What would you rather have: American exceptionalism or socialism?

Posted by: Haroush

This is for AMERICANS only.

Vote
19 Total Votes
1

American exceptionalism

American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is "qualitatively different" from other states. In this view, U.S. Exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called...  "the first new nation" and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, populism and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the United States is like the biblical shining "City upon a Hill", and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.The theory of exceptionalism can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840. The term "American exceptionalism" has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their heretical belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions". American Communists started using the English term "American exceptionalism" in factional fights. It then moved into general use among intellectuals. In 1989 Scottish political scientist Richard Rose noted that most American historians endorse exceptionalism. He suggests that these historians reason as follows   more
10 votes
0 comments
2

Socialism

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of...  equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.A socialist economic system consists of a system of production and distribution organised to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services are produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting is based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation. Distribution is based on the principle to each according to his contribution. Marxist theory holds that the development of the socialist mode of production will give rise to a communist society, in which classes and the state are no longer present, there is access abundance to final goods, and thus distribution is based on to each according to his need   more
9 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PurpleRepublic says2013-11-25T00:13:35.6408038-06:00
How are these related? Also don't you think "wanting socialism" is a bit nebulous? Also what dose it mean to chose one over the other? If you chose socialism is it saying you are against american exceptionalism? This is entirely ridiculous.
SweetTea says2013-11-25T08:41:52.1093640-06:00
It's not as easy as "pick-one". The times & circumstances should drive domestic as well as foreign policies. And, as pointed out, Socialism really has no clear-cut definition. This is why we've seen several Presidents -- Dem & GOP -- dabble in it!
Haroush says2013-11-25T17:12:25.7324084-06:00
@SweetTea, Apparently, this poll is pointless and makes no sense. Lol
SweetTea says2013-11-26T10:10:09.2057818-06:00
Haroush ... You say, "Pick one." It's not as simple as that. You are placing Domestic Policy in the same league with ice cream. It isn't a matter of which is your favorite, or what you would prefer. It is the needs & circumstances of the people/times that dictate the policy that is followed. This is why we've seen U.S. Presidents, from more than one party, dabble in Socialism. To the rest of the world, America has always seemed to exemplify exceptionalism. That seems to hold true, even in the worst of times. Your poll isn't pointless. It just fails to grasp the gravity of the circumstances involved. Policy isn't, or shouldn't be, a self-centered choice. The needs of many far outweigh the preferences of one.
Haroush says2013-11-26T10:42:20.9597302-06:00
It's not self-centered choice you kidding me? How is the declaration of independence and the U.S. Constitution self-centered choice?
Haroush says2013-11-26T10:46:49.7891645-06:00
Well, Macgreggor completely understood with a view of this being a self-centered poll. Apparently, you are misunderstanding it. American Exceptionalism is based off these two things Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. These two things serve as SELF- EVIDENT. In other words capitalism.
Haroush says2013-11-26T11:02:25.3274406-06:00
Maybe there have some of our presidents who have dabbled in it. The problem is (at least they didn't know apparently) socialism is a step by step process that overthrows capitalism as we know it. It starts by giving entitlements to those people who believe it is their "right" and making the working class more powerful than their business it's self. Therefore, government hand-outs and less self-reliance. This also means the overthrow of private property to those who still own private property in the working class. This also would lead to the abolition of religion being that religion can only survive in a capitalist society. Eventually, an end to liberty as we know it. Or in other words....An end to this... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Haroush says2013-11-26T11:29:18.5923144-06:00
Socialist perspectives[edit] A plaque marking state property in Jūrmala. In general, socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy[citation needed]. They believe private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant[citation needed]. With largely reduced capital accumulation from the original class of owners, private property in the means of production is to be replaced with a free association based on public or common ownership of socialized assets.[7] In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "personal property". The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.[8][9] Prior to the 18th century, private property usually referred to land ownership. According to Norman Levine, when Marx called for the abolition of private property, he was not referring to privately owned personal property such as clothing and furniture that was not used to produce the "social wealth," but to productive property.[10]
Haroush says2013-11-26T11:29:50.6770045-06:00
Re·dun·dant riˈdəndənt/Submit adjective 1. Not or no longer needed or useful; superfluous.
Haroush says2013-11-26T11:38:44.4463960-06:00
It is as easy as read both descriptions and pick one.
Macgreggor says2013-11-26T15:10:56.9204064-06:00
Why Haroush, thanks for the shout out!
Haroush says2013-11-26T15:18:11.9008570-06:00
Your welcome! :) I must say MacGreggor, I do appreciate your respect for others. Despite our differences you are very much a decent person.
SweetTea says2013-11-26T16:10:48.9922380-06:00
Haroush ... How is it self-centered? Look at your question. You ask, "What would you rather have: American exceptionalism or socialism?" You aren't asking, which best serves the nation as a whole. You aren't asking which could be the most productive. You are asking for individual preference. As if, as I've already posted, you are taking a poll for a favorite flavor of ice cream. That, my friend, yields self-centered results. The needs of many outweigh the needs of one (or even a few). The Declaration of Independence, while important to our nation's history, doesn't have legal bearing. The U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights do. Since you mentioned the U.S. Constitution, I'll direct your attention to the President's Oath of Office ( Article II, Section 1): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Those few words cover the nation, as a whole. It also doesn't ask that a President follow any specific policy. Now, ask yourself: Why? It's because policy, domestic & foreign, must change to best serve the needs of the nation. Sometimes, it may be somewhat Socialistic. Other times, it may be Exceptionalism. Some might even argue that the fluid nature of our leadership is in itself Exceptionalism. Still, it isn't a singular choice. It is driven by the needs of the masses.
Haroush says2013-11-26T19:21:16.1768556-06:00
@SweetTea, ERRRRRRR! Wrong. "You aren't asking, which best serves the nation as a whole." How am I not? How does this...."What would you rather have: American exceptionalism or socialism? Equate to this >>> "As if, as I've already posted, you are taking a poll for a favorite flavor of ice cream. Besides, it's odd the people who voted on this don't see it that way. They understand you only have two major systems in this world: Capitalism and Socialism which goes along with communism "The Declaration of Independence, while important to our nation's history, doesn't have legal bearing." Yeah, how does it not? "Those few words cover the nation, as a whole. It also doesn't ask that a President follow any specific policy. To say the president doesn't have to follow any specific policy is completely absurd. He is to be treated as much as citizen as we are. Meaning, no one in this country has special privileges that puts them above the law. Are you sure you live in America? You sure don't act like it. Constitution Connected To the Declaration of Independence "The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII. Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: "Before the formation of this Constitution...This Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled." PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII. The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! "The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building." "Sometimes, it may be somewhat Socialistic. Other times, it may be Exceptionalism. Some might even argue that the fluid nature of our leadership is in itself Exceptionalism. Still, it isn't a singular choice. It is driven by the needs of the masses." This is a contradiction within it's self.
SweetTea says2013-11-27T07:43:18.6518517-06:00
How are you not? Hon, you are asking which people "prefer". You aren't asking them to consider the situation, or others. You are asking it as a preference, i.E. Liberal or Conservative. You can choose a political party in that fashion, but not what is best for the country. People are going to give you "their preference". In other words, what works for them. The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few. Now, as for the legal weight of the Declaration of Independence ... "Although the Declaration of Independence stands with the Constitution as a founding document of the United States of America, its position in U.S. Law is much less certain than that of the Constitution. The Declaration has been recognized as the founding act of law establishing the United States as a sovereign and independent nation, and Congress has placed it at the beginning of the U.S. Code, under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America." The Supreme Court, however, has generally not considered it a part of the organic law of the country." http://legal-dictionary.Thefreedictionary.Com/Declaration+of+independence
Haroush says2013-11-27T13:06:38.2544889-06:00
Well, the supreme court hasn't had some the best judges either and besides, the Supreme court doesn't dictate the laws around here. They can say something is constitutional, but it doesn't mean that is so. The supreme court has turned into a political arena it's self so, that definitely isn't true. Maybe if they actually went by the constitution, things wouldn't be so screwed up. "The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few." To think like this is to get rid of any laws that don't fit cartain criteria and anything that gets in it's way. See, the our constitution prevents this (declaration of independence). Meaning the minority has a say in laws too. Not to the mention, the power to filibuster legislation. Now, they are trying to take away that power from congress. How convenient?
Haroush says2013-11-27T13:08:32.4831799-06:00
Also, you may not like my voting poll, but others do.
Cygnus says2013-11-27T22:09:55.4374330-06:00
Lame.
Haroush says2013-11-28T23:02:10.5394012-06:00
What's lame?
trombone21 says2015-03-30T20:27:45.4244422-05:00
Thats karl Marx (BTW), not a socialist
debate_power says2015-04-29T17:45:08.4404838-05:00
Karl Marx was both a socialist and a communist.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.