If I call a kitten a cute doggy and tell everyone that this is my new dog it doesn't make the cat a dog .

The question was "Why is socialism bad?" and was explained as "Why is socialism a dirty word in America?" The answer was: "Because socialism is in every way against American ideals and culture, has failed in every country it's been attempted, and is theoretically a terrible system."

And then we start talking about welfare and public transportation and health care like they have anything to do with government ownership of industry. That's a key difference between socialism and liberalism. Socialism is designed to give the workers "control" over the government by pretending to say the plant is owned by the people and not the bosses. In reality the bosses become the government but that's not the point.

Welfare was started in the U.S. in 1930. In the mid 1940s a little event known as the "Cold War" started in the U.S. If you remember American history you probably know that the Cold War (and many subsequent wars, such as the Korean War and Vietnam) were oriented around the American fear of communism and socialism. Yet during this entire time we had welfare. So my grandparents, who were absolutely horrified at the idea of the USSR (once again, a socialist state), had a "socialist" program going on in their own country? Yeah, right. They didn't see it as socialist because it isn't socialist.

The question wasn't "should we have social programs." The question was "why is socialism a bad word?" Socialism is a bad word because that represents a terror in the American people that allowed things like the McCarthy trials. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died in opposition to socialist and communist ideas. For years we refused official trade with countries like Cuba and China simply because they were socialist (which we called communist and they called socialist).

So yeah, socialist is a bad word. It's a word with energy similar to "terrorist" today. I understand that the "pro-socialist" individuals on this thread aren't actually advocating a revolution to North Korea's wonderful system. You're advocating liberal social programs as democrats have been doing ever since the parties flip-flopped post-Civil War. There are those against those things too and always have been; liberal vs. conservative is no where near a new debate.

So if you want to know why I, and other people, are against the social democracy or liberalism I can answer that question in a very different manner. But if you want to know why I'm against socialism I can't pretend the term means something other than what it does. Socialism represents a hundred years of death. It represents World War II, it represents Stalin, it represents North Korea, it represents Mao's China, it represents starvation, death camps, ethnic cleansing, rebellion, and fear. These are the symbols many Americans associate with when they hear "socialist state."

So yes, we are arguing semantics. But without agreement on the terms this discussion can't really go forward. Maybe I'm just being stubborn. Maybe all the history and political science studies are objecting to the terminology and it's not really relevant. I feel like a doctor trying to discuss the flu and everyone is calling it cancer. Even if you talk about flu symptoms and ask why you can't just take some medicine and get over your cancer the word just doesn't work. It means something else. So when I say "um, you can't cure cancer..." and I get "sure you can, my friend got over his stomach cancer the other day with some rest and aspirin!" I'm a bit perturbed.

Oh well. Someone find that beating dead horse thing, quote this, and we'll leave it at that . It appears I've been arguing against cancer while people are talking about the flu. Oops. I still stand by my arguments against socialism. Continue on your discussion of liberalism *cough* I'm sorry socialism *cough* and have a good time .

Jacquesne