I'm not a communist and I think communism is a bad ideology. However, I disagree with the majority here. I quite personally think that the reason for its rise was because of the two latest generations, the ones born from the 1960's to today. These generations, for the most part, live on instant gratification and have had nothing to work for. Sure, chances are most of us are products of these generations. These generations have learned they can get benefits from intentionally not working and being part of the work force. These benefits are almost too generous and some pay even more than minimum wage. Yes, but this has little to do with socialism, though. Government, which makes those receiving benefits less sensitive to the more unconstitutional actions by the government (like seizure of property and business and etc., more socialization of public services and etc.), because the government is their lifeline, and then there's the saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." and etc. Socialization is a disingenuous bastardization. Since the concept of the public sector is not exclusive to or born of socialism, you can say part almost any ideology X when you say socialization or part-socialism. My dear fellow, this cancerous disease of socialism has been spreading throughout our country for a very long time indeed. I would say it began in the late 19th century and early 20th century during the progressive era. If you want two key figures to tie it to, I'd say it was Teddy Roosavelt and Woodrow Wilson (my personal least favorite president). This just made the country slightly more left-affiliated and economically-retarded. Socialism is the mutual management of the means of production and the common or no ownership of private property. How is that spreading throughout the USA? We're not even close to that. Let me say as a college student (in california) that its the educators of our society, especially in the colleges, that are perhaps the greatest source of the of socialist propaganda! In the last two years I have had four socialists for professors. Do they believe in common ownership of the means of production and property in order for you to warrant such a statement? Rosen makes a good observation. Successful planning requires the creation of a common view on the essential values of society. Socialist therefore attempt to achieve this re-shaping of people's common world-view (called by the Nazis 'Weltanschauung') through education. However, their kind of education is not about learning and acquiring new knowledge, because those things are typically insufficient when it comes to creating common values. No amount of learning will lead people to hold the same views on the moral issues which a conscious ordering of all social issues raises. It is not rational conviction but the acceptance of a creed which is required to justify a particular plan. It is because socialists believe that mass acceptance of a common weltanschauung is the best way to achieve their purposes that education systems have become hijacked by propagandists seeking to brainwash their students into accepting their particular creed. This is a good examination of the rise of believers in economic planning. Economic planning does not constitute a fallacious attribution to socialism or communism specifically. This is because there are ideologies that advocate such that are not communist or socialist for the reasons they don't abide to the tenants of socialism or communism. Society in general has been gravitating towards socialism in a sort of downward spiral. We're gravitating to the common ownership of property and the means of production? We already have a moderate amount of economic planning and have for a while but that's not heading towards socialism directly, just more left-wing affiliation. The socialists are getting away with it. Why? They control the media and the educational system. They do? Please prove this. (At least liberals do, and liberals do adhere to many socialist policies.) What you call socialist policies can also be called part-policy of ideology X that even has a minute flicker of minute left-wing affiliation.
Welcome to the group Strelok. Looks like you responded to one of my statements, so I'll only address that. Economic planning does not constitute a fallacious attribution to socialism or communism specifically. This is because there are ideologies that advocate such that are not communist or socialist for the reasons they don't abide to the tenents of socialism or communism. Ideology aside, how a society choses to resolve it's economic problems are limited to two choices, free market economics or socialist economics. Property is either private or public, "mine" or "ours." National economies are a simply a different mixture of the two. Once a society embarks on the task of planning the economy, difficult choices need to be made on what direction this planning will take, and generally the choice ends up being socialism or failure.
To be honest, I can sum it all up with this: The people will vote for whoever gives them more free crap, and those people are the commies. That is not to say commies are better, but it is to say that the "democrats" (who I call the National Socialist American Workers Party) win because Americans are getting lazy.
Mitt Romney said it right - 47% of Amricans will vote for Obama because they want to continue being Lazy
