Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[RodeoX]

Because when they were little someone taught them to be afraid. They didn't understand then, and they haven't learned since.  
So they rail about socialism while they cash their social security check.

[1714784926]

1714784926

[1714784926]

1714784926

[1714784926]

1714784926

[Anonymous]

Because when they were little someone taught them to be afraid. They didn't understand then, and they haven't learned since.  
So they rail about socialism while they cash their social security check.

They cash their social security check because they've been paying into the system their entire lives. It certainly isn't a socialistic entitlement. It's money they have already earned and could of saved/invested themselves and put to better use.

[FirstAscent]

If there is tremendous value to gain by altering our ways then so it will happen.

There is not guarantee here at all. B does not necessarily follow from A in any way, shape or form. History certainly indicates otherwise. But based on what you're implying here, I could argue that my proactive stance on certain issues is in fact the precursor to causing our ways to be altered. On the other hand, your rejection of the importance of what I'm saying could in fact be an example of humanity's failure to alter our ways.

[RodeoX]

Because when they were little someone taught them to be afraid. They didn't understand then, and they haven't learned since.  
So they rail about socialism while they cash their social security check.

They cash their social security check because they've been paying into the system their entire lives. It certainly isn't a socialistic entitlement. It's money they have already earned and could of saved/invested themselves and put to better use.

When the government takes your money and invests it for you, that's not capitalism. Perhaps a better example is the wall st. bailout. In that case investment companies lost their money fair and square on the open market. Then they were given taxpayer money to cover their losses. Oh wait, that's communism, not socialism.

[Anonymous]

If there is tremendous value to gain by altering our ways then so it will happen.

There is not guarantee here at all. B does not necessarily follow from A in any way, shape or form. History certainly indicates otherwise. But based on what you're implying here, I could argue that my proactive stance on certain issues is in fact the precursor to causing our ways to be altered. On the other hand, your rejection of the importance of what I'm saying could in fact be an example of humanity's failure to alter our ways.

I am willing to accept the fallibility of humanity. There is no guarantee and your methods are just as fallible and can just as easily be corrupted like most of the government mandates of today. I find the most optimal solution is not to meddle in the affairs and let man stumble and get up on his own, rather than assure corporate and irrational interests to grant themselves success by mandate; which most certainly will only lead to scenario neither of us prefer.

[Anonymous]

Because when they were little someone taught them to be afraid. They didn't understand then, and they haven't learned since.  
So they rail about socialism while they cash their social security check.

They cash their social security check because they've been paying into the system their entire lives. It certainly isn't a socialistic entitlement. It's money they have already earned and could of saved/invested themselves and put to better use.

When the government takes your money and invests it for you, that's not capitalism. Perhaps a better example is the wall st. bailout. In that case investment companies lost their money fair and square on the open market. Then they were given taxpayer money to cover their losses. Oh wait, that's communism, not socialism.

Ah, but the government didn't invest anyones money. It merely shifted the money to IOUs and used them to pay unsustainable priorities. It's not capitalism. It's not socialism. It's a ponzi scheme.

Anyways, I agree with you on everything you just said. There's no argument here.

[RodeoX]

Anyways, I agree with you on everything you just said. There's no argument here.

Same here, just playing devils advocate. I don't even mind socialism. 

[AyeYo]

Oh wait, that's communism, not socialism.

It's modern day fascism: make risk public while keeping profits private.


If it was socialist, we'd have public risk and public profit.  The banks would have been bailed out, thus saddling the tax payer with risk, but those banks would then have executive salaries capped, special taxes put in place on them, etc. so that the tax payer benefited from his investment.

If it was communist, the banks would have taken over by the government and made tax payer owned companies.



That's the real hilarity of it all.  The idiotic conservatives will sit and rail against the bailouts as "evil socialism", all while never realizing that it was their retarded ideals that kept the profits private and allowed for massive executive bonuses within crumbling companies.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the big issue with the executive bonuses. If you limited them, they would still benefit through other means such as capital gains. They control the wealth and hence the government. They would still get paid. If you think capping their profits is even relevant from the beginning, you're just driven by envy of the wealthy and not the benefit of society at large. The bonuses are drops in the bucket compared to the detriment these bailouts bring.

In addition, if you think there was any real value that existed within the bonuses, you're wrong. It was just bad money printed and permitted by the government.

Don't let the elite distract you from the issue at hand. They are merely a symptom of the larger a problem: a monopoly on force (government) that is inherently easy to corrupt.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.

But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?

Americans have an interesting dynamic of being anti-authoritarian and highly conformist.  Fashions and values change over over the decades but these two prominent themes of 1) being suspicious of authority and 2) desiring to appear to have the most politically correct (or "enlightened") economic and social values is universal across America across the political spectrum.  Despite any shortcomings of socialism per se, American culture moved way from it's traditional higher social values that you see in more traditional countries (such as in the Middle East or India) to a "everyone out for him or self" mentality that will continue until it collapses from competing economic interests.

I think American culture is actually very community-oriented. The libertarians you see here are highly individualist but, I for one, respect the benefits of close-knit families and communities. It's especially seen in the deep South. Families are always seen helping each other out. What we are against is an extremely high top-down approach from the State and Federal levels. We like to keep things very local which has been proven to be extremely efficient and effective in terms of overhead. We have to remember compassion comes from the individual and not some hivemind.

In Northern states it's a different story. They just imagine the safety nets of society as a magical cloud that exists in Obama's coin purse or something. I don't know. I only see detached compassion in those cultures and they rely on help from unseen forces other than an individual. They see everything as bigger than themselves when they are a essential component as an individual.

To address your last statement, the only "competing economic interests" I am seeing is government-enabled corporatism weeding out small business.

[Hawker]

I don't see the big issue with the executive bonuses. If you limited them, they would still benefit through other means such as capital gains. They control the wealth and hence the government. They would still get paid. If you think capping their profits is even relevant from the beginning, you're just driven by envy of the wealthy and not the benefit of society at large. The bonuses are drops in the bucket compared to the detriment these bailouts bring.

In addition, if you think there was any real value that existed within the bonuses, you're wrong. It was just bad money printed and permitted by the government.

Don't let the elite distract you from the issue at hand. They are merely a symptom of the larger a problem: a monopoly on force (government) that is inherently easy to corrupt.

Really?  You don't think the money was real? 

[Anonymous]

I don't see the big issue with the executive bonuses. If you limited them, they would still benefit through other means such as capital gains. They control the wealth and hence the government. They would still get paid. If you think capping their profits is even relevant from the beginning, you're just driven by envy of the wealthy and not the benefit of society at large. The bonuses are drops in the bucket compared to the detriment these bailouts bring.

In addition, if you think there was any real value that existed within the bonuses, you're wrong. It was just bad money printed and permitted by the government.

Don't let the elite distract you from the issue at hand. They are merely a symptom of the larger a problem: a monopoly on force (government) that is inherently easy to corrupt.

Really?  You don't think the money was real? 

I think it was bad money loaned at absurdly low interest from the Fed. The money will certainly have little value once it leaves their hands.

[Hawker]

I don't see the big issue with the executive bonuses. If you limited them, they would still benefit through other means such as capital gains. They control the wealth and hence the government. They would still get paid. If you think capping their profits is even relevant from the beginning, you're just driven by envy of the wealthy and not the benefit of society at large. The bonuses are drops in the bucket compared to the detriment these bailouts bring.

In addition, if you think there was any real value that existed within the bonuses, you're wrong. It was just bad money printed and permitted by the government.

Don't let the elite distract you from the issue at hand. They are merely a symptom of the larger a problem: a monopoly on force (government) that is inherently easy to corrupt.

Really?  You don't think the money was real? 

I think it was bad money loaned at absurdly low interest from the Fed. The money will certainly have little value once it leaves their hands.

So the houses, cars, jewels, shares and stuff they bought will all have little value.  Great.  I'll be able to pop over to NY, buy a house in the Hamptons and a Porsche cheaply.  Or not???

Do you think about this stuff before you post it?  I mean really, you must be 18 years old by now and thats old enough to know that a dollar is a dollar and there is no special way it can have "little value once it leaves their hands."  Every penny they spent got the same value that every penny you spend gets.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the big issue with the executive bonuses. If you limited them, they would still benefit through other means such as capital gains. They control the wealth and hence the government. They would still get paid. If you think capping their profits is even relevant from the beginning, you're just driven by envy of the wealthy and not the benefit of society at large. The bonuses are drops in the bucket compared to the detriment these bailouts bring.

In addition, if you think there was any real value that existed within the bonuses, you're wrong. It was just bad money printed and permitted by the government.

Don't let the elite distract you from the issue at hand. They are merely a symptom of the larger a problem: a monopoly on force (government) that is inherently easy to corrupt.

Really?  You don't think the money was real? 

I think it was bad money loaned at absurdly low interest from the Fed. The money will certainly have little value once it leaves their hands.

So the houses, cars, jewels, shares and stuff they bought will all have little value.  Great.  I'll be able to pop over to NY, buy a house in the Hamptons and a Porsche cheaply.  Or not???

Do you think about this stuff before you post it?  I mean really, you must be 18 years old by now and thats old enough to know that a dollar is a dollar and there is no special way it can have "little value once it leaves their hands."  Every penny they spent got the same value that every penny you spend gets.

Actually, no, those purchases will be more expensive since the dollar will be worth less. The first people that receive the money receive it before the markets knows it is printed money. Once that money is circulated, it loses value due to the increase in supply.

[Hawker]

They were rich and the bonuses make them richer. 

Sorry but if you think that the Wall Street bankers who got billions in bonuses have received dollars that worthless, you are delusional. 

[Bind]

I work hard to earn my way through life. I prepare for my future and the future of my family, to care for my elders, and I teach my children the exact same ethic I was taught regardless of the education and media systems trying to program them otherwise. It's been a tough fight and getting tougher every day.

Personal responsibility. Just like in any species of life, you die if you do not do your required work to survive. You, and no one else, is responsible for your survival.

Socailism is a bunch of people who would steal the product of my hard work through legislative means rather than work for what they need to survive. It also breeds entitlement. Entitlement to my stuff just because their parents screwed and had an accident they could not raise appropriately in my opinion.

You have no right to anything you do not work for.

What you DO have is the possibility of others pity in charitable contributions. I believe in pity to help the truly needy. Those that have absolutely no ability to care for themselves. These cases are extremely rare.

If I held a gun to your head because I want that watch you worked hard for would be illegal.

Just like holding a gun to my head or threatening prison time to me for not giving you my hard earned product (my taxes spent on you socialists with an entitlement disorder-  without my consent) should be illegal, but like most things the government and elites advocate is not illegal because they voted to make the illegal- legal.

What happens way in the future when there is absolutely no incentive to work and earn your way through life to survive ?

People stop working and relies on the state. They lose all their wealth and personal property because they can not aford to buy or upkeep it through the high taxes stolen from us.

Totalitarian Police State where everyone is forced into an occupation to work for the state and the greater good of humanity, because everyone is reliant upon the state.

Think about it.

[Anonymous]

They were rich and the bonuses make them richer. 

Sorry but if you think that the Wall Street bankers who got billions in bonuses have received dollars that worthless, you are delusional. 

I think we both agree the bonuses made us all poorer but not necessarily because a few rich individuals got richer. The banks only reported "profit" because of poor lending from the central bank. They created bad money to fuel this and the bonuses.

[Ekaros]

If I held a gun to your head because I want that watch you worked hard for would be illegal.

Just like holding a gun to my head or threatening prison time to me for not giving you my hard earned product (my taxes spent on you socialists with an entitlement disorder-  without my consent) should be illegal, but like most things the government and elites advocate is not illegal because they voted to make the illegal- legal.

What happens way in the future when there is absolutely no incentive to work and earn your way through life to survive ?

People stop working and relies on the state. They lose all their wealth and personal property because they can not aford to buy or upkeep it through the high taxes stolen from us.

Totalitarian Police State where everyone is forced into an occupation to work for the state and the greater good of humanity, because everyone is reliant upon the state.

Think about it.

Other option is that someone else holds gun and makes you work for them. Which is better state where you have marginal power to change it or state where you have none.

[Hawker]

They were rich and the bonuses make them richer. 

Sorry but if you think that the Wall Street bankers who got billions in bonuses have received dollars that worthless, you are delusional. 

I think we both agree the bonuses made us all poorer but not necessarily because a few rich individuals got richer. The banks only reported "profit" because of poor lending from the central bank. They created bad money to fuel this and the bonuses.

Actually we are close I firmly believe the bailouts were a "one rule for the rich and another for the rest" manoeuvre.  The rich were paid real money, they were told their banks were too big to fail and as a result they are individually much richer and the banks have actually gotten even bigger so remain too big to fail.

To OP; the reason that Americans fear socialism is that it is a word with no real meaning and is used to scare one another.  A lot of Americans say the bank bailouts were "socialism for the rich" but I doubt that's the socialism that Lenin was thinking of when he stages the Russian Revolution.

hugolp posts an interesting video about this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41919.0

[SgtSpike]

I work hard to earn my way through life. I prepare for my future and the future of my family, to care for my elders, and I teach my children the exact same ethic I was taught regardless of the education and media systems trying to program them otherwise. It's been a tough fight and getting tougher every day.

Personal responsibility. Just like in any species of life, you die if you do not do your required work to survive. You, and no one else, is responsible for your survival.

Socailism is a bunch of people who would steal the product of my hard work through legislative means rather than work for what they need to survive. It also breeds entitlement. Entitlement to my stuff just because their parents screwed and had an accident they could not raise appropriately in my opinion.

You have no right to anything you do not work for.

What you DO have is the possibility of others pity in charitable contributions. I believe in pity to help the truly needy. Those that have absolutely no ability to care for themselves. These cases are extremely rare.

If I held a gun to your head because I want that watch you worked hard for would be illegal.

Just like holding a gun to my head or threatening prison time to me for not giving you my hard earned product (my taxes spent on you socialists with an entitlement disorder-  without my consent) should be illegal, but like most things the government and elites advocate is not illegal because they voted to make the illegal- legal.

What happens way in the future when there is absolutely no incentive to work and earn your way through life to survive ?

People stop working and relies on the state. They lose all their wealth and personal property because they can not aford to buy or upkeep it through the high taxes stolen from us.

Totalitarian Police State where everyone is forced into an occupation to work for the state and the greater good of humanity, because everyone is reliant upon the state.

Think about it.

Well put, I agree.