So I'd like to ask this question; Is there any real rationality to the extreme prejudice that "socialists" elicit from Americans? its become commonplace rhetoric in politics nowadays, and yet, people who are "true" socialists (ie define themselves politically as communist or socialist"  have a very low approval of current happenings.  
not only that, but there seems to be a fervent hatred of socialism whilst most people would, in concept, agree with its basic tenants.  I understand that a fear of "communism" has been engrained in americans over the last 60 years from the cold war, and honestly i do know the answer to my own question, but moderate socialism is far from evil in almost every respect.  socialism nowadays equates to ownership by the majority, not the governmental entity so much.  healthcare and education are considered public rights, and businesses are owned by the workers, not a select few who are considerably wealthier and whose main interest is in profitability, not quality for the worker directly.
  this goes without mentioning that the american idea of "complete capitalism" and " FREE enterprise" are economic ideas that are equally as flawed as the ideas and tenants of communism itself.  instead of one governmental entity controlling commerce, it is controlled by the most powerful entities inside commerce itself; without anti-trust legislation monopolies would become exponentially powerful, creating almost war-lord like regimes that would have the power to dominate sectors of public life.  we do not live in a "free enterprise" system, it has been tempered to stop monopolies from gaining too much power, but what people don't seem to understand is that communism and capitalism are two opposite ends of a spectrum, and total submission to either extreme is fundamentally flawed, that there needs to be a medium.  that is where Europe is right now, and while there are problems with the systems, they are evolving to a more adapted state, while we are fighting against the flow of progress.  
       like i said, i know the answer to my question.  Why are people so resistant? because they are ignorant.  the American people are ignorant, in so many fashions, and willing to believe exactly what they are told.  disagree, agree? let me know, this is my first thread and would like to make it a good one.

Views: 95

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Agreed. People are ignorant. American people are especially ignorant (I'm an American) because they are only half educated at best, giving themselves the feeling that they can figure out the rest. I've always believed that MODERATION is the key to everything. This is especially true in light of the fact that too much of any one thing will kill you. Too much communism/capitalism= DEAD. one way or another.

Too right, Park. Keep 'em coming.
Americans are generally very ignorant about most things, I think, but I have to wonder why that's the case. American history has always had an anti-intellectual bent to it - but where does it come from, exactly? Religion seems the most obvious answer, but it's not very satisfying, since certainly Europeans, at one time, were not significantly more religious than Americans were.
I think history shows that the English that came to America WERE more religious than the ones that didn't. And they didn't always come here. Lots of them were sent here. That being said, obviously more enlightened people came to America than fundamentalists or we would never have had an enlightened constitution.

I can't understand anti-intellectual anything. Literally I don't get it. What could possibly be wrong with knowing something, anything. Information is my friend.
I think there is a lack of understanding about it. For some reason, a lot of people. often religious people, identify with the rich. I have no idea why. Maybe they want to be rich and think that trying to think like they think a rich person thinks will get them there. These people will vote for political candidates who have nothing in common with them and will actually work to harm them all because they, for some odd reason, think their interests and the interests of the wealthy are the same. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

For example, I have met many Tea party members who work for the government. This does not make a bit of sense to me, because the government job cut out to save money could be their job. This is just plain stupid. There is no other way to put it. It's just dumb advocating policies that will cost you your own job.

Most these people have never been outside the US. They have no idea how nice the regular person has it in Europe. They just know rich people don't like the European way because it would mean giving up a little bit of their money. Never mind rich people are also the ones who can afford to go to Europe and have a good ole time using all the services free that Europeans pay for.

They think socialism will steal their religion from them. How can anyone take anything you feel in your heart? It's not even possible to control or own someone else's thoughts. I think the propaganda artists back in the Cold War days did a really good job of scaring people.

If you are a fundamentalist Christian who doesn't bother to find things out for yourself, thinking probably isn't your strong point.

I guess my answer is because people are stupid. LOL!
The following applies ONLY to the U.S. and other countries that can afford an effective welfare system:

From time immemorial, there have always been slackers. Slackers like socialism. Why wouldn't they? I believe in merit and independence. Let slackers reap what they sow (not reap what they don't sow?).

I distinguish between those who can't help themselves and those who can. Those who are mentally and physically able to fend for themselves should live according to their means. Those who can't should be cared for by the community.

Life is what you make of it. No able-bodied person deserves a free ride or a free lunch.

Take my money to support the helpless but don't pick my pocket.
I'm a slacker. I think "work smarter not harder". I work and I like to work. I also make music and like to entertain people with it. I wish I didn't have to choose between the two. I wish I could make money with my music but it takes money to make money and I don't have any. If I lost my job tomorrow I would be homeless in a month. There are no guarantees that I would get a new job, never mind one that would pay me enough to stay where I am. The choice between homelessness and being a wage slave is no choice at all.

Our economic system requires that every able bodied person works and earns a salary. Our economic system does not provide work for every able bodied person.

If all the people on welfare right now tried to work tomorrow how many would get a job? Any job? 20% of us are unemployed if the numbers can be believed. Many of those peoples' jobs are gone overseas. Gone forever. Now what?

I get the whole 'give a man a fish/teach a man to fish' thing. I also get 'do unto other as you would have them do unto you'.

In the course of every single person's life on Earth there will be large portions of time when they CANNOT work. For whatever reason. At some point you will have been too young to work, then too sick to work and then too old to work. You don't deserve a helping hand during these times? Bullshit.

Are there people that refuse to work? Yes there are. Are there people who don't want to work that will work anyways? Yes. Those people probably do a shitty job in their work. Who can blame them? They don't want to be there. Then I get shitty service or a giant oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. I don't want people who don't want to work taking up any good job from someone who will do it better with a smile to boot!

If everybody threw down on a safety net then no one's pocket would be picked. Or at the least it would be pennies instead of dollars. I would gladly share half of my income if that would mean I could work for pleasure instead of necessity.
Does a pool of money generate a higher dividend per person than that person's original bucket of money would generate on it's own? So you want to build a town with community investments and community labor. Isn't that just communism? You want to start a communist commune as a social experiment? Didn't the U.S.S.R. do that not too long ago? Where did they go wrong?

I am certain that if you draw up plans for an atheistic, underground, self sustaining gardening town with free TV and Internet, and you have the deed to the land somewhere, that you will have tons of volunteer people and volunteer money. That is what is so great about the Internet.

I realize I'm being a bit harsh. You're idea does sound well thought out and pleasant but it is essentially communism, isn't it? I've always found that total communism works best on paper. You would need a lot of money. Your town would be like a mini-Dubai without all the rules. Everyone a Prince! Who would clean the toilets?
Fair enough! So long as they get clean! But seriously. How do you decide what gets done? All it would take is for the guy that makes sandwiches in the middle of town to get mad about not having ESPN or something and refuse to serve a sandwich till he gets it, or some other terrible ransom scenario. Everyone would have equal access to the same strong arm tactics depending on what they chose to do. How do you deal with that kind of crap? Government has and has always had only one true authority and that is the authority to use force. If you can't prevent people from screwing with the machinery how long could the community last?

I'm all for loose/few rules in society but some are still needed and those need to be enforced for the greater good of society. You know, no murder or rape etc.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service