A socialist USA?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Are we leaning towards socialism? Considering that socialism is the governments control of goods and services, and in light of the governments present involvement in the affairs of big business and the free enterprise system nowadays, such as the bailouts of big car companies and banks, and the stipulations placed on those bailouts, where are we heading but towards socialism? And if we are, is that a bad thing? I'm not so sure.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,737 • Replies: 124

No top replies

@Elmud,

Socialist USA = Canada Smile

What Is Democratic Socialism?

0 Replies

@Elmud,

The bailouts and stimulus package aren't anything resembling socialism, except insofar as the bailout money gives the government equity in the companies they're bailing out. Otherwise, the bailouts and the stimulus bill are overtly capitalistic, because their entire purpose is to capitalize banks, capitalize industry, and capitalize individuals.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

If the government was nationalizing the failing banks and bailing out tax payers, then the country would be moving towards socialism. Otherwise, it is little more than corporate socialism which the U.S. has a fascination with for at least the last decade or two.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Well, they're nationalizing the banks insofar as the bailout purchases equity, and they're bailing out taxpayers by funding the refinancing doomed mortgages and giving tax rebates.

On the other hand, they're also bailing out states effectively as a grant, which is not socialist -- it's just to keep the states from completely collapsing.

Furthermore, these are not institutional measures that are here to stay -- these are unique measures meant to get the free market system going again.

And the new regulations that will go in for bank executives and for wall street are not an example of socialism. It's just a check and balance on a landmine in the middle of mature capital economies, which is basically their complete ineptitude at assessing and disclosing risk and their exaggerations about assets.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

The idea of giving money to GM and other failing companies though is a form of corporate socialism. There is not much difference between giving a failing individual money to boost them or to a failing corporation money to boost them.

It is nice though that new measure have stipulations to protect tax payers compared to what the Bush Admin was doing. They were just handing out welfare checks to certain sectors of corporate America.

2 Replies

@Theaetetus,

I have to apologize. The definition should have been, "the governments control of the "distribution " of goods and services.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."

if you think Our government's checks and powers are in enough control to lean towards any socialist agenda, I think you watch to much news, because its worse then that. Its not for you to identify but instead to resist your government. Its interesting how many people discuss the track we are on when most dont even know who owns it. The people absolutely do not own anything anymore.

peace

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;48933 wrote:

The idea of giving money to GM and other failing companies though is a form of corporate socialism.

True, but so are the trade tariffs that existed at the time of the American Revolution, as well as things like farm subsidies, subsidies for Amtrak, etc. In other words, there have long been institutions in place that have helped what would be otherwise insolvent or suffering industries.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Funny what certain people see as socialism..These recent bail outs are for the big companies that keep right wing politics in power...so how is that socialism ...A social country is country that looks after its poorest not its richest. Its fear that the consumer led economy is failing and it is big companies that are begging not the little guy whose needs have been overlooked.socialism get real...

3 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Funny what certain people see as socialism..These recent bail outs are for the big companies that keep right wing politics in power...so how is that socialism ...A social country is country that looks after its poorest not its richest. Its fear that the consumer led economy is failing and it is big companies that are begging not the little guy whose needs have been overlooked.socialism get real...

But isn't the government looking after the poorest when it gives money to keep the American car companies floating?

2 Replies

@Elmud,

I think that this could be called socialism, as socialism doesn't necessitate public ownership.

I say that anytime government steps in and exerts control over financial and industrial institutions in order to promote some idea of the public good, socialism is occurring.

I think that there is a little idealism floating around here that tends to throw the concept of "good" into the definition of socialism.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

But isn't the government looking after the poorest when it gives money to keep the American car companies floating?

I'm not sure if you are being facetious and making a joke about American car companies, but we have to realize that America has been engaging in a Keynesian corporatism for decades.

We keep people working by making sure that companies can keep offering them jobs. Since it is simply impossible for government to manage that sort of bureaucracy at a local level, they simply facilitate to giant bureaucratic companies who manage it.

It may be selling out idealized socialistic tenets, but it is socialism none the less.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

But isn't the government looking after the poorest when it gives money to keep the American car companies floating?

The intention is to maintain industry not secure employment..If it was employment why are small businesses allowed to tumble and these workers are not exactly the low paid of society. They are part of the problem, the inflexible nature of the industry. To blame the concept of socialism on this fiasco created by bankers greed is a bit of a red herring.As you have never experienced socialism in america i think its a bit weird you should be comparing these horrors to a concept you have never attempted.Socialism is part of the democratic option and as right wing politics for the last eight years has produced this disaster ide be a little cautious in blaming your woes on socialism.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

The intention is to maintain industry not secure employment..If it was employment why are small businesses allowed to tumble and these workers are not exactly the low paid of society.

There simply is no feasibility to need-based subsidies to small businesses.

Quote:

They are part of the problem, the inflexible nature of the industry. To blame the concept of socialism on this fiasco created by bankers greed is a bit of a red herring.As you have never experienced socialism in america i think its a bit weird you should be comparing these horrors to a concept you have never attempted.Socialism is part of the democratic option and as right wing politics for the last eight years has produced this disaster ide be a little cautious in blaming your woes on socialism.

This is what I was referring to about inputting the concept of "good" into the definition of socialism. Not all socialistic methods are good, and some actions committed in the name and idea of socialism are not commendable.

Whats more is that this has been a growing general trend in economic policy for over a century.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

There simply is no feasibility to need-based subsidies to small businesses.

This is what I was referring to about inputting the concept of "good" into the definition of socialism. Not all socialistic methods are good, and some actions committed in the name and idea of socialism are not commendable.

Whats more is that this has been a growing general trend in economic policy for over a century.

why are you saying its a socialist response..There are many colours of socialism ..a social charter is not bailing out big busines when the occassion arises, it reacts like all governments to the situation.This preconceived idea about socialism by americans is a very strange phenomenon.It should always be value for money and if company is bailed out in america its the company that is their first consideration. In a socialist state it would be, can the company be saved to secure jobs.I am proud that socialism is more concerned about the masses rather the over fed individual greedy bankers.If this is a sin im a sinner.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

These recent bail outs are for the big companies that keep right wing politics in power...so how is that socialism ...

Well, I don't think that's quite accurate. The right wing of American politics was by far the most opposed to all of the bailouts. And with respect to the car companies, the main beneficiaries of the bailouts are the labor unions and not the executives. The american automotive workers' union has exceptional pay and benefits, and if the big three auto companies fail (including going into bankruptcy), then their contracts are null, void, gone. Sure, tens of thousands of workers would be unemployed, but even those who remain would be forced to renegotiate contracts in much more sacrificial ways. So it's not really true to think of the bailouts as targeted towards big companies except insofar as they are major employers.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

why are you saying its a socialist response..There are many colours of socialism ..a social charter is not bailing out big busines when the occassion arises, it reacts like all governments to the situation.

Here's why:

Quote:

I think that this could be called socialism, as socialism doesn't necessitate public ownership.

I say that anytime government steps in and exerts control over financial and industrial institutions in order to promote some idea of the public good, socialism is occurring.

I think that there is a little idealism floating around here that tends to throw the concept of "good" into the definition of socialism.

Quote:

I'm not sure if you are being facetious and making a joke about American car companies, but we have to realize that America has been engaging in a Keynesian corporatism for decades.

We keep people working by making sure that companies can keep offering them jobs. Since it is simply impossible for government to manage that sort of bureaucracy at a local level, they simply facilitate to giant bureaucratic companies who manage it.

It may be selling out idealized socialistic tenets, but it is socialism none the less.

I am not attacking socialism and I do not think that I have the typical "preconceived idea about socialism by americans", I just see in many socialists a tendency towards the "no true scotsman" argument.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tytler

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Well, I don't think that's quite accurate. The right wing of American politics was by far the most opposed to all of the bailouts. And with respect to the car companies, the main beneficiaries of the bailouts are the labor unions and not the executives. The american automotive workers' union has exceptional pay and benefits, and if the big three auto companies fail (including going into bankruptcy), then their contracts are null, void, gone. Sure, tens of thousands of workers would be unemployed, but even those who remain would be forced to renegotiate contracts in much more sacrificial ways. So it's not really true to think of the bailouts as targeted towards big companies except insofar as they are major employers.

You fail to mention that right wing attitudes invoked this run on greed..I dont like greed from whatever section of the community it rears its head.Car workers are just as capable of this icky eye culture as are bankers , because they are workers it does not make them socialists.Bail outs should be for economic reasons not short term benefits. Socialists would look at it from an employment strategy where right wing would show interest to share holders.Stop thinking socialism means unrealistic views to the overall economic future. Socialists believe the lowly need our effort just as much as the stinking rich will loose their houses to us leaders come the revolution.

0 Replies

A socialist USA?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know