A History of Socialism in America

a reply to: Swills

Brand new as of today. I'm excited

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just curious as your definition of socialism.

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century.

Link

I do not see where the government did this, even during the new deal the government did not make public all means of production.

What is Socialism?

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Link

In the 50's and 60's private ownership of business was a norm in America.

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as “democratic socialism,” in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Link

The dictionary shows that socialism has meant different things to many different people. While I found your history interesting, I feel you were speaking of democratic socialism and not pure socialism.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, yes we have been incrementally getting more Socialist and in the process losing our individual liberty and rights. A large Bureaucracy is needed to control the population and redistribute the wealth.

Things certainly used to be a lot better.

Actually no. The point of my thread is that we were more Socialist in the past, or rather our Socialist net was stronger. We may have more Socialist programs now, but they aren't as strong.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

I guess I didn't make this clear enough. We aren't a pure Socialist country. We are a democratic socialist country (I see you mentioned that in your post too). We try to take the best of both worlds and combine them to make a better solution, and it works. Well it works when ulterior interests aren't actively trying to sabotage it then blame the sabotage on it being unfeasible.

I'd update my OP with this information, but I couldn't even put a period at the end of the last sentence in the thread since I ran out of my character limit.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, yes we have been incrementally getting more Socialist and in the process losing our individual liberty and rights. A large Bureaucracy is needed to control the population and redistribute the wealth.

Things certainly used to be a lot better.

I agree.

What benefits are there in losing our individual liberties and rights?

Whenever someone brings up the concept of socialism, I think of The Borg.

a reply to: theantediluvian

some great insights - I wasn't totally familiar with Wayne Allen Root or the CP strategy until only recently.

This thread is packed full of great info, definitely will be referring to info here for awhile

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

PS: Some may call Obamacare Socialist, but it's not. Obamacare is a capitalistic perversion of Socialism. Not that capitalism can't exist alongside Socialism (it totally can as the last 80 some years has proven in this country), but Obamacare is just a monstrosity and the worst of both worlds.

It is a craptastic bastardization of both Socialism and Capitalism. The wealth is redistributed to the insurance companies and poor people get coverage, but everyone else gets screwed. You can't blame anyone but Democrats for Obamacare. They own it and not one Republican voted for it...and yes, it sucks.

Not really. Obamacare was originally Romneycare. What happened is that Obama wanted universal healthcare but was willing to compromise with the Republicans to appease them (this was early in Obama's Presidency when he thought that compromise with them was something they actually wanted instead of just paying lip service to it). This resulted in the mess that is Obamacare. Naturally, as we both know, no Republicans voted for the bill, but that doesn't mean Republicans weren't responsible in any way for the end product we got.

Compromise with Republicans, are you nuts? The bill was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats only, and not one single vote by Republicans was for that malfunctioning piece of legislation. No one even read the damn thing. Remember the witch Pelosi saying "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it"? Obamacare was nothing but a flim flam scam which nobody can use because the deductibles are so high. If you like your healthcare you can keep it yada, yada yada. I give you credit,you spin a mean pile of excrement.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, yes we have been incrementally getting more Socialist and in the process losing our individual liberty and rights. A large Bureaucracy is needed to control the population and redistribute the wealth.

Things certainly used to be a lot better.

I agree.

What benefits are there in losing our individual liberties and rights?

Whenever someone brings up the concept of socialism, I think of The Borg.

Except with our Socialist Borg the mantra is we will bankrupt you then assimilate you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What individual liberties and rights have you lost?

Patriot Act? Ok, but that's nothing to do with the economic process of Socialism.
Gun restrictions? Same again. Nothing to do with Socialism.
Free Speech Zones? Once again I'll agree that's a Liberty lost, but not much to do with economics and Socialism.

That'd be an interesting thread.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

Come on, man. Totally different situation then and you know it. No international competition for manufactured goods, a huge military industrial complex that was running over 10% of the GDP was a factor, as well.

The nation had an affluence. Lots of jobs which translated into lots of revenue for the gov't. Abundance. One can be quite generous when has lots of cash. Productivity was the key. A healthy private sector HAS to be a factor as well.

a reply to: Enochstask

Yes I remember all these things, but the compromise I am talking about occurred long before it was voted on by anyone. I'm talking about back when the bill was still in committee status and being debated on as to what would be in it.

You missed Jamestown where it was tried and failed.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

Come on, man. Totally different situation then and you know it. No international competition for manufactured goods, a huge military industrial complex that was running over 10% of the GDP was a factor, as well.

But our MIC is bigger now than it was in the 50's and 60's...

The nation had an affluence. Lots of jobs which translated into lots of revenue for the gov't. Abundance. One can be quite generous when has lots of cash. Productivity was the key. A healthy private sector HAS to be a factor as well.

Sounds like Socialism works to me then.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You missed Jamestown where it was tried and failed.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Enochstask

Yes I remember all these things, but the compromise I am talking about occurred long before it was voted on by anyone. I'm talking about back when the bill was still in committee status and being debated on as to what would be in it.

NO ONE READ THE FINAL BILL!!! The bill was presented and voted on 48 hours later. What part of that don't you understand?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks, I was assuming that is what you meant. With corrections, I am in total agreement. Since FDR, the left in America has become progressively more and more democratic socialist.

The response to this was neo-conservatism, and as your history points out it was Regan's economic policies that produced the start of the great wage divide. I don't blame Regan, for he was a puppet.

One last note, there were socialist and communist parties as early as 1870's in America, just look at the eastern Coal Mining companies of the time. All of them had unions with strong ties to socialist and communist parties.

Anyway, now that you clarified that, wonderful history!

Like most liberals, your knowledge of history is warped...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

What individual liberties and rights have you lost?

Patriot Act? Ok, but that's nothing to do with the economic process of Socialism.
Gun restrictions? Same again. Nothing to do with Socialism.
Free Speech Zones? Once again I'll agree that's a Liberty lost, but not much to do with economics and Socialism.

That'd be an interesting thread.

The right NOT to be involved in or taxed for these programs. The mentality inseparable from Socialism that has given us p.c. and advocacy groups from everything under the sun except the average wasp. The mentality that tells us it's offensive to fly an American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance . Or calls the American flag 'racist'.

The sure didn't morph out of the other side of the aisle, my friend.

No nothing to do with economics...just the fabric of the nation, without which affluence is NOTHING.

originally posted by: Enochstask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Enochstask

Yes I remember all these things, but the compromise I am talking about occurred long before it was voted on by anyone. I'm talking about back when the bill was still in committee status and being debated on as to what would be in it.

NO ONE READ THE FINAL BILL!!! The bill was presented and voted on 48 hours later. What part of that don't you understand?

I do understand it. It's not like I'm saying the Democrats are free of blame from this bill as well. You are mistaking me as an Obamacare defender. But as you want to toe the partisan line and just blame the Democrats, I am rising past partisanship and blaming both sides of the aisle; and I elaborated on why the Republicans are still to blame for the bill along with the Democrats. Your fight isn't with me (that is unless you feel compelled to defend Republican Congressmen for some reason) or you are picking a fight that isn't there.

But all of this is really irrelevant since as I said in the OP, I don't consider Obamacare to be Socialist in nature. Forcing someone to buy health insurance with the threat of a fine for not doing so isn't Socialism. It's forced capitalism.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

You are confusing socialism with communism - bad/biased source cited.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms. Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets, money and financial decisions for managing the economy with engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind, thereby functioning according to different economic laws than those of capitalism with an economic mechanism that circumvents the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially-owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them, with the profits accruing to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workers of each firm. The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.



Socialism