Why are Republicans and other people against socialism ?

[.... callchet ....]

The entire insurance industry is socialism at its best. It socializes risk and debt. It shares financial burdens among many sparing the few from financial disaster.

[YOY]

1. It's not socialism insofar as it doesn't cater to everyone.

It's got to make a profit. Can't make a profit if they insure those who cannot pay them to insure.

Granted any industry has to make a profit, but some industries are making a profit providing things that should be universal rights (in the health care terms.)

Other types of insurance (home, auto, life) are not manditory parts of everyone's life as not everyone owns a car, home, or can invest in the life insurance bit...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. making huge profits - socialism?

the insurance companies are creaming off the profit and taking their big bonuses. I'm not sure if that is?

[Lost4words]

3. because they want for nothing except MORE!

It would seem that the Federal Govt now looks upon the working class as they did to the American Indains. they just want all of us to go away.

Do not except blankets from the government.

And dont forget that the Primary function of the police is to protect property.

just saying!

[Kansas Wyatt]

4. Insurance industry.... socialism???

It may have started as a shared risk, but it has turned into, 'take your wallet, knife you in the back, and throw you in the ditch.' The insurance industry today is all about maximizing profits while minimizing losses, which isn't good for anyone's health and well being.

The reason why Republicans are against socialism, is that they cannot get rich off of hi-jacking socialism, like they can the insurance industry.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Targeted Socialism Here And There Is Fine. Socialism Wholescale Is Just Dumb.

[serrano2008]

14. Agree - same with Capitalism and everything else

Wanting 100% socialism is as misdirected as wanting 100% capitalism.

None of the plans are actually good for every single person, because you'll always have people taking advantage of the system so people will always be disenfranchised.

[treestar]

6. The only thing I can figure out is that when the Soviet Union collapsed

They believe it doesn't work and are afraid of that.

What would should have is regulated capitalism with healthcare and basic needs socialized. Of course basic needs could come up for debate as to how far that goes. Also education, maybe even college for those who can pass the tests for admission. The trouble is where to draw the line. Yet we can't have unregulated capitalism, society is just too complex now and it is not really fair to blame the lower end for laziness and such.

[YOY]

15. A single party system that refuses to accept problems for what they are.

Underlying political tenants take the back seat when it's only one party dictating everything with no conflictory voices. The Republicans had this for years and years...they refused to acknowledge weaknesses and boasted superiority with a strong nationalistic slant. To argue with them was simply "unAmerican!"

If they had a pluralistic multiple party system they would be a different nation now. The USSR would have never become the "deformed child" that they became (Anne Applebaum's words and not mine). They also wouldn't have been so tolitarian and far less communist in some areas.

Their single party system stunted growth and improvement.

Private industry is needed. Anyone who thinks it is not is being just as pie-in-the-sky as those who think that corporations should run everything. Problems come from unregulated capitalism and socialized industries that lose their competetive edge.

Refrigerators, cars, high-tech, and luxury consumer goods are perfect for private.
Medicine/health-care, military, social services, education are anything but perfect for private.

Some folks harp on American car makers...the Soviet Lada was aeons behind when the iron curtain fell. They can be fixed easily and are easy to repair by anyone with simple mechanical know-how, but are really rolling disasters otherwise.

[Greyhound]

22. Well there's the first issue. The Soviet Union was an totalitarian military state

not a communism or socialist. They claimed communism but never came close to realizing it, and of course that claim was used by our own authoritarians to push their totalitarian agenda.

As we can clearly see, the socialist democratic model is the best we have and probably can have until people themselves change/evolve.

Did you purposely leave justice out of your model as appropriate for socialism?

[YOY]

23. Put it in there or take it out.

A pluralistic system that actually listens to its constituents should (theoretically omitting the varying levels of corruption...a seemingly impossibility) should be "just"...at least according to it's constituents' voices.

I hold the opinion solid that any single party system, regardless of what ever political philosphy behind them, is a dinosaur heading for disaster. So far I'm pretty much at 100% there: Zimbabwe, the USSR and Warsaw Pact Nations, and even the Vatican (Catholicism is most certainly having a tough time adjusting/adapting) are all examples.

While it seems to fit my theory, there are pluralistic forces at work in China so they don't fit the mold as well...I still think they are hardly lumbering towards a good end though...one pandemic and the country is screwed.

Hell, I'd love it if we had a system like Denmark or Sweden...but the dregs of FReeperville could hardly wrap their heads around the idea of them "being happy" and that such a concept could work in a diverse culture such as ours (they cite this...it's bullshit vague racism). Never happen though. Not in a million years.

[Greyhound]

24. Agreed, any single party system, including ours, is doomed to fail it's citizens.

Another common aspect of those good places is some form of parliamentary government, multitudes of parties, none of which have a majority nor is likely ever to. This forces cooperation by forming coalitions, something we sadly lack.
:kick:

[YOY]

25. Indeed we are sadly lacking and in my little opinion, sadly not in a million years here.

It would be interesting to see how we splintered up into a coalition based parlimentary system.

I could see a true divorce between the fiscal conservatives, the libertarian freebooter-wannabes, and the religious nutbags on the right and a real green party, a proper moderate party, and a legitamate left-leaning workers party from us.

Oddly, we would see less strife, in my opinion, from our coalition then they of theirs. They've been trained to lockstep and we to give-a-little take-a-little from those with similar end goals but different ideologies.

[lxlxlxl]

16. very true

it hasn't been that long since 1989, and much of the country experienced that as children watching it unfold on TV...there is a lot of backtracking america has to do to realize much of their awareness of the USSR was heavily propagandized and many of the people that did that are still in control of our media.

i'm not a USSR apologist by any means, but this country doesnt understand that long term centralized planning (USSR) is something very different from 'government' or short term government spending.

they just dont take socialism seriously as a concept. It's a "tag" for them, that they can use to conjure up images of Red Dolph Lundgren vs. Rocky, Rambo, GI Joe, whatever you want.

[theoldman]

7. Socialism is sharing and rich people do not want to share.

For some stupid reason most Republicans think they are rich and therefore are not willing to share. Our government has worked because it is a combination of many types of government. Another problem is that socialism is generally associated with communism.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Bingo...We Have A Winner!

I think it's more a feeling of entitlement and self-imposed "superiority" baesd on igonorance and arrogance. They're told to fear something they have no clue about...but they know it's bad and that's all that matters.

[ThomWV]

8. For exactly the same reason they are against Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania

[customerserviceguy]

9. Also, insurance premiums are based on risk

The greater the risk, the greater the premium. That doesn't always work perfectly in the system, and insurance is the last place that our society allows discrimination based on age, marital status, and gender.

With socialism, the view is that everyone gets things equally, regardless of what they contribute to society for it. Republicans believe this has the effect of disincentivizing people to produce their best.

[DrDan]

10. that is an easy one - it takes money out of their pockets

the one thing the pigs do not want to do is to share.

They want the best of schools - to hell with the middle-class - lower-class.

They want the best in healthcare - the rest can do without.

They want the tax breaks - let everyone else cover them

They are greedy greedy greedy bastards.

[lxlxlxl]

12. Rambo

Seriously, they have a lot of arguments otherwise, but the real reason the socialism tag works in this country is because of a generation of kids raised to hate the USSR and the propaganda they served us as children.

[SergeyDovlatov]

17. ask anyone from the former USSR, what would they prefer?

Most will tell you, capitalism. Very few wants to go back to socialism

[lxlxlxl]

19. who is talking about socialism?

violent social revolution and centralized nationalized industry is USSR style socialism...

calling short term stimulus programs or social programs is not socialism.

words
meanings
details

[SergeyDovlatov]

20. agree ... but OP was about socialism

and I think that term needs to be dropped from the discussion, so as not to give republican talking points about how socialism is bad, etc.

Regulations, safety net = good words

Socialism, central planning = bad words

[lxlxlxl]

21. agreed

sorry ive been hearing the same question that the original OP posted maybe 100000 times in the past ten years, and I have a bad habit of skipping ahead in the argument in a difficult way

the problem i've seen over and over is that it doesnt matter what words we use, because republicans bring it up anyway, and it forces progressives to give a long historical answer in a soundbite world. it's one of the core reasons that dumb/know-nothing/conservative arguments works so well in mass media.

[rateyes]

13. They aren't against socialism...

as long as people are sharing with them, and they don't have to share with others.

Just as they aren't really against wealth redistribution. They are all for redistribution if it's redistributed from the poor to the rich. That's why they hate unions, and love supply side economics.

A lot of things are "socialized" in this country. Schools, roads, medicare, retirement, insurance, etc.

What the banks want to do with the bailout is to keep profits privatized, while socializing losses.

My brother called me a socialist the other day. I asked him why it took him 40 years to figure that out.

Republicans who complain about "socialism" are sorry-assed hypocrites.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Because energy is cheap

When energy is expensive, you need other people, directly. When energy is cheap, you still need other people, but much more indirectly.

[deoxyribonuclease]

26. They don't know what socialism is

other than what US propaganda told them during the Cold War.

[.... callchet ....]

27. Better dead than red !

Is that the tactic used to shoot down any program for helping the low and middle class of the USA ?