Recently, it has become the rhetoric of the GOP that anything that doesn’t agree with them is “socialist” or “leading us towards socialism”. It seems, historically, that this is the tactic of the Republicans every time the Democrats propose policies (mainly health care reform) that they don’t agree with. The fallacy of their statements is that they have made them repeatedly throughout history, and America is still not a Socialist nation. Any time that the Republicans do not hold the Presidency, and cannot push their agenda, they resort to McCarthyism. Never once in our history has a President advocated for the complete Government take-over of all private industries. I have friends that identify as Socialist and they can’t believe that they are being so grossly misrepresented by the right-wing media. To Republicans, the term “Socialist” or “moving towards Socialism” has come to mean ANY industry that is controlled by the Government. Republicans are also making the argument that if you support any type of Government-run agency then you must be a socialist who supports a “nanny-state”. It’s very easy to compile a list of Presidents that have been called “socialist” for policies that didn’t agree with the Republicans.
President Obama is a “socialist” for wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy, bailing out the auto-industry and for his health care bill.
President Clinton was a “socialist” for wanting to take 60% of the budget surplus over the course of 15 years and put it towards Social Security, while investing a portion in the private sector. He’s also a socialist for wanting to raise taxes and expand health care.
President Carter was a “socialist” for creating the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, and for wanting to expand health care.
President Johnson and President Kennedy were “socialist” for introducing The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and President Johnson also was a “socialist” for establishing Medicare and Medicaid.
President Truman was a “socialist” for supporting “The Fair Deal”, and “The New Deal”, and for wanting to expand health care. His health care reform ideas are acknowledged as the inspiration for Medicare and Medicaid.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a “socialist” for introducing “The New Deal”, and for proposing universal health care as part of the Social Security Act.
Are you starting to see a pattern here? When I started to realize this pattern emerging that seems to target the Democratic leadership, I got to thinking; “what do these people think socialism means?” So I decided to find out. I asked some Republicans how they personally define “socialism”. Here are some of the answers I got:
“it’s everyone working as hard, or little as they choose, to contribute to a fund that everyone deserves an entitlement to by law, regardless of how much of a contribution they have made” – Robert
“It’s my understanding that if someone is a “Socialist” it merely means that that person has the belief that government has to be and do everything for its people. For example in a socialist government you would find that radio, television, and newspapers would be government owned and operated. Foods, healthcare, and many (if not all) services are provided by a socialist government. If you can imagine every private business in the United States, taken over by government, that would be an example of Socialism. If you can think of our recent bailouts, a socialist acted occurred. No matter how innefficient a business could act, it was funded by government to stay alive. If capitalism would have been allowed to happen, these business would have been bankrupt and forced to close their doors. So, someone who is a socialist would support the ideal of the government providing all. I think that’s the best way I can respectfully explain what a socialist is.” – John
“Socialism is a system in which the government controls companies and industries. GM is a good example. Healthcare insurance is another example coming in the future” – Brian
“Socialism to me is government using regulations/ rules/ laws/ oppression to control it’s citizens and treat them like stupid peasants. Every time the government writes a law that makes a decision for the people, it dumbs the citizens down a little more. I’d say that today’s socialism is about controlling the people.” – Douglas
“To me my vision (not definition)of socialism comes from the UK in the 1960s and 70s. Essentially this:
A decaying and decrepit society. Lack of competition, lack of drive on the part of the populace, govt bureaucrats running everyone’s life. Labor strife, companies owned by the govt, unproductive and uncompetitive. Achievement punished, innovation crushed.” – Emil
Ok, so what I can summarize from these responses and the others that I have received is that the common perception of “socialism” or “moving towards socialism” is when the Government is interfering in the private sector, and controlling production of goods or services by the Government, or any agency that is funded by taxpayer money. I’m not a proponent of Socialism, and I don’t believe that Government should take over the private sector. However, by their definition, the following parts of our society are “moving us towards ‘socialism’””:
Public roads, public utilities, public schools, public libraries, public pools, public beaches, the Armed Forces, Police Departments, Fire Departments, colleges, college sports teams, NASA, The Lawrence Livermore Institute, DARPA which created the internet, The Hoover Dam, Medicare, Social Security, ALL public roads, road signs, traffic lights, the FDA, the EPA, veteran’s hospitals, 911 service, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, section 8 housing, food stamps, The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Smithsonian Institute, opera houses, and just about every other institution that you can think of that’s funded or maintained by taxpayer money. These are perfect examples of “redistribution of wealth” where industries are completely “socialized” or funded by taxpayer money.
When I shared this information with the Republicans I know, I got an unusual response. I was told that none of these industries are “socialized”, even though the Government controls the production and distribution of these agencies, because they don’t produce any goods or services. Republicans will tell you that the Government is not capable of producing goods or services.
This is probably the most important part of this entire article. This is EXACTLY what you can expect to hear if you ever confront Republican’s version of “socialism”. Here’s the fallacy in that statement. ALL of those agencies produce goods or services.
Regulatory agencies produce a regulatory service. The FDA regulates our food to make sure it’s healthy for human consumption. Without them we would have no regulations on food and drugs, and people would be much more likely to get sick and die from contaminated food products. The EPA protects our environment to make sure that corporations aren’t over-polluting and causing irreparable harm to our environment and health. These services also create jobs because of the need for regulators. Would you trust companies to regulate themselves? For some reason most Republicans would, but to any rational person that is unreasonable.
The Armed Services. Police Departments, and Fire Departments provide vital services to our Country.
Public Roads are a product that is provided by the Government. If you ever drive anywhere then you are participating in what many believe to be the definition of “socialism”.
People making minimum wage can get assistance from food stamps and Section 8 if they’re living below the poverty line and that’s completely socialized.
By the Republicans definition we are already well on our way to “socialism”. The truth of the matter though, is that we are NOT headed towards “Socialism”. Advocating a system of health care where EVERYONE receives health care, and not just the wealthy, does not mean that you advocate an entire Government take-over of the Private sector. Being ok with your tax dollars being spent on social programs doesn’t mean you advocate socialism. Wanting the wealthy to pay higher taxes than the poor does not mean you advocate socialism. Preaching social justice or supporting the welfare program doesn’t make you socialist. Republicans want to use scare words like “socialism” or “big Government” or “liberal” to promote their agenda. The truth is that they know and we know that we are not headed towards socialism. We’re so far from it that just the thought of attaining it is unrealistic.
From now on when a Republican tells you that you support “socialism” make sure to tell them that if they are TRULY opposed to ANYTHING socialized they need to turn in their Social Security Card IMMEDIATELY, and stop using ANY services that are provided by the Government and taxpayer funded, because they are “headed down the road to “socialism”.
Flip it around and call the republican and democratic presidencies what they are: socialism. If a republican calls you a socialist then you inform them that they are too and possibly more so because many of them do support socialist practices.
The truth is that every industry is regulated somehow by government and that that authoritative control over production is socialism. The ironic thing is that “private” authoritative control over production is nonetheless is authoritative governing power coming from “market elected” CEOs. Either way, if you’re not making decisions for yourself because you don’t have the power to do so then it is socialism.
In the (not so) free (highly regulated) market that we have today, money is your vote and the Federal Reserve is not a republic; there is not one vote per person. Money are the real voting power; money is fractional votes and you don’t get any money you don’t have to fight for, ever, but the secret bankers do.
People need to be heard in elections so that they are ordered under acceptable law. This is what the idea of representative democracy in a republic is all about. Socialism is what we already have from both parties because money matters more than votes to people and there is nothing democratic about the political power represented by money.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reductio%20ad%20Obamaum&defid=5899235
The majority of this screed is pure drivel. But I think the following paragraph sums up the inanity of the entire piece:
“Regulatory agencies produce a regulatory service. The FDA regulates our food to make sure it’s healthy for human consumption. Without them we would have no regulations on food and drugs, and people would be much more likely to get sick and die from contaminated food products. The EPA protects our environment to make sure that corporations aren’t over-polluting and causing irreparable harm to our environment and health. These services also create jobs because of the need for regulators. Would you trust companies to regulate themselves? For some reason most Republicans would, but to any rational person that is unreasonable.”
So, the two points that can be combed from the above paragraph is 1) All government agencies work for the public’s best interests, and 2) The marketplace is unable to regulate itself.
Both points can be easilly debunked with the following lengthy selection from “We Are All Libertarians Now” by Susan Westfall (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/westfall2.1.1.html):
“The mere mention of cutting government back to a Constitutional, and thus affordable size, gives rise to immediate cries of doom, gloom, and destruction. Without the benign munificence of whatever sacred department or program targeted for removal it is intimated that: old people will be dropping like flies in the streets; no one will have a home; all our children will starve; the country will be overcome with unbearable pollution; everyone will die from poisoned food and bad medicine; and so on till the cows come home. Used to fuel the peoples’ fears and maintain the status-quo, reporters seldom question whether any of these programs or departments are efficient or even worthy of expending scarce tax dollars on. Take for example the Environmental Protection Agency. This hallowed body purports to protect us from polluting corporations through tough regulations without which, supposedly, America would be wallowing in untold amounts of toxic pollution and all life would perish. In reality, its very policies often encourage corporations to continue polluting. If it costs less to pay a fine for polluting than it does to make renovations needed to meet regulation standards, then corporations will pay the fines and continue polluting. The government collects the fine money, no reform occurs, and the pollution continues on for years. What marvelous protection! If the EPA really wanted to protect the environment by enforcing tough regulations, there would be no optional fine payments or the fines would exceed renovation costs. And why do we need an agency for this anyway? Constitutionally, that’s what the court system is for…to protect property from pollution or any other damage and to fairly decide compensation and punishment. Strictly and properly enforced court decisions would soon force corporations to curtail bad habits they are now actually encouraged to continue, by the very same agency supposedly protecting us.
Another fine example of government proficiency is the Food and Drug Administration. It ensures that we have safe medicines and food. Right? Surely it’s worth the expended dollars to keep us safe from death and injury. Economist Randall Holcombe begs to differ. “The policy experts who have evaluated the costs and benefits of drug regulation have almost uniformly concluded that the costs of the regulations are not worth their benefits,” quotes Thomas Woods in his book Rollback. Shouldn’t we at least listen to these experts on FDA policy? It’s not like, as Mr. Woods says, “a free people would…stand around scratching their heads…[wondering] what to do about [food and] drug safety.” He proposes, and rightly so, that private firms such as Underwriters Laboratories could easily take over the job of informing customers of safe products, and at no cost to the taxpayer. In addition, at recent hearings on the Hill arguments were heard regarding the FDA’s over-regulation of medical devices and an approval process that stifles innovation. Once again we find government is not always efficient. Why expend tax dollars on something private companies and the market could probably do better?”
Tell the Women of Europe who gave birth to thalidomide babies when none were effected in the USA that the FDA dosent provide a valuable service.
I’m guessing this is one of those TL;DR comments! :P
Why expend tax dollars on something private companies and the market could probably do better?
*probably* There are no guarantees. Libertarianism is a philosophy built on a bunch of whatifs and possibilities. In the real world, it doesn’t work.
No. Libertarianism, which is based upon classical liberalism, the liberalism of John Locke and the Founding Fathers, is based upon the simple fact that human beings do best when they’re free to live their lives the way they see fit without harming anyone else. That is reality.
The Founding Fathers also feared corporations. Originally corporations could only operate for a limited time (requiring a government charter to even start) and could only deal in one product, couldn’t contribute to campaign funds for politicians, couldn’t own other companies, couldn’t own anything else they didn’t need to provide their good/service.
Ah yes, free to live their lives the way they see fit “without harming anyone else”. Without regulation, they are free to live their lives the way they see fit AND harm anyone they please. Tainted products, dumping hazardous waste, creating and selling trash derivatives so the economy tanks and billions are harmed. Libertarianism is pure fantasy.
Do you honestly think more regulation does more good than harm? I suggest doing research. It helps debunk preconcieved notions.
And who should determine if they’re “harming anyone else”? The Government?
Blamethe1st–businesses are not UNABLE
Just like how S&P (private company) did a much better job at giving, no i mean were paid to give, junk bonds triple-A ratings even though they were, by design, unable to earn money which is one of the direct causes of the 2008 meltdown of the banking industry?
Yes, private industry is so much better at regulating itself than the government would be.
btw, you bring up UL as a private firm that does such testing of public products.
Just in case you didn’t know, UL is regulated by OSHA
The entire GOP argument is based on a simple concept – they want to own EVERYTHING, and NOTHING should be controlled if it interferes with making PROFIT.
In this present series of crises, there really is only one solution, IMNSHO – the government should seize control of ALL corporations that produce vital products and services – Big Oil, Big Pharma, Bi Ag and the environmentally-sensitive industries – lumber, coal, water, etc.
Functions vital to the lives and welfare for the general population should not be allowed to operate on a for-proft motive (indeed, the entire Corporate Paradigm, i.e., Capitalism, is a failed and self-annihilating system that WILL complete the destruction of this planet if we don’t interfere REALLY SOON, there is NO time left to reverse the ecological damage.
Let corps produce toys, entertainment, NON-essential goods and services. But anything that needs to be regulated for public safety and use needs to be coordinated at a world-wide level to conserve the remaining resource bae.
And the FDA and EPA are NOT the proper controllers for these problems, they are ENTIRELY political. The FDA has kept vital products out of the market for years, to keep profits up-(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be1ihuZNg84) and the EPA has done the same, since Reagan.
The system is broken, and it will NOT allow itself to be fixed, it’s too profitable for those who will be dead before the planet they are destroying.
Because the government controlling all manner of industry without any private control has worked so well for other countries including…uh…um…er…I can’t think of any!
Because no taxes and no regulation is working SOOOOO well for Somalia…Oh wait!
2ndamendmentdem–best comment on the thread. In fact, best comment I’ve read in a long time, on the subject.
I can’t think of anything to argue with about your post. I would only add that the Socialist Party of the United States had a proud history at the turn of the last century and was the only Socialist Party internationally that opposed World War I from beginning to end (and was hounded out of existence for the temerity of doing so). The absence of a robust socialist movement with its critique of society and international affairs is a major element in the American Empire’s staggering decline!
We have corporate socialism. Or socialism in reverse. The transfer of tax payer funds to the bottom lines of corporations is socialism, and re-distribution of wealth. Tax payer funded bail outs. Tax payer funded defense contractors. Tax payer funded privatization of military and government functions. Privatization of tax payer developed commons and utilities. Tax payer funded subsidies. Tax loopholes. Tax havens. Off shore earnings. All socialism for the wealthy and corporations. The GOP just has it backwards (big surprise).
What you are describing is actually known as FASCISM.
“This is one crucial difference between fascist economies and socialist economies. In a fascist economy public taxation is used to funnel money to private corporations through the government, whereas in a socialist economy like that of the Soviet Union there is no taxation and industry itself is run by the government for profit”
Either way, it’s redistribution of wealth, which has never truly worked.
Free people require free markets.
Free markets has never worked. If we had a 100% free market, then corporations will hijack and monopolize the lives of the people in raising prices and at the same time cutting services continuously(just look at Verizon and AT&T), wages stay low while the wealthy get richer, and the more this continues, the harder and longer hours that people have to work for little pay. The more that people have to work, the less freedom they have.
So, in other words, in a free market, the corporations take over? Well, we haven’t had a free market, per say, for over a century, and the corporations already have taken over.
Statistics have shown, time and again, that regulation has gone up, not down. Couple that with our current “progressive” tax system, and you have an economic wasteland where small businesses are crippled, new businesses are prevented from starting, and the only people who benefit are large corporations who can afford all the regulations and taxes levied upon them. That’s why corporations lobby for new regulation and taxes for the sake of crushing their competition. When you have a government that can intervene in the marketplace, you end up attracting rich interests who seek to manipulate the system so the playing field is tilted in their favor.
A free people deserve an even playing field where everyone has an equal chance of winning or failing, where no one is given special treatment by the state, and where competition prevents any business from becoming a monopoly. Only when government is neutral to the affairs of the market, interfering only when there is fraud or force, will there be economic prosperity.
I have sent similar thoughts as a response to the ‘no big guvmint’ emails I get from conservative family members. The response I usually get is that they don’t understand my email and that my points make no sense. My response to them is below:
“The next time I get a dewy-eyed email calling for small government, it had better come with the sender disavowing use of the interstate highway system, city water and sewage systems, the internet, phone lines and food and pharmaceuticals that are monitored for safety.
The sender had better never plan on accepting Social Security benefits and ought never have known anyone who enjoyed a weekend.
They had better not enjoy their right to worship however they want and had better bite their tongue whenever they even think of saying whatever pops into their head.
They had better not appreciate the United States Armed Forces nor have ever known anyone who received a paycheck for serving.
They had better not have ever attended nor have sent their children to a university that receives any sort of federal funding and should never ever evince any pride whatsoever for Americans having walked on the moon.
They had better never plan on receiving Medicare to help with their medical care when they’re old.
Hopefully they don’t back legislating against women’s healthcare and against people’s right to marry the person of their choice, because doing so would be, well, big government. They had better decry the immigration legislation in Arizona, because, guess what, that’s big government, too.
They had better never have benefitted from farm subsidies.
They had better never have exercised their right to vote as a woman, or as a man who doesn’t own land, or as any minority.
They had better be out protesting anti-terrorism measures like baggage screening.
And the next time I get an email wailing about taxes, it had better come from someone who has never, will never and would never use any of the services mentioned about and they damn well better be in the top one % and they had better never talk about how much better the 1950′s were unless they really mean they want a return to not-so-subtle racism, blatant sexism and an 86% corporate tax rate.
Because if they’re not, I will have to just sigh and hit delete, knowing that it just means that there’s one more person out there who doesn’t understand exactly what their government really does for them, and doesn’t realize the wealthy 1% probably don’t need you to look out for their interests (It’s sweet of you to do, but they won’t share or let you in the club if you play along. Really.) I will also remember when I hit delete that while so many conservatives like to thump their chest about being Proud Christian Americans, they forget so easily and so quickly that That Which You Do For The Least Of My People You Also Do For Me, and There, But For The Grace Of God, Go I. So, please, sit back and feel superior, fret that the government is going to abolish the 2nd Amendment and take away your guns (Which it won’t, at least not under a Democratic president that seeks to uphold the entire Constitution and not just cherry-pick to please the base.), and please continue the fine American tradition of small-mindedness and selfishness, and hold up Big Business as the Be-All, End-All. Oh wait – that’s not really an American tradition, is it? You tell me.”
I love it! Nice response!
So, in other words, all our taxes only go to good things, and they’re always used wisely without any waste whatsoever?
Nice to know there are plenty of critical thinkers out there who are willing to question the government and its intentions.
The capitalist says “give me everything”.
The socialist says “pay your share”.
If moonbats truly cared about paying their fair share, they would support a flat tax system where everyone paid at the same rate regardless of income. But instead, they support a system where people who earn more are taxed more—which is why the top 1% pay roughly 40% of income tax, the top 10% pay over 70%, and the bottom 20% pay less than 2%.
This is a fallacy, too. Life is more expensive when you’re poor. The more money you have, the easier it is to save (for example: you can buy in bulk, you can buy a month’s bus pass rather than a daily, you get discounts when investing) Moreover, those earning less money have less disposable income than those earning more. A flat tax rate therefore is heavier on the poor than on the rich and is by no means “fair.”
“A flat tax rate therefore is heavier on the poor than on the rich and is by no means “fair.””
LOL! I’m bad at math and even I know that most of what you said is pure BS!
Even if everyone paid at the same rate, the rich would still end up paying more than those who are middle class or poor. Here’s an analogy: if one person makes $10 and another make $100, at a 10% flat rate, the one making $10 would pay a dollar in taxes while the one making $100 would pay $10. The rich pay more, but at least at the same rate as everyone else.
If you want to say you’re for everyone paying their fair share in taxes, fine. But if you insist the rich pay more in taxes, or support a tax system where the taxes are disproportionately placed on the rich, then you’re not being fair. You’re just being greedy.
Keep demanding higher taxes on the rich. But don’t be surprised when you see more rich people open bank accounts overseas, or send more jobs overseas. You only brought it on yourselves.
BlameThe1st, you would be right if unjustified income inequality didn’t exist. We live in a society where CEOs make 100-300 times the average worker. Is one hard working employee really worth 300 times another hard working employee. There is simply no justification for this huge gap. Secondly, a person who lives pay check to pay check and works hard for a living will be disproportionately hurt by a flat tax. If someone works hard and can barely pay rent, how will this person afford a 15 percent tax? Do you seriously call this fair when other hard working individuals can easily pay a 15 percent tax and have plenty of money left over for basic necessities? The rich pay so much more in taxes because they make so much more. We also have a slightly progressive tax system. If I make 1 million a year and pay a 50 percent tax will I struggle to have shelter, food, health care, etc? If I make 15,000 a year and pay a 15 percent tax, will I struggle? Greed is an excessive desire for wealth. Someone who only wants basic necessities to live is NOT greedy. Greed is an excessive desire for wealth. The wealthy not wanting to pay more taxes which in part go towards social safety nets is greedy.
Cool story, bro!