I dream of a more compassionate America. I dream of a socialist society as opposed to individualist

[thereismore]

society. I dream of a society in which all people agree to share just a bit of their money (GASP!) so that somebody, somewhere, can use a whole lot of it for his own medical treatment. I dream that no one has to beg for charity when they get sick, and no one has to become homeless because of a medical condition. I dream of a society in which all education up to and including college is public, if you so choose, and admission is based on merit. I am a democratic socialist and proud of it.

Is America ever going to be that society? I am beginning to doubt it. Sure, in the frontier days you had to die in the woods if your appendix ruptured. Those were the days of freedom! My libertarian friend of many years pines for those days. Is the frontier self-reliant mentality still that prevalent today, or is it just an excuse for selfishness?

I have, until now, thought that the people that loathe "Obamacare" are really low information voters who vote against their best interests. While the latter is true, it is also possible that the same people really do not want to give even a small pittance to a common fund from which some undeserving person they have never seen could benefit. They do not change their mind even if told that that person may be them one day. They are not low information voters - they just won't share with anybody, and that's it. These people seem to be in the majority in America, or at least in sufficient numbers to influence policy. It seems to me that progressive ideas are DOA for as long as we have a President who wants to be President for "all" Americans. A President like that can never lead us anywhere, if he/she is pulled in two directions at the same time. The results are inevitably wishy-washy. A transformational President like FDR has to be a leader and a visionary. He can't ask the people what they want; he has to lead on principle. And for that, I think, we have to wait.



:rant:

[stray cat]

1. socialism however does not equal compassionate

[SlimJimmy]

2. Especially in places like Cuba and Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

28. LOL.

:wtf:

[xor]

35. ....

seriously? By no means are those countries perfect or ideal (but what country is), but they ain't North Korea...

[SlimJimmy]

41. And NK is not a Socialist country. Question, where would you prefer

to live, the United States, Cuba, or Venezuela?

[xor]

42. Well, I'm rather bias, but I would go with the US...

[pnorman]

15. The fight for Social Justie has been central to Socialism, from its beginning.

That it has become distorted or misused doesn't invalidate it. Socialism also includes "libertarian socialism" (ie: "Anarchism", although that's more of an ethical ideal rather than a form of government).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. For some, not all

[defendandprotect]

38. Socialism doesn't preclude compassion, either .... in fact,

democratic socialism would open opportunities and avenues for compassion --

Wouldn't universal health care, in itself, be compassion?

[derby378]

3. If you're a democratic socialist, this health bill is not the way to go...

...because the bit of money we were all being told to pony up wasn't going to the poor soul who needed an operation, but rather to the health insurance companies who have made American health care such a mess in the first place.

If you want to foster a sense of shared responsibility, you'd have more luck with single-payer, or at least a robust public insurance option.

[thereismore]

7. I hear you. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

4. You dream of a different place than America.

[supernova]

5. I share your vision

And I'm also starting to doubt that I will see such a society here in my lifetime. I have healthcare needs that would be greatly relieved if we had universal healthcare like an NHS or even single payer. I simply cannot afford private health insurance, even through an employer. Yep. I'm one of those preexisting condition folks. So is my fiance. Next year, when we are married we can get a PPO policy for about $1000/month. Or we can take the the HSA. :eyes: god, what a choice.

I would really love a society that takes such immense economic risk and pressure off the individual. But I'm increasingly afraid that will never be the USA. Lately, thougths about spending my golden years in a more socialist place have begun to cross my mind.

[thereismore]

10. The preexisting condition is what I consider "the act of god". In a compassionate society

you would not have to pay for what god did to you.

[supernova]

14. Yes, of course

but for many people who won't conscientiously acknowledge it, any sign of physical or mental frailty is a moral failing at least and a mark of the beast at worst. You are blamed for your condition. IT'S. ALL. YOUR. FAULT.

[Blue_Tires]

25. +1

[treestar]

6. I'm curious, since it all depends on who is President

Why did FDR "lead" enough to get single payer for all? He should have done that then. He had more than three terms, too.

What you dream of demands more than just one President of the U.S. A POTUS cannot by himself create societal changes, thank the gods for that. There's a reason he doesn't have that much power. So that we can over time change our society as we the people want to.

[thereismore]

13. FDR did enough. Let's not forget there was a war to deal with. I would not read too much

into the fact that he did not push single payer. Even in Britain they did it after WWII. We are just too slow on the uptake. Great Britain outlawed slavery some 30 years before we did...

[EFerrari]

30. Why does it all depend on who is president?

[33Greeper]

8. Matthew 25 says it all

I just love this quote:
Dear Jesus: This year I'd like to follow your teachings without having one of your followers call me 'Socialist.' ~John Fugelsang

[bobbolink]

9. No, I no longer have hope for that. This country is going to have to completely go down the toilet

before the populace sees the shit it believes for what it is.

[thereismore]

11. I am afraid you are right. nt

[Poll_Blind]

12. What you're likely to get is a fascist prison groced as a worker's utopia.

All Americans could call for a revolution and they would still only get the veneer of change.

PB

[thereismore]

16. Now that's cold. I do hope you're wrong. nt

[Poll_Blind]

17. Me too. Me too. n/t

PB

[pnorman]

18. "A transformational President like FDR has to be a leader and a visionary"

That only applies in semi-fictional rewriting of history! In real history: although FDR had won a MASSIVE victory in 1932, he did a lot of waffling, double-talking, and downright lying during his first term, to hold his "base". That "base" not only included some corrupt political machines in the North, but many rabid racists in the South! "And I welcome their hatred!" {"Economic Royalists"} is the quote frequently used here on DU to bum-rap and sneer at Obama. But FDR didn't say that until his 4th year in office, while running for his second term!

[reformist2]

19. Americans like socialist ideas - just don't call it socialism.

[Kablooie]

20. To nearly half the country thinks our country is way too socialist as it is.

We are going to go back to the 1890's when robber barons ruled the world and many were starving in the street and poisoned by unregulated products.
Once we get there, you can begin to think about socialistic change but for the foreseeable future there is nothing but regression and destruction of the social safety net ahead for us.

[strawberryfield]

21. I anti corporatism, not anti individualism

As I see it, the problem with the modern western society is a concentration of economic power that prevents individualism. I am not interested in replacing the tyranny of corporations with the tyranny of the state. My life, my little farm, and my labor belong to me.

[WiffenPoof]

22. I'm Trying To Recall...

...any great leader in history that tried to play both sides. I can't think of any.

Leaders cannot be leaders without taking a stand.

-PLA

[thereismore]

24. It's called fighting for an idea. I am bummed that we don't see that in this Pres. nt

[DonCoquixote]

26. socialist does not have to mean

Anti individual. They can focus on individual rights (privacy, religion) and use that as the means for making a socialist government (in other words, we need a strong state to protect us from corporations.) When people equate Individual with anti socialist, they play right into the hands of fascists.

[social_critic]

27. I like individualism and Apple's Mac computer add

And I don't like the idea of living in a comune. It's hippy stuff.

[EFerrari]

29. The cult of the individual is the ultimate divide and conquer strategy. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

39. Cult?

As I said above, we can use the need to protect individual rights as a means to focus on collective power (in other words, we need to organize to prevent corporations, THE ULTIMATE COLLECTIVES, from smashing our rights.) If you simply smash individuals, all people will see government as is a means of herding people, rather than a means of circling the wagons.

[KimFongToy]

31. A society that reveres its people above money and power is the society

I dream about for America. Helping those who suffer financially or mentally. Making sure that no one is suffering illness because they cannot afford health services. Keeping, and putting in place regulations that will not allow corporations to steal from average people or damage our planet. I read one time that absolute power, corrupt absolutely and I believe this to be true. Those who put power and money first, have little or no use for people other than those like themselves. The regular people, to the powerful, are just in the way and take from society without contributing anything back. This is a lie. People who put other people and their needs first create a more fair and peaceful society. Those who put money and power first, lie and divide country to keep fear level up while they take and take and take. They then blame the victims for the countries problems, that the powerful have perpetrated upon them. Unemployment is now called, being on the government dole and people who are unemployed are called names by the Republicans that make them feel even worse. Then some companies actually place adds that tell unemployed not to apply because they are too desperate. Where is the compassion? We must help each other but that is not what the Republicans are teaching our children. Take what you want and get what you can even at the expense of others is what Republicans are teaching, and it is very bad for society. People are most important thing on this planet, they make the world go around. Those who put power and money first, eventually cause suffering, upset, anger than violence. They make the world stop and divide societies so that it becomes the haves against the have nots. I hope we have the strength to make change, to put people first to make society more peaceful and comfortalble for everyone.

[Mike 03]

32. I think the wealthy love to share with the less fortunate, but because

they want to, not because they feel obligated. I don't think it helps lubricate that generosity that so many people seem to "hate" the people they think of as "wealthy", and there is a huge gap between "surviving" and being Warren Buffett.

[OneGrassRoot]

33. ...

You may be open-minded about this OP from yesterday, in which I was inviting people to simply imagine...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=6887&mesg_id=6887

:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

34. I join you in your dream, thereismore...

:hi:

:hug:

[BOG PERSON]

36. you have very uninspired dreams

(n/t)

[defendandprotect]

37. My conclusion is ONLY if we find an answer to the age old question .....

Q: How do we stop the violence of the few among us?

[Odin2005]

40. As an Anarcho-Socialist I reject the notion that socialism is opposed to individualism.

Methinks you are confusing individualism with selfishness.