Socialism. Is this merely right wing 'fear mongering'?

Question

Or is it for real?

Unlike many, I pay little attention to Fox News, to talk radio, and don't hang around on right wing web sites. I think for myself.

I keep reading that when we conservatives use the word socialism, it's 'fear mongering. Am I missing something? I spend a lot of time on this forum and continually read about the need for larger government, more government control, spreading the wealth, more 'social' programs, etc. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that we eat the wrong foods and need government control over that. Others have suggested banning cigarette smoking, many have suggested banning weapons. This all comes from the left wingers.

How is this NOT socialism? How is calling it what is truly is being construed as 'fear mongering'?

I'd appreciate some honest responses and no repetitious Bush bashing. I'm not a Bush person in many ways because he's far from being conservative. So kindly don't waste my time. Thanks.

I REALLY appreciate all of these responses and feel that we're getting somewhere as far as actual debate goes and not continual bashing (yes, I'm guilty too). Please keep them coming.

Answer 1

No, the threat of our country sliding downhill into the morass of Socialism is very real. Billionaire George Soros is pushing for it. Hillary Clinton certainly is. The threat is coming from very well-financed, well positioned people, and the danger is quite real.

Why are we allowing a great system of government to degenerate into the Socialist nanny state? So many Democrats, principally the self-professed ultra liberal ones, don't even understand the definition of the terms they are dealing with. For example, if someone is touting a new government program, all they have to do to lure the clueless, hapless Liberal is to present the idea as being the fulfillment of social justice, that it is a program of generosity. Libs eat this stuff up, but they don't realize what is being put before them is pure Socialism.

Soviet dictator Khrushchev once observed: "We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

Answer 2

Well--you asked for an honest answer--so here's mine (and I am a historian/sociologist). Its a 2-part answer--so bear with me.

This first part is politically charged--but I can't help that. So--the right wing does use the idea of socialism as a "fear-mongering" tactic--but, although some of the things they attack are technically socialist, their use of the word is so distorted, it's fair to say most of them don't even know the meaning of the word.

Part 2. Yes--you see a lot of advocacy of social programs, etc. (including by me, and believe me, I am NOT a socialist). But--first, socialism is defined as state control/ownership of the means of production and distribution. As such it is, strictly speaking, an economic system--though it inevitably has a political dimension because the state is involved by definition. And-jsut as an aside--socialism and communism are two entirely different systems that bear only a superficial resemblence to each other.

Socialism does NOT imply dictatorship (though some socialist systems are/have been just that)--look at Sweden, or, to a slightly lesser degree, France. Both societies with high degrees of individual freeedom and strong protection of civil liberties and civil rights.

And--her is the main point--it is simply not possible to have a modern industrial society without elements of socialism. That's not a political position--its a simple fact. Here's three points to illustrate why:
>no one has every figured out how to connect the market to demand effective for the purpose of building/maintaining the kind of road system an industrial economy reqires--and if you read the history, it's sure not because people didn't try-from about 1800 until well into the 20th century. But-in the end, it became a government enterprise simply because private industry found no other way to get the job done. but our road system--at all levels--is socialist, plain and simple.
>in EVERY society, you have a portion of the population that is "down on their luck" and that private charity does/will not help. There are NO exceptions to this in history. And--the price of the government not steppping in with relief is simple--political unrest, instability--and eventual social change--by reform or revolution. The reasons for this are complex--and beyond the scope of this answer. But the bottom line is that a government eithr address this (which involves socialistic programs) or it will fall-sooner or later.
>Modern technology and science are critical to the maintainence of a healthy economy-but--much of the research that MUST be done to do this is simply beyond the scope of private organizations--none--not even a firm like Exxon-has that kind of funds available. So--the government either sponsers much of the research--or the country falls behind the rest of the world--technologicaly, economically--and militarily.

The key to a modern nation-state is to try to find the "optimum mix" of capitalism and socialism. Being an American, I prefer a minimum f socialist instittions, despite the fact I tend to be what the right considers liberal. But--if you look at countries with various approaches, like Sweden, the US, Canada, Japan-- you have to conclude there's no absolute "best" answer.

Answer 3

I'm currently reading a book called, 'The Growth of American Government', by Ballard Campbell. It's a non-partisan view on the shifting change in government and it's growth.

As moderate libertarian conservative, I do favor a small government, but I'm more or less a federalist. I really wish localities and states involve themselves into these sort of activities, and that the federal government not centralize political theory (unless it's functions are mandatory).

For the most part, that's what the book starts off with. There was rather progressive thoughts in mid-america, and I will say that some of them were based off valid concerns e.g stock manipulation, enviromental protection, food standards, etc. I would say those debates and many more are often needed.

Socialism in theory is very messy, and when you apply a theory upon all people...you set us up for some rather messy situations. Medicare is a good example. Insteady of applying a rather loose form of protection upon the older and poorer individuals, the government contented to protected everyone.

But do we all need that protection? And can the government provide for that protection?

I'd say...no. Medicare's solvency will dissolve in 2026, and it will start to bite out of federal expenditures as early as 2012.

Progressive-minded individuals aren't evil in my perspective, but I favor more applications of change at the local level and not the federal (for dilligent experimentation). Applications should target those in dire need, not those whom make/made a middle class living or more. This would alleviate a heavy burden on us fiscally.

Our generation is the generation which will see socialism lay back or go forward. I'm not being a fear mongerer, I'm just being truthful. I don't see socialism having a mathematical chance, because of it's lack of adaptation and capital efficiency. I've been thinking out our medical care system and long-term healthcare of our older population, and it would be much better off with a freer system....

I see the future being a middle ground where the government will function to help the very poor, but stand back a bit for those whom can handle their own. I wouldn't be against that. Just no universal healthcare, medicare, or SS. The rest of the functions can be debated and worked through, but those are very dangerous over the long-run.

Answer 4

There are lots of ways to dismiss an argument without addressing it. Acusations of racism, fear-mongering, hate, anti-semitism, and so forth attack the speaker, not the argument. And, yes, dismissing an argument by labeling it propaganda or socialism or conspiracy theory or whatever is not a complete critique...

However, some arguments frankly don't merit a complete critique. When someone re-hashes a failed argument, simply calling it what it is might be all you have the energy to do.

Answer 5

In order to have diversity and for everyone to be considered equal despite their inborn shortcomings God has to be removed from our society and Constitution. This is the agenda of the evil liberals. If we don't stop them, the beautiful, descent, white, prosperous USA which has given us such a privledged and comfortable lifestyle is not going to be here for the younger generation who have no gratitude for thier money anyway. We have lived the last of the American Dream unless God's Grace saves our world.

Answer 6

I really think both sides are wrong. This country is headed for some really scary times. I have a feeling it doesn't matter what side you are on or who you vote for. I also don't think socialism is what we should be afraid of. A much larger program is in works here. Maybe if we all could just get along long enough to see the big picture, we could save this country. God Bless

Answer 7

If someone proposes a program, and opponents gives reasons why the program is a bad idea or wouldn't work, that's reasonable discourse.

If someone proposes a program, and opponents say "that's socialism!", that's playing on prejudices by using buzzwords. Whether that program meets a definition of "socialism" or is something that some socialist country once did is irrelevent to whether it's a good program or the best solution or the right thing to do.

By the same token, repudiating an idea or program merely by labelling it "communism", "authoritarianism", "fascism", "neo-conservative" is simply fear-mongering.

Answer 8

There have been a lot of very well thought out and interesting posts in reply to this question. I wont debate the merits of each individually, some I agree with and some I dont.

In direct answer to the question, all I really have to say is that outside of this board, the term "socialist" is never bandied about nor used as a derogatory term in relation to republican versus democratic debate over the direction of the country.

Im truly not seeing where the fear is coming from in people who are using this term now almost interchangeable with "nazi" or any other negative term you can think of.
Our country is far, very far indeed from true capitalism. Socialist policies imbue every aspect of our lives. The life that you have led to date that leads you to this point in time where you ask just this question has had major socialist influence.
I agree, I do not want to be protected by the government, and thats exactly what you will get with a Clinton administration. You see, that wing of the democratic party lives and thrives on being able to stand up and say on election day how many "children they saved" or how may "lives we have altered" but that is not the sum total of the democratic party.

As I watch the debates, I see far more "diversity" (haha! no, for real!) amongst the democratic candidates than I do amongst the republicans (all of whom save Giuliani want to "out-evangelical" themselves). I dislike attempts to paint with a broad brush, any generalized supposition of the intent of those who are willing to label themselves "democrats" or "progressive". Particularly in this day in age.

To leave, there have been many posts asking, what does GWB need to do to change your liberal minds? Well, I had that moment today when I watched him tour the bridge site in Minnesota. If only he had showed this sort of leadership and caring throughout his term, he could have been a truly great leader. I was proud of him today in swearing to help that city and proud to be an American. If only it wasnt the first time in years and years.

Thanks for the post.

Answer 9

it is real
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 28, 2004, in San Francisco at a Democrat Party fundraiser)

"I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence." (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - February 2, 2007, at DNC Winter Meeting - regarding profits earned by oil companies, which are not [yet] owned by the government)

"As president I know I can't kill, jail or occupy every nation we don't agree with and I cannot just wish that all the terrorists be wiped off the face of the Earth" (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - February 10, 2007, at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire)

"We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now" — (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — March 24, 2007, at a health care forum in Las Vegas)

Answer 10

Larger Gov't will have devestating effects in a country such as ours. We were founded on the freedom to be able to do pretty much whatever you want. It was the gov't's job to stay out of the people's affairs. Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." The larger the gov't becomes, the more we are let down. We don't want to rely on the gov't to run the whole economic system, they can't even handle our taxes or health care! I don't think there's anything "fear mongering" about it. I think people are just concerned about losing possible freedoms. That seems to be pretty important issue these days.