Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why is socialism such a dirty word in the US?

But the depression etc happened in Canada too, and they alos share similiat backgounds in terms of emigration and pineer myths. And i meant populist ground up rejection of the new deal, not that of top down elites.

On immigration, yes that's one of the standard arguments and i have some sympathy for it - but the socialism of the union movements in the 19th century wasn't one limited to immigrant populations.
To my knowledge Canada wasn't founded to further an ideology. (Nor was all America, Virginia was always a commercial enterprise, but many colonies were founded for religious reasons.) Nor does Canada have a Constitution like America's.

Was the New Deal rejected from the ground up? My understanding is that support came and went throughout the Thirties, until the WWII boom overtook it. Perhaps once their wallets were full again, moves like Roosevelt's creepy Judiciary Reorganization Bill, 1937, (attempted packing of the bench to futher his aims) reawakened Americans' fears of big government. The 22nd Amendment could be part of this trend.

As for immigration, I doubt it would be the sole factor.
 
However, Azrael is right to say that part of the fear of Socialism in the US is fear of a large government. .

I must admit that part of the reasoning for my journey away from socialism into left / libertarianism is the fear of large govt. Having seen how New Labour has swept dearly bought freedoms away makes me shudder and worry that maybe my previous identification as a socialist was a mistake. Was I promoting oppression under the guise of being a progressive.

I can see very much where the fear of large govt would equate to a fear of socialism. Add in the spectacularily unsuccessful record of socialist govts and you have a movement that it is very easy to discredit.
 
Post corrected. :D

Hey if I was a right wing libertarian I wouldn't be calling for the NHS to be returned to its founding principles would I?

If I was a right wing libertarian I'd be calling for the end of the NHS and for people to sink or swim by their own efforts.
 
Was I promoting oppression under the guise of being a progressive.
My thoughts exactly.

Perhaps there is a model of socialism that is both practical and inherently libertarian, but the centralised model we've implemented most certainly isn't it. We're in no position to evangalise to the USA: the moment we big up our NHS, Americans can respond, "Yeah, and look at the panopticon state that came with it," and it's damn hard to think of a reply.
 
I must admit that part of the reasoning for my journey away from socialism into left / libertarianism is the fear of large govt. Having seen how New Labour has swept dearly bought freedoms away makes me shudder and worry that maybe my previous identification as a socialist was a mistake. Was I promoting oppression under the guise of being a progressive.

I can see very much where the fear of large govt would equate to a fear of socialism. Add in the spectacularily unsuccessful record of socialist govts and you have a movement that it is very easy to discredit.

What do you mean by 'large government' and is there really anything to suggest there is no such thing in America?
 
My thoughts exactly.

Perhaps there is a model of socialism that is both practical and inherently libertarian, but the centralised model we've implemented most certainly isn't it. We're in no position to evangalise to the USA: the moment we big up our NHS, Americans can respond, "Yeah, and look at the panopticon state that came with it," and it's damn hard to think of a reply.
The reply is easy - efficiency. The US system is hugely inefficient. Enormous sums of money are wasted in adminsitering the various insurance schemes.
 
To my knowledge Canada wasn't founded to further an ideology. (Nor was all America, Virginia was always a commercial enterprise, but many colonies were founded for religious reasons.) Nor does Canada have a Constitution like America's.

Was the New Deal rejected from the ground up? My understanding is that support came and went throughout the Thirties, until the WWII boom overtook it. Perhaps once their wallets were full again, moves like Roosevelt's creepy Judiciary Reorganization Bill, 1937, (attempted packing of the bench to futher his aims) reawakened Americans' fears of big government. The 22nd Amendment could be part of this trend.

As for immigration, I doubt it would be the sole factor.

You're taking the later myth as the reality, i'm asking why/how that myth later developed. It didn't just grow like a plant.

I'm not suggesting the new deal was rejected from the ground up - i'm not suggesting that it was rejectd at all. I'm suggesting there was elite opposition but what was notable by its absence was the sort of popular wholesale rejection of big government and state inteference frpm the ground up that you've suggested is the central animating factor of popular politics (or at least the key reason why socialism is not popular). Why its absence here? If it's becasue times were hard then you're removing the idea that americans are by definition against big government full stop.

And, more to the point, the politically motivated characterisation of socialism as simply equaling big government and state interference only really developed post-WW2 when it became a tool in the cold war (pseudo) battle with the USSR - a good decade after the new deal. Before that point, US socialism was almost uniquely characterised by its rejection of the state and it's embrace of the libertarian, decentralised form of socialism - in popular usage and imagery (see the huge support for farmer-populist parties right up to WW2 for examples of socialism continuing popularity amongst even the 'native' white population) Socialism at that stage did not equal the USSR and top down command economy and central planning. Socialism was for many, at that point, the expression of that anti-state impluse you mention..

Which brings this constructed ideology of the little man, self-reliant and wanting the government off his back and therefore hostile to socialism that you're discussing right out of 17th century religious battles and colonial policy and places it slap bang into the middle of the 20th century geopolitics and internal manouvering.
 
Think it's important to distinguish between small government and limited government.

Limited government isn't about the size of the state; it's about what the state can do. While the US government is obviously enormous, its jurisdiction is limited, and President Bush's attempts to widen its powers are what have attracted attacks from the Right.
 
My thoughts exactly.

Perhaps there is a model of socialism that is both practical and inherently libertarian, but the centralised model we've implemented most certainly isn't it. We're in no position to evangalise to the USA: the moment we big up our NHS, Americans can respond, "Yeah, and look at the panopticon state that came with it," and it's damn hard to think of a reply.

It's rather easy actually - don't be so hysterical, we're not living in a panoptican state.

And further your reply assumes that americans generically don't want decent state provided health care. Polls and reports routinely suggest otherwise.

edit: actually, i'm not getting into this on this thread. Not the right place.
 
It's rather easy actually - don't be so hysterical, we're not living in a panoptican state.

And further your reply assumes that americans generically don't want decent state provided health care. Polls and reports routinely suggest otherwise.

edit: actually, i'm not getting into this on this thread. Not the right place.

The health care thing is weird -- all other developed nations have something in place. How have they managed to persuade their voters that having access to healthcare is somehow communist?
 
The health care thing is weird -- all other developed nations have something in place. How have they managed to persuade their voters that having access to healthcare is somehow communist?

They haven't persuaded them of it. They just don't let them vote on it.

edit: arghh!! genuinley not getting into this one on this thread.
 
You're taking the later myth as the reality, i'm asking why/how that myth later developed. It didn't just grow like a plant.

I'm not suggesting the new deal was rejected from the ground up - i'm not suggesting that it was rejectd at all. I'm suggesting there was elite opposition but what was notable by its absence was the sort of popular wholesale rejection of big government and state inteference frpm the ground up that you've suggested is the central animating factor of popular politics (or at least the key reason why socialism is not popular). Why its absence here? If it's becasue times were hard then you're removing the idea that americans are by definition against big government full stop.

And, more to the point, the politically motivated characterisation of socialism as simply equaling big government and state interference only really developed post-WW2 when it became a tool in the cold war (pseudo) battle with the USSR - a good decade after the new deal. Before that point, US socialism was almost uniquely characterised by its rejection of the state and it's embrace of the libertarian, decentralised form of socialism - in popular usage and imagery (see the huge support for farmer-populist parties right up to WW2 for examples of socialism continuing popularity amongst even the 'native' white population) Socialism at that stage did not equal the USSR and top down command economy and central planning. Socialism was for many, at that point, the expression of that anti-state impluse you mention..

Which brings this constructed ideology of the little man, self-reliant and wanting the government off his back and therefore hostile to socialism that you're discussing right out of 17th century religious battles and colonial policy and places it slap bang into the middle of the 20th century geopolitics and internal manouvering.
Which myth am I taking as reality? If it's the USA's foundation as a religious state, that's well doccumented, and is the one bit of US history that I've studied in detail. Those "city on a hill" puritains bordered on the Taliban at times.

I'm not suggesting that US Citizens have an total aversion to socialism. People rarely embody extremes. I'm suggesting that there could be a general fear of the state that the horrors of the Great Depression overcame for a time, but then resurfaced. More prosaically, many citizens are apolitical, and when their bellies were full and their houses secure, they are less likely to demand government help, leaving the floor to the anti-big government lobby.

While socialism isn't all top down, when socialists get into power, it becomes so. If fear of big government is the reason for US socialism taking a popular model, that would explain with the USA doesn't have an NHS.
 
It's rather easy actually - don't be so hysterical, we're not living in a panoptican state.

And further your reply assumes that americans generically don't want decent state provided health care. Polls and reports routinely suggest otherwise.

edit: actually, i'm not getting into this on this thread. Not the right place.
Just to clear one point up, I'm not saying that the majority of US Citizens don't want universal healthcare: merely that there is a strong anti-socialised medicine lobby who could use our goverment's excesses as ammunition.
 
Which myth am I taking as reality? If it's the USA's foundation as a religious state, that's well doccumented, and is the one bit of US history that I've studied in detail. Those "city on a hill" puritains bordered on the Taliban at times.

I'm not suggesting that US Citizens have an total aversion to socialism. People rarely embody extremes. I'm suggesting that there could be a general fear of the state that the horrors of the Great Depression overcame for a time, but then resurfaced. More prosaically, many citizens are apolitical, and when their bellies were full and their houses secure, they are less likely to demand government help, leaving the floor to the anti-big government lobby.

While socialism isn't all top down, when socialists get into power, it becomes so. If fear of big government is the reason for US socialism taking a popular model, that would explain with the USA doesn't have an NHS.

They myth that i talked about in my last two paragraphs. The myth that the US character is of such an independent streak that it rejects socialism rather than the reality that for a long time and especially at crucial periods that independent character was often expressed by support of socialism.

And the virgin rebirth of this myth postWW2, as a cold war tool.
 
They myth that i talked about in my last two paragraphs. The myth that the US character is of such an independent streak that it rejects socialism rather than the reality that for a long time and especially at crucial periods that independent character was often expressed by support of socialism.

And the virgin rebirth of this myth postWW2, as a cold war tool.
Ah, right. Actually I agree in part: I think fear of the state and self-reliance are related but different things, and I agree that the individualist ethic was co-opted as cold war propaganda. (The superb Cold War Modern exhibition at the V&A revolved around this point.)

If fear of government is the key, then how could support for popular socialism be translated to a national stage?
 
Hey if I was a right wing libertarian I wouldn't be calling for the NHS to be returned to its founding principles would I?

You appear to believe that the founding principles of the NHS should favour you and you alone.

Zachor said:
The reason I get all het up about free dentistry is I'm one of those people who do need 500 quid per years work done on my teeth and I resent being in pain whilst claimants and bludgers get what I used to be entitled to for a reasonable sum for free.
 
Ah, right. Actually I agree in part: I think fear of the state and self-reliance are related but different things, and I agree that the individualist ethic was co-opted as cold war propaganda. (The superb Cold War Modern exhibition at the V&A revolved around this point.)

If fear of government is the key, then how could support for popular socialism be translated to a national stage?

I don't think it's fear of government full stop, it's fear of a certain type of government that's viewed as being hostile to the needs, interets and liberties of the population. If conditons chnage, as they are today and the current set up is then viewed as being hostile to the needs, interets and liberties of the population then people will adapt their politics based around what they see as the best way to achieve their needs.

The history of the US shows that at certain historical times this has been expressed by support for a politics based around collective provision of services blah blah etc but in a more decentralised form than the USSR and there's no reason at all why, if that apporoach appears to offer the best path that popular opinion could not swing back to that view once more. People want to put their needs and their families needs first not ideology so the gate is simply never shut on any methods that might safeguard that.
 
Just to clear one point up, I'm not saying that the majority of US Citizens don't want universal healthcare: merely that there is a strong anti-socialised medicine lobby who could use our goverment's excesses as ammunition.
What excesses? Do you mean that the NHS is wildly inefficient and burns up lots more money than the US system? It doesn't.
 
What excesses? Do you mean that the NHS is wildly inefficient and burns up lots more money than the US system? It doesn't.
Excesses of an overmighty state unrelated to the NHS. (Quangos, war on civil liberty, increased bureaucracy etc etc.) I have no illusions that the US healthcare system is anything besides a mess of HMOs, limited cover and constant fear of sickness.

Again for clarification, I'll go with butchers' sensible policy that this thread isn't the place to debate those other things.
 
My thoughts exactly.

Perhaps there is a model of socialism that is both practical and inherently libertarian, but the centralised model we've implemented most certainly isn't it. We're in no position to evangalise to the USA: the moment we big up our NHS, Americans can respond, "Yeah, and look at the panopticon state that came with it," and it's damn hard to think of a reply.

Azrael that's something I have been looking for. The centralised model as expounded by various Marxist and Trot groupuscules and parties has an inbuilt tendency to be repressive of personal choices and liberties.

Also as you move through life you start to see that life and society isn't just black and white, workers and capitalists, religious or non religious etc etc etc. I can no more accept the idea that societies (at least in the Western Democratic nations) made up of just capitalists and the oppressed than I can accept the idea that Fascism was a good idea.

Although I am a firm supporter of the NHS as the alternatives are too scary to contemplate, the NHS does come with a whole lot of intrusive governmental apparatus that is symptomatic of Big Government.

Health and social welfare is also being used by Governments (especially this one) to normalise the idea that the Government wields the big stick of your personal information, which in a modern secular society is considered similar in some ways to a soul.

The Government say that we need this law for health or that law for child protection etc and these laws are not always used for their original intention.

An extreme example could be this: Rules brought in after the Victoria Climbie tragedy to improve the sharing of data between care agencies would make it very easy for a future govt (or more likely this one) to use children as a weapon against those who speak out against them.

Tools rightly used to track at risk children are also a powerful weapon of social control against people who although I may disagree with them have a right to their opinions. These laws could be used to attack home schoolers who object to the ethos of their local school, pro drug de criminalisation activists, religious minorities etc etc.

Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

When I look back over my life and see how many general freedoms have been lost it is extremely concerning.

I'm not an anarchist, I know that lives have been saved through state and community actions but sometimes society has to draw limits on what they wish the govt to do.

Americans seem to have made the choice that although the cushion of the state is inviting it doesn't seem to compare with liberty of thought and action.

If I could find a libertarian socialism that didn't buy into the discredited (in my view) philosophies of Marx and Trotsky then I may be interested.
 
actually the majority of Americans do support universal health care

From this article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/washington/02poll.html


"The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years; 18 percent said the tax cuts were more important."



And furthermore, beyond this proof, it's a huge topic of discussion and a big reason why people wanted to vote for a democrat this time around. I think people are just really frustrated, another issue has been the huge power that pharmaceutical companies have had.
 
If I could find a libertarian socialism that didn't buy into the discredited (in my view) philosophies of Marx and Trotsky and was ok with me crossing picket lines at my workplace with impunity then I may be interested.

Quite....
 
The American fear of big government has always been there: it began with pilgrims fleeing persecution by Charles I, and was cemented by the creation myth of rebellion against tyrannical Britain.

Americans are, by and large, baffled by British understandings of class. You can see their point- the next president of the US will be the son of a poor immigrant while the next PM of this country could be an ex member of the Bullingdon club who's married to an aristo.

They reject aristocracy just as much as they reject socialism.
 
Without deraling the thread, this all came out of the fuss of "redistribution" in Obama's remarks to that "Joe the Plumber". I finally got around to watching that clip, and Joe The Plumber is just a total c*nt! He's moaning about the fact that he pulls in $260,000 a year, and Obama wants to up his tax from 36% to 39% to help pay for greater coverage.

Nice guy! Not.

(I'd assumed he was some down-trodden guy on about $30,000k a year about to get really clobbered, from the media coverage).
 
Back
Top Bottom