It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American-style Socialism: Fact or Fiction?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that the U.S. economy is experiencing its worst setback since the Great Depression of the 1930's. As our economy begain its decline, Republicans and Democrats alike sought to benefit behind the scenes. The bail out plan, as passed by Congress and administered by Henry Paulson, is a direct result of that covert manipluation. As we prepare to ride out a deep recession, it's clear that our leaders are trying to find ways they can benefit from a Dpression. The trend towrards Federal consolidation of wealth and power has not been ahrd to forecast. From where I sit, there is only one long-term question left to ask.

What is American socialsm going to look like? We're going to enter the next decade with our Federal government owning major stakes in some of our largest and most powerful corporations. The history of our Federal government suggests that bureaucrats and elected officials will be unwilling to give up this control, once they have it. What are the long term implcations? Are we about to see the rise of one party rule? How will this affect the debate over nationalized health care, and other social programs?




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   

What is American socialsm going to look like?


I think that's a bad choice of words. It's more like, "what's American corporatism (with fascist undertones) going to look like?" We the people or "we", as represented by our government, are not going to own major stakes in anything. These "corporations" (banking cartels and their conglomerates) are grabbing the wealth at PRICE. There's nothing Federal about it.

We could only WISH there was some socialist aspect to it other than the collective bending over.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Well, even Fox News has admitted that the economic woes are not only harming McCain's campaign, but it's also destroying the Republican party, With that being said, it's not hard to visualize the one party system you are talking about.

Obviously, with all of the social programs that Obama is proposing, it won't be hard to jump from a democracy to a socialist or communist nation. It seems to me, at least on the surface, that Obama wants to remove this country even further from personal responsibility.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Though it's largely a matter of terminology, I think that the USA has been more towards the 'socialist' side of the 'socialist'-'capitalist' scale since, oh, at least the 1970's.

The US economy is supported, in major part, by US Government spending, and the entire direction and focus of the economy is led by that.

When government spending is removed from the picture, what is left is the 'service economy' that is much-talked about. That is, the industries that support the 'American Way Of Life'. They merely maintain the framework that supports the actual industrial and technological economy -- which is always, somehow, in line with directions and goals of the US Government, even when not directly or overtly supported by government spending.

In many ways, it's the exact same thing China's doing, even though the perception and ideology given are cast as opposites.

Two differently-painted sides of the same wall.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


American Socialism as you term it isnt the same as the much despised systems practised in the likes of Europe . What has been practised in the US is Corporate Socialism which is where by the likes of the auto and agricultural sectors are subsides . The defence sector is a gravy train that never ends . All and all poor business practices and failures are rewarded or rather CEO are able to get massive bonuses regardless of performance . Now surely to any rational mind that is far worse then Americans getting a fair crack at health care .

In terms of the US government taking a greater role in health care practicality is going to give way to ideology on that front . Sure Market competition could reduce the cost of health insurance but you are still left with two problems . The first being what happens after a person has exhausted there two million dollar cap and the 2nd is how people with pre existing conditions can gain access to health care .

Sometime ago I started a thread on the matter of Free Market solutions to the health care problems in the US . The lack of responses says it all . This is why if the election is close the issue of health care would swing the result to Obama .



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
An interesting quote for you Justin:


"If you scour the history books, (the steps taken or being considered) are the only policy options of last resort," said David Mackie, head of Western European economic research at JPMorgan.

"I can't think of what else people might come up with here. Various countries have done bits and pieces. Nobody has done all of them," he said.

"It's not entirely obvious that these measures are turning the tide," Mackie said. "At the end of the day, if you socialize enough of the financial system, it has to work."

Source



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Justin, hello.

Sorry, but I think it's already happened. The Marxists conquered America decades ago. But they were sneaky about it. They stole American culture.


...who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals - the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right.


Source

I started a thread about this article because I felt it was important (in my sig). Judging by the response I guess I was wrong. But since you brought up the socialism aspect I would say you were thinking along the same lines. I would like to hear your comments on this article.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Here's something interesting to consider. If McCain wins the election, we will most likely see the birth of fascist economics in the U.S. If Obama wins, we will indeed see many elements of socialism become enacted in this country.

The Third Way economic philsophy and mixed market system that has been the hallmark of American economics is essentially dead. Capitalism, in any of its real forms, will never exist in the U.S. unless Americans are willing to give up our superpower status.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Here's something interesting to consider. If McCain wins the election, we will most likely see the birth of fascist economics in the U.S. If Obama wins, we will indeed see many elements of socialism become enacted in this country.


Well if that's the case I guess I'd be a lot happier with socialism. It's true though, capitalism just can't keep up. Planned economies like China are proving that. It's a great idea on paper, and 200 years ago it was the #. Now, it's a relic.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


IMO you have the wrong end of the stick . If the Chinese government some time in the future was unable to prevent workers from demanding better wages and conditions then the manufacturing base that has driven China economy will go else were . North Korea is a some what admittedly extreme but current example of the failure of a command economy .



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Let's be clear on two fundamental points, for the sake of this discussion.

1. Fascist/socialist regimes ultimately curtail civil right and freedoms.

2. Nationalization means that the affected corporations will no longer have any incentive to operate efficiently, with a profit motive.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Those are fair points.

In my opinion, we can cross 2 right off. We're not seeing nationalization although I admit, it's meant to appear so.

Corporations, LARGE "corporations" are thriving and there's plenty of incentive.

The only way I can see things to have gone along so far is via them hiding behind the flag.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
2. Nationalization means that the affected corporations will no longer have any incentive to operate efficiently, with a profit motive.


While I don't agree with what you are saying I do need to point out there is such a thing as a State Owned Enterprise. General speaking a State Owned Enterprise is generally run along commercial lines . There is less pressure from any share holders or operators to produce pure profit and more on what ever purpose the State Owned Enterprise has .

Kiwi Bank is a good New Zealand example of a State Owned Enterprise . Regardless of one political views kiwi Been more successful then anyone imaged it would be . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could well become a variation of a State Owned Enterprise.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
As we begin this new week, it's possible that Treasury Secretary Paulson may begin buying stakes in the firms he wants to bail out. Once the Fed becomes part owner, these companies may always have a direct pipeline to taxpayer dollars. This might sound good in the short term, but in the long run I fear that these banks will lose their work ethic. It would amont to perpetual corporate welfare. Is that waht we really need?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I have caught a cold so I have no great wisdom . But I will say that Central Banks by what ever name they go by have no business being in the ownership of financial institution Reserve Bank doesn't own a slice of Kiwi Bank . Central Banks should stick to there role of regulating the money supply and providing economic stability .

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
We are about to take an unprecedented step in the history of our nation. Government ownership of nine major banks will begin any week now. It's a form of nationalization that I never thought I would see. This isn't something you can easily undo, once the deed has been done. I note with a strong lack of enthusiasm that today's Republicans are NOT trying very hard to stop this.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join