Why is Socialism so heavily disliked?

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
rich people hate socialism, as they would be taxed higher.
the rich spend a lot of money telling people socialism is bad, some of the uneducated believe it.
those uneducated get it confused with communism, somehow, then hilariously point and snarl at soviet russia, for some reason, missing out that, that was actually an autocratic or totalitarian system.
given that only two developed countries have a socialist government (india and portugal), and that socialism is 'left wing' not many countries actually have socialist parties, obama a 'new democrat' is centre right while britain's corbyn is lurching labour back to the centre left after blair's 'new labour', the rich have gotten their way, virtually no global opposition, with an idiot base of fans prepared to growl at anyone that could dent their fortune.
murdochs press have painted both corbyn and bernie as communists, and centre right 'new democrat' hillary as a socialist, whilst painting britain's conservative party in a favorable light glossing over discrepancy and, attempting to prove that buffoons and philanderers are america's only choice.
remember kids, fair wages, safe working conditions and free healthcare are a bad thing.

oh yah rich people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and George Soros....

and Obama a "centre right" are you kidding???? Maybe Illuminati which employs Hegelian dialectic but Obama is Left Hegelian for sure... do the research... Antony Sutton explains that textbook left and right are but "devices to bring about change"... www.prisonplanet.com...

Well people there is NO economic model out there that has progressed 'modern' man to its current technological PROGRESS.

That is CAPITALISM people. Someone wanting to get rich, provide a product, and in the course of that endeavor.

Changed the WORLD.

It created wealth, IT created prosperity, and yeah people modern people, have more things than ever in world history.

Contrary to popular DOGMA how 'bad' people have it.

And for the record economics, and systems of governments should not be joined in to one.

We saw what happens when they are the 'bailouts' which was 'socialism,communism' in action.

The only difference between any of those ideology is who is the master, and who are the slaves.

Under both socialism, and communism the STATE is the only master.

Under capitalism one can become rich enough to flip the state the middle finger.

Socialism, and communism are the most corrupt ideologies I have ever heard.

It's all about MONEY, and things.

Where the individual matters for naught, and they only exist to provide for the MATERIALISTIC wants of the masses.

No one living has seen capitalism at work.

At best maybe crony capitalism.

Which is continual wealth creation, and destruction.

Where the other two are just spread it around til everyone is poor.

a reply to: lydie15

To answer your question please appreciate that this will be a long post that required me to switch on the hotspot on the iPhone and fire up the old computer to more easily type out a good response. Please also excuse any typos as the the old keyboard and I are not on the same first name basis we once were.

I am going to the make the assumption that your question is Why do Americans dislike socialism, specifically those over the age of 30 or so? Part of the reason is the Cold War, but growing up with slogans such as "Kill a commie for mommy." barely scratch the surface. Functioning socialism at best is sorta a laissez-faire form communism. In which the people are still somewhat free to choose so long as it doesn't vastly hinder the system. You are still free to be a teacher even though your skills testing might say you would be better as a painter. Which was often the case in Soviet-bloc countries; you had no choice but to be a painter instead of a teacher. But if there is a glut of teachers in a socialist country, you are going to be encouraged to find a different profession or pay for your education independently (often in another country) and roll the dice as to if you will be hired in your area or go outside (often to another country). Same can be said for medical care. Yeah, it is "free" (if you don't think about what you pay in taxes), but you are not getting jack until they are ready to give you that care based on a variety of factors. Which is why those with money often have things done abroad.

But here is one of the sticklers in American thought on socialism.

Amendment XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.


Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Now we all know that this as the amendment that fully and officially ended slavery in the US. But it is more that just slavery addressed here. Involuntary Servitude, except as punishment for a crime after being convicted for that crime. So while FDR's CCC program (Civilian Conservation Corps) was legal, a program that requires a 2-3 year hitch in the Army in order to qualify to vote would not be legal. Because five years later, people still didn't get it and this had to be passed and ratified.

Amendment XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude --

And we can fast forward nearly one hundred years and find similar language and sentiments in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But what does slavery and civil rights have to do with socialism? Quite a lot actually. If socialism is to function there must be an overseeing authority that ensures that wealth is properly redistributed. Meaning that those doing better have to contribute to those that are not doing as well. We would still need a CEO of Ford to make design decisions for a popular car to be made. And we are still going to need a guy cleaning the litter up on the side of the road that was tossed out of that particular model of Ford car. That is reality no matter the social-economic system in place. In America that could be a federal program like the CCC, a state program like the state DOT, a county or township program or even the local sheriff working a chain gang of people that were convicted of writing bad checks, but more often than not a volunteer group does it and gets a pretty sign saying they are doing that section of road. In a socialist country that is going to fall under either a government program or a union of Litter Getters #309. A communist country you are either assigned that as your whole career path or you were a political dissonant picking up your propaganda before being shot or exiled to Siberia.

So what is the difference so long as the litter is picked up? Well, honestly there isn't a whole lot of difference except those two little words...Involuntary Servitude. America, unlike most every other country in the world, skipped one little bit of governmental style...Feudalism. America never had a monarchy that was so powerful and all encompassing to its citizens lives that it could mandate that the person worked for the betterment and strength of the country. Not even Rosey the Riveter was forced into building tanks, planes and bombs for the war effort. She volunteered to do so.

See, the difference between feudalism and socialism (or even communism) isn't that big of a stretch. Because you are not an individual, you are part of the collective. Whereas in America, you are an individual. You have the right to opt out even if you are the only one that isn't on board with the plan. And that above all else is why some of us scream to high hell about Obamacare. Because the mandatory edict got through every check and balance that was supposed to protect Americans from such involuntary servitude. The final decision by the Supreme Court unofficially declared every person the US no longer a citizen but a subject of the Federal Government. As for the final check and balance to our system....I didn't hear a single gunshot in opposition of what happened.

So what does this all mean really? Is America heading towards socialism? I would love to say no, but honestly I am not so sure anymore. The GOP doesn't really seem so interested in conservative American values so much as trying to find and keep a new common status quo. The DNC isn't so much about liberal aspects of Americanism as they are more into socialistic abstracts that can only work under a quasi-feudalistic caste system of haves and have nots.

The fix? It is almost to the point of needing a benevolent dictator of Cincinnatian proportions. However finding one that is indeed more benevolent than dictator is going to take a huge leap of faith. I certainly not seen one in this crop of hopeful-(less) ones vying for the White House this election season...here's hoping that 2020 will bring us the proper hindsights rather than the sight of hinds we got now.

Socialism's effects on the people, the markets, and the environment, turned out to be disasterous

THat's ironic, since capitalism almost destroyed the entire world economy a few years back, meanwhile, most of the best countries in the world where people are happy and have a good standard of living are socialist.

Capitalism is good on a small scale, but when capitalists get political power it's incredibly destructive as we see now in the US.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Can you source these extexts and your backup references here, please?

I thoroughly appreciated the opening half. Then it sort of turned into a neutral-magazine-article post. Which is perfectly fine....It is well written, and I'd like to know what sources you use for current event knowledge. Please, do share.

a reply to: CB328

THat's ironic, since capitalism almost destroyed the entire world economy a few years back, meanwhile, most of the best countries in the world where people are happy and have a good standard of living are socialist.

Capitalism is good on a small scale, but when capitalists get political power it's incredibly destructive as we see now in the US.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH.
But no matter how many times we point that out, discern the communication issue, explain, provide sources, explain some more, do a charades, sign language - some people are STILL
not going to absorb it.

Whether due to willful denial and ignorance (specifically the act of "ignoring" valid information), abysmal education, a deficit in learning behavior/
reading comprehension/
vocabulary skills/

or simple refusal to even acknowledge its existence.....
Some just won't get it.

socialism is the great equalizer...advocated for by those who cant thrive in a capitalistic economy..since proponents arent valued in an open society they seek to force others to value their production..not for me but understand why its pursued by the underlings

a reply to: Ahabstar

I seriously doubt anyone in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, or the UK would call themselves "involuntary servants".

I personally received medical care in Paris, and found it to be of superior quality to that which I would have received at my local hospital stateside.

We Americans are already socialist in so many ways. We try very hard to turn a blind eye to it on a daily basis.

For example, you'll see an older veteran with a Trump hat screaming about universal healthcare, yet in the same breath praise the VA . The VA IS socialized medicine. We have a military of voluntary people, they chose to serve. They are compensated with healthcare, yes, but they aren't "special citizens" -- no one is a more or less of a citizen than another in America.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding in America. We only look at, promote, elevate, and notice the things we like about our economy and society -- and summarily ignore that which we find offensive, embarrassing, or not supportive of our beliefs.

America right now is not unlike Romans calling for the dissolution of the Senate, and installation of the dictator Caesar.

originally posted by: CB328

Socialism's effects on the people, the markets, and the environment, turned out to be disasterous

THat's ironic, since capitalism almost destroyed the entire world economy a few years back, meanwhile, most of the best countries in the world where people are happy and have a good standard of living are socialist.

Capitalism is good on a small scale, but when capitalists get political power it's incredibly destructive as we see now in the US.

I wonder which countries had 100% pure Capitalism that failed ?

I thought "Socialist" polices are widespread just about everywhere.

If you are referring to the 2008 "collapse", you know where the biggest damage was right?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sure thing.

Sources: External quotes came from some musty old piece of paper that they used to teach students about even in public schools called the US Constitution. Must have been a pretty big deal once as they did name a naval vessel after it.

America never having a monarchy was in that same book that a copy of the Constitution the class on the history of the US and other world countries. Been a few years but I think they called that class History. Which is different than the Michael Jackson album of a similar name.

Litter collection signs along the highway of volunteer groups (usually frats and sororities when near college towns), seeing chain-gangs picking up litter and ODOT trucks picking up litter I have personally witnessed. So you might consider that anecdotal and possibly invalid as it is merely eyewitness testimony. But since I do write somewhat well albeit a little bland you might be okay with taking my word that I have indeed seen such things before.

That I didn't hear a gunshot is purely anecdotal, I only wish I could go back in time to provide you a verified recording of silence. Unfortunately the flux capacitor was a dead end, not that I have a DeLorean anyway.

Cincinnatus is a historical figure of ancient Rome. Commissioner Gordon's speech at the end of The Dark Knight Returns about Batman not being the hero Gotham wants but the hero that Gotham needs is very much a spot on description of Cincinnatus. Which coincidently is how George Washington was depicted when accepted the presidency versus the offer of being the first monarch of America.

But if you would like to know more, it is also the origin of the name of Cincinnati, Ohio. Which was originally named Losantiville (meaning town opposite of the mouth of the Licking River) by John Symmes who was the uncle of the John Symmes that put forth the Hollow Earth Theory. The openings of which Commodore (and later Admiral) Perry went in search of during his expeditions to both the North and South poles. And none of what I have written in this post required anything more that my typing and bringing to immediate recall of my memory which has read far more books and articles than could be contained within the confines of three years of solid reading. And admittedly I have probably only read about 12-15% of all of ATS, as reading all that would be more heraclean than cincinnatian in nature.

As for why what I wrote looks like it might have came from a non-drooling political hack ala copypasta...I don't know, well other than maybe I am a non-drooling political hack that can write worth a crap. And the reason you can't find it anywhere else is that I really only ever write anything here on ATS...lucky you, I suppose unless that makes you unhappy, then I guess it would be unlucky you then.

Any other questions?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

i never seen a banker support socialism. What are you basing your opinion about?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Most Americans don't consider themselves as subjects and still think they are citizens, but here we are when we don't do things properly by the amendment process. But Obamacare isn't the only foray down that road.

But rather than Caesar, we do have another option if only we are wise enough to do so and can find that person that can do it. The tools are there in plain sight, but I will not point them out because a Caesar could also use them. And we don't need that to happen.

originally posted by: NoNameAtAll
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

i never seen a banker support socialism. What are you basing your opinion about?

But if you take a closer look at some fundamental concepts, you will find Socialism and Banking are heavily dependent on each other.

Those links have been on full speed for over 100 years worldwide.

3 main points come to mind.....

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state (part of the Marxist 10 Planks of Communism)


advancing to the Fabian Society that might be dominating world economics today:
Fabian Society (they founded the London School of Economics)


and, we have the Swiss Bank organization that seems to "govern" most central banks worldwide:
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

and don't forget, Marx seemed to define "Capitalism" as we know it today.

a reply to: lydie15

A quick study of recent history will give you all the information you need. Pay particular attention to WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I being living for 5 + years in Spain now and the health system is very bad in my personal experience, people that can afford going to private doctors will go 100% of the time.

A coworker of mine was having headache for prolonged times, she when to her designated social security doctor 5+ times and all she got was Advil, after she keep getting worse one weekend vomiting she went to an emergency facility and was given something for the vomit, Monday I asked for her to one of her friends and me being diabetic and fearing kidney failure right away I though of kidney failure so I gave her my blood pressure measurement thing, she was really high, complete kidney failure, she spend a year in dialysis but was lucky enoght to get a transplant. In all her doctor visits they dint even measured blood pressure nor a blood test. Because doctors here are not motivated, they see a patient for 5 minutes and then to the next, and try to cut expends all they can.

I am worse than ever with my diabetes, when my wife is sick all they give is Advil, my son has flu like symptoms all the time and they never do anything.

By the other hand last year I got sick, in Germany and they hospitalized me, the attention was excellent and they did all unnecessary things to me, probably if I stay all they wanted and dint check out on my own for fear of the invoice I would have gotten an insulin pump and all.

Perhaps the health system is better in Germany, or perhaps turirst get treated better

FDR was a socialistic democrat and he did awesome. Everyone loved him, and voted him in office for four terms.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: blood0fheroes

If I have no power over how my taxes are spent, and particularly if I do not approve of how they are spent, then I do not consent to the taxation . Does this help to explain why I made the distinction?

What you will or will not consent to is not the question. The question is what the mass of people will or will not consent to. If you make taxation voluntary, you will raise precious little in the way of taxes.

It appears that Socialists are not the only ones putting too much faith in human nature.

First off, I missed this, so I my apologies if you feel I was ignoring your response.
If the power to govern comes from and thereby through the consent of the governed - then yes, what I will or will not consent to IS the question. In the u.S. taxation is voluntary, at least by the letter of the law. I know this is a difficult concept for a collectivist to grasp - but I am not concerned with what the masses choose to do, because the "masses" are made up of Individuals and therefore can be broken down into groups of one who must make their own choices.

If the government raised little from taxation, all the better! Elected officials must then choose between abusing their monopoly on the use of force, or to limit the reach and scope of government to what can be afforded. Assuming of course that all of governments funding came from taxation - which is not the case.

a reply to: blood0fheroes

I know this is a difficult concept for a collectivist to grasp

I am very far from being a collectivist.

I am not concerned with what the masses choose to do, because the "masses" are made up of Individuals and therefore can be broken down into groups of one who must make their own choices.

I will try one last time. Allow me to make it as simple as possible. If taxes are made voluntary, very few people will pay any taxes. It is not a practical possibility. A moment’s reflection is enough to see this.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: blood0fheroes
I will try one last time. Allow me to make it as simple as possible. If taxes are made voluntary, very few people will pay any taxes. It is not a practical possibility. A moment’s reflection is enough to see this.

Your deduction is BRILLIANT (as any other 7 year old would grasp this concept). What administration decided it was a good idea to tax the populous (were they using the Roman model; as able to successfully to do so for 600 years). What to your mind ruined the grand plan?

originally posted by: samlf3rd
FDR was a socialistic democrat and he did awesome. Everyone loved him, and voted him in office for four terms.

His cousin was a Republican and another elected awesome President of the Roosevelt namesake.