- #1
icma
- 25
- 0
Hi, Just wondering if Communism is still a big taboo in America, and if so, why?
It's just a question that came to mind, thought I'd ask.
It's just a question that came to mind, thought I'd ask.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States#Socialism_todayAn April 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll, conducted during the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 (which many believe resulted due to lack of regulation in the financial markets) suggested that there had been a growth of support for socialism in the United States. The poll results stated that 53% of American adults thought capitalism was better than socialism, and that "Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided".[94]Bernie Sanders, current U.S. Senator from Vermont, has described himself as a democratic socialist. Sanders served as the at-large representative for the state of Vermont before being elected to the senate in 2006.[95]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicineSocialized medicine is a system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.[1] Because of the U.S. cultural's historically negative associations with socialism, the term is used primarily and usually pejoratively in United States political discussions concerning health care.[2][3][4][5][6] The term was first widely used in the United States by advocates of the American Medical Association in opposition to President Harry S. Truman's 1947 health-care initiative.[7][8][9] The term may be used by some in referring to a system of universal health care.
russ_watters said:Marx is widely considered as one of the most influential thinkers in history, cited by historians and in polls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Influence
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States#Socialism_today
Yet people often vehemently deny influence from socialism/Marxism in the US.
icma said:Hi, Just wondering if Communism is still a big taboo in America,
lisab said:Communism isn't taboo. It's simply been shown to not work.
chemisttree said:...and liberals are running away from that label as fast as they can now calling themselves 'Progressive'.
Ryan_m_b said:In my experience the issue with the term socialism is the many different definitions people use coupled with the vehemence that some of those definitions invoke. The word can literally range from meaning welfare capitalism to totalitarian communism and can cover social, economic and/or political theory.
I guess that one of the reasons "socialism" is taboo in the states is due to the decades of opposition to the USSR which probably contributed strongly to the American sense of identity.
Unless I misread and/or to clarify: Liberals are re-branding the word "liberal" as "progressive". Mainstream liberals have never self-labeled themselves "communists"!chemisttree said:...and liberals are running away from that label as fast as they can now calling themselves 'Progressive'.
Interesting use of phrase, as written it would seem you are saying these things are a necessary aspect of communism rather than something communist countries have done. The distinction is important.aquitaine said:I would think it has just as much, if not more to do with the inherent evils of the communist system. The widespread use of torture, the prodigious amounts of forced labor (aka slavery), the famines cause for forced collectivization of farm land, the total deprivation of political and economic freedoms. Why this keeps getting overlooked is a complete mystery to me.
aquitaine said:...the famines cause for forced collectivization of farm land, ...
Alesak said:This is wrong, only Marxism–Leninism and other shades has been shown to not work.
russ_watters said:Meh - most communists and socialists I've come in contact with will begrudgingly acknowledge that no forms/incarnations of communism have been shown to work. But they will say that that doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be ways to make it work and that statement doesn't preclude that possibility.
Pythagorean said:Is this really representative?
Pythagorean said:More importantly, does it add anything to the discussion or is it just a random attempt to associate liberals with cowardice?
russ_watters said:Unless I misread and/or to clarify: Liberals are re-branding the word "liberal" as "progressive". Mainstream liberals have never self-labeled themselves "communists"!
Ryan_m_b said:... as written it would seem you are saying these things are a necessary aspect of communism rather than something communist countries have done. The distinction is important.
chemisttree said:Yes, I believe so. There is a Congressional Progressive Caucus but, as far as I know, there isn't one that identifies itself as Liberal.
Does it add anything to the discussion? I think so. You want to demonstrate just how taboo Communism is in America? Liberals are avoiding even that label (liberal) and calling themselves 'Progressive'. This has nothing to do with cowardice.
.
phinds said:The clear implication of that statement is that there are forms of communism that HAVE been shown to work. Please provide references.
Goodison_Lad said:The triumphalist 'Communism has failed' assertion is interesting, as is the statement 'Capitalism has failed - if you're poor'.
Greg Bernhardt said:Only that in Capitalism it's often the case that people fail themselves rather than the monetary system failing you. In Communism, you don't even get the chance to fail yourself, the system does it for you right off the bat.
Goodison_Lad said:Possibly - but it's an argument that all too many would find attractive to blame the disadvantaged for their circumstances - a nasty trait among us humans.
Goodison_Lad said:In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable. All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.
Pythagorean said:Greg, how do you quantify who's fault it is that somebody is failing in different systems, or do you just mean that that was the ideal? It seems that practices in the US has (twice now) caused lots of failures globally with risky monetary practices, the latest fad being risky derivative markets practiced by "too big to fail" financial institutions.
Pythagorean said:Many economists think the financial institutions should be broken up (or regulated) so all the eggs aren't in one basket because it gives them too much control over global economy, but many economists doubt that politicians will ever actually see that through.
Someone at some point had to earn it. Regardless, this is inheritance you're talking about. Though I hear the sentiment a lot, I really don't understand why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die. That's not a bad thing, it is a good thing!Goodison_Lad said:In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable.
Some are self-made and some aren't. So what? Why does any of this matter?All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.
russ_watters said:why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die. That's not a bad thing, it is a good thing!
Goodison_Lad said:Possibly - but it's an argument that all too many would find attractive to blame the disadvantaged for their circumstances - a nasty trait among us humans.
In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable. All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.
The reasons given for the inheritance tax are well known. Do you mean to say that you haven't heard them, or that you heard them but didn't understand them?russ_watters said:Regardless, this is inheritance you're talking about. Though I hear the sentiment a lot, I really don't understand why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die.
Ken Natton said:It is not about blaming the poor for their circumstances or crediting the rich with theirs. Those principles only require that the opportunity to improve your own circumstance is available to all.
Jimmy Snyder said:The reasons given for the inheritance tax are well known. Do you mean to say that you haven't heard them, or that you heard them but didn't understand them?
Yes, communism is still considered a taboo in America. While it is not illegal to hold communist beliefs, the ideology is often stigmatized and associated with negative connotations in American society.
Communism is still viewed as a taboo in America due to the historical context of the Cold War and the fear of communism spreading throughout the country. The anti-communist sentiment was particularly strong during the Red Scare in the 1950s, which further solidified the negative perception of communism in America.
The American government has historically been opposed to communism and has taken measures to prevent its spread, such as implementing the policy of containment during the Cold War. However, individuals are free to hold and express communist beliefs as it is protected under the First Amendment.
No, there are no laws against communism in America. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and belief, including the right to hold communist beliefs. However, there are laws against actions that are deemed as threats to national security, such as espionage or advocating for the violent overthrow of the government.
Yes, there is a generational difference in the perception of communism in America. Older generations who grew up during the Cold War tend to have a more negative view of communism, while younger generations may be more open to exploring alternative political ideologies.