Do you think America would have been more ''socialist'' if the population was 90%+ white?

[Serious]

No.

 

[Serious]

Sure. But how much more socialist do we need to be?

I already support universal healthcare.

Then what? We're not missing anything beyond that.

GNI

 

[JahFocus CS]

You mean to tell me that racism serves to divide the working class and create pockets of superexploited people within the population to further line the pockets of the ruling class?

 

[714562]

If you are talking about a textbook definition of socialism then you have a point. If you are talking about real life socialism, then you are making no sense.

What exactly do you think is the distinction between "textbook socialism" and "real life socialism?" Real life socialism, as I see it, is an attempt to advance socialism through Fabian means because textbook socialism is not politically achievable.

Allowing private parties to privately settle vast tracts of undeveloped land, technically owned by the government but in practice owned by nobody, isn't socialism. Actually, it has a free market ring to it.
Click to expand...​

 

[MegaManX]

What exactly do you think is the distinction between "textbook socialism" and "real life socialism?" Real life socialism, as I see it, is an attempt to advance socialism through Fabian means because textbook socialism is not politically achievable.

Allowing private parties to privately settle vast tracts of undeveloped land, technically owned by the government but in practice owned by nobody, isn't socialism. Actually, it has a free market ring to it.
Click to expand...​

if you say so guy.

Any single person here who was given 2 city blocks in Manhattan "if they developed it into something useful" would consider that a major handout but if you feel it is capitalistic. Whatever. Please don't quote me anymore. I am done with this conversation.

 

[mbewane]

Do you think the country would be more left leaning if the majority believed that a generous social safety net would benefit white people?

I think people are more likely to agree to ''handouts'' if they believe they are assisting those like them. We can refer to the Scandinavian social democracies as evidence of this as well as other European countries like the UK.

When Europeans were moving towards the welfare state in the 20th Century, America was undergoing severe racial unrest so a movement to support those at the very bottom of society (overwhelmingly black during Jim Crow) was never going to take off.

We can see this in the way poor whites vote against their own interest for the Republican party. Perhaps they believe that somehow they're punishing black people (even though white people receive the most food stamps).

Added to this, America being a nation of immigrants means all these different ethnic groups had no loyalties towards one another hence the emphasis on competition and individualism.

So Coli, would homogeneity lead to a more generous approach to those at the bottom in America?

All in all, socialist policies are easier implemented when people feel they belong to a whole. Whatever that "whole" is can vary. The obvious is ethnicity, but it's not the only one. The whole idea of France was to try to move away from that and base it on citizenship. France's social policies were indeed mostly put into effect when there was already a significant foreign population. The obvious difference is that apartheid/segregation was never legalized in France, despite obvious racial tension (except during WW2). If you really think about it the US had a colonial reality within its own borders (as opposed to European countries, who had it on other continents). Europeans would never have made local populations benefit from socialist policies abroad : it's the same for Americans, except their "colonies" (and thus the legalized separation between the master and its slave/subject) were within its borders. Obviously that plays a huge part in feeling that one is part of the same "whole".

 

[714562]

if you say so guy.

Any single person here who was given 2 city blocks in Manhattan "if they developed it into something useful" would consider that a major handout but if you feel it is capitalistic. Whatever. Please don't quote me anymore. I am done with this conversation.

Not all "major handouts" are socialist in nature.

But fine. Take your marbles and go home.

 

[Trajan]

All in all, socialist policies are easier implemented when people feel they belong to a whole. Whatever that "whole" is can vary. The obvious is ethnicity, but it's not the only one. The whole idea of France was to try to move away from that and base it on citizenship. France's social policies were indeed mostly put into effect when there was already a significant foreign population. The obvious difference is that apartheid/segregation was never legalized in France, despite obvious racial tension (except during WW2). If you really think about it the US had a colonial reality within its own borders (as opposed to European countries, who had it on other continents). Europeans would never have made local populations benefit from socialist policies abroad : it's the same for Americans, except their "colonies" (and thus the legalized separation between the master and its slave/subject) were within its borders. Obviously that plays a huge part in feeling that one is part of the same "whole".

Great input

 

[Scoop]

Even when the country was like 90% or so white we weren't socialist.

 

[Dominique Wilkins]

Do you think the country would be more left leaning if the majority believed that a generous social safety net would benefit white people?

I think people are more likely to agree to ''handouts'' if they believe they are assisting those like them. We can refer to the Scandinavian social democracies as evidence of this as well as other European countries like the UK.

When Europeans were moving towards the welfare state in the 20th Century, America was undergoing severe racial unrest so a movement to support those at the very bottom of society (overwhelmingly black during Jim Crow) was never going to take off.

We can see this in the way poor whites vote against their own interest for the Republican party. Perhaps they believe that somehow they're punishing black people (even though white people receive the most food stamps).

Added to this, America being a nation of immigrants means all these different ethnic groups had no loyalties towards one another hence the emphasis on competition and individualism.

So Coli, would homogeneity lead to a more generous approach to those at the bottom in America?

No. This country didnt move progressive until minority groups subscribed to FDR's New Deal (step towards socialism).

Look how the whites are still voting today.

 

[RatherUnique]

Poor Whites often have a hard time getting behind free healthcare, and other forms of government assistance that would benefit their own communities because they think "others" would benefit from it too. Race has been the number one factor in so many reasons Americans vote against their own interests.

 

[ryshy]

idk but all my states reps look like straight kkk members/psychopaths. dudes just look like they hate poor people

 

[ryshy]

Poor Whites often have a hard time getting behind free healthcare, and other forms of government assistance that would benefit their own communities because they think "others" would benefit from it too. Race has been the number one factor in so many reasons Americans vote against their own interests.

divide n conquer. dont fall for that shyt ignore racists

 

[Houston911]

America only became capitalist once Blacks gained the right to vote.

Let's break down history.

The Great Migration. A period in america where any citizen can claim as much land as they can MANAGE for free. In other words, if you could farm or industrialize the land in the west, the government wrote you a deed for the land at zero dollars.

For 90 years, the federal government regulated trans-state travel in any median, price controlling everything.

The housing act gave home owners 0% of 0.5% interest loans on their houses, causing a boom in housing.


The history of america is full of bogusly outrageous socialism BUT its not cool IF it is open to everyone. Exclusively white? Sure, socialism is amazing. Inclusive? Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.

Yup

 

[Mowgli]

White people hate the thought of a penny of their money going to help a non-white person that needs help. Socialism, when white people are included is for racially hemogenous nations that lack non-whites.