American exceptionalism and socialism.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Actually, it would be interesting to see a state-by-state breakdown of Gini coefficients within the US, and even more interesting to see how it corollates with "red" and "blue" states.

[Sikander]

Much of the capability for the U.S. to have a more rigid class system was done away with from the very beginning by the difficult nature of colonial life, more was destroyed as a legitimate force by the Revolutionary War, and the final vestiges (and nastiest bits) were given a mortal wounding by the Civil War. The development independently of our own rigid class structure was successful only to a limited degree in the South (see the Jackson Administration for a good example of just how limited) and as stated above was discredited and largely gutted in the 19th century. By Jackson's time "class" had been almost completely reduced to race in terms of any sort of formal effects.

Although the U.S. in general began to industrialize early, it was a vast country with a lot of regional economies, most of which were not in the first rank industrially. Thus many "labor" issues were local issues, seperated always in space and often in time from similar issues in other parts of the country. A large region of the country (the South) with an historically even larger portion of the political power industrialized quite slowly, while much of the West was colonial in nature. Add to this disparate collection of potential consumers of Socialism the fact that even after the introduction of the telegraph there was very little national culture or national dialogue until the 20th century, a problem which was exacerbated by the fact that a fairly large percentage of the population didn't speak english as their native tongue.

All of these factors kept attempts to "socialize" the country at bay until the Great Depression, when a complete systemic breakdown of the country's economy occurred. The information infrastructure in place by the 1930s did a lot to break down geographic barriers that had inhibited national a conversation about socialism (among many other things), but the variance in local economic situations while less than in the past was still large. Also by this time there existed the example of the Soviet Union and Fascist Italy, neither of which appealled to broad section of the public. The Federal Government grew enormously in scope during this time, but the intention of the ruling class was to avoid the excesses of the Soviet Union etc. by doing enough to quell any chance of insurrection while maintaining as much as was possible of the old system.

This hybrid approach worked pretty well during the later years of the Depression, World War 2 and the post war economic windfall, and with the coming of the Cold War leftist politics were in almost permanent retreat, assailed by both rational arguments, association with detestable systems in the Communist Bloc, visible wealth and opportunity and good old propoganda.

[Dr Strangelove]

Blue collar America has been voting Republican ever since the dems let the blacks out of the ghettos and bussed them into whiote schools. I remember very well when people down here who had grown up believing that Republicans were the spawn of satan found themselves forced to make the switch. Back then if I wanted to drive a grown up completely crazy I could strike up a conversation encompassing politics, desegregation and the civil war.

[mrmitchell]

Actually dashi i would call the chance of advancement in China pretty good right now

seeing as most chinese have gone from being peasants in 20 ft deep mud 50 years ago, to urban manufacturing employees today with education, a little cash, and a couple modern appliances

[Dracon II]

That's a pretty good explanation Sikander.

The absence of a rigid class system also explains why the USA never really had a Tory style Conservative party (neither do Australians for similar reasons no doubt). My lecturer on American politics last year noted that the USA has been dominated for most of its history not by any real ideological rifts, but by the competition of different forms of liberalism.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Blue collar America has been voting Republican ever since the dems let the blacks out of the ghettos and bussed them into whiote schools. I remember very well when people down here who had grown up believing that Republicans were the spawn of satan found themselves forced to make the switch. Back then if I wanted to drive a grown up completely crazy I could strike up a conversation encompassing politics, desegregation and the civil war.

That explains the shift in the blue collar vote in the South... but it seems to have happened everywhere bar New England, California and the Pacific NW

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


It's hard to know what to make of that. On the on hand, it suggests that the US is on par with China, Turkey, and Thailand when it comes to income distribution ("a-ha!" cry the liberals). On the other hand, it suggests that liberal paradises Canada and the Netherlands are on par with India, Indonesia, and Ethiopia ("a-ha!" cry the conservatives).

"WTF?" cries Rufus...

A low Gini Index usually means an excellent social redistribution effort. However in rare occasions it can mean that the income is so skewed that not even the Gini Index can reflect the situation. I think that is the case with countries such as India.

That's because it divides income into five groups. Suppose the top 20% actually consists of a small handful of extremely rich people with a large number of relatively low income persons, then the Gini Index gets skewed.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dracon II


That explains the shift in the blue collar vote in the South... but it seems to have happened everywhere bar New England, California and the Pacific NW

Racism was endemic in the North, only in a somewhat different from from the racism of the South.

Some of you guys should read the Rise and Fall of the Whtie Republic by Alexander Saxton (I think I got the title and author right?).

[DanS]

The North and South are completely different animals. In the North, by and large, you don't have blacks in small town areas. Yet those areas are no less Republican than the South. Further, while some small town whites may be racist in the North, the racial legacy of the south just isn't something they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The thought that the politics of the GOP is on the whole racially based is pretty silly.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS
The North and South are completely different animals. In the North, by and large, you don't have blacks in small town areas. Yet those areas are no less Republican than the South. Further, while some small town whites may be racist in the North, the racial legacy of the south just isn't something they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The thought that the politics of the GOP is on the whole racially based is pretty silly.

Agreed about "on the whole." But the strategy is without question partly racially based; Nixon's Southern strategy was the opening salvo in this regard, and Reagan's appeal to northern, white, blue-collar males also had a racial tinge to it (and then there's the Willie Horton ad...).

Moreover, the absence of blacks in GOP strongholds in the north doesn't prove that there's no racial politics at play there; indeed, just the opposite may be true. In general, people with regular contact with a minority group are less likely to be swayed by a political party baiting that group. A great current example here is the GOP's gay-bashing; it finds its greatest reception by far among those people who are least likely to have regular social contact with gays and lesbians. A guy like me, whose neighbors (in the US) are black, is going to be less likely to swallow racist propaganda than somebody in an all-white ex-urb, becasue I have everyday, empirical experience to measure the propaganda against.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Moreover, the absence of blacks in GOP strongholds in the north doesn't prove that there's no racial politics at play there; indeed, just the opposite may be true. In general, people with regular contact with a minority group are less likely to be swayed by a political party baiting that group. A great current example here is the GOP's gay-bashing; it finds its greatest reception by far among those people who are least likely to have regular social contact with gays and lesbians. A guy like me, whose neighbors (in the US) are black, is going to be less likely to swallow racist propaganda than somebody in an all-white ex-urb, becasue I have everyday, empirical experience to measure the propaganda against.

100% true

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS
The North and South are completely different animals. In the North, by and large, you don't have blacks in small town areas. Yet those areas are no less Republican than the South. Further, while some small town whites may be racist in the North, the racial legacy of the south just isn't something they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The thought that the politics of the GOP is on the whole racially based is pretty silly.

Thanks for this post -- now can you answer my question on the first page of this thread?

[DanS]

But isn't the poverty rate in United States higher than compared to socialist European countries?

No, not really.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Actually dashi i would call the chance of advancement in China pretty good right now

seeing as most chinese have gone from being peasants in 20 ft deep mud 50 years ago, to urban manufacturing employees today with education, a little cash, and a couple modern appliances

Yes, if you lived in a city during the boom and were "Han" chinese. The odds today are extremely low with there being fewer middle to upper class jobs and more people who want them. Many areas already have in place laws that give local citizens priority, which basically keeps the poor from getting better jobs. You'll also be surprised by the number of children who don't even go to schoo: usually poor muslim children who work in their family's closet sized restaurant or beg on the street.

Even my old university students are facing some fairly grim prospects. Most of them will return to their home towns to work. Those with rich parents or proper connections will be able to get decent jobs. Few will reach their expectations though. However, with millions of college graduates each year looking for jobs, what can you expect?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


No, not really.

Care to cite any source? I really am curious as to the comparative poverty rates between United States and some of the socialist countries.