Why do you think so many people are freaked out by the concept of socialism?

Dunno, I kinda dig it.

People are greedy.

I’m not saying I think this way (entirely), but from what I can see:

People don’t like to share.

People don’t like thinking that someone else is getting something for nothing, but off their back.

People operate on the premise that those with the most toys (resources) wins. How do “you” stand out if everyone gets the same thing?

There might be other reasons as well, but these were the first that came to mind.

Originally, it was probably because we thought the nasty socialists of the USSR were going to nuke us. It became a frightening symbol of anti-Americanism. Coming out of the cold war, socialism has been tied by critics to any proposition involving greater government control, feeding off of and strengthening the rhetoric linking ideology and patriotism to economics. People aren’t afraid of socialism. Socialism doesn’t even mean socialism anymore; the phrase has been associated with too many contradictory ideas to bear any resemblance to the original political theory. It now means dirty foreign conspiracy of welfare queens trying to subvert the American way, and it refers to any policy that challenges your ideology-laden economic theory.

Brainwashing.

I think people may be afraid that whomever is in charge will take away their possessions and that they will be owned by the state. Also they may feel if they are part of a socialistic system they will have no individuality. Not to mention the type of laws that may go with a socialist agenda such as one baby per household or making all firearms illegal for citizens. Then we must think what happens to the people who don’t reform. Will they be put in camps or prison until they agree to this new type of government? I think on paper socialism may be attractive but in practice I’m not sure if it is the answer.

Why should I have to share the fruits of my labor? Come on people, are you really needing someone to wipe your ass for you becuase your skill sets or motivation suck? Before you give me the “take care of the poor and needy crap” if more socialist lovers did what the try to make others do as far as help and freely give..we would be a much better place. I’m so tired of everyone acting like they care for needy folks and yet they can’t serve or help anyone unless it’s a publicity stunt or mandated by another. I hate socialism and btw I am not a rich white greedy oppressor.

It’s ironic that people who are freaked out by socialism generally support things like interstate highways, police and fire departments, and the military.

@gitesque, why should you have to share the fruits of your labor? Because you don’t labor in a vacuum. What do you do, exactly? Whatever it is, I’m guessing it requires some sort of social infrastructure—such as highways for transportation of goods and materials, public utilities to supply you with electricity and water, the Internet (developed socially through federal spending), and federally enforced laws to protect you from theft.

@Qingu I would gladly answer if you asked anything relevant. Did I say taxes were bad? No, so your rant on the infastructure and federal spending is not applicable. I said our government was lame but I know it is necessary, but not needing to be increased and given more stuff to screw up. I wish the government would stick to doing its job and get out of all the social programs. Please feel free to give an accurate update on our efficient Social Security and how brillantly the government has handled it ? lol

I’m not freaked out by socialism. I am deeply suspicious of having strong connections between government interests and corporate interests. It seems to me that the main problem with capitalism, American style—that powerful corporate interests influence the government to fiddle with markets in multiple different ways, and the end result is that the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful and the poor and powerless stay poor and powerless—is likely to remain the same under a more socialist style of government.

@giltesque, you have no problem with redistributing your wealth to pay for roads that other people use, fire departments that save other people from fires, police and military forces that (at least in theory) protect other people from threats, violence, and death—but you stop at redistributing your wealth to save people from diseases they did not choose to contract? Explain your logic, please.

@cwilbur

Hm… Are you familiar with an- ... libertarian socialism?

@Qingu Bingo! You nailed it, for the most part. I completely support medical R&D and as Im sure you know the private sector spends gazillions on it. Again I say we support several organizations for specific diseases. I do not understand your assuming I have no desire to see cancer cured. I know there are amazing people working on that as I write and not all are federally funded. Im not anti limited federal funding. I’m anti squashing out the private sector in America. I do not take ownership in fixing others for their choices. We could spend hours on this choice issue. I have 2 bone spurs currently, I’m in extreme pain I did not choose them. My lifestyle and activity has greatly aggravated them and one could say caused them therefore I am to blame by participating in such sports as I do. I do not play victim and expect you or others to provide for my bone scans @ Georgetown I had to drive 6 hours to or the mri’s and xrays. I pay for my private insurance and out of pocket, on payment plans if need be, to care for myself. My mom is diabetic, not by choice, but she has horrible eating habits and no exercise.,choice to be ill? Of course we will say No, but she does not choose to be healthy and proactive either. Don’t you see how slippery a slope it is to portray and treat all as victims. Are there some in the masses? Sure but many of our ailments, especially in this wonderful hi-tech info world, can now be prevented through knowledge and behavior modification.

Well, looks like someone else pointed out why I should avoid them.
Thanks!

Saves me time.

@giltesque, you’ve completely missed my point.

You support redistributing wealth to fund public services to save people from fires, natural disasters, and violence.

You support redistributing wealth to fund public transportation, energy, water, and technology projects.

Why do you oppose redistributing wealth to fund public health care? What is the ethical difference here, exactly? It can’t be “choice,” because you could easily make that argument for people who engage in risky behaviors that start fires or lead to violence.

You think the private sector should take care of health care, but not police, fire, military, telecommunications, utilities, and highway projects? Why?

@Lefty_the_space_monkey: Yes, and I think the thought that anarchy will be preferable to our current system is laughable. If you don’t like the power that corporate interests acting under government regulation have now, how much will you like the power that corporate interests have when there is no regulation at all?

Despite the fact that I just don’t like it, socialism has a tendency to become corrupt from a historical point of view. Look at the countries it was tried out in. They didn’t turn out so well. Historically, socialist countries are not as prosperous as non-socialist countries. Does this mean that it wouldn’t work in America? No, but socialism has a tendency to go against human nature. Sure, you think redistributing wealth is a good idea, but that doesn’t mean that the other millions of Americans do. And of course the classic “no incentive to work” comes to mind. If you’re just going to end up getting the same as everyone else, why bother to work hard? Talent and ability aren’t rewarded in a socialist system, laziness is ignored, etc. Also, wouldn’t progress be halted with an absence of competition?

These are just a few ideas that come to my mind. Feel free to rip them apart.

To add, I do not think socialized health care is a bad idea. I am against a full socialistic economic system.

@Dansedescygnes, what is a “socialized economic system”? America has always had socialist elements (see my comments to giltesque). Taxes are wealth distribution.

There aren’t “socialist countries” and “not socialist countries.” There are simply countries with certain degrees of socialized, public programs. Except for Somalia, which has no socialism.

Also, laissez faire capitalism doesn’t exactly have a stellar historical record either.

@Qingu

I’m not for laissez-faire capitalism. And I said “full socialistic system”. I mean to the degree of Communism. And when I said “socialist countries” I was referring to ones with high levels of socialism or communism.

@Dansedescygnes: I think saying it goes against human nature, is well, a bit much.

@giltesque (not just at you; don’t take this too personally) The point is that you do pay for your insurance out of pocket. Many people cannot, and because of this are driven even further into debt. To attribute this to laziness is ridiculous. We live in a capitalist society. The root of this word, you will note, is capital- money used to create more money. The entire basis of our economy is that those who have money can invest it and make more money. It is, in theory and in practice, a system under which the rich get richer- and, while the poor may not get poorer, they certainly are left vastly behind the rich. This principle of self-perpetuation applies to health as it does to wealth: the food of the poor is less nutritious and more damaging than that of the rich: health care is delayed through lack of coverage, and diseases worsen until they can no longer be endured, by which time they are much harder to treat: the environments in which the poor live and work are far more likely to expose them to harmful substances: and lack of access to, or ignorance of, information and private aid resources make them less likely to seek help, and make them more vulnerable to disease. It applies to education: unless you would claim that education, all education, is worthless, then you must recognize that people who grow up in the Chicago public schools, where the standards for both teachers and students are so low that straight A’s won’t get you into college, are much less prepared for life than someone whose parents could sent them to private school. It applies to essentially everything.

Some of this social inertia can be seen as the ‘fault’ of the poor, as a result of a culture of underachievement. But if everybody you knew, your friends, your family, your neighbors, was in the situation I outlined above, and you had no reason to expect anything different for yourself, can you honestly say that you might not give up and accept your fate, if no one who was in a better position was willing to give you some help and level the playing field, instead of just saying “Look, I can pay for my insurance, I’m not a victim, what’s your problem”? Maybe you could; some people do. Most people don’t. Realizing this and accepting this, and then trying to fix the problem by putting a check on that self-perpetuation of poverty and of wealth, does not mean we have to allow people to exist as passive victims buoyed up by the state, and it does not mean socialism, in the sense of total state control. It does mean providing for those who can’t provide for themselves, in recognition of the bitter reality that market forces create. It may be un-American to say that people here do not have an equal chance at life, but it is at least accurate.

Jayne, can you please be legal now? Work it out.

@asmonet

Yeah, well, I’m not a psychologist. But wouldn’t you ascribe to the notion of “most people are greedy”? Do you know how many times I’ve heard people claim that?

If it’s true that it certainly does go against human nature in a lot of people.

I’ll try. But that socialist Obama might not let me, he’s trying to interfere with my way of life, ya know?

@cwilbur

How much worse would corporate power be?

I’m not an ancap.

If it’s true that it certainly does go against human nature in a lot of people.

That’s not a proper sentence… You wanna go again?

@Jayne: Zing!

It doesn’t help that most governments in the past century that have called themselves socialist have been terrible dictatorships.

Socialism does go against human nature…when that particular human has been raised in a capitalist society. People are organisms, and therefore have evolved over millions of years for the purpose of survival. A simplistic view of evolution would say that we ought to have evolved selfishness and greed, because they help ensure our own survival and that of our offspring. Selfishness does have greater potential for reward than cooperation; you can grab more for yourself than is likely to be distributed to you as a member of a group. However, it is far less stable; you are likely to be cast out of a group to fend for yourself, you will have more enemies, etc. And, of course, you may need someone to care for your children. The comparative benefits between the two depends on the availability of resources, the danger and nature of outside forces, the need for shelter, and other factors, which change with time. We would not, therefore, have evolved a hardwired predilection for either behavior. However, it is clear that people do have a very deep-seated tendency towards one or the other, usually, in our experience and popular wisdom, selfishness. That is because the best mechanism for weighing the benefits of either behavior, better than trying to debate them on ones own, is to take the lead from the previous generation; while this may be slow to respond to environmental changes, it allows groups to become stronger over time, or for individual gains to accumulate, as neither behavior can be very beneficial if it is transient. So what we have evolved is a strong tendency to absorb culture, a culture either of individualism or of collectivism, and to make of it not simply a conscious ideology but and instinct. Thus, living in a capitalist society, it is easy to say that human nature dictates selfishness and avarice. But it would be just as easy for a Chinese person to say that human nature is one of loyalty to the collective, and so socialism may be a natural system of government for that culture.
This does not simply apply to selfishness vs. cooperation, of course. These are simply the most pertinent cultural features.

@asmonet

Change “that” to “then”.