In what era of our history did "liberalism" morph into socialism/communism?

Question

Is it a natural progression in thought?

I cannot understand the left's desire to turn over so much of it's economic freedom to the government in the blind thought that IT knows best.

Can someone explain this to me?

Answer 1

I think most of it happened after the hippie years in the 60's.

Antiwar, free-love activists realized they were worthless just spewing their nonsense from a soapbox and decided to try and take over the government quietly by infiltrating one of the parties.

Since free-love and antiwar go so well with Democrats, their choice was clear.

Here we are 30-40 years later, and the environmentalist, immoral, anti-Church, love-everyone hippies have taken over the Democrats.

PS, they're still worthless.

Addition: Just Plain Jim, the preamble is a generalization.  Nowhere does it say HOW the government should do these things.  I say it can all be done by leaving me alone and letting me choose what I want to do to provide for myself.

Unfortunately, it is Liberal Judges who think like you who choose to interpret the Constitution on whatever whip pops into their brains that almost took our right to bear arms away.  I guess you also think it only meant militia (ie, National Guard)?

Answer 2

I too wonder why on earth the term 'liberalism' has become synonymous with the policies of the US Democrats.

It seems to be an American-only phenomenon. The rest of the world still treat liberalism the way it should.

I believe the correct term for the US Democrats is 'Social Democratic'; European governments have adopted this system and they are VERY well off so Obama may not be as bad as everyone makes him out to be.

Answer 3

Because most people who believe that listen to talk radio and ill informed people.

=========

Socialism

a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.

Communism

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

There are no candidates that even come close to those two models.

Currently, in the USA, we are a federal republic with democratic principles under a capitalistic economic system and socialism for needed services.

Those needed services are things such as:

Military

Police

Public Education

State, federal and city infrastructures are a mixture of socialism and capitalism working together.

Welfare

etc.

The only area where we are lacking socialism with needed services is our medical system for the average American. Yet the ones who pass the laws, our federally elected officials, enjoy a socialistic medical system. We have to put up with the BS from insurance companies.

Most people have no idea what we are, what kind of government we really have, how that all breaks down in the most simple terms, which would make it blatantly easy to see the contradictions.

I really wish the nay sayers about universal health care would, at the very least, demand that our elected representative stop giving themselves a free ride, or come to the realization that socialism for needed services can be a very good thing for the welfare of our country.

Plus, universal health care is guaranteed in our constitution in the preamble.

========

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,

promote the general welfare,

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

===============

Anyone who says the preamble doesn't count doesn't realize, if that is ignored, then we must ignore the whole constitution. Every word counts.

===============

"insure the domestic tranquiity"

Is our society tranquil if a catastrophic illness happens and we loose everything we have worked for our whole lives gets eaten up in bankruptcy court?

"establish justice"

is it justice when we have the highest medical costs in the world that affectively takes away all we have worked for because our insurance ran out, the insuance we paid for but in the end fails us?

===============

50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills

50% of those had medical insurance that ran out.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/...

===============

Many Americans do not have insurance, or the employer offered insurance they can not afford

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

===============

THINK ABOUT IT

===============

Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated

Confucius

551 - 479 BC

===============

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 4

Lberalism is called socialism/communism because it is a "scary" label to place on it by conservatives.

Libs just want to curb corporate power and abuse.

Cons believe corporation will solve all our problems if they are just left alone to do as they wish.

I tend to think Cons are indulging in wishful thinking.

Answer 5

You reached your conclusions how????

Like it's been said many times, it'll be helpful if you cons first read about what communism or socialism is - Not what c**p news tells you!

Do Western European countries seem socialist to you,

Germany, France & UK are 4th, 5th & 6th greatest economies in the world.

http://www.economist.com/markets/ranking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Devel...

Answer 6

You are on track.

The Europe has done worse that require the US to fund all its defense requirements. It manages and controls UN policies that bash and trash the US.

Answer 7

Joe McCarthy was right back in 1950's, commies everywhere. Every years theymake more and more progress, especially as the commie controlled public schools spits out more and more drones.

Answer 8

Only the uneducated or willfully ignorant people equate liberalism with socialism/communism.  So, I'd say it happened whenever it was that the US education system began to go down the toilet.

Answer 9

It's only a natural progression of thought in the minds of the conservatives who are trying to fight liberalism.  

Conservatives hear 'universal coverage' and either assume that some massive government agency is going to take over health care and try to run everything--or they perpetuate that myth because they know it will bother people.  

Obama's plan doesn't take away the health care people have now--it attempts to get people to pay for the coverage that the rest of us are paying anyway through higher insurance bills.  The McCain plan is to get your employer to stop paying (by taking away their tax break) for your health care and give you a tax break instead.  

While I'm not sure how effective Obama can be at getting more people to pay for their own health care, but at least he isn't talking about tearing down the health care system we have now.  

Both make a lot of talk about getting rid of inefficiencies in the medical industry--and that is what really needs to happen.  Who do you think will be most helpful in doing that?--either of these guys?  If Obama gets a coverage law or McCain gets to shift the tax break, I don't think either of them will mess with the real problem--the cost of health care--they'll just say Mission Accomplished and move on.

Answer 10

That has never happened except in the minds of the far right. You are listening to Fox Lies.