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

During the 1880's~90's there were many in the union movement who were for the formation of an American Labor Party, like in GB and Europe.

However Samuel Gompers head of the American Federation of Labor, made a strategic decision to focus on short-term goals that could be achieved at the negotiating table.
[Wages, Hours, Working Conditions, etc]
This had the effect of making the Unions look less threatening to the other side of the table. But also had the effect of killing any chance of an American Labor Party
 

Teleology

Banned
An equally strategically-minded ATF leader might have thought that the best way to put the unions in a strong position would be to merge power with Farmer-Labor organization (that seemed to have been mostly farmers, despite the name).

By cutting out more radical groups like the ARU and Wobblies but melding power between the Granges and the Unions, the resulting labor movement or organization might be able to catalyze political socialism into the country through some general nation-wide strike at a critical time; like those socialist UK scenarios.
 
Say it ain't so, RogueBeaver!

UT2020: That's the modern free market for you. It has its vices and its virtues. Re SCOTUS: POTUS is only going to be able to replace the liberals with other liberals- the conservatives are much younger and the next GOP POTUS (likely 2016) will be able to appoint the 5th, possibly 6th, conservative.

Actually, seizure of private homes for use (demolition and redevelopment) by private developers IS unheard of prior to the Gang of Five's oligarchical decision. If you were seizing someone's home, it was for the specific purpose of INFRASTRUCTURE, not lining the pockets of private developers and individual members of zoning boards. I refer to the building of highways, power stations, schools, town halls, and hospitals. Strip malls don't count.

And I never suggested Obama could change the complexion of the court. As I've said on other posts on other threads, he can only rejuvenate the elderly and ailing 4 Justice minority. It was only political lies spread by Fox in '08 that Obama's election would "destroy" the court. Of course, as always, they were aiming for their own base, whose knowledge of SCOTUS demographics are no doubt highly questionable. Also, expect that all four will be replaced by Obama by 2012, precisely because of the reasons you gave. The remaining old liberals know the consequences of that "6th and 7th" conservative appointment.

My reference to the "FDR court packing bill" was sarcastic. Obviously, the Senate, and a supermajority of state legislatures, will never approve an amendment putting 15 brand new Associate Justices on the bench. But it's nice to think about.:D

BTW, you wrote 5th and 6th conservative appointments. Surely that was a pair of typos?! You can't tell me you really consider Anthony Kennedy to be a MODERATE??:eek:
 
Let me guess: it has something to do with being the 5th vote in 2000? ;) But generally I would consider him on the centre/centre-right.
 
Let me guess: it has something to do with being the 5th vote in 2000? ;) But generally I would consider him on the centre/centre-right.
And one dollar, one vote (abolishing campaign-finace reform). And Privatized Eminent Domain. The only way you see Kennedy as even a center-right is if you A) Ignore his voting record B) You were born and raised in a ruby red state.

I don't care how many "constitutional" minnow sized decisions he's been involved in over the course of his career. The above three WHALES pretty much wash the minnows aside.
 

cw1865

Moderate

BTW, you wrote 5th and 6th conservative appointments. Surely that was a pair of typos?! You can't tell me you really consider Anthony Kennedy to be a MODERATE??:eek:

On the liberal side he upheld Roe v. Wade, He is pro-gay rights, he supported the liberals in Kelo, he went with the liberals against the Bush Administration in Boumediene v. Bush (Habeas Corpus), he went with the liberals to strike down a prohibition against flag burning, with respect to Federalism he went with the liberals in Gonzales v. Raich (striking down California's medical marijuana law, ie. he supports a BROAD/LIBERAL interpretation of the Welfare/Commerce clauses)

On the conservative side he supports the death penalty (albeit not against minors or the insane) and he sided with the conservatives on gun control (DC v. Heller; 2nd Amendment an 'individual' right [conservative] v. a 'collective' right [liberal]

And Privatized Eminent Domain.

I've said this before: the conservative position, both at large in the Republican Party, and with respect to the conservative Justices on the court is that Kelo was decided incorrectly and that Eminent Domain should only be applied for a 'Public Use' ..... ultimately Kennedy concurred in the decision in Kelo; this doesn't make him conservative, it means he sided with the liberals.
 
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea MAXIMA Culpa!

On the liberal side he upheld Roe v. Wade, He is pro-gay rights, he supported the liberals in Kelo, he went with the liberals against the Bush Administration in Boumediene v. Bush (Habeas Corpus), he went with the liberals to strike down a prohibition against flag burning, with respect to Federalism he went with the liberals in Gonzales v. Raich (striking down California's medical marijuana law, ie. he supports a BROAD/LIBERAL interpretation of the Welfare/Commerce clauses)

On the conservative side he supports the death penalty (albeit not against minors or the insane) and he sided with the conservatives on gun control (DC v. Heller; 2nd Amendment an 'individual' right [conservative] v. a 'collective' right [liberal]



I've said this before: the conservative position, both at large in the Republican Party, and with respect to the conservative Justices on the court is that Kelo was decided incorrectly and that Eminent Domain should only be applied for a 'Public Use' ..... ultimately Kennedy concurred in the decision in Kelo; this doesn't make him conservative, it means he sided with the liberals.

I double-checked the research and you're right.:eek: My apologies to you and RogueBeaver.:eek: It's just that it was such a sickening decision I never imagined that the ArchConservatives would be the GOOD guys for a change!:eek:
 
Re SCOTUS: POTUS is only going to be able to replace the liberals with other liberals- the conservatives are much younger and the next GOP POTUS (likely 2016) will be able to appoint the 5th, possibly 6th, conservative.

This is true, but is there the possibility that Obama might change the complexion of the court by replacing a liberal judge with a more liberal one.

I remember reading an article in a newsmagazine, I think it was Time a few years ago, about the ideological complexion of the court. It categorised judges by colours:


  • Deep Blue: very liberal
  • Light Blue: moderately liberal
  • Grey: swing judge
  • Light Red: moderately conservative
  • Deep Red: very conservative
The article noted that at present there are no Deep Blue judges on the SCOTUS. Currently the judges range from Light Blue to Deep Red.

Would it be possible to replace a Light Blue judge with a Deep Blue one?

It would seem to me that if Obama wanted to have a lasting impact in this area, the appointment of a Deep Blue judge would be a good way of moving the judicial 'Overton Window' on ruling in a liberal direction.
 
Obviously, the Senate, and a supermajority of state legislatures, will never approve an amendment putting 15 brand new Associate Justices on the bench. But it's nice to think about.
The number of Justices has nothing to do with the States.
A simple bill thru congress can change the number of Justices -- As has been done several times before.
 

cw1865

Unspecified

This is true, the # of justices is unspecified in the Constitution itself. You do not need an Amendment to 'pack the court' - however, an Amendment could be utilized to fix the number; and then at that point a statute could NOT change the number (you'd need another Amendment)
 

DAMIENEVIL

Banned
From how I understand it the major reason is simply the American People did not want the government of the size that is required for socialism. They have been innunduated throughout their history with rampant individualism and not collectivism where How I see it Europe has been treated in its history as a very collective society.

also Public roads public schools and other things are not socialism but actually more along the lines of commercialism and ways of holding the country together.

Or is rome a socialist place
 

cw1865

Mixed Economy

also Public roads public schools and other things are not socialism

Both are examples of collective elements. If a society has ENOUGH collective elements, eventually it starts leaning towards a socialist society. In point of fact, the US is a mixed economy - roads, public schools, national defense, parks, social security, etc etc are all socialist collective elements, all of them are paid for collectively through taxes and not consumed by society with respect to the ability of any given individual to pay (generally, obviously many roads have tolls).

Cuba is also a 'mixed' economy, it is NOT 100% socialist, now don't get me wrong, it has enough socialist elements that we simply refer to it simply as 'socialist' - the economies of the EU are also mixed economies and their overall collective nature is such that they are referred to as 'social market' economies {in essence, they are at some midpoint between capitalism and socialism} - the US is simply at a different point in that continuum.
 

Hendryk

Banned
also Public roads public schools and other things are not socialism but actually more along the lines of commercialism and ways of holding the country together.
"Government initiatives I approve of are commercialism. Government initiatives I disapprove of are socialism."

Nothing new here.
 
"Government initiatives I approve of are commercialism. Government initiatives I disapprove of are socialism."

Nothing new here.

Kinda goes with the myth of the American frontier. We like to think that the West was tamed by rugged individuals living by their gumption and wits free from government intervention and regulation. The reality is that the federal government had more to do with western territories than anywhere else. This is due to the relative weakness of local institutions and they were dependent on Federal forces. It was through Western expansion that Federal power grew because so much of nation was directly dependent on it for security, protection, services, and the acquisition of land.

A simple way to illustrate the power of the Land Office, a critical branch of this process and the Dept of the Interior, is to show the land the US government surveyed, platted and in most cases sold.

Meridians-baselines.png


So much for the rugged individual and lack of government regulation. In fact, this ties very much into the early conversation of people moving west, offering a release to social pressures. This was directly facilitated by the US government in an intentional manner.

Furthermore, it offered the US government a constant supply of 'outside threats' to the American people in the form of the Indian Wars and Mexican-American War who stood in the way of Manifest Destiny. The creation of an 'US vs. Them' mentality is a an effective tool of creating social cohesion. If the people are focused on warfare as a nation against others, they will think about class warfare less. After that ran out? Well, Spain, the Caribbean, WWI, WWII and the Cold War provided an excellent selection of threats and enemies.

That all said and done, this is just my thinking and in no way am I a learned scholar on the subject, just an enthusiastic amateur with a cynical slant. :rolleyes:
 

DAMIENEVIL

Banned
"Government initiatives I approve of are commercialism. Government initiatives I disapprove of are socialism."

Nothing new here.

NOPE

they are examples of commercialism due to the fact they both promote commerce a better educated workforce tends to do better economically which makes the country richer

socialism is the uneducated controlling things not what it is supposed to be but basically what it turns into.

This is simply due to the fact that most workers dont know how to run anything never mind make a factory profitable they would just vote themselves more and more perks till they barelyworked and took home a crap load of pay and benefits think why American Auto workers are like as an example of what powerfull unions who believe in socialism do
 

Hendryk

Banned
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.

socialism is the uneducated controlling things not what it is supposed to be but basically what it turns into.

This is simply due to the fact that most workers dont know how to run anything never mind make a factory profitable they would just vote themselves more and more perks till they barelyworked and took home a crap load of pay and benefits think why American Auto workers are like as an example of what powerfull unions who believe in socialism do
I sort of notice a trend in this thread.
 
NOPE

they are examples of commercialism due to the fact they both promote commerce a better educated workforce tends to do better economically which makes the country richer

socialism is the uneducated controlling things not what it is supposed to be but basically what it turns into.

This is simply due to the fact that most workers dont know how to run anything never mind make a factory profitable they would just vote themselves more and more perks till they barelyworked and took home a crap load of pay and benefits think why American Auto workers are like as an example of what powerfull unions who believe in socialism do

Wow... in that case, providing college-level education to all citizens is commercialism because it promotes a better educated workforce which makes the country richer. Also health care guaranteed for all citizens is commercialism because it promotes a healthier workforce which makes the country richer. No?

How often are their votes for MPs in Canada, the UK and other European countries? My thinking is that with the House of Representatives needing to defend themselves every two years, none of them would want to raise taxes for new social programs because the benefits would not be seen for at least another election cycle, meaning their support of a plan would be associated with the tax raise and not the resulting benefits. This also goes for a third of Senators in any given two years.

Also, there is no guarantee of support between the executive and legislative branches, due to different parties being in control of either at the same time, where a PM can depend upon their majority/coalition government to put legislative through without having to convince the majority to due so. This makes drastic reforms difficult unless their is disaster, sometimes even then.

Edit: Another plausible way I see a socialist alteration happening, seeing how this is first and foremost an AH forum and not a political discussion forum, is if their is a Constitutional Convention following say a Presidential election where the Electoral College directly misrepresents the popular vote.
 
Both are examples of collective elements. If a society has ENOUGH collective elements, eventually it starts leaning towards a socialist society. In point of fact, the US is a mixed economy - roads, public schools, national defense, parks, social security, etc etc are all socialist collective elements, all of them are paid for collectively through taxes and not consumed by society with respect to the ability of any given individual to pay (generally, obviously many roads have tolls).

Cuba is also a 'mixed' economy, it is NOT 100% socialist, now don't get me wrong, it has enough socialist elements that we simply refer to it simply as 'socialist' - the economies of the EU are also mixed economies and their overall collective nature is such that they are referred to as 'social market' economies {in essence, they are at some midpoint between capitalism and socialism} - the US is simply at a different point in that continuum.

In short: pure 'capitalism' and pure 'socialism' have never existed.
 
Top