Beginning the Social Quest

While reading and taking an occasional peek at a television documentary the other night (with the sound off), I happened to see some old black and white footage of a Socialist protest in America. I cannot tell you how it surprised me. I even put my book away and turned the volume up on the television. Active Socialist in America? I've never heard of such a thing not even in high school history class.

I've run into a few modern day American Socialist on the internet but they are few and far between. And although the Socialist Party is alive and well in the states one could hardly tell from the attention they receive in the media. I know there are plenty of Progressives that claim Socialist agendas but I think calling oneself a Socialist is taboo for one reason or another. It's not hard to understand why, I suppose. The Socialist Party has certainly bred its power hungry tyrants throughout history. But, after living in Europe for several years where Socialist are a major influence in government and in a very large way responsible for my having decent healthcare and a roof over my head in spite of being unemployed, I became curious as to why Socialism is relatively dead in America.

I will probably hear from those few American Socialist protesting my pronouncement of death but, for all it matters, the Socialist Party is dead in America.

Was there a Socialist Presidential candidate in the last election? Can you answer this question without using Google?

I think this will be an interesting venture for me. I will continue to post on other issues but look for my 'Social Quest' to be a series of journal entries probably for quite a long time.


good one dianne 

Posted by angiekruger
2/05/2005 01:13:00 pm  
Someone mentioned elsewhere that some of the "progressive" people in the US have in fact socialist views, and that "what did the label really matter?".

That is true to a degree. What does the label matter? As far as I can see, there is really only one party today in the US, and it's called alternatively Democrat or Republican.

Whether the leader is called Bush or Kerry, it's basically the same crap. Bush promotes it openly, Kerry would like to say he's against everything Bush is for, but in effect crawls to the US population by more or less giving in to everything Bush preaches, at least on all the crucial issues.

Whether a label shouldn't matter in theory may be true, but it does in practice. It is the only way political parties can get noticed and rally a following.

And until the day when the word "socialism" doesn't spin the head of the average US citizen as if hit by a baseball bat, I don't see any chance for a significant change in the US society - one that would combine free enterprise with socialist values, as is the case in Canada and the EU.

If anyone would care to enlightened my no-doubt ignorant view, I'm all ears. 

Posted by WhyNot
2/05/2005 10:34:00 pm  



<< Home