Question:
Why is socialism bad? It seems to be working in Europe.?
2008-01-12 12:56:10 UTC
I am a political newbie, I'm just wondering why H Clinton is always being accused of being a European socialist like it's a bad thing.
Eighteen answers:
maryjellerson
2008-01-12 14:08:06 UTC
What works in Europe, or in the case of socialism, doesn't, has no relationship with what will work here.

This country was started on the basis that the European way didn't work, and we needed to find a better way.

We have found it, and it is working.

There is a lot of discussion here and elsewhere about the dissatisfactions of various groups, and about how much better other countries ways are.

These discussions only happen because we have found a better way and we are exercising the rights that we have because of finding a better way.



We don't want to be like Europe.

We havn't wanted to be like Europe since our forefathers left it.

Socialism doesn't work anywhere, and most of us don't want it here.



Most of us do better being in control of our lives. Socialism deny's us that control, in the name of protecting us. We are not children, and we don't need parents (in the form of government) telling us what to do, or how to think, or how much we can make, or what we need or don't.

Families only work because the parents have the best interests of the child at heart, and want that child to do better than the parent has.

Governments who model themselves on the family don't work, because the government is full of people who only have their best interests at heart, and would happily ignore you or worse if you got in the way of their agenda.

Socialism cannot survive in any kind of fair way because choices would have to be made about who's rights were more important, and more urgent.

The net result would be that those with power and influence would get what they needed promptly, and the rest of us would be left whit whatever was left over, with no potential for making our lives better.
Moody Red
2008-01-12 13:28:39 UTC
Europeans are learning some hard facts of life about socialized medicine: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

They also realize that if they want GOOD health care they will have to buy their own private policies and pay for the mandatory plan as well.



The Europeans, [France, Germany, and Great Britain] have realized a simple economic rule: If something is perceived as free, people will over consume it.



The European welfare states are slashing benefits due to the rising cost of health care. Who will pay for It?



The mass programs would cost much more in taxes than we are paying now. I believe costs would begin at 40% and go up from there. Our liberties would be lost, and so would the free markets.



How then would there even be a middle class?

Things would to prior the Industrial Revolution, with two classes of people; the rich and the poor!



Note: Europe still has many problems with socialism, and they have been around hundreds of years. We are far more advanced in every aspect of our lives and look how young our country is!





~
2008-01-12 13:27:49 UTC
From my own experience in former Yugoslavia, socialism is great system and not like that guy say poor medical or poor people! The life was great cheep and people where equal but what people don't like in socialism is the idea of people being equal. And that is against personal interests and that is exactly why they led Yugoslavia to civil wars and to an end and now they are just another market for USA like all other country after being a super power! I don't support Hillary or anyone else but that is what i think of socialism...
xenypoo
2008-01-12 13:37:26 UTC
I have a few English friends, and none of them is happy with their medical care, for one example of Socialism, since one of my friends children was born with a hole in his heart, and the doctors have failed to close it. He is 11 now, and all he has received from the doctors there, is medicine, and 3 attempts to close up that hole unsuccessfully, since he gets to see the doctor once every 3 months. He should be seeing the doctor twice a month, at least, but he is not allowed by law, unless he's on his death bed. Also due to his medication, his teeth are falling out. He can only eat soft foods. Her daughter also goes to see the doc, but must make an appointment 3 weeks in advance, if she wants to be seen.

My other friend, he and his two kids didn't get to see a dentist for 5 years because they had no insurance. Now, he says even with all his absesses, he can see the dentist once a year and has follow-ups, because he pays out of his own pocket. He's a postal worker in Devon, England.

If this isn't enough to enlighten you on why Soclialism is all wrong for America, let me inform you further about Socialism.

Like Hilter, who was the first to force schools to make children wear uniforms, completely trying to undermine a child's desire for individulalism, they do it in England, too, for all students. They are kicked out of school for putting any clothing, or additives, like a bow, that does not meet required uniform specification. If that isn't trying to erase individuals rights to express themselves freely, then nothing is!

The Europeans pay more in taxes for illegals who get free-bies off the government, including housing, clothing, food, and medical care, than Americans, they pay higher prices in oil, and gas than Americans do.

They don't have the right to be all they can be, and more people than you know are pissed off about it in Europe. It is wise to educate yourself, so I am glad you asked this question. I hope I helped.





God Bless America, and the FREE society we are due to our forefather, who fought, and died for our rights of FREEDOM in the Revolutionary War, and the war of 1812! Thank God they wrote for us our Constitution, and Bill of Rights!
?
2016-10-13 06:06:47 UTC
properly the concern is that usa is at present in touch in a pair of conflicts in Asia and calls for staging aspects to maintain those efforts supported. usa has gradually been pulling out of Germany, and moving to Romania and Bulgaria. usa has additionally been slowly pulling out of the Western Pacific. the US no longer has an eternal presence in the Philippines. The international locations that at present have everlasting US forces interior of their borders have the income of no longer having to spend the money on their very own militaries and might concentration greater on their civilian inhabitants (Germany has controlled to be right score for defense rigidity kit AND civilian technologies, exceedingly chemical compounds and automobiles). South Korea is getting aggravated by utilising the US presence and their very own technologies is significantly better to that of North Korea, yet their protection rigidity is a lot smaller.
2008-01-12 13:09:08 UTC
A very brief simple answer is...A socialist belief is that you work and pay most of your money to the government and then the government disperses that money to provide services and things evenly to everyone. This belief sounds really good! It looks great on paper. Everyone is provided for and everyone should be happy. Unfortunatelly, Government is HORRIBLE at doing ANYTHING effectively or efficiently while also providing good service. Look at any governmetn entity you have ever dealt with in your life...DMV bad slow service...who cares...the employess dont. They wont get fired if some one complains and YOU have no where else to go to get these services so you are stuck. You may have even gone to a not so good public school...even if its bad alot of times you have very few options...you cant shop around for a school....Now just think about if you had no choice about your doctor...you couldnt shop around and if you complained...no one cared...All examples of why Socialism is not beneficial.
2008-01-12 13:03:06 UTC
It's not a bad thing. We are moderately socialist here in Canada. Universal health care, student grants, child tax credit, daycare subsidy, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, old age pension, welfare, etc.



It does add to the tax burdens and it does mean some people will live off the system, but it has helped lower income families get by without being in the Ghetto. I think the quality of life for a lower middle class family is much better here.





Oh and by the way, we aren't in a recession here and the economy is booming.
Glenn M
2008-01-12 13:04:05 UTC
Failing economy of France and past examples to name a few. The areas where you might find a better example might be in the Scandanavian region. Socialism puts to much responsibility in the hands of the government. It eventually leads to further control because there is simply no other way to sustain it. Eventually economic growth becomes non-existent and governments collapse. Socialism is counter to the capitalist economy that the U.S. follows.
2008-01-12 13:02:56 UTC
We know 4 very different Socialisms. Here the 4 definitions:



To avoid misunderstandings we use the term 'Socialism' no longer alone, but always together with an adjective. - As superordinate terms we use 'Democratic Socialisms' and 'Non-democratic Socialisms' (in the plural). 'Democratic Socialisms' = 'Social-democratic Socialisms' and 'Ecological (or Environmental or Green) Socialisms'. - 'Non-democratic Socialisms' = 'Communistic Socialisms' and 'Anarchistic Socialisms'.



1. Social-democratic Socialisms (normally in the plural)

Social-democracy is the name for an international democratic socialist movement which has a vision of a fair and human social order in a strong state based on just distribution of resources and employment, sustainable economic and ecological growth, equality of women and men, and non-violent relationships. This vision is not an ethereal dream, but is instead a realistic goal for daily political work. Social-democrats do not refer to > Marxism, and "Socialist" parties in "Latin" countries are usually social-democratic parties. The “Socialist International” is social-democratic, too.



2. Environmental Socialisms (normally in the plural)

The term "Environmentalism" designates a political attitude of respect for environment and is also used for democratic political movements that are known by the name "Greens". "Sustainable Development" occupies the center of their daily political action. This theory has ecological, economic and social goals. Therefore “Greens" normally are socialist parties. In Western Europe Marxists often join a Green party.



3. Communist Socialisms (normally in the plural)

The ideal of Communism is a “classless society” in which social differences are waived and produced goods belong to the community. This goal presumes the abolishment of the "private property of the means of production" and its "socialization", or as some will say, "nationalization". Communist parties often see no other possibility than to struggle against a dictatorship (and for their revolution) by force of arms (e. g. Nepal, Philippines …). We also know numerous authoritarian communist parties. There are monopolies of a communist party in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam, and a communist government has been installed in Moldavia. In other countries communist parties (> Marxist branch) are non-violent and democratic.

- Marxist Communism is a philosophical, economic and social theory. The excrescences of "Capitalism" - according to Marx and Engels - are the cause for the "class war". They demand the seizure of power by "revolution" and "dictatorship of the proletariat". The adherents of Marxism are called "Marxists".

- Leninist Communism is a branch of Marxism developed by Lenin, first dictator of the former Soviet Union; it refers to theory and practice of the use of power. Leninism served Stalin to justify his repression.

- Stalinist Communism spreads Stalin’s ideas and practices as second dictator of the Soviet Union. The adherents of Stalinism are called "Stalinists".

- Maoist Communism was developed by Mao, first dictator of the People's Republic of China. It is based on the “fathers” of Communism - Marx and Lenin. The fact that Maoism appoints "fathers" corresponds mainly to Chinese thinking and culture. For a social-democrat it isn’t necessary to follow “fathers” and their ideologies. He or she trusts the reason of each party member.



4. Anarchist Socialisms (normally in the plural)

The aim of Anarchism is the destruction of the state. Anarchism rejects hierarchies. On the ruins of the state, the Anarchists intend to build a new society in which individuals cooperate freely and have the same rights. In an anarchist society party structures aren’t necessary. Anarchists can be non-violent (e. g. the Amish in the USA) or very violent (e. g. arson attacks in the suburbs of France 2005).
2008-01-12 13:20:44 UTC
It isn't working in Europe and Europe's people are not happy with it.



The whole idea of our founding fathers was a FREE America. They committed treason for the cause and gave their blood and lives for your freedom. I am sorry that you can't see that.
2008-01-12 13:02:48 UTC
It doesn't work. Notice how badly the former soviet union did, North korea and Cuba are doing. It was the idea of spreading out even amounts of materials to every state factory/farm ect. This meant that the things in demand were always sold out and the things that weren't stocked up and eventually rotted (especially in food). It isnt the politics that are bad. It is the economics of socialism that are bad.
Edge Caliber
2008-01-12 13:01:40 UTC
America has a socialized army protecting the middle east and can't afford medical aspect of it.
2008-01-12 13:08:30 UTC
Socialism is good if used correctly ,BUT i dont want to live in a WELFARE STATE!
Dad
2008-01-12 13:00:27 UTC
mainly because she cares about medicare, it was her big reform idea when Bill was in poweer, but I guess it cost to much in the US

signed

A european socialist
2008-01-12 13:00:58 UTC
Lol... working in Europe huh?

If you mean that most of Europe that has turned to socialism is mired in high unemployment, economic stagnation, poor medical care, and political correctness gone mad...

Id say its working just fine!

America didnt become the superpower it is by following Europes example and bowing at the alter of socialism.
rabble rouser
2008-01-12 12:59:57 UTC
Socialism is working right here in the USA as well...



The anti-hillary stuff is being perpetuated by the Insurance companies that are raking in BILLIONS to keep you unhealthy and paying for lack of coverage.



Hillary's plan is not welfare - it's not even close.



And if you want to be a fool and continue to dump all of your hard earned money into the corrupt HMO's, you will still be allowed to do so under Hillary's plan.
WJ
2008-01-12 13:02:33 UTC
It is a bad thing if you are a hard worker or an entrepreneur. It is a good thing if you are lazy or unambitious.
2008-01-12 13:01:14 UTC
Actually, it ISN'T working in Europe; in France and Germany especially, they've been spending the better part of two decades trying to figure out a way to dial their socialist excesses back.



The principal problem that the much-more-socialized Europeans are dealing with is that their socialized societies are UNAFFORDABLE. While it's nice to tell people things they want to hear (health care is free, pre-and-post natal care are free, university is free, etc., etc.), reality tells folks a somewhat different story (healthcare outcomes are much worse than in the US, there's nothing FREE about college-trained natal care workers, universities are anything but free).



The principal functional reality of socialized systems compared to our system is that their citizens pay much, much more in taxes and get much less in return than we do. The attraction in the US for European-style socialism is that some folks in the US get less than they would under a socialized system. We'd be WAY better off helping those that need it (and not even one extra person who doesn't) instead of turning the whole system upside down because a relatively few folks need the help of their fellow citizens.



Of course, the purpose of turning the whole system upside down to institutionalize socialism in the US is NOT to help those in need of it; no, the purpose is to gather power in the hands of the few who consider themselves to be better and smarter than us little people and will dictate major aspects of our lives to us from their aeries in state capitols and Washington, D.C. THIS is the source of the disgust at the very idea of Hillary Clinton returning to the White House.



Some examples of socialized European life:



Unemployment: chronically in the range of 8% - 10%; it stays high because, for example, in Germany an unemployed worker receives 80% of the wages he earned while employed; in addition to his not needing the income provided by a job, he doesn't have to take any job he doesn't want so he can be on unemployment INDEFINTELY; is it, then, any surprise that Germany imports workers from overseas while its native population is unemployed at a rate that would cause a change in government in the US?,



Taxes: Euro zone sales tax is now 19%; income taxes are SUBSTANTIALLY higher than they are in the US; the difference in gasoline prices ($3/gal. here and $6 - $8/gal. there) is due solely to taxes, and



Health Care: effectively, it's rationed; as already mentioned - quality of care is lower (British deaths due to breast cancer are 25% higher than in the US in the first five years after diagnosis and this includes insured and uninsured Americans with breast cancer - rates are similar in France); take the time to read of the travails of the British health care service to see how difficult it is to get socialized medicine to work despite more than a decade of throwing remarkably large sums of money at the problem; one thing about this subject, however, is crystal clear: if the US winds up with a socialized medical system, there are going to be some VERY UNHAPPY citizens in this country due to the reduction in availability and quality of care; the only problem will be the same one the Europeans are continually wrestling with - there seems to be no going back once you've socialized a system!



Obviously, socialized systems are anything but "free".



One functional reality of human life is this: people do NOT like to give up something they already have. So, whether it's rent control in NYC (read: your landlord subsidizes your living expenses) or state-wide or country-wide socialized medicine, once it's in place, it will be in place FOREVER. That fact alone means that it behooves us to consider very, very carefully whether or not we want to go down a path that can already be seen to not be working is other societies that are very similar to our own.



As an aside, you may be wondering why socialized medicine results in medical rationing / reduction in access to care. Here's why: socializing medicine will not create one more doctor nor one more nurse (the US is presently 100,000 nurses SHORT of what is needed and we're importing English-speaking nurses from the third world at a prodigious rate and STILL can't keep up - imagine what it's gonna be like when the Baby Boomers retire!). It's already much harder to get into veterinary school than it is to medical school; doctors have been telling their children for 15 years to that medicine may not be a career they should be condsidering.



More patients with the same or fewer medical workers = rationing. This isn't a rationale for denying health care to people that need it; it IS, however, a fact of life in socialized systems. One other fact is that those systems are MUCH slower to roll out advanced treatments and medications and, even when they are rolled out, their use is severely restricted due to cost. Effectively more rationing.



Why is this the case? You cannot tax people enough to pay for all the goodies you've promised them - even if you took ALL their money (like the Communists did) there would still not be enough resources to pay for all the promised goodies.



As a group, Americans will not be happy with large socialized systems in this country. Look at how many of them feel about their choice-free public educational systems. Not too thrilled, are they? I could go on and on (I know, I already have ;-) but I'll quit here. Hope it helped!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...