Why do Americans frown upon Socialism so much?

[Wickabee]

wickabee, maybe modern socialism, but not socialism itself.

Then tell me the difference between communism and socialism.

[shrewsbury]

well do you want the answer to what is the difference in modern socialism to socialism, or communism and socialism?

communism is the ideal end result of socialism, it is socialism that has evolved to the utopian idea of a single government owning everything including natural resources and everyone one else working in harmony to produce what everyone needs to live.
so instead of people getting rich from business the government does and they distribute it equally to all.

capitalism has nothing to do with traditional socialism nor communism

[Wickabee]

well do you want the answer to what is the difference in modern socialism to socialism, or communism and socialism?communism is the ideal end result of socialism, it is socialism that has evolved to the utopian idea of a single government owning everything including natural resources and everyone one else working in harmony to produce what everyone needs to live.so instead of people getting rich from business the government does and they distribute it equally to all.capitalism has nothing to do with traditional socialism nor communism

So communism is the goal, socialism is a failure to reach true communism and they're not different things? You seriously believe that, don't you.I'll humour you, though, what is "modern" socialism, assuming such a thing were possible?Until you guys realize that socialism is it's own idea and not just failed communism, you'll always be afraid of it.

[shrewsbury]

if you find it funny, then i am glad to make you laugh.
but the funny thing is you are the only one saying it is failed anything.
do you know who "created" socialism? and where communism comes from?

communism is based on lenins ideas of socialism, who lenin is the true founder of socialism. so yes they are two different things, but come from the same idea, communism took socialism to the next level.

and neither one has anything to do with capitalism and both have always failed. even lenin had to add back in certain pieces of capitalism to get the economy back up after losing 15% in just 4 years.

so there is your modern socialism, they had to give up trying to destroy capitalism because they couldn't make it without it. so by adding the economic benefits of limited capitalism they have made something that kind of works and and they can still call socialism.

capitalism works just find, the issue is government spending.

so my sage Canadian friend, enlighten me about the wonders of socialism.

[boba]

Way to ignore several posts and read one line. Is that how you respond to everything? You've given no actual argument, just loosely defined communism as socialism. I've given examples that go against what you say. I've actually argued my point. You've just argued and now have nothing more to say because you're wrong. If you seriously think that's the entire argument I've made over three pages you're just not reading and merely responding to avatars. That sort of thing isn't worth the time. Remember I'm not the one who thinks perfection we is a necessary part for an ideology (but only that one, for some reason) to exist. You are. You said it. You don't know what you are talking about. I now see why America is so politically screwed up. Nobody knows what they're talking about.

Actually, my break was over and I had to get back to school.Your attempt to make me look bad has failed.

[Wickabee]

Actually, my break was over and I had to get back to school.Your attempt to make me look bad has failed.

No attempt needed. You did fine on your own. You ignored three pages of posts and still think my argument is a simple "you're wrong".
If you have an actual reply to what I said, feel free. But it's probably going to take your whole break to read if for the first time.

[boba]

No attempt needed. You did fine on your own. You ignored three pages of posts and still think my argument is a simple "you're wrong".
If you have an actual reply to what I said, feel free. But it's probably going to take your whole break to read if for the first time.

I didn't ignore anything, I just try to stay out of these arguments because I know people who have jobs that allow them to spend more time on here than me will say things without me being able to respond. Against my better judgment,I'm going to argue with you anyways because you will claim I'm stupid if I don't.

I have re-read all of your posts, the only thing describing socialism is this.
" Socialism means the government won't let you die because you're poor, in theory anyway. It doesn't seek to redistribute all manners of wealth to make sure everyone has the same, THAT'S COMMUNISM!"
Also a couple of posts about how you still can be rich in a socialistic government, is this your definition of a socialistic government?

[boba]

So I'm gathering that your definition in simple terms would be.
Socialism: Redistribute to the point that no one is suffering.
Communism: Redistribute to the point that everyone is equal.

[Wickabee]

So you admit I had an argument that wasn't simply "you're wrong". That's a start.
I live in what is considered a socialist country. Many here seem to think the government owns all business in a socialist country. Why don't we ask Ted Rogers, Jim Reliving and Jim Pattison if the government owns their multi-billion dollar businesses. Ask them if they have their wealth distributed until they have the same as everyone else.
They'll tell you it doesn't and it's not. That would be communism and Canada is socialist, not communist.
Every time I ask an American what socialism is, they define communism, just like this thread. You said communism can only exist of it works perfectly. Doesn't look perfect I'm Cuba to me, but they're still communist. Don't let yourself he fooled by party names. A lot of communists call themselves socialists to not look as bad to others. The governments of many countries spent decades miso forming people of what socialism is. Jay is the only one who's shown any knowledge of socialism, if only the history, but still describes communism when asked the question.

By the way, Jay, when I speak of socialism I speak of today's socialism, so even if you're correct it's a moot point. I haven't yet heard anyone say anything like what you're describing. If it was, Canada wouldn't be considered socialist. Neither would Sweden, Germany, France. So basically, even if I concede the point, I'm having a discussion today, not 150 years ago.

[boba]

So you admit I had an argument that wasn't simply "you're wrong". That's a start.
I live in what is considered a socialist country. Many here seem to think the government owns all business in a socialist country. Why don't we ask Ted Rogers, Jim Reliving and Jim Pattison if the government owns their multi-billion dollar businesses. Ask them if they have their wealth distributed until they have the same as everyone else.
They'll tell you it doesn't and it's not. That would be communism and Canada is socialist, not communist.
Every time I ask an American what socialism is, they define communism, just like this thread. You said communism can only exist of it works perfectly. Doesn't look perfect I'm Cuba to me, but they're still communist. Don't let yourself he fooled by party names. A lot of communists call themselves socialists to not look as bad to others. The governments of many countries spent decades miso forming people of what socialism is. Jay is the only one who's shown any knowledge of socialism, if only the history, but still describes communism when asked the question.

By the way, Jay, when I speak of socialism I speak of today's socialism, so even if you're correct it's a moot point. I haven't yet heard anyone say anything like what you're describing. If it was, Canada wouldn't be considered socialist. Neither would Sweden, Germany, France. So basically, even if I concede the point, I'm having a discussion today, not 150 years ago.

If you look at my posts, I was referring to a true communism. No country has come close and never will come close to true communism, and even if they did it wouldn't last long. Cuba is not a true communism, the countries you have given examples of I think could be described better as a socialist dictatorship or a socialist oligarchy.

So I'm gathering that your definition in simple terms would be.
Socialism: Redistribute to the point that no one is suffering.
Communism: Redistribute to the point that everyone is equal.

^ Is this correct?