By the people, for the people is a socialist ideal.

By myself, for myself, and at the expense of anyone lacking the funds to stop me is more American.

"By the people, for the people is a socialist ideal. "

I'm not sure Lincoln was much of a socialist. Certainly Daniel Webster wasn't, and he espoused the same basic idea more than 30 years earlier ( government - "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people").

I think that what's too often lost in this 'idea' is that it sort of forms a social contract - 'the people' have to be engaged in their government, they have to keep a watchful eye on their government, and they have to ensure that their government is acting according to their wishes and is 'answerable' to them.

"The people" haven't been doing this for a long time, which is why we have the government we do, and have had for quite some time. As long as the majority of the voting public continues to eschew this responsibility, we'll continue to have a government that the vast majority of people are unhappy with.

Too many people want to give 'the people' a pass (and generally their arguments, though they'd try to deny it, boil down to the belief that we're simply too ignorant to really think for ourselves - we can't overcome the marketers and the slick politicians and such). I'm not willing to give 'the people' a pass, because it is ONLY 'the people' who are ever going to change the embarrassment that is the U.S. Congress and what passes for our political process. To me, it's that simple.

Edited by idester on 08/31/2012 19:34:31 MDT.

Well said, Doug. +1

"by the people for the people..." Uh, certain people? ;0)

"because it is ONLY 'the people' who are ever going to change the embarrassment that is the U.S. Congress and what passes for our political process. To me, it's that simple."

It hasn't gotten bad enough yet for that to happen, but someday people are going to collectively look down and see that their pockets have been turned inside out. Then, watch out. Let's just hope it doesn't come down to Thomas Jefferson's axiom that "The tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants; 'Tis its natural manure." Messy business, that...

"Mike, if you don't mind me asking ....what are your feelings about Scotland becoming their own country. I have friends on Glasgow and they're kind of approaching this idea with caution and some cynicism"

I've always wanted independence for Scotland, Ken. It is only natural for countries to be administered by their own people. And i would abolish the monarchy too.

At the moment, Scotland has it's own parliament with limited powers. I want all decisions that affect my country to be decided in Edinburgh, not London.

The word Socialism has many meanings

#1 - Programs like Social Security, Public Education, the military, etc. that Americans are mostly in favor of

#2 - Soviet communism where all material goods are distributed based on party loyalty - Most Americans are opposed to this

Right wingers use "Socialism" as deragatory term to imply that people that promote #1 are really #2 but it's a lie

The word Socialism has many meanings

#1 - Programs like welfare, food stamps, Medicare, etc. that many Americans think are grossly mismanaged

#2 - Soviet communism where money is ostensibly divided evenly regardless of effort or contribution to society

Left wingers love to accuse conservatives of being heartless and cruel because they believe #1 and disagree with the theory behind #2, but it's a lie

Seems to me many, many Americans confuse socialism with communism, but there definitely seems to be a negative connotation to the word socialism as used in common American parlance. Socialism, as a word or concept, is so broad, that it can be almost anything where a government intervenes to provide a backstop to less advantaged members of society. In it's broadest sense I would consider socialism as a way to mitigate some of the more destructive aspects of pure and unadulterated capitalism.

My favorite definition of socialists is "Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximise their potential, and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public"

This, to me, is not an argument against capitalism, though some self-defined socialists think capitalism itself is 'evil', I see it more as a way of preventing greedy people who have the means of exploiting other with lesser means of creating an unstable and inhumane society where many people are hard against the wall and a few people are ridiculously well off due to their ability to amass great wealth at the expense of others labour and resources.

However, America has a history which favours capitalism, due to its origins as a country vastly rich in land and natural resources, and pretty short on labour force. This is no longer the situation in America, so maybe its time to rethink how its society is structured??? Oh wait, America is already very much socialised in many aspects of it structure. So maybe those that oppose the idea should just modernise their views and accept that "by the people, for the people" means all people, not just those with the means to influence the current political inbalance...?

Doug

Do you really think that most liberals in the U.S. want a soviet-style communism where money is divided evenly regardless of effort or contribution? That's crazy! That's like saying conservatives want the constitution replaced by a particular interpretation of the bible.

And Clinton ended "Welfare as we know it" - it and food stamps are a tiny amount - I don't know if they're mismanaged. If you can give a small amount to someone trying to break out of poverty, great. If you're creating a dependent lazy person, then you're doing more harm than good.

Medicare is managed okay. There's too much fraud - they're working on this a little - we should do more. It costs 3% to administer which is good.

But that's not the main problem. They passed Medicare Part D for precriptions but never payed for it. This is like a ticking time bomb. At some point, Medicare will run out of money. Then they can say it's bankrupt and we should get rid of it. That's the purpose of Medicare Part D.

"Do you really think that most liberals in the U.S. want a soviet-style communism where money is divided evenly regardless of effort or contribution?"

Hi Jerry,

Nope, I don't. I also don't believe that most conservatives believe that people who promote social security and public education are communists who want money distributed based on party loyalty. That was the point of my post.

"My favorite definition of socialists is "Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximise their potential, and does not utilise available technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public"

To paraphrase a well-worn phrase, capitalism doesn't exploit people, people exploit people!

I say that rather tongue in cheek, of course, but it has merit. But more to the point, I think your post infers what I think is a truism - there is no one, true way. The best economic system is one which borrows bits and pieces from a variety of systems to balance, as best it can, the inherent negatives in any system, and which creates as equal a starting point for all as possible (true equality is impossible).

Obviously, as you point out, America doesn't have a true capitalist system, it has 'socialist' bits as well. But I agree that the bits need some rejiggering - it simply hasn't been working very well for far too long. It doesn't help that every politician I know of - on either side of the aisle - thinks they get elected to represent the people who voted for them, not ALL of the people in their district.

"it has 'socialist' bits as well"

Yes, some 47 million bits actually.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/food-stamp-use-climbed-to-record-46-7-million-in-june-u-s-says.html

What about Obama's record? Be specific please

I'll start off with Hussein's (oh s**t, call me a racist because I used his middle name) promise to lower the debt. Everyone says Bush did this and Bush did that. Yes, the debt was raised under W (as it was with every other freaking President in who knows how long) but lets look at numbers: 8 years under W, the debt was raised $4.9 trillion. It has been raised $5.4 trillion in less than 4 years under Obama. And remember, Hussein ended the war in Iraq which apparently was one of the biggest reasons as to why we were getting deeper into debt.

So that's a major one. Should be get into unemployment? Illegal immigration? Illegal immigrants going to college for free while citizens are working part time and putting themselves into terrible amounts of debt with student loans? Should I keep going on?

Oh I would, but d***, I expect to be sitting at the dinner table at 6:30 just like our President. You know, cause running a country is not a full time job.

I don't know if you are racist or not. I do wonder why you are using the name Hussein.

If you believe that a pair of people should have the same legal right to form a legal contract that provides them with certain legal rights, protections and tax advantages as many other pairs of people do now and have been able to form that makes you divisive? or a believer in the ideas of our founding fathers and a believer in defending our constitutional rights?

Free birth control? Or any birth control.

unfettered abortion? or no abortion under any circumstance.

Why shouldn't Romney's tax returns be released? Why? What's that again? Huh?

Racial division: Don't re-nig in 2012. Who's handing out those bumber stickers?

Divisive? I believe in turning the other cheek......metaphorically. You might not want to test my conviction.

Nm

Edited by Kat_P on 09/04/2012 19:27:46 MDT.