Quantcast
Is Socialism Anti-American?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is Socialism Anti-American?

Is it?

Yes 85 28.72%
 
NO 183 61.82%
 
Opinion below 8 2.70%
 
other 13 4.39%
 
Total:289
spurgeonryan said:
VitroBahllee said:
spurgeonryan said:


Please. In my threads only post fully realized thought processes that add up to at least a paragraph or more. I would like detailed Abdllah oblongata thesis's on why you think America can never be a Socialist state.

That would be 'medulla oblongata.'

You are correcting a word I spelled wrong, when the rest of the sentence was entirely pulled out of my Arse?

You used a posssessive apostrophe on "thesis's" that doesn't make sense either. The plural of thesis is 'theses,' and you don't use possive apostrophes to show plurality.

Better?



Around the Network
ArnoldRimmer said:
bonzobanana said:

As a british person my views are everyone should be entitled to equal health care, education, justice and other essential services as the ideal. However I believe totally in capitalism and that people who work hard, are inventive, highly skilled, enterprising etc should be rewarded.  The only exclusions clearly are violent criminals who by their actions become in my view sub-human and obviously should not have many of the same rights. Their freedoms should be severely limited too.

Hey bonzobanana, the 1930s called - they want their ideology back...

*SCNR*

Ok, how about you build your utopia and then we ship all the violent criminals of the world your way to deal with. Here in Britain we have a great justice system but the punishment for crimes of violence is often ridiculoulsy light with short sentences and often early release. It's important not to release such people back into society.



lol this is the level of thinking of the extreme batshit right wing christian fundamentalist types. it's sad that people that intellectually inebriated are allowed to vote and associate with the rest of us.



Mr Khan said:

It is far from democratically regulated. Do not conflate elected power with single-party dictatorships.

You also seem to have ignored the Singapore point. They are very state-controlled, just in a very different way (through state participation in markets rather than state regulation of markets. Arguably more socialist in that the state controls the means of production for 60% of the economy)

Does one dominant party eliminate political diversity? I'm pretty sure Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping had quite different ideas on the economy, for example. The Chinese vote for their local government, and their local governments vote for their provincial, and their provincial votes for their national government. That is a representative system, and the politicians ARE elected. I mean, is the American system much different? We end up with moderate presidents who do the same things as the last regardless of our superior system. It seems like the electoral system we have in the U.S, except there is no pretense. 

Under the electoral law of 1 July 1979, nomination of candidates for direct elections (in countiestownships, etc.) can be made by the Communist Party of China, the various other political parties, mass organizations, or any voter seconded by at least 3 others. The final list of electoral candidates must be worked out through "discussion and consultation" or primary elections, but in practice is determined by the election committee in consultation with small groups of voters, through a process known as the "three ups and three downs" (三上三下 or sān shàng sān xià).

The number of candidates for an election should be 50% to 100% larger than the number of seats, voting is to be done by secret ballot, and voters are theoretically entitled to recall elections. Eligible voters, and their electoral districts, are chosen from the family (户籍) or work unit (单位 or dānwèiregisters for rural and urban voters, respectively, which are then submitted to the election committees after cross-examination by electoral district leaders. Electoral districts at the basic level (townshipstowns, etc.) are composed of 200–300 voters but sometimes up to 1000, while larger levels (counties, etc.) are composed of 2000–5000 voters.

The National People's Congress (NPC) has 3,000-3,500 members, elected for five year terms. Deputies are elected (over a three-month period) by the people's congresses of the country's 23 provinces, five autonomous regions and the four municipalities directly under the Central Government, the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau and the armed forces. The size of each college of delegates is related to the number of electors in the constituency. 36 deputies are elected in Hong Kong.

The President and Vice President of China, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary-General of the Standing Committee of the NPC, the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and the President of the Supreme People's Court are elected by the NPC on the nomination of the Presidium of the NPC. The Premier is elected by the NPC on the nomination of the President.

 In order to represent different segments of the population and bring in technical expertise, the CCP does ensure that a significant minority of people's congress delegates either minor party or non-party delegates, and there is tolerance of disagreement and debate in the legislative process where this does not fundamentally challenge the role of the Communist Party.


I was researching Singapore a bit, before I commented on it. I agree that it was a bad example. It seems to me that government spending is still very low in Singapore, despite it owning up to 60% GDP produced. Meaning, for an individual, the market is essentially free. However, your point stands with regards to government ownership possibly being the reason why there isn't any of the robber-baron effects. Nevertheless, such a business is ran as any other, and isn't publicly or commonly controlled through a democratic system. Which arguably, makes it more state-capitalist than state socialist. Either way, it's not laissez-faire, just efficient by trusting the market. 



BraLoD said:
If you start calling USA as America, you can't expect me to give you an answer.
Because I'm American too, as I live in Brazil, and I don't think our continent is only your country, as it really isn't.
Cuba is part of America too and until some time ago was a socialistic country, and you can't call an American country anti-American.
But even if you are only talking about USA, no, people are free do have their own ideals, and USA is supposed to be a free country, so anti-USA would be judge people for what they believe and try to impose what they have to be.

I've been through this many times. The Americans, call the United States of America, America because at one time it was a collection of colonies found on the continent of North America, and all persons within these colonies and in Britain called these people Americans and the collection of these colonies America. It has nothing to do with American egocentrism. Don't like it? Don't speak English. 

Now there are the continents of North America and South America, and in the English language, we refer to their inhabitants as North Americans and South Americans. 

Another interesting fact is that the collection of American English colonies were also called Columbia, by many. Hence, Washington: District of Columbia. 



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
BraLoD said:
If you start calling USA as America, you can't expect me to give you an answer.
Because I'm American too, as I live in Brazil, and I don't think our continent is only your country, as it really isn't.
Cuba is part of America too and until some time ago was a socialistic country, and you can't call an American country anti-American.
But even if you are only talking about USA, no, people are free do have their own ideals, and USA is supposed to be a free country, so anti-USA would be judge people for what they believe and try to impose what they have to be.

I've been through this many times. The Americans, call the United States of America, America because at one time it was a collection of colonies found on the continent of North America, and all persons within these colonies and in Britain called these people Americans and the collection of these colonies America. It has nothing to do with American egocentrism. Don't like it? Don't speak English. 

Now there are the continents of North America and South America, and in the English language, we refer to their inhabitants as North Americans and South Americans. 

Another interesting fact is that the collection of American English colonies were also called Columbia, by many. Hence, Washington: District of Columbia. 

Why should I stop speaking English if I don't like how people say it? it's not an exclusive language to USA, USA just borrowed it from England, what sense does it make? How speaking english is directly related to USA? Or like USA call themself America you also think USA is the only to speak English? So if I live in England and don't like it I should stop speaking english because of that? (not the case, just to give an example).  And if it's wrong I can point it and say what I want, as I'm also American and I have the right to claim it. And I'm done, be happy.



BraLoD said:
sc94597 said:
BraLoD said:
If you start calling USA as America, you can't expect me to give you an answer.
Because I'm American too, as I live in Brazil, and I don't think our continent is only your country, as it really isn't.
Cuba is part of America too and until some time ago was a socialistic country, and you can't call an American country anti-American.
But even if you are only talking about USA, no, people are free do have their own ideals, and USA is supposed to be a free country, so anti-USA would be judge people for what they believe and try to impose what they have to be.

I've been through this many times. The Americans, call the United States of America, America because at one time it was a collection of colonies found on the continent of North America, and all persons within these colonies and in Britain called these people Americans and the collection of these colonies America. It has nothing to do with American egocentrism. Don't like it? Don't speak English. 

Now there are the continents of North America and South America, and in the English language, we refer to their inhabitants as North Americans and South Americans. 

Another interesting fact is that the collection of American English colonies were also called Columbia, by many. Hence, Washington: District of Columbia. 

Why should I stop speaking English if I don't like how people say it? it's not an exclusive language to USA, USA just borrowed it from England, what sense does it make? How speaking english is directly related to USA? Or like USA call themself America you also think USA is the only to speak English? So if I live in England and don't like it I should stop speaking english because of that? (not the case, just to give an example).  And if it's wrong I can point it and say what I want, as I'm also American and I have the right to claim it. And I'm done, be happy.

The English refer to the United States as America as well, as do Australians, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, South Africans, New Zealanders, Canadians and pretty much any native English-speaker. You are the one telling us we're wrong for using a convention found in the language throughout the whole freaking world. If it bothers you so much, then you can easily opt out by not speaking the language. It really isn't polite etiquette to go around critizing one's linguistic conventions and labeling them as "wrong" when they're in fact arbitary, especially one so widespread as American in reference to persons born in the geographic boundaries of the United States of America, and extention of rooted in what English speakers referred to English colonies in North America.  Also, to modify your statement, English was brought with native speakers from England to the United States. It wasn't "borrowed" it was a part of their identity which they brought with them.  It wasn't as if early Americans spoke a different language and decided to just "borrow" English from England. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[However, this default use has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it



Applying anything with the term 'anti-American' (or any nationality) is used by nationalists to control and seek consent from people and stop them questioning anything that is wrong with the current system.

The right have since McCarthy (probably before) seen socialism as 'anti-American' but to be honest does this term mean anything? Not really. Think about the North American land for example, that has always been there but not until 1776 was it ever a country (something that also could be as easily made up) And even then how can people be patriotic about a place where the natives are essentially foreigners in their own lands. You're all descendants of Europeans pretty much.

Back to the topic but still how can socialism be any more 'anti-American' than what you're corporatist governments have done?

Liberty? What liberty in a country with mass spying, wasteful armies and bureaucracies. No liberty for your people, no liberty for the world since you're superpower status.

Life? How so in a country that still practices the death penalty in over half of it's regions? Not to mention all the wars you've your citizens to fight unnecessarily

And Happiness? That depends on perspective. If you define happiness by ignorance, selfishness, greed, overconsumption (the stuff that makes crony capitalism work as it does) as happiness then i'm on a different planet. The right to happiness is certainly denied to the poor that's for sure. A comfortable life is needed for happiness among other things



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

the2real4mafol said:
Applying anything with the term 'anti-American' (or any nationality) is used by nationalists to control and seek consent from people and stop them questioning anything that is wrong with the current system.

The right have since McCarthy (probably before) seen socialism as 'anti-American' but to be honest does this term mean anything? Not really. Think about the North American land for example, that has always been there but not until 1776 was it ever a country (something that also could be as easily made up) And even then how can people be patriotic about a place where the natives are essentially foreigners in their own lands. You're all descendants of Europeans pretty much.

Back to the topic but still how can socialism be any more 'anti-American' than what you're corporatist governments have done?

Liberty? What liberty in a country with mass spying, wasteful armies and bureaucracies. No liberty for your people, no liberty for the world since you're superpower status.

Life? How so in a country that still practices the death penalty in over half of it's regions? Not to mention all the wars you've your citizens to fight unnecessarily

And Happiness? That depends on perspective. If you define happiness by ignorance, selfishness, greed, overconsumption (the stuff that makes crony capitalism work as it does) as happiness then i'm on a different planet. The right to happiness is certainly denied to the poor that's for sure. A comfortable life is needed for happiness among other things

I don't disagree with the bolded. They're just as much problems that must be dealt with as socialism is. They're the side-effects of another form of collectivism, nationalism. 

How to achieve happiness is for the individual to decide, based on his/her slight variation in his/her nature from others.  There is no objective happiness. That is why having the freedom to not have others impose their views of what happiness is, tends to correlate with a happier population. And no, growing up the poorest kid in the class, I was more happy than many of my middle-class peers, having other things than money to derive happiness from. There might be a correlation, based on materialism being one value some individuals choose to analog with happiness, and of course the slightly greater freedom to become successful, but that doesn't mean being poorer than others => being not as happy as others. Now if we speak of destitution, poverty at which basic sustanence is impossible, yes that is highly correlative with unhappiness, but luckily destitution exists at such a microscopic level in the first world, including the United States. Why? Because of high productivity induced by free-markets. I've grown up poor, known quite many other poor people, not a single one of them grew up hungry, without shelter, or even recreational devices. Why? Because the American poor today have just as much as the American middle-class 30 years ago. Why? Because of productivity, technological progression, the reduction of prices through competition, and the free-market. Sorry, people are becoming richer all around, despite the inequality. 



I can see how one would think that...socialism is the opposite of freedom...and everyone knows America invented freedom...

But in reality, no it's not anti-American...just a bad thing in general.