Defending the Truth

A good chunk of socialists are pretty undemocratic (basically all of the revolutionary, vanguard party ones... So that's the Trotskyists, related groups, Marxist-Leninists/Maoists and related groups... The largest socialist party in America is the latter).

I agree with Milton Freidman's premise that economic freedom and social freedom are linked. America never developed a strong socialist party because America has a strong individualist tradition. In post-Barry Goldwater conservative revolution America, I really don't think that one could happen, and that's a good thing. Socialism slows economic growth. There's a reason that the United States' economy is better than most European countries. Of course, this factor is only one of many, but it is still a factor.

More tolerance for socialists is not a positive thing. Granted, I don't think we should pull a McCarthy, but the last thing that should be considered American is socialism as an acceptable route.

Freedom is dangerous and unstable. That's part of the appeal. It also allows for greather growth and individualism.

I think what socialism offers is pretty simple: Free stuff from the government. The phrase that is used for the European form (I'm assuming based on your past posts that's the one you like, and not a more revolutionary brand) is "cradle to the grave."

Well see, I'm actually glad you brought up these points because it shows exactly why we need a greater tolerance of socialism in the United States. That is, socialism is way too often confused with communism in this country.

Many socialists are democratic (especially the democratic socialists [duh]). Trotsky, Marx, Lenin, and Mao were all communist, and the difference between their individual ideologies was varying beliefs of social control (obviously Mao was completely totalitarian while Marx was radically democratic). But they were all much radically different than socialists. Socialism is a mixed economy, and communism is a purely planned economy (or shared I should say). Socialists dislike communism just as much, and in most cases, more than capitalism.

I agree that the current political landscape of the United States (just after Goldwater conservatism) doesn't leave very much room for socialist ideas. However, the American political landscape has changed dramatically on a number of different issues in its history and I don't see why socialism should be left out as a possibility for tolerance in the future; esspecially considering the country has been on a progressive path ever since its conception: gradually but surely moving to the left.

I also agree that individualism is an American tradition. And including in that sense of individualism is a sense of independent financial responsibility. That is, Americans believe in equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes. And even as someone who considers himself to have many socialist beliefs, I believe in the same thing. Its just that I think socialist ideas can help each American truely get equal opportunity. Socialism helps give people born into truely inconducive and counterproductive environments or situations a little help so that they actually have equal opportunity just as other Americans get. Obviously even after the days of civil rights and segregation, we still have vastly unequal public education. So in other words, socialists think they have the answer for true equal opportunity. So actually, some socialist ideas can actually be a very American thing, and I don't see why it should be left out for tolerance.

But obviously, I think we need a lot of work before we get to a more socialistic point. I think the first thing we need to do is provide equal education opportunities so that people in poor neighborhoods are much better educated and equiped for success, and subsequently much less likely to abuse the system. Likewise we need to come up with a better way of deciding who abuses and who uses the systems.

Communism is what preaches equal outcomes. Communists want to eliminate completely private property and classes. That is definitly something socialists disagree with.

Although you bring up an interesting point with economic productivity, I still think socialism needs to stand the test of time. But obviously Scandinavian countries aren't doing worse because of their economic system, but because they are significantly smaller, and power isn't centralized in their hands. But if you think of their population and their size in relation to their standard of living, their's is considerably higher than ours.

But you shouldn't view national success by GDP in the first place. You should view national success by the standard of living and overall quality of life. This is why studies place the United States only in the teens in "top countries to live in" (BBC). Because wealth and power does not always connotate quality of life.

As a great man once put it before:

“The gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them. The gross national product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles with nuclear warheads....

“And if the gross national product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials....

“The gross national product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile; and it can tell us everything about America -- except why we are proud to be Americans."
-Robert F. Kennedy

I don't have to live under socialism to know it is harmful. You don't need to have cancer to know you don't want it. You know it kills because you see the results in society. Communism was thought to be a good idea and we know it isn't. Guaranteeing people a wage is socialism. Everyone is different and with different habits and work ethics. Paying everyone the same is not fair. If I work harder than the other guy and we are doing the exact same job but I do it better and produce more, I should get paid more. That is only fair to me and to him. Socialism is not fair.

I have lived under a social democracy in Sweden and I can tell you from first hand experience that it is not a failed system whatsoever. It is an incredibly stable system that takes care of its citizens by addressing the weaknesses and pitfalls of life.
<O
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comSweden </st1:country-region>has been very successful during the past 75 years under social democratic rule. They have enjoyed cradle to grave security that offer many advantages over the American way of life. They enjoy most of our freedoms and luxuries yet, because they work with a collective purse, they can take action that results in longer vacations, have shorter work weeks, 100% literacy, and a higher life expectancy.<O</O

Like Hev i too have lived in a socialist democracy and as far as economic indicators go, they are kickin ass on the rest of the world.

Denmark for instance has no natural resources to speak of. However there is greater groth, no foreign debt and indeed a budget surplus every year. ANd this is INCLUDING all the free healthcare ( of the highest standard in the world) free education ( inclusive of subsidies for adult students so they won't have to work full time while studying ), free social security.

Granted we pay 50% tax.. but the way i look at it.. If i have to pay half of what i earn so that me, my family and every other citizen of my country can have their basic human rights covered, i think it is a fair price to pay.

With the 50 % that is left i can still buy a nice car, live in a nice house and take my family for a vacation every year.

If people crib that they want 100% of what they earn and to hell with everybody else.. well i just think that's greed.

I believe that giving half of what you earn to a government that takes care of everybody.. that is not too much.. it's fair.. THose of you who are sceptical should live in one of these places.. It really is worth it.

He won't win. And Socialism is a huge freakin failure and a terrible idea.

However, I do think it would be nice to see another party represented. The two sides of the one party we have now (the Republicrats) are both equally shitty.

You can either be a non-thinking religious zealot...

or You can be a non-thinking anti-religious zealot...

What a choice...

A blip on the radar screen - kind of like Governor Jesse Ventura in Minnesota.

Ventura made such a completely incompetent ass of himself that Minnesota will NEVER again elect another 3rd Party Candidate to ANYthing.

Actually socialism is really only just appearing and has yet to stand the test of time. But what democratic socialist countries that do exist are showing that they can create a system that is much more stable economically along with a greater "quality of life" than our system. I'm not saying we should be purely socialist, which wouldn't work just as pure of anything wouldn't work. I'm just happy for this growth in support for a socialist because we need more independents in our politics, and because there are some things that socialism really can offer us. (Apparently you haven't read my larger post, or the posts of Hev and hkbajwa).

I don't think anyone in Washinton are anti-religious. The vast majority if not all are protestant. But even many atheists wouldn't describe themselves as anti-religious (like me, for the most part). Just somone that doesn't subsribe to the different religions' ideologies.

But I definetely agree that we need more mainstream parties. Esspecially considering the Democrats and Republicans are almost one party anymore (their debates are down to almost irrelevent frivolous partisan bickering). We're trying to spread democracy around the world when we're losing it at home. Quite unfortunate.

Why did they vote for a right candidate then? I'll tell you why. Because they are being taxed to death and they are sick and tired of working and paying to take care of those who earn less. Of course you love socialism and having a nanny from the cradle to the grave. You don't have the means and the initiative to take care of yourself on your own.