Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[Vanellus]

“Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance that people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labour organisations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."
Harry S Truman, 1952

 

[Tree of Life]

I'd say it's more of a trend.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I always enjoy a self-answering question. It makes for a short thread.

From the Truman quote in the OP. Socialism was a scare word 70 years ago and it still is (ref: just see any reference to socialism in popular political discourse today).

So, yes, it is a scare word in America. [/THREAD]

 

[Brightmoon]

It’s like communism used to be in the 50s and 60s . I remember being scared of Communists (insert scream here!) as a small child . Then in junior high (aka middle school) I looked it up and felt silly for being scared of a boogie man that didn’t exist .

 

[ananda]

“Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance that people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labour organisations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."
Harry S Truman, 1952

IMO the problem with socialism is that there is literally no end in this world to all the sufferings that people experience, but there is a limit to the amount of resources we have in this world to address those things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

IMO the problem with socialism is that there is literally no end in this world to all the sufferings that people experience, but there is a limit to the amount of resources we have in this world to address those things.

I'm confused here. How does any other political or economic system deal with the "realities" you present here if there is "literally no end" to sufferings but their are limits to resources?

I'm not asking for a dissertation or arguing for socialism, but only pointing out that none of these limitations/challenges are restricted to a socialistic solution

 

[pescador]

IMO the problem with socialism is that there is literally no end in this world to all the sufferings that people experience, but there is a limit to the amount of resources we have in this world to address those things.

That's a solution, not a problem.

 

[Andrewn]

Socialism only exists as a boogie man.

Which countries in the world are socialist? Cuba perhaps?

Even in Sweden, the ruling coalition advocates "social democracy" and the Left Party has only 8% of seats in the House of Representatives (Riksdag).

 

[tturt]

Not a scarce word but we should be fighting against it as much possible and in everyway possible. Those of us who voted Republican in the last Presidential election made a stand against it.

For those who are concerned about others - it's possible to do now - just give your money to a charity. It's easy

 

[ananda]

I'm confused here. How does any other political or economic system deal with the "realities" you present here if there is "literally no end" to sufferings but their are limits to resources?

I'm not asking for a dissertation or arguing for socialism, but only pointing out that none of these limitations/challenges are restricted to a socialistic solution

IMO the simple solution for legitimate government is to not engage in the business of relieving any sufferings. This is not the sphere or domain of any legitimate government.

Government should stick to the bare task of administering justice (and defending from external threats), where measurable wrongs are put to right.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Socialism is the government's attempt to solve, or appear to solve, the problems of its society. It is paid for by taking resources from individuals, making them less capable of solving their own problems, especially their unique problems.

Socialism makes for bigger government, increasing its power relative to the individual. The one who solves the problems is the one who makes the decisions. Hence, the decision maker will more closely resemble the lowest common denominator of a mostly godless society, and the god-fearing individual is not permitted to make his decisions independently.

Socialism is a greater dependence on man, with a reciprocally diminished reliance upon God.

 

[ananda]

That's a solution, not a problem.

I'm not sure I understand your comment.

 

[MIDutch]

IMO the problem with socialism is that there is literally no end in this world to all the sufferings that people experience, but there is a limit to the amount of resources we have in this world to address those things.

So the "solution" is not to try to help people at all?

 

[MIDutch]

Not a scarce word but we should be fighting against it as much possible and in everyway possible. Those of us who voted Republican in the last Presidential election made a stand against it.

For those who are concerned about others - it's possible to do now - just give your money to a charity. It's easy

So, helping people with good roads, assurances that their savings accounts won't be robbed by the banks, making sure the companies they work for don't kill or maim or poison them, helping them a little with retirement, etc. is anathema to the Republican Party.

Okay, thanks for letting us know

 

[Hans Blaster]

IMO the simple solution for legitimate government is to not engage in the business of relieving any sufferings. This is not the sphere or domain of any legitimate government.

Government should stick to the bare task of administering justice (and defending from external threats), where measurable wrongs are put to right.

I had no idea that Buddhism could lead one down a path of rugged abolutist libertarianism. I always thought it was more community oriented.

 

[ananda]

So the "solution" is not to try to help people at all?

Yes.

To help one group literally means shifting their sufferings to another group ... and that is discompassionate, and I daresay evil, when compelled by force (aka government).

Think of the modern debate about relieving the sufferings of college students, the thought is to eliminate their debt with Public funds. Sure, that might relieve their sufferings, but what about the sufferings of those who made a conscious decision to not to go to college after considering the prospect of that debt, and are now called pay off the debts of those who did go to college? What about the sufferings of past college students who already paid off their debts? What about the sufferings of those with mortgage debt? Surely having a roof over one's head is more important than a degree. What about healthcare? Surely having health is more important than having a roof over one's head. What about food? surely food is more fundamental to life than healthcare. etc. the list goes on and on. It is literally endless, and all government can do - in light of the reality of limited resources - is to choose a select few who receives their largess to relieve their preferred suffering.

Compassionate assistance belongs in the personal and social realm when we as individuals voluntarily take on the sufferings of others ... not the realm of government, where many are forced to take on specially selected sufferings of selected others.

 

[MIDutch]

Socialism is the government's attempt to solve, or appear to solve, the problems of its society. It is paid for by taking resources from individuals, making them less capable of solving their own problems, especially their unique problems.

Since you are opposed to "socialism" and want people to "solve their own problems", are you willing to tell the government to NOT tax you so that you can then personally pay for the construction and maintenance on all the roads and highways that you take to work everyday?

That would be you "solving your own problem" of having to get to work each day, wouldn't it?

 

[ananda]

I had no idea that Buddhism could lead one down a path of rugged abolutist libertarianism. I always thought it was more community oriented.

Buddhism is about community and compassion - but both must be voluntarily and freely offered and given, not by force of arms (government). I explained more fully in my last post.

 

[MIDutch]

MIDutch said: ↑
So the "solution" is not to try to help people at all?

Yes.

Wow. Just ... wow.

I wonder what the Buddha (or Jesus) would say about that.

 

[ananda]

I wonder what the Buddha (or Jesus) would say about that.

As I read and understand the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha taught wholeheartedly about voluntary compassion, not forced "compassion" directed to specially selected individuals and causes selected by the government.

Forced "compassion" is not compassion at all.