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

[mtg999]

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

Wrong.

There has never been a socialist society (or an actual communist society for that matter either) which lets what might be called 'ordinary workers' have control of the decision-making apparatus.

Regardless of the mix of public versus private ownership in a society, a 'management class' will always exist.

Even with policies, which has been supported by various left-of-centre parties, such as wage-earner funds in Sweden (where ownership of a majority of company shares would over time into union-controlled funds) or co-determination in many European nations (workers electing up to half the management positions), you would find that key decisions remained within a small elite.

Indeed, many moderate conservatives in Europe during the post-war era supported co-determination (not wage-earner funds though), because they saw it as a way of co-opting the 'union elite' into supporting managment objectives (and making them less militant).

 

[cw1865]

Worker Cooperatives

There is the interesting niche of worker cooperatives. Such a cooperative can exist in a predominantly socialist economy or in a predominantly capitalist one. While studying Political Economy, one of the examples were the cooperatives in the Basque provinces of Spain: http://www.newrules.org/governance/publications/mondragon-system-cooperation-work

Instead of a top down system, where capital elects/selects management personnel, in this system, management tends to be elected by the workers.

 

[Umbral]

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

Well, that is an interesting redefinition of terms. It is not very related to what other people mean by the word, but it is interesting.

For example, you have redefined the Scandinavian nations, the Benelux etc to be commercialist, rather than socialist. The large public sectors are then a consequences of administering the many comercialist initiatives.

The USA then, with its smaller public sector, and lack of comercialism such as UHC, free higher education, maternity leave etc, becomes a far less comercial nation than european ones.

Note that in some of those places, large, powerful unions are considered a necessity. Because they are quite important in keeping competitiveness up. (Or bushwack less economically coordinated nations) No-one wants their industry to become less competitive, so managers, goverment and unions cooperate so the business will succeed.

Of course, few people in Scandinavia would see a difference between "socialism" and what you call "commercialism". It is all economic efficiency.
It was quite illustrated in the UHC debate in the USA. No-one could seriuosly deny that the UHC system was allover better economically for the nation.

 

[charl]

Well, that is an interesting redefinition of terms. It is not very related to what other people mean by the word, but it is interesting.

For example, you have redefined the Scandinavian nations, the Benelux etc to be commercialist, rather than socialist. The large public sectors are then a consequences of administering the many comercialist initiatives.

The USA then, with its smaller public sector, and lack of comercialism such as UHC, free higher education, maternity leave etc, becomes a far less comercial nation than european ones.

Note that in some of those places, large, powerful unions are considered a necessity. Because they are quite important in keeping competitiveness up. (Or bushwack less economically coordinated nations) No-one wants their industry to become less competitive, so managers, goverment and unions cooperate so the business will succeed.

Of course, few people in Scandinavia would see a difference between "socialism" and what you call "commercialism". It is all economic efficiency.
It was quite illustrated in the UHC debate in the USA. No-one could seriuosly deny that the UHC system was allover better economically for the nation.

Thank you! I couldn't have put it better myself.

Socialism, or at least what we in the North see as socialism, is not about any kind of anti-intellectual movement against reason (that's our right, actually). What we call socialism is a deliberate, well thought-out movement of people who believe that a workforce that has it well, complete with healthcare and wellfare and free education on ALL levels and so on and so forth, is the best for everyone in society. Our taxes may be high, but hey you can't deny that it works! Scandinavia has the highest average standards of living, as well as very high GDPs per capita, and very good perceived quality of life and happiness ratings all around. We rate higher than the USA does in all of those fields, and that's not a coincidence. The Scandinavian model of a mixed system of free market and socialism simply works. And it works very well (although not perfectly, but nothing does anyway).

 

[TheCrow__]

Why has'nt socialism worked in America? Well first of all it seems some of you seem to not know what socialism is by some of your comments. Socialism as it should be is the society's ownership of all means of production. Why this has not happened in America is because capitalists are in power. The people who own the many corporations use the means of production not for society but for their own selfish profit. These people who own these corporations then take power in the government as well to control even more aspects of society. They then have power to educate and control the media to say what ever they want you to hear. But the light Socialism would mean that the society in a whole would control the means of production and all other aspects of life. But the people who are in power now do not want to give up their power they then make increasingly more laws to restrict the society's abilities. They have a militant police force that uses corruption, terror, and brutal force to make you follow these rules.Is this a good answer.

 

[TheCrow__]

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."


Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949
I think this quote basically sums it up.​

 

[TheCrow__]

Wow still no comments. I'm suprised actually.