Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:24 AM
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.


they don't know what it is, and have been voctims of a 60yrs old rethoric dubbing "communist" things that have nothing to do with it, so serving a greater evil.




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum


My apologies. Certain catch phrases from way back when set me off and fired me up. No excuse, just an explanation.



I don't feel comfortable using the terms NDN, inidian, etc. I couldn't think of an overarching term to refer to all the various tribal and their affiliations.


I'm also at loss here, and can't think of an overarching, mutually acceptable term. Like Graham Greene, I reject the term "Native American" on the grounds that anyone born here, of whatever ethnicity, is a native of this place. For what it's worth, I also reject "African American", "Italian American", "Irish American", and all the other hybridized labels folks apply to the "other". From my perspective, an individual is one or the other, not both.

I'm also uncomfortable with the term "First Nations", since as near as I can tell, the first nations were actually in the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia. The Shawnee were not a "nation" until the whites labelled them as such. Up to that point, they were a "People" or a "tribe", until the whites started imposing their own notion of politics on the people.

I can also understand, however, your distaste for the terms "NDN" and "indian", being the products of geographically challenged Europeans. I reckon the main problem here is coming up with terminology that isn't allowing would-be conquerors to define those they would have conquered. "Aboriginies" perhaps, but that has the problem of allowing confusion with the Australian and Tasmaninan natives, although it would properly apply to the original inhabitants of any particular place. That area seems to have co-opted the term to itself.

I don't have the answer - yet.



As far as I am concerned blood line has little to do with tribal identity. I stand by my reasoning.


I can live with that, and agree with it up to a point. Even amongst the tribes, blood lines tended to cross over from one to another through intermarriage and such. In my mind, self-identification and tribal acceptance ought, by rights, to be the determining factors. I've known Shawnees and Cherokees both that were born white, but are now just as much a part of the tribe as anyone of the original blood. So, yes, I can see your point and agree with it.

Because of that, and because of what I know of Slayer, I stand by MY assessment that he's Mescalero.



Not at all. I believe all forms of state run government are inherently corrupt.


You recognize some form of government OTHER than state-controlled in the modern world? A Council can only have so far of a reach before you're in the territory of a different Council.

I believe that a certain amount of government is necessary for the function of a modern nation, just enough to bind together and mediate between the various lower level polities. If any more than that is allowed, history shows that it inevitably lead to greater and greater centralization, control, and power-grabbing.

Allowing that state to run the social programs is one of the ways they use to gather too much power and control to themselves. They control the people by regulating the purse strings the people grow to depend upon. In practice, that turns out no different in socialism than in capitalism, it just goes that way faster under socialism, since the premise IS those purse strings, and the dependence of the people upon them.



Revolution comes through action not theory. Nice word play.


True enough. It's all a matter of what SORT of revolution we are prepared to allow. I am an individualist, but I recognize my obligations to a collective. I just don't think that those obligations are as great as others would have me believe, and furthermore I believe those obligations are to be undertaken voluntarily, not by the dictate of the collective. In other words, I will decide for myself what those obligations are, and how they're to be fulfilled, rather than allow the collective so great a latitude in levying them upon me.

That, of course, flies in the face of all forms of socialism put into practice to date.



We are in agreement about unemployment. I glossed over it quickly because I didn't want to make a long post longer than it had to be. The problem here is not the social program but the fact that there is a need for one.


As long as there are people, there will be a need for some sort of social programs. I suspect where we differ is in who we would allow to run them.



I don't think I'm one of you... Unless you are also Siksika. So, yes I can lay claim to a communal heritage.


Well now, there are all sorts of levels of "us" and "them". No, I'm not Siksika, so at that level, we are not of a group. I am Shawnee, so at the level of whatever we decide to call the original inhabitants of this island, yes, we are of a group. The Siksika were on Canadian territory, and I can only assume you are still in Canada, so at that level we again diverge. We have certain commonalities in language, so you can probably figure out what my name means, and there is another level of community. Of course we are both human, regardless of borders, for a bonding at yet another level.

The key here, one would think, would be to find the common ground, and stick to it.



I too give the French a pass. From what I've been told they at least bothered.


From what I've been told, they took less, weren't interested in conquest, and certainly not subjugation, and they didn't balk at fighting the English Who WERE intent on conquest to the south. That, togehter with their apparent support of the native autonomy is why I give them a pass. They're still "tootoo" to me, though. I'm guessing that's where the English got their pet name for the French. It's what the Shawnee called any Frenchman, to keep them separate in the mind from the English "she'manethe". Yeah, they were both white, but we recognized their differences, too.



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!"


Yes, I would ask that question. His enlisting doesn't defend the Nation of the Shawnee in my opinion and I don't see his Nation having control of the American processes.


He didn't do it for the American government per se, he did what he did for the People. ALL of them, his own especially. If the government benefitted from it, that was purely incidental to his goals, not the object of them.

That's what he meant when he said "You're forgetting just WHOSE county this is!" The questioner assumed it was the American Government's country.

The Shawnee knew better.

He knew it's the People's country, and that's who he fought for. The government was just a vehicle to get him there. I'm not sure if the questioner ever figured out what he meant. Governments come and governments go. The People always remain.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash
Regarding liberals it is born of two things. First the liberals were all too often the socially conscious thinkers who could be found in universities. By nature these will often set themselves against the wishes of those who seek power in the financial or political realms. So the two should balance each other nicely. But the powerful are not content with balance. They will eliminate any and all opposing forces.


True enough. What happens when the liberals BECOME the powerful?

They become the demons they warned us against.

And they don't waste any time going about it, either.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
My apologies. Certain catch phrases from way back when set me off and fired me up. No excuse, just an explanation.


Don't apologize. I did the exact same thing. In this era it makes sense to be incredibly defensive.


I don't have the answer - yet.


I meant no offense and I agree with what you have said about "Nations". But English doesn't serve us well when communicating about our culture.


Because of that, and because of what I know of Slayer, I stand by MY assessment that he's Mescalero.


I yield to your judgment.


You recognize some form of government OTHER than state-controlled in the modern world?


I guess not. But I was meaning that there is a better way and don't align myself with Stalinist models.


A Council can only have so far of a reach before you're in the territory of a different Council.

I believe that a certain amount of government is necessary for the function of a modern nation, just enough to bind together and mediate between the various lower level polities. If any more than that is allowed, history shows that it inevitably lead to greater and greater centralization, control, and power-grabbing.


I would agree with this. As long as it was implemented tribally so all our cultures could be fairly represented.


Allowing that state to run the social programs is one of the ways they use to gather too much power and control to themselves. They control the people by regulating the purse strings the people grow to depend upon. In practice, that turns out no different in socialism than in capitalism, it just goes that way faster under socialism, since the premise IS those purse strings, and the dependence of the people upon them.


I would agree with one caveat. The problem is with the State not the economical model.


True enough. It's all a matter of what SORT of revolution we are prepared to allow. I am an individualist, but I recognize my obligations to a collective. I just don't think that those obligations are as great as others would have me believe, and furthermore I believe those obligations are to be undertaken voluntarily, not by the dictate of the collective. In other words, I will decide for myself what those obligations are, and how they're to be fulfilled, rather than allow the collective so great a latitude in levying them upon me.


I think that is a healthy function and is collectivist in nature.


That, of course, flies in the face of all forms of socialism put into practice to date.


Maybe by Europeans, since they control the history books.. The EZLN seems to be doing a good job, no?


As long as there are people, there will be a need for some sort of social programs. I suspect where we differ is in who we would allow to run them.


Maybe... We would have to get compare how we envision our utopias.


The key here, one would think, would be to find the common ground, and stick to it.


Just being wary of where I throw my lot. I've heard plenty of "great-grandmother was a blackfoot princess" tales and lost some one I loved dearly the pressures of "white-washing". But, circles end where I begin.

Anyway yes, I agree it is best to find common ground.


Yeah, they were both white, but we recognized their differences, too.


Similar from what I've got, too.


He didn't do it for the American government per se, he did what he did for the People. ALL of them, his own especially. If the government benefitted from it, that was purely incidental to his goals, not the object of them.

That's what he meant when he said "You're forgetting just WHOSE county this is!" The questioner assumed it was the American Government's country.

The Shawnee knew better.

He knew it's the People's country, and that's who he fought for. The government was just a vehicle to get him there. I'm not sure if the questioner ever figured out what he meant. Governments come and governments go. The People always remain.


I understand now. But surely a line must be drawn some where?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I have been reading this thread and notice one issue where people are claiming that Castro killed farmers etc to take Cuba by force. The truth is that he freed the cuban people from rule by the greedy oppresive dictator Batista. Cuba has shown the world that socialism can work and although it has little resources, it has the highest number of doctors per person of any nation in the world. these doctors are then loaned out to other nations like venezuala and even with some african nations.
The other way they get outside help is by loaning out there soldiers to places where the people are fighting against inhumane regimes. Ernesto Guevarra although Argentinian, fell into both of these categories as he was a doctor and a master at gorilla warfare so was able to train local freedom fighters in many useful tactics and methods.
I am English and only in my twenties so I have not been brought up with all this anti Cuban revolution propoganda, but i am still confused when fidel castro is labled a dictator as he has been re-elected on numerous occasions with his brother Raul being voted in now that Fidel has retired.
This is a nation that has brought forward to the U.N around 80% of all international human rights laws that are in place today, and yet another nation who has blown up their airlines, sprayed chemical weapons on their farms, tried to assasanate their leader on over a hundred occassions and does not even acount for a single international human rights law in place today has the bare faced cheek of commiting torture on cubas own soil.

this is not an attack on americans but on the american system its self and the lies it makes the majority of americans believe.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
We ARE a Socialist Country, nobody just wants to admit it.

The reason Congress just passed "ObamaCare" is because it's a new mandatory Federal Tax to fund...Socialism.

"It is the sense of Congress that the funds created by this act be reserved for Social Security"

That sentence was in the "Healthcare" Bill Congress passed and the President signed. You can't find that sentence in the Bill now. Since Congress finally read the bill they took that sentence out.

Americans would be outraged if they knew the new mandatory Federal Tax coming online in 2014 sole purpose is to fund +70 million Baby Boomers needing Social Security.

That's ENSLAVEMENT. We ARE a Socialist Nation, many are just still in denial. Our living standard is going to drop substantially due to Healthcare being Nationalized to generate Federal Revenue to fund Social Security.

Read that bill they passed. It's not about Healthcare. They will have the power to deny you healthcare and the Bill spells out the bureaucracy/paper work you will have to comply with to appeal them when they deny you healthcare. It's going to be bad.

Get every dollar you can and buy gold/silver or get foreign currency. Socialist Nations never last long.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum


I don't have the answer - yet.


I meant no offense and I agree with what you have said about "Nations". But English doesn't serve us well when communicating about our culture.


True enough. It doesn't have the same eloquence, or even words for some concepts, and hence no conception of those things. Words have a certain power, and without a word for something in a given language, that thing doesn't "exist" to people of that language. If it can't be named, it is not, it does not "be", to them.



A Council can only have so far of a reach before you're in the territory of a different Council.

I believe that a certain amount of government is necessary for the function of a modern nation, just enough to bind together and mediate between the various lower level polities. If any more than that is allowed, history shows that it inevitably lead to greater and greater centralization, control, and power-grabbing.


I would agree with this. As long as it was implemented tribally so all our cultures could be fairly represented.


It's my understanding that was the original concept of the American Government. You could think of a State government as a "Tribal Council", but on a somewhat larger scale, and the national government as an "Intertribal Council". They are supposed to have taken the concept from the Iroquois League of Five Nations. The States were meant to be the "Nation", and the Federal Government was meant to be the "League".

As it stands now, the Federal Government has taken over functions it was never meant to have, and grown it's power to the point that the State governments are nearly irrelevant. That would be on a par with the League dissolving the local power of the individual tribes that constituted it, and hoarding all the power and decision making to itself. No more Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Seneca, or Cayuga - ALL subjugated to "Iroquois". You can probably see how that would have gone over like a lead balloon.

A League or Confederacy is just that - a supertructure government to mediate between the lower level polities, not meant to micromanage the individual. There comes point in any such effort where the "super government" bites off more than it can chew, takes on more than it can handle, and we're nearly there in the US. If we use Imperial Rome as a guide, when they got to that point, all hell broke loose, the barbarians took advantage of that, and an entire continent was plunged into the Dark Ages.

I just can't abide by collectivism on the national scale. The way it gets set up is insane to my mind. To my way of thinking, the greater enemy is over-centralization of command and control, which so far has been an unfortunate feature of most, if not all, implementations of collectivism on a national scale.

It's not so much the collectivism, or even capitalism, as it is the need for inordinate control on the part of the masters, on whichever end of the political or economic spectrum. When they bite off a bigger hunk than thy can chew, and they feel that control slipping away because of that, instead of spitting part of it out, they try to clamp down harder to maintain their power. That never turns out well.



Allowing that state to run the social programs is one of the ways they use to gather too much power and control to themselves. They control the people by regulating the purse strings the people grow to depend upon. In practice, that turns out no different in socialism than in capitalism, it just goes that way faster under socialism, since the premise IS those purse strings, and the dependence of the people upon them.


I would agree with one caveat. The problem is with the State not the economical model.


True, but the two are interdependent - at least they have been in every implementation so far, whether capitalist or socialist. The State has to rely on the economic model for operation funds, and the economic model has to rely on the State for regulatory control. For the State to obtain the necessary funds to operate State sponsored social programs, the economic model takes on even more importance. I don't see any way to run a wide scale, State sponsored social program without taking unfair advantage of a socialist economic model, and placing an unfair burden on the fruits of the worker's labor.

There is, of course, a corollary problem in the corporatism we have right now. The corporations and CEO's simply take the place of the State in taking unfair advantage of the fruits of the worker's labors. Then you get what we have now - the ratio of CEO salary to workers salaries has increased something like 700 percent in the last 30 years or so, I believe.

One absolute master is as bad as the next to my mind, and it matters not whether one is a slave to the Corporation or a slave to the State. A slave is a slave, no matter who the master is. The difference is that I can quit the corporation and fend for myself if I so choose. It's somewhat more problematic to quit the State. All of the reservations here are supposed to be independent nations, but in practice they are not. They are controlled by the same state everyone else is, through the "gentle ministrations" of the BIA. You can't even go back to the res and get away from the State. In order to quit the State, all one can do is turn in his citizenship in this State for a citizenship in another State, trading one overseer for another, and not really improving his lot.

That's why I prefer to stand and fight for my own land, and try to minimize interference by the State in my own affairs. I can leave the "Corporation" with the turn of a car key.



True enough. It's all a matter of what SORT of revolution we are prepared to allow. I am an individualist, but I recognize my obligations to a collective. I just don't think that those obligations are as great as others would have me believe, and furthermore I believe those obligations are to be undertaken voluntarily, not by the dictate of the collective. In other words, I will decide for myself what those obligations are, and how they're to be fulfilled, rather than allow the collective so great a latitude in levying them upon me.


I think that is a healthy function and is collectivist in nature.


Collectivist in nature, perhaps, but it's a matter of scale and control. I take care of my own, and whoever I can help locally, but it grates to have the State step in and tell me that I have to tell them to go to hell, that someone else, somewhere else, gets what they would otherwise have gotten from me. I don't see it as the state's function to do that, to make that decision FOR me and take it out of my hands. I see their function as more of a mediator between "us" and the "others", whether those "others" are international (according to the European notion of nations) or another group within this country. That mediation would be in the nature of dispute resolution, not micromanagement and "wealth redistribution". We can handle the disbursement of our own wealth, without that interference.



That, of course, flies in the face of all forms of socialism put into practice to date.


Maybe by Europeans, since they control the history books.. The EZLN seems to be doing a good job, no?


I have a slight grin as I'm typing this, but I've got to say that I'm not qualified to assess the effectiveness of the EZLN, for variety of reasons. One is that I don't know how their internal affairs are run regarding how they treat their own people. Another is that I don't think it's my place to decide for those folks how they are to run their own internal affairs. If they're happy with it, I am too. Mainly, though, it's the fact that I've seen some of their literature and propaganda posters. I have to admit a bias. Due to certain unfortunate circumstances in my history, I have an immediate distrust of anything that has the words "Liberacion Nacionale" in it's title. The FSLN, FMLN, etc all had the same flowery words in their title, and they were stone killers, cracking down hard on their own people. The big red stars on the flag and in the posters doesn't help my mindset in the matter much. Nether does the literature with all the catchphrases that trip my trigger. My experience of those types is that they were overly controlling, never managed to improve the lot of the people under their charge, and were insatiable to spread the misery and export it to other folks who had no beef with them.

I realize, though, that it's a personal problem on my part, and a bias. I don't know that the EZLN is of the same character. If their people are happy with their performance, then so am I. So long as they confine their control to Chiapas, and their own people, I have no beef with them.



As long as there are people, there will be a need for some sort of social programs. I suspect where we differ is in who we would allow to run them.


Maybe... We would have to get compare how we envision our utopias.


Subject of another thread, I suppose. My mega replies are already spamming this one out. We're probably not so far apart. I draw the line at European-style Marxism. It has no more place here than European style colonialism, and I gotta tell you, all the bells, whistles, and catchphrases it carries with it really set me off. I take them to be code words for much more nefarious undertakings.



Just being wary of where I throw my lot. I've heard plenty of "great-grandmother was a blackfoot princess" tales and lost some one I loved dearly the pressures of "white-washing". But, circles end where I begin.

Anyway yes, I agree it is best to find common ground.


I can understand that. Think of me any way you like, since it won't in any way change the essence of "me". No, I'm not a "full blood", but that matters nary a bit to me. The heart is what matters. I agree, the "princess" thing is a dead giveaway. Royalty is a foreign concept. "White washing" is a definite problem, but it works the other way as well. As I said before, I know some who started out white, and are just as much one of the People now as if they were born to it.

It's the heart that matters.



I understand now. But surely a line must be drawn some where?


I suppose each individual must draw his own line. That's where he drew his. Your mileage may vary. Is it better for your people if you fight the "national" government, and die in that fight with no improvements for them, or is it better if you combine your power with the power of that government, and defend your own from a common threat? Does it matter if the others gain the same benefits as your own, as long as your own are taken care of?

The entire purpose for a warrior is to protect his People. That, and nothing more. It's not to defend a government or a flag or a philosophy, it's always for the People. What is in the heart determines why one does what he does, it doesn't determine the route he takes to do it. That is often determined by expediency

It's the heart that matters.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
 


There society has never had freedom since fed took over, so thats most of the people who alive today.

I think its just brainwashing, when in reality you like western europe are absolutely forced into living a life. People do not think about how forced they are to live a life.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius


That's ENSLAVEMENT. We ARE a Socialist Nation, many are just still in denial. Our living standard is going to drop substantially due to Healthcare being Nationalized to generate Federal Revenue to fund Social Security.

Read that bill they passed. It's not about Healthcare. They will have the power to deny you healthcare and the Bill spells out the bureaucracy/paper work you will have to comply with to appeal them when they deny you healthcare. It's going to be bad.

Socialist Nations never last long.


Don't you think that pure Capitalism pushes the ordinary person into slavery?

Large multi-nationals with the buying power due to economies of scale have shut down many sole traders and often making them have to work for that large mulit-national. Look at Asda (walmart).

I don't understand why people can't see how socialism with cpaitalism, working together is the ideal solution.

Take the banking system. If America had a bank, that was owned by the Country, which in effect would be owned by the people who elect their government, the financial mess the private banks have got us all into wouldn't have happened anywhere near as bad.

A mix of socialism and capitalism is a fair and more stable way to be.

Capitalism is about making profit for a few people.

Socialism is about looking after all the people over profit.

edit on 2-12-2010 by JonoEnglish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Wow! Thanks guys and girls, I am impressed with the quality and depth of many of the answers people have posted.

I wondered if the limited ownership of the mass media and the wishes of the ruling elite in the US had something to do with it. Hearst and his ilk foisting opinion onto the population, and decrying anyone who spoke up against things they didn't like.

Has American prevailing opinion been shaped and manipulated by TPTB rather than the people making their own choices. There is so much I admire in the Constitution of the United States, and the stated aims for which it stands, but then I see the corruption at the very top and the manipulation and death of those aims and goals by those who seized power at the end of the 19th Century and kept a hold ever since.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n


Has American prevailing opinion been shaped and manipulated by TPTB rather than the people making their own choices. There is so much I admire in the Constitution of the United States, and the stated aims for which it stands, but then I see the corruption at the very top and the manipulation and death of those aims and goals by those who seized power at the end of the 19th Century and kept a hold ever since.


I'll hold my hands up, I don't know much about the Constitution but America should be admired in certain aspects, like most other free Countries.

TPTB do control, shape and manipulate public opinion, driven by the Capitalist agenda, which is to make $.

Americans fear giving too much power to their own elected government, yet are quite happy to allow mega Corps who can be likened to Tyrants to control the people.

The Elite, aren't elected, they don't care for social issues, so in my eyes they are anti-American by promoting inequality and lack of freedom through the power they have through their $'s.

The Amerian dream cr*p, that's idolised, where any man or woman who works hard enough can become wealthy, is a pipe-dream to most Americans. Sure, for some,the very few, that will happen but for the most, no matter how hard they work, they will never achieve the wealth of the Elite.

The Elite know, that socialism reigns in the Capitalists. So they push out that it's Communist and anti-American.

edit on 2-12-2010 by JonoEnglish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
...Take Walmart again. They capitalise on thier buying power. They squash their small insignificant small capitalist traders out of business, so what can be done?

Large multinationals should be restricted by their market share within a geographical area. Allowing all those young smaller capitalist to thrive. Now that's certainly not a capitalist policy, it's socialism.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
in the uk we have laws against building monopolys but i dont think they are very strict it just means that tesco's cant go and buy every other supermarket in the country but i dont think it is illegal for tesco's to build a shop next to every other supermarket in the uk.

not sure what a supermarket is called in the us but it is basically a walmart type place that focuses mainly on food but does sell all the other stuff aswell(apart from guns and ammo) and tescos now starting to take over in china aswell as the uk.
edit on 2-12-2010 by lewman because: missed out a few words



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Your post is "Right On". Thank you

Scoutsniper



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scoutsniper
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Your post is "Right On". Thank you

Scoutsniper


Really? I take it both of you pay tax?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
It comes from the heavy anti commi propaganda from 1945 to 1989.

And communism didn't have so many disatvantages, for example you were obligated by law to go to school and have at least 10 grades passed before you could do anything, meaning there were less stupid people. You were kind of obligated to work but if you worked you had many advantages because of the big unions (I.E. you gave 1% of your salary to the union and when you had some time you could get a ticket from there and go on vacation on their expense to any resort that was owned by the union).
Culture was a very important subject to communism (except for china and korea) and this is very good in my opinion.

And another important thing was that the food you could buy was calculated so the food you threw out was few, this way everybody could have something to eat (in my country i didn't hear of anybody starving in the communist era and now 40% of people complain that its hard to even get enough money for a loaf of bread).



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
My first question is how does a post about socialism vs. communism vs. capitilism skew into what happened to native americans hundreds of years ago? It wasn't "evil americans" and capitilistic greed...it was english, french and spanish, if I'm not mistaken, trying to claim new land. It happened, it's done, people in this day and age should have no reason to apologize. As to the statements it is still being done...every person has the ability to change their lot in life, because I have worked my a$$ off since the age of 16, I should feel sorry for those that do nothing (and I'm not generalizing the majority, just commenting on what was said). Any person, regardless of nationality, that revieves benefits, but does nothing to improve their situation...I'm sorry, I feel nothing but contempt. No one is forcing anyone to let life pass them by with a bottle in their hands, that is an individual choice.

My take on the OP's question...I was listening to a speech made by the president at a college graduation ceremony...he stated (and this is not exact quotes)...you are now at a crossroads, you can choose to chase the big house, cars, etc...or you can choose to give back to those that helped you get here...you have a responsibility...etc...Nobody helped me get through college, I worked, I paid...and again, if I work hard, I am greedy because I want nice things? My responsibility is to take care of my family. I do not have problems with social programs, I do have problems with people that expect these social programs to get them through life...welfare, food stamps, govt. housing...sure, for the person that has hit hard times, but at some point, there has to be a limitation. Go to any gvot. housing project, what do you see...trash, crime, unkempt...yea, a generalization, but people do not appreciate that which is given.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The People control the government.

The Government controls the people.

Which would you prefer?



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Libertarianism is a lot better than communism it is more practical if you live in America you're taught to hate the Communist if you live in China or Korea you are told to be suspicious of capitalist political indoctrination that my reason.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BigFrigginAl
 


Most people who work, work hard. Hard work doesn't automatically get you a wealthy lifestyle. You need opportunity.

The only arguement that comes up against socialism is, "I'm sick of the layabouts who are happy to live off benefits I'm forced to pay for".

Yes, of course there will be those that are like that, but if you put a system in place that makes people actually do work in their community in order for them to get those benefits then everyone will be happy. I don't like people who freeload off others either.

Not all people have the capability to become self employed or take on a job that will give them a decent standard of living for themselves or their family. Sod them I suppose, not my problem?

Socialism is all about making a fairer society for all, rather than the fortunate capitalising on opportunity to make a quick buck for themselves.
edit on 2-12-2010 by JonoEnglish because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join