4 ms·

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, and I'm proud to say I live in a socialist country. It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%. And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it. In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community. Anything else, in my book, is uncivilized. --- To those citing governments destroying incentive structures (can't reply - your comment is deleted), I strongly suggest looking up the Dutch model for infrastructure. In a very, very summarized example, the government gives subsidy to private/public hybrid organizations. Those organizations compete in the regular market. In order to qualify for subsidy you need to meet the government standards. Think internet companies, hospitals, etc. You're perfectly free to set up a 100% privatized hospital in the Netherlands - you just won't qualify for government subsidy.

moistgorilla 11y ago
The government of almost every country is -almost always- incompetent and inefficient. Why would I want to give them my money for "security" when I could assure myself that security much more effectively?
- nightcracker 11y ago
  Because we are a civilized society, and this is not about you. A lot of people can _not_ assure that security for themselves.
x5n1 11y ago
According to Richard D. Wolfe https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff It's because American Capitalists felt threatened by the Socialists, because the New Deal and a bunch of other things that happened in the 20th century due to unions and Socialist activism along with American elite alignment that scared them and their continued ability to run America for their interest, so they spread tons of rhetoric and propaganda to make Socialism a boogie man, eventually associating it with Communism... and it worked. In general in the United States ideological words get muddled through rhetoric and propaganda until you can no longer talk about them. When this happens it's impossible to act on anything because you can't talk about it much less come to any conclusion about whether it's good or not or if it serves your interests. It's a brilliant propaganda technique that seems to have been mastered to stifle any debate about ideology.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I think it generalizes to Americans being uncomfortable with anything they perceive as ideology. The propaganda just serves that. Lyndon Johnson would have "gotten away with" The Great Society had he not also been forced to deal with Vietnam. Regardless of what we in the US say of that, those programs are very much part of our ...portfolio. At an ethical level, Americans are much more likely to embrace consumer surplus as a core value, hence the emphasis on work rather than on government. Our "conservatism" when it is coherent is really a more-radical Liberalism in the sense of an emphasis on a self-reliant individual.
yodsanklai 11y ago
"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Propaganda I assume. Socialist ideas may be ok as long as the word isn't used. I guess we need to find a new politically correct word for it because the old one is too pejorative now.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  "Fragile By Design" does an excellent teasing apart of the small differences between Canadian and American social... consciousness as expressed in government policy. A very surprising book. The too-short upshot is - Canadians actively consider the social welfare function as a thing in itself, while Americans try to bury it under complicated things like mortgage subsidies.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wozniacki 11y ago
It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%. And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it. In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community. Here, I'm only referring to the sensible, politically astute contingent of Americans who yet don't warm up to socialism or even high taxation for that matter. I'm not talking about the impulsively right-leaning lot here. I think such Americans genuinely question if such a smooth trade off - between paying a good chunk more in taxes and a proportionate increase in the standard of living of those on whom that increase in taxation is supposed to benefit - is ever possible in a government that is rife with dysfunction, graft and bewildering inefficiencies at every level. The examples of this present themselves at regular frequencies - say the botched roll out of the healthcare website [1] a few years ago - in the glare of the American media, which don't exactly help either. Further exacerbating this problem is that bright young Americans [2] don't want to serve in the public sector in similar rates as in Northern Europe. [1] Obamacare Website Costs Exceed $2 Billion, Study Finds http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-... [2] 'Pro-Government' Millennials Take Government Jobs, Discover They Suck, Move to the Private Sector http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-government-jobs-discove http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-governmen...
- x5n1 11y ago
  As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national. That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.
  - afsina 11y ago
    As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.
afsina 11y ago
Perhaps it is because it is not applicable to most countries. Netherlands has a very strong private industry and a reasonably small population. High tech - high profit Industry can withstand the very high taxes imposed by the government. To me, Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment is less socialistic. But, if people are ok with current situation, it is their choice. It is easy to play socialism where you have strong private industry and/or abundant natural resources with small population. Try that in say, India and you will see the catastrophic results in very short time (In fact, they have recovered by abandoning socialistic policies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Post-liberalisation_period_.28since_1991.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Post-liberali... ).
- nightcracker 11y ago
  > To me, [the] Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment [sic] is less socialistic. Who would be more prosperous? The richest 1% would be much richer, yes. The bottom 50% of the population would be a lot worse off: sick and uneducated.
  - afsina 11y ago
    I would challenge that. What is the average salary of %50 and their tax percentage?
    - nightcracker 11y ago
      Not the most reliable source, but I don't have much time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_median_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... Median gross salary is €1714 monthly or €20568 yearly. Then, looking up the income taxation (reliable): http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/ http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/ It seems that median salary almost entirely fits in the first 'schijf' (english: disk) of taxation. This means that the total income tax is: 19822 * 0.365 + (20568 - 19822) * 0.42 = €7548 yearly.
- 11y ago
abrgr 11y ago
Socialism is a "bogeyman" in the US because it has contributed nothing to the success of our country and capitalism and private property, its antithesis, has been responsible for our rise as the greatest economic power the world has ever seen. Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great place and I loved the time I spent there, but no one talks about replicating the inventiveness and penchant for the creation of world-changing technologies of the Netherlands. The US is the innovation capital of the world for a reason.
- bakhy 11y ago
  it's not really that simple. the US had enormous untapped natural resources, and is still well-off in that respect. and the two world wars were not fought on its territory. of course, i do not want to say that's all, the US model is respectable and its success deserves respect. i just don't think it can be completely attributed to anti-socialism, nor that a bit of socialism would destroy it. (which, btw, we can see now, or? US does have a pretty big social apparatus, and is still doing very well.)
- eevilspock 11y ago
  Have you considered how much American innovation happened as a result of: - Government programs, the huge military budget, and the once huge space budget (which can be argued was really an extension of the military budget). Can you say for certain that the Internet and would have come about in the U.S. first if it weren't for DARPA? The advancement of computers if it weren't for NASA? - Non capitalist or profit seeking scientists (Many if not most of whom are funded by the government or philanthropies). - Luck. The U.S. has an immense natural resources to population ratio, perhaps the highest. It has, at present, virtually limitless land. It doesn't have to worry much about its borders or invasion. Our one border "worry" is actually a benefit to exploitive capitalism: a super cheap black-market labor. Since you mention "private property", do you realize it is entirely antithetical to free market principles? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313. Since you mention Elon Musk, could he have achieved what he achieved without $4.9 billion in government subsidies? (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...) I could easily extend this list and make a more powerful argument, but I have work to do. The point I'm really making is to be objective about your analysis of what is behind American innovation and success. We won't even get into things that we call innovation but have not made the world a better place.
lujim 11y ago
I don't think it's about being a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I think a lot of people in the US don't care for the treatment they get when they have to deal with federal, state, or local government services. Long lines and extremely rude government employees who abuse bureaucratic power just because they can. Think the USPS (long lines), TSA (rude and unprofessional), state run DMV's (long lines and rude). Many of them are a nightmare to deal with and many people in the US aren't excited about extending that unique brand of terrible service into MORE of our lives. Also I often hear the argument that many socialist and communist implementations failed due to corruption at the highest levels. I would argue that due to the reliance on central planning (and human central planners) those systems are just way more susceptible to corruption. Is there a single group of humans that has shown itself to be free from the formation of elite classes and corruption? From pre-school to the old folks home power and influence shift between people and they take advantage of it. How would a country ever work past that to implement large scale redistribution of resources through central planners?

moistgorilla 11y ago

The government of almost every country is -almost always- incompetent and inefficient. Why would I want to give them my money for "security" when I could assure myself that security much more effectively?

nightcracker 11y ago
Because we are a civilized society, and this is not about you. A lot of people can _not_ assure that security for themselves.

x5n1 11y ago

According to Richard D. Wolfe https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff It's because American Capitalists felt threatened by the Socialists, because the New Deal and a bunch of other things that happened in the 20th century due to unions and Socialist activism along with American elite alignment that scared them and their continued ability to run America for their interest, so they spread tons of rhetoric and propaganda to make Socialism a boogie man, eventually associating it with Communism... and it worked. In general in the United States ideological words get muddled through rhetoric and propaganda until you can no longer talk about them. When this happens it's impossible to act on anything because you can't talk about it much less come to any conclusion about whether it's good or not or if it serves your interests. It's a brilliant propaganda technique that seems to have been mastered to stifle any debate about ideology.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I think it generalizes to Americans being uncomfortable with anything they perceive as ideology. The propaganda just serves that. Lyndon Johnson would have "gotten away with" The Great Society had he not also been forced to deal with Vietnam. Regardless of what we in the US say of that, those programs are very much part of our ...portfolio. At an ethical level, Americans are much more likely to embrace consumer surplus as a core value, hence the emphasis on work rather than on government. Our "conservatism" when it is coherent is really a more-radical Liberalism in the sense of an emphasis on a self-reliant individual.

yodsanklai 11y ago

"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Propaganda I assume. Socialist ideas may be ok as long as the word isn't used. I guess we need to find a new politically correct word for it because the old one is too pejorative now.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
"Fragile By Design" does an excellent teasing apart of the small differences between Canadian and American social... consciousness as expressed in government policy. A very surprising book. The too-short upshot is - Canadians actively consider the social welfare function as a thing in itself, while Americans try to bury it under complicated things like mortgage subsidies.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

wozniacki 11y ago

It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%. And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it. In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community. Here, I'm only referring to the sensible, politically astute contingent of Americans who yet don't warm up to socialism or even high taxation for that matter. I'm not talking about the impulsively right-leaning lot here. I think such Americans genuinely question if such a smooth trade off - between paying a good chunk more in taxes and a proportionate increase in the standard of living of those on whom that increase in taxation is supposed to benefit - is ever possible in a government that is rife with dysfunction, graft and bewildering inefficiencies at every level. The examples of this present themselves at regular frequencies - say the botched roll out of the healthcare website [1] a few years ago - in the glare of the American media, which don't exactly help either. Further exacerbating this problem is that bright young Americans [2] don't want to serve in the public sector in similar rates as in Northern Europe. [1] Obamacare Website Costs Exceed $2 Billion, Study Finds http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-... [2] 'Pro-Government' Millennials Take Government Jobs, Discover They Suck, Move to the Private Sector http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-government-jobs-discove http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-governmen...

x5n1 11y ago
As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national. That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.
- afsina 11y ago
  As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.

afsina 11y ago

Perhaps it is because it is not applicable to most countries. Netherlands has a very strong private industry and a reasonably small population. High tech - high profit Industry can withstand the very high taxes imposed by the government. To me, Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment is less socialistic. But, if people are ok with current situation, it is their choice. It is easy to play socialism where you have strong private industry and/or abundant natural resources with small population. Try that in say, India and you will see the catastrophic results in very short time (In fact, they have recovered by abandoning socialistic policies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Post-liberalisation_period_.28since_1991.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Post-liberali... ).

nightcracker 11y ago
> To me, [the] Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment [sic] is less socialistic. Who would be more prosperous? The richest 1% would be much richer, yes. The bottom 50% of the population would be a lot worse off: sick and uneducated.
- afsina 11y ago
  I would challenge that. What is the average salary of %50 and their tax percentage?
  - nightcracker 11y ago
    Not the most reliable source, but I don't have much time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_median_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... Median gross salary is €1714 monthly or €20568 yearly. Then, looking up the income taxation (reliable): http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/ http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/ It seems that median salary almost entirely fits in the first 'schijf' (english: disk) of taxation. This means that the total income tax is: 19822 * 0.365 + (20568 - 19822) * 0.42 = €7548 yearly.
11y ago

abrgr 11y ago

Socialism is a "bogeyman" in the US because it has contributed nothing to the success of our country and capitalism and private property, its antithesis, has been responsible for our rise as the greatest economic power the world has ever seen. Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great place and I loved the time I spent there, but no one talks about replicating the inventiveness and penchant for the creation of world-changing technologies of the Netherlands. The US is the innovation capital of the world for a reason.

bakhy 11y ago
it's not really that simple. the US had enormous untapped natural resources, and is still well-off in that respect. and the two world wars were not fought on its territory. of course, i do not want to say that's all, the US model is respectable and its success deserves respect. i just don't think it can be completely attributed to anti-socialism, nor that a bit of socialism would destroy it. (which, btw, we can see now, or? US does have a pretty big social apparatus, and is still doing very well.)
eevilspock 11y ago
Have you considered how much American innovation happened as a result of: - Government programs, the huge military budget, and the once huge space budget (which can be argued was really an extension of the military budget). Can you say for certain that the Internet and would have come about in the U.S. first if it weren't for DARPA? The advancement of computers if it weren't for NASA? - Non capitalist or profit seeking scientists (Many if not most of whom are funded by the government or philanthropies). - Luck. The U.S. has an immense natural resources to population ratio, perhaps the highest. It has, at present, virtually limitless land. It doesn't have to worry much about its borders or invasion. Our one border "worry" is actually a benefit to exploitive capitalism: a super cheap black-market labor. Since you mention "private property", do you realize it is entirely antithetical to free market principles? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313. Since you mention Elon Musk, could he have achieved what he achieved without $4.9 billion in government subsidies? (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...) I could easily extend this list and make a more powerful argument, but I have work to do. The point I'm really making is to be objective about your analysis of what is behind American innovation and success. We won't even get into things that we call innovation but have not made the world a better place.

lujim 11y ago

I don't think it's about being a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I think a lot of people in the US don't care for the treatment they get when they have to deal with federal, state, or local government services. Long lines and extremely rude government employees who abuse bureaucratic power just because they can. Think the USPS (long lines), TSA (rude and unprofessional), state run DMV's (long lines and rude). Many of them are a nightmare to deal with and many people in the US aren't excited about extending that unique brand of terrible service into MORE of our lives. Also I often hear the argument that many socialist and communist implementations failed due to corruption at the highest levels. I would argue that due to the reliance on central planning (and human central planners) those systems are just way more susceptible to corruption. Is there a single group of humans that has shown itself to be free from the formation of elite classes and corruption? From pre-school to the old folks home power and influence shift between people and they take advantage of it. How would a country ever work past that to implement large scale redistribution of resources through central planners?