Socialism on the rise?

[pakicetus]

Or we can thank laws providing fair wages, working conditions, and things like that... you know, the things we've had to put in place to keep unfettered capitalism in check.

Can we all just agree that unfettered capitalism is bad, but well-regulated capitalism (including a welfare system) is good?

 

[BrianJK]

Can we all just agree that unfettered capitalism is bad, but well-regulated capitalism (including a welfare system) is good?

I think we're arguing to the degree of regulation...

My position is that the closer you get to unfettered, the worse we are for it.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Or we can thank laws providing fair wages, working conditions, and things like that... you know, the things we've had to put in place to keep unfettered capitalism in check.

It's called competition. If you hate your job or what it pays then find a better one. I've been through more than a few and it works every time: whoever offers the best wages for my time gets my employment.

It's not the government's job to tell businesses what to pay or how they should run their company. Citizens and employees determine what they feel is fair. If they have poor working conditions and bad wages then don't work there and don't spend your money on their products.

 

[BrianJK]

It's called competition. If you hate your job or what it pays then find a better one. I've been through more than a few and it works every time: whoever offers the best wages for my time gets my employment.

It's not the government's job to tell businesses what to pay or how they should run their company. Citizens and employees determine what they feel is fair. If they have poor working conditions and bad wages then don't work there and don't spend your money on their products.

Unfortunately there aren't always all sorts of options available, and in those cases, under "free" capitalism, companies are at their leisure to exploit the desperation of poor people.

Citizens can just as easily change what you think the government's job is to what they think it should be.

 

[AionPhanes]

There is a difference between democrats and social democrats. Perhaps you believe that Bernie wouldn't break up the banks and make them public if they could. I suspect that there are other industries also.

Sanders simply has no interest in encouraging business,mall or large. He believes that the government creates jobs, which just isn't true except in times of recession.

No, I beleive there is a possibility he might try to go that route with the banks in the incredibly unlikely scenario that the stars all aligned correctly, so to speak, and it was actualy feasible to pull it off. He has in fact made statements to that effect back in the day but I haven't heard him express that idea more recently in the past few years. He may or may not have changed his opinion since then I'm not totally sure. Like I said though he doesn't want the state to own all the means of production but only certain key sectors or services like police, military, and health insurance, among others.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That is what I mean taxes should be VERY limited in what they cover.

Why?

 

[The Cadet]

It's called competition. If you hate your job or what it pays then find a better one.

My freedom to quit my job and look for another one can very easily become my freedom to live on the street and starve to death. If you're a specialist or have useful skills, then yes, by all means, fish around for the best offer - although in times of economic hardship, even that's no guarantee. But if you're trying to go off your GED and can't really afford more education in colleges or trade schools (be it due to money or simply time), your options are often very limited. Even if there are a lot of different places hiring, chances are most of them have similarly terrible wages and benefits.

The German "Ausbildungsberuf" system is actually kind of genius - you spend half your time working at a company that pays you a low but at least liveable wage (I get 650€ a month after taxes, which I can survive on at the moment), and after three years you get certified by the Internationale Handelskammer - not quite a diploma, still very valuable - and then you get to work out a new employment contract with the company, which has a vested interest in keeping you on board, because you know them inside and out.

But the USA doesn't really do that, does it?

It's not the government's job to tell businesses what to pay or how they should run their company.

Actually, it kind of is. Because businesses can engage in all manner of really shady stuff. Minimum wage laws help prevent a race to the bottom situation, and ensure that people actually can get a decent wage for a day's work.

 

[AionPhanes]

A lot of political discussion gets stuck on ideological labels, what they mean, and if someone is truly an ____ (insert conservative, liberal, socialist, calitalist, etc...) I do that myself and admit that it does have some limited virtue but I think it's probably more important to focus on individual policy positions rather than the possible group membership of the canidates. Is Bernie a real socialist or a liberal Nordic style capitalist? Not sure but on the issues I agree with him more often than not and that's what counts. Focusing too much on a label can cause us to forget the possibly unique collection of ideas a canidate might have. That in turn leads us into thinking of them as card board cut out representatives or stereotype of some ideology which is bound to cause misunderstandings. Voters often seem to like things simple and easy to grasp with as little thinking as possible though unfortunately. A label can be even more catchy and effective than a one liner bumper sticker phrase at times though I guess and we can't escape that reality.

I have some "libertarian", or even a few "conservative" views on some issues like gun control for example. Many of my other views are more "liberal" Most people have some uniqueness to their views that defy easy categorization.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Why?

because people are responsaibe for their own choices and we should not have huge safety nets.

 

[Vylo]

Can we all just agree that unfettered capitalism is bad, but well-regulated capitalism (including a welfare system) is good?

Regulated capitalism or mixed economies do quite well. Laissez faire capitalism or crony capitalism gradually create something akin to monetary monarchies and cause the system to collapse. Hardline socialism does not adjust to market demands, and breeds unhealthy distribution of power. The reason socialism is seen so much more negatively, is hardline socialism erodes faster than hardline capitalism.

 

[greenguzzi]

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

That's not socialism, it's not even close. You need to do more research.
It's not right to dismiss an idea when you don't even have a clue what that idea is.

 

[greenguzzi]

I think it works like this; 99% of people are not taught and do not realize, that government is a necessary evil in that it embodies a monopoly on violence.
Capitalism, they mistakenly believe gives everyone a chance at success but capitalism itself does not confront predatory crony capitalism. It is just a tool that can be used for good or bad because it doesn't have a bill of rights attached.
So socialism is labled the boogy man that steals the phantom of chance from the ill informed.

I agree. Except for the first bit. The vast majority of people are brainwashed to accept that the state IS a necessary evil, when it isn't. And they comply BECAUSE said state has a monopoly on "legitimate" violence. Most people never question this, because it's the air they breath. They believe it almost as a superstition, but they don't know it in an intellectual sense.

 

[Albion]

They also know that socialism isn't communism, and they have no fear of that, like previous generations did after years of red-baiting. Socialism, as it has come to be known, is simply the idea that the government can provide assistance and programs to help people who need it....something corporations are loathe to do, as there's no profit in it.

Socialism isn't Communism, that's so. But what you're describing here isn't even close to being Socialism. Coincidentally or not, that may be why young people and a growing number of Democratic Party people say that they approve of Socialism--they don't know what it is.

 

[greenguzzi]

Maybe so maybe no but it can turn into more as people start wanting something for nothing. As someone who used to be SSI I am also no fool there is NO such thing as a free lunch.

Again, that is NOT socialism. There is nothing intrinsic in socialism that requires welfare or social security. Although I think that welfare in some cases benefits all of society, it's not required by socialism. Conversely, there is nothing to stop a conservative government maintaining a welfare system if it keeps the exploited workers from questioning their "position in life". Some socialists would oppose social security, because it's like a drug that keeps the workers from unrest.

However there is one aspect of welfare that is intrinsic to socialism, and that it does not allow welfare to go to the filthy rich. For example it would have stopped the huge amount of corporate welfare - tax payers money - going to Australia's richest woman.

Once again, you seem to have no clue what socialism is, and you really should do some proper research before you dismiss it.

 

[greenguzzi]

A lot of political discussion gets stuck on ideological labels, what they mean, and if someone is truly an ____ (insert conservative, liberal, socialist, calitalist, etc...) I do that myself and admit that it does have some limited virtue but I think it's probably more important to focus on individual policy positions rather than the possible group membership of the canidates.

The problem with this is that until we agree on the definitions we can't really discuss anything else. Eg: Unless we all understand what "socialism" is, then we might as well be speaking different languages for all the good it will do us.

Besides, political ignorance is a bigger problem that really needs to be addressed. I reckon a huge amount of voters are voting against their own interests. Many so called "conservative" voters wouldn't be so scared of socialism if they know what it actually was, instead of thinking it's the boogyman who's coming to take their pittance away from them.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Socialism isn't Communism, that's so. But what you're describing here isn't even close to being Socialism. Coincidentally or not, that may be why young people and a growing number of Democratic Party people say that they approve of Socialism--they don't know what it is.

Even on this forum it seems that those advocating socialism ... don't know what socialism is. Sad, really.

 

[Smidlee]

Capitalism is a failure. Unless you are one of the 1%.

11% of the people is in the top 1% sometime in their life which means capitalism does work.

 

[Smidlee]

I agree. Except for the first bit. The vast majority of people are brainwashed to accept that the state IS a necessary evil, when it isn't.

lol. You do realize a lot of those in the "state": is also in the evil 1%.

 

[Thursday]

According to a recent PEW poll fourty-nine percent of voters under the age of thirty had a positive view socialism whereas only fourty-six percent had a positive view of capitalism. Socialism beating out capitalism in popularity with young voters represents a massive change in public opinion. Not long ago socialism was a smear term conservatives used to scare people with but now it's not so scary but has instead become down right popular. What does this mean for the future of America? Could we see the rise of a new socialist party or the "take over" of the Democratic party for socialism simmilar to the far right tea party take over of the Republican party?

The New Yorker :

"A 2011 Pew Research Center survey found that, among voters under the age of thirty, forty-nine per cent had a positive view of socialism. (Only forty-six per cent had a positive view of capitalism.) Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College, who has written about Sanders, says that younger voters “may not be willing to entertain a whole new system, but they are open to a pretty profound critique of the current one. They’re not as naïve as Americans used to be during the Cold War—they know that there are varieties of capitalism, that there is social democracy in Scandinavia and Canada, where the government plays a bigger role in regulating corporations and in expanding the safety net.”​

They'll grow out of it once the indoctrination wears off.

 

[greenguzzi]

11% of the people is in the top 1% sometime in their life which means capitalism does work.

I'm not even going to bother to check if that is true or not. Even if it were true, if only 11% of the people are benefiting from something that affects us all, then it means that this thing is failing. Make that 49% if you like, it'll still be a failure.