How has America come to hate and distrust "isms?"

JolietJake

JolietJake

Banned
I bring this up because of a discussion in a history class today. People don't realize this, for a variety of reasons, but we've incorporated many Socialistic and Communistic/Marxist ideas into our government and most people don't even realize it.

Just for example, the idea of an 8 hour work day is a very Marxist idea. Usually we associate that term with some sort of evil political movement, but we like that idea of an 8 hour work week.

The socialist party is the party of the worker, of the disadvantaged little guy, yet most of the people in the US who fit that description have a knee jerk reaction that socialism is evil. Yet a lot fo those people would have no problem with a labor union, something that is anything but a capitalist idea.

Think of all the socialized government programs we have and depend on, yet many people who use those programs would probably say socialism is bad.

Now of course known of these forms of government really exist. We aren't truly capitalist, the Chinese aren't truly communist, and so on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']I want an 8-Hour work week... where do I sign up? :)[/QUOTE]

obama-joker-poster-photos.jpg


Socialist! ;)
 
And that lady and gents is why you don't post at 11 pm after a long day.:lol::oops:

But seriously, this was discussed at length and i'd really like to hear everyone's opinion on how it happened.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']I hate and distrust organisms.[/QUOTE]

Don't knock them till you've had one Mak, you just need a lover with the right skills.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']uh buddy, reread his post.[/QUOTE]

:roll: That was the joke dude, it was a hilarious "X sounds like Y" gag. Hence Mak's rimshot.

Ok, it wasn't that hilarious.
 
[quote name='benjamouth']:roll: That was the joke dude, it was a hilarious "X sounds like Y" gag. Hence Mak's rimshot.

Ok, it wasn't that hilarious.[/QUOTE]

Claiming your inability to read was an attempt to make a pun. You're worse than Hitler.
 
I don't know any professional that only works an 8 hour work day.

How many "workers" and "disadvantaged little guy['s]" actually prosper in true socialist societies? Is the motivation their prosperity or is it just the perceived redistribution of wealth and privilege fueled by "class envy" and a socially antagonistic mentality?
 
Yeah, those little guys under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Pol Pot all did great. Hooray little guy.

Americans are distrustful of government because government inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Socialism is just an avenue of expanding government power and control by making the people more dependent on the state.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I don't know any professional that only works an 8 hour work day.

How many "workers" and "disadvantaged little guy['s]" actually prosper in true socialist societies? Is the motivation their prosperity or is it just the perceived redistribution of wealth and privilege fueled by "class envy" and a socially antagonistic mentality?[/QUOTE]

I'm a professional that works 8 hour days. Course, I chose to work for the government and take a hefty salary cut because I value my time more than money.

The Economist Intelligence Unit did a quality of life survey in 2005. I think they're going to do another one this year. Anyway, the US ranked 13th overall, despite ranking #2 in GDP per person. The list is really interesting because of the choice for #1, Ireland. They're now famous along with Iceland for putting it all in the hands of the modern financiers and then going right off the cliff with them. Taking those two off the list (which we could call ultra-capitalist from a monetary policy point of view), the other 8 in the top 10 are all socialist states, more of them than not probably earning an "ultra-socialist" tag.

So after the crash, it seems better than even money that the top 10 countries with the highest qualities of life will all be socialist. And this survey is done by a magazine who's primary mission is to ideologically support capitalist goals, so it's not like we're gaming the system here.

If you expand to the top 20, you continue the trend of strong socialist countries showing well. Assuming the US, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore are "capitalists", that's still a full 16 of the top 20 being socialist. Expand to the top 30 and you get 25 of the 30 qualifying as socialist.

I would call that a trend.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 8-hour work day is something that's always gotten me as well. How many successful small business owners work 8 hour days? Hell, the management team at my Walmart often pull 12 hour days (or more).

As for labor unions - I don't have a problem with them, in theory. The problem comes in when the government affirms the union's "authority".

If any other group of people were to get together and start pricing their goods and services at a comparable rate, we'd have government investigations launched to investigate these people for collusion and price fixing. Yet unionized individuals are allowed to do this - and given special treatment by Uncle Sam?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If any other group of people were to get together and start pricing their goods and services at a comparable rate, we'd have government investigations launched to investigate these people for collusion and price fixing. Yet unionized individuals are allowed to do this - and given special treatment by Uncle Sam?[/QUOTE]
Capital concentrates and exercises power based on that concentration all the time. Private equity, Airline carrier groupings agreements, virtually every modern financial instrument exercises leverage based on size and discipline. If you're going to bitch about labor's ability to concentrate and exercise power, you'd have to unwind capital's ability to do so as well. I don't think that's a good idea.
[quote name='dafoomie']Americans are distrustful of government because government inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Socialism is just an avenue of expanding government power and control by making the people more dependent on the state.[/QUOTE]
Americans are distrustful of corporations because corporations inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Capitalism is just an avenue of expanding corporations power and control by making the people more dependent on the corporation.

Americans are distrustful of politicians because politicians inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Democracy is just an avenue of expanding political power and control by making the people more dependent on the politicians.

Doesn't really work well as a cognizant argument if it easily applies to virtually everything.
 
:lol:
Sorry for the easy tangent JJ.

Perhaps a better question is what motivates someone to try and delineate a set of values from a clear set of ideology. It gets back to the whole "words mean things" issue.

Whenever an ideologue, regardless of his or her leanings, starts with the Foucault's arbitrary nature of language tact and nothing's an absolute, no country is a pure "X" society . . .etc. I always know I'm about to be incrementally spoon fed their shit.

[quote name='speedracer']I'm a professional that works 8 hour days. Course, I work for the government.
[/QUOTE]
No offense meant, but you are then a bureaucrat and not a professional.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Capital concentrates and exercises power based on that concentration all the time. Private equity, Airline carrier groupings agreements, virtually every modern financial instrument exercises leverage based on size and discipline. If you're going to bitch about labor's ability to concentrate and exercise power, you'd have to unwind capital's ability to do so as well. I don't think that's a good idea.[/QUOTE]

My problem isn't with the use of "power" to leverage prices/wages. It's with the double standard that it's handled with by the government.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Americans are distrustful of corporations because corporations inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Capitalism is just an avenue of expanding corporations power and control by making the people more dependent on the corporation.

Americans are distrustful of politicians because politicians inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Democracy is just an avenue of expanding political power and control by making the people more dependent on the politicians.

Doesn't really work well as a cognizant argument if it easily applies to virtually everything.[/QUOTE]
But Americans are distrustful of large corporations and politicians.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']But Americans are distrustful of large corporations and politicians.[/QUOTE]
Right.

But human beings like to organize politically and they like to organize and trade.

So.

It doesn't really get us anywhere.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What happened to your cool Mr. Freeze avatar? I liked it.[/QUOTE]
Well, I was planning on...
...
[quote name='elprincipe']What happened to your cool Mr. Freeze avatar? I liked it.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='elprincipe']cool Mr. Freeze avatar[/QUOTE]
[quote name='elprincipe']cool Mr. Freeze[/QUOTE]
Oh, fuck no, no answer for you, Arnie.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I don't know any professional that only works an 8 hour work day.

How many "workers" and "disadvantaged little guy['s]" actually prosper in true socialist societies? Is the motivation their prosperity or is it just the perceived redistribution of wealth and privilege fueled by "class envy" and a socially antagonistic mentality?[/QUOTE]
I'm looking at this from a historical standpoint, that has been the traditional role of the socialist party, that cpaitalists favored the businessmen and socialsts favored the working class. Noww whether that is still true or not is debatable i suppose.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Yeah, those little guys under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Pol Pot all did great. Hooray little guy.

Americans are distrustful of government because government inevitably tries to maximize its own power. Socialism is just an avenue of expanding government power and control by making the people more dependent on the state.[/QUOTE]
None of the men you listed were communists. There has never been a truly communist government, just like there has never been a truly capitalist government.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You misspelled America.[/QUOTE]
Is this really all you have to add to the conversation? A critique of my late night typing skills?:roll:
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']:lol:
Sorry for the easy tangent JJ.

Perhaps a better question is what motivates someone to try and delineate a set of values from a clear set of ideology. It gets back to the whole "words mean things" issue.

Whenever an ideologue, regardless of his or her leanings, starts with the Foucault's arbitrary nature of language tact and nothing's an absolute, no country is a pure "X" society . . .etc. I always know I'm about to be incrementally spoon fed their shit.


No offense meant, but you are then a bureaucrat and not a professional.[/QUOTE]hmm, well you might not like where i'm going with this then. That basically is my point, that we don't know what a truly socialist or communistic society would be like since there has never been one.
 
Why is it assumed that socialism or communism favors the "little guy" or than that people always say they do?

The United Auto Workers union members undoubtedly thought they were getting a great deal, and they did in the short term. In reality, their salaries are far more than they should be and have played a large role in the tanking of american auto companies, while non-american auto companies with factories in america have done much better without the huge union influence.

Have teacher's unions helped or hurt the american educational system? The only people that truly benefit from unions are those that sit at the top and collect dues.
 
Because capitalism was never designed to help anyone but those with the means to take advantage of it. When capitalism first surfaced in Europe, do you think that it benefited the working class much? Hell, working conditions were horrible during the industrial revolution (of any country). The businessmen who controlled the capital profited hugely and everyone else got screwed. Do you realize it used to be capitalist doctrine that paying people little to nothing was actually a good thing? Which it was for the businessmen of course, but they tried to rationalize it by saying it wouldn't help the workers to pay them anymore. Their rational was basically that by paying the works more, htey'd have more kids, which would cost more to support, which would cause the works to slide back down the economic ladder again.Now i realize that conditions have improved a great deal since then, but capitalism still favors those with the capital, and it always will, that's the whole point of the system.

My point is that socialism or even communism is basically inverted capitalism, where capitalism favors the businessmen, socialism/communism was designed to favor the workers. i don't want to discuss socialism or communism as it has been applied in most countries, because they're managed to pervert the ideas that the systems are based on. I guess it's a theory vs. practice sort of argument.
 
[quote name='atreyue']
Have teacher's unions helped or hurt the american educational system? The only people that truly benefit from unions are those that sit at the top and collect dues.[/QUOTE]

It hurts the systems, but it helps the workers--teachers in this case.

Its near impossible to fire a tenured teacher, or to change their contracts to tie raises (much less continued employment) to student outcomes etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It hurts the systems, but it helps the workers--teachers in this case.

Its near impossible to fire a tenured teacher, or to change their contracts to tie raises (much less continued employment) to student outcomes etc.[/QUOTE]

A decent teachers union (like my parents) makes it nearly impossible to fire any teacher. Heck, they're getting 3.2% (or 3.4%, one of the two) on top of cost of living raises this year with their new contract that just got hammered out.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Because capitalism was never designed to help anyone but those with the means to take advantage of it. When capitalism first surfaced in Europe, do you think that it benefited the working class much? Hell, working conditions were horrible during the industrial revolution (of any country). The businessmen who controlled the capital profited hugely and everyone else got screwed. Do you realize it used to be capitalist doctrine that paying people little to nothing was actually a good thing? Which it was for the businessmen of course, but they tried to rationalize it by saying it wouldn't help the workers to pay them anymore. Their rational was basically that by paying the works more, htey'd have more kids, which would cost more to support, which would cause the works to slide back down the economic ladder again.Now i realize that conditions have improved a great deal since then, but capitalism still favors those with the capital, and it always will, that's the whole point of the system.[/QUOTE]

Capitalism + protections against monopolies (or more specifically, companies buying laws that work specifically in their favor) = a system that works for every class. A system that allows competition to arise on its own balances itself and naturally gives the workforce more power because companies have to compete for labor. Companies that fail to balance profit with the other concerns that make a business sound go bankrupt. Unless they are bailed out by government laws (through both regulation AND deregulation) or government money. Doesn't sound like capitalism is the problem.

The stupidest thing GWB ever said: "I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

My point is that socialism or even communism is basically inverted capitalism, where capitalism favors the businessmen, socialism/communism was designed to favor the workers. i don't want to discuss socialism or communism as it has been applied in most countries, because they're managed to pervert the ideas that the systems are based on. I guess it's a theory vs. practice sort of argument.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the practice fails because the theory is flawed. Sometimes the stated theory isn't the actual goal. I don't think it's a coincidence that nearly every application has resulted in the massive consolidation of power in a ruling class that pays lip service to your idea of favoring the workers.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It hurts the systems, but it helps the workers--teachers in this case.

Its near impossible to fire a tenured teacher, or to change their contracts to tie raises (much less continued employment) to student outcomes etc.[/QUOTE]

Anything that hurts the system ultimately hurts everyone in the system. The union holds the company hostage to guarantee "rights" to more income, tenure, benefits, with no concern over whether those things have been earned or are even feasible. Those companies become stagnant, uncompetitive and die. Then the workers are out of a job. The union bosses get fat off of dues and move on to unionize the next company and collect more dues with promises that ultimately boil down to the same thing the government and democrats and these particular "isms" have been peddling: "You are entitled." If you want to know exactly what you're entitled to, take a real look at the ultimate outcomes of most every implementation of those systems on almost every level they've ever been implemented. Then read the actual philosophies and try to filter out the propaganda. What you're left with in the practical application is a prettied up and bastardized utilitarianism.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']None of the men you listed were communists. There has never been a truly communist government, just like there has never been a truly capitalist government.[/QUOTE]
Mao Zedong was most certainly a communist, he was far closer to Marxism than the Soviets ever were. Where he departed from traditional communism was his focus on agrarianism instead of industrialism.

Communism is absolutely not for the little guy. The difference is, one system leaves control of the markets to the private sector with varying degrees of regulation, and the other has control over all economic activity. One system lets each individual make economic decisions for themselves, and the other system makes those decisions for you. There is no personal freedom without economic freedom.

In this country you have the opportunity though hard work to improve your conditions. In Communism, the state determines what you "need" regardless of your effort or ability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top