36% of Americans have a positive view of socialism

reply to post by Doc Velocity


They woulnd't know, b/c under the accepted terminology they lived under communism, not socialism. ( Allthough that always took me as odd since communists in the marxist sense were in really low supply behind the iron curtain)

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
They woulnd't know, b/c under the accepted terminology they lived under communism, not socialism. ( Allthough that always took me as odd since communists in the marxist sense were in really low supply behind the iron curtain)

Stalin was a socialist, he chopped off the heads of capitalists in the streets. They called it the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic right up until their anti-economic system imploded in the late 1980s, then all the good comrades caught a boot in the ass.

Call it whatever you want, it doesn't work. It didn't work in Eastern Europe, it's not working anywhere else, and it sure as hell won't work in the USA, comrade.

— Doc Velocity

Stalin was a pragmatist, a realist, he cared even less for doctrine than Lenin did. Anything that furthered his power was welcome to him. If you read my other posts you would have understood my perspective, which is Western European for the most part. Most Western European countries are democratic republics that implement certain socialist policies, meaning they have mixed markets and a certain control and welfare mechanism that are ot odds with the classic liberal roots of these states - the same situation like in the United States.

My point is that by calling Stalin a Socialist you are confusing the discussion. Historians more or less agreed to classify the SU and it's leaders communist (a name Lenin adapted and Stalin, Kruschtchev and Breznev agreed to carry on. Legend has it that the suggestion for communism came from an American millionaire ). One reason for this terminology was to evade the confusion between what the Russians called Socialism and how it was understood in Western political theory (namely a mixed marked etc. as I stated above).

That's why I am an advocate of this terminology - to suggest that how Western Europe lives now and how the Russians lived under the red star is dishonest. Since Lenin altered Socialist doctrine and radicalized it, it is fair to give that particular branch a name of it's own since it has developed uniquely and has almost nothing in common with what is understood as Socialism in Western Europe, Japan, South America, North America etc... (the west)

Anyway. That's why calling Stalin a socialist isn't really accurate, in summary because a) he was not a doctrinaire and b) it confuses the hell out of people who compare the West (mostly democratic republics implementing some sort of socialism) with the supposed "Socialist" Communist Regime.

Edited to add: And yes, Doc, it doesn't work. Authoritarianism never works in the long run, be it fascist, communist, liberal, conservative or martian. And certainly the form of communism (or like you say, socialism) that was practiced in the SU was not working at all. Well, apart for some apparatchicks and the americans, that is. LOL



[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Numbers lie and liars figure. The poll means absolutely nothing.

Let me look at the other side of the poll. This means the 64% that are supporting the 36% do not like socialism!

How bout them apples.

Hey, I will support socialism if I get to be one of the Elites that decide what frelling jobs the morons get.

Another thing about this poll, it sure shows the education in the US has been infiltrated by TOTAL morons.

Yeah, socialism is GREAT. /s

Do you really think capitalism has EVER been allowed to happen? True capitalism?

It has not existed since before 1913. Now look at where the US has gone since then. Right into the largest depression ever, then it comes out of it by deregulation, then it goes to super regulation and fiat money system.

WE ALL CAN SEE WHERE WE HAVE ENDED!

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


There is well established term for USSR system - Bolshevism. There was even quite strong communist opposition against Bolshevism in Soviet satellite states. Prague Spring in 1968 was strong manifestation of this "inner" opposition - it was no contra-revolution as depicted by Russia but try to establish "socialism with human face".

reply to post by zeddissad


Yes I agree with that. But you would give me the point that the overall convention on the terminology is communism, not bolshevism.?

I mean this in the sense of most of the times you read about communist russia, not bolshevik russia - that's the impression that I got from reading history periodicals while studying.

I would agree that using Bolshevism for this branch of political thought would be beneficial to understanding the issue and evading confusions.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by endisnighe


One of definitions of capitalism is: socialize loss, privatize gains. What is US bank bailout other then perfect example of capitalism? It have nothing to do with socialism. Obama is not socialist nor communist - he is just fraud.

My 20yr old daughter and I were discussing politics and last years election. She said she wanted Obama to win. She asked what I thought... "I don't like him," I said... "he has socialist leanings." She wondered what was wrong with that? About that time, the advertisement for Time/Life videos came on for WWII. There was Hitler and the Nazis saluting and goose-stepping around....then pics of the Jews in camps. "There's your socialist right there." I said. "National SOCIALIST" ... I then pointed out the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic...and the Chinese PRC...and pointed out to her "That Socialism is Communism with a smile."
I said you do the research...don't believe me...so she did. She did'nt vote for Obama.

As Americans, we have the "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." 11 years ago, I was going through a divorce, lost most of what I had, and living in a small barn...no running water except the well, 2 bulbs...one for each stall...a wood heater with which to cook and heat, and one utility socket for power.
11 years later, I have a 50 acre farm, a place at the coast, investments, a wonderful wife, my daughter is in college... life is tough, it is a challenge, but it is good...and I could not have what i do anywhere else but in the USA.
Hard work, self help and education, saving, and sacrifice still goes far...even now a days. But you have to do it...no one is going to give it to you.
If all you want is govt housing, govt. cheese, govt handouts...go for it. I'm working full time, selling firewood on the side, raising livestock to sell... when I'm done...I'll wave to you on the way to the beach.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Yes, you are right. The Bolshevik/communist nuance is common among middle Europe left thinkers. If you want to do some real work in humanities, than precise coinage of term is crucial and this distinction is very helpful. It also well reflect reality of 1916-18 Russia where majority of political powers were left-wing and Bolsheviks were only tiny - but totally unscrupulous - minority.
There is dirty "anti-communist" campaign in Czech Rep. last 10 years and many "historians" are part of it. It is perfect example how change in meaning of term is used by propaganda. Earlier it was OK for me to call our former regime "communist" because everybody here (eastern block) know, about what we are talking. Then I realized that there are many other forms of "communism" which have nothing to do with my personal experiences. Also common sense about meaning of communism/socialism terms differ in Western Europe and USA. And I must say that many Americans have they idea of communism rooted in McCarthy campaign.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by brainwrek
What percentage of Americans actually know what socialism is?

That shouldve been the first question

Typical American pro-Socialism:

"Everything will be free. Free food, housing, car, air conditioning, healthcare, guaranteed job where I can sit and play solitaire all day on my free iMac."

You illuminate the other side of the "problem"

I would like to know where in the US the above exists? Link?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
They woulnd't know, b/c under the accepted terminology they lived under communism, not socialism. ( Allthough that always took me as odd since communists in the marxist sense were in really low supply behind the iron curtain)

Stalin was a socialist, he chopped off the heads of capitalists in the streets. They called it the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic right up until their anti-economic system imploded in the late 1980s, then all the good comrades caught a boot in the ass.

Call it whatever you want, it doesn't work. It didn't work in Eastern Europe, it's not working anywhere else, and it sure as hell won't work in the USA, comrade.

— Doc Velocity

Well it seems some people claim exclusive defining rights to the word...
a parks toilet, a firefighter and a freeway are all socialistic in nature, all paid for by public money irrespective of use. Tell me Doc at what point does something cross into the evil realm.

Ok thirtysix percent of you actually have a brain..or really care about your fellow americans..congratulations you have enter a higher level of humanity..welcome..

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Please let us know where socialism has worked so that we can study it. It has not worked for a sustained period anywhere it has been tried. Not in Europe, not in Asia, no where. Even the PM of Sweden has recently come out and indicated that that bellweather of socialism needed to move to a market economy.

The poll is trash. As other posters mention, I doubt that 75% of American's can accurately describe what socialism is. Hell, probably 50% think the Supreme Court is some place where you go and watch Diana Ross and her girlfriends sing a couple of tunes.

Even to the extent that a large number of folks polled understand what socialism is and supported it would not surprise me. 15% of the people in this country pay 90% of the taxes. There are about 35% of folks here who don't contribute a GD to society. They should love socialism. They are already on the teat of the rest of us

Socialism is becoming one of those scary words that has no meaning and is to not be questioned. Just like the words "Patriotism" and "Terrorism."

The majority of you people can't define it. This poll can't define it. No one has a clear definition of what it is. However, we're going to use it to draw battle lines.

Pretty #ing stupid if you ask me.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
11 years ago, I was going through a divorce, lost most of what I had, and living in a small barn...no running water except the well, 2 bulbs...one for each stall...a wood heater with which to cook and heat, and one utility socket for power.

Now, under a Socialist system, you'd have to account for those 2 bulbs — what are you, trying to oppress the lower class with your affluence??

11 years later, under a Socialist system, you'd be on a "work farm," sharing a barn with 25 other indigents... But at least you'd get your three hots and a cot, because all workers are equal, you know.



— Doc Velocity




[edit on 2/6/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by dolphinfan


Well the safest way to get the info about socialism should simply be to ask anyone who live in a such country..as for ex Sweden..i can tell you sweden isnot by any mean perfect..no coutry is.. but for us socialism is the right to speak whoever you are..the right to claim equal social wellfare and sickcare or education,so on and so on..no matter if you are rich or poor..we can also trust(this is an importent one)our poiliticians that when they run for office they do it for the people not for themself or a list of companys who backs them up..you see(or dont)here companys dont have power over the goverment or people..so here in Europe the bad words are, greed and company owned politicians..and the good words are solidarity and equal rights..

Originally posted by swecret
i can tell you sweden is not by any mean perfect..no coutry is.. but for us socialism is the right to...

You've left out one pertinent bit of data about Sweden, a bit of data that it shares in common with other socialist "success stories"...

Sweden has a small population... Only 9.2 million people.

All down the list of socialist utopias, the populations are consistently small, particularly compared to a nation of 300 million people, such as the USA. Sweden's national population is approximately that of New York City in the USA.

Socialism may work as a neighborhood experiment for relatively small populations, but there's no way to make it work for expansive populations. Even Japan's experiment in socialized healthcare is staring at its demise within 10 years, as the Japanese system accommodating 128,000,000 people becomes more expensive to maintain than the private system in the USA.

The USSR found out the hard way.

—Doc Velocity





[edit on 2/6/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
There was Hitler and the Nazis saluting and goose-stepping around....then pics of the Jews in camps. "There's your socialist right there." I said. "National SOCIALIST" ... I then pointed out the United Soviet SOCIALIST

Then I feel a little bad for you daughter because of the little bit flawed explaination you passed on to your daughter about the ideology of National Socialism.

National Socialism had nothing to do with that Hitler wanted socialism as an ideology in the sence we know of the ideology of Marxist Socialism "per se" - Au Contraire, Mon Ami! Hitler exploited and used the word socialism to make it a bit more attractive to the most uneducated workers and voters as a real new political alternative for them to the more established Social Democrats (SDP) and Communists (KDP).

Heck! I have/had relatives who lived in Germany during those years and almost no one really understood what a hell 'National Socialism' really meant because it was something completely new on the political scene.

(NSDAP and Hitler invented a new definition of the word Socialism - and the new definition was not about the old Socialistic defintion of Marxism, it had nothing to do with that! it was in fact a German definition of Mussolini's Fascism)

They wanted and needed both the votes of the traditional urban worker base (Socialists SPD & Communists KPD) the unions, and the rural labourers - and in fact, the highest proportion of Nazi voters were in Protestant farming communities, and by 1932 the stream of rural deserters from DNVP (German National People's Party or Nationalists) to NSDAP had become a torrent. This together with the voters from the German "Mittelstand" lower middle class of small businessmen, independent artisans, small shopkeepers and the self-employed gave the National Socialists the victory (the NSDAP in reality recruited across a very broad social spectrum in Germany)


But the National Socialists were the anti-thesis to the more established Socialists, the Social Democrats and Communists. And their rhetoric was anti-socialistic. and they lashed out against the Socialists and Communist in every speech.

Hitler and NSDAP were by European political definition a totalitarian & authoritarian far-right fascist movement.

Most Socialists and Communists were arrested and sent to Dachau and other concentration camps 1933-34.



Let's see what Hitler himself said with his own words about the use of the word; National Socialism -shall we?

Series: Great interviews of the 20th century

'No room for the alien, no use for the wastrel'

This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932.


"When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home."

"Bolshevism," the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany, continued, gazing at me balefully, "is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst.

"The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St Germain are kept alive by Bolshevism in Germany. The Peace Treaty and Bolshevism are two heads of one monster. We must decapitate both."

Many who voted for Hindenburg were at heart with Hitler, but some deep-rooted sense of loyalty impelled them nevertheless to cast their vote for the old field marshal. Unless overnight a new leader arises, there is no one in Germany, with the exception of Hindenburg, who could defeat Hitler - and Hindenburg is 85! Time and the recalcitrance of the French fight for Hitler, unless some blunder on his own part, or dissension within the ranks of the party, deprives him of his opportunity to play the part of Germany's Mussolini.
---
I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
---
"What," I continued my cross-examination, "are the fundamental planks of your platform?"

"We believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous." "Mussolini," I interjected, "said the same to me." Hitler beamed.
---
"Our demoralised party system is a symptom of our disaster. Parliamentary majorities fluctuate with the mood of the moment. Parliamentary government unbars the gate to Bolshevism."
---
"We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses.

"In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work."

The cords on Hitler's forehead stood out threateningly. His voice filled the room. There was a noise at the door. His followers, who always remain within call, like a bodyguard, reminded the leader of his duty to address a meeting.

Hitler gulped down his tea and rose.

www.guardian.co.uk...

OK! here we can clearly see that the Socialism Hitler talked about it's not the traditional word and the ideology of Socialism, as we know the word; Socialism, like Marxist Socialism and Communism.

What Hitler and NSDAP are trying to disguise with the word National Socialism is nothing less than Germany's answer to Mussolini's Italian Fascism.

If you want to have a fair understanding of the ideology of National Socialism and even Marxist Socialism you need the Euro definition- you can't apply your American political spectrum for a definition, that's impossible!

And in this poem we can clearly see WHO the Nazis came for!!

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, - The Communists
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, -
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. - The Social Democrats/Socialists (SDP)


Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, - Labor Union Member
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.



[edit on 6-2-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Well If Sweden only was the best example in Europe, we have as you said 9,2 milion wishes there.. there are nowdays many countries in Europe wich have passing us in the social wellfare latter the last twenty years or so..so for ex..norway,denmark,finland,germany.england,italy,holland,spain,france..are the closest i could think of and they would all be in your way to see a success story but in our way to see solidarity and socialist manner..we see socialism as a way to find balance between private owning and goverment owning..

reply to post by swecret


the challenge is of course that Italy, Spain, England and Germany are economic basket cases in worse shape than the US. They are economic basic cases because of their debt. That debt is due to their expansive welfare states. Is there a reason you left Greece off your list? They too have dabbled in socialism for a few decades and now it is close to chaos and revolution One of the primary reasons for their economic woes is that those countrys have a very heterogenous societies and as a result a heterogenous culture. The Nordic countrys are pretty much homogeneous.

The only way to make socialism work in a heterogenous society is with the jackboot.