What's Behind Socialism's New Appeal Among Americans?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Edumakated
I think socialism is popular because many people are never presented with a counter viewpoint. You also have a lot of propaganda from mainstream media and educational institutions.

I don't think most people who support socialism are dumb / stupid, but they've just never actually really thought in depth about the positions they are taking.

People also tend to think emotionally instead of logically.

Both adherents and opponents of “socialism” seem to miss the point. The biggest issue with such systems is that they require massive authoritarian intervention.

THAT’s the issue, not per se where the money comes from or what we do with it. (Of course, that matters as well.)

Socialism requires far more authoritarian intervention. People are naturally capitalistic and it functions at an individual level. Any intervention with capitalism is with regulations to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the weak. With socialism, the intervention is more about forcing everyone to participate whether they want to or not. Everything is done at a macro level even if individual needs are not met.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Edumakated
I think socialism is popular because many people are never presented with a counter viewpoint. You also have a lot of propaganda from mainstream media and educational institutions.

I don't think most people who support socialism are dumb / stupid, but they've just never actually really thought in depth about the positions they are taking.

People also tend to think emotionally instead of logically.

Both adherents and opponents of “socialism” seem to miss the point. The biggest issue with such systems is that they require massive authoritarian intervention.

THAT’s the issue, not per se where the money comes from or what we do with it. (Of course, that matters as well.)

Socialism requires far more authoritarian intervention. People are naturally capitalistic and it functions at an individual level. Any intervention with capitalism is with regulations to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the weak. With socialism, the intervention is more about forcing everyone to participate whether they want to or not. Everything is done at a macro level even if individual needs are not met.

99% agreement from me.

I’m not sure I’d say that people are naturally capitalistic. That suggests a hierarchy ... I’d say that it’s natural for people to trade with each other. The complexity goes up from there.

No issues though.

a reply to: Edumakated

Socialism requires far more authoritarian intervention. People are naturally capitalistic and it functions at an individual level. Any intervention with capitalism is with regulations to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the weak.

That, or it's more like helping the weak getting their act straight. And when you really believe we're capitalists by nature you probably never gifted someone anything without conditions or good reasons at all. That's sad.

Anyhow, why do people tend to focus on "the new thing" people wanna try out, not on the failed experiments of all those neolibs and neocons who are responsible for this mess? Do you just tend to forget quickly or what's behind all the ignorance at play here?

I don't know of a whole lot of people who want a full on socialist society. Most just want like 2 more social programs so that we can catch up with the rest of the world on healthcare and education.

a reply to: LordAhriman

The way it looks, many Americans would rather have another revolution on their hands to keep the modern slavery alive and kicking cuz that's simply "too big to fail". Pun intended.

Well whatever it is, it been in the motion for years.

Lots of old rhetoric that would be put down, is being regurgitated by popular media.

Also over priced garbage might be an excuse.

Why am I so much more willing to buy a the Japanese Playsation then the American x box or honda/ford.

If I was a clumsy dumb gun nut, would I get an M-16 or an Ak 47 that doesnt need a condom for protection...even though it already protection as it is

a reply to: Fallingdown

I am not so sure I agree with that.

I grew up poor as a church mouse in a tiny rural town. Everyone had to work hard for everything they had, and they shared generously.

Fast forward a few years and it was no surprise to me that all nine of my siblings did well in life, and yet they still gave back generously to their communities and neighborhoods.

My sister recently commented that she wasn't upset they stopped her from feeding the poor on Sundays. She used to prepare a healthy, hearty meal to give to the poor in the park, one day a week. She did it for so long that her young daughter, that went with her, started up her own Sunday Dinner in the Park program out where she now lives, and her young son now helps her.

My sister said that it was harder for her to do all the cooking and preparation as she has gotten older, and the cost was becoming a challenge. Cost and laws are making it harder for people to be as generous as they once were, but most Americans are the first to reach out and to lend a helping hand, even when they often have less than those they are trying to help.

The problem is not the people. The problem is the corrupt institutions that govern the people. It is the same with all forms of government. I guess it is just the nature of the beast.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

A big fallacy is that government is needed for a social safety net. The reality is that local communities are able to provide the charity and social services needed to care for those in need.

Government often crowds out charitable giving with high taxes. In addition, government is far more inefficient and too far removed from those that need help. Finally, when it is local services providing the social safety net, they can provide better and more customized services. I also think people are less likely to take advantage / commit fraud when they are dealing with people in their own community.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I don't know of a whole lot of people who want a full on socialist society. Most just want like 2 more social programs so that we can catch up with the rest of the world on healthcare and education.

American education is already nearly 100% socialized. Most schools are publicly owned and publicly run by public employees using a state mandated curriculum. Students are assigned to schools based solely on where they live and no other criteria, unless they're bused for racial ethnic reasons.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Youngsters have been told it's simply sharing. And that's what they believe -- that everything will be taken, pooled and evenly divided up and magically everyone will have enough to live a wonderful 6-figure salary lifestyle in all aspects.

They don't think that because not everyone will give all their stuff voluntarily, the taking to pool must be done by force from everyone, and that gets ugly. They don't do the math to realize that the median is more like a 50K lifestyle for everyone in all aspects.

And they also never think that human nature, being what it is, people will still find ways to game the system whether they stop working and expect to be supported by others or find ways to get more from the system than they should, etc., ory even start selling stuff on a capitalist black market that exists in every socialist society to supply what the government can't or won't

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

No, there's a third choice, but it's the hardest one for way too many people. Work to succeed. Earn what you get, by the sweat of your brow, as the old saying goes.

Some see socialism as something of a "get out of jail free" card. With socialism, the Nanny-state will provide all. They don't bother to think that that money has a source. ...and that source doesn't like having to give it up, and will, in all eventuality, hide it away by what ever means are necessary to do so.

Tax the 1%'ers. OK... The 1%'s, to no ones surprise, don't like this--why should they, really--and will take measures to protect what is theirs. Moving off shore, leaving the country, etc...

That's OK, we'll just tax someone else... Except that, oops, those someone else's have seen what's happening, and have taken measures to prevent this.

Sounds remarkably like cannibalism, doesn't it??

a reply to: seagull

We did that.

We worked full time while attending school full time (I had 3 or 4 semesters where I would only get 1 day off a week) only to graduate and end up with a cashier/CSR job.

What most people like you don't realize is that Millenials are the generation expressly told work hard to earn what you deserve. We went to school, we did the training programs, we started off as unpaid interns and mail clerks and worked hard only to find out that the fruits of our labour only went to the top.

We figured out the scam faster than other generations.

I'd wager its simply the recognition of wealth hoarding. When 1% of people have 99.99% of the wealth, socialism is the natural reaction.

When people starve while almost the entirety of a countries wealth sits untouched or in financial vehicles who only interest the account holder then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

When people start to esteem compassion over greed, then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Which part of that wealth are we talking about? The part the government tells us we cannot access in order to protect the environment?

Oh ... I wasn't supposed to point out that it's not just private or business entities that hoard wealth, am I?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'd wager its simply the recognition of wealth hoarding. When 1% of people have 99.99% of the wealth, socialism is the natural reaction.

When people starve while almost the entirety of a countries wealth sits untouched or in financial vehicles who only interest the account holder then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

When people start to esteem compassion over greed, then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

There is no wealth hoarding... you are demonstrating your ignorance of finance.

No one even remotely rich keeps a horde of cash under their mattress. All that money is in the market being invested / lent out as loans, etc.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'd wager its simply the recognition of wealth hoarding. When 1% of people have 99.99% of the wealth, socialism is the natural reaction.

When people starve while almost the entirety of a countries wealth sits untouched or in financial vehicles who only interest the account holder then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

When people start to esteem compassion over greed, then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

There is no wealth hoarding... you are demonstrating your ignorance of finance.

No one even remotely rich keeps a horde of cash under their mattress. All that money is in the market being invested / lent out as loans, etc.

Rather you are demonstrating your ignorance if you think much of the wealth of the country is being re-invested in vehicles that benefit the proletariat.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'd wager its simply the recognition of wealth hoarding. When 1% of people have 99.99% of the wealth, socialism is the natural reaction.

When people starve while almost the entirety of a countries wealth sits untouched or in financial vehicles who only interest the account holder then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

When people start to esteem compassion over greed, then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

There is no wealth hoarding... you are demonstrating your ignorance of finance.

No one even remotely rich keeps a horde of cash under their mattress. All that money is in the market being invested / lent out as loans, etc.

Rather you are demonstrating your ignorance if you think much of the wealth of the country is being re-invested in vehicles that benefit the proletariat.

It is finance 101...

Vast majority of that wealth is in stock market. The stock market is how companies raise capital so they can grow... you know HIRE EMPLOYEES. Some of the money may be invested in illiquid assets like real estate. However, even that benefits people by creating jobs. Tradesmen and all the other people associated with building, selling, and maintaining homes.

Yachts? Same thing. Someone has to build those boats. Private Jets? They don't build themselves.

We can do this all day....

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'd wager its simply the recognition of wealth hoarding. When 1% of people have 99.99% of the wealth, socialism is the natural reaction.

When people starve while almost the entirety of a countries wealth sits untouched or in financial vehicles who only interest the account holder then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

When people start to esteem compassion over greed, then socialism starts to become the natural reaction.

There is no wealth hoarding... you are demonstrating your ignorance of finance.

No one even remotely rich keeps a horde of cash under their mattress. All that money is in the market being invested / lent out as loans, etc.

Rather you are demonstrating your ignorance if you think much of the wealth of the country is being re-invested in vehicles that benefit the proletariat.

It is finance 101...

Vast majority of that wealth is in stock market. The stock market is how companies raise capital so they can grow... you know HIRE EMPLOYEES. Some of the money may be invested in illiquid assets like real estate. However, even that benefits people by creating jobs. Tradesmen and all the other people associated with building, selling, and maintaining homes.

Yachts? Same thing. Someone has to build those boats. Private Jets? They don't build themselves.

We can do this all day....

Sure, we can do this all day. Praytell why all that money multiplying off the backs of people and wages have effectively stagnated for the last 30 years and doesn't quite add up though?

a reply to: Edumakated

Depending on the wealthy to just keep spending their money so it 'trickles down' isn't and hasn't worked, ever. There's only so many billion dollar homes you can buy, so many billion dollar yachts you can buy. Shoving more wealth to the 6,000 billionaires in the world in hopes that they just spend it all isn't the answer to anything other than 'How do we make the rich richer?'

More than half of America's wealth is tied up by a handful of people, these same people aren't paying any taxes as one so-called billionaire once put it, 'that makes me smart.' They're not offering good paying jobs, they're offering demanding jobs that pay the bare-minimum from keeping people quitting. No one in the world works hard enough every day to 'earn' $100,000/hour.

America is built on the backs of and kept afloat by the people who are working two or more jobs for barely above minimum wage and are yearning for an opportunity to get even a glimpse of a 401(k) and hoping, beyond all hope, that they don't get sick because they can't afford to miss a day of work.

a reply to: EternalShadow


well said