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

[ToxicJosh]

OK badgenome, lets break it down.

1)"Why would corporations so strenuously try to influence a government that exerts so little control over them?"

Because believe it or not, they are still beholden to the law. It pays for them to influence the law makers so that the law is in their favour. The fact that the law has the ability to exert control over them, does not mean that the government is using it to do so. The truth of the matter is that corporations use their financial power in order to control legislators to act in their interests.

2)"whether we practice outright socialism or the incrementalist approach known as social democracy, it amounts to the same thing."

Again, socialism concerns itself with ownership, not the welfare state, but I'll bite.

Social democracy is a tool used by capitalist systems in order to raise the living standards of the proletariat. Whether you take the view that this is for charity/reasons of control is down to how cynical you are. But as has been stated several times now; this has nothing to do with the economic policy of socialism.

The UK, which is a capitalist democracy, has free universal healthcare. So does Cuba, which is a communist dictatorship. Healthcare has nothing to do with socialism.

3)"If the state holds absolute power and can compel you to give your capital to them at any time, then who really owns it?"

You do. Are you really trying to argue that any state that practices taxation, or that even has the ability to levy taxes is socialist?

Technically the Monarchy has the ability to dismiss Parliament and rule as they see fit. Does that mean the Britain is an Absolute Monarchy in the same vein as the Ancien Regime? Of course not.

4)"It isn't so much that Americans misunderstand socialism (although they do, or they would see that they are already neck deep in it). It's socialists who misunderstand human nature."

Wow, just wow.

Americans clearly misunderstand socialism, thanks for the demonstration.

Socialists misunderstand human nature? I don't see how your opinion on human nature has any relevance to this topic. But in the interests of education:

Traditionally speaking there are 3 views on human nature: good, bad, and neutral. Conservatives tend to feel more negatively about people, liberals more positive and people who think about it realise that there are some good and some bad, and that people are probably born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, and that how they are raised probably plays a great deal into whether or not they turn into saints or scumbags. (Notice how none of that carries any relevance to economic theories?)

Personally, I think that all that human nature tells us is what the actual nature of the person holding that view is: as the only mind we get to see inside is our own. So someone who says that people are inherently lazy, selfish and only out for themselves is, in all likelihood, lazy, selfish and only out for themselves. People who think that people are naturally loving and kind are probably going to be loving and kind.

The only way this plays into economic theories is that people who are greedy want to able to accumulate wealth; and therefore are more likely to want a system that enables them to do so (capitalism). People who consider everyone to be equal, are more likely to want a system that removes wealth from private hands (socialism).

But really, that's stretching credulity in terms of a criticism of socialism. Sorry for the rant.