Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

The fear of "socialists?"

Posted by   + Show Post

Where does this fear of "socialists" come from?  Obama is not A socialist, period.  Bernie Sanders IS a socialist Senator and no one seems to be afraid of him. I am asking sincerely.  Is it a holdover from the Cold War days or something else?

by on May. 1, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Replies (41-50):
new_mom808
by Bronze Member on May. 2, 2012 at 8:18 AM

 In the situation you describe, I would propose that in a capitalist setting the consumers have a choice (good) and their dollars will make the decision, based on your communities value system. If your community truely values the environment over money, they will choose the correct alternative for their situation. The same is true for the other side of the arguement. Either way, the people get what they want, and no regulation is necessary. An informed public is quite capable of speaking for themselves. The company that provides the services and holds the values of their community will be prosperous.

Quoting bluespagan:

Hi Vermont resident here, Bernie is my senator :) 

Socialism is a buzzword that people have been brainwashed into believing is evil.  When people think of socialism they think of Marxism and Stalinism. 

Here in Vermont we take the socialist views of communal living.  "Buy local" and inner buying/bartering are highly promoted here.  Our environmental and community policies show one of high regulation on those things that would take advantage of or harm the community in any way (one of our biggest fights is currently over Vermont Yankee, a nuclear power plant that provides electricity to the state.  One side promotes it since it lowers electrical costs the other is trying to close it due to the environmental impact it is having and could have on Vermont).  Socialism promotes the ideal of people before money.  This ideal has basically been beaten out of us with the "keeping up with the Jones' " mentality that permeates society today.  Socialism calls for a more natural approach which pushes out capitalism and promotes communal care for one another and realizes that the way for human kind to survive is to promote this ideal of community living instead of individual selfish want and gain.

 

new_mom808
by Bronze Member on May. 2, 2012 at 8:21 AM

 

Quoting lga1965:

 

Quoting new_mom808:

 

Quoting lga1965:

 

Quoting new_mom808:

 

Quoting UpSheRises:

 

Quoting new_mom808:

 I dont fear socialists. I fear that socialist ideals are taking over my country.
LOL, I wasnt really alive during the cold war so much, so no, that's not it. ;)

I am a capitalist. I believe that nothing motivates a person, like personal reward. Socialism goes agains basic human nature, which is to be selfish, and look after one's own immediate survival. Not admirable, and we should strive to overcome this nature, but it is our nature. It will not be overcome by mandates, or force.

I'd rather have a country full of people motivated by intrinsic values than by money. Human beings aren't selfish by nature...we're a communal species. The more detached we become from each other and the natural world the more selfish we become. Selfishness is something money promotes and is far from a prescription for a healthy human being and healthy community. 

Our intrinsic value system is that of self survival. I believe that we are communal only to the point that it serves our needs. We simply will not strive for a goal from which we do not benifit, as individuals.

 I disagree. There are so many people who do things for others when they don't even get any credit for it or any reward. It happens all the time. We do have that feeling of altruism from the time we are young and that continues ...unless we have been completey disappointed and handled with cruelty by loved ones.Distancing and pushing people away, then thinking only of what you will get out of life is a sign of an abused person who has lost faith.ANd that is frightening.

 I would propose that there is always a reward. A beief in karma, higher power. From the time we are young we are taught that certain behaviors are good. Therfore certain behaviors make us feel good. That is its own reward.

Please understand I am not painting mankind as vile hateful creatures. I am simply saying that if you look hard enough everything we do is driven by a desire for self benefit. Socialism ignores that basic motivational factor. Requiring a group of individuals to make sacrafices,  from which only others benefit, will not work for long

I still disagree. And that isn't really what Socialism is all about anyway.

 You're free to do so. You're also free to clear up whatever misconceptions you feel I may have regarding what Socialism is all about.

bluespagan
by on May. 2, 2012 at 8:31 AM
1 mom liked this

But here is the issue with the capitalist setting.  Without proper regulation capitalism generates waste, corruption and greed.  The people will get what they need at the lowest price possible but at the expense of what?  The expense of the environment and the expense of the local business man and producers.  That is why when a place like Wal-Mart opens up the surrounding small businesses usually shut down since they are unable to compete with the prices or product the bigger conglomerate can offer.  In a society like the one Vermont promotes the public is informed and is promoted to support local needs and people over that of big business.  In doing so the community grows and prospers as a whole instead of growing and prospering on an individual basis like capitalism promotes.

Quoting new_mom808:

 In the situation you describe, I would propose that in a capitalist setting the consumers have a choice (good) and their dollars will make the decision, based on your communities value system. If your community truely values the environment over money, they will choose the correct alternative for their situation. The same is true for the other side of the arguement. Either way, the people get what they want, and no regulation is necessary. An informed public is quite capable of speaking for themselves. The company that provides the services and holds the values of their community will be prosperous.

Quoting bluespagan:

Hi Vermont resident here, Bernie is my senator :) 

Socialism is a buzzword that people have been brainwashed into believing is evil.  When people think of socialism they think of Marxism and Stalinism. 

Here in Vermont we take the socialist views of communal living.  "Buy local" and inner buying/bartering are highly promoted here.  Our environmental and community policies show one of high regulation on those things that would take advantage of or harm the community in any way (one of our biggest fights is currently over Vermont Yankee, a nuclear power plant that provides electricity to the state.  One side promotes it since it lowers electrical costs the other is trying to close it due to the environmental impact it is having and could have on Vermont).  Socialism promotes the ideal of people before money.  This ideal has basically been beaten out of us with the "keeping up with the Jones' " mentality that permeates society today.  Socialism calls for a more natural approach which pushes out capitalism and promotes communal care for one another and realizes that the way for human kind to survive is to promote this ideal of community living instead of individual selfish want and gain.

 


bookmommy
by on May. 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM
1 mom liked this

Unexpected times are just that, unexpected. He meant one has to try to take care of ones self and their families, excel in whatever job they do and then you can take care of others.

You can't help anyone if you need help yourself.

Quoting matreshka:

Your dad's saying great if you don't fall on unexpected hard times.

Quoting bookmommy:

Exactly. My dad used to say "The best way to help the poor is first to not be one of them." How can you help anyone else if you're not in a good position monetarily yourself?

~Jen

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country.." John F. Kennedy

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." ~Margaret Thatcher

bookmommy
by on May. 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM

The problem isn't necessarily the capitalist setting. It's the government surrounding that setting. They tax and regulate the businesses so that some have no choice but to leave the country to be able to compete with everything that's being imported.

We need an import tax IMHO. Then it promotes "made in USA" items, and encourages jobs to stay here. However, political greed on both sides will probbaly ensure that doesn't happen. Sad.

Quoting bluespagan:

But here is the issue with the capitalist setting.  Without proper regulation capitalism generates waste, corruption and greed.  The people will get what they need at the lowest price possible but at the expense of what?  The expense of the environment and the expense of the local business man and producers.  That is why when a place like Wal-Mart opens up the surrounding small businesses usually shut down since they are unable to compete with the prices or product the bigger conglomerate can offer.  In a society like the one Vermont promotes the public is informed and is promoted to support local needs and people over that of big business.  In doing so the community grows and prospers as a whole instead of growing and prospering on an individual basis like capitalism promotes.


~Jen

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country.." John F. Kennedy

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]." ~Margaret Thatcher

bookmommy
by on May. 2, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I used to think that too, but now with jobs being scarce and people holding on to every last dollar scriping to get by, cheapet product wins out, and unfortunately, it's cheaper for companies to not be here in the States.

Some sort of regulation is necessary to ensure that companies can afford to stay here and that our products are competitive in the market so that American companies can employ American workers.

Quoting new_mom808:

 In the situation you describe, I would propose that in a capitalist setting the consumers have a choice (good) and their dollars will make the decision, based on your communities value system. If your community truely values the environment over money, they will choose the correct alternative for their situation. The same is true for the other side of the arguement. Either way, the people get what they want, and no regulation is necessary. An informed public is quite capable of speaking for themselves. The company that provides the services and holds the values of their community will be prosperous.

Quoting bluespagan:

Hi Vermont resident here, Bernie is my senator :) 

Socialism is a buzzword that people have been brainwashed into believing is evil.  When people think of socialism they think of Marxism and Stalinism. 

Here in Vermont we take the socialist views of communal living.  "Buy local" and inner buying/bartering are highly promoted here.  Our environmental and community policies show one of high regulation on those things that would take advantage of or harm the community in any way (one of our biggest fights is currently over Vermont Yankee, a nuclear power plant that provides electricity to the state.  One side promotes it since it lowers electrical costs the other is trying to close it due to the environmental impact it is having and could have on Vermont).  Socialism promotes the ideal of people before money.  This ideal has basically been beaten out of us with the "keeping up with the Jones' " mentality that permeates society today.  Socialism calls for a more natural approach which pushes out capitalism and promotes communal care for one another and realizes that the way for human kind to survive is to promote this ideal of community living instead of individual selfish want and gain.

 


blondekosmic15
by Blonde on May. 2, 2012 at 9:16 AM

 

Quoting asfriend:

Bernie Sanders could not be more irrelevant if he was dead. He isn't dead yet is he?

 

 

LCLMBSC
by on May. 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM
1 mom liked this

First, there is not socialism involved.

Seccondly, you're right about Sanders.

Thirdly, there has never been a Democratic Socialist government in action; if there were, we might not be so frightened by it...it's not a bad plan.

It's all reactionary against the big bad Black prez.


Lisa


p.s. Everyone who is so "patriotic"-- go research the origins of the Pledge of Allegiance.


"I've seen fire, and I've seen rain.  I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end.  I've seen lonely times that I could not find a friend, but I always thought that I'd see you again."  

Ricardo Moreno (1950-2000)

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on May. 2, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I actually addressed scale in a post subsequent to that one; basically socialistic government works better at local levels than national levels and it can be applied to any society by that means.  I much prefer that to a highly-centralized national government, and so does the Constitution ;)

Here's the post I mentioned, scale expounded upon at the bolded:

I did not equate bureacracy to socialism.  I got more specific than that, but it is true that a government with greater size and scope tends to require more bureacracy, and more socialistic government (like fascism) will require an increase in size and/or scope of government.  My specific reason I gave for opposing it is because it tends to replace the human element of asking and giving with the bureacratic, nameless elements, making it easy to forget the real human needs and real human sacrifices, which no amount of government can compensate for in the end.

Heck, even a less-centralized government socialistic government is notiaceably different than a centralized socialized government.  I know from experience that they make a difference in my life.  I've seen localized socialistic government (in Switzerland) and I have lived with it and I have seen centralized socialistic government, in fact I live with it now, in France.  It makes a difference in my day-to-day life.

Example: In Switzerland, the majority of government revenue is collected and spent at the local level.  I lived in a Swiss village for 3 years and observed many more during that time, and one thing Swiss villages take care of locally is plan and protect pedestrian pathways for schoolchildren.  My village was separated from the primary school by a highway, and it built a tunnel under the highway for kids to walk to school in more security.  It had a marked path for children so they could see where to cross the streets to school safely.  This is something that Swiss villages do locally, but it catches on from village to village to village because people see each other's ideas and people have the power to finance and take these local initiatives, and they have more of their money at hand to use as they see fit.

I am sure that French parents care just as much about their kids, in fact they put up those little "slow down for our kids" signs, but the difference between school routes is major and significant between the typcial Swiss vilage and the French village I live in now.  The high school is in the next village, just as it was is Switzerland, yet in France there is no side-walk path from our village to the village with the highschool.  the Swiss kids had a safe and secure place to walk or ride their bikes to school, while here they trudge on the side of a rode with a 50 mph speed limit.

The problem here? It's centralized bureacracy. 

In America, communities can be just as organized as the Swiss and many of them are.  It is much easier for a regular citizen in America or Switzerland to run a local initiative and raise money for one then it is for a French citizen.  They can talk to their neighbors, build local interest and make a local budget proposal.  This is drastically less possible in France, because the bulk of taxes are already gone, to the federal government.

This is one reason that federal vs state makes a fundamental difference in the way society operates, and is a good case study in how the more bureaucrats come between giver and reciever, the more difficult it can be to give and ask for what is needed according to real-life circumstances.

Quoting matreshka:

This is what many actual anarchists (the non-bomb throwers) who are pacifists and want smaller scale societies.  Of course this is but an ideal because there is no way to scale back our society at large.

What do we do for the people who have no family to turn to when times get rough? I agree there is a sort of cognitive dissonance when some people get public assistance and think it is form "the government" alone, and not tax payers.

Quoting Meadowchik:

I'd rather have a community where people take care of each other because they want to, not because they are forced to do so, by law.  Bureaucrats cannot replace real human care and concern.

It's not easy helping people.  It can be a huge responsibility when someone comes to you and asks for something, and you have to decide if you think it is right to give up something you may want or need so that they can have what they want or need.  Evenso, we shouldn't just give up that responsibility to nameless red tape. 

And alot of concern I see about an increasingly socialistic behavior of government is exactly about the loss of humanness.  If I have to ask a person for help, I think twice.  Them helping me might mean sacrifice for them.  The government helping me does mean sacrifice for others, but it is easier to forget that behind the guise of forms and "entitlements." Also, if I think it's governments' job to help people, I might think less about helping people or looking for people to help.

So, you see, a wish to resist a more socialistic government can be motivated by intrinsic values, by concern for the general and individual welfare of other people in addition to ourselves.

Quoting UpSheRises:


Quoting new_mom808:

 I dont fear socialists. I fear that socialist ideals are taking over my country.
LOL, I wasnt really alive during the cold war so much, so no, that's not it. ;)

I am a capitalist. I believe that nothing motivates a person, like personal reward. Socialism goes agains basic human nature, which is to be selfish, and look after one's own immediate survival. Not admirable, and we should strive to overcome this nature, but it is our nature. It will not be overcome by mandates, or force.

I'd rather have a country full of people motivated by intrinsic values than by money. Human beings aren't selfish by nature...we're a communal species. The more detached we become from each other and the natural world the more selfish we become. Selfishness is something money promotes and is far from a prescription for a healthy human being and healthy community. 




"We have a moral responsibility to not spend more than we take in." -Mitt Romney 2012

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

new_mom808
by Bronze Member on May. 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM

 Allowing for regulations that create a false market, are also subject to the greed and corruption (of the legislators, lobbyists etc). Except in this senario, the consumers are powerless.

I see nothing wrong with a community coming together, and making their priorities known. The problems arise when regulations force those priorities on all consumers.

In the situation you describe here, with Wal-Mart, the people have clearly spoken, with their consumer dollars, that they do value price over supporting local business. There are pros and cons to each choice, but we need to be free to make that choice for ourselves.

Quoting bluespagan:

But here is the issue with the capitalist setting.  Without proper regulation capitalism generates waste, corruption and greed.  The people will get what they need at the lowest price possible but at the expense of what?  The expense of the environment and the expense of the local business man and producers.  That is why when a place like Wal-Mart opens up the surrounding small businesses usually shut down since they are unable to compete with the prices or product the bigger conglomerate can offer.  In a society like the one Vermont promotes the public is informed and is promoted to support local needs and people over that of big business.  In doing so the community grows and prospers as a whole instead of growing and prospering on an individual basis like capitalism promotes.

Quoting new_mom808:

 In the situation you describe, I would propose that in a capitalist setting the consumers have a choice (good) and their dollars will make the decision, based on your communities value system. If your community truely values the environment over money, they will choose the correct alternative for their situation. The same is true for the other side of the arguement. Either way, the people get what they want, and no regulation is necessary. An informed public is quite capable of speaking for themselves. The company that provides the services and holds the values of their community will be prosperous.

Quoting bluespagan:

Hi Vermont resident here, Bernie is my senator :) 

Socialism is a buzzword that people have been brainwashed into believing is evil.  When people think of socialism they think of Marxism and Stalinism. 

Here in Vermont we take the socialist views of communal living.  "Buy local" and inner buying/bartering are highly promoted here.  Our environmental and community policies show one of high regulation on those things that would take advantage of or harm the community in any way (one of our biggest fights is currently over Vermont Yankee, a nuclear power plant that provides electricity to the state.  One side promotes it since it lowers electrical costs the other is trying to close it due to the environmental impact it is having and could have on Vermont).  Socialism promotes the ideal of people before money.  This ideal has basically been beaten out of us with the "keeping up with the Jones' " mentality that permeates society today.  Socialism calls for a more natural approach which pushes out capitalism and promotes communal care for one another and realizes that the way for human kind to survive is to promote this ideal of community living instead of individual selfish want and gain.

 

 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)