What's with the constant complaints and accusations of "socialism" here?

Question

The United States is not now, nor is it likely to be, socialist any time in the foreseeable future.

The Democratic Party is frequently accused of pursuing a "socialist agenda" but this just isn't so. They aren't a Socialist Party. Certainly not like the actual Socialist Parties of Western Europe.

Several times I've seen the assertions that "socialism doesn't work" and "every place it's been tried, it failed". Well, these same Western European countries that have been ruled by Socialist Parties would disagree with these assertions.

So would any objective analyst.

Can it be that some people use the word "socialist" as a catchall term meaning "anything I don't like" --?

Answer 1

Those people believe anything less than laisez faire capitalism or jungle capitalism is socialism.I disagree.When child labor or slavery were abolished the same arguments were made.The economy would not be able to take it and so on.
They choose social Darwinism.Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.


Social Darwinism's philosophical problems are rather daunting, and fatal to it as a basic theory (though some have applied similar ideas). First, it makes the faulty assumption that what is natural is equivalent to what is morally correct. In other words, it falls prey to the belief that just because something takes place in nature, it must be a moral paradigm for humans to follow.

This problem in Social Darwinist thinking stems from the fact that the theory falls into the "naturalistic fallacy", which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement. For example, the fact that you stubbed your toe this morning does not logically imply that you ought to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists' attempt to extend natural processes into human social structures. This is a common problem in philosophy, and it is commonly stated that it is absolutely impossible to derive ought from is (though this is still sometimes disputed); at the very least, it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as the Social Darwinists did

Answer 2

I think it all comes down to a strong dependence on God, and therefore, a feeling of irresponsibility for your actions. I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but blaming YOUR drug and sexual addiction on some sort of mindset already borned into you is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No, you can't be perfect, you may lie, or steal something, or even commit "adultery of the eyes" or whatever that's called, but engaging in intercourse with a prostitute and accepting illicit drugs is taking it a little too far. It's NOT that hard to follow the laws of the Bible and the laws of the land, they are almost one in the same, but, honestly, CHILDREN know right from wrong, why should he be let off because of his belief in God and the fact that he's a "natural born sinner." As far as I'm concerned, morality and law are completely secular.

Answer 3

The constant complaints and accusations against "socialism" here is merely the manifestation of and attestation to the monumental ignorance and hypocricy of some ,many Americans that post here and like all ignorant people, they just love to shoot their mouths off spewing their crap.

Down through history the US has become notorious for it's demonization and vilification of others of other ideological persuasions including political ones.

Once the Cold War began,the US started it's vile slanering/libelous ignorant demonization/vilification of socialism equating it completely to communism.

Socialism ,originally called Utopianism was a movement founded in the early 1800s BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS as a defence against the horrors on humans of the industrial revolution.

It primarily is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM and NOT A POLITICAL SYSTEM.

It was only years later that Marx incorporated the economical system called socialism into his overall political system called communism.

In western Europe and in many other countries around the world ,democratic socialists are in power and have been for a long time .

The monumental "as usual" ignorance of the general US public about anything outside their borders has seen these liars vilify an ideology that is loved by hundreds of millions of citizens in DEMOCRATIC NATIONS around the world.

As usual of course the monumental HYPOCRICY of America and Americans is once again revealed on this issue since the US has a number of MASSIVE and dearly LOVED socialistic programs including SOCIAL SECURITY ,MEDICARE ETC ETC ETC .

Answer 4

I love the answers of "I can provide everything for myself", oh really? Did you build a power station to send electricity into your homes? Did you lay water pipes from a clean water source to your home? How did you manage to afford to buy the land and build the road that leads from your house to your work or places of leisure? I didn't realize some of you were chemists who could provide your own drug testing and food sanitation.

They use the term socialist to create a scare like McCarthy did with the term "Commie". Even Rush complains about Liberals craving nuance, see details muddle up the heads of those that don't believe in a community. The commons, such as clean air and clean water don't apply to them because they have never read anything about how life was before measures were taken to clean up these resources. See in the preamble to the Constitution it talks of the General Defense and the Public welfare. And the waiting lists so many like to talk about regarding other socialized medicine countries, those waiting lists are usually for "elective" procedures.

My only true complaint about text book Socialism is that you can't own private property. Democratic Socialism I have very little beef with. Provide a floor so people can have dignity when they are down on their luck, prosecute those that abuse the system.

Answer 5

What's in a name? Just because the democrats aren't a hardcore socialist party does not mean that many of the policies they support are not socialist in nature. ANY policy that takes money or property from one individual by force and gives it to another individual based on some perceived element of "need" is socialist. Therefore food stamps are socialist. Subsidized housing is socialist. Medicaire is socialist. Medicaid is socialist. Corporate welfare is socialist. Universal healthcare (another name for socialized medicine) is REALLY socialist! "Progressive" tax rates are socialist. Do I need to go on? America is not a pure capitalist country, there is no such thing as economic purity. We are a mainly capitalist country with elements of facism and socialism. Many people, including myself, see the democratic party as pushing policies that increase the ratio of socialist policies in America. And those are not always bad IN PRACTICE, but many feel that they would be more efficient and effective if they were less socialist. Some of us also feel that socialist policies are morally and ethically bankrupt. As such we can argue against them from a moral, ethical, or practical stance. And when you say "any objective analyst would disagree with these assertions" then you have just defined objective as meaning "agreeing with me". That is not objective, it is assuming what you wish to prove, which is logically invalid. Take a look at some of my sources, they show objective comparisons between the European economic model and the American. Some people on here do misuse the term socialist. Many also misuse the term facist. But many of the current hot button topics in politics are a question of how socialist we want our country to be, and hence "the constant complaints and accusations". Some do use it as a catchall phrase, but most use it when discussing socialist policies.

Answer 6

Yes the term 'socialist' is the new 'liberal'. It's basically a catch-all phrase for conservatives meaning 'damn dirty Democrat'. You make a good point that they ignore the successes of socialist states such as Sweden.

For anyone to claim that Hillary is a Socialist is pure ignorance of what the term means. She's not even a particularly liberal Democrat, let alone a Socialist. The use of the term is just more empty rhetoric from the right.

Answer 7

People use the word too loosely when they have no idea what the term really means. And for those who say it did not work in other countries, I would bet my salary that they have never been nor lived in those other countries.
Besides, most are just repeating, like parrots, what they hear rather than taking the time to educate themselves before making commentary..scary, really.

edit: as for universal health care, it works... the nay-sayers are those who have no clue, again, and have never been in a country with this system. I have. People in those countries do not go bankrupt because they cannot afford medical care...it is inhumane what is happening here.

Answer 8

I agree with your commentary. I don't understand how Socialist can be used in tandem with Democrat. However, we are now in a Fascist regime, I grew up under one, in the US we are living in one now.

Answer 9

So when Hillary wants medical coverage run by the government and wants government to control the raising of children, what would you call that? For any thinking person that indeed is like socialism. For some reason only Liberals can call names but somehow everything for them only works one way. They can call Bush every nasty name they want but how dare anyone call the Clintons liars just because they will say anything to get elected and screw the average american?

Answer 10

Actually, you are wrong when you say that Western European countries would disagree.

Much of Europe is attempting to pass reforms and slide back towards the right, as they have learned the hard way how crippling and burdensome an entitlement / welfare state can be on an economy. However, they are learning that a populace that has been fed from the government teat will not give it up quietly.

But go ahead and live with your head in the clouds. We don't live in a world of scarce resources, so there is no reason to prevent the government from inefficiently allocating and redistributing them, right???

Edit: Oooooh.. Thumbs down. "How dare he counter my liberal dreams of 'entitlements for everyone' with a dose of reality. Boo hoo hoo!"