36% of Americans have a positive view of socialism

Unfortunately when Janet “Waco” Reno kicked in Elian Gonzalez relatives door in the wee hours of the morning and dragged young Elian out to send him back to communist Cuba, the libs felt it was the right thing to do. Going back to a communist country to grow up is just as good as living in America as far as the liberal demoncrats are concerned. I knew then we had a problem. The libs didn’t mind slick Willie taking communist Chinese money in his campaign. I knew then we had a problem. Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t like businesses giving money to candidates, but communist countries are ok I guess. I know now we have a problem.
The libs of course will think the government keeping them enslaved is a good thing. Being dependent on government is slavery! When will the master feed me? When will the master heel me? Will the master take care of my children?
Don’t we strive to support ourselves? Don’t children want to grow up and become independent and self sufficient? Don’t we want to stop working for someone and become our own boss?
I worked with a man who served in Korea. He felt now, communism is just like being a republican or demoncrat. Maybe the commies may have already won.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Well i only can hope you and your fellow americans the best..and hope that something and soon will open your eyes from your sheephood..

When the day comes when the american people want to get the power back..we are many in Europe who will fight with you..

Unfortunately, I don't think that the majority of American people understand what socialism is, how complex the word is in meaning or what it entails. Most think of chairman Mao or Stalin or Fidel Castro which is unfair to socialism as it is much more complicated than that.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential[4] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.[5]

source
I think that this is a fair statement, and it rings true for me, but even this is does not encapsulate what socialism is.

From what I've read here and elsewhere, most people's response to socialism is irrationally negative. For many socialism means "stuff for nothing" and "the government dictates what we can and cannot do". This is certainly true in specific instances of socialism, but by no means ecapsulates the entire political philosophy.

I don't consider myself a socialist by any means. I personally would take a more "libertarian" or "cooperative" model to government focussing on non-intrusive government existing to meet the common needs of the populace and to represent it's people on the world stage.

To my mind, government: seen but not heard.

but I digress, my point was that socialism is not an inherent evil, and to suggest so is irrational and uninformed. In fact, I think that the current Corporatist system currently existing in the US is far more evil.

kind regards, tamale

Not a socialism fan, but I see plenty of merit in some baseline social programs. A mix of capitalism and socialism is best for society...neither work in its purity

Originally posted by D1Useek
Unfortunately when Janet “Waco” Reno kicked in Elian Gonzalez relatives door in the wee hours of the morning and dragged young Elian out to send him back to communist Cuba, the libs felt it was the right thing to do. Going back to a communist country to grow up is just as good as living in America as far as the liberal demoncrats are concerned. I knew then we had a problem. The libs didn’t mind slick Willie taking communist Chinese money in his campaign. I knew then we had a problem. Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t like businesses giving money to candidates, but communist countries are ok I guess. I know now we have a problem.
The libs of course will think the government keeping them enslaved is a good thing. Being dependent on government is slavery! When will the master feed me? When will the master heel me? Will the master take care of my children?
Don’t we strive to support ourselves? Don’t children want to grow up and become independent and self sufficient? Don’t we want to stop working for someone and become our own boss?
I worked with a man who served in Korea. He felt now, communism is just like being a republican or demoncrat. Maybe the commies may have already won.

You know when I was in Cuba 2 years ago (the very weekend that Fidel gave up power to his brother) I spoke with many many Cubans and one thing I can tell you is that they are a much happier lot than most of the Canadians or Americans that I know. That is something. No prozac or ritalin needed there.

as far as:

The libs of course will think the government keeping them enslaved is a good thing. Being dependent on government is slavery! When will the master feed me? When will the master heel me? Will the master take care of my children?

It seems to me that most people are already enslaved to the corporatist system that exists now in much of North America. The big difference between Castro's Cuba and Obama/Bush's USA is that every Cuban knows how to read and the State openly limits what they can or can not read, as opposed to the Corporatist regime we live under in which government/corporations don't care if people can read and covertly influence the education system to meet their needs.

Kind regards,
Tamale

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Doc, you definitely have socialism confused with communism. Now I am all for someone who has the drive to make it big. That's a free market society. However, I would also like to see that everyone has the same opportunity.

Education is one. Without a decent education, you can only go so far. A high school diploma doesn't cut it in todays world, and someone shouldn't have to rack up a huge debt load just to educate themselves.

Health Care is another. Someone shouldn't die because they can't afford to get the medicine or care they need.

BUT! The government shouldn't be responsible for your welfare beyond that. People shouldn't be allowed to just live off of a government dole, and kids shouldn't be a paycheck.

Originally posted by whatukno

Socialism may be tossed around like a dirty word these days, but it turns out more than one-third of Americans have a positive image of socialism.

A new Gallup poll shows 36 percent of those surveyed have a positive view of socialism, while 58 percent have a negative opinion.

No surprise that there is a big partisan gap here - most Democrats and liberals have a positive view of socialism, compared to the negative image held by most Republicans and conservatives.

Source: caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com...

I in a sense am pretty liberal. But I don't like those figures, I am not a fan of socialism. I think that if you want or need something, the best way to get it is to work for it.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if 36 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism?

To me it means that there is something wrong with this country. I have always been taught that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I have always been taught that the way to success is through hard work and determination. I have always been taught that if you do something you love, the money will follow. Lies all of them, but the concept is good, and it made this country one of the greatest countries in the world. But has America lost it's way? Have we given up on the American dream and seek not to better ourselves, but to wait for the bailout?

You, my friend, are a TRUE LIBERAL! You are the kind of person I can call friend. TRUE liberalism IS needed to counterbalance True conservatism.

Strength without Mercy is Cruelty. Mercy without Strength is Impotence.

There is NOTHING socialistic in true liberalism.

True liberal? I think of Robert Kennedy maybe.

Have we given up on the American dream and seek not to better ourselves, but to wait for the bailout?

This has happened because of the Baby Boomer/ME generation. Their excesses in vice (drugs/alcohol, credit abuse, INSTANT GRATIFICATION) has made them (and many of their offspring) blind to what is real.

Hollywood types are a prime example.

When you dont know how to "earn" something (i.e. wait for it) it looses its value. Give a kid a bike and their happy. The same kid earns the bike, they love it AND protect it!


I think that things are turning around. The majority of folks I see at Tea Parties seem to be the kids of Boomers. They are eshewing the values of the past generation for those of the Greater Generations.

Take heart!

reply to post by felonius


My outlook has been greatly enhanced seeing you, felonius and whatukno. While I may reside opposite on the political spectrum, I believe we hold a lost art that is long forgotten.

I myself am a conservative, but not that what we see today. Although I may be younger, I prescribe to the politics of such Republicans as Barry Goldwater.

There was a time where ones principles transcended party lines. When the public good was the lime light and when those on both sides of the aisle fought for the American people.

Well met

Originally posted by dolphinfan
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.

Well I am an american living&working in greece and I can collaborate what you are saying. Socialism is a great system but you gotta know when to stop. Going too far left is almost as bad as going too far right.

I want to ask you a serious question though friend! Can you tell me one country on this planet that does not have a big debt? If the answer is none, then why is that? Maybe because all central banks are privately owned?

If money was a public asset and treated as such, then no country would be indebted to those parasitic international bankers! The ECB is just as bad as the Federal Reserve, but unfortunately we(as europeans) are so busy laughing at you guys, that we tend to ignore our curse.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Unfortunately when Janet “Waco” Reno kicked in Elian Gonzalez relatives door in the wee hours of the morning and dragged young Elian out to send him back to communist Cuba, the libs felt it was the right thing to do. Going back to a communist country to grow up is just as good as living in America as far as the liberal democrats are concerned.

That made me laugh imagining that big old bull dyke kicking a door in.It would have scared the hell out of me.

I always thought that was interesting considering once she was Florida's AG.

I believe some aspect of our society should be socialized.

Utilities should be owned by a local government including electrical gas and water.

Public transportation should be privatized and competed for.

Just how a feel.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by felonius

 

My outlook has been greatly enhanced seeing you, felonius and whatukno. While I may reside opposite on the political spectrum, I believe we hold a lost art that is long forgotten.

I myself am a conservative, but not that what we see today. Although I may be younger, I prescribe to the politics of such Republicans as Barry Goldwater.

There was a time where ones principles transcended party lines. When the public good was the lime light and when those on both sides of the aisle fought for the American people.

Well met

I may have given the wrong impression. I, too, would have been a Goldwater supporter.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

That is a True conservative! That is what I strive for.

There was a time where ones principles transcended party lines. When the public good was the lime light and when those on both sides of the aisle fought for the American people.

The lines have been blurred nowadays. They are both self-serving and NOT SERVING THE PEOPLE.

The only party that can return glory to our nation is one that is INDEPENDENT! CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL!

INDEPENDENT IN THAT IT SERVES THE PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION!

It is not enough to say that we believe. We must also say that we will fight!

www.redstate.com...

FREIHEIT!!!!

Originally posted by zeddissad
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.

Socializing loss is a definition of capitalism? What school did you go to? The school of Karl Marx. Destroying capitalism by socializing loss is the stalwart of communism and socialism! Jeez!

Whomever starred your comment, is just as wrong as your comprehension of what capitalism is.

The bailouts of the banks, the auto industry, and the other corporate whores is a form of corporat/fascism.

The lines have been blurred between fascism/socialism/corporatism/communism.

As for Obama and the last 40 years of Presidents has been corporatism/socialism/fascism. We have headed down the same path no matter what party is in power. What is that? That to me sounds like fascism. What about the takeover of private enterprise? That to me sounds like communism or a type of corporatism. How about socializing damn near every single thing in the welfare sector? That to me sounds like socialism.

All of you can label any damn thing you want, does not mean it is what you label it.

TO ME, IT LOOKS TO BE TOTALITARIANISM!

Call it what it is, CONTROL! Who the frell cares what you want to label it, I no longer want ANY part of the bull# any longer.

4 stars for your inconsequential comment. There is denying ignorance! /s

I believe some aspect of our society should be socialized.

Utilities should be owned by a local government including electrical gas and water.

Public transportation should be privatized and competed for.

Just how a feel.

You and I feel the same. The purpose of government is to

1. Provide for common defense.
2. BASIC infrastructure/ laws (10th ammendment gives more to State control).

Thats about it. All of the rest is under the heading of "natural law" (We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT). These rights are not given by the state or Constitution, they are NATURALLY given GIFTS! They cannot be taken away.

to do so is essentially, illegal!

People need water service, electricity, ect. to survive. I have no problem with them makeing a bit of a profit from good stewardship of finances.

$500 electric bill in winter? People, thats almost a mortgage payment for me! That is robbery. When the power company was de-regulated (Thanks Bush and Perry), bills went through the roof!

When I was a bachelor, I had a 600 sqft apartment. All electric. I was fairly miserly about lights and so forth but didnt burn up in summer or freeze in winter.

$30-$40 roughly in 1988-92.

What changed? Regulation.

Tax's. Tax's were NEVER supposed to be laid on the People. Tariffs and duties took care of that. FREE TRADE ISNT!

You mention privitazation of transportation.

ONLY if control/ownership remains in the hands of Americans IN AMERICA.

Rick Perry (and others I understand) are selling our roads to foreign companies and govenments! We have a highway here that was paid for with TAXS (121) and was sold to Cinta for a toll road!

info.tpj.org...

They are now changing the name of 121 to Sam Rayburn Tollway. I guess they think we'll forget it was once free travel and paid for.

startelegram.typepad.com...

yeah brother. its messed up.

reply to post by felonius


Even if it was the wrong impression it is still refreshing. While I will always listen, comprehend and try to understand where someone is coming from, I actively seek out those that hold to their principles, hold to their beliefs....even in times of turmoil.

Regardless of the politics you provide a sound understand along with sound reasoning behind what you have said.

reply to post by endisnighe


I am sorry pal, but you got it all back-ass-words! I mean no disrespect but you don't need a phD in economics to know the difference between capitalism, socialism and communism.

Capitalism means privatizing everything, communims means everything is publicly owned(by the people, for the people) and socialism is a mixture of capitalism and communism, aka a hybrid economic sytem.

Since public bailouts were given to corporations in the form of "repayable" loans, the poster I starred was absolutely correct in his assertion. Profits are private because corporations are private, that is a no-brainer. The unfair part is if they suffer losses they should not ask for public funds, which they did! That means losses are socialised, aka shared by the public. Who is the public?! You, me and our neighbors.

Do you get it now? I can't believe mainstream media is doing such a lousy job in the USA where people don't even understand the basics

reply to post by whatukno


Democracy means - the will of the majority. Problem : the will of the majority is easily controlled :
www.spinninglobe.net...

Now dumb people aren't just ignorant; they're the victims of the non-thought of secondhand ideas. Dumb people are now well-informed about the opinions of Time magazine and CBS, The New York Times and the President; their job is to choose which pre-thought thoughts, which received opinions, they like best. The élite in this new empire of ignorance are those who know the most pre-thought thoughts.

www.primitivism.com...

These ego-alien identifications, built up over the course of a lifetime, cohere and form a distinct, circumscribed personality, or false self, that represents and enforces the rules and regulations of civilization. This false self is observable in the frozen facial expressions, stereotypic gestures, and unexamined behavioral patterns of the general public. This false self determines much of our everyday lives, so that we are seldom the origin of our actions.

Who said socialism is people sitting around waiting for YOU to work for them ? I mean - YOU are the only one working ? Strange.
I lived in socialism - communism in Romania for 10 years, it was not bad at all. Except the dictatorship. But if you were careful not to shout "down with the president" it was ok. No stress for finding a job, people were taking it easy, almost everybody pretended to be working, people had paid leaves of 1 month every year, with absolutely no stress.

What is this madness, why do I have to fight you all to survive ? What "civilization" is this ?

No wonder people run and join "the enemy", "the uncivilized". Avatar ? :

paimei01.blogspot.com...

No Arguments, no Intreaties, nor Tears of their Friends and Relations, could persuade many of them to leave their new Indian Friends and Acquaintance; several of them that were by the Caressings of their Relations persuaded to come Home, in a little Time grew tired of our Manner of living, and run away again to the Indians, and ended their Days with them. On the other Hand, Indian Children have been carefully educated among the English, cloathed and taught, yet, I think, there is not one Instance, that any of these, after they had Liberty to go among their own People, and were come to Age, would remain with the English, but returned to their own Nations, and became as fond of the Indian Manner of Life as those that knew nothing of a civilized Manner of Living. And, he concludes, what he says of this particular prisoner exchange “has been found true on many other Occasions.”

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


So you are saying socializing losses is capitalism? C'mon, what kind of hog wash is that?

As for being ass backwards.

Socialism-group or collectivistic ownership.
Communism-government owned.
Corporatist/Fascist-government controlled.

As for the bailouts of business by the taxes of the people is a mixture of both communist and corporatist/fascist control.

Capitalism in no shape or form has ANYTHING to do with the bailouts! The closest thing you could say it is corporatism or fascist.

I believe I am correct, if you can post a definition from an economic location I may change the way I label things. Of course definitions over time change. The TOTAL change in definitions to these ecomomic systems is a conspircacy fact in and of itself.

I am a little older then most here so I use older definitions, that have NOT been blurred by the current education system!

The vilification of capitalism uses the VERY definitions, people here, have been brainwashed to believe!

Pure capitalism is a contractual agreement between individuals for the trade of materials/goods/service/etc without ANY government interference or control. PERIOD!

Explain to me where I am wrong PLEASE!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



Socialsim:

# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Socialism

en.wikipedia.org...

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

so⋅cial⋅ism
  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

dictionary.reference.com...

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Socialism
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

www.brainyquote.com...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thanks Jean Paul, I tried to explain the economic layout for the different nomenclature without going into the control aspects of governance.

Some misrepresent economic systems with government control aspects.

Thanks for the backup.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

So you are saying socializing losses is capitalism? C'mon, what kind of hog wash is that?

No, I am saying it is fraud!

Originally posted by endisnighe
As for being ass backwards.

Socialism-group or collectivistic ownership.
Communism-government owned.
Corporatist/Fascist-government controlled.

My high school teacher in New Jersey told us(and I still remember it to this day) exactly what I told you in my earlier post. Please don't make me repeat everything.

I will further explain socialism: (and do not trust wikipedia for a moment)

A hybrid eco-political system where major industry is government owned and controlled while everything else is private/corporate.

Originally posted by endisnighe
As for the bailouts of business by the taxes of the people is a mixture of both communist and corporatist/fascist control.

Capitalism in no shape or form has ANYTHING to do with the bailouts! The closest thing you could say it is corporatism or fascist.

Corporatism IS capitalism! In fact it leads to monopoly capitalism, far-right capitalism. The key word to everything is once again *PRIVATE*.

Originally posted by endisnighe
I believe I am correct, if you can post a definition from an economic location I may change the way I label things. Of course definitions over time change. The TOTAL change in definitions to these ecomomic systems is a conspircacy fact in and of itself.

I am a little older then most here so I use older definitions, that have NOT been blurred by the current education system!

The vilification of capitalism uses the VERY definitions, people here, have been brainwashed to believe!

Pure capitalism is a contractual agreement between individuals for the trade of materials/goods/service/etc without ANY government interference or control. PERIOD!

Explain to me where I am wrong PLEASE!

Just remember corporations are private business entities AND NOT public!

[edit on 7-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]