/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3933494]

Why do Americans have a phobia of socialism?

[Anonymous No.3933516]

They confuse social democracy with Marxism.

[Anonymous No.3933520]

The american dream is built on the ability for one man to grow powerful through the free market, and they think socialism would stop that.

[Anonymous No.3933527]

>>3933516
funny thing is, marxism is actually better

[Anonymous No.3933526]

Our media suggests to us that anything besides free-market capitalism will degenerate into something out of the novel 1984.

[Anonymous No.3933529]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

if i accurately recall some of the bullet points of this article, conservatives are fear and emotion driven. also, socialism is played up as some flavor of communism. in marxist theory, i believe it is a transitional state from capitalism to communism. oh and when you say americans, you really mean conservative americans, i know liberals who favor socialism.

[Anonymous No.3933528]

The idea of individuality is a part of the American mindset and the idea of state paternalism is totally alien to them.

[Anonymous No.3933530]

>>3933494
FAUX new is lying to them, and fear mongering.

The republican party encourages ignorance and stupidity.

\thread

[Anonymous No.3933546]

Socialism=Western European social democracy
Marxism=central planning

The ideal for society is the former, but Americans cannot mentally separate it from the latter.

[Anonymous No.3933547]

only the ignorant are afraid of it, those with a problem against socialism do not even know what it is

America has many socialist policies

it is a socialist nation

they just hate the actual word

but they still love their subsidies

[Anonymous No.3933555]

>>3933547
The US is not a socialist state. If you want an example of a non-Marxist socialism, you have Britain in the 1970s when they were striking every 5 minutes.

[Anonymous No.3933559]

>>3933555
Then what is socialism by your definition?

[Anonymous No.3933570]

>>3933559
People can't come up with a consistent definition of "socialism". Depending on who you ask, it's either Marxism, social democracy, or something in between.

Also some argue that welfare programs are socialism (usually the case in the US), while others say it's state ownership of production. Some claim anything owned by the government is socialistic.

[Anonymous No.3933584]

Lemme explain. FDR was a socialist. LBJ was a socialist. Nixon was a socialist, and George W. Bush was a socialist. Obama is a Marxist.

Clears it up then?

[Anonymous No.3933585]

>>3933546

Nope.

Social capitalism=Western European social democracy
Socialism=means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively=Countries of the former communist dictatorship
Communism=classless and stateless society, never existed actually

[Anonymous No.3933592]

>>3933585
HI IM JUST GOING TO REDEFINE SOME SHIT SO IM RIGHT

[Anonymous No.3933598]

The cold war, McCarthyism and the stupid Russkies

[Anonymous No.3933599]

>>3933585
But as I said, you can also have 1950s-70s Britain where they had nationalized industry, but not a one-party state. That would be socialism, but not Marxism.

[Anonymous No.3933610]

>>3933570
Communists never considered a country like Sweden socialist, just another capitalist country. In fact, Marxists actually had a particular loathing of social democracy.

[Anonymous No.3933622]

I find it odd that American conservatives have such nostalgia for the 1950s when it was one of the most socialistic periods in the country's history.

[Anonymous No.3933631]

>>3933622
^This. The US has not had real free market capitalism since the early 20th century. Everything since FDR has been at least somewhat socialistic.

[Anonymous No.3933632]

Well, the Soviets didn't actually have anything remotely close to Socialism, instead they had a state dictatorship that came to power by using Marx as a flimsy pretext to get people to support it. The USSR was obviously a shitty place to live and the west could see that. In order to keep people afraid of Socialism at every chance the could the west called the USSR Socialists/COmmunists/Marxists. This did two things.

One, it made retards think that a totalitarian government and a command economy are necessary and integral parts of Socialism; which they are not. Thus the average westerner would immediately equate those words to the image of the former USSR and say "eww gross, why would anyone want a system like that" when, in fact, that is not what any Socialist on Earth wants.
Two, because the ideas of Marx were where the power of the Soviet government were founded, any time you called them Socialists/Communists/Marxists it legitimized their power and they welcomed the title with open arms.

[Anonymous No.3933642]

Socialism, on the economical spectrum of State's intervention in economic systems, is a concept actualised by Karl Marx. As opposed to Liberal capitalism, socialism supports centraled planning where the capital is owned by the state, where the economic choices are determined by the state and where the number of goods and their prices are also determined by the state (Bouret et Dumas, 2009)

In most western countries, the economic system is based off keynesian economics, where the government is used as a regulator of market's mechanism (Bouret et Dumas, 2009)

Socialism and capitalism are to be distinguished from faschism and communism, which are political ideologies, just like social democracy.

[Anonymous No.3933644]

>>3933622
How so?

[Anonymous No.3933646]

>>3933494
because "doomed to repeat it" etc

[Anonymous No.3933651]

>>3933546
i don't know if you actually live in a european social democracy but i do and i can tell you it's shit (i'm a marxist btw)

to give a few reasons as to why:

-taxing the rich to fund welfare programs does not prevent them from exploiting the labor force of other (third world) countries
-it tends to create a racist attitude that immigrants are flooding in to leech from the country's social programs
- in sweden our social programs are currently being dismantled by the liberal government, the head party (who acknowledge themselves as a bourgeois party (seriously everyone calls them that)) of which had the gall to not only claim to be the new workers' party but the only workers' party. the social democratic party don't really feel like being leftists, either, and mostly grasp madly after middle-class city votes.

although nobody would deny that the central planning of countries like the soviet union had serious problems, i've never heard a convincing argument as to why the only solution to those problems is a regression to capitalism of any kind, laissez faire or welfare. the problems of corruption, inefficiency, etc. can be fixed within the context of a centrally planned economy, and communism has actually been very successful in places that western education typically doesn't tell you about (such as burkina faso under thomas sankara)

[Anonymous No.3933650]

>>3933632

No, the soviet system was a socialism. It may be a different type of socialism than what you desire, but it was a socialist economy.

[Anonymous No.3933653]

>>3933644
The 50s had a 90% income tax and a high degree of Orwellian social conformity. It certainly sounds quite socialistic.

[Anonymous No.3933660]

>>3933651
Swedes generally seem happy with the status quo; they have a communist party, but it averages about 3,000 votes in elections.

[Anonymous No.3933671]

>>3933653
>90%
You better have a credible source on that, otherwise you're just blowing shit out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.3933676]

>>3933671

Different guy, 90% top marginal rate, but if you didn't know that...rofl at babby doesnt know about history.

[Anonymous No.3933677]

>>3933651
See
>>3933642

Socialism, on the economical spectrum of State's intervention in economic systems, is a concept actualised by Karl Marx. As opposed to Liberal capitalism, socialism supports centraled planning where the capital is owned by the state, where the economic choices are determined by the state and where the number of goods and their prices are also determined by the state (Bouret et Dumas, 2009)

In most western countries, the economic system is based off keynesian economics, where the government is used as a regulator of market's mechanism (Bouret et Dumas, 2009)

Socialism and capitalism are to be distinguished from faschism and communism, which are political ideologies, just like social democracy.

URSS = socialist economy and "communism" experiences (for instance, the low marge of salary variation between workers "chosen by the government, therefore socialist" was influenced by communist ideas "no classes")

[Anonymous No.3933684]

>>3933676
Sorry, but I still would like to see a source for that.
It just seems unlikely, and why would they lower the taxes anyways?

[Anonymous No.3933696]

>>3933684

IIRC:

Top marginal rate went up to 60s or 70s% during the Depression; once WWII started, it was quickly raised to 90%. After the War, we had tons of fresh debt to pay off, a new Cold War to prep for, and more big projects filling the government's dreams, so we didn't lower the rate again until Kennedy.

no source, but this will be a lesson in finding things yourself: the relevant chart is all over the first page of the relevant Google search term's results. Try "top marginal tax rate history", then you can get it from any source you'd like, and you will probably see at least one detailed counterpoint in the top results too - _I_ never said high rates in the 1950s were a justification for high taxation today. (Higher taxation today is justified but the 1950s is only to put things in perspective)

[Anonymous No.3933704]

>>3933584
how is Obama a Marxist?

[Anonymous No.3933723]

>>3933696
Also the rich really didn't pay any income tax anyway due to legal loopholes.

[Anonymous No.3933726]

because we're fucking stupid

/thread

[Anonymous No.3933754]

Because command economies empower the government, governments are corrupt, and they hold no value to human rights.

[Anonymous No.3933759]

>>3933684
Growth stagnated under Carter.
>>3933547
This. America hasn't been close capitalist for quite a while, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take high school economics.

[Anonymous No.3933774]

>>3933527
>marxism is better
name one marxist country that is better than a country with a social democracy.

[Anonymous No.3933791]

>>3933494
All Americans think they will be rich one day and that's why they cater the rich. They are fucking dumb. Why do you think lotto is so popular?

[Anonymous No.3933797]

>>3933651

>-taxing the rich to fund welfare programs does not prevent them from exploiting the labor force of other (third world) countries

And the problem is? Why should my government prevent "exploitation" in Africa? And spend my money on it?

>it tends to create a racist attitude that immigrants are flooding in to leech from the country's social programs

Except many of them are. Btw every time a cultural marxist equates anti-immigration with racism, a puppy dies. Hint:cultural supremacism =/= racial supremacism. I dont want the third world to flood my country not because of their race.
Pic related.

[FAGGATRON_3000 !!PEF7BVl3fW0 No.3933807]

They've seen the shit done by the ruskies and chinks during the cold war.

It wasn't pretty.

[Anonymous No.3933812]

>>3933797
you want to know what I think is funny about your pick.

I think the 16 and 13 percent are unacceptably high, especially for a NATO country

[Anonymous No.3933837]

>>3933812

Yes. I cant believe even 1% of normal people would support such laws, let alone 80%. And this is what is flooding europe. "Moderate majority" my ass! Radicals are often the majority in muslim countries.

[Anonymous No.3933875]

there is a great quote about this "socailism has never taken hold in america because the poor see themselves not as an oppressed proletariat but as temporarily embarassed millionaires"

A survey done during the 2000 elections found that 19% of americans thought that they were in the top 1% and 20% more thought they would be someday.

[Anonymous No.3933880]

>>3933807
the russkies and chinks saw what the americans were doing to developing countries

[Anonymous No.3933888]

>>3933797
>all immigrants are third world
>all immigrants are illegal
>illegal immigrants can get social welfare

what the f are just hold on wait what the fuck are you fucking just what

[Anonymous No.3933889]

Because I enjoy the idea of being be able to own factors of production.

[sage No.3935547]

The cold war basically.

It's irrational emotion-based tribalism the many americans can't get over.

It's tragic really watching this evo psych play out with very real negative consequences for millions.

The intra-usa tribalism is even worse because of the sheer amount of fucktardery it brings to the table (not least because the usa is the most powerful country in the world- because if you guys weren't you'd have burned a long ago).

Mostly it's the south being retarded because the more urban north had a habit of claiming new ideas for itself with the more rural south always trailing (so instead of feeling bad about being backward they embraced backwardness- which is also kinda the north's fault for always gloating about their superior progressiveness). But with mass media (particularly since the internet) i'm not sure how geographically isolated these factions are anymore (not an ameritard).

Outright denial of science (i.e global warming) out of nothing more than an emotional hatred of a group who just happen to be culturally associated with the idea (hippe environmentalists) is a classic example of emotions trumping reason leading to potentially devestating consequences for all mankind.

If only more people could stop trying to rationalise their emotions and instead realise that emotions are not rational.

[Anonymous No.3935554]

>>3935547
The best part is when Americans invoke the constitution in defense of their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3936503]

Gee, I dunno. Perhaps because socialism doesn't work.

The lazy pile up and anyone who works hard becomes discouraged because he feels taken advantage of.

Nobody really owns anything so there is no pride in ownership thus you have broken glass, grafitti and garbage everywhere.

You have no incentive to put extra time and resources into your business because you will never enjoy the benefits from that.

So American's who own businesses and don't want government regulations and interference hate socialism and love Capitalism.

Not the crony capitalism we have now where it basically is as fascistic as Mussolini's Italy. For example GE paid ZERO taxes and exported its X-Ray division to China.

Capitalism works because people want to make money for themselves and their families.

[Inurdaes No.3936514]

ITT

[Anonymous No.3936518]

>>3935547
>idiot leftist

Don't you have a fucking OWS rally to attend?

[Anonymous No.3936520]

>>3936503

>>the lazy get to do nothing

You don't know what socialism is, do you?

If you don't pull your weight in a socialist system, whether it's a co-op or a shithole state farm, you will be fired or left to starve depending on the sensibilities of whoever's in charge.

So, that's career investors and CEOs out for starters.

[resident /sci/ economist No.3936533]

I was driving my car today and this guy was in front of me (pic related).

It makes me really depressed, how large the disconnect between what people want, and what they do among the general population.

[Anonymous No.3936541]

I find it hilarious how people still argue that lower taxes = more jobs.

They obviously have never invested a dime into a business in their life, or they willingly blind themselves from the facts.

It's like this, some people have enough money to the point where living in a world with an infrastructure of insurance to benefit everyone doesn't aid them in any personal way.

What absolutely amazes me is how many people can make an average amount and still willingly support the rich getting richer, simply because they're bound to petty ideals like abortion and gay marriage.

[Anonymous No.3936548]

I blame the US conspiracy culture. The conspiracy culture on the left and right is creating so much fear about "the other guys" that it's causing the parties to become deeply entrenched.

People don't see their political opponents as people. Each conspiracy theory has a belief system for dehumanizing the adherents to the other political philosophy. Instead they see people of other ideologies as faceless enemies, evil. It makes the world simpler if you make it black and white.

I was speaking to someone just the other day about this topic and she asked me a question on the issue and I was describing the complexities and she said "I don't believe that, to me the world is black and white, there are no shades of grey"

The right think's there's a leftist conspiracy led by George Soros, the right think the Koch brothers control the planet. They each fear each other more and do things to spite the others and you end up with a giant feedback loop of ever escalating fear and misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.3936552]

>>3936548
I mixed up Koch and Soros, it's the opposite.

[Anonymous No.3936559]

>>3936514
most fox news viewers are working class so its more like
>telling poor people to blame poorer people

[Anonymous No.3936561]

>>3936541
Yeah, the lower taxes = more jobs idea is laughable and disingenuous. I mean, it's disproved by economic theory (less taxes = more jobs only if people spend it) and historical evidence. Feel free to promote free market all you want, but the argument that lower taxes provides more jobs is just wrong.

[Anonymous No.3936565]

>>3933527
The problem with saying that is that it is physically impossible
Like being strong enough for a man, but PH balanced for a woman
A great orator who doesnt use fancy words.

[Anonymous No.3936585]

because of numerous people who identify and identified themselves as socialists

[resident /sci/ economist No.3936636]

>>3936541
>>3936561

I think its true in the most general sense. Not true as in, there are a lot of other important variables, like the nature of the tax, and the way that tax revenue is being spent.

But in a general sense, you could say that, lowering taxes makes the input of labor more efficient, and in that case it is absolutely true that businesses would hire more labor if labor came more efficient.

But like I said that just one isolated factor.

[Anonymous No.3936648]

McCarthy and John Birch Society villanized the term in the yesteryears.

if you're a socal slut.com then just change your label to something else...like "libertarian" or "Mexican" and go on be socal.

[Anonymous No.3936656]

The Welfare system is a perfect example of why socialism can't work in America. We have too many lazy slobs who take advantage of the charities provided to them by the government.

[Anonymous No.3936694]

>>3936656
That does not mean welfare does not work. Just because America apparently implemented it and did not bother to actually punish cheats does not mean it can never work.

[Anonymous No.3936712]

>>3936656
Since you people have the death penalty, you should just make taking advantage of the system a crime punishable by death.

[Anonymous No.3936728]

>>3936636
I agree with your explanation, but doesn't government spending have a greater multiplier effect on the economy than lower taxes? That's what I recall from a few econ classes several years ago, but I've also heard that there's some controversy about that claim.

And I'm totally not trying to get into a government vs free market debate here.

[Anonymous No.3936736]

>>3936694
I assume this is a jab at the US's criminal justice policies.

[Anonymous No.3936745]

Maybe it's because our government's incompetent? Given the history of our federal government, I could see why people would be reluctant to give them more power over the economy.

[Anonymous No.3936755]

>>3936745
fucking this. Best explanation in this entire thread

[Anonymous No.3936771]

>>3936736
Not really, we have benefit cheats here as well. Just seems silly to say welfare can never work when a large part of the problem is apparently a lack of enforcement of rules against claiming falsely.

[Anonymous No.3936790]

>>3936745
...but America already has plenty of socialist policies and programs and has had them for decades...in fact America's greatest period of prosperity (so far) stems directly from socialist programs...capitalism proped up by socialism is how America became a world power during and after ww2.

Did you think that the money fairy built all the public works and bought people houses and subsidized businesses and expanded industries such as those involved with the arms trade to unprecedented levels? These are but a few examples. Think about this subject, there are many more for you to find! Many, many more.

America's fear of "socialism" stems from abject ignorance, apathy, and manipulation from cold-war jingoism mixed with dogmatic domestic campaigns and marketing strategies.

[Anonymous No.3936791]

>>3936771
it's not even people who falsely claim welfare, it's people who don't work out of pure laziness and have a bunch of kids to get bigger checks from the government. Meanwhile little ginny and bob have to hold down two jobs each to feed their six kids, yet don't qualify for welfare because their yearly income is too high.

[Anonymous No.3936800]

>>3936791
Personally this is why I would change it so people who are not disabled and cannot prove they are seeking work will get less benefit and/or lose benefits after a certain period of deliberate unemployment.

[Anonymous No.3936824]

Welfare is fucked up. When I moved out west to a city where I knew NOBODY I lost all of my posessions in a fire and i went to welfare for two things: a place to print resumes and make phonecalls, and the big one, a few sets of business casual clothing. I did NOT want money I didnt even want in the system, I just wanted some clothes. Shoes were the big one, I had been out in my shitty old runners when the drunks burned down the hotel and I needed dress shoes that I could stand in if I got a job that involved alot of standing/walking. (I was going for auditor jobs which often involve random bullshit tasks that nobody did during the day).

They would NOT give me clothes or anything without entering me into the system and giving me money. I didnt really need money, I had a room that was paid for by the insurance company and they were cutting me a check in a few weeks for my posessions, I just needed to get the ball rolling for employment.

Instead they gave me something like $600, nice of them to toss around other people's money instead of actually just addressing my immediate needs.

And for the rest of my life my name is on a file somewhere showing that I collected welfare.

[Anonymous No.3936844]

Socialism is the economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state. It fucks up catastrophically and on average leads to a democidal totalitarian dictatorship.

Social democracy is what you call a democratic mixed economy when it seems to be working relatively well. There's nothing special about it, it's a description, not a prescription. Only a fucking retard or someone who hasn't thought about politics would fail to see this.

[Anonymous No.3936851]

>>3936790
The reason America became the world power after WWII was because it was the only sizable, industrialized country to survive the war without getting all of its shit blown up. The greatest increases in wealth happened in the period 1870-1910 when markets were profoundly free.

[Anonymous No.3936868]

>>3936790
America's greatest period of prosperity stemmed form the rapid industrialization after WWII. The only reason taxes were so high was that we had war debts to pay, it's not lik we spent all of the tax money on social programs Not to mention the people behind these programs were borderline megalomaniacal. You have to take the good with the bad. It's no coincidence that the prosperity associates with the war and the post-war era led to things such as the internment of the Japanese, vast expansion of power of the executive branch, erosion of civil liberties in fear of fascism and communism, and the creation of an entire industry fueled by war. What disturbs me is when social democrats claim they are for civil liberties but fail to realize the US command economy has led to everything liberals despise, i.e. a million wars and erosion of rights. You can't have a command economy and have civil rights at the same time, at least in America.

[Anonymous No.3936875]

>>3936868
>America
>war debts

Is that what they teach you in school?

[Anonymous No.3936880]

>>3936824
Buh? You needed to buy some shit and had no money. They gave you money. Sounds like the social safety net at work to me.
Everybody should be happy, except that you insist on viewing welfare as something that only degenerates and morally putrid people take, so you hate the fact that someone might find out that you took welfare. In fact a large number of people who take welfare are just temporarily down on their luck, like, say, just as a random example, YOU WERE when your place burnt down.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3936884]

>>3936728

Yeah Im intentionally ignoring what the government does in my explanation.

I have a professor who has referenced research that shows government spending is not as efficient at raising GDP than consumer spending. And, a great example of that is WWII. Government spending increased like, 10 fold or something, and GDP changed like 10%.

I assume government spending is not efficient at raising employment. But again, that depending. If the government is taxing people so it can hire a ditch digging crew, then maybe you could say its lowering unemployment.

[Anonymous No.3936885]

WWII and cold war propaganda

[Anonymous No.3936910]

socialism and democracy - 2 of the worlds biggest problems.

[Inurdaes No.3936926]

>>3936868
Public investment in war spending is a very wasteful strategy. The government could instead fund DARPA-like entities to research new technologies, or build out infrastructure like nuclear plants. This way you have the weight of an entire nation's funds going towards vast projects that the private sector won't do, without wars or pretexts for eroding civil liberties.

[sage No.3937245]

>>3936585
>because of numerous people who identify and identified themselves as socialists

which is exactly the sort of "tribalism" i was getting at earlier. Can you not see how this is blatantly irrational?

This isn't about americans having the rational realisation that communism doesn't work, it's about people crying "socialist" whenever anyone suggests some of the solutions which seem to be working in other developed countries.

It's about a people who have lost their rational capacity so long ago that they think having blatantly obviously good things such as universal healthcare, universal 3rd level education and a decent minimum wage equals having a welfare state.

[Anonymous No.3937256]

>>3933494
>>3933516
Socialism is marxism, so in fact the problem is you people have a philia of socialism.

It's fun to pretend the government is not hopelessly corrupt and always works for the interest of "the people" but that's just not true and this kind of belief actually corrupts democracy and prevents people from being critical of the government. We need voters who only very grudgingly vote for whoever they finally decide upon, not leftist wingnuts, or rightist wingnuts for that matter, I'm just talking about leftist wingnuts at the moment.

[Anonymous No.3937288]

>>3936824
This post is retarded.
"I want clothes, not money!"
"Well, we don't have clothes, money is way easier to stock, so here's some. Go buy some clothes if you want, whatever."
"THE WELFARE SYSTEM IS FUCKED UP."

>And for the rest of my life my name is on a file somewhere showing that I collected welfare.
Is that shameful or something?

[Anonymous No.3937315]

>>3937288

He accepted redistribution of money, which means he's part of a system of support and fairness, which he despises.

He's been tainted by the stench of others' altruism.