What is Digg?863 Comments
- doiveo, on 10/20/2008, -50/+395Socialism is just a call-to-arms buzz word. Few understand it to be anything but "un-American" and they rarely have any idea why.
- GhostyBoy, on 10/21/2008, -57/+342What the hell is the big deal?
I live in Canada and this is a straight up *socialist* country, and I love it. Freedom of speech, we can have guns if we want, but add a pile of free health care and maternity leave for my woman if she needs it....
....seriously, the bible-belt anti-science types have really got to grow the ***** up already. Socialism is a fine way to run a country. If you don't like it, don't do it, but it's hardly the devil it's made out to be. - EarlOfLade, on 10/20/2008, -38/+206Ask any of the people who claim that so-and-so is a "socialist" and they have no idea what the ideology socialism actually says.
And calling any of the political parties in USA socialistic or any of the presidential candidates, is like calling the pope an atheist. - justjoehere, on 10/22/2008, -8/+143Nationalizing the entire finance/investment industry is definitely a socialistic policy. And both parties voted for it.
- acroyear2, on 10/20/2008, -26/+113I've been to socialist meetings. Socialists are friends of mine.... and yadda yadda. Seriously, when I finally read the communist manifesto and understood what socialism is about, a part of me dropped to the floor even more confused than I was before. I asked myself, "Why are you people so deathly afraid of this?" You'd think it was party focused on raping children. I do understand now why people are scared of it and I think any intelligent person can disagree but not "fear" socialism like a deadly disease.
Everyone says they have the answer. The painful thing is how they feel compelled to demonize the other. - NoDrama, on 10/21/2008, -30/+115Socialism as I was taught is when the government controls both what WE think of as utilities industries, like transportation, the phone company, maybe the internet, and energy, plus substantially controls some private industries such as news media, banking, home construction, etc.
Now it's true that the GOP and the Dems basically took over the banks, but that would not have been possible if the president and the GOP were opposed.
And if Obama's an anti-capitalism socialist, why the hell would Warren Buffet and/or Michael Bloomberg support him?
SMOKE SCREEN to keep people from really talking and thinking about the economy. The better question, frankly, is why does the media let McCain get away with it? The choice is either that they don't know, themselves, how to distinguish socialism from other forms of government and don't have the initiative to check wikipedia, or else they're in McCain's pocket.
I say, "follow the money." http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/conflict ... - inactive, on 10/21/2008, -15/+100In America, the Limbaugh crowd has done a great job with labels.They have made certain words synonomous with the Devil.
Never mind that Bush totally BS'd the right wing. Never mind that he spent like a drunken sailor. Never mind that the R's have shown they love socialism for the rich.
Just say the word, and count on a specific portion of America to see the word as "bad". Yeah, that is us. Check my friends list, and you will see many with the "He is a socialist/marxist" rhetoric, with nothing behind it. If this were real life, not Digg, I would debate them until it hurt (like I did tonight, in real life). - AdeleMor, on 10/20/2008, -22/+106well put. it remains synonymous with cold war truisms about red communism when at this point its actual practice should appeal to the neglected middle class
- bosoxrock, on 10/21/2008, -1/+78Socialism is not a binary quality; there are degrees of socialism. The US is less socialist than Western European countries and Canada, but the US is more socialist than countries such as Estonia and Georgia.
Usually, people who are more socialist than the US consider the US not to be socialist (like Communists don't believe Obama is socialist, because he is to their right), and people who are less socialist than the US consider the US to be socialist (Limbaugh would probably tell you that we are already socialist). It's all a matter of perspective
What's important is not whether Obama is socialist but whether you specifically agree with what he stands for. - KenSPT, on 10/21/2008, -10/+86I'm a McCain supporter, but honestly alot of the people who toss around the word "socialist" don't even know what the term means. I wish these people who call Obama a communist or socialist would read up on the issues and form their own opinions as opposed to regurgitating the lines they hear on Fox News or other heavily Right Wing outlets.
- algaeturd, on 10/21/2008, -20/+82People need to think about this for a second. You have an entire party of people who never found the time to get an education who are running around yelling 'socialist!' who barely even understand the most basic ideas of government.
I GUARANTEE you that if you could somehow test these idiots on the idea of socialism, 95% wouldn't be able to tell you the first thing about it. To them, it's just another red herring to distract voters from the real issues.
If you honestly think Obama is a socialist because of his tax plan, you need to go back to high school, posthaste. - keester311, on 10/20/2008, -14/+71"Local communists, rarely tapped as campaign pundits"
AWESOME. It was wortht he read for that little nugget alone. - GlassAgate, on 10/21/2008, -15/+70Aren't public schools a socialistic idea? My money, along with
the monies of millions of other people, are given to schools
to give kids, who aren't mine, a basic education. Why can't those kids get a job,
to pay for their own education? We need to abolish this system
ASAP! Why? Because it is socialist!
Of course, the other option is to give an education to those
who have parents who can afford it, and the rest are left out
in the cold. It's tough, but it's fair. A large number of the girls
are probably going to become child prostitutes, but at least
it's better than a socialistic system that puts them through
school on other peoples' money.
/sarcasm (of course)
If socialism works, then use it. If the ideal system takes some ideas from
socialism, and continues to function, then good. - doiveo, on 10/20/2008, -13/+65Sorry but communist != socialism. It this misunderstanding that make the word such a weapon for the right.
What I fear (to create parallelism, not that I actually fear it) about communism is the focus of power in the hand of the few. Wealth may be distributed but some greed, power hungry people will take it to what the USSR had(has). That is unacceptable morally. Mainly because no one has perfect knowledge. No one could. A completely managed economy is false and the longer it is managed the less it will be able to adjust. The current banking crisis is a good illustration of how meddling in the market can be devastating.
Some socialism, on the other hand, allows a society to reinvest in things that will move everyone ahead. Education, for instance, can help reduce the number of times people commit the same mistakes. Without education, society never progresses. More importantly now to the US, a lack of education will dull its competitive advantage. It suits some of the rich to keep people ignorant. This helps them get elected and get super rich but it guts the value and potential of the society. - inactive, on 10/21/2008, -18/+69He's a communist, he's a terrorist, he's black! Run! Hide the kids!
- brainovermind, on 10/20/2008, -31/+79McCainism. Red Scare. Hoover comparisons.
I just can't figure out how these cutting edge tactics are failing to influence the voters.
Maybe a few Americans actually did pay attention in history class. - skabyss, on 10/21/2008, -1/+48Of all the jackasses that link to other digg stories, you take the cake.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/21/2008, -9/+55"Socialism is a fine way to run a country."
Until the creators of wealth are used up or go on strike. Modern day socialists have learned not to push too hard, lest they break the backs of the ones carrying them. - Nietz1950, on 10/22/2008, -5/+48Scandinavia has a higher standard of living than the US. Nominal Per capita GDP is comparable between a country like the US and Sweden, but incomes in Sweden are much higher than the US because of that lower inequality. They also have far better social conditions with better health, education, crime, lower poverty, etc.
Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands... these countries are essentially the Social Democracies and most people in each country earn more than their American counterparts.
They also have far higher mobility. The US has a very low economic mobility, but the Scandinavians are the highest. A poor person is far more likely to become rich in Scandinavia than the US. - MJG2007, on 10/20/2008, -9/+51Funny. He's the "most liberal senator" as tabulated by a right-wing think tank. It's almost magical how that happens that every election season whoever is running on the democratic ticket is the "most liberal senator". I imagine if Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman were the candidate, they'd also be called the "most liberal senator" in congress.
- lorenzoamigo, on 10/21/2008, -6/+47Some reading for you all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
- gabbagabba, on 10/21/2008, -16/+55So its official, Americans have absolutely no idea what socialism or communism is.
- Demener, on 10/22/2008, -4/+42gini1: The bubble will still pop eventually, it's just bigger now.
- drlha, on 10/22/2008, -3/+39hatepaste: Scandinavia, who seem pretty happy, healthy and highly taxed. But at least everyone has healthcare and a decent standard of living, and the people wouldn't have it any other way.
- inactive, on 10/21/2008, -2/+38Both McCain and Obama are socialists. It baffles me that McCain thinks that he is the free market capitalist running for president when they both voted for the bailout and both don't understand the market. McCain is with Obama in bailing out failed corporations and the redistribution of wealth. But we wouldn't expect the average American to catch that, would we?
- Nietz1950, on 10/22/2008, -8/+43Looking at the openly Socialist Democratic parties in Europe and the countries they've controlled for many years, it doesn't seem like such a bad thing.
If we started to look more like Scandinavia than Mexico, I wouldn't mind so much. For reference, Mexico has the lowest taxes in the OECD and Scandinavian nations have the highest tax-rates.
Much of it is attractive for mobility and opportunity. Americans are less likely to move into a higher income class than any other country in the developed world. The median income is so low in the US, many European countries have minimum wages that are comparable (and far greater public support). The OECD ranks the US near 20th place for median income, but Americans work considerably longer. Median income has not moved in the US (adjusted for inflation) since the 70s (per capita GDP is quite good in the US - on par with Sweden - but the distorted distribution to the top leaves comparably low wages in the middle).
An unregulated market isn't free. It just means those with economic power have no democratic checks, and don't have to worry about the health or education of everyone else. Inequality rises and it becomes harder for the middle / lower classes to move up. - DeFex, on 10/22/2008, -4/+38No we pay for it in taxes. but we do not waste most of our money bullying smaller countries and lining the pockets of GE and Westinghouse. we had a budget surplus, did you?
- DeathRay2K, on 10/22/2008, -8/+40It's great!
Seriously, I've never had any problem whatsoever with Canada's system, I enjoy it immensely.
The people who make themselves heard are mostly people in other countries complaining that Canada's system sucks. Canadians mostly just take it for granted. Really, I wouldn't like to live in a country with privatised health care, it'd jsut be too much of a hassle. - acroyear2, on 10/20/2008, -8/+39Well, that was my mistake. I understand they aren't the same. I did spend my time learning about both for a years however. Communism is definitely different from socialism. Certain tenets of the both systems I still don't find offensive. Communism has a few added features that are practically antithetical to the utopic concerns of socialism.
- garryw, on 10/21/2008, -6/+37Mitt Romney just went on TV saying Obama is not a socialist. Important because he will run against Obama in 4 years.
- TruthExposed, on 10/21/2008, -15/+45People do not fear socialism, they fear the force used to enforce it. Socialism and communism both have been shown to work well when they are voluntary on an individual basis. When you start forcing people to pay into social programs and participate, then you have problems.
- KenSPT, on 10/22/2008, -0/+29I know, you could say I'm a "maverick" ... ;-)
- pintomp3, on 10/22/2008, -10/+38it's not about equality of life. it's about equal opportunity. if you didn't have public schools, a child born to a poor family would never have a chance to compete against a child born to a rich family.
- kmoed, on 10/22/2008, -5/+31What a completely mis-informed article, More then likely written by backers of American Health Insurance companies.
Sorry folks, but us Canadians pay equal or less taxes then most Americans. It's a hard pill for you to swallow, But we have a great socialist health care system which works just dandy. You can write articles and speculate all you want, but the bottom line is, I went to the hospital yesterday and didn't pay a red cent out of my pocket for it, nor did I need to file any claim with any secondary insurance company, or even have to spend a moment more thinking about it.
Enjoy spending your life savings each time you go to the doctors. - SheilaNoya, on 10/21/2008, -18/+43McCain and Palin are also lying like hell about Obama's tax plan.
They lie by claiming that Obama said he is giving a tax cut to 95% of "all" Americans. Then they say that 40% of Americans don't currently pay any taxes. They follow this with another lie that Obama will use your taxes to write checks to people who never paid any taxes (calling this welfare, socialism, etc).
Obama's tax plan says he will cut taxes for 95% of 'WORKING" people, not "all" people like the way McCain & Palin distort it.
McCain & Palin have convinced the gullible idiots that rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is socialism. How frickin' stupid are their supporters? - swrostmore, on 10/21/2008, -16/+40If you think government has an obligation to use the tax money it collects from citizens to help citizens, you're a "socialist" - at least by the Republican definition.
If you think the government has an obligation to use the tax money it collects from citizens to help corporate special interests, you're a "real American." - MarcomMom, on 10/21/2008, -2/+24Hear, hear, KenSPT. I'm an Obama supporter, but I am truly in favor of anyone with an opinion being required to back it up with non-Fox-News, non-Huffington-Post, non-Rush-Limbaugh-based unbiased research.
- dcherryholmes, on 10/22/2008, -3/+24It is not strictly free, any more than the highways you drive on are free. What it would be, however, is *accessible* to everybody, for less money out of pocket than we are paying now. The only losers are the few at the top that have managed to grab all the cash. ***** 'em.
- scabbers, on 10/22/2008, -7/+26In Soviet Alaska, state pay for transport of child.
- Nietz1950, on 10/22/2008, -4/+23Everyone is not more or less equal. There is just a strong social safety-net so people don't drop to US-poverty levels or really even US median levels, when government transfers are taken into account.
Take out the richest 5% and most Americans are about as equal as Scandinavia.
The system is promoted as "equality of opportunity", not "equality of results". Everyone gets the same health, education, free universities, free childcare, 5-week vacations, strong base-level income, etc. Inheriting wealth is quite limited. Even the wealthy get these benefits. Where you end up from there is up to you.
By many measures, the richest man in the world is from Sweden, but I would agree there isn't the enormous concentration of capital in 100 families as you see in the US. The rich are usually just multi-millionaires. - sousademiami, on 10/22/2008, -7/+26It appears that some didn't even read the article, let alone a history book!
- govsucks, on 10/22/2008, -7/+25Huh, kinda like a parasite.
- Lavarock, on 10/21/2008, -15/+33You can't expect equal quality of life from everyone and any amount of freedom for anyone. They're incompatible.
- treehugger87, on 10/22/2008, -2/+20Stop confusing Russian totalitarianism with communism
- Nietz1950, on 10/22/2008, -2/+19I'm not talking about chaos. I just mean the US is between Social democracies and poor countries. The US has the worst social conditions in the developed world (violent crime, poverty, low mobility, education rates, longevity, etc)... probably because it has the lowest social spending.
Compared to Mexico, the US has far more distribution and social spending. Compared to Europe, not so much. That's probably why the results are in the middle.
The economic component isn't too hard to see either. Mobility is higher in countries other than the US because social spending on things like universal education, health, training and low-income assistance just allow a person to move up more easily. The median worker in the US has seen stagnant wages for 25 years, so we know most Americans do not have enough economic freedom to earn more for higher output. Other countries just balance economic power with democratic power. - Nietz1950, on 10/22/2008, -3/+2071% of American Economists believe Obama has a better grasp on economics.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individu ...
7.8% favor McCain. - justjoehere, on 10/22/2008, -5/+22You forgot that he is muslim too.
- Kyzzyxx, on 10/22/2008, -6/+23Society, by definition, is a form of Socialism. It exists in EVERY country/nation. Socialism attempts to even out the playing field. Capitalism will, inevitably, result in the top 1% of the population earning more than the bottom 50% and the top 1% owning more than the bottom 90%, when unfettered (where America is at now).
It's funny how we are taught to share as kids, but when we become adults its like, "***** that!."
Socialism wants to help each other. Capitalism wants to ***** each other. Everyone cannot own a business. A society will not work that way, it is not possible. So you must equal out the playing field a bit or live in a pseudo-slavery society. A gilded cage, if you will.
As technology replaces jobs, socialism will HAVE to exist. It's all just a matter of how and how much. But it IS inevitable.
Just some thoughts to ponder.... - gandhii, on 10/22/2008, -2/+18The whole Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac thing started as a socialistic policy of making it easier for "poor" people to buy a house. (at least temporarily).. That's why they put the government on the line of backing up those loans.
- inactive, on 10/22/2008, -6/+22Let's not forget to abolish all those "socialized" roads and bridges, and that "socialized" police and fire department. Oh, and the "socialized" army and navy.
Sometimes I wonder if this country just has too many ignorant morons to survive long term. -
Show 51 - 100 of 872 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is