The rise of Socialism and it's appeal to young people is troubling

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: MadLad

Yes, the ideas of socialism rose out of the idea of public works and social welfare, but it's almost impossible to separate the two nowadays. It's not the left's fault either. You say these things AREN'T socialism, yet when Obama or Bernie or someone talks about Universal Healthcare, suddenly the right is crying "Socialism! Socialism!"

Any discussions about free college or expanding education are labeled socialism by the right! Not the left...

These words are basically meaningless nowadays due to this new red scare and overuse by the right.

I wasn't saying social security got its name from socialism, but the social aspect of social welfare and the philosophies of socialism, the rise of social democratic platforms of the 19th century - they are all connected and intertwined and fit just fine under the umbrella of general socialism as an idea, and to deny that is to deny history and reason.

If a policy is implemented on a system underpinned by capitalism, for instance in a welfare state or in the Nordic model, it isn't a socialist policy, because the socialist economics are completely absent.

That's just ridiculous. First of all, there is no one single definition of socialism or what constitutes a socialist economy. Norway and most of Europe, embrace their own version of socialism, which works with the free-market and emphasizing strong welfare programs. Norway HEAVILY regulates its markets. They aren't fully capitalist or socialist. It's a Social Democracy, which is what democratic-socialists like myself are advocating for.

It's honestly just a semantics issue, but one that is stubborn and refuses to die.

Sorry, not to be rude, but that's utter nonsense. Socialism is directly opposed to free-market principles. The very idea of a free market contradicts even the most basic definition of socialism.

I was wrong about the above. I got free market and private ownership confused. My apologies.

Yes, of course the right get it wrong. But at least they are not voting in self-proclaimed socialists under the false impression that Norway and Denmark are socialist.

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: Barcs

LOL! Socialism, the big boogey again. Sorry this is as fake as the national emergency that was declared. Capitalism isn't going anywhere. The word socialism is dishonestly used to describe liberals, when they aren't even socialists. If you are against socialism, then disband the military. It's a socialist program.

Apparently saying "that is a socialist program", and pointing to a prosperous country founded on free-market principles, is the last defense of socialism. It's malarky, by the way.

It's not a defense of socialism, it's stating the fact that the threat of socialism taking over the US is completely fallacious and unfounded. Nobody is lobbying to take away the free market, merely expanding programs to help with higher education and healthcare. People just use the "S" word to drive fear into folks. That's literally it. There is no threat of socialism here. Calling liberals "socialists" is like calling conservatives Nazis. They are just divisive buzz words, with no truth to them.

a reply to: neoholographic


Why is it troubling. Because people do not have the same political views as yourself. Get over yourself.

Well lopsided economy with to much wealth can cause this problem.But gong ho socialism is very dangerous for an economy.

a reply to: VoiceOfTheEmperor

Look another person who use actual data to form a worldview.

By golly..

I hate to break it to you but you ARE JUST A SOCIALIST!!

Rofl. It's like the frequency of a 12 year old. No Santa isnt real guys.

a reply to: Barcs

Honest question -- just exactly how many such programs do you think a free market can afford before it completely stagnates or collapses outright especially considering each of your programs represents government takeover and control of yet another large segment of the existing free market.

Understand that this is how Venezuela got started. Chevaz too over, promised a lot of things to his people, nationalized large segments of the economy in order to provide them, and as things fell apart started taking over even more.

Contrast that with countries that realized their models weren't working and they had to release control in order to stay afloat at all ... like the much vaunted Scandinavian countries where they are adding more free market reforms, not less.

The more I listen to AOC the more I realize this girl really wants socialism....She is like counting everyone’s wealth... She went after wealthy democrats also and counted their wealth....

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: Barcs

LOL! Socialism, the big boogey again. Sorry this is as fake as the national emergency that was declared. Capitalism isn't going anywhere. The word socialism is dishonestly used to describe liberals, when they aren't even socialists. If you are against socialism, then disband the military. It's a socialist program.

Apparently saying "that is a socialist program", and pointing to a prosperous country founded on free-market principles, is the last defense of socialism. It's malarky, by the way.

It's not a defense of socialism, it's stating the fact that the threat of socialism taking over the US is completely fallacious and unfounded. Nobody is lobbying to take away the free market, merely expanding programs to help with higher education and healthcare. People just use the "S" word to drive fear into folks. That's literally it. There is no threat of socialism here. Calling liberals "socialists" is like calling conservatives Nazis. They are just divisive buzz words, with no truth to them.

I was talking about this remark.

"If you are against socialism, then disband the military. It's a socialist program. "

Nonetheless, how do you explain this statement from the Democratic Socialists of America?

November 7, 2018

Yesterday democratic socialists fought and won inspiring election campaigns across the country, representing the rebirth of the American socialist movement after generations in retreat.

Most significantly, DSA members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Rashida Tlaib in Michigan were officially elected as members of Congress, and Summer Lee, Gabriel Acevero, Mike Sylvester and many other DSA supported candidates won inspiring victories at the helm of a working-class movement for social justice. These victories for a resurgent Left are only the beginning — the real work of transforming ours into a equal, humane, and just society will take many years of organizing and educating. The obstacles we face are still enormous.

www.dsausa.org...

By saying that the wins of avowed socialists represent "the rebirth of the American socialist movement after generations in retreat", are they using the word socialist to drive fear into folks?

a reply to: VoiceOfTheEmperor And to Barcs


They don't have to say it out loud, though the new crop in Congress is surely deafening.
Fabian Socialism

Fabian socialism is a variety of socialism. For the propagation of socialist ideals and ideas the Fabian Society was formed in 1883 (some say that it was established in 1884). The purpose of the Fabian Society was to reach the goals of socialism through evolutionary or parliamentary process and to avoid revolution or armed struggle.

restructured as to reduce the economic inequalities among classes and people to a minimum and tolerable level. Fabian’s advocacy for nationalisation of key industries does not surprise us. But they did not support the management of the entire economy by the state.

Fabian programmes also include the spread and propagation of socialist ideas and ills of unbridled capitalism among the masses of men. Without it, Fabians believed, setting up of socialism or implementation of poverty-reducing programmes would never be possible.

For these reasons the Fabian socialist laid stress on the democratic methods. Such methods are absolutely gradual in nature. In gradualism, it has been asserted, there is no place of abruptness. The socialists will proceed step by step and in every step people will participate in the gigantic task of building socialist society. The workers will fight for the extension of democratic rights such as franchise, periodic election etc.

www.politicalsciencenotes.com...
Then there's Agenda 21 and the Green New Deal, which is another way of saying Agenda 21 and Climate Change radical enviromentalism.
www.agenda21course.com...

Concerns of older generations in America;

--- young people using cell phones and buying coffee

Concerns of younger generations in America

-- all of the financial instruments and institutions in
America have been destroyed and corrupted in the last 3 decades

God you guys are spoiled rotten. I actually hope there's a socialist takeover and they come for your pensions first.

a reply to: neoholographic

Socialism will be violently opposed.

a reply to: mf_luder

Bahahahaha

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: neoholographic

A socialism movement seems to be the legacy of unbridled capitalism. When 1% of the world holds 50% or more of the world's wealth and student debt is piling up, with no end in sight...coupled with the polluting of the world and the destruction of natural resources...well, what do you expect? Do you expect them to embrace the status quo?

Yet the most polluted countries in the world...ARE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST...
The most corrupt governments in the world....ARE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST...
The countries that have more poor people...ARE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST...
The countries that have even less rich people who have more money...ARE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST...

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor

Technically, public works could be considered a form of socialist policy... that's nothing new. There's an argument for it since taxpayer money is being used to fund communal services.

Wrong... if we were to use your logic then "being in a group makes you socialist..."
Societies are formed out of many people working together, so if what you "claim" were true then every society is socialist..."

Your argument is simply false, but i do not blame your ignorance on you but on the socialist/communist teachers who brainwash people like you to become "useful idiots."

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
"Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

Socialism will always be an economic and political system in which the state/government owns and controls all the means of production.
Under socialism no one can own or control the means of production.

Directly from "worker's World" which is a socialist website:

...
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.
...

www.workers.org...

Under socialism farmers don't own their land even though it has been in their family for generations. As such "the government," claiming to do it for the people, dictates what you must plant and keeps the large majority of the farmer's hard work, for which the farmers are not compensated...

Under socialism no one can own and control the means of production, so how can the people own and control the means of production if they don't own it or control it?...

So who really controls and owns the means of production?... The government/state.

Who owns and controls public property?... The government/state.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
The words "socialism" has almost no meaning to people on the right anymore. It's simply synonymous with "evil" and "bad" and "unAmerican" but all of our public services operate on the idea of by the people for the people, which sounds pretty socialist to me.

Venezuela is a socialist country, India is a socialist country. Cuba is ruled under a socialist economy. North Korea is ruled under a socialist economy.

ALL of the above countries claim that "the means of production is owned and controlled democratically..." EVERY ONE OF THEM. The same can be said of China, the former U.S.S.R., etc, etc.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

What a great idea, something new that hasn't been tried already. Maybe some type of melding between a free market based system and one with built in controls.

Have you figured out some starting points to build this possible system? We should have enough evidence and data points from which to resurrect this phoenix into a new form.

We have been down this path many times before and it appears we are ending up in the exact same spot. Wealth concentrated in the hands of the few that do everything in their power to further enable and concentrate that wealth. But we can't discourage people working towards gaining off of their blood, sweat and tears. They are the true innovators. Those that create for the simple pleasure of honestly building something or providing a needed service to the community.

Somehow we have to differentiate between harmful, corrupt and needless greed that doesn't serve a community versus those that do service a community and should be rewarded for their efforts.

Socialism and capitalism are outdated modes of operation that lead to the exact same spot. They always have and always will. Maybe our options are being deliberately reduced to those ideas because in the end, they serve the oligarchs in the exact same way.

It is time for something new. Something we haven't tried before. Maybe it is time to look at what benefits a community. Maybe it is time to look at how the income stream is earned, honestly or fraudulently. Maybe it is time to enter morals into gaining material objects.

Just curious what ideas you have. I am starting to lean towards the idea that both capitalism and socialism are pretty much the same system that enriches the dishonest and fraudulent. If they didn't, why do we always end up in the same place?

a reply to: ClovenSky

If we got rid of the Fed it would solve a lot of problems

a reply to: toysforadults

Oh god, I hear you loud and clear on that one brother.

But if we don't change ourselves first and get rid of the central banks, the fed will be recreated under some other pretense/new name that would again serve the oligarchs.

Do you think it is time for a new system?

They prey on the ignorance of teens today. Teens in the older days have always been stupid, but these days its off the charts. They simply don't know history or anything about economics and they're easily set off by emotional stimuli.

a reply to: neoholographic

Did you hear AOC say that if it wasn't for Trump she would be teaching HS instead of being a politician? People like her are teaching our youth, and this is why they want socialism/communism/marxism.

a reply to: neoholographic

Oh ya! Thats cool. Hey if capitalism can work, which it has for years now. Or depending on what you mean by "work" quote on quote. As it is pretty much a crap shoot, but so was the other isms before this one. Then sure as hell this socialism thing can work, and about equally as well.

Which is to say, just chugging along, broken wheels and all. But it is good to see young people have some ideals. It is the fate of the old to be consumed by the new, just as it is a fact that the old will not likely work for the new. This generalization gap, each and every generation, is bound to happen. There can be no such thing as seing eye to eye, and most especially over generational gaps.

From hippies fighting the man, or at least up in till the point that they figured out that they can become shareholders and do no work and make money and becoming the very thing they first set out against. It is good. Each new generation should aust maybe even flat out get rid of the old one. In with the new, out with the old. In the end its just the same ol same ol shintz.

It keeps things fresh and interesting, and with so many technological advantages and weapons out there today. I for one think we are overdo for a good ol fashion, chaos and havoc. Its not like there is anything here on this planet or civilization that anybody will miss, that for sure. Civilizations and most especially governments and cultures are overrated anyways. Look at our current one? What a bunch on garbage and nonsense.

Everybody justifying there existence, when in fact, none of it and nobody is necessary.

Now as for that second thing you mentioned about climate change? Thats kind of like a duh! The climate has been changing for the past billion years. But hey, maybe if were lucky our climate change problem will solve our civilizations problem. Which is more then likely. Now which fear will come to pass first, that is the only real question.

In which case, this whole argument becomes even more of a mute point.