socialisim in the us

Is it really? Most of them probably don't have the luxuries that we consider necessities, but if you ask them, they may have a different view of their own lives. I'm living a perfectly happy life without most of the things my friends have. I have one friend who doesn't have electricity and he's happy with his situation.

You can't judge the happiness of people in a completely different culture by your own standards. Social scientists have a word for exactly that, ethnocentric.

Very good assessment of China's economic strategy.

.

 

Hmmmm. I used to criticize the local police and Sheriff's department. I found myself in jail on many occasions for things like stealing my own car and carrying a concealed weapon, for which I had a permit. Charges were thrown out of court, but it was a hassle.

How many mine workers have died here from unsafe working conditions?

Isn't the U.S. the biggest polluter?

AHHHH HMMMM


U.S. 310 million, China 1.2 billion....they do everything on a grander scale by the very nature of their size. Besides, they don't claim to be a free and open society. We do, which makes our transgressions much more hypocritical.

.

 

well, in theory, we're not supposed to be doing that crap any more, and, in theory, you can still get in trouble for it

china seems to have used the worst aspects of america as a societal model

and we're finding it all to easy to backslide . . .

oh, that internal "illegal alien" issue is sort of unique i think, like if you were a resident of new hampshire who was unable to move to new york to get a job, maybe the soviets had this too, but i don't know of anything like it here since california blocked the okies

 

I've been doing some research and found out that the US spends something like 14% of our GDP on our exisisting socialized healthcare programs that only cover the very old and the very young portion of our population. France spends something like 9% (I read this a few weeks ago so not sure if those numbers are spot-on, but all this can be found on the world health organization's website) for 100% universal healthcare. France is also ranked number 1 by the WHO for best system of healthcare, and the US is ranked somewhere down in the 30s. Someone mentioned that socialized programs only work in smaller countries, such as sweden, and this could explain why France is able to run their socialized healthcare so much more effeciently than the US, but its still a curious statistic to me.

the US already has a lot of socialized programs, and look at how inefficiently they are all ran. The US Postal service has been the butt of jokes for years for its inefficiency. I hate a number of things about our education system: the fact that education in the south has fallen so far behind the rest of the country, how teachers are trained to be government talk pieces and spout out propoganda (i truly believed that america was the greatest country on earth until i graduated high school-why wouldn't it be true if every teacher i've ever had shoved that idea down my throat?), the way emphasis is on test scores instead of instilling a passion for learning into students. Our teachers are severely underpaid. The list goes on and on...

But socialism does work, for other countries. It has the potential to work in this country as well, but I think we are so far from the point where it would work that it won't happen.

 

Meliai, You hit the nail on the head. The social safety net that France has is great, but until we get more efficient, we'd go bankrupt trying to do what they find quite affordable.

And Wa bluska has it right, China is no role model for a reformed US. As bad as we are environmentally and with repression, they are far worse.

Northern European models provide some inspiration, but even France, Germany and Sweden have some people in central control who love power waaaaaaay too much.
Without relaxing civil rights or environmental controls, we still need as much local autonomy as possible because no one loves a community as much as the citizens of that community.

 

It sucks, but America really is just too big and inefficient to move towards a purer socialism. France is the size of one of our states. The entire European infrastructure is tightly condensed and easier to manage, thereby increasing efficiencies.

As GardenGuy mentioned too, gaining power tends to corrupt people. I've always claimed that all government/economic systems are undermined by human corruptibility and poor morals. Until you get people to actually get some ethics and a moral compass, every system will be undermined by those in power.

 

Agreed,ER. 20 years ago,the US graduated more students from colleges and Universities than any other country. Now we're 12th on the list. Coincidence? I think not. To reiterate--"an ignorant populace is a compliant populace". Socialize education and let people matriculate to their highest level ,lest we become a third rate country. We're on the way there now. Aren't we smart enough to figure out how to have universal health care? It's a matter of scale and also a matter of ending war profits and giving money to the likes of Columbia,Israel,ect,ect.

 

I dont think many people in this country would disagree with the fact that our gov't needs very radical change...and not that this will ever happen, because it takes money to spread ideas and that I lack, and also because americans are very compliant, as someone stated above, but I outlined a plan a couple of years ago that basically involves a restructuring of the gov't so that the north, the south, the midwest, and southwest, and the northwest split apart into five seperate provinces, with a head of state for each province that work together only on issues such as foreign defense..basically a restructuring of states rights, since THAT obviously doesn't work very well anymore. its really irrelevent for me to even mention this, except that I think only in that situation, where our federal government was stripped a little of its power and the power redistributed to various parts of the country that believe in different ideologies, could socialization of various programs work efficiently. As long as our federal gov't possesses the ridiculous amount of power that it does, i dont think our country will get any better..whether we're capitalist or socialist or a mix of both, broad federal government power in a country the size of the united states really does not work...look at Russia. Huge country, at various points in history Huge government, and it failed every time.

 

Look at China, bigger country, hasn't failed, in fact doing quite well. Look at Alabama, small, conservative values and conservative government, power concentrated in local areas, abject failure.

.

 

socialism is alive and well in america. its called corporate welfare.

 

What's the big secret about your citizenship, are you a member of Al Qaeda or the Talaban?

Criticism behind the veil of secrecy is dishonest and disingenuous.

Are you ashamed of your own country?

.

 

Socialism is not really a political structure so much as a political philosophy. There cannot ever be a pure socialistic state just as there can't be a pure capitalist state. There are many aspects of American life that are undeniably socialist.

Obama is NOT one of them - he is a centrist/corporatist.

 

You do have a point with alabama, but you also have to take history into account when judging southern states....the south was completely stripped of all its wealth following the post-civil war reconstruction...the textile industry brought some of that wealth back, but when more modern industry brought the fall of the textile industry, many southern states found themselves very poor and are still struggling to bring industry that will create wealth...this is my theory, at least..there are probably many other factors that play into this that i havent even considered.

China is interesting to me. They've developed a unique blend of communism and capitalism that has certainly helped their economy, and they are certainly emerging as both a military and economic superpower. However, at what cost to their citizens? What is the gap between the rich and the poor in China? What about human rights violations? How much of their wealth is tied up in the centralized government and how much of it trickles down to the middle and lower classes? I dont know the answers to these questions, I just think those are factors that should be taken into account when considering the success of a nation...I will have to do some research on China.

 

thank you! I know so many people that seem to think Obama's ideology falls somewhere to the left of Marx....politicalcompass.org actually puts him just the tiniest bit to the left of Bush. just another example of how our political leaders use the smallest wedge issues to divide the nation. Most politicians believe the exact same thing, they just dress it up differently to appeal to different voters.

 

I think survival, acceptance by the majority and the ability to provide for it's citizens would be considered success for a nation. Communist China is 61 years old and still growing. Also, the one quality that I think is important for a nation's continued survival is adaptability, which China seems to be learning quite well, and an ability that seems to have been lost in America.

I don't know the answers to the questions you pose either, but I suspect that much more of the wealth "trickles down" in China than it does in the U.S.

Another factor that should be considered, if possible to gauge, is citizen's satisfaction with their lives. The idea that people can only be happy in an American style democracy is ridiculous. Even many people who disagree with their form of government do so for ideological reasons and otherwise live very happy lives personally.

All of the Southern states aren't poor, but if you look at the poorest I think you'll find they tend to be more conservative.

.

 

It would be hard to make the case that the majority of Chinese accept the way they are governed in the fullest sense of the word. Maybe reluctance acquiescence would describe it better. Yes, if you listen to the carefully selected Chinese millionaire tycoons in the eastern cities you might gather that they are happier than they were a decade ago.

The track record for the Chinese distribution of wealth is spotty, very uneven. The poorest Chinese in the remote hinterlands seldom seen by Western tourists are poorer than the poorest of America's poor, but I wouldn't want to be a Chinese rice paddy peasant or a Mississippi Delta peasant. It would be hard to say which of the two has greater prospects upward mobility. For both it would seem that the only hope is to leave the blighted area and help swell the ranks of the already overcrowded cities.

Why don't you ask Chinese Tibetans or Chinese Uigars what they think of the tyranny of the majority they must endure? What about Falung Gong adherants and Christians? I guess you can't ask the ones who are in prison or dead.

Is it American style democracy you object to or do you object to the idea that any people can express their views in print and in the ballot box?

 

i can only speak for myself, but, what i object to is the idea "that any people can express their views in print and in the ballot box" . . .

. . . and be completely ignored by the government

as far as the original comment goes, do you seriously believe that people were unhappy throughout history, until that glorious day in 1776?

 

No, one of the biggest things I learned from walking the Freedom Trail in Boston was that the colonists had rights as free Englishmen, but the revolution was born when King George took those rights away. We had a severe sense of loss and outrage. Often times, when you never had freedom, you don't fully appreciate what you missed. But you can find examples in history when people could see beyond their chains to a better life. (Underground railroad).

 

imho freedom does not mean a goddamn thing if one is homeless, sick, hungry

and speaking of "the colonists" as if they all thought the same way is misleading

some 15-20% of the colonists were outright loyalists, i'm sure there were plenty of fence-sitters as well

and i wonder what slaves thought about the fight for "rights" and "freedom"?

 

And since we cannot go there and take a nationwide poll, neither of us can prove our point. I'm just suggesting that if 1.2 billion Chinese don't want to be "ruled" it might not be possible to do so. The Japanese, for example, are perfectly willing to give up some freedoms in return for some security and comfort. Many years ago they voted to make it illegal to sell chewing gum rather than step on it everywhere they went.

I hope you aren't suggesting that ours is.

It has been my experience that the poorest of the poor can also be the happiest. After all, they seldom experience loss.

Most don't because they would be leaving behind family and friends, and they would need to acquire an entirely new set of social skills in order to succeed.

As you say, that's not possible, but you can ask the Blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Muslims, atheists and other minorities here who have been the victims of "tyranny of the majority."

I didn't say I object to "American style democracy." I said it is not the only form of government under which people can be happy.

.