Why Does Socialism Have a Negative Connotation?

[Decepticonus]

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.

Correct. Leninism/Bolshevism is a heresy of Marxism.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on Mississippi. Were it not for the federal government Mississippi would be a third world country. It's a welfare state, which just makes its politics all the more ironic.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on Mississippi. Were it not for the federal government Mississippi would be a third world country. It's a welfare state, which just makes its politics all the more ironic.

Mississippi's problems are far more complex than you're making it out to be. The state made a very bad decision to resist industrialization in favor of pure agriculture in the 1890's and it's a decision that bites them in the ass to this day. It's rampant with poverty with a high black population (a demographic to this day that is still economically disenfranchised throughout the United States). It's plagued with being in an area that is hit hard by hurricanes. It has little to offer in tourism, resources, industry, etc.

It's not as if progressive policies are just going to come in with a magic wand and save Mississippi's problems. Almost all of the problems would exist regardless of whatever party or ideology is in charge. They're very difficult problems that are extremely hard to fix.

 

[SV Fan]

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.

If it worth anything I do think Southerners are much nicer and polite then northerners on a whole, but their politics suck.

I think the part that annoys me the most about the south is they vote for the party that hates big government spending(ie "socialism") but many of those states seems to benefit off of it more then the rest of the country. I personally have no problem with the Government putting money into Mississippi and I get why it's done(lots of retired people there, military bases, etc), but don't insult my intelligence by voting for guys who say they hate government spending

 

[TheComicbookKid]

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.

As someone from Mississippi, there's a very strong strain of thought in dragging its feet to anything progressive. The state itself is still strongly segregated racially and politically. MSU and Ole Miss are two very powerful universities yet the state can't keep graduates there for a reason.

Mississippi hides behind it "aw, shucks" politeness so nothing changes unless it has to.

 

[Charlatan]

because the rich capitalists who have controlled everything in this country since it began told you it was bad. It is a threat to their way of making money off of everyone else. If they can control the lawmakers,the media and now the black box voting machines they can do anything they want. Abolish unions, create tax loopholes for themselves,pay you a pittance for your labor,pollute your water,air and land with little to no consequence to their purses, force you to fight and die for their profits etc..

 

[hippie_hunter]

because the rich capitalists who have controlled everything in this country since it began told you it was bad. It is a threat to their way of making money off of everyone else. If they can control the lawmakers,the media and now the black box voting machines they can do anything they want. Abolish unions, create tax loopholes for themselves,pay you a pittance for your labor,pollute your water,air and land with little to no consequence to their purses, force you to fight and die for their profits etc..

Ummmmmm.....yeah, it's a little bit more complex than how you're making it out to be. Things like history and culture have a much bigger impact than some insane capitalist conspiracy theory.

 

[SV Fan]

Ummmmmm.....yeah, it's a little bit more complex than how you're making it out to be. Things like history and culture have a much bigger impact than some insane capitalist conspiracy theory.

I don't think it's that out of the question that people/groups who donate a lot of cash expect something back for all the money they give(more often then not).

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't think it's that out of the question that people/groups who donate a lot of cash expect something back for all the money they give(more often then not).

A lot of these people/groups are people who actually want to influence politics in our society. For all the vilifying the Koch Brothers receive, unfairly I might add, they're not contributing to campaigns to bribe them. They're contributing to try and actually contribute to American political society in favor of libertarian ideology. Just like how Warren Buffet is contributing to progressive causes and candidates. And Tom Steyer contributing to environmentalist causes.

 

[Lilbaz]

There needs to be a balance between socialism and capitalism. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses. We need to balance out the weakness in one with the strengths in the other.

For a country that hates socialism though you do have the most socialist sporting practices. The draft being a good example. Trying to keep the sport balanced and competitive without too much power going to one team.

Also I'd consider many of Jesus views socialist.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Correct. Leninism/Bolshevism is a heresy of Marxism.

While I certainly agree that Marx did not intend for his ideology to go down the path of Lenin and Stalin and the Kims and Pol Pot, you cannot deny that these men have tainted its reputation severely.

 

[Warhammer]

Forgot to post this. I am so sorry, my dude. I was sent this via PM.

The United States has a long and proud revolutionary tradition starting with the revolt against the British, continuing with the abolitionist movement, the workers' struggles in the 1930s and the civil rights movement. Much of this, of course, is not taught in American schools, where instead of looking at the role played (for example) by trade unions, the Communist Party and radical agitators in pressuring reforms, as well as the ruling class' fear of the Soviet alternative, children are taught to view policies such as the New Deal as something that presidents (in this case, Roosevelt) gave to the people out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.

I'd say there are two main reasons for the negative perception of socialism in the United States today. One is simply the cumulative effect of a century of anti-communist propaganda that utterly demonizes any alternative to capitalism. Even though societies like the USSR and the People's Republic of China achieved massive economic growth, industrialized backward countries, virtually eliminated illiteracy and drastically reduced inequality while improving the status of women and offering full employment and a range of social services such as free health care and education, we are trained from childhood to focus only on the negative aspects of those societies.

It's important to note that anti-communist orthodoxy generally treats the more repressive elements of those societies as something inherent in communism itself as an ideology. The elephant in the room that nobody ever talks about is the role of imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, which wages non-stop campaigns of destabilization against any country perceived to threaten its interests (particularly one touting an alternative economic model).

For example, immediately after the USSR was formed in 1917 -- at which time it was already in a poor state due to the effects of the First World War -- it was immediately invaded by more than 20 foreign armies in addition to the opposing Russian White armies. When you've fought a world war and a civil war that devastated your country and left millions impoverished and hungry, these are hardly the ideal conditions to start constructing socialism, which by definition implies the existence of plenty rather than scarcity. If you're trying to distribute items in a society dominated by scarcity, the role of the state will inevitably increase.

From the Trotskyist point of view, as well, it's impossible to construct "socialism in one country" (as Stalin argued) because every country is connected to the world economy. The Russian Bolsheviks after the October Revolution were depending on assistance from an advanced capitalist country that would have its own revolution -- in this case, Germany. When the German Revolution failed in 1918, the USSR was left to its own devices.

Anti-communist propaganda, of course, deliberately ignores all this context. Instead, communism is portrayed as inherently gray, dreary and oppressive, with leaders who apparently sit around plotting how to starve as many of their citizens as possible. I should just add that if one were to treat "capitalism" as an ideology in the same way that we treat "communism" you would be laughed out of the room. When we talk about famines in China, people will say "Mao killed 30 million people!" (the professional anti-communist can make up any ridiculous number they want with the assurance they they will rarely be asked to justify them). The equivalent would be saying that the tens of thousands of people who die in the United States every year because they can't afford health care were personally murdered by the president.

(If we were to tally the deaths that one could attribute to "capitalism", of course, the numbers would absolutely dwarf numbers caused by "communism". How many people died due to slavery, colonialism, or in the two world wars that were caused by the desire of rival powers to divide the globe in their efforts to control markets and resources? How many children even now die of starvation or from easily preventable diseases every day? You get my drift.)

The other major factor in negative connotations of socialism in the United States -- and intertwined with years of anti-communist propaganda -- is the fact that the United States for much of the 20th century was the world's richest nation, particularly during the boom that resulted from the opening of new markets after its victory in World War II. Like other Western nations (which were richer to start with because of their imperialist exploitation of the rest of the world), workers in the United States had agitated for better conditions and wages in the previous few decades, and after the war the ruling classes in those countries were even more likely to accommodate those demands for fear of the Soviet counterexample. So it was in that period that you saw many progressive developments such as public pensions (Social Security), public health care (Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S.) and poverty reduction programs.

In such conditions, with the average family able to afford a car, a house and a vacation once a year, it was easy to think that this was the new normal, that things would always be this way. At the same time, any threat to the existing order could always be countermanded by pointing to the more unsavoury aspects of Stalinist governments and saying, "You want socialism? There's socialism for you!" Better the devil you know, the thinking went, to the point where even much of the "left" ended up buying into the anti-communist orthodoxy. Today, of course, with capitalism in crisis all those hard-won gains from the past are being clawed back in the name of "austerity".

There's one other factor I forgot to mention. Whenever radical left movements have cropped up throughout the history of the United States, more often than not they have been greeted with savage violence in partnership with the state. In the South under segregation, for example, the Communist Party attracted huge numbers of black supporters, which led to the state partnering with the Ku Klux Klan to brutally repress these movements.

Similarly, the rise of the Black Panther Party in the 1960s was seen as a radical threat by the state and its repressive arms such as the FBI. While often mischaracterized as "black nationalists", the Panthers were in fact revolutionary internationalists heavily influenced by Mao. One of the ways that the state dealt with the threat of the Panthers was through harassment, intimidation and the physical extermination of its leadership (look up the tragic fate of Fred Hampton), which helped weaken such radical organizations over time.

Even today, the state is remarkably quick to target and destroy movements it perceives as a threat. Just look at how quickly the Obama administration co-ordinated law enforcement agencies across the country to destroy the Occupy movement.

So I guess that's how I would summarize the three most important factors in the negative perception of socialism in the United States -- the ideological, the economic and the coercive. That said, the onset of the economic crisis in 2008 has dramatically shaken many people's previous assumptions and you never know what the future may hold...

 

[Shikamaru]

I was reading about the Canadian health care system today and was reminded of this thread in a way.

I'll just leave these here for relevance:

[YT]DXXBCFnhsUc[/YT]

[YT]iYOf6hXGx6M&list=UUD_DaKNac0Ta-2PeHuoQ1uA[/YT]


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/exposure-to-us-healthcare-system-leaves-british-expats-appalled-baffled-and-enraged/

Spoiler

Exposure to US healthcare system leaves British expats appalled, baffled and enraged

Scottish-born David Gray, a creative director based in Brooklyn, was “doubled-up coughing in the snow” when he fell out of love with the US healthcare system.

Gray, on his employer-provided health insurance, needed a US doctor for a checkup. A colleague recommended a doctor’s office housed in “a really grand building on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Full floor, incredible views – it looked like a movie version of a New York doctor’s,” he says. “It was just about the friendliest, fanciest place I’d ever been.”

A chatty, relaxed doctor and a glamorous receptionist greeted him on that visit. Though the office was devoted to plastic surgery – the shelves replete with cosmetics, glossy leaflets about Botox treatments and dermal fillers – they treated Gray.

A year later, the reception he received was quite literally chilly. Gray, suffering from a chest infection, cold, exhausted and weak, headed out in a snowstorm and stumbled along to the same doctor’s office.

When he handed over his insurance card, the receptionist’s dazzling smile faded. His employer had changed healthcare providers without Gray’s knowing it. “Sliding the new card back across the desk, she said ‘this is not insurance we accept.’ She turned away. Sixty seconds later I was back out in the snow, bent over double coughing,” Gray says.

Gray is far from alone. The American “health insurance” system comes as a nasty shock to many British expatriates working and living in the United States.

Even some who enjoy great career opportunities and stay in America for 10 or more years simply resent having to deal with it.

Some prefer to fly back to the UK for visits to the doctor or dentist because even after paying for flights it is sometimes still cheaper – and a lot less hassle – than getting treatment in the United States.

In America, health insurance is simply big business. The largest 125 US health insurers collected $744bn in 2013 premiums, according to a US News & World Report article citing data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Health insurance in America has its own vocabulary, its own culture, and the British have to learn the hard way.

Trying to explain the American health insurance system to friends and family in the UK is often futile.

They wince when you talk of friends who pay $11,000 a year for health insurance for themselves and their three kids. And to many Americans, $11,000 a year for a family health insurance plan is cheap.

Brits find it hard to believe that many Americans stay in a job they hate for 20 or 30 years mainly because it provides health insurance for them and their families.

That strikes Brits as a kind of serfdom in The Land of The Free.

Where Americans see “choice” in their private health insurance plans, Brits see wasted time and confusion. Where Americans say “I get to choose my doctor,” Brits ask “why on earth would you want to choose a doctor?” Where Americans talk about “out-of-pocket” and “deductibles” and “co-pays”, Brits say “what?” and get all of the above confused.

As millions of previously uninsured Americans sign up for different levels of health care under the Affordable Care Act, British expats are impressed at this development.

But many of the Brits remain confused and bewildered by the health insurance system in the United States – and appalled at the cost.

An informal survey of a dozen or so educated and successful Brits living and working in the United States found different levels of bamboozlement, resentment and grim acceptance of the American healthcare system.

How else are Brits accustomed to the free National Health Service supposed to react to the new “marketplace” for health insurance? A “marketplace” for something as holy as healthcare?

The HealthCare.gov website advises there are five categories of marketplace health insurance plans: bronze, silver, gold, platinum – and a final category called “catastrophic”.

The Brit expat reaction to this array of choices is bafflement: What are we buying here? Healthcare or American Express cards?

“Plans in these categories differ based on how you and the plan share the costs of your care,” says the HealthCare.gov site advice.

Then, just to reassure you, the site adds: “The categories have nothing to do with the amount of care you get.”

Confused? You will be.

Take me back to Blighty

In the United Kingdom, people don’t have to spend too much time thinking about how to get healthcare or how to pay for it – or even worse, how to do the paperwork like they were making an insurance claim on their car or their house.

The UK’s under-pressure National Health Service is far from perfect – the standard and speed of service can depend on where you live and people often wait for many months for certain hospital treatments and procedures.

But anyone can visit a doctor or spend time in hospital without having to think about the cost.

Steve Camac is a great example of a Brit who embraced the optimism of America and loves the opportunities it offers those who are hard-working and smart.

Camac moved to the United States in 1991 from Lewes, East Sussex, to attend college and never left. He now runs his own business conference company and provides health insurance for his staff.

But even a fan of America like Camac has some reservations about its health insurance system.

“It is confusing,” said Camac. “I don’t think it is the best model. You have to think about it and pick a plan. It’s a pain in the arse.”

But he is quick to add: “There is more bureaucracy but I think once you start using it, it’s fine … the treatment and facilities are better than in Britain.”

British-born Helen Colquhoun moved to Boston roughly 12 years ago and is a senior medical director working in clinical trials.

Colquhoun loves the lifestyle but she is not impressed by the healthcare system.

“Massive liability insurance premiums means defensive medicine is practised,” said Colquhoun.

“Other countries manage to police their healthcare systems by mechanisms other than the courts. So costs are much higher than they need to be.”

Colquhoun, like many Brits, doesn’t understand why so many Americans are opposed to the idea of what they call “socialised medicine” and why health insurance has anything to do with employment.

“The attitude that universal coverage is wrong is madness. Every insurance scheme in existence relies on those not claiming to pay for those that do. Why it is tied to employment is beyond me. It is a massive burden on business like another tax.”

But many educated Brits simply find it too much to think about.

Lee, who works on Wall Street, said: “You not only have to understand the system and how it works – and I still haven’t worked out how my flexible spending account works – but you also have to understand the medical terms they put on the bill to ensure you haven’t been overcharged.

“My pet peeve is the fact that American doctors tend to err on the side of over-treating you in this country. In the UK you’d be told to head off home and take a Lemsip whereas here you’re put on a course of treatment.”

Brits are also sometimes offended to find out that some doctors accept their insurance plans and some don’t.

British-born financial editor John has been in America for more than 10 years but still complains about the system.

“The US healthcare system is byzantine, chaotic and confusing,” said John.

“For those of us who grew up in a country with a functioning welfare state, yes, the difference is stark and it rankles to be ground down by the bureaucracy, wasted time and potentially ruinous costs of the US health system.

“But I think Americans are becoming increasingly disenchanted too, from the conversations I hear around me, and increasingly distrustful of the health insurers and their fake bills, some of which have ‘this is not a bill’ in small print and some of which don’t – and people can mistakenly pay.”

Some hardy Brits just accept it and get on with their lives.

Iain McClements, a summer camp director, is another Brit who embraces the American lifestyle with open arms but has wrestled with health insurance.

McClements has been Stateside for about 15 years and was bamboozled the first time he tried to choose a health insurance plan.

“I had no idea … before kids, I never went to the doctor. I never used it.”

But recently, McClements had to spend time choosing a new health plan for himself and his wife and three children when he found out the cost of his monthly health insurance plan for the family was going to jump from $1,100 to $1,600.

“It was good coverage … but it’s still a ton of money.”

He shopped around and found a deal for $900 a month. That’s still almost $11,000 a year.

“When you have a family and you see kids getting sick, you really have no choice,” said McClements.

“It gets easier to understand it when you have used it a little bit … it gave me a little more insight having used a plan for a year.”

McClements loves America and has made great advances in his career: “The opportunities are absolutely there. I’m not going to lie. It’s been fantastic.”

But he added: “There’s no safety net.”

Hopefully this shines more insight on some of the American skeptics.

 

[Decepticonus]

While I certainly agree that Marx did not intend for his ideology to go down the path of Lenin and Stalin and the Kims and Pol Pot, you cannot deny that these men have tainted its reputation severely.

True, problem is Marxism as a social science doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even Georges Sorel a Marxist saw this. He didn't hold up as science, but seemed more like old timey Christianity. Instead, make it a religion. It did not matter if Marxism was true (though the times proved it to be false as wages and living conditions were increasing in Europe and many Marxists became reformers who saw this) what mattered was it perceived as truth enough to the masses out causing revolution in the name of it, instead make it a religion. Which they did in a sense. Mussolini a former socialist and Sorel disciple made said Fascism was spiritual and made a religion of the state. The Russians carried banners of Lenin, Marx, Engels & Stalin. They became idols, which one could argue (Lenin did) was rather bourgeois.

Socialism may catch on now more than ever due to globalization. "The working man has no country" according to Marx. And feelings of nationalism have died out (except for Republicans & Putin to name a few) but compared to early 20th century nationalism is dead.
In addition, our definition of socialism has changed and continues to change.

Hitler said "Socialism was an unfortunate word altogether and that if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

And this is a good point. FDR even said call it socialism or w/e you want for the New Deal, the important thing is the market & democracy were safe. Socialism has become less centered around the state, collectivism, unions and so forth. Socialism has become more about doing good, helping people to achieve. I have no doubt Ayn Rand would argue the Red Cross were socialists. But I digress.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

socialism and communism have bad names mainly because its the opposite of american capitalist way. after ww2 americans were scared of communism and socialism and made it public enemy no.1
after ww2 none of the communist countries received financial help for rebuilding, but western european countries did (marshall plan). so it also never got to a fair start economically speaking. It also didnt help that most east europe was occupied by soviet union.
But there was a country that refused soviet help even though it was communist country and that was Yugoslavia. And even without any financial help after ww2 it recovered well and had a quite strong economy and military. Yugoslavia was communist country, but we were open to foreign products. That shoved that a being a communist doesnt necessarily mean that you have to close your borders. Yugoslavia was doing business with both west and east. And our business companies were working on a self governing principle and were quite strong in that region.
Offcourse, after the cold war the bridge between east and west was no longer needed and west couldnt have a succesful communist country if they were trying to prove that communism doesnt work. And as a whole, Yugoslavia would not be easily conquered by european union so eventually the west mingeled in our politics and satarted a civil war.

its also funny that whenever a discussion comes communism vs capitalism or democracy, people tend to take the worst example for communism and best example for capitalism.
just because a country says its communist (like N. Korea) doesnt mean that it actually is. By that logic afganistan is a democracy and if you take that as an example it doesnt look like a good sistem.

 

[Decepticonus]

Socialism, Communism, Democracy has little to no meaning. They're just words and for most it means something good. Like when people say "what women couldn't vote, that's not democracy!" Well it was according to greeks.

But in furthering your argument American imperialism needs to be redefined. Yet, imperialism can join the list of things above with no meaning but something bad.

 

[Rocketman]

I think what people want when it comes to a kind of socialism is a type that hasn't been achieved yet. The "negative connotation" is that it's assumed that pro-socialism people think that every single person in a country should make $20,000 a year, and it's a nation of people making that same amount -- and that's just not correct. And furthermore, there hasn't been a perfect government / economic structure yet. So it comes from wanting something else, and that something else would most likely be better than what we currently have.

To me, it starts with: No single person should have or need 10 billion dollars.
From there, does any single person need 5 billion dollars?
Does a single person need 1 billion?
What about 500 million?

So from that line of thinking, there should be an agreement that decides "What's the maximum amount of money that the richest person in the country should have?" If it's 500 million, then you break it down into a perfectly reasonable system of upper class, middle class, and lower class, just like we have now, only it actually makes some damn sense.

I'm just throwing out numbers here, so bear with me. There could be a percentage of people called "the upper class" where each person makes 1 million a year. A percentage of the population is "the middle class" and they make 500,000 a year. Then there can be a lower class where the "poor people" are each making $50,000 a year. Nobody's dirt poor and making $8,000 a year like a lot of people at Target, and nobody has 80 Billion dollars like Bill Gates.

It really just comes down to: The richest person in America shouldn't have $80 billion, and the poorest person shouldn't be making $8,000 a year. There should be a redistribution of that money while STILL HAVING an upper, middle, and lower class, instead of the completely false assumption that Socialism involves everyone being equally miserable with $20,000 a year. That's it.

 

[Decepticonus]

It really just comes down to: The richest person in America shouldn't have $80 billion, and the poorest person shouldn't be making $8,000 a year. There should be a redistribution of that money while STILL HAVING an upper, middle, and lower class, instead of the completely false assumption that Socialism involves everyone being equally miserable with $20,000 a year. That's it.

But who decides? Who controls this? Obviously a government. Some form of state. What you are seeking is totalitarian in nature. I do not mean that as to say "aha you're some nazi tyrant", NO. I just want your acceptance. What if a person has the ability and resources to earn an additional million, thousand or hundred? And do it honestly and rightfully? Still, no? This involves a control of allocation of resources. I am not here to defend capitalism, trust me. Just want you to really think and consider this.
Personally, I have totalitarianistic views.

 

[Rocketman]

But who decides? Who controls this? Obviously a government. Some form of state. What you are seeking is totalitarian in nature. I do not mean that as to say "aha you're some nazi tyrant", NO. I just want your acceptance. What if a person has the ability and resources to earn an additional million, thousand or hundred? And do it honestly and rightfully? Still, no? This involves a control of allocation of resources. I am not here to defend capitalism, trust me. Just want you to really think and consider this.
Personally, I have totalitarianistic views.

Yes to all your questions. There has to be government. I do not want anarchy. A group has to control everything. There's nothing wrong with having a leader/dictator/president as long as they:

1) Know what they're doing
2) Are not evil
3) Make it so there aren't millions of people starving on the streets without shelter
4) Make it so everyone can live comfortably without poverty

I'll vote for them. Needless to say, I don't vote.

 

[Decepticonus]

Yes to all your questions. There has to be government. I do not want anarchy. A group has to control everything. There's nothing wrong with having a leader/dictator/president as long as they:

1) Know what they're doing
2) Are not evil
3) Make it so there aren't millions of people starving on the streets without shelter
4) Make it so everyone can live comfortably without poverty

I'll vote for them. Needless to say, I don't vote.

Fair enough, you're honest, I like that. Command economy does sound good in theory BUT history has shown they....SUCK! For lack of a better word. And I do not know how to accomplish what you want, which I do kind of support. Poverty was eliminated-ish in the USSR, where everyone was employed BUT with everyone employed and crap allocation of resources, many workers stood by idly, which is a waste of resources and they got paid for it.

And please define evil. Most dictators don't see themselves as evil. Hitler didn't. Lenin didn't. The rich guys, the bourgeoisie, the industrialists, the aristocrats they are the bad guys not us was their sentiments, their followers felt the same.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

But who decides? Who controls this? Obviously a government. Some form of state. What you are seeking is totalitarian in nature. I do not mean that as to say "aha you're some nazi tyrant", NO. I just want your acceptance. What if a person has the ability and resources to earn an additional million, thousand or hundred? And do it honestly and rightfully? Still, no? This involves a control of allocation of resources. I am not here to defend capitalism, trust me. Just want you to really think and consider this.
Personally, I have totalitarianistic views.

its difficult to earn a million honestly. usually, the boss or the manager, the man with the idea is earning 1000 times more than the people working for him. thats the thing that needs to be adjusted. socialism doesnt mean that a toilet cleaner earns the same amount as a factory manager.
In my country we used to have a predefined factor how much lets say a director can earn more than a worker. so in that case if director wants to have an increase in paycheck, workers get automatically raise as well. but nowadays, a bank goes bankrupt because of bad management, workers get fired, but director gets a huge bonus.
these things have to be watched and regulated. what else do you have a government for.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think what people want when it comes to a kind of socialism is a type that hasn't been achieved yet. The "negative connotation" is that it's assumed that pro-socialism people think that every single person in a country should make $20,000 a year, and it's a nation of people making that same amount -- and that's just not correct. And furthermore, there hasn't been a perfect government / economic structure yet. So it comes from wanting something else, and that something else would most likely be better than what we currently have.

To me, it starts with: No single person should have or need 10 billion dollars.
From there, does any single person need 5 billion dollars?
Does a single person need 1 billion?
What about 500 million?

So from that line of thinking, there should be an agreement that decides "What's the maximum amount of money that the richest person in the country should have?" If it's 500 million, then you break it down into a perfectly reasonable system of upper class, middle class, and lower class, just like we have now, only it actually makes some damn sense.

I'm just throwing out numbers here, so bear with me. There could be a percentage of people called "the upper class" where each person makes 1 million a year. A percentage of the population is "the middle class" and they make 500,000 a year. Then there can be a lower class where the "poor people" are each making $50,000 a year. Nobody's dirt poor and making $8,000 a year like a lot of people at Target, and nobody has 80 Billion dollars like Bill Gates.

It really just comes down to: The richest person in America shouldn't have $80 billion, and the poorest person shouldn't be making $8,000 a year. There should be a redistribution of that money while STILL HAVING an upper, middle, and lower class, instead of the completely false assumption that Socialism involves everyone being equally miserable with $20,000 a year. That's it.

I'd do it differently. The highest paid employee of a company couldn't be paid more than say 50 times as much as the lowest (including contractors).
You don't need a class system. It is antiquated and should not be what defines us. Some employees will have more responsibility than others but they are all working for the same company for the same goals.
If a company is doing well then all employees should feel the benefit (with a raise).

 

[Decepticonus]

its difficult to earn a million honestly. usually, the boss or the manager, the man with the idea is earning 1000 times more than the people working for him. thats the thing that needs to be adjusted. socialism doesnt mean that a toilet cleaner earns the same amount as a factory manager.
In my country we used to have a predefined factor how much lets say a director can earn more than a worker. so in that case if director wants to have an increase in paycheck, workers get automatically raise as well. but nowadays, a bank goes bankrupt because of bad management, workers get fired, but director gets a huge bonus.
these things have to be watched and regulated. what else do you have a government for.

Agreed. I'm asking how do we decide? What amount? What numbers? Who decides? Is some guy who went to law school smart to know how much a CEO should make? In this country some of these lawyers peopled voted in don't even understand basic biology but want to regulate it. That's what I am trying to get at here.

 

[wiegeabo]

Agreed. I'm asking how do we decide? What amount? What numbers? Who decides? Is some guy who went to law school smart to know how much a CEO should make? In this country some of these lawyers peopled voted in don't even understand basic biology but want to regulate it. That's what I am trying to get at here.

 

[herakles]

I think what people want when it comes to a kind of socialism is a type that hasn't been achieved yet. The "negative connotation" is that it's assumed that pro-socialism people think that every single person in a country should make $20,000 a year, and it's a nation of people making that same amount -- and that's just not correct. And furthermore, there hasn't been a perfect government / economic structure yet. So it comes from wanting something else, and that something else would most likely be better than what we currently have.

To me, it starts with: No single person should have or need 10 billion dollars.
From there, does any single person need 5 billion dollars?
Does a single person need 1 billion?
What about 500 million?

So from that line of thinking, there should be an agreement that decides "What's the maximum amount of money that the richest person in the country should have?" If it's 500 million, then you break it down into a perfectly reasonable system of upper class, middle class, and lower class, just like we have now, only it actually makes some damn sense.

I'm just throwing out numbers here, so bear with me. There could be a percentage of people called "the upper class" where each person makes 1 million a year. A percentage of the population is "the middle class" and they make 500,000 a year. Then there can be a lower class where the "poor people" are each making $50,000 a year. Nobody's dirt poor and making $8,000 a year like a lot of people at Target, and nobody has 80 Billion dollars like Bill Gates.

It really just comes down to: The richest person in America shouldn't have $80 billion, and the poorest person shouldn't be making $8,000 a year. There should be a redistribution of that money while STILL HAVING an upper, middle, and lower class, instead of the completely false assumption that Socialism involves everyone being equally miserable with $20,000 a year. That's it.

Question, what gives you or anyone the right to determine who gets to keep what portion of the money they have earned?

Bill Gates did NOT inherit 80 Billion he made that money by creating a product that people paid Billions for. Bill Gates deserves his money cause he earned it. He built a multi-billion dollar company from the ground up!

Also those people working at Target don't have to stay working at Target. They can take classes and find a better job! This is the one thing I HATE about all this Socialism talk. NOT everyone is made to be Kings/Chiefs/CEOs/Presidents! There needs to be Subjects/Workers/Indians! BUT this country allows people to transcend their current lot in life! That is what is so great about the US and it's capitalism system! It allows people who dream and work hard to attain levels of success they would not be able to attain in other systems!