Socialism In America: Do Conservatives Truly Dislike Our Mixed Economy?

America has a mixed economy. That means we dabble in both capitalism and socialism. It has never been nor will it ever be purely capitalist or socialist.

Here's a list of just a few of the socialist programs we have:

  1. The Justice System
  2. National Defense
  3. The Roads, Highways, etc.
  4. Social Security
  5. Medicare
    6. The NFL, NBA, and many other sports
  6. Consumer Protection
  7. The School System and Public Libraries
  8. The Environmental Protection Agency
  9. Welfare and Unemployment

Just to sum up socialism for anyone who may be unclear on it:

If Americans' tax dollars pay for something and the government controls it, that is socialism.


Also, conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing.

Conservatives want smaller government (or so they say while they run for office), meaning they don't like items 7 - 10 on that list.

Republicans used to be liberals. (I.e., Abraham Lincoln)


All apologies for waxing political. I just needed to write that down and share it with someone outside of my general vicinity.

Anyone have anything to add or any counter-points or arguments?


Socialism, at it's heart, is not a bad thing... Everyone works for a common good.
It works in small groups, like a post-holocaust world where everyone is fighting for survival. The one that won't help are cast out. (or with roommates, but not when applied to even a small town.)
"The good of the many out weigh the good of the few, or the one.", Spock.

BUT, when it is controlled by humans with greed as their driving force, it turns into communism very quickly. Then the few control everything, and everyone else are just slaves to the government.
When people learn that they can get paid to do nothing, then the general attitude becomes "why work?" And THAT is when socialism collapses.
Under capitalism, the harder you work, to more you have. This gives a person to work harder to get more. Under a strong capitalist system, some socialist programs can be supported. BUT, there needs to be tight controls to prevent it from being abused...


Capitalism also has to be properly regulated, otherwise monopolies/plutocracies are the inevitable result. Wealth is then invariably redistributed to the top, and the masses must fight over scraps.

Under improperly-regulated capitalism, it is many times more efficient to lobby/make contributions to/bribe the govt. and regulatory bodies than to run a business profitably. Then the general attitude becomes "Why run a business?" when you can just buy the laws/policies that you want. That is when corporate capitalism collapses.

Also, most socialism in America goes to big corporations and the ultra-wealthy, not the poor, elderly, children, or disabled.

Furthermore, conservatives like socialism just as much as liberals when the benefits go to them (go figure). The blue states pay out more in taxes to D.C. than they receive in benefits, and the red states receive more than they pay out -- thus the blue states are subsidizing the red states, and yet it is the red states complaining more about socialism and even threatening to secede (please do, I say).


when [socialism] is controlled by humans with greed as their driving force, it turns into communism very quickly. Then the few control everything, and everyone else are just slaves to the government.

Does it turn into communism, or totalitarianism?

Before I continue, I'd like to say (for the record), "f--k communism." I don't want it. I don't like it. I read up on it just to make sure that I really didn't like it, instead of just not liking the idea of it because I've been programmed to dislike it, and, now that I understand it, I definitely don't like it.

Now that that's out of the way . . .

As far as I understand, there has never been a truly communist country. Italy, the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, and North Korea are or were all under totalitarian rule while viewed as communists. Leninism and communism are not the same thing, although the Leninists did a good job convincing everyone otherwise.

If there are rich people, even one rich person, that's not communism. In a truly communist (Marxist) society, the people would control the government, the government would control all the industry, and everyone would be equal because no one would really own any property. (In other words, no Pursuit of Happiness. This, in my opinion, would suck. (Any form of Utopia would suck.))


Under capitalism, the harder you work, to more you have.

Theoretically.

...but every person in my family for the past three generations has worked their asses off their entire lives, and we're still all in the lower middle class. No matter what ism your country may claim to be, I think most working class folks are always living from check to check, no matter matter how much cool stuff or how big of a house they may have. In fact, the more you have in my world, the more you owe and the more you have to work to pay it off. Not the other way around. I don't know anyone that says, "man! I've got all this money! I guess I'll spend some of it on a car and a house and all the things I'll need for those things." Everyone I know needs a car and a house to survive and says, "man! I might have to get a second job to pay for this car and this house and all the things I need for those things!" While saying that, we also go out (or online) and spend money on things to distract us from reality, such as entertainment and alcohol.

Anyway, I would rephrase this thusly:

"Any government controlled by humans with greed as their driving force turns into an oligarchy very quickly. Then, the few control everything, and everyone else is just slaves to the government."


When people learn that they can get paid to do nothing, then the general attitude becomes "why work?" And THAT is when socialism collapses.

I would say that would provide more argument against a faulty Welfare system, and less argument against a little socialism.

It all comes down to government bail-outs, whether the proceeds go to the rich or to the poor.


Under a strong capitalist system, some socialist programs can be supported. BUT, there need to be tight controls to prevent it from being abused.

Here's a statement I can get behind.

No more corporate welfare!


I see Dcoder reads/listens to/watches/experiences the same things I do. Except . . .

the red states complaining more about socialism and even threatening to secede (please do, I say).

Please don't.

I live in a Very Red State. Gerrymandering seems to be the problem. That's how Republican leaders get elected in the poorest states in the land. They represent the few, especially in my state.

The last time the rich decided to secede to stay rich (or get richer), lots of poor people in my state (including slaves and people who didn't own slaves and opposed slavery) lost their lives and/or land.

Most inhabitants of red states barely have enough money to survive from check to check. What are we supposed to do? Move? Move somewhere blue, where the price of living is higher? I wish!

I'm not being combative, or anything, Dcoder. I know it was mere jest, but (and I don't know if everyone has noticed this) most of the people who control the red states don't really understand the concept of sarcasm. They are also highly susceptible to suggestion, which makes sarcasm highly dangerous 'round these here parts.


So, yeah. I seem to agree with most of what DL said, and everything Dcoder said except for the punchline at the end.

...and, again, I know Dcoder was just having fun, and I'm just having fun, too. It's just that . . . Well, here's an example: I show my Republican family members, friends, and neighbors video of Robert Reich all the time. He does a damned good job explaining pretty much everything Dcoder just said, but he usually adds jokes to lighten the mood, and the jokes confuse most of the folks. He also usually talks shit about people who support Trump in each video. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the video. The people who need to understand what Mr. Reich is saying initially like him, and they listen to him -- until he insults them. I guess most of us don't even realize it when we're discriminating . . .

Anyway, at the expense of levity, I've learned to avoid any hyperbole while discussing anything political. My people's actions are mostly based upon feelings, not thought. They respond to fear and greed prosperity, not logic and reason.


I appreciate your tact, KV, and I am not offended. I am just highly opinionated when it comes to anything political, but that's just my personality :P

Ever heard of the Gini Index or Gini coefficient? It is a statistical measure of income or wealth distribution with "0" meaning all income/wealth is equally distributed, and "1" meaning one person has it all. An economy starts to break down when it's Gini coefficient is in the high .40's. Today, America's Gini coefficient is somewhere in the (low?) .40's, according to a World Bank estimate. You can Google all of this.

Another statistic you may have come across is that 70% of our GDP depends on consumer spending. Practically put, if the masses don't have enough $ to spend on stuff, then that economy will eventually falter and stagnate. This is hardly a controversial conclusion. And the middle and working classes' incomes have NOT been keeping apace with cost of living since the late 70's to early 80's.

More stats I've heard from the (non-FOX) news: the top 0.1% in America owns about 50% of the wealth, and the top 20% own about 90% of the wealth! That's insane! No wonder why the economy is so difficult for the majority, fighting over scraps. And of course Republican tax cuts don't help most of us, just the rich, while ballooning our deficits and total debt, thus setting up a false pretext for the Republicans to gut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the like.

Socialism and corrupt, winner-take-all capitalism are not so different when they each go to their natural extremes and meet halfway on the other side.

I better take a break before Quest tells me that "I can't post this here."


I have read about and agree with everything you just said. Especially:

Socialism and corrupt, winner-take-all capitalism are not so different when they each go to their natural extremes and meet halfway on the other side.


America is a socialist, capitalist, democratic republic which is run by corporations which depend on a lot of socialism as well as the consumers (who depend on a little socialism).

The only real vote we truly (sometimes) have is what we buy and from whence we buy it.


Money makes the world go 'round. Or was that the love of money, I forget?


But back to your original question about conservatives not liking socialism -- ok, the rich ones are just greedy SOBs that want it all and want the rest of us to be their serfs. That's understandable. Despicable, but understandable.

What is truly perplexing is why the poorer conservatives keep voting against their own personal, financial interest? I.e., why do they keep voting for the same party that is screwing them over? All it takes is for all the right-wing rabble-rousers to push certain inflammatory buttons (fear of communism, fear of drugs, fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants, fear of other races/religions, fear of gays, fear of abortions, fear of contraception, fear of losing their guns, etc. etc.) in order to get those voters to lose their rational minds. It's been said that in a democracy, people get the government that they deserve. I guess democracy is overrated.


What is truly perplexing is why the poorer conservatives keep voting against their own personal, financial interest?

There was a set of surveys conducted a few years ago that shows a large proportion of people don't know what the parties stand for. People who are told which party to support by their family, or by the majority opinion in their town. And then when they're old enough to vote, they'll decide what policies they want to see, and assume that their party shares the same opinions, because why else would everyone they know support them?

Some scary figure like 80% of the electorate just keeps on voting for the same party they always have, and rationalise it by assuming that party shares their opinions (if they think about it at all). (On a national level, those people don't always vote, but are a lot more motivated when the other team is in power, in which case they can blame all the bad things in their lives on the government. So power swings one way and then the other like a metronome. On a more local level, because you learn which team to support from family and neighbours, regions with a strong bias in one direction get even stronger as time passes.)

There's a vocal minority on both sides yelling about actual issues, and they're the ones who get most of the airtime, but they don't represent the typical voter. They might also be the ones amenable to persuasion if you can show that their party is letting them down. But there aren't enough of them to swing an election except in truly exceptional circumstances.


It seems that the right wing people are the believers, and the left wing people are the scientist types.


Speaking as someone not from the US, the problem the US has is that a lot of Americans associate socialism with Soviet-style communism, and those in power, the very rich, are happy to maintain that idea as it helps keep their taxes lower.

Personally, I think socialism is a good thing; it is basically about looking after the disadvantaged. I live in a country with a nation health system, which means even the poorest people can afford to go to hospital. To me, that seems a good thing. It is not perfect, and corruption is always a risk, but the only reason corruption is not a risk in capitalism is because it is part of the system; pure capitalism says it is fine to screw over the little people if it benefits you.

RH, I am curious why you consider professional sports to be socialist.


The problem the US has is that a lot of Americans associate socialism with Soviet-style communism, and those in power, the very rich, are happy to maintain that idea as it helps keep their taxes lower.

Precisely.


I am curious why you consider professional sports to be socialist.

Most stadiums are built, maintained, and policed/protected with tax dollars.


Also, the NFL itself is like a mixed economy. Under league rules, the teams are required to share most of the revenue with each other. It's the redistribution of wealth throughout the league that keeps one or two teams from getting all the good players.

They also have minimum salaries, salary caps, and the draft.


Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL%E2%80%93NFL_merger

Especially note how Congress passed a law to render the league exempt from the antitrust law.


Hrmm . . .

After thinking things through to explain it, I realize calling professional sports leagues (or associations) socialist programs is a bit of a stretch.

...unless you consider "corporate welfare" a form of socialism.

Wait. I'm confused now. I never attended college. Most of my "knowledge" comes from books, the internet, and trial and error. So, sometimes I think I've grasped a concept only to find that I really haven't once I try to explain it.

Is any (and every) form of government assistance considered socialism?


I've done some research and stricken national sports from the list.

The NFL is not controlled by the government, nor is it fully funded by the government. So, I think that rules it out. (Right?)


The NFL system seems really weird. We have nothing like that in UK, or even in Europe that I know of. It does sound like a kind of socialism.

Our football (soccer) is very much capitalism, with teams basically being companies and players are resources.


very much capitalism, with teams basically being companies and players are resources.

Yeah, it seems that's what the NFL is, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League#Corporate_structure


I'm usually quite skeptical (and resourceful), but it appears I am still susceptible to confirmation bias.

(I also read (and believed) that the NFL was started after the American Civil War to vent frustration between the north and south, but it appears that was misinformation as well.)


“We’re an anarcho-syndacalist commune. We take it in turn to act as a sort of execute officer for the week.”


Who are you quoting, XM?


Monty Python: Holy Grail


Oh.

I think I was 11 last time I watched that. I shall pop that DVD into the old Zoombox at dusk and watch it backyard drive-in style.


RH's Back Porch Theatre

DOUBLE FEATURE

Monty Python's Life of Brian | Monty Python and the Holy Grail

First showing begins at dusk.

Porch Rules

NO HATS
NO PHONES, TABLETS, ETC.
NO TALKING DURING THE GOOD BITS
SMOKE IF YA' GOT 'EM
BYOB


On my way!


I don't mind, lol. I'm more of a moderate economically, liberal socially, and conservitive religiously. Federal health care will kill the entire American population, though. The government hasn't made any good health decisions in decades, and 99% don't know anything about health care. I'd rather the hospitals be funded by the cities or the states.


On my way!

Show starts in 20 minutes . . .


Next weekend:

Support Your Local Sheriff & Paint Your Wagon


DISCLAIMER

I'm not really screening films publicly. Just a few friends in the backyard.


This topic is now closed. Topics are closed after 60 days of inactivity.

Support

Forums