Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I was under the impression that main stream America throughout history has been brainwashed into rejecting socialism and see capitalism as the only way to keep freedom and liberty for all.

Socialism was branded wrongly, it was portrayed as communism, ran and controlled by a dictator.

Socialism was and still is seen by some as anti-American.

However, what benefit does a pure capitalist system get you?

A wealthy elite, who control the government through funding the political elections, this is where you get such a problem like we have now in the banking system.

Capitalism and Socialism should work hand in hand.




posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem
It is said that a picture is worth one thousand words so I will merely post an image of a T-shirt I own that indicates why I hate socialism.


Socialism has nothing to do with control, nothing.

It's just an economic system that is opposite to capitalism, both system can be totalitarian. There is nothing stopping a capitalist system from being a dictatorship, or a fascist police/military state. This is the reason your state system wants you to think as long as you have capitalism you will be free, and socialism will make you a slave. It's not the economic system that enslaves you, it's yourself and your acceptance of authority.

You have more chance to be free in a truly socialist system, because you will have more access to the means of production. What we do with that is up to all of us, we can control it ourselves without government, libertarian socialism (Anarchism), or allow a dictator to control us. Under a capitalist system the capitalists (owners of the means of production) have the say in how things are run, not the people. Capitalism is not free-markets, or money at all. Socialism allows free-markets, and can use money.

The thing people need to realise is that blind acceptance of authority is what causes us to give up our liberty.
For example the Russian revolution failed because the people allowed others to set themselves up as the authority and then the people followed and fell into the typical apathy of powerlessness.
People allow themselves to be lead instead of realising they themselves are their only true authority.

It's easy to follow the leader, but socialism requires everyone to be aware, and responsible, for themselves and their communities to be sure not to fall into the trap of allowing the establishment of outside 'authority'. As soon as a community becomes passive then it has lost it's freedom. The more centralised government becomes, the more you give up your freedoms.

The Chinese except their 'authorities' just like you do, there is far less difference than you think.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: bb



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Real history of what? You post link to high numbers with no context and leave that as your argument?

A single Capitalist Republic is responsible for the death of tens of millions of First Nation peoples and their ongoing genocide. What is the number of people who have been killed, raped, enslaved due to imperialism? Capitalism is responsible for the ongoing atrocities in the 3rd world. Capitalism is responsible for the current war on terror and the 3 wars we are currently entrenched in. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa)

If you are using death tolls to show that the communist economic system, which has never been fully instated by any of the listed countries you provided, it would appear that Capitalism is just as, if not more, evil.

Why doesn't Castro make that list? Would you argue that Cuba was better off under the totalitarian rule of Batista? Interestingly enough I had a chance to listen to Castro's daughter speak at a college campus. Of course she refused to answer any questions and merely QQ'd about losing her bourgeois trappings. So hearing it from the horse's mouth I'm inclined to believe the Cuban people are better off with out Batista.

What about the collectives in South America that sprung up around the Spanish-American war? Their track record was pristine.

TO THE OP:

Communism means that the workers own the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less. Stalinism is nothing less than deplorable. He, in my opinion, was not a communist. He just hijacked the revolutionary vanguard and used the revolution to seize despotic power.

In America, since it is ruled by the corporate elite, people are habitually inundated with anti-socialist propaganda and your average American eats it up. It isn't their fault honestly, in this case ignorance is an excuse.

Read the OP by the poster I replied to. You can see that there is no contextual information for that post. Just fear mongering and the furthering of ignorance. It helps the ruling elites agenda and continues to encourage others in their backwards thinking.

You have to understand that America is completely compromised by capitalist machinery and bourgeois trappings. For instance, unemployment benefits are something that one pays into when they work and draw from when they lose their jobs. People have this idea that it is akin to welfare. They are not educated about that social program and are out right lied to by political pundits.

Americans are special in the sense that they will not look at something if they can help it. It's similar to the bystander affect. People continue to wait for a messiah thinking to themselves, "Some one will come and fix it." They take no personal responsibility for their destinies and honestly, they haven't had to. Everyone was making money and the belief that someday they could achieve massive amounts of wealth was alive and well.

Socialism would have been a step backwards. Our lifestyles were so extravagant that there was no need for the people to own the means of production. We were beyond well fed, had multiple cars, disposable income, and our children wanted for nothing. Communism means the end of all that to most because they are still stuck in an era of American economic wealth that doesn't exist anymore.

And so the words Communism and Socialism have taken on all new meanings thanks to the MSM and our failing education system. Counter-revolutionaries are also to blame. So there can be no discussion in this country without whargarble being spewed at the onset.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 
Ahhhhhh!.

Another who has the ability to think their own thoughts.

I have been saying something similar for years,you are just a tad more eloquent than I am.

Thank You!.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chiponbothshoulders
 


Haha, thank you.
Feel free to appropriate my argument for the furthering of the revolution.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Real history of what? You post link to high numbers with no context and leave that as your argument?


Why? Can't we talk about what happened under what was perceived as communism? Does the truth hurt?



A single Capitalist Republic is responsible for the death of tens of millions of First Nation peoples and their ongoing genocide. What is the number of people who have been killed, raped, enslaved due to imperialism?


I Being of Native American descent know full well how my people were treated. Why don't you ask the British, French, Spanish and the Portuguese who started the whole killing, raping, and enslavement due to imperialism. "First Nation" Canadian eh? French or British descent eh?


Capitalism is responsible for the ongoing atrocities in the 3rd world. Capitalism is responsible for the current war on terror and the 3 wars we are currently entrenched in. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa)


Now that you're finished spewing bogus figures out of your back side could you provide PROOF in those numbers and while you're at it compare them to the figures I posted earlier. PLEASE.


If you are using death tolls to show that the communist economic system, which has never been fully instated by any of the listed countries you provided, it would appear that Capitalism is just as, if not more, evil.


Well I dunno, we have some very history in Eastern Europe and China they ran those areas for decades unmolested. The proof is in the pudding. By all means research and while you're at it Ask some of the people who actually lived through it and stop regurgitating something you read in a biased book.


Why doesn't Castro make that list? Would you argue that Cuba was better off under the totalitarian rule of Batista? Interestingly enough I had a chance to listen to Castro's daughter speak at a college campus. Of course she refused to answer any questions and merely QQ'd about losing her bourgeois trappings. So hearing it from the horse's mouth I'm inclined to believe the Cuban people are better off with out Batista.


Why do I have to defend Batista?


What about the collectives in South America that sprung up around the Spanish-American war? Their track record was pristine.


Have we forgotten about Honduras, Guatemala or any of the other Soviet attempts at Proxy states? Or how many were killed while they were pushing for revolution? Let's talk about Africa shell we bring up all the Cold War ghost. Polpot? Because while you are shooting your mouth off there is some very real history of crimes committed by the self proclaimed communist world that you are either ignorant of or foolishly have been in denial about.

Either way history does repeat itself and you'd be an idiot to ignore their contributions.
edit on 1-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n
Why do Americans have such a great hatred of Socialism and Communism? Where did it spring from and when did it arise? I don't mean the insanity of communism in Russia/China/North Korea etc., but the more liberal approach taken by the UK, Sweden, and a host of other countries.

Why is Liberal such a dirty word in America?

What exactly is wrong with universal health care? Surely the aim of major industrialized nations should be to ensure that all it's citizens are healthy, educated, and there is a safety net for when things go wrong for people.

I don't understand from where the vehemence of the American argument stems. I am not saying all Americans, but it does seem to be the prevailing opinion from the European perspective.


Because some of us prefer to do for ourselves, and control the fruits of our own labors.

Because some of us have already been raised, and don't need another set of "parents".

Because some of us have a justifiable distrust of government going back for generations, and see the inherent danger in allowing government to grow to the point where it runs amok, and controls every facet of our being.

Because some of us have been there, and seen the fruits of communism first hand.

Because NO government can "give" you anything that they first haven't taken away from you, and the bigger they are, the worse they are about that.

Because Americans are NOT Europeans. We cut a country out of a wilderness with our own hands, without an overseer telling us what to do and when and how to do it. Some of us are STILL doing that.

Because some of us realize that when seconds count, "help" from any government entity is at BEST minutes away.

Because the sole purpose of a government in the modern age is to perpetuate itself at all costs, and especially at the cost of it's citizenry. Again, the bigger they are, the worse they are about that.

BECAUSE we are Americans, and understand from our history the value of individuals, and the slavery of the collective.


edit on 2010/12/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Why? Can't we talk about what happened under what was perceived as communism? Does the truth hurt?


It is a weak argument. We can discuss it if you would like, feel free to start a new thread.


I Being of Native American descent know full well how my people were treated.


And here is how I know you are not a First Nations person. You used the past tense "were". This is still ongoing.

TO THE OP: You can see here the evidence of capitalist machinery that is entrenched in American culture. He appropriates another ethnic groups suffering instead of standing in solidarity with their struggle in order to dismiss it. This is also called revisionism and is an aspect of liberalism. These left over vestiges of imperialism are a reason for American's fearing Socialism.


Why don't you ask the British, French Spanish and the Portuguese who started and continued the killing, raping, and enslavement due to imperialism. "First Nation" Canadian eh? French or British descent eh?


That's my point. Capitalism = bad, using death toll counts.

TO THE OP: This illustrates that the teaching of individualism helps to serve the revisionist agenda of liberalism. Because individualist thought is pressed so hard in this culture American's are unable to see how they are a collective and share collective responsibility for the shortcomings of their domestic and foreign domestic policies.


Now that you're finished spewing bogus figures out of your back side could you provide PROOF in those numbers and while you're at it compare them to the figures I posted earlier. PLEASE.


Figures? I'm not talking numbers I'm talking actions.


Why do I have to defend Batista?


So you agree that capitalism doesn't work?

TO THE OP: Here you can see that while it seems completely rational to juxtapose a communist with Stalinism it is utterly baffling to make the same comparison with capitalism and it's leaders. Instead of arriving at the logical conclusion, totalitarian dictatorships are terrible, the conclusion is drawn that all communism means mass murder and death.


Have we forgotten about Honduras, Guatemala or any of the other Soviet attempts at Proxy states? Or how many were killed while they were pushing for revolution? Let's talk about Africa shell we bring up all the Cold War ghost. Polpot? Because while you are shooting your mouth off there is some very real history of crimes committed by the self proclaimed communist world that you are either ignorant of or foolishly have been in denial about.


Sure, right after you answer my question.

TO THE OP: This reply illustrates the reactionary thinking that is also to blame for the lack of discourse in this nation. Please notice how the replier is unable to answer my question and instead launches into a diatribe about more deaths that all of communism is supposedly solely responsible for. Yet, when making the same comparison about capitalism the nations stand alone.
edit on 1-12-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by bozzchem
It is said that a picture is worth one thousand words so I will merely post an image of a T-shirt I own that indicates why I hate socialism.


Socialism has nothing to do with control, nothing.


Really? Then how could it possibly work? If I refuse to allow myself to be used by the hive as it sees fit, the only option to rein me in to fulfill my relegated duties by "those in the know" is control. I don't go to work for you or your family. I go to work for mine. If you or anyone wishes to take from me for your utopian society, don't be surprised when I respond in a less than cordial manner.


It's just an economic system that is opposite to capitalism, both system can be totalitarian. There is nothing stopping a capitalist system from being a dictatorship, or a fascist police/military state. This is the reason your state system wants you to think as long as you have capitalism you will be free, and socialism will make you a slave. It's not the economic system that enslaves you, it's yourself and your acceptance of authority.


Capitalism only becomes totalitarian when a bunch of "do gooders" who know more than the actual entrepreneurial folks adding value to the system decide to dictate terms....um, also known as CONTROL. Since my political beliefs fall into the realm of an anarcho-capitalist, I refuse to be told what to do by those who think they know better than I what is good for me or my family. Socialism would relegate us to worker bees making sure the hive stays colonized properly regardless of how hard we work. I am not an ant nor a bee. In regards to the acceptance of "authority", who will accept such without staring down the barrel of a gun...assuming they are intelligent enough to realize they are being used like a cheap blanket??


You have more chance to be free in a truly socialist system, because you will have more access to the means of production. What we do with that is up to all of us, we can control it ourselves without government, libertarian socialism (Anarchism), or allow a dictator to control us. Under a capitalist system the capitalists (owners of the means of production) have the say in how things are run, not the people. Capitalism is not free-markets, or money at all. Socialism allows free-markets, and can use money.


There is no chance whatsoever to be truly free in a socialistic system. I am given my expectations and should I not meet them, it's up to my neighbor to make up for my shortfall. Eventually he's not going to take to that too well should I continually not make my "quota" and rightly so since under a socialistic system I would have full rights to the fruits of his labor....for the greater good. You are confusing capitalism with corporatism which relegates your entire argument as fallacious.


The thing people need to realise is that blind acceptance of authority is what causes us to give up our liberty. For example the Russian revolution failed because the people allowed others to set themselves up as the authority and then the people followed and fell into the typical apathy of powerlessness.
People allow themselves to be lead instead of realising they themselves are their only true authority.


No argument here but your statement defies the premise of socialism and supports my premise of anarcho-capatialism. I have no authorities. I have no officials. Those claiming to be such are men/women who have usurped their powers and now operate in a socialistic/fascist form of government with the false belief they have some control over me that is not Constitutionally granted them. Guess how they do so??? Oh yeah FORCE.


It's easy to follow the leader, but socialism requires everyone to be aware, and responsible, for themselves and their communities to be sure not to fall into the trap of allowing the establishment of outside 'authority'. As soon as a community becomes passive then it has lost it's freedom. The more centralised government becomes, the more you give up your freedoms.


It's easy to follow a leader if you are not one yourself. It's exceptionally painful to have a gun stuck to your temple and be forced to follow "leaders" who are inept, corrupt and lacking in any semblance of skill other than lording their position over others thanks to the slow witted men they can call in carrying automatic weapons.


The Chinese except their 'authorities' just like you do, there is far less difference than you think.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: bb


The Chinese may accept their "authorities" but I believe I've made it clear I don't see that I have any. All I have is a criminal government that has dim witted fools with automatic weapons that will carry out whatever orders they are handed as long as they are taken care of...for the children...the greater good...and whatever the term du jour is for the use of such FORCE.

It's been tried and was a dismal failure:
mises.org...
edit on 1-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum


I Being of Native American descent know full well how my people were treated.


And here is how I know you are not a First Nations person. You used the past tense "were". This is still ongoing.



Can't speak for Slayer, but I ain't "First nations" either, I'm just a plain old NDN. As far as I know, all the "First Nations" are in Canada, and I'm not Canadian. Don't think Slayer is either. He' probably just a plain old NDN too. Mescalero, as I recall.

You might wanna check up on folks before you get to jumping them and telling them what they are in contravention to what they already know that they are.

Classic example of Socialism in action. "You are what WE say you are, not what you say you are".

The State is all, isn't it?


edit on 2010/12/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by schuyler
 
True Socialism is minimal government.

True Socialism is what all of those indigenous people of the world were doing,and what got them exterminated.

They are still being wiped out,cuz they KNOW they don't need this crap any more than you or I do.

They will not comply,so they die.

Socialism is about the people,not the government.



I was with you on all of your posts (check the stars!) up to this one. Socialism is about the collective. Individuals buck against the collective, but yeah, we die pretty frequently for it.

Death is prefferable to subjugation in the collective.

In tribal life, it's recognized that the "collective", the tribe, is made up of individuals. Folks like that help each other because they can, and because it's right.

Not because a government forces it.

Don't know about all the indigenous folks of the world, but in American NDN society, leadership is by persuasion, NOT coercion.

And right there is the difference for you.
edit on 2010/12/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Neither is appealing to me.

But for my own two cents, COMMUNism is based on COMMUNAL living, implying COMMUNITIES. I don't see how a communal form of government can work for millions of people when communities are generally made up of a few thousand people each. And for those saying communism isn't being taught in school, Im a 23 year old student and can ensure you it definitely IS being taught. My high school professors gloated about communism saying we had it all wrong initially. And all my logic professor wanted to talk about was Carl Marx, who happens to be the subject of numerous "student discussions" throughout the school year.

As for socialism, there are some things I believe should be accessible for those who need it, but in all reality, my job is to care for my family not yours. I believe in helping, which I learned hands on as a tiger cub, cub scout, then later a boy scout. But what I also learned in boy scouts was how to be self-sufficient. IMO socialism leads to expectations, which none of us should have because life isn't guaranteed every day. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

In regards to my own country, I don't like the point of capitalism we're at, but I fundamentally agree with the principles of capitalism. You work for your earnings, and prosper according to how hard you're willing to work. Sounds fair and balanced to me. Let's just get this train back on the right track.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

For instance, unemployment benefits are something that one pays into when they work and draw from when they lose their jobs. People have this idea that it is akin to welfare. They are not educated about that social program and are out right lied to by political pundits.



That whole post was nearly word for word what I've been hearing since I can recall hearing communist rhetoric and catch phrases, like "bourgeoise". The only thing you left out was "capitalist running dogs". Nothing new there, or "revolutionary".

The part I quoted above, though, I felt deserved special attention.

Unemployment is NOT something we "pay in to", it's something that is TAKEN from us. Big difference there. By that logic, an armed robbery is just "donating to the motivationally challenged".

Likewise, we get to draw back out our OWN (by your own admission) money IF we meet the guidelines of the State. For example, I was out of work for 18 months not long ago, and drew not a penny of MY OWN unemployment money. Didn't meet the guidelines. Someone else got my share instead.

NO government can "give" you anything that they haven't first TAKEN away from you. Your own example shows that socialism, in this case in the form of social programs, is nothing more than robbery, brute force, and control of the masses.


edit on 2010/12/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
The native american culture was a socialist culture.

Few starved,everyone pitched in,excesses were shared with the old,the infirm were attended to.

The entire village raised the young.

That is the truest form of socialism.

That is why western governments always destroy the indigenous peoples.

Can't have savage "anticapitalists" running around,can we.

Development IS destruction.

My God!!,where does it end?.

edit on 1-12-2010 by chiponbothshoulders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 
Socialism has everything to do with self control,which very few in this world possess.

Do unto others,then split=capitalist.

How did we end up here?.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 
You are young.

Let the passing of time mellow you.

That you may find something you believe to be truth.

And question it still.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
It comes from the Cold War period after WWII, and was deeply ingrained in the American psyche by the McCarthy Era. In the States Communism/Socialism became synonymous with anti-american and anti-freedom. To be honest with you, I would venture that over 90% of Americans don't really know what either is really about. But they will tell you that they do...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I Being of Native American descent know full well how my people were treated.


And here is how I know you are not a First Nations person. You used the past tense "were". This is still ongoing.

TO THE OP: You can see here the evidence of capitalist machinery that is entrenched in American culture. He appropriates another ethnic groups suffering instead of standing in solidarity with their struggle in order to dismiss it. This is also called revisionism and is an aspect of liberalism. These left over vestiges of imperialism are a reason for American's fearing Socialism.


Jesus H. Truman Christ!

WHO appropriated WHAT in order to further their agenda? Who was it that brought NDNs up to begin with, and wailed about it?

Let me refresh your memory:


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

A single Capitalist Republic is responsible for the death of tens of millions of First Nation peoples and their ongoing genocide. What is the number of people who have been killed, raped, enslaved due to imperialism? Capitalism is responsible for the ongoing atrocities in the 3rd world. Capitalism is responsible for the current war on terror and the 3 wars we are currently entrenched in. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa)



From where I stand, looks to me like it was YOU who "appropriated another ethnic groups suffering" to attempt to advance your argument.

UNLESS you're one of us, stand down or continue talking out of your ass. If you aren't you ain't got a clue beyond what you read.

So... ARE you? Can you lay claim to the heritage to legitimize your quest for the perfect collective? If not, it's transparent of you to USE our heritage to promote YOUR foreign philosophy, and you use it badly.

No difference AT ALL from the English, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese. Oddly, I give the French a pass. I don't like 'em much, but at least they DID treat the natives right, for the most part.

Someone like you once asked a Shawnee how he could fight for the country that had so "ill used his people". This happened not so long ago. The warrior looked at him like a bug under glass for a minute, then said "you're forgetting just WHOSE county this is!"



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
The native american culture was a socialist culture.


Not by what I've read of Marx, it isn't.



Few starved,everyone pitched in,excesses were shared with the old,the infirm were attended to.


You've got to be kidding me. EVERYONE starved! That's why winter is called "the starving time". A key there is "EXCESSES" were shared. You took care of your own first, THEN if any was left over, you looked around and determined YOURSELF who it was going to before it spoiled. Chief didn't come along, take it, and determine that for you. Yes, the old and infirm were taken care of, BY THEIR OWN first, by the rest only if they HAD no provider.



The entire village raised the young.


The PARENTS raised their young. That whole "it takes a village to raise a child" thing is a Clintonism that Hillary stole from some African tribe.



That is the truest form of socialism.


That is a utopian ideal garnered from such fictions as Rousseau's "Noble Savage". It doesn't meet up with reality on the ground.



That is why western governments always destroy the indigenous peoples.


Nope. Like every other government and social unit, they destroy them so they can steal their stuff. They care nary a whit for the tribal philosophy, because, as you've shown, they can just rewrite it later to conform to what they'd like it to conform to.



Development IS destruction.


Not necessarily - that' just the European conception of it. Wasn't Marx a European? Ah, never mind. Just a random thought, probably has nothing to do with it.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by nenothtu
 
You are young.



Thanks for that! It made my day! Really!



Let the passing of time mellow you.


Before much more time passes, it's gonna mellow me right into my grave.



That you may find something you believe to be truth.

And question it still.


Ah, now that's sound advice. I had "the truth" when I was a young man, absolute and immutable. The passage of time has softened that to shades of gray, for the most part. I don't hold many "absolute truths" any more, just a few.

Yes, I question even those, since the rest have fallen by the wayside.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join