Why do americans fear anything that's slightly left wing, let alone socialist ?

[Schonerlebnis]

Admit it's a bit of a blanket statement but there seems to be this widespread fear of any kind of left wing policy. I'm on a non political facebook group (cooking related so as ordinary as you can get) which has many US members and was surprised by how many called obama care socialist
Even the Democrats are accused of being left leaning (correct me if I'm wrong but that's not even remotely accurate !) and I'm not sure that they even have unions anymore ? On a recent US election thread someone mentioned that people feared that changes to the benefits system to support the vulnerable would lead to a rise in taxes and so make them poorer..... Can any one explain why a country that claims to look after the persecuted and vulnerable has such odd views ?

Seems to me thats capitalism, Arnold. Young people still paying for 2008 collapse.

By the way, how many were unemployed under 'Mrs T'?

I think the phrase they used at the time user was 'the banks privatised the profits and socialised the losses'
Consistency would be a good thing here. One or the other.

Socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples' money...Mrs T

But Boris Johnson giving taxpayers i.e. our money to his cronies is fine? That is sound money management?

Which part of history Ivykaty? because you have no idea which period im referring to.

My point is there were massive awful famines in the 1880s in Russia as well and in 1870s China around 13 million died in a famine in a relatively small area of 100 million. When the Bolsheviks got into power in a fractured, already half starving country just out of world war and into a civil war with the rest of the west attacking them theres quickly a famine and its suddenly attributed to socialism. The same happens in China.

Why are the awful russian famines of the 19th century not attributed to capitalism if thats how it works? the Armenian genocide? the bengal famine? the Irish Famine? the Yugoslav civil wars? the Japanese occupations in world war 2 , with something like 4 million civillians dead in China alone?

The point is people point to the worst excesses of Stalin and Mao as representative of even mild western democratic socialism (which incidentally provided this countries greatest ever government in 1945) but people wouldnt dream of saying the east india company for instance and the opium wars are representative of all capitalist ideology.

No mainstream democratic socialist wants anything to do with maoism or Stalinism, they want much more the socialism of George Orwell, Attlee and FDR. People can bleat all they like about the north european countries not being properly socialist, but their strength comes from the strong welfare policies and community minded spirit which was born of strong socialist parties and traditions in these countries. The German SDP was for instance once the sister party of what became the Bolsheviks in Russia. Look how well New Zealand is doing or Finland- we could never have a government like that due to the Sun and associated tabloid filth's demonisation and idiotic hangovers from the cold war. They even called Milliband 'red' ffs.

You're asking how is a mass industrial war of colonial powers clashing because they had reached the limit of resources in their own border capitalist, 7days?

The US actually made a profit from that war.

Yup that's what I'm asking user no need to be snide about it.

Conflicts happen for land and resources under all sorts of political systems, from warring tribes in pre industrial societies, to the USSR setting up a system of satellite states beyond their own borders - so if there's asomething inherent to capitalism that caused WW1 you could give a go at explaining without the aggro.

Obviously if you spend nearly 3x as much as UK per capita on healthcare (excluding out of pocket spend), quality will be vastly superior. It is a system that is better invested plus competition and thus innovation (and the ascent of big pharma) for every healthcare dollar, public or private. But for worse outcomes, shorter life expectancy and more suicides? That is capitalism a la land of the free. All that glitters is not gold.

That's interesting. Does that translate into it being less individualistic?

Hard to say. In some ways yes in others no.

didn't niño start with Lloyd George government? 1911 I think? Or 1912? So yes I think that was Lloyd George

The fear of communism has done more damage in the past 100 years than communism itself not sure I agree with that

But

@MissConductUS that's only 1 aspect of the damage down under communism if you were to tot up the lives lost fighting communism (which includes but not limited to the Vietnam war, Korean War plus the whole mess in the Middle East that for many years were really proxy USA v communism wars and battles) plus all the lives lost indirectly I think the numbers would be fairly significant

And posters are right in saying capitalist regimes were/are/can be just as bad

natural famines

That's quite some rewriting of history!

Isn't it just?!

I think comparing Johnson and trumps covid reactions/treatment could be very misleading.

Even setting aside many (including my own) who suspect its entirely possible trump never had covid.

Trump is older, they're both obese and both have reportedly poor diets high in processed red meat, fried food and low on fruit and veg, but trump, otherwise generally speaking leads a healthier lifestyle. He's a non smoker and teetotal, he exercises regularly even if it's only walking and cheating on a golf course. Johnson is at best a former smoker, I suspect only quit completely after the covid fright, drinks heavily and rarely exercises.

The other issue with covid is its far too new for us to know let alone really understand the risk factors. There could be genetic factors for example that explain why some get it mildly and others more severely. We're still very much in the "firefighting" stage of dealing with the virus. "Miracle drugs" are unlikely to be close to the whole story

Oh yea and the co pay thing - that's ON TOP of the premiums I think?

Plus as someone with serious mental illness it's the apparent appalling lack of cover for this by American insurers that I find deeply disturbing. I know IN THEORY this has supposedly been addressed but the reality seems to be that many, especially the very seriously mentally ill who lack cognitive abilities either temporarily or long term as a result of their illness are still being left without support and treatment. And what is provided is of a very low standard and I believe this is a particular issue for African Americans?

I don't think anyone would claim the nhs is perfect but it generally has a less discriminatory approach than the USA system seems to.

'the banks privatised the profits and socialised the losses'

That sounds pretty accurate to me!

The tories - inc thatcher - don't actually mind giving money to people, they mind giving money to the "wrong" people

The US actually made a profit from that war. not just the US generally trumps family did very nicely too from profiteering

Whos being snide? I just would have thought that anybody who had an opinion on the matter would know basic facts about it.

The initial compromising peace terms Germany wanted in 1914 were the surrender of the channel ports to them and the industrial areas in northern france which held I believe 80% of coal, similarly the coalfields in Belgium around Loos.

In the Middle East it was as usual all about the oil. The allies controlled something like 85% of the worlds oil output. The creation of Iraq as a British puppet state was done so to keep hold of this.

''Just before war broke out in 1914, British and German companies had negotiated joint participation in the newly-founded Turkish Petroleum Company that held prospecting rights in Mesopotamia. The war ended the Anglo-German oil partnership and it exposed the territories of the German-allied Ottoman Empire to direct British attack.

''As war continued, oil seemed ever more important and shortages ever more menacing to the imperial planners. Sir Maurice Hankey, powerful Secretary of the British War Cabinet, wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour during the war's final stage, to argue that oil had become absolutely vital to Britain and that oil resources in Mesopotamia would be crucial in the future. "Control of these oil supplies becomes a first-class war aim" Hankey said enthusiastically, as British troops closed in on Baghdad'' (www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185-general/40479-great-power-conflict-over-iraqi-oil-the-world-war-i-era.html)

There had been similar agreements in Africa which left the Germans unsatisfied there, they wanted the sort of access to natural resources there that the French, British and Belgians had. They lost all of their african colonies in 1919.

Italy had initially agreed to fight alongside Austria and Germany, but were tempted to the Allies purely with money and a bit of balkan land- no ideology there, just purely what was to gain in materials.

The Japanese experienced a boom due to their war involvement and became a 'creditor nation for the first time'.

In the East in 1917/18 the Germans and Austrians were delighted especially to settle for the masses of farmland in Ukraine and the black sea ports, but also got the majority of Russia's coal, iron and oil along with massive industrial cities. They considered the Russians beaten despite not reaching Petrograd or Moscow and not occupying the country.

despite the successful attempts to tag on nationalist and monarchist aims to these theatres of war, there was no ideology being chased there as was the case in the 2nd war- the flashpoint areas and treaty aims show what the real aims were.

''From a historical standpoint the new German imperialism is, as we already know, absolutely aggressive. Urged onward by the feverish development of the national industry, German imperialism disturbs the old balance of power between the states and plays the first violin in the race for armaments.''

Its much clearer to see it was a war born out of capitalism than it is to claim (for one example of many) civillian victims of the White terror and of right wing White's murder of hundreds of thousands of jews during that civil war were 'deaths of communism', as they are often counted among.

A whole century of propaganda against Godless Communism left its mark. Emphasis on the 'Godless'. This is really important in the US.

The fear of communism has done more damage in the past 100 years than communism itself
Completely agree. You need look no further than the Anti-American Activities Committee for evidence.

I'm a Brit living in the US and a friend here commented on the UK being a socialist country, even under Tory leadership. But he was right, if you compare UK policies to the US, we are still definitely more 'socialist' right now. Having said that, I have met a number of people here who strongly believe the US needs an NHS style health care system. But then I live in a more liberal leaning State. So there are a growing number of people who are not afraid of leftist policies, there just aren't enough of them to make a difference.

But living here makes me deeply grateful for the UK, for its priority on education and healthcare in particular. Not once in this recent election campaigning have I heard the word education mentioned by either side. It's incredibly depressing. For most people, if they don't like the public school system they will just go private or homeschool. So this means there is little motivation for schools to improve and little competition in the public sector as you have to go to your catchment school, even if it's crap. There is no choice of schools like we have back home. It's no wonder the US is so far down the ranks on international education tables.

@Ninetyseventhirtyfive

I'm a Brit living in the US and a friend here commented on the UK being a socialist country, even under Tory leadership. But he was right, if you compare UK policies to the US, we are still definitely more 'socialist' right now. Having said that, I have met a number of people here who strongly believe the US needs an NHS style health care system. But then I live in a more liberal leaning State. So there are a growing number of people who are not afraid of leftist policies, there just aren't enough of them to make a difference.

But living here makes me deeply grateful for the UK, for its priority on education and healthcare in particular. Not once in this recent election campaigning have I heard the word education mentioned by either side. It's incredibly depressing. For most people, if they don't like the public school system they will just go private or homeschool. So this means there is little motivation for schools to improve and little competition in the public sector as you have to go to your catchment school, even if it's crap. There is no choice of schools like we have back home. It's no wonder the US is so far down the ranks on international education tables.

School is usually a local issues. Their funding and ruling is paid mostly by their local district, they get very little funding from the state and federal (other than special education , free lunches, or low income areas as well a lot of other things) . That's why it is not talked about. The good news is that DeVos is leaving soon!

And I believe in more funding in public schools? Choices can be inside that school without separating children

According to a survey published in the Independent today one quarter of American women couldn't identify the location of vagina on a diagram. They'd probably say it was on the east coast next to West Vagina.

WW1 was a conflict between imperial powers who believed - no, assumed - that strength made right and that they could take what they wanted. It is a close ally to modern extreme capitalist thinking.

It’s interesting hearing about how Puritan thinking of earning your own way and working up from nothing still dominates. It’s an attractive idea. What I don’t understand is how no one seems to recognise that it is only appropriate in a world with lots of resources out there for the taking - the pioneer world of empty landscapes with no or few humans. We do not start from ‘nothing’ with a blank landscape and everything to play for now - there is no room anywhere in the world for that. We start from a position of everything being owned by someone else, with ‘keep out’ and ‘private’ signs everywhere, with those rights enforced by state-backed law. We start from a position in the negatives, with everything against us and no resources we can call on to start.

@kennelmaid

According to a survey published in the Independent today one quarter of American women couldn't identify the location of vagina on a diagram. They'd probably say it was on the east coast next to West Vagina.

Parents never liked school teaching sex education - so they made it hard for schools to teach it properly

If you go into the comments section of Breitbart news you can see what the thinking behind all this is.

(For clarification, the equivalent in our own times would be good availability of jobs, housing and/ or land, education and relevant qualifications).

It’s interesting hearing about how Puritan thinking of earning your own way and working up from nothing still dominates. It’s an attractive idea.

It's an attractive idea if the opportunities are equal but racism/ other isms means many don't get on the first step of the ladder and probably the opportunities are fewer than previous decades.