Socialist : an insult ?

[Spear]

Hi,

From what i used to read on many american forums, being called a socialist seems to be some kind of insult, and " communist " more and more.

From a neutral point of view, can you help me where it comes from that such a political way of thinking is considered in such a way in USA ? Does it come from the Cold War ? Is it a remain from Mc Carthysm ? Do people really think those hoping in communism are " dumb " or that it is a shame to think so ?

Of course, i'm concerned, my parents and grandparents consider themselves as communists, and even if i'm far from that way of thinking (consider myself a conservative), i respect (even if i mock sometimes ) that.

From my young years at my grandparents, here is an example, for those who wonder, of how were things :
I really used to enjoy asking grandpa and grandma about WWII, as a kid. My grandpa, during WWII, was caught and forced to work in the german STO camps, he evaded two times. Once he used to talk about WWII, he always told me " See, we owe very much to the russians. The russians lost 13.6 million people during WWII. They were overwhelming the german nazis. USA probably came up to do so that the russians didn't free all Europe by themselves. " Of course, even if we tried to talk about USSR and the bad things and repression in the " freed " nations by USSR in the years after, i never changed his mind, even if it was great for him that USA came to help us, Russia kept the best role.

 

[Matt Black]

There's a difference between socialist and communist. As to the former, there are plenty of Christians in the UK and rest of Europe who would fall into that category but I know no Christian communists. I don't know why the US has such a suspicion of socialism (I can understand the suspicion of communism) and I'm not sure it can bejust put down to the Cold War - Britain for example was on the same side in the Cold War but we have had several socialist or social democrat (again, there's a subtle difference between the two) without batting much of an eyelid.

[ETA - Flowing from the above, there's a difference between foreign policy hostility (ie: whether we should be friends with the Russians or not) and domestic hostility (eg: whether Americans should have universal healthcare and a more redistributive tax system). The two are separate issues to my mind and I'd be interested to see the responses of our American brothers and sisters to why there is this domestic hostility in particular.]

 

[Revmitchell]

There is not a dimes worth of difference between socialist and communist. And either way it is evil, promotes laziness, and steals from those who do produce to give to those who do not.

 

[Matt Black]

What about those who cannot (eg: through unemployment, disability, illness etc)?

 

[Revmitchell]

What about those who cannot (eg: through unemployment, disability, illness etc)?

Government is not the answer to any of that. Family is, the church is or any number of other solutions.

 

[Hardsheller]

I think the animosity exists because in America there is such a widespread and deep seated love of independence, liberty and freedom. We simply don't like being told by anyone that the government can do something for us better than we can do it for ourselves.

That being said, we are experiencing somewhat of a backlash against what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a tendency by our present government to move toward socialism.

 

[donnA]

If you look at countries that are socialist/communist, the type of governemet, the ideas this promotes, how can it ever be anything but an insult to be called socialist/communist, it certainly violates enough scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Government is not the answer to any of that. Family is, the church is or any number of other solutions.

Except that it has been shown, time and again, that, idealistic and laudable though that aim doubtless is, it doesn't work. The effects of that policy can be viewed very clearly through, for example, the novels of Charles Dickens. We call it 'Victorian England', and its horrors are the main reason why we established the Welfare State progressively from the 1900s to the 1940s.

 

[Revmitchell]

Except that it has been shown, time and again, that, idealistic and laudable though that aim doubtless is, it doesn't work. The effects of that policy can be viewed very clearly through, for example, the novels of Charles Dickens. We call it 'Victorian England', and its horrors are the main reason why we established the Welfare State progressively from the 1900s to the 1940s.

Government doesn't work. There is never enough money to provide for those who fail to produce. Supplies and provisions can only be available after something has been produced. And this country has done well for 200 years without socialism/communism.

 

[baptistteacher]

Matt,
Socialism doesn't work, it only degrades a society's economic engines. The problems you bring up are very old ones, that were corrected under Christian, and also capitalist societies.

Freedom to make a better life for yourself is something we (most of us, anyway) cherish very highly. Some are learning to "work the system," and get a "free lunch" on the backs of those who choose to work for a living, [which is what a socialist state brings about]. Taking more and more from those who succeed to give to beaurocrats and those who choose to not make a contribution to society (WORK) is an injustice. Government is not the solution to the problems, too often it is the source of the problems.

We also resent socialism being rammed down our throats. This is not what built this country, it was freedom. Socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, with the Government taking control of more and more things. (Banks, large industries [Auto makers], healthcare, etc.)

This American Experiment in Freedom has built a very fine society, not perfect, of course, but extremely wonderful. Something unusual in human history. I sure hate to see it decline this way.

 

[Matt Black]

Neither system (capitalism or socialism) is perfect; both have their significant drawbacks, 'pure' socialism's having been admirably set out already here on this thread, and 'pure' capitalism's both in what I've put and, for example, the recent banking crisis. A mixed economy, avoiding the unpleasant extremes of both, is IMO the best way forward.

 

[Revmitchell]

Neither system (capitalism or socialism) is perfect; both have their significant drawbacks, 'pure' socialism's having been admirably set out already here on this thread, and 'pure' capitalism's both in what I've put and, for example, the recent banking crisis. A mixed economy, avoiding the unpleasant extremes of both, is IMO the best way forward.

Even if that were acceptable on this side of the pond the libbies are working to move everything to the extreme of extreme levels. They are to lazy to work through things and they want power over peoples lives. It has become a tool for power to fulfill the UN agenda of a one world government.

 

[Matt Black]

You had me up with you to an extent up until you mentioned about this idea of 'one world government'; I'm afraid you completely lost me with that, which sounds a bit like paranoia to me...

 

[carpro]

Socialism is the crutch of cowards, weaklings and whiners.

It's un-American.

 

[Revmitchell]

You had me up with you to an extent up until you mentioned about this idea of 'one world government'; I'm afraid you completely lost me with that, which sounds a bit like paranoia to me...

then you should research the UN, environmental movement, childrens rights movement, animal rights movements

Countries are now beginning to call for a single world monetary system. Before you settle on the idea that it is paranoia do a lot of research. While it is not going to happen tomorrow libbies are working to centralize all governments through the UN.

 

[Johnv]

Government is not the answer to any of that. Family is, the church is or any number of other solutions.

The problem is, the church isn't doing the job it should be.

 

[Matt Black]

...and it never has; I don't consequently hold out much hope of it ever doing it properly. The moment it does, I'll be the first to join your chorus of calling fro the government to back out of providing a safety net.

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem is, the church isn't doing the job it should be.

And neither are families or government. Nor can they ever.

 

[Johnv]

And neither are families or government. Nor can they ever.

This is just my $.02, but even if the government were running at peak efficiency, it still cannot do the job of social justice as well as churches can, because it would be according to the rules of mandating and entitlement (mandated by taxation, and distributed by meeting a predefined set of standards). Churches, as well as other charitable organizations, are derived from people giving freely instead of taxed, and they give to those in whom they see a need, not to those who are entitled by a predtermined formula.

 

[Matt Black]

So by your own admission you need a mixture of all three - which is what we have in Europe and indeed what I understand you to have in the US, the only difference being one of the degree to which government is a player out of the three.

[cross-posted with Johnv; yes, charitable giving is more effective...when it's done]