socialisim in the us

Could socialism work in the u.s.???

i love the idea but it would never work, gov. is too corupt and this would give too much power. hasnt this happend before??? do people not remeber???

 

Are you talking about a more expanded socialist system for America like a larger welfare state? America does have a certain amount government provided services such as public schools,medicare,medicaid,social security all of which can be viewed as socialism but on a smaller,targeted scale. I don't see what socialism America does practice going futher. I don't think America can afford to expand gov't involvement in too many things because of our current deficit problems and changing taxpayer demographics.

washingtonpost.com

Medicare trust fund to be exhausted by 2017, report reveals | Healthcare Finance News

 

i was just curious to what people thought of the u.s. turning to socialism. i mean we have socialized SOME things but we are not socialist. i guess ive always been told that its bad and comunism this and that, but i really dont know too much on the subject of socialism and was hoping to get some diffrent views.

 

Sure it could definately work. It could work just as well, worse, or better than capitalism too.

With all the wealth and excess in the U.S., you think it's right that some people can't get basic medical care? If you answered no, then you've just laid the first foundation for why socialism can work in the U.S.

Actually putting it in place is a whole other story. Getting past the negative campaigning of the capitalist class, properly checking and balancing the gvt. heirarchy, selling "Communism !!!!!" to the public, overshadowing the capitalistic dream of the U.S.. That's nearly impossible.

 

I wonder what percentage of their average incomes Americans paid for medical care back in the 1950's when doctors would make house calls, and what percentage they pay today? When it comes to wanting everyone, and especially poor kids who probably need it most, to get good medical care, I don't think it's possible to be more of a bleeding heart liberal than I am. I just wonder how much bureaucratic intrusion into medicine with Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs has jacked up the cost of medical care, and if there couldn't have been a better way.

Personally, I would favor getting the government entirely out of medicine, not just repealing laws that require a "certificate of need" in order to build or expand a hospital, but all laws regulating doctors, nurses, midwivies, and anyone else who wants to work in medicine, but the chances of this happening are too laughable to even try to explain the logic of it.

So, with new legislation, we are going to get expanded bureaucracy in the medical industry. This may result in healthier children and adults, but I fear that the cost of this, along with the costs of the war machine, public education, and other bureaucratic nightmares, is that the flip side may be that children growing up now will not be able to afford to fly to Jamaica to hear some steel band music, visit a pen-pal in Mongolia, or do a lot of other wonderful things. We'll see.

 

holy shit, i'm nearly 50 and have never been able to afford to fly to jamaica or visit mongolia, and now that i need some doctoring, find that i can't afford that either

how divorced from reality can some people get?

 

I guess you can put a price on your health after all. And that would be < the price of an airline ticket.

.

 

Too many Americans think employing some (or, I should say, more) socialist policies means we'll suddenly have a hammer and sickle slapped over Old Glory. That's bullshit.

Socialism (to some degree) ALREADY works in America. The Postal Service runs just fine and most poor people get their food stamps when they're supposed to.

Blaming the deficit for a reason why "socialism can't work in America" is just the usual bullshit from the establishment. Taxing the wealthy a few extra points and cutting a fraction of defense spending could pay for a fuckload of "socialism".

We could have national healthcare and still have a free market. What we have in our current political landscape is a confusion with socialism and social democracy. Hannity and Co. pretend a single payer system (or even a hybrid system with a public option) would somehow bring on a totally centrally planned command economy and the end of the free market. Which is all bullshit.

It's just rich folks and their cheerleaders making sure we die faster so they can save a few bucks. That's it.

 

I don't think a pure socialism would function in America. Sweden, who has seen a lot of success with a purer form of socialism, also has the benefit of only having 9 million people, and a nearly homogenous ethnic society. It's easier to manage a smaller population and provide services for it.

In the US, we already have a very big socioeconomic gap, which happens to also correlate with ethnic lines. It's people's inability to view others as equals that stops socialism in it's tracks.

There's also the issue of the free-rider problem. No matter what you do, there will always be those people that would rather be lazy and not contribute to society. This has been a major downfall of socialism.

I think the time for pursuing any one governmental system is long past. Our society is far too complex to confine ourselves to a single system and expect it to work. Many of the economic systems and theories fail to take human morals and ethics into account. The temptation of making quick profits from exploiting fellow humans is just too tempting for many of today's capitalists. One must remember that in our capitalism, not everyone can win. In fact, following along Marxist theory, fewer and fewer are winning, while more and more are losing every day. It's this disregard for the lives of others that makes current capitalism a dirty system.

There wouldn't be need for any social programs if people had a better moral compass. Do I really need 30 million dollars? Couldn't I find happiness with 20 million and make sure that 10 million goes to bettering the lives of those less fortunate.

We don't choose the conditions we are born into, and anyone saying a person born into a rich ivy league family has the same opportunity for success as someone born into a poverty stricken family is incredibly naive.

Until people reevaluate their personal ethics towards the treatment of other human beings (a title we all share), no system will function properly and be void of obvious flaws.

 

America, the biggest Capitalist nation on Earth, over 10 trillion $ in debt, borrowing trillions of $ from China, the biggest Communist country on Earth. In economic terms, who is the most successful?

Would this not be the elephant in the room in any discussion of socialist programs?

.

 

Umm.. don't we already have tons of socialism?

 

yes

million dollar bonuses for hedge managers

that's socialism

insurance companies buying votes to kill affordable health care

that's socialism

dangerous conditions and low pay for undocumented workers who cannot get visas

that's socialism



do dictionaries no longer exist? has wikipedia gone under?

 

I went to a public school.

Isn't that socialism?

 

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

apparently this now means that since workers have the ability to destroy themselves financially with shitty bank loans, that they can satisfy the intense need of bank executives to have a multitude of mansions

that's socialism too

does i hav too much sarkazm?

 

no, that's good government

one might argue that the best interests of capitalism are served by an educated workforce

perhaps some might like an ignorant population to do them icky jobs that the mexicans do

hey, kill two birds with one stone!

 

In regards to China, I'm going to quote Bill Gates, "China isn't communism, it's capitalism at a phenomenal rate."

China is communism in the fact it is still a one party state controlled by the Communist party of China, there's still a lot of state oversight, but outside of that China is often pretty capitalistic. China has good economic reason to buy our debt, it devalues the yaun, keeping their products cheaper. In terms of economic, both China and India are still net receivers of foreign aid where hundreds of millions of people outside the coastal areas and big cities live in poverty. Both countries only began to see a massive rise in economic growth after their economies were opened up.

 

Social programs within the context of Capitalism.

.

 

Thank you. This thread has got me reading up on Socialism, maybe I'll come back in a few days =)

 

What China has been doing is absolutely brilliant, and it's obvious they're playing a long-term game for world power. What they've done is figure out a way to use communism and capitalism in a winning combination to make astounding growth in 30 years for one of the world's most populated countries.

By using the basic principles of communism, they are bring development and sustainable agricultural practice to the poverty stricken rural areas. They are also using open economic zones along the coast, as well as Hong Kong as a capitalist doorway, to have success with capitalism as well.

A lot of people would still agree that the quality of life in China is substantially lower than the United States across the board, but when you look at the progress they've made in a mere 30 years for around 1.3 billion people, it really is quite astounding.

Furthermore, China has approved the construction of the world's largest wind and solar farms, showing they are playing a better long term game in energy consumption as well.

Basically, China has been doing what the US should have been doing. Unfortunately, our entire economy (and the inefficiencies that come with it) is tied up in our military industrial complex, meaning we have to be at war to keep our economy from tanking. Blaming our president for still being in two wars is a little ridiculous. Given our fragile economic situation, we would literally collapse if we left those two countries overnight. That's not to say I think we should have been over there in the first place, but when you tie your entire economy around the military, you're going to end up in more wars than you should.

Just take a look at how outdated our domestic infrastructure is. What we should be doing is focusing on development at home (i.e. updating our power grids, becoming a nation independent of oil, funding renewable energy research, exporting that technology to developing countries so they can skip the fossil fuel stage...)

As for universal healthcare... I was always amazed that we, the United States of America, the Hallmark of Democracy and the "developed world," couldn't even provide basic healthcare to all of our citizens, or cheap secondary education. Education and healthcare are the building blocks of sustainable democracy, and we've been dropping the ball on it of late.

 

china, yes, amazing, it's so easy though

when you can shoot and jail dissidents

allow unsafe working conditions that kill workers to an extent that would topple governments in the west

and pollute, pollute, pollute to your heart's content

[we are now mere second-rate destroyers]

not to mention the leveling of historic buildings, the internal "illegal alien" exploitation, the repression of minorities, anon