Mississippi recanted its position on slavery 149 years ago and never looked back.

Except I'm not. Mississippi ratifying the 13th Amendment over 150 years it became law is Mississippi accepting the fact that what they did was wrong and disgusting.

In reality, it didn't officially recant until a little over a year ago,

Again, due to a TECHNICAL ERROR. Mississippi intended on having the 13th Amendment ratified 20 years ago.

and had virtual slavery until the 20th century.

Very true, and it's something that the vast majority in the South, not just Mississippi, regret doing.

It continues to have some of the worst laws protecting (or rather, not protecting) the rights of workers in the Union.

Rather depends on your position on how labor laws should be done. You also have to take into account that Mississippi needs to find ways to be attractive for businesses because economically they don't offer a lot. They're not like New York or California which have the massive economies that can afford to have more stringent regulations.

There's a reason it's the worst state. It's a serial offender.

There's no such thing as something called the "worst state." That's just utterly condescending and wrong and that attitude is why I think that many Southerners see progressives with such utter contempt. Instead of looking at them as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies to look down upon, how about you look at them as people as well.

 

[Decepticonus]

There's no such thing as something called the "worst state." That's just utterly condescending and wrong and that attitude is why I think that many Southerners see progressives with such utter contempt. Instead of looking at them as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies to look down upon, how about you look at them as people as well.

But they are not people and Gen. Sherman's work is not done yet. Union occupation of the South after the war should be taken up again. They are clearly subjects who are not capable of self-government.