By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Do you think that Socialism could ever get a strong foothold in the USA? (read op)

 

Do you think that a Socialist party could ever become a leading party in the USA?

Yes 38 29.23%
 
Maybe/Don't know 26 20.00%
 
No 64 49.23%
 
Total:128
the2real4mafol on 09 April 2014

Not likely unless more Americans bother to understand what socialism actually is and not listen to the usual fear mongering that has pushed down their throats ever since the McCarthy days.

Although, saying that the current economic conditions are great for a potential move to the left in the states. If enough people questioned why their situation and why their country have gone downhill like this and organised themselves, who knows what could happen? Socialism isn't perfect but it's worth a shot and it doesn't have to be a revolution neither. Personally, I think anything that moves radically away from the current two party (really one party) politics and poses a direct challenge to the establishment would be a great thing. We need a worker's party to challenge the big business parties. (This really applies to the whole western world)

The US is not very socialistic at all, if you go by the fact the UK's government had roughly a quarter of the economy in public hands and there's huge government spending projects until the 1980's. FDR is the closest you lot got. That's why it seems ridiculous to me that some say Obama is socialist, if he was he would of not bothered with Obamacare, he would of nationalised healthcare instead. He's more of a corporatist than anything

Also, it's difficult for anything but Democrat or Republican to win elections because of electoral college. You may see something different in politics if you ended that crappy system.

Anything, something must change to improve things. Hope is a powerful thing. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 09 April 2014

The pillars of what is holding up many portions services of the US are socialist. Its basically the reason why the US hasn't fallen apart yet.



ToxicJosh on 09 April 2014
badgenome said:
ToxicJosh said:
All countries use money, doesn't that make them all capitalist? Your argument that tax = socialism makes about as much sense as my previous statement.

Yes. Soviet style communism was called state capitalism for a reason.

That reason being to distant the communism that was being advocated for from the communism that was being practiced in the USSR. North Korea calls itself a People's Republic, it's a propaganda term.

Which is kind of my point. No system on Earth is pure. According to your impractically rigid defintion, something is only socialist if the state owns it outright. A mixed economy is therefore no more socialistic than a completely free market. But, of course, socialist thought didn't begin and end with "the People should own everything". How you could even achieve such a thing has always been up for debate. So socialist theorists have tinkered with various ways of reaching socialist aims for over two centuries now, including having to contend with the successes of market economies, and it is absurd to deny socialist influences in systems that aren't purely socialist.

Actually, I did cover that states can be mixed, but to argue on the basis of the minor regulation that exists in the USA is ridiculous.

As below with your reference to the OED, you have confused socialism as an ideology that advocates in favour of workers rights, equality and fair treatment, with the economic term socialist; which is to do with ownership.

ToxicJosh said:
Again you missed the point by a country mile regarding what socialism is. It is about OWNERSHIP.

No. I didn't miss that. You missed my point that to reserve the right to regulate something is to exert at least partial ownership of that thing.

I didn't miss your point. I disagreed with you. Because it's wrong. This is, again, more paranoid ramblings from the American far right.

ToxicJosh said:
Socialism and regulation are entirely unrelated. You can have a strongly regulated industry that is privately owned and operated (such as buses in the UK), or you can have a publicly owned one that is mostly self-regulated, such as our Primary Care Trusts. There is no relation.

Regulation is painted as being socialist in order to run a strawman argument.

It's worth noting that the Oxford English Dictionary definition of socialism is:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It's worth noting that the OED deals in lay definitions: That's socialism the ideology, rather than socialism the economic description. They also spelt 'organisation' wrong.

See comments above in bold.



badgenome on 09 April 2014
ToxicJosh said:

That's socialism the ideology, rather than socialism the economic description.

"Not that socialism, but the other one!" Jesus Christ...

I could endure your snide condescension, albeit barely, but this insufferable pedantry and willful obtuseness is too much. Peace out.



SlayerRondo on 10 April 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
SlayerRondo said:
The United States is already a heavily socialist country.

We can thank old lame legs himself FDR for racing us on down this path.


well really we can thank woodrow wilson, or even TR

I would agree with them also playing a big part in the trend towards socialism but in my opinion FDR had the greatest influence on the trend.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 10 April 2014

Yeah their called Democrats.



S.T.A.G.E. on 10 April 2014
SlayerRondo said:
SocialistSlayer said:
SlayerRondo said:
The United States is already a heavily socialist country.

We can thank old lame legs himself FDR for racing us on down this path.


well really we can thank woodrow wilson, or even TR

I would agree with them also playing a big part in the trend towards socialism but in my opinion FDR had the greatest influence on the trend.

Woodrow Wilson is the major reason we're in the economical funk were in today with the bank heavily influencing our system or flat out just running it. FDR is the reason people would've had any rights to life in a world run by corporations.



SlayerRondo on 10 April 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SlayerRondo said:
SocialistSlayer said:
SlayerRondo said:
The United States is already a heavily socialist country.

We can thank old lame legs himself FDR for racing us on down this path.


well really we can thank woodrow wilson, or even TR

I would agree with them also playing a big part in the trend towards socialism but in my opinion FDR had the greatest influence on the trend.

Woodrow Wilson is the major reason we're in the economical funk were in today with the bank heavily influencing our system or flat out just running it. FDR is the reason people would've had any rights to life in a world run by corporations.

You know corporations cant force people to work for them right?

FDR made it harder for corporations to take chances on low skilled employees as the offers for employment made by corporations to potential employees were restricted.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

SocialistSlayer on 10 April 2014
SlayerRondo said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SlayerRondo said:
SocialistSlayer said:
SlayerRondo said:
The United States is already a heavily socialist country.

We can thank old lame legs himself FDR for racing us on down this path.


well really we can thank woodrow wilson, or even TR

I would agree with them also playing a big part in the trend towards socialism but in my opinion FDR had the greatest influence on the trend.

Woodrow Wilson is the major reason we're in the economical funk were in today with the bank heavily influencing our system or flat out just running it. FDR is the reason people would've had any rights to life in a world run by corporations.

You know corporations cant force people to work for them right?

FDR made it harder for corporations to take chances on low skilled employees as the offers for employment made by corporations to potential employees were restricted.

some reason people dont understand that corporations only have influence in government because our government and it enormous regulatory aparatus allows for it. 



 

S.T.A.G.E. on 10 April 2014
SlayerRondo said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
SlayerRondo said:
SocialistSlayer said:
SlayerRondo said:
The United States is already a heavily socialist country.

We can thank old lame legs himself FDR for racing us on down this path.


well really we can thank woodrow wilson, or even TR

I would agree with them also playing a big part in the trend towards socialism but in my opinion FDR had the greatest influence on the trend.

Woodrow Wilson is the major reason we're in the economical funk were in today with the bank heavily influencing our system or flat out just running it. FDR is the reason people would've had any rights to life in a world run by corporations.

You know corporations cant force people to work for them right?

FDR made it harder for corporations to take chances on low skilled employees as the offers for employment made by corporations to potential employees were restricted.



FDR created social safety nets for the common man. Without union rights and social security and medical care corporations would've had their way with us so easily. He stopped them from taking advantage of ANY employee low skilled or not. Every employee has a right to life but their choices make out whether they will rise or fall in capitalist society. He did not interfere with that. When corporations rise around the government the people need safety nets. He knew what was going on and was insistent on creating those policies for people. 

This is exactly why they are exploiting other nations and using NAFTA the way they are. Its pretty smart you see. If you cant exploit your own people...go to countries where they have little to no rights. Its going to get worse. Just be ready for it...thats all I have to say.

I am not saying its right, but people make certain decisions to counteract whats dissolving the structure of the nation we live in. If your job is to protect the people it has got to be done. Everyone wants to look out for themselves, but when there are entities out there who control the money by which we live and die by someone has to regulate the rules so you can have the right to work and based on skill and drive have the right to whatever heights you reach. I take no sides and truthfully If I naturally gravitate to liberatrian views, but the fact of the matter is in the state of the nation we have to adapt to what is affecting the nation at the same time.