America won’t die, Ingsoc will save y’all;)
It’s just standard debate-team language.
Here in Greece about 10% of the population vote for the communist party (the KKE).
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post about America’s weird obsessions about socialism etc. It’s not really a criticism of the US, just something I literally don’t get.
I also thought Lust4Life’s post was cogent and well put. I’ve read it three times now and I still think that.
My whole world view is starting to collapse.
This is absolutely correct. In Britain, France and Germany, the “socialist” elements of the financial system came about as a result of something called the post-war consensus - a combination of factors including the devastation of the economy, the return of lots and lots of young men with no jobs, and perhaps to some degree a view of what can happen in countries full of unhappy people (fascism) all led to a shared vision (by conservatives and liberals both) that Something Must Be Done.
That something was the welfare state and nationalized industry.
In Canada socialist ideas like UHC came after the war as well. This during a time of co operation with the US in Anti soviet policies (Including NORAD and NATO) Once again it was a shift in the populations views backed up by votes for politicians who were more moderate that created this change in ideals not angry mobs or frightened politicians. Banal really.
In fact, I see the type of “Socialism” here as more of a moderate ideology rather than leftist. It is about looking after the welfare of the population while at the same time allowing for personal freedoms and does not go out of its way to impede economic growth so long as it is not at the the expense of the people (Theoretically, at least).
Nothing radical about that as far as I can see.
Maybe it’s you guys that are radical? 
The western socialism movement par excellence, if you will, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which built the Swedish well fare state, was founded 1889, decades before the Russian bolshevik revolution and leninism.
No I think not, already Von Bismark was adopting statist policy in Germany well before the Russian Revolution.
Capitalism as a primary world economic system will eventually fail. Maybe not for a century or two, but I have no doubt that it will not last forever. Capitalism is fueled by growth – people invest in stocks because the market has historically grown over time, and a well-chosen portfolio has been all but guaranteed to give you nice returns in the long run.
Stocks appreciate because markets are expanding, and markets expand because of population growth, global expansion, “unlimited” natural resources, and rapid technological innovation. All of these things will end eventually, although it’s hard to predict when. Earth will probably reach a carrying capacity in another 50-100 years, if we haven’t reached it already. (Some have placed this number as low as 2 billion, although that is based on very high living standards). The globalization push will run out of untapped markets, and we will see more and more resource crunches as we strip the planet of everything useful and ruin the ecosystem. And unless you believe that science will continue to discover new ways to master the laws of the universe for all eternity, our technological growth will slow down and stop eventually – again, some are saying that it’s happening right now and we are already butting up against the limits of what’s possible.
The solution to this is a planned economy - as distasteful as that is for many people. I don’t think it’s anything to worry about – socialism is only bad when it’s paired with a totalitarian dictatorship. As we’ve seen in places like Scandinavia, a level of democratic socialism can be quite nice, and not particularly bad for business either (despite the level of central economic planning, these countries manage to be among the most economically competitive in the world).
Democracy and socialism can coexist, but the majority of the population must support it first. I don’t see this happening in America until there is no other choice. When a large percentage of us is chronically unemployed and lining up at soup kitchens every day just to survive, then maybe we will hold our noses and vote for the socialists. These will be our grandchildren or great grandchildren, who will have never been exposed to anti-socialist cold war propaganda. I suspect that America will be one of the last to switch over – Europe will have to convert first, and once we see that socialism can work and the universe hasn’t ended, we will finally bite the bullet. We might even be able to do it without bloodshed, although I can see some wealthy families banding together and becoming militant.
We’re in for some interesting times…
The premise that there will eventually be no untapped markets is a bit off- there will always be new products, and so there will always be new markets.
I don’t mean this to be chippy but if you believe this why don’t you move to Europe? This is an honest question.
But will there always be new funds in the pockets of consumers? :dubious:
OK, I consider my proposition partially defeated. One does not need Robespierre or Lenin just over the horizon to embrace reasonable socialism. But an awareness of history helps; knowing what a dispossessed proletariat can do.
:eek:
So the real problem in the US may be lack of historical education?
Probably. If not, there will always be new pockets. 
Because I’d have to abandon everyone and everything I know and live among strangers.
And why am I not surprised that another RAH ! RAH ! AMERICA ! type thinks the less patriotic should leave the country ?
I don’t think number four is necessarily so.
I don’t think you should leave the country (in the sense that I actively want you to go) but if I felt as strongly about the current state of the US as you I think I would be gone. Heck, I hope to live in Europe for a few years just for the cultural experience. It sounds like you’d be happier in Europe and I was just wondering why you didn’t go.
Wasn’t it the Beveridge Report of 1942 that put forward the idea of the welfare state in the UK?
I thought it had cross-party support and the only reason it wasn’t implemented until 1948 was the war and the subsequent financial crisis.
You could well be correct, but it doesn’t negate the fact that a Socialist government was voted into office in the post war election without any overt or even tacit threats to the establishment.
No street gangs beating up opposition supporters,no mass demonstrations,no threats, no intimidation,just a normal civilised democratic vote by an electorate that gave no indication whatsoever of becoming radical Marxist/Leninists if a Socialist government wasn’t put into office.
Rightly so,there was no indication of that because it was never going to happen.
The O.Ps premis was that European nations only adopted Socialism as a way of preventing full blown Communist revolution if they didn’t.
My counter argument was that this was not the case and that it was in fact as a result of political evolution by the majority of the electorate.
So you think you are willing to be fooled and controlled by your handlers.
I’m not American and I doubt my beliefs have much influence in America. But considering the staggering amount of money Obama has spent in his election campaign, I can see how you could be vary of the degree money plays in your democracy, however I though the discussion was about Europe, and in the part of Europe where I’m at, money plays a much smaller role in elections. Besides there is very little in the way of “old money” here. I don’t think there is a single family, or at least very few besides the royal family, which can trace their wealth back further than two or three generations. And rich people are certainly not overrepresented in the parliament and pretty much all PMs we’ve ever had comes below average wealthy individuals.
Given time everything fails. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.
Scandinavia can only be described as socialist in the most liberal definition of that. There is very little central planning and at least the Danish economy – which is very open and based on trade – is in many ways more unbridled capitalistic than the US.
The only European nation that I see any validity for this was Germany, where Bismark began the “Butterbrot and Peitchse” (Buttered Bread and the Whip) program in order to strangthen the monarchical faction. It never really worked, because Berlin workers were sort of soft-leftist. It was not until advent of Nazism that they backed off from socialist politics, but at the same time they didn’t really support the deep Red communists. But of course, Germany was the only western/central Euro nation to actually have a serious communist revolution.