[Paddy14]

I lurked on a couple of US forums before I joined here, and I noticed a lot of fear of socialism.

Why is that? According to my mum and dad, and my teachers - the most successful societies on earth use quite a bit of socialism.

So why are the Americans so afraid of it?

Anyone here - specially Americans - want to tell me why?

[skinster]

Decades of propaganda.

[Sivad]

Over a century of horror and atrocity by authoritarian shitheads pretending to be socialists.

[skinster]

[Rancid]

The funny thing is, there are many programs that are socialistic.

Example, 46% of my property tax I pay for schools goes to schools in poor rural texas (the same morons that would call them selves anti-socialists)

[jimjam]

I suspect that, like so much in this life, it has to do with money. America has experienced varying degrees of predatory capitalism down through the years. Participants gain wealth by hook or by crook and, quite simply, want more wealth. Socialism poses a threat to their wealth. These folks have no use whatsoever for any altruistic aims of Socialism that may hinder their hunger for ever increasing wealth. That many have cornered more wealth than they may need for numerous lifetimes seems not to register with them.

[Zagadka]

There is some concept that a private corporation will be "more efficient" at anything... hence private prisons. Ugh.

[SolarCross]

There is some concept that a private corporation will be "more efficient" at anything... hence private prisons. Ugh.

In fairness there is nothing efficient about any prison, that's why communism fails in the end, it's all just one big prison. The commies did their best to make prisons efficient, they brought back slavery in a big way, it still didn't work. It was probably the right idea though, using slavery to make prisons more efficient, in the end though a prison is a prison, slavery or not, and such things will never be efficient.

[Crantag]

In fairness there is nothing efficient about any prison, that's why communism fails in the end, it's all just one big prison. The commies did their best to make prisons efficient, they brought back slavery in a big way, it still didn't work. It was probably the right idea though, using slavery to make prisons more efficient, in the end though a prison is a prison, slavery or not, and such things will never be efficient.

So your tactic here is to compare one of the most degenerate aspects of American society to socialism by way of the most contrived and tenuous of analogies possible?

Okay.

Can you play your game again using student loan debt?

[SolarCross]

So your tactic here is to compare one of the most degenerate aspects of American society to socialism by way of the most contrived and tenuous of analogies possible?

Okay.

There are a few subtle differences, for one: in America the most degenerate aspects of society are imprisoned, in socialism the most degenerate aspects of society do the the imprisoning.

Can you play your game again using student loan debt?

Absolutely.

[Crantag]

Absolutely.

Lets have it, than.

I was asking you to provide a little bit more entertainment.

[Zagadka]

I think many Americans don't properly understand the spectrum of socialism. We (though millenials are going to change things a bit) have decades of "socialism is evil" drilled into us for decades, and people point to totally failed states that are generally just as fucked as their "capitalist" neighbors, then think that represents "socialism"...

Meanwhile, they reap benefits of many government programs and services, frequently bitching when they are interrupted. We seem confused about big/small government - both sides. Things like demanding ID to vote (OK) but refusing to even discuss a national ID card.

Most Americans would probably say that universal healthcare isn't really "socialist" these days, or many other traits common to Western Europe. Well, maybe not France.

[One Degree]

Time. The US is relatively new. Our ancestors thought nothing of traveling hundreds of miles to build a house in the middle of no where. This trait of ‘rugged individualism’ is passed down. As it has become more and more impossible to live as an individual, social programs are reluctantly accepted.
It should also be remembered the ‘rugged individual’ understands better than anyone the need for assistance in the time of need. They see this assistance as temporary and voluntary. Therefore, many Americans still like the idea of private charity over social programs. It is mainly cultural traits and not ideological.

[Potemkin]

Time. The US is relatively new. Our ancestors thought nothing of traveling hundreds of miles to build a house in the middle of no where. This trait of ‘rugged individualism’ is passed down. As it has become more and more impossible to live as an individual, social programs are reluctantly accepted.
It should also be remembered the ‘rugged individual’ understands better than anyone the need for assistance in the time of need. They see this assistance as temporary and voluntary. Therefore, many Americans still like the idea of private charity over social programs. It is mainly cultural traits and not ideological.

I agree that it's more cultural than ideological. Most Americans, after all, have little or no knowledge of what even capitalism is and how it operates, let alone what socialism is. The 'rugged individualism' of American culture was and is a product of the unusual history and young age of the American nation. It was only made possible by the fact that a frontier existed, with huge expanses of dirt-cheap land up for grabs for any penniless immigrant with sufficient gumption, ingenuity or just plain desperation to make a go of it. In Europe, by contrast, all the land had been claimed for a thousand years or more, and an hereditary ruling elite jealously guarded their class privileges against any hint of a threat from ambitious lower-class upstarts. Under those conditions, any form of 'rugged individualism' simply couldn't make any headway as a cultural thing. The ruling classes would oppose it as a threat to their hereditary social status and wealth, and the lower classes could see very clearly that their only chance of advancement was to combine their forces against the entrenched vested interests of the ruling classes. Individualism simply wasn't a thing in Europe, and still isn't. For example, how many libertarians are there in the United Kingdom? Lol.

Of course, the historical and economic conditions which gave rise to that cultural trait of 'rugged individualism' no longer obtain. The frontier closed more than a century ago, and most Americans are wage slaves rather than pioneers living out on the prairie. This contradiction between the cultural ideal and the sordid economic reality of the modern world has been deeply traumatic for the American people, and they still don't seem to have come to terms with it.

[One Degree]

Of course, the historical and economic conditions which gave rise to that cultural trait of 'rugged individualism' no longer obtain. The frontier closed more than a century ago, and most Americans are wage slaves rather than pioneers living out on the prairie. This contradiction between the cultural ideal and the sordid economic reality of the modern world has been deeply traumatic for the American people, and they still don't seem to have come to terms with it.

@Potemkin
Yes, I think you summed up the basis of most conflict in the US today. We still like the illusion of being able to live only as we wish and fight against the reality we can’t. The ideal for most American liberals and conservatives alike is “5 acres in the country”. Realtors salivate at putting such properties on the market. That tells a lot about how deeply rooted we are in that individualism I believe.

[SolarCross]

Lets have it, than.

I was asking you to provide a little bit more entertainment.

The basic premise of student loans is sound and completely comparable to other kinds of finance such as business loans or mortgages. It is said that one must have money to make money, this isn't strictly true but it is true enough to make finance a desirable thing for many a poor person who wants the benefit of money before he has it. Loans which are intended to fuel pure consumption are not so wise perhaps (a mortgage might be said to be really pure consumption but some fools think of it as an investment) but those which increase earning potential are the most wisest kind of loan. Loans for tertiary education potentially could be pure consumption if the education was just a useless bauble like Gender Studies or Patriarchy Analysis or Marxist Economics which is acquired as a fashion statement but which has no useful purpose at all for anyone. Most tertiary education is not like this however and are instead fairly sound investments generally and the best examples would be medicine and engineering. Such people who successfully complete medicine or engineering degrees with the benefit of finance experience such a boost in their income potential that they have no real issue repaying it.

The substantial presence of a certain type of finance in a market however can warp prices because when a vendor (such as a university) understands that even poor persons will be approaching them with substantial amounts of money they are apt to speculatively increase prices to take advantage. In a way it is necessary to do this because the finance of the sort which is the norm today does artificially inflate the money supply especially if it is not repaid. Real estate prices have been affected in a similar way. Life is a learning process, vast quantities of essentially fake money being lent into existence is still quite a new thing and it has boons but curses also that will only become apparent in hindsight.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Better Question:

Why Do Americans Love Freedom So Much?

Americans tend to enjoy being left alone, being able to do what they want with their own land and money, and tend to have lower views of people who suck at life and make excuses for it.

The American attitude could be summarized as "leave me and my shit alone, i'll do what I want to do and if you don't like it I might just shoot you....and if you are poor, its probably your fault so buck up buttercup and get a better job and quit your bitching."

Boom.

'Murica.

and thats why they hate socialism....it requires too many Americans to give money to people they don't believe deserve it, and it involves a government restricting the individual liberty of citizens.

Americans also have an attitude where they tend to reject being viewed as exploited.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
-John Steinbeck.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I agree that it's more cultural than ideological. Most Americans, after all, have little or no knowledge of what even capitalism is and how it operates, let alone what socialism is. The 'rugged individualism' of American culture was and is a product of the unusual history and young age of the American nation. It was only made possible by the fact that a frontier existed, with huge expanses of dirt-cheap land up for grabs for any penniless immigrant with sufficient gumption, ingenuity or just plain desperation to make a go of it. In Europe, by contrast, all the land had been claimed for a thousand years or more, and an hereditary ruling elite jealously guarded their class privileges against any hint of a threat from ambitious lower-class upstarts. Under those conditions, any form of 'rugged individualism' simply couldn't make any headway as a cultural thing. The ruling classes would oppose it as a threat to their hereditary social status and wealth, and the lower classes could see very clearly that their only chance of advancement was to combine their forces against the entrenched vested interests of the ruling classes. Individualism simply wasn't a thing in Europe, and still isn't. For example, how many libertarians are there in the United Kingdom? Lol.

Of course, the historical and economic conditions which gave rise to that cultural trait of 'rugged individualism' no longer obtain. The frontier closed more than a century ago, and most Americans are wage slaves rather than pioneers living out on the prairie. This contradiction between the cultural ideal and the sordid economic reality of the modern world has been deeply traumatic for the American people, and they still don't seem to have come to terms with it.

This is a very good post along with One Degree's original.

Though, I tend to believe that many of these problems that could have been solved by less government are being exasperated by more government.

Americans will continue to struggle to come-to-terms with everything until they realized that statism will never make satisfy.

This is becoming so much the case anymore with my conversations on PoFo, I find well-read communists and myself tend to agree that so-called capitalism being enforced by the state is a bad thing, but we only disagree as to whether the problem is with the capitalism part or the state part of the equation.

[Pants-of-dog]

I agree that it's more cultural than ideological. Most Americans, after all, have little or no knowledge of what even capitalism is and how it operates, let alone what socialism is. The 'rugged individualism' of American culture was and is a product of the unusual history and young age of the American nation. It was only made possible by the fact that a frontier existed, with huge expanses of dirt-cheap land up for grabs for any penniless immigrant with sufficient gumption, ingenuity or just plain desperation to make a go of it. In Europe, by contrast, all the land had been claimed for a thousand years or more, and an hereditary ruling elite jealously guarded their class privileges against any hint of a threat from ambitious lower-class upstarts. Under those conditions, any form of 'rugged individualism' simply couldn't make any headway as a cultural thing. The ruling classes would oppose it as a threat to their hereditary social status and wealth, and the lower classes could see very clearly that their only chance of advancement was to combine their forces against the entrenched vested interests of the ruling classes. Individualism simply wasn't a thing in Europe, and still isn't. For example, how many libertarians are there in the United Kingdom? Lol.

Of course, the historical and economic conditions which gave rise to that cultural trait of 'rugged individualism' no longer obtain. The frontier closed more than a century ago, and most Americans are wage slaves rather than pioneers living out on the prairie. This contradiction between the cultural ideal and the sordid economic reality of the modern world has been deeply traumatic for the American people, and they still don't seem to have come to terms with it.

I think this rugged individualism is more a myth than an actual piece of history. Most esrly settlers would have died without hekp from the indigenous people. And the west was not settled without masive state intervention in terms of armies wiping out indigenous communities and then handing the land to settlers. And the actual work was usually done by slaves or by an immigrant underclass such as the Chinese.

The “rugged individualist” pioneers developed a myth of rugged individualism in order to whitewash their acts of colonialism and imperialism.

Fast forward to the end of WWII, and we see the smae thing, except in a glibal scale and the myth is no longer “rugged individualism” but is now the Red Scare. The warmingers of the US develooed a myth of “the ebil socialists” in order to whitewash their neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism.

As always , it is about money.

[One Degree]

More than myth though the life is romanticized. If you read personal histories, you will find individuals making yearly trips by foot or horseback of hundreds of miles to visit relatives. When an area got too settled, they simply packed their mules and took off. Studying my own genealogy, I was simply amazed how they took these movements into unsettled territory as easily as you or I driving to the next town. When you live off the land, it does not matter which land it is. Traveling was not much different than being home. They were totally dependent upon their own skills for survival. That was not myth, but reality. They WERE rugged individuals. I have wondered if this is why so many became Quakers. It is basically an ‘individualist’ religion.

Edit: Even at the end of the civil war, many were discharged hundreds of miles from their homes and expected to find their own way.