What is the biggest threat to America?

[vcczar]

new poll

[WVProgressive]

Short Term: MAGA/Extremism (mostly right wing but left wing extremism, if it ever grew to the level that right wing extremism has, would also be dangerous)

Long Term: Climate Change

China and Russia are paper tigers, in my opinion.

[Dobs]

Ranked:

1. China

2. MAGA

3. Socialism

--- The above are immediately pressing threats that need to be dealt with to preserve the Republic ---

4. Climate Change

5. AI

--- The above are long-term threats that if not dealt with pose serious risk to the Republic ---

6. Russia

--- Russia is a pressing but clearly manageable threat that needs to be continually dealt with ---

7. Wokeness

8. Secularism

9. Conservative Evangelicals

--- The above are neither threats nor boons, and they can and have been both depending on how they are wielded. They must be managed and moderated in their impact on the national character ---

10. Establishment Politics

--- This is not a threat, this is unironically one of the only things keeping us alive and sane as a country right now, though in a perfect world it would be re-oriented around different values. Maybe after we deal with Socialism and MAGA ---

[DakotaHale]

12 hours ago, Dobs said:

Ranked:

1. China

2. MAGA

3. Socialism

--- The above are immediately pressing threats that need to be dealt with to preserve the Republic ---

4. Climate Change

5. AI

--- The above are long-term threats that if not dealt with pose serious risk to the Republic ---

6. Russia

--- Russia is a pressing but clearly manageable threat that needs to be continually dealt with ---

7. Wokeness

8. Secularism

9. Conservative Evangelicals

--- The above are neither threats nor boons, and they can and have been both depending on how they are wielded. They must be managed and moderated in their impact on the national character ---

10. Establishment Politics

--- This is not a threat, this is unironically one of the only things keeping us alive and sane as a country right now, though in a perfect world it would be re-oriented around different values. Maybe after we deal with Socialism and MAGA ---

Based and the exact order I'd rank them too

[vcczar]

13 hours ago, Dobs said:

3. Socialism

I always find such strong opposition to socialism is add to me, since it is such an integral part in America. I think the issue is that people have such a black and white way of thinking about capitalism and socialism. To me they go hand in hand, and much of America's success is because we are a nation with both capitalistic and socialistic qualities. I can understand criticism of socialism, but it's seems completely bizarre to but it at #3. 

Do you oppose George Washington taxing people and using the funding to build and repare lighthouses across the East coast for the benefit of merchants (we didn't have a navy yet). 

Do you oppose John Adams building a hospital of disabled and impoverished naval and maritime workers? 

Do you oppose military pensions, VA healthcare, and the similar benefits for widows and children? 

Do you oppose Social Security?

Do you oppose medicare and medicaid? Obamacare?

Do you oppose public schools and public universities? 

Do you oppose public parks? 

Do you oppose federal funds being invested into the people?

Do you oppose food stamps? School lunch programs? Women & Infant Care (WIC)

Do you oppose public housing? Housing for disabled persons and vets? Rural Housing Service?

Do you oppose the Job Corps? and other job traning programs? 

Do you oppose a minimum wage or living wage? Work Injury compensation? etc. 

I suspect that you and @DakotaHale have some criticism of these, potentially valid, but really....#3? That suggests you think these things should be completely eradicated and that they're a threat to the Republic, despite elements of socialism being part of the Republican pretty much from its origin. 

I know some conservatives say they want the states to handle this. That's great if they do it, and it doesn't make it any less socialistic if the state is doing it. It's still popular socially-oriented programs designed to aide the people. 

To me it just seems obvious that America has been for a long time both capitalistic and socialistic, to deprive the Republic of either makes it no longer America. 

It may be that you're specifically zeroing in on authoritarian socialism, such as that in Cuba, North Korea, and China, which is completely alien to any socialism that has been part of the US. If you do see all socialism as a threat, then I guess you also see Sweden, Norway, Finland, and much of Europe as a threat. Perhaps, Canada is somewhat of a threat? The hallmark of these non-authoritarian socialistic countries is their top 10 quality of life rankings. Is quality of life a threat? 

Socialism at #3 is ridiculous. I understand criticism of element of it. All ideologies, philosophies, concepts have their flaws--including capitalism and socialism--but neither capitalis nor socialism is a threat to the US or any nation. Authoritarianism is and that's something that can belong in any political philosophy and can also be mostly absent from any political philosophy. You even have libertarian socialists and anarcho-socialists. The former is sometimes called left-wing libertarian, which is probably what I am, more or less, and what the Scandinavian countries are, more or less. 

 

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Do you oppose George Washington taxing people and using the funding to build and repare lighthouses across the East coast for the benefit of merchants (we didn't have a navy yet). 

Do you oppose John Adams building a hospital of disabled and impoverished naval and maritime workers? 

Do you oppose military pensions, VA healthcare, and the similar benefits for widows and children? 

Do you oppose Social Security?

Do you oppose medicare and medicaid? Obamacare?

Do you oppose public schools and public universities? 

Do you oppose public parks? 

Do you oppose federal funds being invested into the people?

Do you oppose food stamps? School lunch programs? Women & Infant Care (WIC)

Do you oppose public housing? Housing for disabled persons and vets? Rural Housing Service?

Do you oppose the Job Corps? and other job traning programs? 

Do you oppose a minimum wage or living wage? Work Injury compensation? etc. 

 

[WVProgressive]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Do you oppose George Washington taxing people and using the funding to build and repare lighthouses across the East coast for the benefit of merchants (we didn't have a navy yet). 

Do you oppose John Adams building a hospital of disabled and impoverished naval and maritime workers? 

Do you oppose military pensions, VA healthcare, and the similar benefits for widows and children? 

Do you oppose Social Security?

Do you oppose medicare and medicaid? Obamacare?

Do you oppose public schools and public universities? 

Do you oppose public parks? 

Do you oppose federal funds being invested into the people?

Do you oppose food stamps? School lunch programs? Women & Infant Care (WIC)

Do you oppose public housing? Housing for disabled persons and vets? Rural Housing Service?

Do you oppose the Job Corps? and other job traning programs? 

Do you oppose a minimum wage or living wage? Work Injury compensation? etc. 

None of that is Socialism, it’s welfare capitalism/social democracy. Some conservatives like to pretend that welfare capitalism is the same as Socialism, but it’s not. Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany are all capitalist economies with strong social safety nets.

You may argue that these programs are responses to criticisms of capitalism made by socialists, but that doesn’t mean they’re not still aspects of capitalism. The reason capitalism has been able to survive, and thrive for so long is because of its uncanny ability to subsumes critiques of it, and adapt accordingly. Additionally, the inability of (actual) Socialism to adapt is also what led to the destruction of AES in the eastern block.

[vcczar]

8 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

None of that is Socialism, it’s welfare capitalism/social democracy. Some conservatives like to pretend that welfare capitalism is the same as Socialism, but it’s not. Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany are all capitalist economies with strong social safety nets.

You may argue that these programs are responses to criticisms of capitalism made by socialists, but that doesn’t mean they’re not still aspects of capitalism. The reason capitalism has been able to survive, and thrive for so long is because of its uncanny ability to subsumes critiques of it, and adapt accordingly. Additionally, the inability of (actual) Socialism to adapt is also what led to the destruction of AES in the eastern block.

I consider much of what you’re talking about to be elements of socialism. It’s capitalism that adapted to integrate elements of socialism. Social Democracy is one kind of socialism or a partial offshoot at the least. Welfare capitalism is capitalism that allows elements socialism to balance out its weaknesses. 

Socialism is adaptive too. Social Democracy is a form of adapted socialism. The socialism of the eastern block is Authoritarian Socialism, which as mentioned in my earlier, post is not the variety of socialism I believe is part of the American system. 

[The Blood]

23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I consider much of what you’re talking about to be elements of socialism. It’s capitalism that adapted to integrate elements of socialism. Social Democracy is one kind of socialism or a partial offshoot at the least. Welfare capitalism is capitalism that allows elements socialism to balance out its weaknesses. 

Socialism is adaptive too. Social Democracy is a form of adapted socialism. The socialism of the eastern block is Authoritarian Socialism, which as mentioned in my earlier, post is not the variety of socialism I believe is part of the American system. 

I think what WVP is getting at is that the classic definition of socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Even the Nordic countries, as social democratic as they may be, are only mixed-market economies which maintain private ownership of the means of production, preventing their systems from being ruled socialist in the traditional sense. 

Now yes, social democracy has socialist roots, but it's been a capitalist ideology for some time now, and its initial position as the reformist wing of socialism isn't relevant to its current implementation and ideological stance. 

[vcczar]

15 minutes ago, The Blood said:

I think what WVP is getting at is that the classic definition of socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Even the Nordic countries, as social democratic as they may be, are only mixed-market economies which maintain private ownership of the means of production, preventing their systems from being ruled socialist in the traditional sense. 

Now yes, social democracy has socialist roots, but it's been a capitalist ideology for some time now, and its initial position as the reformist wing of socialism isn't relevant to its current implementation and ideological stance. 

Ok, so he's going by a much more narrow definition then. Most political scientists don't restrict themselves to that narrow definition. It's so outdated I don't even think about it in those terms anymore.

[The Blood]

11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's so outdated I don't even think about it in those terms anymore.

Good for you, but most socialists I know prefer the concrete definition for their beliefs which is rooted in the political theory from which modern leftism descends, and the "government doing stuff equals socialism" definition is the wrongheaded and vague thinking which has inspired absolutely insufferable arguments from both the left and right, so I tend to oppose it.

[vcczar]

35 minutes ago, The Blood said:

"government doing stuff equals socialism" definition is the wrongheaded

I'm not advocating this definition either because it's too broad. It depends on what it is that government is doing. I'd wager that only 25% of what the government does, if that, is what I would call socialistic. 

[Pringles]

35 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Good for you, but most socialists I know prefer the concrete definition for their beliefs which is rooted in the political theory from which modern leftism descends,

This is exactly how I feel, and is just about in line with every socialist I've ever encountered. Among either extreme of "everything is socialism! Biden and Dems are socialist!" that we see from MAGA today (even though they veer into socialistic arguments) or "eat the rich, abolish nato, Maduro and Putin based!" don't adhere to vague pseudo-intellectual definitions of what their ideology is. They just adhere to the echo chamber they reside in. 

[The Blood]

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm not advocating this definition either because it's too broad. It depends on what it is that government is doing. I'd wager that only 25% of what the government does, if that, is what I would call socialistic. 

25% of what the U.S. Federal Government does still constitutes an incredibly broad range of programs, and just what you posted earlier includes everything from basic infrastructure to Obamacare, which I have only ever seen referred to as socialist in the most right-wing circles. I don't want to continue a semantic argument, as it's clear you hold your definition of socialism dear, but I hope I've established that defining socialism by which programs feel "socialistic" runs counter to both the utility of the term and the history of socialism, an ideology which is first and foremost centered on changing the ownership of the means of production. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by The Blood

[Fbarbarossa]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Ok, so he's going by a much more narrow definition then. Most political scientists don't restrict themselves to that narrow definition. It's so outdated I don't even think about it in those terms anymore.

She. WVP uses she/her pronouns

[vcczar]

15 minutes ago, Fbarbarossa said:

She. WVP uses she/her pronouns

thanks for catching my error. 

My sincerest apologies.  I know that. I think I was just thinking of my response and not who I was referring to. That wasn’t very considerate of me. @WVProgressive I’m sorry 😞 

[DakotaHale]

3 hours ago, Rezi said:

 

This is unironically what I believe in. The more stuff a gubmint does, the socialismer it is.

[WVProgressive]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

thanks for catching my error. 

My sincerest apologies.  I know that. I think I was just thinking of my response and not who I was referring to. That wasn’t very considerate of me. @WVProgressive I’m sorry 😞 

Hey, I get it, you're old, back in your day He/Him were considered generic pronouns, and it's hard to switch over 😉

[Dobs]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose George Washington taxing people and using the funding to build and repare lighthouses across the East coast for the benefit of merchants (we didn't have a navy yet). 

 

This isn't Socialism. It's taxation, which every form of government has ever had.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose John Adams building a hospital of disabled and impoverished naval and maritime workers? 

 

This isn't Socialism. It's standard government social spending to provide a service for federal workers.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose military pensions, VA healthcare, and the similar benefits for widows and children? 

 

This isn't Socialism, it's literally just paying and benefiting people who work for you.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose Social Security?

 

Yes. But not because it is Socialism to have it, but because I believe it's inefficient and people should be able to plan for their retirement without government intrusion, and that it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do this anyway. Socialism would be government nationalizing all retirement plans, not just competing with others.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose medicare and medicaid? Obamacare?

 

Yes. But not because they are Socialism, because I believe any health insurance initiative must be done on the state level. Also, they're horribly inefficient and expensive. Socialism would be government nationalizing all health insurance and banning private insurance (as some in the Democrat Party now propose to do, so we'll get to that in a second).

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose public schools and public universities? 

 

No, though I do oppose all federal mandates and control on education, and support widespread school choice initiatives and competition in education at the state level. Socialism would be total nationalization of all education, banning private schools.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose public parks? 

 

No, the government is allowed to own land. Government owning all the land and disallowing private property would be Socialism. Conservation is a noble goal and states should be allowed to lead those efforts. The federal government can also own land for national security purposes.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose federal funds being invested into the people?

 

What.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose food stamps? School lunch programs? Women & Infant Care (WIC)

 

At the federal level? Sure. But states are well within their rights to launch welfare programs which are, you guessed it, not socialism. Socialism would be the nationalization of the services which these welfare programs help to pay for (groceries, food, neonatal products).

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose public housing? Housing for disabled persons and vets? Rural Housing Service?

 

At the federal level? Yes, for all except veterans. Otherwise, states are more than within their power to provide certain groups housing as a form of welfare. Socialism would be government nationalizing all Housing.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose the Job Corps? and other job traning programs? 

 

Not if states want to provide job training for their citizens, of course not. This doesn't even involve government redistributing wealth or owning anything, so this one isn't even close to socialism.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

Do you oppose a minimum wage or living wage? Work Injury compensation? etc. 

 

Federally? Yes. States are free to impose such regulations. But this is just a regulation of capitalism, socialism would be to seize the means of production and then mandate that wage which is paid.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

I suspect that you and @DakotaHale have some criticism of these, potentially valid, but really....#3? That suggests you think these things should be completely eradicated and that they're a threat to the Republic, despite elements of socialism being part of the Republican pretty much from its origin. 

 

I don't believe these things should be eradicated, but they should absolutely be returned to the states in the places I've suggested. That being said, none of them were actually Socialism. I won't beat the dead horse, but just echo others when they firmly assert that Socialism is not when the government does stuff. It is no more socialism when government spends money than it is fascist when they raise a military, hire a police force, or enforce immigration laws. It's absurd to suggest any of that is Fascist, just as it is to suggest all social spending is Socialist.

Socialism is a very specific and pernicious child of Marxism that affirms public ownership of all property, equal distribution of wealth, and central planning of the market. It has been one of the most destructive ideologies in world history, leaving death and peril in its wake across the globe. Now, politicians with perilously Socialist histories (Bernie Sanders who once called for nationalization of countless industries), have planted the seeds of socialism in the heads of the youngest generation. If allowed to germinate in the same way far-right MAGA ideology has, it could wreak havoc just as, if not more, dangerous to the survival of the Republic. But we are not there yet like we are with MAGA, so yes, it is absolutely my number 3. We must nip it in the bud, so to speak, if we are to remain the United States of America, that last best hope for freedom on earth. 

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

If you do see all socialism as a threat, then I guess you also see Sweden, Norway, Finland, and much of Europe as a threat. Perhaps, Canada is somewhat of a threat?

These are not socialist countries. Don't believe me? Just ask them. And I'm really not sure where you got that idea about Finland. And Canada could certainly do away with its form of socialized healthcare and be better off, I encourage them to do so, but this one facet does not them a Socialist nation make.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:03 PM, vcczar said:

You even have libertarian socialists and anarcho-socialists.

These are philosophical oxymorons. Socialism (public ownership, distribution, central planning) can only be achieved through force or threat of force. There is no anarchy where there is socialism (that's not necessarily a bad thing), and there certainly is no economic liberty (but this certainly is), a hallmark of libertarianism.

It sounds to me like you are a social democrat. This is a perfectly legitimate and fine ideology. It is also a capitalist one. You believe in lots of regulation and government aid to act as scaffolding on a system that is fundamentally still a capitalist economy. We may disagree on a lot of particulars, but we ultimately agree on the foundation upon which nations should be built, capitalist liberal democracy.

You and I are ultimately both liberals. We support the liberal world order and we are children of the West and its enlightenment. We have a lot of political daylight between us, but we are the number one enemy of both Fascists and Socialists. They ought to be defeated and returned to the ash heap of history where they belong. Unfortunately, both are on the rise in the United States and Europe, and both must be routed out. Otherwise, the grand project of human liberty and democracy hangs in the balance.

So please, do yourself a favor, and don't call yourself a socialist. You might find yourself in unfortunate company.

[vcczar]

@Dobs thanks for taking the time to write a full response, and I wish I had the time to give you a full response back. 

I think our terminology is at odds. By your definition, I’m not a socialist. By the definition of many political scholars today, I would be. 

I’m not an advocate of public ownership on the level that Socialism proper embraces. I think it is important that individuals own things. I’m more in line with Social Democracy, which by definitions is within the socialism umbrella. This is also the most common form of socialism. This is why few scholars today adhere to the Marxian restriction. The definitions of terms and labels evolve through time. Think of the definition of poetry and what is or is not poetry. That definition and/or description would be drastically different if Elizabethans were defining it than if we were defining it. Socialism of Marx’s time differs from late 20th and 21st century socialism. Marx didn’t get to see it in practice really (I don’t think). Marx’s socialism is a trunk that grew a bunch of branches. 

This said, while one would likely label me as a socialist. I don’t like the label because I also have capitalistic strains in me. Ultimately, my only real ideology is whatever raises the quality of life and keeps the peace—fulfills life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ideally everyone. The political, social, and economic philosophy is secondary to all of that, in my opinion. It just seems to me that for decades, Scandinavia has been winning in this area that I consider to be the most essential goal any nation can have. 

I wish I could respond to everything, and elaborate better than I have, but I’m swamped. 

[DakotaHale]