For example ...many people believe they get free health care... but its not,,,they collect the money from the people...they would say we get the money from mean rich people and business...but they too just charge more money....its a great scam to get control and power...
Some tout socialist policy because they believe in it?
Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.Answer
As an earlier respondent to this question stated, socialism involves the government providing things for people regardless of their ability to pay. Promoting these policies pays a double benefit to politicians. The first benefit is that they get to sound like they "really care" about the "little guy". The second benefit, and the most important one to many politicians, is that they perpetuate dependence on government. Thus, they guarantee for themselves the continued loyalty of those dependent people by being the ones who promise to keep paying.
In other words, people who would prefer to spend their days watchingrather than getting a job and becoming productive members of society will repeatedly vote for the politicians that will enable them to keep watching Springer by providing for them whether they produce or not.
It's taking money from the producers, and using that money to buy the votes of the lazy.AnswerThe government provides everything under socialism. There's no incentive to work harder to get a better life if the government will give you whatever you need by taking it away from those who are contributing to society. So those people quit working, too, and soon everyone is lined up waiting for a handout but there's nothing to hand out because there are no producers. Answer
I like Americans but one of the things I don't understand about America is the fact that many Americans seem to be incapable of telling the difference between Socialism,social democracy,liberal democracy,communism and almost every other ism.
Socialsim is a political idea which has been around for a long time,certainly since the. Like all other idea it has changed over the years and there are different strands. In the 19 century people putting forward the idea of social welfare laws might have been called socialist but by the mid 20 century most politicians would be for some welfare laws.
There is a book about American history called "THE LAND OF PLENTY" and it puts forward the idea that because Americans can move around if the local ecomomy goes bad or they fall out with their neighbours or employer then they fail to make the class and community connections that European people often do so they are more individual in out look than europeans. Wheter they are actually better off is another story. So mant Americans have had problems understanding the idea of socialism and of course the problem of communism meant that socialist ideas never became popular in America. western democratic socialist such as the British Labour Party believe in democracy,indeed Britain would not be a democracy without them. They are not communists and they do not want the state to onw or do everything,but they think in the rral world the state is always going to be there and it may as well help the people and not just lock them up.
The American view of the state seems odd to us europeans. The average American does not approve of the state having a role in the economy unless it is giving tax payers money to farmers and to what Eisenhower (not a socialist) called the military industrial complex. FDR created a sort of American welfare state to stop socialsm or communism or facism not to help it. The world has changed and so has political ideas. Most of the democrats in the US are not socialists or social democrats bur what if they were,it is not illegal. Most republicans are not closet Nazis,so try and look at things a bit deeper and not just call people names. Can anyone explain to me why old people in America get free health care no matter how much money they have but poor working people do not always get this.
I would like to point out that the NAZIS were socialists.Answer
"That's what socialism is, Fred. The government provides everything."
no. as it has been pointed out there are different strands of socialist theory as there are with any other. i believe marxism to be the most historically comprehensive.
marx proposed socialism as a path to communism. communism is the idea of a society without a central state power, where producers own the means of production instead of a wealthy class that simply pays a wage, seeking minimum benefit to the worker. from this we should understand that the terminology "Communist Government," regime, dictator or whatever is oxymoronic. if there is a ruling class, it is not communism or socialism.
socialism as a path to communism is essentially a step of reform in which the state is maintained but with greater control by producers than the typical hierarchal forms. so it is not that the government provides everything, the government becomes a tool for producers- that is, those who create the things we use, also called workers- to use to create the social programs they find desirable or necessary.
it's also not that everyone is just a laborer with no one allowed to organize or invent things. the concepts are largely a response to industrialization which requires a fairly robotic workforce and has minimized independent trades.
i would argue that it is our current structure that encourages laziness as people seem to expect big business and politicians to solve all of our problems. themade claims to being socialist or communist to take advantage of the popular movement as a facade for totalitarian rule. as such, our politicians will say whatever they think the public wants to hear, but it has little effect on the core policies of maintaining a power elite.
the freedoms we have are the result of ongoing struggle. the ruling class must give in just enough to keep the people from revolting, yet the gap between rich and poor has consistently expanded. technically we have the freedom to choose our path but being born into wealth, receiving the best education, obviously provides greater opportunity. socialist and communist theory is principled on changing this disparity of privilege. whether you think that's a good idea or you're more of a social darwinist is not for me to say.
This question requires an opinionated answer. So any of these answer can be correct if that is how you feel. Politicians could honestly feel that socialism or social policies is what America needs? Or perhaps they know something about history that drives them towards it? But why? This is a very good topic/answer set. To directly answer the question. This is how I see it, and believe why politicians tout socialist policy.
Politicians who try and sell social policies to the masses in my books, are anti-American. Firstly, their are two parties and a few independents in the great USA. (Land of the free, Home of the brave, our capitalist, free enterprise, republic!) There is no socialist party, and if there was I'd pray to all things, they never get elected, and doubt they would. If you want to have a social, or even progressive outlook on governance, perhaps you should be in a socialist or progressive party?
Secondly, taking a social stance on topics typically aims to inspire a state of dependance. A variety of examples; (1)Shared tips, now you are dependent on your fellow workers to make that extra cash you worked extra hard to get. Sorry there Billy, 'most' people don't put in that extra work. Though because you did, you get to share it with your fellow lazy workers. Thanks there Billy. Should not the effort be rewarded, not vice-versa? (2)Heath care, OK. So again my opinion. I break my leg, I get cancer, anything. Why should I expect everyone else to pay for my misfortune. I'm sorry I just don't feel that way, maybe some people do though. I would rather not burden the entire masses, keep in mind it will not only be you, and force everyone to pay for my mistakes, misfortunes, or mistreatments. I will sort that all out myself thank you very much. A hot topic, and will state nothing more on that here. (3) Welfare, who is going to pay me the most to do absolutely nothing? Hummm. Let me go cast my vote. This third example is an importantly noted one. I feel that if you are on welfare, your voters registration should be temporary restricted from use until you are off welfare. Voting while on welfare as far as I can see, is bribery. Social policy leads to dependance, but then again, perhaps you like dependance and want someone to tell you what to do, I do not. I like to make all my own choices, suffering or benefiting accordingly.
Or perhaps it is jealousy that drives the socialist movement. The fact that others families worked to get where they are over time, or perhaps lucked out, and the fact that other families did not, I believe doesn't come into question with these people. A need to force a level of equal wealth amongst the people is strange to me (in thinking). I see it happen across the world, It saddens me. Anyone can see that if everyone was equally worth the same, had the same house and the same care, not only would life be very bland, but the economy simply could not work. Some people have more expensive tastes than others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Typically these people make the jobs, and create the wealth of the Country. They start major flows of cold hard cash. Appreciate these people, or bring yourself to their level, and have a say yourself. Do not drag everyone down to a level you see fit. That is the flaw of all social thinking. Or be satisfied to do your own socialist thing, act how you feel, don't force your thinking into policy. Free market environments are most fair.
Beware of the touting Socialtician.
Only my opinion.
But, you are right. Charity should start in your own Country first. I'll give you that one, and that one only. People should be donating their income, not having it stolen by Government.
Socialism, as defined, is a political system of communal ownership. Socialism, as practiced here in the U.S., is a social rather than political system. If you look at the U.S. budget, more money is spent on social programs than many countries GNP. I see the usual America bashing going on here, which is upsetting. What makes you think we don't understand the various -isms of the world? We do. Many of still believe that it's the individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, rather than the European model of "cradle to grave" government assistance. That attitude, and American industry is what has twice kept vast portions of Europe out of the hands of the Germans. In WWII Communists bore the brunt of destroying the NAZI (National Socialist) war machine. 75% of German soldiers who died were killed by Communist troops. The U.S. provided men and materiel to all fronts of the war, and that materiel kept Europe and the USSR alive until we could open other fronts.
Having said that, we should allow Ireland, being the world power that it is, to provide all the aid and assistance that the U.S. now provides to so many disaster struck countries. Whether you like it or not, the first question asked isn't "When are the Irish coming?", but "When are the Americans coming?". Guns, guns, guns. Boring, boring, boring. Yes, we have them. The IRA doesn't? We have the Second Amendment because the first thing the British did when we wanted our freedom was to try and disarm us, and because our Constitution calls on American citizens to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression by the government. We are noisy, brawling, have our problems, and are generous to our friends and defeated enemies, funloving, brave, and come to the aid of any that call us. We make mistakes. Show me a country that doesn't. We have meddled. Europe hasn't? When you point your finger at us, you have three pointing back at you. I like our system, I like our country, and I love our people. So do the millions of people from other countries that come here to be free. The United States- where people from other nations come to celebrate their cultures. Maybe we're not so bad after all. For those of you that don't like us, no worries. The next time you have a problem, turn to Canada, Mexico, or the African nation of your choice. Just don't mock us on one hand, and dial for help with the other any more. Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.
There are some socialist political parties in Ireland, and socialist politicians.
some differences between capitalist and socialist
NEP is New Economic Policy. This was Vladimir Lenin's plan to introduce some aspects of capitalism back into the socialist economy in order to improve the economy.
Oh my, that's a tough one. There's so many to choose from.
The policy that is used to help some Latin-American countries carry out economic programs at home is the United States foreign policy. This is a policy where the United States offers aid and guidance to other countries to help 'get them on their feet' and straighten out their economic and societal issues.
Lenin's plan was called the New Economic Policy. It reintroduced some aspects of capitalism into the socialist system Lenin had imposed on the country.
If you are looking for an example of socialist policy, then the IRS and the Income Tax are socialist policies and seek to redistribute wealth(a measure of one's productivity) by taking the income of the productive and give it to the less productive, to create the illusion that we are all equal - unconditionally. If you are looking for socialist governments, then Cuba, Portugal, Libya, Madagascar, Algeria, Chile, Guyana, Bangladesh, North Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Angola, and Iraq are just some of all the nations that claim to be socialist.
I'll assume you mean what causes individuals to be socialist in America. America as a country is not socialist, is it a free-market capitalist state. Although a variety of policies in America have some socialist undertones, they are not representative of the majority of US policy. As such, various individuals in America are socialist for an indefinite variety of reasons, including (but not limited to): upbringing, religion, education level, and income level. These are the same factors that tend to influence almost all opinions held by people.
The United States is primarily capitalist, but there are some socialist aspects to the US economy.
Most countries that are declared as Socialist Countries such as Chile, Brazil, Sweden, and Finland are democracies. There are some socialist dictatorships such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru.
The USSR formerly had republics and not states. Some of them include Soviet Socialist Republic, Federative Socialist Republic Ukrainian, and Soviet Socialist Republic Byelorussian.
The USSR no longer exists. It broke up in 1991 into 15 independent countries, some of which are socialist.
Capiterlist and socialist
Many politicians believe this is a "hot potato" that no one wants to deal with. Many legislatures refuse to bring the matter to a vote unless it has a chance of winning, so as not to have members go on the record with their opinions. The Republican party has recently instituted a "no fingerprints" policy in some areas. (This means that whatever happens, happens, but no Republicans are to be seen as key players one way or the other.) Some politicians believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Some believe it should not. Some politicians have a personal belief one way, but vote the other way presumably out of a sense of duty or a desire to be reelected.
Some, but not all. Politicians come from different backgrounds, before coming into politics. They will have worked in different areas of expertise and have different experiences and capabilities. That is why some are deemed more suited for certain responsibilities in policy and in government. Those that would have come from a business, economics or financial background would be more likely to have an understanding of macroeconomics compared to others.
Some became politicians.
Many people says its Federal Republic. No that is not right! Its actually Parliamentary Democracy and Unitary!
No. The US economy has included strict capitalistic and some socialist policies for decades. The current trend is away from socialist policies rather than toward them.
Well the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, North Vietnam were socialist governments, while countries like India, Afghanistan, Burma, Laos, Cambodia claimed to be socialist without the socialist party in power
compelling the american colonists to shoulder some of the financial costs of the empire.
The ruling party is rated as right-wing. The socialist (and a left-wing coalition) were in power in the 1980s and some time in the 1990s.
Capitalism with some socialist elements mixed in.
No, he has not. It is a very common myth among some Republicans that the president is a socialist, but in reality, he is not. There is one senator, Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, who is registered as a Socialist. But President Obama is a registered Democrat.
tried to exchange loans to a Latin American country in return for some control
You would first have to define what the American way of life means to you. To some people that would include socialism, and to some it would not. The traditional perception of the American way of life is of a path of self-reliance and individualism. Socialism, with its emphasis of the society over the individual, would be the exact opposite of this. On the other hand, many of the currently existing programs can be called socialist, and America seems to be doing fine. It could be argued that all developed countries are socialist to some degree. There are people who dispute whether this is a good thing and say the American society has been harmed by these programs and their effects.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.