Is Socialism Anti-American?

[sc94597]

Mr Khan said:

sc94597 said:

Mr Khan said:

sc94597 said:
Socialism is not foreign to America. In colonial times there were many socialist experiments. They all failed, of course. Nevertheless, socialism (at least most forms of it) is antithetical to individualism, and individualism is much more ingrained in American culture. That is why you see such opposition. For the first 300 years of American history, the political landscape was split between individual anarchists, and classical liberals. It only makes sense that the progressivism of the last 100 years has had a hard time to drastically alter such a landscape (honestly it has been more effective than what one would predict beforehand.)

 

Individualism falls apart as an ideology for those who are made to live their lives as little better than machinery with organs.

Yet it was the conclusions of individualism which brought individuals to prosper in the enlightnement and afterwards, and only collectivism which has reversed the process, since. The opportunity for individuals to have the freedom to act, within the constraints of their rights, has led to prosperity, while the forceful reduction of these rights has led people back to destitution (note: all applications of total socialism: from the U.S.S.R to modern day Venezuela.) Individualism succeeds for these people as well, because it enables them to traverse economic and social strata. 

But only within the practical limitations of the economy. There is not room for everyone to succeed all the time, and those who fall upon misfortune should not endure pitilessness merely in the name of "freedom." While there is hardly a dichotomy between liberty and food, or liberty and security, the definition of liberty that allows one man to hoard his food and deprive it to all others is just as odious as the definition of liberty that lets you break out the shotgun and have a go at pedestrians.

This is untrue though. The lives of the poor have been bettered also. This has been true steadily since the late 18th century. If you compare mercantilism (the equivalent of today's keynesianism, but protectionist) you notice that the poor were not only affected by the rich "hording", but also by the limitations the rich placed on them. After the transition to a more free-market (albeit not entirely free) the standards of living of the poor became better. Yes, there is a business cycle with depressions from time to time, but that is true of any economy. Again, compare practiced socialist countries with, say, Hong Kong, Singapore, 19th century U.S, etc, etc and you notice that the standards of living just don't compare. 

There is not room for everyone to succeed all the time, 

This sentence is the crucial sentence. There is NEVER room for everyone to succeed all the time, not because of free-markets or the rich hoarding wealth, but because of scarcity. How do we reduce scarcity? By production, which is practically why destitution is eliminated in every single moderately free economy in the world. Free-markets (or for some mostly free-markets with government influencing externalities - I don't believe in this, but some do) are the only means by which an economy can grow quickly enough to meet such a demand of having everyone succeed.