"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat...

>"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

Is there a more stupid conceited notion than this, like everytime I see this I cringe, it just reeks of leftist "moral highground" where everybody that doesn't see like them is stupid

but then why didn't Socialism took root in America?

well, one of the main reasons was the USSR being the anathema of the USA and any ideology similar to communism was considered 5th column, but I think it comes from before, I think that socialism never took root in America because the USA created a culture that exaltes the self-made man and always had a distrust of Government and Centralized power and the expansion West had a major impact how people perceived the USA as the land of oportunity, also americans' strenght of belief in their rights and willing to fight for them, this is a major contrast with the peoples of Europe that blindly follow their governments like sheep.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

nah
look at early America, it's filled with examples of communistic utopian endeavors.

and they all failed

Your post is about the cultural inheritance of America trying to explain the failure of socialism from a cultural standpoint while failing to realize that America has undeniable communistic utopian twinges in its history. Saying "oh dey failed doe" doesn't discount their existence and the cultural relationship America has historically had with communism.

He's basically /pol/ and thinks Veeky Forums is the board to shit on Euros or something.

>communistic utopian twinges

america had religious utopian twinges

America is a meritocracy and some people can't handle the hard truth that they're not as smart, skilled and driven as they think they are so they blame the system for keeping them down. "If we lived under socialism people would appreciate my talent and give me my due" they think, no realizing there are millions of other shlubs out there who are virtually indistinguishable from them in every facet. All the video game playing, internet browsing, college educated (but not a useful degree) millennials who think a six figure job is their god given right and not something they need to work for years to attain.

Will there ever be a Wild West again?
Humanity on Earth is stagnated, we need a new frontier with freedom

America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.

>America is a meritocracy

Americans are wealthier than Europeans in most states. On a PPP basis they're much better off, the cost of living in the US is much lower than the cost of living in western Europe.

I think the OP's question was not "which country's poor is better off" (which is another big question in it itself) but spesifically the mentality of such country's poor.

In America being poor is treated as a vice, thats why you have 28k making poorfags labeling themselves as "middle class" and get triggered when you point them to the income percentile scale.

80% of millionaires in the USA are self made. Professionals are paid far more in the US than they would earn in Europe, including surgeons, engineers, programmers, executives, etc. Generally it's more lucrative to be in the US if you're in the cream of the crop than it is to be in Europe.

Is it not a better and more admirable attitude for people to aspire to something better for themselves rather than focusing on how to drag the more successful down to their level? The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in America, which is why it has remained the most powerful nation in the world since WW2.

Social mobility is declining in a tremendous rate and you are far more than likely will die in the class you are born in.
Of course it is easy to look at the minority at top and say it is a meritocracy, but for the majority of the people it is not. If trends continue you will more than likely to be in a lower state than your grandparents.
Kudos to the pajeet who got his CS degree and makes 6 figures, but most americans are not pajeets, they are truck drivers, coal miners, secretaries, wallmart workers, whose children will (if they are lucky) get the same job.

I was not talking about resentment towards rich. You don't have to hate the rich at all, my beef is with the american poor class who hate themselves. The self loathing is my problem, I have no problem with them not hating on rich at all.

There is a great stigma to call someone poor a poor in US. Anyone who interracted with The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in America, which is why it has remained the most powerful nation in the world since WW2.
Yeah I would disagree, not getting its land raped by WW2 and owning massive chunks of land and natural sources is what made America Great.
No wonder why USSR was the other major power (At least for a while), I'm sure commies would say it was their ideology, the proud working spirit etc but I would say that it was due to their size and natural resources
America was extremely lucky to a-have a huge chunk of land-manpower b-have it not raped-bombed by the axis. Just my theory though, one can speculate on this for hours, so let me just say I agree to disagree with you

I think social mobility is the same as it has ever been. If you keep developing your skills you will move up the income ladder. If you're an unskilled laborer with a high school education? Yeah you'll probably be in the lowest income bracket all your life but it just emphasizes the importance of skilling up to meet demand. Welding doesn't require education but skilled welders can make enough to live on comfortably.

More than anything you need to temper your expectations. If you're a truck driver, well what do you expect? Anyone can drive a truck of course you're going to be on the bottom rung. Like I said America is a meritocracy and part of that is if you don't merit much you don't get much. People with European sensibilities might think that's unfair but really, that's part and parcel of keeping society competitive.

Because America has been a multi-cultural/etnic country from the start which makes social democracies difficult to implement. Formerly social democratic countries like the Benelux and Scandinavia are becoming more neoliberal as their countries also become less homogenous.

Socialism DID take root in America, it just didn't bloom until after the 90s.

Socialism didn't take root in America because it wasn't founded on socialistic ideas.

What did happen though, just like in most Western countries, is that America moved from a more laissez-faire system to a mixed economy with a welfare state, e.g social-democracy.

I mean, social security in America is alone worth more than several rich countries' GDP.

America has had the exceptional privilege of having tons of exploitable land opening up for the plebs since the beginning and after WW2 they had very little serious competition and had a truly golden age. Now however social mobility in USA is going down to Great Depression levels due to the trend that started in the 1980s. Workers are being shat on. If you didn't get in the system before '80 you're fucked.

nut how much of that lower mobility is voluntary?
like having tons of debt on stupid things, why should the State have to cover people's stupidity?

>ideology that wants to ban religion
>free speech
>all natural rights
>ban home ownership and land ownership
>can't own means of production, government dictates that
>your company becomes your union which is your government also


Gee, I wonder why Americans didn't want to adopt it.

Oh that's a good post lad

Not that user but that graph literally goes against your point. The highest percentile income is more like to stay the same than all others (which are around the same)

>its a thread gets derailed by /leftypol/ arguing with regular polacks episode


Cant decide which i loathe more

>Is there a more stupid conceited notion than this
Many but it's still mostly wrong yes.

>but then why didn't Socialism took root in America?
Because America was much broader and less centralised with less of a distinct proletarian class than Europe. In part thus the top quote does apply: In Prussia after wageslaving all day you came home to your wife fucking Baron von Rienäcker who took your money and your bitch. In America the only thing stopping you from progress was yourself. It's not delusion on part of the workers it's better conditions.

>and they all failed

NEW DEAL

A simple glance at economic mobility statistics proves America is less meritocratic than pretty much every other developed nation.

While Forbes might claim 76% of our billionaires are self made, a closer look found more than half inheriting or being gifted at least a million dollars from family. Of the 500 a whopping 5 were not at least upper middle class top 15%ers.

America is much more meritocratic if you are at least top 5-10% but even then returns of investment have out paced wage growth and total economic growth since 1945.

I know the research your talking about and it's more complicated to compete. Americans btfo Euros in disposable income. That said, PPP is on a basket of comprable goods. It ignores that S
Americans pay out the ass for education and healthcare. Not really fair. Americans do come out better on rent for the most part, but get less rent assistance, which isn't factored in.

It's actually very messy to compare. Euros do have better social mobility now, and they didn't before

>While Forbes might claim 76% of our billionaires are self made, a closer look found more than half inheriting or being gifted at least a million dollars from family.

And how many people do you think are actually capable of turning a million dollars into a billion?

Not many if you ask me. I mean, something like 70% of people who win the grand prize in the lottery are broke 5 years down the line, and those prizes can be as high as 300 million dollars.

>Things that aren't true unless you cherry pick the fuck out of your definition of self made for $300 Alex!

it only suceeded in prolonging the depression

Read up on Eugene Debs and the first Red Scare

>Only one percent of the elite are from the bottom 90%

>"G-guys, it's meritocratic because not everyone rich person becomes hyperrich!"

>And how many people do you think are actually capable of turning a million dollars into a billion?
pretty much everyone who has a half decent investor

BTW, if the richest families in America didn't control close to half the wealth, it wouldn't matter so much. It does matter when half the private capital only goes to people at the top of the ladder.

private capital will never and has never been in the hands of the unwashed masses. The pie goes to those who can manage it, when they can't even manage high school and you all cling together like an abomination stitched together with thread and cry out
>we deserve it!

>The pie goes to those who can manage it
Is that why professional heirs get more money than investors and money handlers?

>they can't even manage high school and you all cling together like an abomination stitched together with thread and cry out
This didn't even convince yourself lmao. Good thing you're an ideologue because if you cared about facts you'd be running wild now.

Socialism didn't take root? Bruh, the conservative middle-class utopia of the 1950s was as socialist as it gets.

>as socialist as it gets
By nobodies standarts or definitions including your own this is true.

>America isn't meritocratic simply because it has a rich elite

dude stop

>Money rules over merit
>Therefore it is not a meritocracy
Yup exactly.

>Is that why professional heirs get more money than investors and money handlers?
if they can't manage it they lose it. And they always do. Until then, they deserve it and can manage it.
>facts
a picture is a fact

So you're saying it's impossible for a young high schooler today to become a part of the 1% when they are 40 or 50 years old if he or she works hard?

Because it is possible. You just have to work hard, and have the right priorities.

>So you're saying it's impossible for a young high schooler today to become a part of the 1% when they are 40 or 50 years old if he or she works hard?
No.

Socialism never took hold in America because you built a strong and large middle class after WWII.

People who have something to lose generally do not want socialism.

So what are you saying then fagtron?

Because a meritocracy literally means that it is possible to move up the social ladder by your merits, which it is in America and most Western countries as well.

Just because you're a pathetic loser who has given up doesn't mean it isn't possible.

>literally means that it is possible to move up the social ladder by your merits,
that isn't what it means. The best gauge of it is social mobility, which as's graph shown, only exist for the lower 80% of America

>you deserve being in the top 1% of you're born rich and can somewhat manage your money
>you deserve being in the middle class if you're born poor/middle class and can somewhat manage your money
Nice meritocracy.
>Because a meritocracy literally means that it is possible to move up the social ladder by your merits, which it is in America and most Western countries as well.
It doesn't mean it's possible, it means that merit is at the very least the biggest contributor to success and status. In your situation merit somewhat helps but it's still better to be born rich and have half the merit.

>Because a meritocracy literally means that it is possible to move up the social ladder by your merits
No. Cracy means rule. And money has more power in America than merit.

>Just because you're a pathetic loser who has given up doesn't mean it isn't possible.
So you misunderstood the topic and then use insults and think that make your wild assertions that don't even fit the topic seem more credible.

>Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires
I fail to see how this is a bad thing, the fact that the working class has the ambition and freedom to work to achieve their own fortune is indeed a very American ideal.

Who said it's bad?

>Eugene Debs
i read about him now ,whats so special about him just a run off the mill commie leader

George Soros, Bill Gates, and Gabe Newell are all people who started from nothing or a fraction of what they currently have now

If you genuinely wanted to know 'why didn't Socialism took root in America?', he was probably the most important socialist in America. He denounced WW1 and opposed it unlike the rest of the Second International, which gave the government cause to charge him with sedition. That and the only other leftist to do it too being Lenin, gave the government enough fuel/fear to start the First Red Scare.

No doubt about it.

You should look up "New Deal" and "G.I. Bill".

Ah only read wikipedia in my countries language there is often not every information ,but thats interesting. but iam the red scare was kinda justified with communist trying to start a world spanning revolution

iam =i mean

>was kinda justified with communist trying to start a world spanning revolution
Look if you want to moralize and optionate instead of discussing the question that is fine, just don't pretend to be above the 'derailed by /leftypol/ arguing with regular polacks episode'

Well kinda snarky of me ,but i mean that was the official goal of communism. communism was and is always an ideology that is only reached in a global scale. I mean thats what the actual goal of every communist leader was

Well Debs was no Leninist and the Red Scare targeted anarchists too

K i dont know much about the red scare will look it up

By anarchists you mean anarchs-communists, which would fall under a form of communism

>like having tons of debt on stupid things,
Yes, stupid things like college

>takes on debt to get a degree in postcolonial feminism
>acts surprised when said debt will never be paid off

>but its people are mainly poor
What the fuck are you on? 90% of Americans enjoy five-digit salaries, which is more than most people in the world can hope for in their lifetime. American "poor" is rich in pretty much any non-European country.

Xi Jingping is going to fuck you so hard in a few years

The fact that the temp emberassment richboi hypothesis illicits such intense reactions makes it self evident.

It's bad because they think that it's okay to get fucked over because maybe someday they'll be the ones doing the fucking, which is bullshit, and vote in parties that want to fuck them over viewing them as peers rather than oppressors, which ends up keeping them down

Not bad just working actively against their own personal interests. We wouldn't have Bentleys without the poor how is that bad??? Bentleys are sweet.

>Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold

I take it you've never heard of Davie Crockett, John Henry, James Bowie, Johnny Appleseed, or any other American folk hero. Or, you know, Lincoln or any other president that ever ran on the image of being self made.

Fucking europoor.

nice strawman

American voting system does not allow for new parties to arise. New ideas are driven by internal developements of the parties. For American proletariat, race is almost as divisive of a question as social ranks, with working class whites feeling abnormally high loyalty towards the middle class party compared to other Western Democracies.

>has undeniable communistic utopian twinges
such as?
>inb4 anything about the common good of man = LE GOMMUNISM XDDD

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities

>o aspire to something better for themselves rather than focusing on how to drag the more successful down to their level?
If someone is successful only upon the exploitation of others they should not be dragged down they should be buried beneath us.
I'm not a communist, but America has no traditions of virtue aside from greed and hyper individualism.
Does it have to be class warfare?'
Why can't our poor take on the American mentality and strike out on their own?
Oh, right, Schlomo and the boomers told them that debt can be paid off.
it sounds like I am looking for someone to blame other than myself, and I am not particularly trying, but it just seems like everything is geared towards keeping you in the rat race.
One can no longer buy a plot of land and make their life based upon hard labor, decide their own working hours, and raise a family independent of the state or economy.
Why must everyone be tied to the state or economy so fiercely?
I can understand a draft, even taxes can be justified, but why must we rely on others?

>striking out on your own is Utopian
>basing your community on hard work, platonic justice, Christianity, and free market bartering = communism
Holy shit you're a fucking retard. I thought you were going to cite communities which went total communist or at least had something resembling the end state described in the commie manifesto.
lol nothing here is anything like what you led us to think

>maybe someday they'll be the ones doing the fucking, which is bullshit
How is that bullshit?

>but why must we rely on others?
Serious question, are you autistic?

>these utopian communalist societies based around communal ownership dont count as communist because they didnt cite marx

>Serious question, are you autistic?
Probably, people did not always need the city to function and I find the vapid rat race tiresome and it's participants boring and stupid

Maybe so, but it succeeded in preventing a commie outbreak at the same time.

>communal ownership
>implying that actually occurred

>communes = communist
I wonder why marx didn't call the Feudal period an age of Communism???
almond status [activated]

I bet you think Plato was a proto-commie.

Why do the most retarded OPs get the most replies?

>and always had a distrust of Government and Centralized power
Except that's untrue.

>why doesn't someone whose point of view I don't agree with

bee cause we don't sage and report

That's just Marxism-Leninism.

>le ebin shitty degrees meme

>nah
fuck off please

Institutionalized cult to individualism
Generalized consumerism
Demonization of Collectivism (hiveminds in SF and so on)
~4 decades of nuclear fearmongering
Low quality non-individual education
Low-core Calvinism
A century of unrestrained expansionism; on vast amounts of endless land; reducing the effect of the social question
Vast amounts of resources; initially exploited by individuals without fear of corporate interests

I could squeeze some more.

Maybe it;s because compared to a lot of countries, we don't exploit the shit out of how lower class like they do.

Communism only really gotten big in were mainly agriculture countries

they are more capitalistic then most 1st world countries because they want to maximize their superpower status which itself was built on opposition to communism and borderline laissez faire economics

>le "damn entitled millenials" meme
The absolute state of shit. Love yourself faggot; dont post this kind of bullshit.

Maybe when the orange faggot has a mental breakdown and nukes everything.

Wild west was a meme
wasn't that wild at all

nah

>self made
"Oh i saved like 2000 and then gave up and had dad loan me 400k"
>This New Millionaire Who Started His Own Company Began With Just 2000 Dollars!!!