U.s. A Vs. Scandinavian Nations

“ Foner means that the main question of ‘ Why is there no socialism in the United States?’ has been layered down into very little distinctive questions. But this does not explain why the United States has not became a socialist , the problem is generally defined as the absence in the United States of a large avowedly social democratic political party. For example the Labour party of Britian, the French Socialist party, and the Communist party of Italy. American writers generally infer a mass socialist consciousness among the working classes of these countries. So the question ‘ why is there no socialism?’ really means, why is the United States the only advanced capitalist nation whose political system lacks a social democratic

Does the United States really support its citizens and allow them to prosper? In Barbara Ehrenreich’s book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, Ehrenreich investigates this question by living as a low-wage worker for three months in cities around the United States. Her experiences teach her that as her jobs change, so does her place in society. Nickel and Dimed effectively proves American society does not support the poor; instead, it decreases low-wage workers’ mobilities and forces them to live lives that are focused only on their jobs. Through her journey, Ehrenreich learns that because she works “unskilled” labor, her place in society changes.

Quotes like Winston Churchill’s have become part of the political rhetoric when leaders discuss the idea of socialism. In current events you can see the exact same argumentation being used against legislation such as the Affordable Health Care Act. Conservative talking heads such as Bill O’Reilly equate it to socialism because, as Mr. O’Reilly says himself, “[i]n order to provide for the have nots, the far left wants the federal government to seize the assets of solvent Americans. That’s what ObamaCare [the Affordable Health Care Act] is all about — taking from those who can afford health care to provide for those who cannot” (O’Reilly). This simplification of socialism does not do justice to the actual paradigm itself. Instead, in this paper I will try to refute our current idea of socialism because of a lack of understanding. The explanations and descriptions by Michael W. Doyle in his chapters on Marxist and Leninist socialism paints a picture that allows one to see how socialism could be beneficial to the common man while also critiquing the negative myths held by modern society.

The number of Americans taking part in the welfare system today has hit 12 million, an all-time high, proving its significance in government. Americans not on welfare complain about the unfairness it causes, but have yet to propose a better plan. Changing these government assistance programs sounds easier than it really is, because while it may rid of those who take advantage of the free money, it also leaves plenty of helpless Americans to fend for themselves. In a society where Americans are compensated for idleness through government social programs, there exist many ecclesiastical institutions striving to reclaim dependent Americans by teaching self-reliance using more organized and functional welfare programs, from which the United

(2) There also exist opportunities for private wealth and ownership. Essentially, socialism is a less extreme version of communism. In the 2016 presidential race, the nation responded with shock and heated discourse over the candidate Bernie Sanders, an admitted democratic socialist. But this concept is not new to America, in fact it has been present since the early 20th century. We even have socialist programs existing today such as Medicare and Social Security. Those who support this ideology argue that a government of the people must provide basic necessities as well as equitable opportunities such as higher education, healthcare, and child care to its citizens. These all seem like fair and beneficial requests of citizens for their government. However, it still receives high criticisms and objections amongst Americans. That is because capitalism is considered a staple of the U.S. We value our individuality, our free market, and our opportunities for social mobility. That, after all, is the very idea of the American dream. Unfortunately, that dream is often crushed by the harsh realities of inequality, discrimination, and social class. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening rapidly, with 51.4% of income earned annually going to the richest 20% (3). The middle class is disappearing, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are profiting. This leads many to the conclusion that a new political and economic system is the answer

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." (Thomas Jefferson). Why have Americans become so afraid of their own government? Shouldn’t the government pertain to the power of the people? The truth of the matter lies within the people's views on what should take place in the grand scheme of things, yet America exemplifies an increased vulnerability as they acquiesce to the government's scheme to control their lives. In fact, the people of America live in continual fear that the government's "support" such as welfare will exceedingly vanish if they do not comply to the government's desires and allow them to have the final say. Furthermore, if Americans continue to remain in these

“Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence (Ronald Reagan).” The Government stands tall as the “big brother” and takes the responsibility of holding the United States up. The question is, is it too much to bear? The United States following the Dust Bowl was a disaster, and this was the first time in history many looked to the government for assistance in holding the country up. What began nearly 100 years ago never ended and only grew into what it is today: welfare, where anyone struggling can receive assistance. Since the 1930’s much has changed, today the government assists low income Americans in many ways just two are providing food and housing.

The United States, a place where anyone can “pick themselves up by the bootstraps” and realize the American dream of a comfortable lifestyle. Well, for over 30 million Americans this is no longer possible. Though we live in the richest and most powerful country in the world there are many who are living under or at the precipice of the poverty level, “While the United States has enjoyed unprecedented affluence, low-wage employees have been testing the American doctrine that hard work cures poverty” (The Working Poor, 4). This translates to families of four making around 18,850$ a year. And as soon as they find work or move just slightly above that 18,850$ a year (which is still a meager and deprived way to

There are currently two prevalent narratives on the duties, the obligations, of a government, both of which have been used to justify government welfare. The first, and most vocal is that a government, in general and without exception, ought to protect its own citizens from any and all harms. The second popular narrative is where the government is strictly in existence to protect the rights (life, liberty, property, Bill of Rights, et cetera) of its citizens. First, it is first imperative to know that 14.5% of American families are below the poverty line and struggle to even place food on the table and are in a real danger of starving (Bread). Whether it is to protect its citizens from poverty or their lives from the effect of it, most would agree that the government has a moral obligation to act. Thus, it is reproachable for a government to take no action in protecting its citizens from from the

Have you ever given any time to actually fully understand why Socialism is a terrible thing? Most people will just jump on a bandwagon because a certain party says that it will give them items for free. It makes other people think that they are entitled to other people 's possessions. Making companies a public domain only because the government wants to be in control and make more profit. Making minimum wage a reasonably high price so that everyone will have the same wage even though some jobs are harder than others. The Socialist party in the United States is promising these things and people are falling for them; because they think that they are entitled to someone else’s hard earned money. People tend to see the somewhat good side of everything but hardly ever look to see what the bad side would be. They tend not to look at it because they are to set on how it could benefit them. If Socialists are ok with all this “free” stuff, then they will be giving over more money in taxes than what it would cost to leave it alone. Not paying student loans would be a good thing, but paying for you and the entire population of the United States to go to college is going to cost you more than if you were to take out student loans and pay them off. I am going to prove that there is hideous side to socialism.

Every American dreams of finding a job that pays well enough so that they may comfortably take care of their loved ones and themselves for years to come. Most Americans hope to find some way to make a living that they enjoy, something that they view as productive. Unfortunately, many do not have this luxury. In our society, a good portion of the population is forced to hold the base of our country in place while hardly being redeemed for their time and effort, and thus the problem of income inequality. Numbers of these people live from paycheck to paycheck, barely getting by, not because they manage their money poorly, but because the value of their time at work is negligible.

America is known both conventionally and historically as 'the land of the free'... but is that really the case? In his article titled Freedom and Money, G. A. Cohen addresses this question through the relationship between freedom and money, or more specifically the lack thereof: poverty. As Cohen shows, experts all along the political spectrum agree that the poor are entitled to far less opportunities than their wealthier counterparts. The controversy with the subject thus lies, instead, in the ambiguity of the term "freedom" and what it implies, as well as to what exactly it's beneficiaries are permitted. The political left believes that because the impoverished are financially unable to exercise many of their freedoms, their economic status

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness— these were the unalienable rights our forefathers bestowed upon our new nation when drafting the Declaration of Independence; what a far cry from independent our nation has become. Our forefathers guaranteed life and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness; happiness was not a guarantee, but set forth as a challenge for every individual to define and actively pursue for themselves. Surely, when our forefathers declared independence from an oppressive and overbearing king they did not intend for the American Government to become a maternal state that coddles its citizens. Sadly, we have become just that: a nation of citizens dependent upon our government for everything from putting food in our stomachs, to saving money for our retirement.

Sweden maintained her neutrality. It therefore had to remain in good terms with the Soviet Union as the other allies had quit the partnership making it vulnerable to attack.

How do you decide what is and isn't fair? Many countries have policies based on equality of opportunity. These are policies that result in a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. In spite of this, these policies do not result in greater equality. Nations of the world are characterized by a disparity between the rich and the poor. The prevailing myth is that this disparity results from capitalism and the use of free markets. The facts are that the disparity is greater in societies that don't use free markets. Soviet Russia had two distinct classes. The upper class was comprised of the bureaucrats and the rest of population constituted the lower class. This disparity also exists in China. This is another way of saying that there is no middle class. Brazil is another country with a very marked disparity between the rich and the poor. Societies cannot have equality as a higher priority than freedom.