Why is socialism so-anti American to Republicans but racism, isn't?

[brycejones]

Many US backed Central/South American dictatorships have done the same things or even worse than Castro, yet Castro is the only one ever mentioned.

That's because they allowed Mr. Chicken to open franchises there. Mr. Chicken is America.

 

[m8d]

Racism is American as apple pie.

 

[woolfe9998]

It’s dehumanizing your political opponents. Republicans have overplayed the term socialism much as Democrats have overplayed the term fascism so as to render both meaningless. Racism is unAmerican, exploiting it for political purposes is very American.

"Fascism" is unfortunately not meaningless when it comes to Trump and the nature of his following. The points of similarity with historical fascist movements are too numerous to ignore.

 

[ondma]

Medicare, social security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare. All of those are socialist concepts. The argument is always about how far along the scale we move.
More and more republican's will get on the UHC band wagon as the price of basic medical care becomes more and more absurd. I'm self employed, my medical insurance is my single largest expense.

I have a group health plan, Blue Cross, through the federal government, and even in a group plan it is still my biggest monthly expense. (house is paid for so no payment there)

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Fascism" is unfortunately not meaningless when it comes to Trump and the nature of his following. The points of similarity with historical fascist movements are too numerous to ignore.

Trump is certainly authoritarian, but for all the cries of fascism, none if it has come to fruition. There was concern of armed militias intimidating voters - didn’t happen. There was concern that Trump would somehow hijack the USPS and stop mail in ballots from arriving on time - didn’t happen. There was concern the judiciary would somehow swing the election to Trump - won’t happen, as he keeps getting handed one legal loss after another.

 

[Commodus]

Trump is certainly authoritarian, but for all the cries of fascism, none if it has come to fruition. There was concern of armed militias intimidating voters - didn’t happen. There was concern that Trump would somehow hijack the USPS and stop mail in ballots from arriving on time - didn’t happen. There was concern the judiciary would somehow swing the election to Trump - won’t happen, as he keeps getting handed one legal loss after another.

He does have fascist elements, though. The desire to use military force to silence opposition. His attacks on the press go beyond "I don't like what they're saying" to include demonization and even repeated questions about having FCC licenses revoked. He uses the DOJ and other institutions to protect him, personally, rather than serve the public. He sees the government as a tool to enrich himself and companies he likes (fascism often intertwines corporations). And let's not forget that 'don't believe your eyes and ears, believe only me' rhetoric.

Keep in mind that Trump explicitly said he was interfering with the USPS to help his election chances. He didn't hijack it as such, but he clearly liked that he was starving it.

On the judiciary... fascist tendencies are about intention, not the successful execution. There's no doubt that Trump wants to steal the election and hold on to power as long as he wants — it's just that there's enough of an impartial legal system left that he can't.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump is certainly authoritarian, but for all the cries of fascism, none if it has come to fruition. There was concern of armed militias intimidating voters - didn’t happen. There was concern that Trump would somehow hijack the USPS and stop mail in ballots from arriving on time - didn’t happen. There was concern the judiciary would somehow swing the election to Trump - won’t happen, as he keeps getting handed one legal loss after another.

True enough, but it's not over until it's over. Trump won't quit, nor will he do a fucking thing about the pandemic. He's like a spiteful little kid who'll break it if he can't have it.

 

[feralkid]

Because America was founded on racism, not socialism.

Sad but true x 1000.

 

[Torn Mind]

That anti-socialism and anti-racism are presented as a false dilemma just shows how politics pollutes minds with false paradigms. This despite the fact that politicians only adopt a platform to obtain votes, not to hammer out the truth in the process of politics.


Those who have never experienced or have first-hand accounts of the "process" of how Marxism is practically implemented are setting up their locales for an indefinite period of subjugation. In the pursuit of some vision of "equality of wealth", there is no sense that the government is a machine in unto itself and thus any sort of rights proper are merely obstructions to a material utopia to a Marxist who enters the system. The utopia must be obtained by any means necessary, although in socialism, the populace is persuaded rather than conquered. That does not matter to the power brokers, for the State will always make sure it's agents and cronies are well-fed...until they are disposable or no longer tow the party line.

The welfare state alone is not socialist, for merely taking coin cannot, in itself, allow the government to implement a system of subjugation and tight enforcement. Far tighter than what Americans are used to, that's for sure. However, the pro-social democrat, blind in his pursuit in assisting others, look the other way and laughably treat the government as a literal human of good faith and character, swallowing the poison pill laws that subtly expanded the power of the state to the point where the authorities essentially do whatever the hell they want to ensure future compliance. The only reason America has not devolved is that it is systemically difficult to do so, designed by pragmatists(literally lawyers) responding to actual use of power by a state leader with very little systemic inhibitions at that time. To conquer it requires conquering all 50 in the end and then dissolve the "states" themselves.

The majority of the state's populace probably don't even know their Governor, or if they do, they don't know the subordinates and they sure as hell don't know anyone in the legislative body. The practical Marxist state is never far away from reminding you they exist. All it takes is a neighbor yapping to the authorities, and indefinite detention begins. No search warrant process or silliness like due process. A "sin" against the state is the equivalent of religious blasphemy, but there is fear of God for the state. It is a purely human creation, and thus the license it can have is practically unlimited.

Complicating matters is that "book socialism" doesn't provide the tangible template of conquering in its definition. It just calls it "public" ownership. Such diction creates the illusion of power to the reader because "ownership" implies a degree of actual control and agency to operate whatever thing is owned. That is an illusion. The "government" owns the stuff, not you and you don't control anything.

This the reason the Republicans can sway many Cubans. They know just like my mother knows Communism. My mother was born in 1949 in Communist China. So they have seen they potential realities of Marxism and know all the details and the nitty gritty. The general American populace know about the situation as well as a child and abstract about the Marxist condition as well as a virgin.

A distinction can be made between a mere welfare state and whatever Marxist derivates such as socialism or communism, but its proponents are indeed deep in their delusion that socialism proper is a harmless thing or that tasking the government to engage in a vicious "immune response" against whatever taboo of the day is adopted is a good thing just because the opposition broke said taboo.

The great irony is that the seduction of socialism is all so easy because of the enormous collective spending power the world has at the moment. Just take loan, and fund the project. Except that budget still matters. Local governments cannot get away with it and often cut projects if the funding isn't there. Just because the world has deep pockets doesn't mean they are infinite.

 

[Torn Mind]

Medicare is an order of magnitude more efficient than private insurance. Their margin is tiny by comparison.
Public schools run on a shoestring budget and they spend much less per student than most private schools do.
USPS is able to deliver mail and packages across the country for a fraction of the cost of UPS/FedEx. If they increased their cost a tiny bit, they would be more solvent and still cheaper.

The real problem with public institutions is when they intersect with private contractors. Those contracts are often no-bid and the government never gets a good rate.

The only truth to your statement about costing more would be that workers for the government tend to be paid better and have better benefits. Honestly, we need to pass livable wage laws so that all workers are treated in the same way. This would put government on equal footing with private enterprise.

I'm not a complete socialist/fascist. The government should not own everything. The government should run the things that are needed for all of society though like transportation infrastructure, health care, education, police, fire, military, social security. All attempts to privatise these things end up costing people more because some greedy private sector goon wants to take a 20-30% cut. This doesn't happen in the government world as there is no one to take the cut.

Fedex and UPS do not deliver letter mail because they can't. They all can deliver parcels. So it's Priority Mail/Parcel Select vs the ground delivery of Fedex and UPS. There are certain weight/distance combos in which UPS and Fedex become the more economical choice.

in addition, Greenman's particular example is in some local municipality in his state, which is California. In local municipalities, all sorts of "failures" can happen and allow one part to take over indefinitely. That you bring other programs does not contradict or prove false what happened there. He literally got money for doing the work there. The facts were stated clearly. That government spent money on renovations that all got turned back into dust the next year.

 

[SmCaudata]

in addition, Greenman's particular example is in some local municipality in his state, which is California. In local municipalities, all sorts of "failures" can happen and allow one part to take over indefinitely. That you bring other programs does not contradict or prove false what happened there. He literally got money for doing the work there. The facts were stated clearly. That government spent money on renovations that all got turned back into dust the next year.

Which happens in private industry as well.

 

[MrSquished]

That anti-socialism and anti-racism are presented as a false dilemma just shows how politics pollutes minds with false paradigms. This despite the fact that politicians only adopt a platform to obtain votes, not to hammer out the truth in the process of politics.


Those who have never experienced or have first-hand accounts of the "process" of how Marxism is practically implemented are setting up their locales for an indefinite period of subjugation. In the pursuit of some vision of "equality of wealth", there is no sense that the government is a machine in unto itself and thus any sort of rights proper are merely obstructions to a material utopia to a Marxist who enters the system. The utopia must be obtained by any means necessary, although in socialism, the populace is persuaded rather than conquered. That does not matter to the power brokers, for the State will always make sure it's agents and cronies are well-fed...until they are disposable or no longer tow the party line.

The welfare state alone is not socialist, for merely taking coin cannot, in itself, allow the government to implement a system of subjugation and tight enforcement. Far tighter than what Americans are used to, that's for sure. However, the pro-social democrat, blind in his pursuit in assisting others, look the other way and laughably treat the government as a literal human of good faith and character, swallowing the poison pill laws that subtly expanded the power of the state to the point where the authorities essentially do whatever the hell they want to ensure future compliance. The only reason America has not devolved is that it is systemically difficult to do so, designed by pragmatists(literally lawyers) responding to actual use of power by a state leader with very little systemic inhibitions at that time. To conquer it requires conquering all 50 in the end and then dissolve the "states" themselves.

The majority of the state's populace probably don't even know their Governor, or if they do, they don't know the subordinates and they sure as hell don't know anyone in the legislative body. The practical Marxist state is never far away from reminding you they exist. All it takes is a neighbor yapping to the authorities, and indefinite detention begins. No search warrant process or silliness like due process. A "sin" against the state is the equivalent of religious blasphemy, but there is fear of God for the state. It is a purely human creation, and thus the license it can have is practically unlimited.

Complicating matters is that "book socialism" doesn't provide the tangible template of conquering in its definition. It just calls it "public" ownership. Such diction creates the illusion of power to the reader because "ownership" implies a degree of actual control and agency to operate whatever thing is owned. That is an illusion. The "government" owns the stuff, not you and you don't control anything.

This the reason the Republicans can sway many Cubans. They know just like my mother knows Communism. My mother was born in 1949 in Communist China. So they have seen they potential realities of Marxism and know all the details and the nitty gritty. The general American populace know about the situation as well as a child and abstract about the Marxist condition as well as a virgin.

A distinction can be made between a mere welfare state and whatever Marxist derivates such as socialism or communism, but its proponents are indeed deep in their delusion that socialism proper is a harmless thing or that tasking the government to engage in a vicious "immune response" against whatever taboo of the day is adopted is a good thing just because the opposition broke said taboo.

The great irony is that the seduction of socialism is all so easy because of the enormous collective spending power the world has at the moment. Just take loan, and fund the project. Except that budget still matters. Local governments cannot get away with it and often cut projects if the funding isn't there. Just because the world has deep pockets doesn't mean they are infinite.

You are so far gone with your mentions of Marxism. I mean you type a lot to hide the fact that you are, in fact, completely bonkers. You mention politics pollutes minds with false paradigms. You are exhibits A, B and C of that.

 

[Torn Mind]

Eliminate welfare. Eliminate food stamps. Eliminate the pyramid scheme of social security. Only the truly too disabled to work get any form of government assistance.

Food stamps often do have a work requirement to maintain them. Now, the creative divers will then obtain some form of certification that they have mental health issues like depression, and then they still can get food stamps without needing to work. But "officially", people between 18-49 with no dependents have to work to get food stamps.

 

[Torn Mind]

You are so far gone with your mentions of Marxism. I mean you type a lot to hide the fact that you are, in fact, completely bonkers. You mention politics pollutes minds with false paradigms. You are exhibits A, B and C of that.

I don't deal with foolish political dichotomies. Subscribing to forever-mutable platforms and their subsequent paradigms is the first step to not understanding anything.

I don't think you read anything I said particularly carefully.

Marxism doesn't exist merely as concepts in a book for people to read and feel good about themselves after agreeing with it on paper while devouring some avocado toast.

It is something that gets implemented, and no attention is paid to how its various forms were implemented and used to rule various populaces in history.

 

[Torn Mind]

Which happens in private industry as well.

Not disagreeing with that happens; companies can easily become poorly run. Just that in this particular case, if that municipality is willing to waste taxpayer dollars like that, there are likely other projects going on that similarly just pissed its constituents money into uselessness. Since he is in California, it is likely the politics are 65/35 in favor of one party, hence, the threat of being deposed is not a threat to stop such behavior.

 

[SmCaudata]

Not disagreeing with that happens; companies can easily become poorly run. Just that in this particular case, if that municipality is willing to waste taxpayer dollars like that, there are likely other projects going on that similarly just pissed its constituents money into uselessness. Since he is in California, it is likely the politics are 65/35 in favor of one party, hence, the threat of being deposed is not a threat to stop such behavior.

Thats like saying, "we had record cold temps. If there isbone cold day, there are probably more. Global warming is a farce." Incidentally the single example argument is Trump's justification for claiming voter fraud.

Does waste exist? Most certainly. Is waste worse in government than private sector? Hard to say. I know that there is a lot of auditing in the private sector.

 

[Vic]

Seems that there must be some reason why Republicans are more afraid of the Constitutional guarantee of govt by, of, and for the People than they are of autocratic leaders who refuse to accept election results when they've been voted out.

 

[sao123]

Seems that there must be some reason why Republicans are more afraid of the Constitutional guarantee of govt by, of, and for the People than they are of autocratic leaders who refuse to accept election results when they've been voted out.

When people who desire less government, have more government forced upon them, then it is by definition no longer by, of, and for the people.

 

[sdifox]

When people who desire less government, have more government forced upon them, then it is by definition no longer by, of, and for the people.

You <> all the people.

 

[sao123]

You <> all the people.

No. but 71 Million voters prove you otherwise.

 

[sdifox]

No. but 71 Million voters prove you otherwise.

so how many of the 71M are receiving social assistance from the federal government?

 

[Jhhnn]

No. but 71 Million voters prove you otherwise.

You have not shown that to be the reason people voted for Trump. You haven't shown there's any reason at all, other than being hornswaggled by the world's greatest con artist.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump is certainly authoritarian, but for all the cries of fascism, none if it has come to fruition. There was concern of armed militias intimidating voters - didn’t happen. There was concern that Trump would somehow hijack the USPS and stop mail in ballots from arriving on time - didn’t happen. There was concern the judiciary would somehow swing the election to Trump - won’t happen, as he keeps getting handed one legal loss after another.

Because our system so far seems to be working to prevent Trump's very blatantly fascist desires to fascist his way into unchecked power is not an argument that Trump isn't fascist.

Far from it. "Because what he is trying to do isn't working, means that what he is trying to do, is not what he is trying to do." ...that's a weird logic you have there. But hey, it qualifies you for SCOTUS! You could sit right there and overturn the Voting Rights Act with that very same argument!

 

[zinfamous]

No. but 71 Million voters prove you otherwise.

You lost. Get over it.

oh wait, so now you're interested in vote totals (a minority vote total at that, lol)?

How does it make you feel that the majority of Americans (since you think vote totals mean something now), have voted against your broken, useless ideology in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections?

 

[zinfamous]

When people who desire less government, have more government forced upon them, then it is by definition no longer by, of, and for the people.

then you should probably stop voting for Republicans, because they are the ones that only ever increase the size of government, and increase spending.

I mean, assuming you actually care about results, and not empty talking points.


...or are you one of those fantasy libertopians that wants to live in a world where grandmas vital life essences are harvested before the age of 65 so that she can continue to be useful to society and never be a drain on anyone?

Just a suggestion: Libertopians will never win because your paper ideas don't work in real life.