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

a reply to: MadLad

Well. I guess bailing out big banks with tax money, as in "too big to fail", wasn't a socialist policy as well?

Who knew!

a reply to: MadLad

Infrastructure is a “socialist policy”? You hear something new everyday.

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.

"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"

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.

Assuming socialism and it's appeal to young people really IS troubling.

My question is what did old people do wrong to bring about this change?

Were old people bad role models?

Did old people squander and/or hord resources; making "socialism" the only place young people could turn too?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I'll admit I shouldn't have been so dismissive. I'll give it a look over again for the benefit of the doubt. I've actually seen Enemies Within, and I wasn't impressed.

I think it's safe to say we both approach the issue from completely different perspectives, but shouldn't let that get in the way of hearing each other out - so I apologize for that.

a reply to: VoiceOfTheEmperor

Gen X here! My (our) 2 cents...

What we currently have is not capitalism in most industries. We have rules and regulations in place but government is bought and paid for by corporations so those rules and regulations don't get enforced. Socialism isn't the answer but what we have now doesn't work b/c we have people in power that won't/don't enforce the laws.

Too Big Too Fail is a joke - - you run scams and lose....sorry - - out of business you go and legit businesses can buy up any valuable assets you have pennies on the dollar. Sorry - - you gambled and lost. How Wells Fargo is still in business with their continual fraudulent scams is beyond me. Prison sentences would help - - fining a bank 100 mil after they scammed people out of 10 billion isn't a punishment. Lawsuits and throwing executives in prison would go a long way to ending this type of behavior and business practices.

Colleges, as someone earlier in the thread mentioned, is an easy fix. You make the banks have skin in the game - - a loan should not be risk free. The bank should have to assess risk on whether they will get repaid or not (just like any other loan). Banks won't be loaning out 200K for a basket weaving degree anymore.....tuition costs would crash, as they should. It's currently a total scam and most people know that - - declaring "free education for all" isn't the solution. Fixing the cause of rising costs is the solution.

Same goes for healthcare -- fix the cause of rising costs. Universal healthcare doesn't fix the cause. Nearly all of the healthcare industry is a protected monopoly. I can fly to Japan and back to get an MRI for a fraction of the cost of getting one down the street - - same quality, same results. Not the same cost. If I try to open my own MRI shop to compete I'll get fined or tossed in jail. That's a no-no. Apply anti-trust laws to the healthcare industry and costs would crash - - most people would be able to pay out of pocket for the majority of expenses. Twice the healthcare industry has fought that anti-trust laws don't apply to them - - it went to the supreme court both times - - both times the healthcare industry lost. Laws are there - - they aren't enforced. Throw a couple Hospital CEO's in jail for breaking these laws and it will all stop pretty quickly.

Which brings me to my last point of balancing the budget - - every dollar borrowed (unbacked credit emission) decreases the value of every dollar in circulation - - obviously hurting those with the fewest dollars. We have Rs and Ds alike running massive deficits year after year. Fix healthcare above and medicare/medicaid costs come crashing down and the budget gets balanced immediately. We may even have a surplus that we can use to start paying down the existing debt (the horror!).

To me it starts with politicians actually giving a crap about our laws - - they swear an oath to uphold those laws yet they have no interest in doing so b/c of the money involved. How do you get money out of politics...I don't know. But I do know that we can vote politicians out of politics. That's why I refuse to vote for any incumbent until I see real progress.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

That's easy, but first: why the hell would I take anything written on "sheabloglife.wordpress.com" seriously? LOL, look at some of these lines...

"Very close to Democratic Socialists of America."

"has worked with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011."

So conclusive. And the links to Keywiki?!?!

I'll just respond with my own wiki link...

rationalwiki.org...

Anyways, like I said it's an easy one because, because as far as I know, none of these people are calling for the replacement of capitalism with socialism. They are advocating for social policies and a mixed economy at most. Ya know, stuff like Medicare and Social Security...? Stuff we've had for almost 100 years and as American as apple pie.

Democratic socialists, or social democrats, or w/e you want to call them don't want to replace capitalism completely, they simply want to unrig the economy. Because the current economy is clearly not working for most people.

By all means, continue your McCarthy-esque crusade. It's probably as dated as whatever other beliefs you might have.

I believe I just read something here yesterday about rational wiki.... in any case, the mod is correct about DSA members in Congress and it’s been that way at least since 2008. Also YDSA has set up clubs in the Universities, as I just stated. And yes they DO want to replace capitalism with socialism/communism even while using capitalism for their ends. I listened to people in the Occupy movement directly call for the end to capitalism. I read their list of things they wanted, including such things as “participatory democracy”, which is really a lead up to direct democracy which is not what we have in the US, we have a Republic. I’ve heard them demand student loans forgiven, among other things now being proposed by newly elected people in Congress pushing a socialist agenda. Communism is the goal of socialism, Lenin said.
McCarthy was right then, and still right today.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: MadLad

Infrastructure is a “socialist policy”? You hear something new everyday.

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.

"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"

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.

So the roads the Roman's built were socialist? No, it makes no sense. Infrastructure is also a private affair.

The people on the left, for instance Bernie sanders, tout the Nordic model as examples of socialism, and that socialism synonymous with compassion. None of that is true. Socialism has never been good.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: MadLad

Well. I guess bailing out big banks with tax money, as in "too big to fail", wasn't a socialist policy as well?

Who knew!

It wasn't a capitalist policy, that's for sure.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: MadLad

Infrastructure is a “socialist policy”? You hear something new everyday.

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.

"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"

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.

That is not true. There are those if us who understand perfectly clear what socialism is and how it works. We also understand how it doesn’t work.

a reply to: MadLad

So the roads the Roman's built were socialist? No, it makes no sense. Infrastructure is also a private affair. The people on the left, for instance Bernie sanders, tout the Nordic model as examples of socialism, and that socialism synonymous with compassion. None of that is true. Socialism has never been good.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That is not true. There are those if us who understand perfectly clear what socialism is and how it works. We also understand how it doesn’t work.

We're just gonna keep going in circles here, I feel like.

It wouldn't be fair to retroactively label Roman policy as socialist, because the term is 19th century in origin. That said, if the shoe fits...

You don't have to agree with it, but there isn't a be-all and end-all version of "socialism". Socialist ideas and policy can be varied and nuanced, and yes it just so happens that public words fits into the category of social policy. Just because there are private elements at play, doesn't make the fact that taxpayer money is being used on communal projects any less "socialist" in nature... this is nothing new. Where do you think the "Social" of Social Security came from?

But clearly, you both know what socialism is and that's that.

Socialism is that where we give the banks a trillion dollars at the cost of the American tax payer so the CEO's can give themselves record bonus's?

What about CEO's giving themselves golden parachutists when their companies fail and the workers get shafted.

What about companies exploiting foreign slave labor by taking jobs out of the country?

Starting in 2005 I watched a mass exodus of jobs leave for foreign shores. I watched entire industrial complexes disappear in my area.

I'm suppose to be ashamed for being disabled and using food stamps and other programs?

Some people act as if the people at the bottom are taking food out of their mouths when those at the top are robbing them blind.

Know your enemies and it sure isn't those at the bottom.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: LittleByLittle

There's a reason I didn't use just Sweden as an example, but the rest of Scandinavia lol. It's really a shame, I hope the people of Sweden can take control and make a before between it's too late.

www.heritage.org...
mises.org...
Hmmmm....

Nordic countries have carried out successful privatizations of state sectors, from telecommunications to electricity generation and distribution. Even the postal service and some forests were priva

originally posted by: wantsome
Socialism is that where we give the banks a trillion dollars at the cost of the American tax payer so the CEO's can give themselves record bonus's?

What about CEO's giving themselves golden parachutists when their companies fail and the workers get shafted.

What about companies exploiting foreign slave labor by taking jobs out of the country?

Starting in 2005 I watched a mass exodus of jobs leave for foreign shores. I watched entire industrial complexes disappear in my area.

I'm suppose to be ashamed for being disabled and using food stamps and other programs?

Some people act as if the people at the bottom are taking food out of their mouths when those at the top are robbing them blind.

Know your enemies and it sure isn't those at the bottom.

Oh please! I have personal friends and former clients who have relied on food stamps. This is part of the social safety net which Is part of the system Cloward and Piven have sought to “overwhelm” because it’s not socialist enough and they want complete socialism. It’s nothing compared to the socialist programs member of Congress today are calling for which are largely unsustainable and unachievable and bankrupting the nation and saddling every American with at least a debt of $600,000 per family in 10 years time. That is without going into the true nature of these programs which is total
Control of the people and a great loss of personal freedom which our Founding Fathers fought for so bravely with their very lives.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Wow, what a non-argument! I never said those countries were fully socialist. Obviously not.

From the heritage organization:

First, these countries are not technically socialist. By the YDSA’s definition, socialism entails a centrally planned economy with nationalized means of production.Although these countries have high income taxes and provide generous social programs, they remain prosperous because of their free-market economies.

Hmmm, I don't recall any democratic-socialist calling for the complete replacement of the free-market or capitalism. It's almost as if this is a straw man...

I have nothing against private industry... but you're being disingenuous if you think that Norway hasn't implemented certain (quite a few!) social policies (aka socialism).

When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.

I am all for the free-market and capitalism, as long as are taking care of our own. No reason we can't have the best of both worlds.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: MadLad

So the roads the Roman's built were socialist? No, it makes no sense. Infrastructure is also a private affair. The people on the left, for instance Bernie sanders, tout the Nordic model as examples of socialism, and that socialism synonymous with compassion. None of that is true. Socialism has never been good.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That is not true. There are those if us who understand perfectly clear what socialism is and how it works. We also understand how it doesn’t work.

We're just gonna keep going in circles here, I feel like.

It wouldn't be fair to retroactively label Roman policy as socialist, because the term is 19th century in origin. That said, if the shoe fits...

You don't have to agree with it, but there isn't a be-all and end-all version of "socialism". Socialist ideas and policy can be varied and nuanced, and yes it just so happens that public words fits into the category of social policy. Just because there are private elements at play, doesn't make the fact that taxpayer money is being used on communal projects any less "socialist" in nature... this is nothing new. Where do you think the "Social" of Social Security came from?

But clearly, you both know what socialism is and that's that.

No, the shoe doesn't fit, and casuistry will do little to change that.

As you stated, things like infrastructure, taxes, "communal projects" have been around since before socialism was even a feint thought in someone's head. None of the "social policies" you mention were invented in a socialist country. 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. The word "social" comes from the word "social", not "socialism". The shoe doesn't fit at all.

originally posted by: Cabin

If the person wanted to become a plumber, that is positive. Although, just making the choice to have a job, which makes good money, but one has no interest in, is pointless choice. It is all dependent on the personal preferences of the person, where the passion lies.

I can understand that, but my point is many go to college with no clue to any type of job, accomplishing a degree not aligned with any career and then they are upset they are 60k in debt and working as a barista after they graduate. If your passion is archaeology then I guess you better roll with the poor pay for life understanding, as example...

University is not just about learning, it is about understanding, research, drawing conclusions. Experience itself rarely outweighs true understanding. I recently had interview for an electrical engineering position with an electrician with over 10 years of experience at the age of 29. He was fast,knew exactly how to choose components and when to use them, although when I asked him why, he was not able to explain himself. He just knew it, because he had done the same thing so many times. Eventually, he did not get hired because of that. Experiences comes in time, but the person needs to have understanding of the theory as well. University graduates do not have the experience that person had and can not answer the questions as fast, but if given some time, they are generally able to calculate the answer or at least explain theoretically how they would find it. The thinking process, how they draw conclusions, shows a lot about a person.

You lost me at EE, so of course that is a viable degree, so why is a tradesman electrician actually interviewing for a engineer position? In the company I work in we have about 300 engineers and I would bet all have advance degrees and that guy even with 10 years exp would not make it past the first gate, much less even a phone interview. Other than that your example doesn't play well with many other degrees though, and as example here are the top 7 most popular, and remember there are 100s of others that are also basically useless.


Computer Science: Not worth much on the market anymore, low pay these days.
Communications: Whatever.... waste of time for 99% in this field.
Government/Political Science: Whatever.... waste of time for 99% in this field.
Business: So so
Economics: Whatever.... waste of time for 99% in this field.
English Language and Literature: Whatever.... waste of time for 99% in this field.
Psychology: Whatever.... waste of time for 99% in this field unless you go masters/doctor level

Anybody thinks nowadays, they are able to learn something just by passing an online course, watching videos or just doing a couple of week intensive crash course. Generally, these self-taught experts are the worst candidates ,even for entry level positions,and usually not the brightest bulbs in the box.

I agree with you on your example, but I'm thinking a much cheaper AA degree in a technical field, such as dental tech, go to school and get the basic skills and knowledge and then work for cheap to build your skills over a couple of years then work for a career position as a skilled/trained/educated tech that is now worth the money they will be paid.

Any STEM field University program from a good university gives significantly more background in higher level math, statistics, research - skills which self-taught people usually do not have. University does not give all the practical skills necessary, but the backbone to build these skills on, to build experience on, not even speaking of the other benefits university has.

What the hell are you talking about... do you think anything out of a very low percentages of students even go down any path as like what you wrote above? My son is in Cal III and I think his class is 8 total students now, where other simple classes have 150 students. I bet that less than 15% of college students take Cal 1.

originally posted by: VoiceOfTheEmperor
a reply to: MadLad

So the roads the Roman's built were socialist? No, it makes no sense. Infrastructure is also a private affair. The people on the left, for instance Bernie sanders, tout the Nordic model as examples of socialism, and that socialism synonymous with compassion. None of that is true. Socialism has never been good.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That is not true. There are those if us who understand perfectly clear what socialism is and how it works. We also understand how it doesn’t work.

We're just gonna keep going in circles here, I feel like.

It wouldn't be fair to retroactively label Roman policy as socialist, because the term is 19th century in origin. That said, if the shoe fits...

You don't have to agree with it, but there isn't a be-all and end-all version of "socialism". Socialist ideas and policy can be varied and nuanced, and yes it just so happens that public words fits into the category of social policy. Just because there are private elements at play, doesn't make the fact that taxpayer money is being used on communal projects any less "socialist" in nature... this is nothing new. Where do you think the "Social" of Social Security came from?

But clearly, you both know what socialism is and that's that.

Yes socialist policy can be varied and nuanced. completely socialist countries such as Cuba or Venezuela have massive problems and are largely not considered successful. It is clear that the centralized control of the means of production in the former Soviet Union was unsuccessful and failed. We know that a definition of socialism is the centralized control of the means of production. We have seen even members of Congress here in the States recommend the taking over of entire sections of the economy (more specifically Maxine Waters said during testimony in Congress that she wanted government to take over and run the entire oil business and all the oil companies. In effect the nationalization of the oil
Industry). As the Fabian Society has shown, socialism can be achieved incrementally rather than via a violent revolutionary uprising as has been in the past in Cuba and the old Soviet Union.

a reply to: neoholographic

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.

Why stop there? Disband the entire government and we can let corporations have autonomous control of everything. That would be a much better system, RIGHT? Unregulated capitalism, which is the equivalent of far rightists goals to make the rich richer because they are in the pockets of billionaires. No public schools, just corporate controlled knowledge would be great, right? Get rid of medicare, social security, federal prisons and the justice system, all government funded science, welfare and all programs to help the needy. Everything needs to be 100% about profit!!! Let the poor die and be exploited for profit, as Jesus would have wanted.

Helping the poor by assisting with healthcare and lowering the cost of education is considered socialism by idiots on the right because they want to exploit the fear based simple mind of the conservative. These people are insane, it makes sense now why there are so many Trumpers on here now. They all live in fear and paranoia.

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.

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.