StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I always hear people say how they don't like this or that because it's a socialist policy or he's a socialist or blah blah blah.

I just assume that most idiots hear socialist and make the leap to communist and then SOVIET! instantly, like a trigger word, and that's why they think it's horrible.

Admittedly, I don't know really what socialism is, so this is an information inquiry as much as it is about my question of why it's bad.

What say you?

I don't think that anyone here will tell you that they think it is inherently bad.

As to why it is associated to being bad, propoganda and lack of actual knowledge mostly compounded with a us versus them mentality.

A name thing. USSR = Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Therefore socialism = communism. Nobody bothers to consider that countries often give themselves names solely for propaganda value, take the " Democratic People's Republic of Korea" for instance or the People's Republic of China. In that vein, it would be safe to assume that Democracies or Republics are evil...but that doesn't matter to the knee-jerkers.

Havok wrote:I always hear people say how they don't like this or that because it's a socialist policy or he's a socialist or blah blah blah.

I just assume that most idiots hear socialist and make the leap to communist and then SOVIET! instantly, like a trigger word, and that's why they think it's horrible.

Admittedly, I don't know really what socialism is, so this is an information inquiry as much as it is about my question of why it's bad.

What say you?

Socialism can best be described as the idea of a community based rule, which generally comes out as a dictatorship of the proletariat (working class), although specificities may vary.

The Russian Revolution showed that it was possible for a country to be overthrown by socialist revolutionaries. Even if there wasn't a full blown revolution in the US, there was always the chance that some socialist ideas could take hold, making the working class more powerful at the expense of the wealthy few. As a result, it was in the best interests of those who were the wealthy elite whose stature was threatened by socialist ideas to discredit the idea in the minds of the American worker. As long as socialism could be rendered crimethink in the minds of the American voter, the elite could keep their position on top of society.

Socialism is something of a simple idea that becomes fairly complex in practice. It consists of the reasonably egalitarian idea that people share their resources among each other as needed in order for all members of the community to be provided for equally, more or less. Where it gets tricky is working out all the messy details when it actually encounters real life.

And yes, the problem most Americans have with it is Socialism=Communism=BAD. It's an absurd notion, but not entirely unrealistic (there are distinct similarities). It's a long way away from the Soviet system, though, and could certainly benefit many people should it ever be actually implemented in a practical way.

Usual reasons why people don't like socialism:

1) Propaganda/association with the Soviet Union (in America) or even just association with Europe (depending on whom you talk with, again, in America).

2) They think that socialism, or even any government intervention into the economy, limits freedom and choice. Some people even argue that socialism ultimately leads to people living in a serf-like state of interdependence on the government, where their lives are dominated by what they receive from the government, what they owe the government in turn, and the choices the government makes for them.

3) They associate socialism, and other even lesser government involvement in the economy, with sluggish growth, high unemployment, poverty, and generally lower standards of living.

4) My fencing coach who lived in the Soviet Union was always very insistent that socialism doesn't give people enough incentive to work hard. I recognize that the perspective of people who choose to leave a socialist system aren't necessarily representative of the general experience, and that anecdotes aren't evidence.

Usually I hear that socialism means the government's going to come in and steal their property to distribute it to the masses. Because that's what Stalin did, damnit.

Because Southern Californians are the fucking scum of the Earth.

Kingmaker wrote:Because Southern Californians are the fucking scum of the Earth.

Care to explain yourself?

Borgholio wrote:

Kingmaker wrote:Because Southern Californians are the fucking scum of the Earth.

Care to explain yourself?

The title says Socalist, although you'll probably find more socialists in SoCal then most places in the US

It's always been stigmatized in the US, in part because the US glorified the ideal of individual free farmers/self-employed/entrepreneurs/etc* from its very beginning. You see "communist" and "socialist" pop up as slurs in the 19th century against progressive and pro-labor efforts, so it predates the rise of the Soviet Union (although that didn't help).

* The dark side of that being that they vilified both labor organization and employees for a long time.

In many quarters there's this idea that the government can do no right while the private sector is the most efficient and generates the most wealth. Socialism = big government = bad in that particular paradigm.

As others have suggested, it's largely a product of several generations of Cold War thinking. My mother, normally a fairly reasonable person, was born in the 50s and so will immediately knee-jerk into 5-alarm klaxons-wailing SKY IS FALLING mode if "socialism" or "communism" are mentioned. I have tried to explain to her that American society would be an incredibly shitty thing if it weren't for socialism, but it's extremely hard to make more than a dent. I tend to just write off everyone who's older than Millennials as a lost cause to Cold War-era propaganda. Socialism will continue to be a dirty word in American politics until the Cold War generations get old and die.

As for the other part of the question, examples of socialism: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, Pell grants and other state-sponsored student aid and scholarships, veterans programs, and most controversially, Obamacare. Loosely defined, socialism is anything society bands together to do, via the institution of government, for the purpose of supporting other members of that society; essentially, codified altruism. The opposite of socialist is individualist, and you see a lot of individualism on the American right.

The Cold War aspect isn't just 'propaganda' either.

We spent most of the Cold War with Soviet nuclear missiles pointed down our throats, wondering if some loony on the other side of the Iron Curtain was going to push the button. The Soviets were seen to be a tyrannical state with secret police force and minimal freedom of movement or expression. Their foreign policy appeared expansionist and imperialistic, their military forces large and powerful, and the Soviet way of life (insofar as Westerners even knew what it was) appeared gray, drab, oppressed, and chronically lacking in things Westerners considered basic necessities.

And there was considerable evidence to support all of these conclusions, even for a conscientious and (so far as possible) well-informed person in the US.

By proclaiming themselves a bastion and exemplar of international socialism, the USSR didn't do socialism any favors, anywhere.

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:As for the other part of the question, examples of socialism: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, Pell grants and other state-sponsored student aid and scholarships, veterans programs, and most controversially, Obamacare. Loosely defined, socialism is anything society bands together to do, via the institution of government, for the purpose of supporting other members of that society; essentially, codified altruism. The opposite of socialist is individualist, and you see a lot of individualism on the American right.

In the standard political lexicon, socialism is mass/communal ownership of the means of production.

It has nothing to do with welfare programs, government aid to the poor, or anything else. A socialist society might include any or all of these. But doesn't have to; in fact, it doesn't have to have a government at all, in principle.

Meanwhile, various chunks of the American right are highly non-individualist. It's just that the communalism they support is cultural, not economic. In other words, while you have a reasonable expectation that strangers won't act to undermine your cultural values, you have no reasonable expectation that strangers will act in your economic interests. Whereas modern American liberalism does the opposite- you have a right to an individualized culture, but the law is supposed to stop strangers from impinging too sharply on your economic interests.

Now...

The American right wants you to define welfare as 'socialism;' that's why they call it that every ten minutes on Fox News. Because then it can take all the ills associated with outright banning private ownership of the means of production, and try to use them to construct a strawman and say "this is what liberals want." When in fact 'liberal' and 'socialist' are historically very different political alignments.

So by saying what you say, you implicitly accept their definition and the debate winds up framed on their terms. Which allows them to use a word that will have bad associations as long as the history of the gulag archipelago endures to describe basic, commonsense reforms in place throughout the civilized world.

PKRudeBoy wrote:

Borgholio wrote:

Kingmaker wrote:Because Southern Californians are the fucking scum of the Earth.

Care to explain yourself?

The title says Socalist, although you'll probably find more socialists in SoCal then most places in the US

Socialist...not SoCal-ist. Maybe he should have read the title a bit slower.

In either case, we do have a good number of socialists here but CA could hardly be called a socialist state. Most of the issues we face tend to be liberal vs conservative issues such as immigration, environmental protection, etc... I don't know off the top of my head any major socialist issues except for welfare, but that's not unique to CA.

Borgholio wrote: Socialist...not SoCal-ist. Maybe he should have read the title a bit slower.

In either case, we do have a good number of socialists here but CA could hardly be called a socialist state. Most of the issues we face tend to be liberal vs conservative issues such as immigration, environmental protection, etc... I don't know off the top of my head any major socialist issues except for welfare, but that's not unique to CA.

Go back and actually read the title. Not what you think it says, or what it was meant to say, but the actual letters. The title is missing the first i in socialist, leading it to say socalist. So perhaps you should read the title a bit slower.

Borgholio wrote:


Socialist...not SoCal-ist. Maybe he should have read the title a bit slower.

Maybe you should have. The title says "Socalist"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Huh...ok well that's embarrassing. I stand corrected.

Kingmaker still owes an explanation though.

You guys are all overthinking this. The average American has no idea about cold war politics, and doesn't even know what "USSR" stands for. To them socialism == bad because they heard Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh say the word in a condescending tone over and over and over, so they think it has something vaguely to do with "bad things" like the government taking your guns and Obama forcing Sharia law and gay marriage (?) on your children and banning Christmas.

It's not even anything specific to America. This is a country with far more of a socialist tradition than the U.S. has ever had, yet I routinely hear British right-wingers claim that Socialism, Communism and Fascism/Nazism are all pretty much the same ideology, just with minor differences in government structure. Whether it's from a genuine misconception or lack of research, or just lazily dumping all ideologies that aren't the "I've got mine, fuck everyone else" brand of capitalism into one basket, I can't say.

Socialism is bad because Hav is a socialist. Just like every other American.

Socialism is a system based primarily on concentration of power and theft of wealth by the political class, who redistribute a portion of it as handouts to a wide base of poor supporters, purchasing their loyalty (votes or otherwise depending on whether the country is democratic). The ideology is based on the idea that politicians backed by civil servants are more competent at making macro and micro economic decisions than CEOs, executives and small business owners. Capitalism is based on free trade (although not necessarily for all social classes) and has a greater separation of concentration of wealth (to successful business people or lucky inheritors, weighting varies) and concentration of power. This is good in that people are motivated to build useful companies as a means of wealth generation. Of course they can use that wealth to bribe politicians; whether this is more or less harmful than politicians bribing voters is highly debatable.

Starglider wrote:Socialism is a system based primarily on concentration of power and theft of wealth by the political class, who redistribute a portion of it as handouts to a wide base of poor supporters, purchasing their loyalty (votes or otherwise depending on whether the country is democratic). The ideology is based on the idea that politicians backed by civil servants are more competent at making macro and micro economic decisions than CEOs, executives and small business owners. Capitalism is based on free trade (although not necessarily for all social classes) and has a greater separation of concentration of wealth (to successful business people or lucky inheritors, weighting varies) and concentration of power. This is good in that people are motivated to build useful companies as a means of wealth generation. Of course they can use that wealth to bribe politicians; whether this is more or less harmful than politicians bribing voters is highly debatable.

Captialism is letting the fox herd the chicken, with every chicken thinking it's gonna' be fox one day only to be eaten and turned to foxshit.

MANAGER: You're not a Commie, are you?

TOM JOAD: What's a Commie?

MANAGER: A Commie is any son of a bitch that wants twenty-five cents a day when we're paying twenty.

Simon_Jester wrote:By proclaiming themselves a bastion and exemplar of international socialism, the USSR didn't do socialism any favors, anywhere.

Actually, the USSR did more for the spread of socialism in the Third World (you know, that place where 80% of the world's population actually is living) than any other country. It made the idea highly popular with people who were very poor and lacked industrial potential - as most of it was concentrated in the colonial metropoles and not the colonies themselves. It is more important than appealing to some middle-class US citizens who lived their lives in absolute comfort anyway.

Starglider wrote:The ideology is based on the idea that politicians backed by civil servants are more competent at making macro and micro economic decisions than CEOs, executives and small business owners.

The ideology is not based on that idea. It is based on the idea of equitable sharing of the entire product and assets among the working majority, which of course has no relation to how good or bad the quality of decisions is. It can be absolutely horrendous and yet equitable. The opposite, that is, non-equitable but equally horrendous decisions, also exist.

Starglider wrote:This is good in that people are motivated to build useful companies as a means of wealth generation.

Actually people are motivated to do anything to generate wealth. Destroying companies as means of generating wealth is just as acceptable as building it.