Someone went off on me about the evils of "socialism" and how Nazis were "socialists" as it was part of their name, etc, etc. Here's what I replied.
Actually, _____, I lived through part of that history and my parents each escaped both Nazi and Communist regimes and occupations. I'm 71yo and did rather well in my history classes, which weren't merely from your handily dismissed "what some professor wished to teach you" which makes you sound like one of those who believe that facts, figures, and documentation in the hands of a professor automatically make them tools of a radical liberal left. In fact, my view of history, economics, and motivations is rather differently based than either that, or whatever else you might imagine.
I happen to somewhat agree with you about Social Security being a disaster, but less about the idea itself and more about how it was left in a state in which its funds could be plundered. Evidently, there are people who are reactive to any form of the word "social", as I was to the idea of "social dancing" which was required in my school. Perhaps it's a term, like "God", which due to overuse and abuse has left its arena of usefulness. "Social" merely refers to the fact humans are wired to act in groups and have a tendency to care for their own, and that trait can either be damaged or enhanced by upbringing and modified by circumstance.
"Social" thus refers to connectivity. And humans are so dependent on the kind and quality of their connectivity that it's being seen that most deviant behavior in individuals and groups is related to some breakdown in connectivity. Human maturity can also be measured in some kind and degree as to the nature of connectivity one feels. The arc of that might be said to range from the self-absorption of an infant to the very rare sort of identity which identifies "self" with all of humanity or even Nature, such as a Gandhi or Schweitzer, or even a Christ.
So on that scale, most of us are strongly connected on the level of immediate family. The things you personally might deny other members of society, you might not deny to members of your own family, depending on their condition and circumstance. As one matures there is the possibility of seeing greater patterns of connectivity and the resources, possibilities, and responsibilities which are inherent in larger groups. And in the same way that a cook doesn't use the same proportions or even ingredients for a huge batch than a small portion to get the same taste result, we must also adjust some things when dealing with larger groups. We do this because of connectivity, as in "to form a more perfect union". You do know where that comes from, don't you?
So from my perspective, being an American, I don't see our amazing Nation as a system which functions as an auto-immune disease, or as a mass of people who are meant to be either cash cows for a few hyper-rich and their insatiable needs and powers, or not even a land comprised of millions of competitors engaged in a free-for-all in which it's fine to step on your neighbor's face to get ahead. Now that's a simplistic description and I'm well aware that there are other dimensions to all that. But suffice it to say that from here "E Pluribus Unum" means that like we did during the war effort in the 30's and 40's and the years after, we can indeed pull together and create and have a well functioning and prosperous society. Roosevelt pulled that off and so did my favorite Republican, Eisenhower. But sadly, exactly the thing Ike warned us about is exactly what happened.
Now I'm someone who is very much in favor of profit and economic progress, mine and yours and ours. What I'm *not* for is the way that a republic can be brought down when those in power can vote themselves favors as Jefferson warned. So my way of seeing things involves a form of economic fairness which is based on the poverty line. Pursuant to the ideal of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" in a Nation which claims to be and is the richest on Earth, why do we have the highest rate of child poverty of all industrialized nations, the highest rate of incarceration of its citizens, the greatest economic disparity between CEO's and lowest earners, the most spent on military per citizen by an astronomical amount compared to any other nation, or should we have to pay 4 times as much for poorer medical care than the next most expensive nation? Neither should we be an elephant distracted by the flea-sized problem of "illegals". That's fucking embarrassing.
In other words, we are being taken advantage of. You don't like socialism? Bullshit. If you didn't you'd be screaming about the trillions gifted to corporations in tax breaks or the military for the sake of supporting banks and arms makers as Eisenhower pointed out. Our world expenditure on military action last year could have ended world hunger every eight days. Every fucking eight days. In other words, food for everyone for 45 years at this level of population from one year of military action mostly about protecting oil interests which are in fact detrimental to us at the scale we now use that material.
So what the people who profit from all that fear the most is that people like you might actually start thinking. Do you remember who said, "It's great luck for leaders that men don't think!"? That's why our education system sucks compared to other nations which actually have governments devoted in large part to the economic and social advancement of their publics. That's why we are being taught to distrust all news and all things intellectual and encompassing of anything more than one person's private gain.
If you're so smart, then you know that combat aircraft rely on instability to be effective. The Red Baron's plane had to be constant hands-on, and any modern jet requires a computer for steady flight. They aren't like a family Cessna in which you can take your hands off the yoke and not instantly go unstable. But that kind of stability is not suitable for tyranny. So look at what's going on now. Is it a building of connectivity between citizens from an alleged leader? Or is there the condoning and promotion of contention, separation, and distrust?
I'm a "Family American". You, however much I disagree with you, are part of my American family. And I don't want you to go down and if you have trouble I want to have your back covered because if you are well, so am I. You do know, don't you, that over 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses of insured people? So I'm happy to pay taxes that you can benefit from as you now do. I'd even pay a bit more if I was sure that everyone could be healthy and have an education. That's because I consider you and others as resources, not liabilities. And I'm for stability, not friction and turbulence. And, as a capitalist, I'm happy to invest in resources. You might call it "socialism". I call it taking care of my own. And that would include you, like it or not.
