Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why is socialism such a dirty word in the US?

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).
Thanks, I wondered what that Joe the plumber stuff was about.

These comments about the Sixties Supreme Court, made in 2001, are probably of more interest. The President-elect is pretty explicit about his desire to effect "redistributive change".

Whether he'll be able to within the US system is another matter.
 
NHS is shite by comparison to other similar countries in the EU!

However, even in Sweden one has to contribute somewhat when going for a checkup etc.

Education is completely free, though. Etc. etc.

Socialism is an anathema in the US? I'd say a caricature of it - maybe... Deffo when you see what politicians and the media, not to mention an "average", meaning not particularly well educated person "thinks" on the issues, especially if one is generally gullible, a nice little conformist, that most people seem to be - anywhere in the world, unfortunately...:(:hmm:
 
However, Azrael is right to say that part of the fear of Socialism in the US is fear of a large government. One of the planks of the modern Republican Party is small government, which is seen in the US as the antithesis of Socialism.

This isn't properly explained: Reagan and Gingrich (another Yesterday Man) used the phrase "big government" to attack his opponents and create a neo-liberal paradise for his chums in big business. It's a meaningless phrase because government is, by its very nature, big; it's a sprawling bureaucracy that requires many hands for it to work.
 
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.

The only people that are standing in the way of health care reform are the people who make the most money out of the industry: the doctors and the corporations who own the hospitals and clinics.

In the UK, the doctors were opposed to the NHS when it was proposed. Now they are its biggest defenders.
 
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.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Yeah, right and what would that look like...this libertarian socialism that has no philosophical base? :D
 
They are all about the individual innit, everyone for themselves. but i do find it odd that calling someone a socialist could be an insult.

Yeah well they also know when the individual can't afford to get sick. There probably isn't a better example of capitalism gone amuck. Health care is fundamental. Profit over people.
 
While the US might not like big govenrment, they certainly have a huge 'military industrial complex' which some have said is basically a defacto Govt.

Even Eisenhower warned against this


'At the end of his tenure as president, Dwight Eisenhower gave the following speech -- warning of the growing influence of the "military-industrial complex." He refers to the increasing military buildup in the United States throughout the 1950s. This growth of the defense industry fueled the nation's growing economy, and by 1960 amounted to more than half of the U.S. federal expenditure. Much of the civilian population was financially dependent on defense industry, and most universities thrived on the increased research opportunities.

Eisenhower -- contrary to many politicians of the time -- warned of the consequences of increasing the military's impact on the national economy.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/documents/eisenhower.speech/

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

This speech was in 1961, just preceding the US's involvement in Cuba/Bay of Pigs and Indo-China/Vietnam and
 
This isn't properly explained: Reagan and Gingrich (another Yesterday Man) used the phrase "big government" to attack his opponents and create a neo-liberal paradise for his chums in big business. It's a meaningless phrase because government is, by its very nature, big; it's a sprawling bureaucracy that requires many hands for it to work.
I mentioned this one in post post #69

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.
 
Something I've found over at the New York Times: "The Socialist Senator", an article about Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the only self-described "democratic socialist" in the US Senate.

Victor Berger was elected to Congress as far back as 1910 There was also a socialist consistently elected for one of the new york districts right up until the 80s (died last year can't reacall the name right now). There was one socialist in the HORs in the 80s (and i think he was from one of the mid-west states). And of course, locally there were thousands elected in various postions before WW2.
 
When Socialism was Popular in the United States

It’s a shame that Sanders, who once made a documentary on Eugene V. Debs, has not said much about earlier American socialist movements during his campaign – not only because such neglect buries a vibrant history of struggle, but because it’s precisely the experiences of the movements of the past that may help us navigate some of the major challenges in building an organized socialist movement today. Like us, earlier socialists struggled to unite a fragmented and heterogeneous working class, fuse extra-parliamentary struggle with electoral politics, counter the machinations of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and above all, make socialism a real part of people’s daily lives. And for a time, they succeeded. Let us therefore look back to this period, when socialism appeared as an actual political alternative in the United States, to see what it meant to its followers, how its proponents practiced politics, what socialists did when they obtained political power, and, most importantly, how they overcame some of the dilemmas they faced while crashing against others.

(Dubofsky is a serious serious writer btw not some passing journo - his work on the IWW is invaluable)
 
if you're not paywalled:


A self-described democratic socialist, Ms. Walton, 38, has never held political office, and she was challenging Mayor Byron Brown, 62, who was seeking a fifth term, had served as chair of the state Democratic Party and was once was mentioned as a candidate for lieutenant governor. Few people thought she could win. Mr. Brown mostly tried to ignore her campaign.

But on Tuesday, Ms. Walton defeated Mr. Brown in the city’s Democratic primary, making it almost certain that she will become not only the first woman elected mayor in New York State’s second-largest city, but also the first socialist at the helm of a large American city in decades.


"socialist" and "democratic socialist" are used interchangably in US major media. me, i'm perfectly happy she's going to be in (barring any campaign by the GOP + machine democrats to tar her).
 
Americans don't get the NHS.

They think they will be paying for someone else's treatment.

Despite that others will be paying for their treatment.

They just don't get it.
 
Americans don't get the NHS.

They think they will be paying for someone else's treatment.

Despite that others will be paying for their treatment.

They just don't get it.
paying for private insurance is alright though
yes I know it's the same thing actually but for profit rather than a mutual thing for everyone's benefit
not sure how to get to some of the idjeets I talk to
 
if you're not paywalled:


A self-described democratic socialist, Ms. Walton, 38, has never held political office, and she was challenging Mayor Byron Brown, 62, who was seeking a fifth term, had served as chair of the state Democratic Party and was once was mentioned as a candidate for lieutenant governor. Few people thought she could win. Mr. Brown mostly tried to ignore her campaign.

But on Tuesday, Ms. Walton defeated Mr. Brown in the city’s Democratic primary, making it almost certain that she will become not only the first woman elected mayor in New York State’s second-largest city, but also the first socialist at the helm of a large American city in decades.


"socialist" and "democratic socialist" are used interchangably in US major media. me, i'm perfectly happy she's going to be in (barring any campaign by the GOP + machine democrats to tar her).

Dinkins was a member of the DSA when he was Mayor of New York.
 
Back
Top Bottom