Why didn't the USA become socialist a long time ago?

[mtg999]

What would one call a Rocky Republican then? They're the closest to a One National/Red Tory, but to the left of a DLC Democrat economically.

I agree that in terms of the political spectrum they are similar, being the centrist faction/tendency in both nation's right-of-centre parties.

However, I still think they are slighly different in terms of their philosopical origins. I would regard (I'm not sure if I'm explaining it properly) One Nation Toryism as emerging in the mid-19th century, as a attempt by the more paternalistic rural-based aristocratic elite (as opposed to the more free-market-oriented urban-based industrial elite) to redress what was perceived as socio-economic imbalances that the Industrial Revolution had caused.

Recognising that social change had made the aristocratic noblesse-oblige social contract impossible to re-construct, it sought to use public policy as a way of restoring the societal balance.

I'm not sure that I'm making any sense here, but that's my thoughts on it.

Now, how is a Rockefeller Republican different? It's more a philosophical than substantive difference I suppose. I would suggest that the main difference was that Rocky Republicans weren't attempting to re-construct a modernised version of an aristocratic social contract.

I would instead suggest that Rocky Republicans have more in common with the progressive liberalism of the late 19th century/early 20th century British Liberals (after they had abandoned their staunch free-market classical liberal views) than One Nation Tories. Or in a modern context, Rocky Republicans are more similar to the UK Liberal Democrats (most particularly the Orange Book Lib Dems) than the One Nation Tories.

Re bolded: a Lab voter said it, not me. I agree with him.

Was it said on this site; I knew I heard it someone else!

 

[dave on hist]

Socialism a bad word

Someone asked why socialism is a bad word hmm... Let's see NAZI short for National Socialist party and USSR union soviet socialist republic. Need I say more? Now days the socialists use the title liberals and liberal democrats.

 

[Hendryk]

My mistake. What I meant to say is Socialism = Tyranny, Classical Liberalism = Liberty. People can vote away their liberty for the sake of supposed safety from economic stress. But more to the point the reason why the USA hasn't gone socialist yet, is because the Constitution, if properly applied won't allow it. The citizens of the US must be vigilant though. I'm one of the reasons socialism hasn't worked yet. Myself, and 60 million + other voters who won't buy into it.

As for what happened on 2008, some of us were panicked by our economic October surprise, and also bought the centrist rhetoric of the current occupant of the White House. Now that he's governing from his radical roots, his popularity is plummeting. It was a big bait and switch but check back in November. We'll make it right.

Someone asked why socialism is a bad word hmm... Let's see NAZI short for National Socialist party and USSR union soviet socialist republic. Need I say more? Now days the socialists use the title liberals and liberal democrats.

If all you guys can do is regurgitate Glenn Beck's soundbites, don't be surprised if you end up pigeonholed as trolls.

While this thread should be in Chat, it asks a valid question and can be debated rationally. But you're trying to turn it into a flamewar with your ignorant or disingenuous sloganeering.

 

[charl]

Someone asked why socialism is a bad word hmm... Let's see NAZI short for National Socialist party and USSR union soviet socialist republic. Need I say more? Now days the socialists use the title liberals and liberal democrats.

Don't troll. It's rude.

 

[Bulls Run]

If all you guys can do is regurgitate Glenn Beck's soundbites, don't be surprised if you end up pigeonholed as trolls.

While this thread should be in Chat, it asks a valid question and can be debated rationally. But you're trying to turn it into a flamewar with your ignorant or disingenuous sloganeering.

Woah, who are you calling a troll? I've called nobody on the board any sort of name just because I strongly disagree with an ideology. Some here obviously think Socialism is a good thing. But lets face facts. More people have been killed in the name of Socialism in the 20th century than in all of human history combined. Don't fall into to old argumentum ad baculum fallacy just because you don't like my point of view.

 

[Hendryk]

Woah, who are you calling a troll? I've called nobody on the board any sort of name just because I strongly disagree with an ideology. Some here obviously think Socialism is a good thing. But lets face facts. More people have been killed in the name of Socialism in the 20th century than in all of human history combined. Don't fall into to old argumentum ad baculum fallacy just because you don't like my point of view.

You were trolling and you know it. If you have a political rant to make, do it in Chat. If you try to pull that kind of stunt in the main discussion forum again, you'll simply end up reported.

 

[Umbral]

Hendryk is right. It is not trolling to dislike a political system. However, flinging ignorant slogans about in a nonpolitical chat thread is.

It also lowers the respect people have for conservatives in general, which is a resource in short supply. If you were hoping to bring anyone around to your way of thinking, rather than convince them you are in the wrong, you need to seriously reassess your methods.

 

[Whanztastic]

Someone asked why socialism is a bad word hmm... Let's see NAZI short for National Socialist party and USSR union soviet socialist republic. Need I say more? Now days the socialists use the title liberals and liberal democrats.

Ahem....

Democratic Republic of Congo

People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Union of Myanmar

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Republic of Chad

Republic of Turkmenistan

Now let us look at another socialist choice...

The largest party in the world's best ranked nation in the Democracy Index, Sweden, is the Swedish Social Democratic Party.

The European People's Party is a centre-right party and it has the word People's in it! Fancy that...

Just because a country/party is named a certain way, doesn't mean its politics are a certain way. It is sophomoric to assert so.

A little more on topic...

I have found it quite impressive that the two main American parties, Democratic and Republican, are so non-descriptive that their platforms can remain amorphous and change dramatically without needing to change the structure of the party at large. Any new party to challenge their, mostly the Republican through history, domination needs to be similarly titled I think. Being a party tied to one issue, like socialist reform, is deadly.

 

[Bulls Run]

My apologies if I was misunderstood. I thought trolling was rude and obnoxious name calling. Don't think that's what I was doing. A quote from Winston Churchill isn't a slogan in my book but sorry if that was offensive too. I have a very strong aversion Socialism, I've actually had family members die because of it, which I won't get into here. I have great respect for the knowledge and opinions of most of the people I've seen on here even when I disagree and I really enjoy reading the various scenarios and the discussion of them. This topic is sort of a trap for me though, and while I try to avoid stepping in them, some times I just can't help myself.

 

[altamiro]

My apologies if I was misunderstood. I thought trolling was rude and obnoxious name calling. Don't think that's what I was doing. A quote from Winston Churchill isn't a slogan in my book but sorry if that was offensive too.

The old Winston was very good at being offensive when he wanted to, you know... and being a politician, he was also very good at taking half-truths, turning them around and using them as a political weapon. We are not on an election campaign here and don't need to score cheap points.
Meanwhile I have a feeling that the word "socialism" doesn't have the same meaning for you as for most of the world. Do yourself and us a service and look up what it actually means in modern context.

 

[Bulls Run]

The old Winston was very good at being offensive when he wanted to, you know... and being a politician, he was also very good at taking half-truths, turning them around and using them as a political weapon. We are not on an election campaign here and don't need to score cheap points.
Meanwhile I have a feeling that the word "socialism" doesn't have the same meaning for you as for most of the world. Do yourself and us a service and look up what it actually means in modern context.

You know what, that's fine. I'll look up "socialism", if you look up "condescending." Just kidding!

 

[Teleology]

Ahem....

Democratic Republic of Congo

People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Union of Myanmar

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Republic of Chad

Republic of Turkmenistan

Now let us look at another socialist choice...

The largest party in the world's best ranked nation in the Democracy Index, Sweden, is the Swedish Social Democratic Party.

The European People's Party is a centre-right party and it has the word People's in it! Fancy that...

Just because a country/party is named a certain way, doesn't mean its politics are a certain way. It is sophomoric to assert so.

A little more on topic...

I have found it quite impressive that the two main American parties, Democratic and Republican, are so non-descriptive that their platforms can remain amorphous and change dramatically without needing to change the structure of the party at large. Any new party to challenge their, mostly the Republican through history, domination needs to be similarly titled I think. Being a party tied to one issue, like socialist reform, is deadly.

That would be an interesting timeline, if socialism was present in America but subject to the same party-shifting as everything else.

So the Republicans go Socialist instead of Progressive in the early 20th century, then at some point the ball is handed off to the Democrats, and then it kind of fades into obscurity as once the nation has a solid welfare state in place socialism stops being a catchy platform?

 

[Basilisk]

Someone asked why socialism is a bad word hmm... Let's see NAZI short for National Socialist party and USSR union soviet socialist republic. Need I say more? Now days the socialists use the title liberals and liberal democrats.

Even if that may be true, "socialism" was a dirty word long before Hitler and Stalin.

 

[Whanztastic]

That would be an interesting timeline, if socialism was present in America but subject to the same party-shifting as everything else.

So the Republicans go Socialist instead of Progressive in the early 20th century, then at some point the ball is handed off to the Democrats, and then it kind of fades into obscurity as once the nation has a solid welfare state in place socialism stops being a catchy platform?

I think a very plausible, at least compared to others, scenario would be a Christian Socialist movement in the US. People forget that much of the mainstream Progressive actions were compelled by religious thoughts. If a different Great Awakening happened with a socialist slant, that would be more likely than a secular class action of some kind in America IMO.

 

[ArKhan]

Short answer, because there are to many stupid people in this country.

 

[benjamin]

Short answer, because there are to many stupid people in this country.

Shooo! I'm glad we got rid of all that nasty conservative trolling.

But really, as some of the other posters are alluding to, America's "weak party" system allows political parties to absorb and adapt outside political philosophies without destroying the larger party system. The Progressive Era made many socialist ideas mainstream (child labor law, set work days and weeks, safety regulations, trust busting and others) and undercut the formation of a true socialist party. FDR and Johnson went even further establishing the social security system and welfare state. Now Obama has moved to nationalize health care and further regulate the banks. America doesn't really need a separate socialist party to get a socialist political agenda.

Benjamin

 

[mtg999]

I think a very plausible, at least compared to others, scenario would be a Christian Socialist movement in the US. People forget that much of the mainstream Progressive actions were compelled by religious thoughts. If a different Great Awakening happened with a socialist slant, that would be more likely than a secular class action of some kind in America IMO.

This is very true. Many have said, in fact I have had it said to me on this site, that the formation of the British Labour Party had as much, perhaps even more to do with the rise of Methodism as it did with the rise of Marxism.

Perhaps if the Great Awakening had more a Social Gospel slant to it (ie emphasis on the parts of the Bible that can be interpreted with a socialist slant, such as 'the eye of the needle' and 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'), then we can see the emergence of a more powerful socialist/social democratic movement in the US.

 

[charl]

Woah, who are you calling a troll? I've called nobody on the board any sort of name just because I strongly disagree with an ideology. Some here obviously think Socialism is a good thing. But lets face facts. More people have been killed in the name of Socialism in the 20th century than in all of human history combined. Don't fall into to old argumentum ad baculum fallacy just because you don't like my point of view.

*sigh* I'm not sure if I even can be bothered to meet this shit. Needless to say a whole lot of people have died in the name of the conservative ideology throughout the years and socialism does not equal Soviet just like Conservativism does not equal Saudi Arabia or Iran.

That's all.

 

[cw1865]

Why?

The same question could be asked in 'reverse' - why didn't Europe 'stay' socialist? Really the question boils down to the party that forged the changes during the Great Depression. So, whereas the left wing/socialist parties in Europe (which would morph into the modern Social Democrats forming consensus in what we see as the Western European 'social' market economies, the socialists essentially migrated to the right in Europe) In America the move to the left was FDR and the Democratic party which eviscerated what had been largely a Republican monopoly on power. And this wasn't the Democratic party of today (pre-1860 the Southern Democrats were pro-slavery, up until the New Deal they were generally pro-free trade, and were typically defenders of states' rights), so when FDR takes the reins he can only move so far to the left. As a matter of fact, the New Deal faced serious court challenges and was initially ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Bulls Run]

Still here.

Just so you know, I haven't abandoned the field. Just laying low, taking it all in. Hopefully being a good sport.