Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Socialism, American-Style

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#51

Post by _r5wf »

nightcracker wrote: post #41

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, an…

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-liberali... ).

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#52

Post by nightcracker »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #49

"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.

You're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value.

Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#53

Post by afsina »

x5n1 wrote: post #50
wozniacki wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#54

Post by x5n1 »

afsina wrote: post #53
x5n1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

If it was State run then you could say hey the State failed to deliver. This was a private company which failed to deliver. And the private company, if you actually look it up subcontracted it, so you can't say hey there was no private Capitalist oversight over the project, you know greed to make things run efficiently.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#55

Post by nightcracker »

_r5wf wrote: post #51
nightcracker wrote: post #41

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, an…

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…

> 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.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#56

Post by afsina »

nightcracker wrote: post #55
_r5wf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I would challenge that. What is the average salary of %50 and their tax percentage?

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#57

Post by PopeOfNope »

nightcracker wrote: post #52
PopeOfNope wrote: post #49

"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.

You're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value. Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.

  please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'
That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of the country.

I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always results in tyranny. It did in Russia. It did in China. Vietnam. Korea. Even the Nordic countries, who had the best chance of pulling it off, have started to suffer under its weight.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#58

Post by gregsq »

_r5wf wrote: post #51
nightcracker wrote: post #41

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, an…

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…

On the other hand, being afraid of all kinds of public ownership is not helpful. I'd bring national development banks into this. They proved themselves to be very efficient in the twentieth century in places that were at the time in need of development, like Singapore and Australia. The UK even mooted one, through Vince Cable, as a means of growth out of the GFC. Didn't fly in the end for pretty obvious reasons. China's just made one, the Asia development bank, and to the chagrin of the US, has been joined by those same countries who from experience, know that they work.

Australia's largest bank, the commonwealth bank, was public, which you can get from the name. It had a trading bank. For development.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#59

Post by nightcracker »

PopeOfNope wrote: post #57
nightcracker wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value. Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.

please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good' That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of the country. I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always…

> Socialism always results in tyranny.

?!

Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemented actual communism - there was still an upper class and immense amounts of corruption.

Lastly and more importantly, those systems were put in place by the tyrants, not the other way around.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#60

Post by jpt4 »

wozniacki wrote: post #48
nightcracker wrote: post #41

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, an…

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…

> If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community.

Socialism (miniscule s) in the small is charity, forms of which even the most rigid egoist (e.g. Rand) can find ideologically palatable: intentional, contractual communities are communities nonetheless, and generally contain mutual aid clauses. Scale matters, however, and somewhere between 150 and 100 million other persons, the charity co-ordinating entity (i.e. the governing power) becomes a beast unto itself, the contract becomes blurred, and Socialism in the large imposes itself on ideological dissenters with the force of the local violence monopolist.

If nation-states were actually communities caring for their own, the philosophical concerns of consent and compulsion, and the pragmatic concerns of checks and balances, would be much reduced. I await the Maneki Neko experiment that could imbue a society of great magnitude with equally great cohesion.

Post reply on HN