[John SBM]

This question is usually evaded because we don't want to admit the reality.
There is a poll on the web site with the editorial. Cast your vote and express your opinion.

[KentuckyWoman]

Take a look and this and see where you think we are:

The Political Spectrum

TOTAL                   LIMITED                   NO
 Government                Government             Government

Socialism     Democracy     Republic              Anarchy
 X
We Were Here in 1776
If you're happy and you know clank your chains!

 

I have seen a progression of governments down through the ages that goes something like: first republican, then democratic, then socialistic, then communistic/fascist, then monarchy, then anarchy, then repeat. It seems to fit in this particular instance. We're well on our way to being communistic/fascist....

[Cleburne]

Are we socialist? Are there Jews in Israel? America may not have plunged to the low levels of many European socialist communes, as we still have many semblances of our freedoms (compared to other societies), but we're going deeper and deeper every day.

[x]

Socialist compared to what?

Compared to our past history (before 1913 or 1933 or 1965), yes. And you can see how the program of the old Socialist Party has been implemented here over time.

Compared to Communist countries, no. Compared to European Social Democracies, also no.

And compared to socialist theory, the answer is unclear. The state exerts control or supervision over very large areas of the economy and life, but the final step of state or social ownership of the means of production has not been achieved. State ownership was always taken as the definition of socialism, because otherwise, given the kind of regulation governments have always done, socialism would be very difficult to define. But is ownership still necessary if the government has control?

Maybe it might help to find a country that is now less socialistic than the US just to see what is possible here and now. It may be that states inevitably pass from traditional authority to bureaucratic control, with only a brief window of greater freedom in between. One can point to some less developed countries that offer great freedom, but once democracy evolves state control increases. The natural tendency of officials to control the resources of their countries meets the natural desire of the discontented to use politics to get a share of those resources (or to deprive others of those resources) with predictable results.

Our experience of putting oceans, mountains and deserts between our families and those who would rule us was very different from that of Europeans and Asians who always lived in sight of the castle or in fear of invasion, so our attitudes towards socialism and the state differ.

Another question is: what about the idea of Peter Drucker, Mortimer Adler and others, that the US has achieved or could achieve a "pension fund socialism" as employee stock trusts and pension funds come to replace the old rich as the largest shareholders in enterprises?

[Udycus]

I would say that going as far as to say that the US being a socialist country is not entirely correct. I would say that we are "National Socialist" a term most commonly associated with the term "NAZI". In true socialism the state is supposed to wither away. I don't see that in the United States. What I do see is an ever increasing centralization of the government. With the recent attacks by terrorist, I think it is evident that the government wants more control. For those of you who say that personal safety is held above personal freedoms, then that is a sacrafice you are willing to make. I for one don't see it that way. I would rather have my freedoms where I believe that I am better equipped to keep myself safe. The government doesn't seem to care about the people it governs, yet it seems they only care about their next term of office. These so-called careerist politicians seem to care more about public opinion than the topics at hand. The more freedoms that are taken away from us, the more power the central government has. In a sense we can say that many people believe that the preservation of the state is more important than that people in it. Now the people in government may not be full blown racists but they do seek to alienate the races in order to keep them separate so as not to unite. But still we must take into account that the benifits the people have gained since the time of FDR have made it increasingly possible for the government to take our freedom. But these benifits are paid for by the people. So they still cost the people a lot of money. Socialist, NO, but welcome to the "Fascist States of America" where the possibilities are endless but where everything comes at a price.

[Republic of Texas]

Simple Answer - YES

*sigh*

[MattinNJ]

Geez, I don't know-let me check my payroll stub and property tax bill. Yup, we're socialist.

[MattinNJ]

Geez, I don't know-let me check my payroll stub and property tax bill. Yup, we're socialist.

[christianswindler]

We're not REALLY socialist. We just act like we are.

[Huck]

Of course we are NOT a socialist country. Not if you go by any objective definition of the term. I use Webster's:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

You can mush the meaning of words all you want, but in America, the means of production, i.e., businesses, are privately owned. And goods are distributed in the marketplace. Just having a "safety net" supported by taxation doesn't change that.

Maybe you could get together the latest libertarian bump list and do an "Is America a Fascist Country" thread. That would be fun, too.

[beavus]

It certainly has achieved a great deal of grass roots support in the U.S. How many people do you know who would categorically tell their children not to steal, but who fly into a sanctimonious rage at the suggestion that the individuals working for a government agency shouldn't steal (e.g. income taxes, social security, farm subsidies, etc., etc., etc.).

Socialism is at its heart a philosophy of larceny, and its adherents are thieves at heart. Under it, innocent Pat Smith is not given the ability to veto the coerced confiscation of his/her property.

I always tell my kids, "Kids", I say, "Never, EVER, steal from your friends, unless for a good cause agreed to my a plurality of your friends."

[jamaksin]

Yes - no bout a doubt it!

[tm22721]

You are taking our freedoms for granted when you say that the country is 'socialist'. Are you trying to imply that survival of the fittest (Darwinism) is a good thing ?

BUMP

[FlyVet]

This question is usually evaded because we don't want to admit the reality.

What's to evade? In truth, the Democrats should change their name to Socialist (Communist after they confiscate the guns) or the "People's Party", or the "Labor Party", complete with hammer and sickle, and the Repubs should at least change their name to Democrat, if not worse. Except for a very few individuals such as Bahr (sp?), Kyle, and a few others, it should be obvious, the sleeping giant hasn't awakened. Will it ever, before it's too late?

[FrdmLvr]

America is a mixed economy.

[hove]

I pay between a third and one half of what I make to taxes and fees. That damn sure smells like socialism to me!!

[mbb bill]

Krats have made it pretty much socialist!!!

[itsinthebag]

Yup.

[iranger]

Can someone from simple means still become stinking rich? YES!!! Thank God!!!

[dixie sass]

ring ring

[nicollo]

If I were a socialist I would answer with a horrified "no!"

Many Freepers simply hate good news. Sorry to bring it to you, but we are not a socialist nation.

OTOH, if I were a libertarian I would have long ago drowned in my own logic. It must be worse than being a Democrat -- the inconsistencies between perception and reality are worse than your worst limousine liberal. Libertarians are ever the dog dropping the bone for the one in the water below.

I don't know where to begin. -- How 'bout here: Along whose street do you ride? And whose property was taken to make its way? (Hint: see the Fifth Amendment).

Illegitimate government is that which the courts decide. Got a problem with this, take it to John Marshall's grave.

And for all you zoning/property tax haters: please read Constitution carefully. Then tell your local zoning board to ignore the 10th Amendment.

Good luck.