Socialism on the rise?

NightHawkeye said:

Then, I would submit that it is up to you to provide an example of one socialist country which has been sustainable for more than a few years.

Click to expand...

How about the United States? Much of the New Deal was socialist in nature, and used in a similar way to how Bernie Sanders wants to adapt it today. Social Security, the WPA, et al, were socialist ideas adapted to our capitalist system, and much of it remains to this day. This, after all, is all Bernie Sanders is advocating, not "unfettered" socialism.

Interesting that you recognize the failure of a Socialist in the Oval Office ...

Click to expand...

I'd hardly call FDR's tenure in the Oval Office as a failure. People loved him so much, it took a Constitutional Amendment, and his death, to keep people from reelecting him again and again and again.

Certainly, there haven't been any socialists in the Oval Office since then.

but then instead of blaming that purveyor of socialism ... you instead blame the system which has sustained the most prosperous nation which has ever existed upon the earth.

Click to expand...

Tell that to those who will be sleeping on the street tonight.

-- A2SG, prosperous only for some....surely we can do better....

Smidlee said:

It's usually true that the youth are more liberal but becomes more conservatives as they get older. The youth doesn't have the experience to know the difference between something that is for the good from something that just feels good. Socialism only works if the masses have the mentality on working hard for something and only lean on the government when they have no other choice. The problem with socialism is the next generation doesn't have the same working mentality so they rely more and more on the government to provide them with their needs. Some will even get the mentality that these freebies are owe to them and it's their right to have all these freebies at the expense of others. Then socialism becomes the evil in a society the conservatives warns you about that eats away like a cancer in the body.

greenguzzi said:

I find that many younger people are way too conservative. (Or selfish, as I like to evaluate it.) I was fairly leftist when I was very young, I flirted with aspirational conservatism in my 20s. But I am pleased to say that as I get older I get more informed, so I drift back towards the left. So we aren't all cursed to become more conservative as we get older.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see why I would go back to conservatism in my later years if I abandoned it in my more recent ones.

greenguzzi said:

Ok. So what would be one of the major concepts of socialism that you oppose the most?

dogs4thewin said:

The thing that it set up where everyone has the same thing by government hands.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Such as libraries, parks, and highways?

The alternative might be "unfettered" capitalism. Read the Jungle if you want to see how that turns out for the average Joe.

NightHawkeye said:

OK. You're the one who said you were interested in genuine discussion. There are numerous examples though where free-market principles have brought about unprecedented prosperity.

Don't you find it curious that you can't come up with a single such example for socialism?

Click to expand...

I've already given my opinion of "prosperity". But to clarify: Prosperity would be a good indicator of success, provided it was sustainable, and provided no one was being exploited, and provided it was measured and reasonable, and provided no one was in poverty, and provided the environment didn't suffer excessively over the long term, etc..
Prosperity is not necessaries a good thing, and unprecedented prosperity is almost definitely a bad thing.
I have no doubt at all that there are numerous examples where free-market principles have brought about unprecedented prosperity. That's one of my arguments as to why I believe we need to get rid of capitalism.

Yes, it is interesting that I haven't fully answered your request for examples of successful socialism - well I think it's interesting anyway. I'm pretty sure that I could answer the question, but I don't think I need to do so to advance my argument or to continue with our "genuine discussion". I also think it would start the conversation off in a new direction, and I don't want that to happen just yet. Maybe later if you or anyone else is still interested. However I did give a partial answer, which I thought was sufficient.

NightHawkeye said:

You're the one claiming that this country's free-market days belonged in the past ... because of current failures ... which failures have been made manifest under the transformative and redistributionist policies of Barack Obama.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see! You have inferred something that I didn't imply. No, I didn't mean that your country's free-market system has somehow failed for some reason (mismanagement, bad luck, whatever). I mean that capitalism in a flawed system that is destined to fail. Not just in the USA, but everywhere. In the past capitalism was useful and somewhat harmless. But it should never have been allowed to grow into the monster it is now. Some have argued that capitalism is a necessary stage that we as a society have to go through. But just as individuals should not get stuck in adolescence, so as a society we should not get stuck in capitalism.

Capitalism will end. Right from the very beginning it always was going to end. We can either guide it into (arrested) adulthood, or we can do nothing and let it completely fail - and take us down with it. If it does the latter, then there will be unprecedented misery.

I believe that Obama's policies may well have the power to abate the inevitable disaster. But they are only just addressing the symptoms rather than fixing the problem. Which, by the way, is why Obama - as great as he is - is not a socialist.

NightHawkeye said:

Fair enough. I would suggest that we start with prosperity as the primary measure of success though. Now, what other measures would you suggest?

Click to expand...

Well, I could list quite a few, but I really only need to mention one:
Climate change.
While it is true that capitalism isn't the only (or even the primary) cause of climate change, it is a contributor; a contributor of increasing magnitude.
But even that's not the issue.
As a thought experiment I will be very generous, and say that I have only one criterion to be convinced that capitalism is successful. That criterion is that it has the power to halt or reverse climate change. That is the issue.
Well, we all know that it fails in this. Capitalism not only fails in addressing climate change, but it hinders every other mechanism and effort to address climate change.

NightHawkeye said:

Yet, the unvarnished reality is that capitalism as practiced by moral people has brought the most prosperity to the world that has ever been. This fact would suggest that morality ought to be stressed much more than it is currently.

Similarly, the unvarnished reality of socialism in its various guises is that it has brought to the world the most misery and suffering which has ever been.

Curious, eh? For all the talk about how much good government can do, the reality is that governments are far too likely to bring misery and suffering. In contrast, a moral population operating under capitalism with limited government and open competition brings prosperity to all.

Click to expand...

In order to distinguish moral neutral Capitalism, (which naturally devolves into predatory and crony capitalism) from "capitalism as practiced by moral people" (which is an excellent statement of principle) - we need a handy term.
I propose we use "Fair Market Capitalism", whereby government's obligation is to ensure transparency, subject to independant audit (like the police should be already) enough that the interest of our common good can be protected against corporations who shift the cost of production (pollution) on to the public environment.

It may also help to re-evaluate the idea that being a member of the one percent is a success, due to the collateral damage (poverty of others) that hoarding economic power causes. With the shiny brochure euphemisms and shallow patriotism of that kind of prosperity... ugly Americans are made.

greenguzzi said:

I've already given my opinion of "prosperity". But to clarify: Prosperity would be a good indicator of success, provided it was sustainable, and provided no one was being exploited, and provided it was measured and reasonable, and provided no one was in poverty, and provided the environment didn't suffer excessively over the long term, etc..
Prosperity is not necessaries a good thing, and unprecedented prosperity is almost definitely a bad thing.
I have no doubt at all that there are numerous examples where free-market principles have brought about unprecedented prosperity. That's one of my arguments as to why I believe we need to get rid of capitalism.

Yes, it is interesting that I haven't fully answered your request for examples of successful socialism - well I think it's interesting anyway. I'm pretty sure that I could answer the question, but I don't think I need to do so to advance my argument or to continue with our "genuine discussion". I also think it would start the conversation off in a new direction, and I don't want that to happen just yet. Maybe later if you or anyone else is still interested. However I did give a partial answer, which I thought was sufficient.

Ah, I see! You have inferred something that I didn't imply. No, I didn't mean that your country's free-market system has somehow failed for some reason (mismanagement, bad luck, whatever). I mean that capitalism in a flawed system that is destined to fail. Not just in the USA, but everywhere. In the past capitalism was useful and somewhat harmless. But it should never have been allowed to grow into the monster it is now. Some have argued that capitalism is a necessary stage that we as a society have to go through. But just as individuals should not get stuck in adolescence, so as a society we should not get stuck in capitalism.

Capitalism will end. Right from the very beginning it always was going to end. We can either guide it into (arrested) adulthood, or we can do nothing and let it completely fail - and take us down with it. If it does the latter, then there will be unprecedented misery.

I believe that Obama's policies may well have the power to abate the inevitable disaster. But they are only just addressing the symptoms rather than fixing the problem. Which, by the way, is why Obama - as great as he is - is not a socialist.

Well, I could list quite a few, but I really only need to mention one:
Climate change.
While it is true that capitalism isn't the only (or even the primary) cause of climate change, it is a contributor; a contributor of increasing magnitude.
But even that's not the issue.
As a thought experiment I will be very generous, and say that I have only one criterion to be convinced that capitalism is successful. That criterion is that it has the power to halt or reverse climate change. That is the issue.
Well, we all know that it fails in this. Capitalism not only fails in addressing climate change, but it hinders every other mechanism and effort to address climate change.

Click to expand...

It would succeed if the market was fair, because people want clean energy, but powerful interests are invested in fossil fuels, so what we want gets corralled and chuted onto their killing floor.
Prosperity is a good thing.
Principle: Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Reality check

BrianJK said:

The alternative might be "unfettered" capitalism. Read the Jungle if you want to see how that turns out for the average Joe.

Click to expand...

AceHero said:

Such as libraries, parks, and highways?

Click to expand...

The problem here is that "unfettered" Capitalism is not under consideration, and parks and libraries are not Socialism.

Albion said:

The problem here is that "unfettered" Capitalism is not under consideration, and parks and libraries are not Socialism.

Click to expand...

No current candidate is proposing unfettered socialism either.

dogs4thewin said:

The jungle?

Click to expand...

It's a book by Upton Sinclair. It's a powerful read.

dogs4thewin said:

Where do I find it?

Click to expand...

It's likely at your local library too.

BrianJK said:

No current candidate is proposing unfettered socialism either.

Click to expand...

They're proposing "Socialism," however, and describing it as though Socialism were nothing more than free enterprise but with public roads and municipal sewage systems. I'd think that anyone who really believes in any political philosophy would be happy to be honest about what it is. Not these guys, though.

Albion said:

They're proposing "Socialism," however, and describing it as though Socialism were nothing more than free enterprise but with public roads and municipal sewage systems. I'd think that anyone who really believes in any political philosophy would be happy to be honest about what it is. Not these guys, though.

Click to expand...

So all I have to do is find a clip of a Republican candidate praising "capitalism" and aligning himself with the word to prove he embodies all the negative aspects of pure unfettered capitalism, the way you insinuate the word "socialism" necessarily makes Sanders embody its possible negative aspects?

dogs4thewin said:

Basically every man for himself you either have money or you will not last.

Click to expand...

That's reality without some guarantee of assistance

dogs4thewin said:

In this country?

Click to expand...

Just look at history. When we had no assistance measures in place, starvation was a thing.

People still freeze to death.

There's no reason for that to occur in a country as prosperous as this