Socialism is superior to capitalism

Typical elitist argument from pro-socialists benefitting from a free-market society: People don't understand socialism. People who think different than me are ignorant. You insult the opposition you are trying to woo, and then wonder why have nothing but disdain for you and your beliefs.

Yes. Of the 326,766,748 Americans, sure, let's say about 300 million are happy with their country.

It's quite possible you're being clever and I'm just not picking up on it. You can clarify.

Also, stop with the hyperbolic "hated of socialism" stuff. I don't hate socialism. Hating an economic system seems pretty trivial. I just don't want it here. Why should the US have to remake itself for the benefit of a few who embrace principles that are decidedly un-American? But that's neither here nor there.

 

I have a solution. Divide the world into two. Make one socialist and one capitalist. Let the capitalists live in their half and the socialists in theirs. Those that don't like either, having both a form of agoraphobia and claustrophobia at the same time, can live in a jaggedy sliver of territory spanning the globe nominally known as the 'Zone'. This is where you will find me.

 

It's obvious that most of the people bashing socialism on this thread don't understand what socialism is... and I don't think they're too far off from how the majority of everyday socialism-haters think. Right-wingers are notoriously anti-intellectual so most of the anti-left propaganda posits some made-up vision of socialism that they never bother to actually investigate for themselves.

I'm not going to pretend that they understand something they don't understand just to avoid hurting their feelings.

I'm not trying to woo or recruit anyone, I'm not campaigning... I'm just saying they don't get it.

You're just making that up.

I was referring to your totally made up statement about 300 million Americans supporting capitalism.

Because it isn't for the benefit of 'a few'.
You are saying it is because you don't want to walk back your 'love it or leave it' statement.

 

You seem to imply that the majority of Americans are just waiting to embrace socialism, while a self-admitted socialist couldn't even win the nod from his own party. The biggest living symbol of capitalism won the presidency beating out--what? The second biggest living symbol of capitalism? Majority rules. If the majority wanted socialism, we'd have it.

We don't.

There has to be a reason for that.

 

Did you see my post about how the majority actually does want single payer healthcare and tuition free college?

I can think of a few reasons why we dont have those things yet. For one, this is a relatively new development, there has definitely been a paradigm shift in the last couple of years and was helped in part by the candidate you mentioned, who was brave enough to campaign for these things in a country where these are considered radical ideas and mentioning them is considered political suicide for the vast majority of politicians.

The insurance lobby and for profit healthcare system is also a really powerful lobby. I'm not sure if America ever stands a chance of moving towards a single payer system without removing monied interests from politics first

Tuition free college will likely be an easier feat if it works well in Tennessee. We'll have a solid example of how to do it then.

Anyways i think the most important factor here is that half the country doesnt vote. So while the majority may express their opinion in a poll it doesnt mean they're actually out putting people into office who will represent their interests. Older people are more likely to vote than anyone and also less likely to support anything that hints at socialism. Mostly because they still equate it with communism.

I think Fraggle is telling an inconvenient truth here, but a truth nonetheless. Most people i've come across who have a blanket dislike for all things socialism dont really realize how well social programs work in basically every other first world country in existence and how it can function in harmony alongside capitalism. They're also happy to ignore the fact that they benefitted from socialism in their schooling from k5 - 12th grade. Theres a lot of ignorance out there, i dont mind being called an elitist for pointing that out. I just care that people draw informed opinions based on research rather than opinions based on propaganda

 

I don't know if they would embrace it, all I know is that they don't understand it, and it's frustrating to watch people laugh at/oppose something that they don't understand.
A big part of why Bernie lost the nomination is because Hillary did more fundraising among the very rich and essentially saved the party from bankruptcy.

I don't think Trump is the 'biggest living symbol of capitalism'-- he's a fraud and a conman so obviously he was lying, but some of his biggest promises involved support for vast public works programs, protectionism and even single payer universal health care. Those are not big free market capitalist positions. Of course, the fact remains that all that his base got was more GOP bullshit that almost nobody actually supports anymore.

There is a reason that the US doesn't have socialism, doesn't have a mixed economy, doesn't even have the same social welfare system that Canada has... but leaping to the conclusion that the US is currently exactly how everyone in America wants it to be is absurd.

 

@Meliai

I don't support unchecked capitalism. I'm very libertarian in my political leanings, but I don't support 100% deregulation. We used to have the option for tuition free education, but the banks got involved with a little thing called student loans and suddenly, because banks for were giving kids money for school, schools started charging whatever they wanted. That is totally uncool in my opinion. But, yes, there was a time when one could attend their home state university free...well, freeish. I'm not sure what costs were covered and which weren't. It may have covered tuition only and not books, cost of living, etc. But I digress.

No, what the banking industry has done to higher education is abhorrent. But, still, the chance for a higher education is still there because of social programs such as state and federal grants, scholarships, etc. which brings me to my next point...

Social programs aren't the same as socialism. I have nothing against social programs and safety nets for those less fortunate. My beef isn't with socialism so much as it is with anti-capitalists. Capitalism has served me well and has raised me from a very poor upbringing to middle class. And, I've got a long way to go before I own a yacht, a condo on the beach, a stake in the Boston Celtics, and various investments and holdings worth someone in the neighborhood of $300 million. But, that's also not what I'm aiming for. I suppose if you want to be mega rich and you can't accomplish it, it's easy to blame capitalism for that--and, perhaps, rightfully so. But I dug myself out of the gutter through hard work and determination. When I was a kid and I wanted anything--clothes, CDs, a new board, whatever--I had to go out and earn money to buy it. My parents never handed me anything outside of the basics. Some people think that was a tough way to grow up, but it wasn't. No. I got everything I needed. But I was taught to earn everything I wanted.

The arguments against capitalism aren't usually arguments against capitalism, so much as against people who support capitalism. I'm not saying you personally have or are saying this, but I'm sure you've come across the internet arguments that deem supporters of capitalism to be "slaves to a system" "ignorant--too ignorant, in fact, to realize they're being exploited" "sheep" etc. And, frankly, to have taken the world as it is--not the way I wanted it to be--and used it to pull myself up, and then to be called ignorant for it is just plain insulting.

 

Right. Which is why I didn't say that.

I said if America wanted socialism, we'd have it. I didn't say it's exactly how everyone wants it.

 

I can agree with this. I'm not anti capitalism. I think people who have a blanket dislike of capitalism are just as bad as those who have a blanket dislike of socialism. In reality pure socialism doesnt work but neither does completely free market capitalism.

I dont know that fraggle is arguing against capitalism all together, but maybe he is. I dunno. I just assume when people make arguments for socialism what they're really arguing for is a mixed economy. Because pure socialism has proven to be a failed experiment.

 

As has pure capitalism, hence my support of regulation. That's the other thing. People who argue against capitalism are arguing against a pure, unregulated and unchecked form of capitalism that not even the "gimme gimme gimme" people actually support.

 

You think that the majority always gets what it wants?

It doesn't help that the moment someone even mentions socialism, a lot of people fill with irrational dread, possibly accompanied by hysterical rants about Stalin and USSR and Venezuela and stealing from the hardworking and giving to the lazy.

They've been effectively conditioned to shut down their brains over a word that they don't even truly understand. For them, it would be like voting for aliens or monsters or scary clowns or something.

 

The fact is that some people, by virtue of their natural endowments (or lack thereof) and accidents of birth (being born into poverty instead of riches) or just plain accident (being hit by a truck and crippled or brain damaged), or the vagaries of the marketplace(downsizing, outsourcring, automation) are at a competitive disadvantage. Basic empathy should move people to come to their aid, but the fact is that a lot are in a bad way. We have folks who are enjoying three or four homes, yachts, and multiple automobiles, without much concern that some of their brothers and sisters lack the minimum resources for life and health. You're basically saying it's private charity or nothing. I think that's a shitty attitude, because everybody deserves the basic rights of life and decent health care. If people aren't moved to provide these to their fellow humans, as they apparently aren't, I have no problem with government taxing them to provide this basic minimum--which isn't the same as equality. We owe it on the basis of justice, not just charity. It's also smart politics. When people are desperate (have nothing to lose but their chains, as Marx put it) they get unruly. Even the Romans recognized that and were careful to provide bread and circuses for the proletariat. Western European countries operate on this basis and seem to get along alright.

 

No matter what economic platform is adopted, someone or a group of people will be adversely affected. Supposedly Norway has a socialist-like economy and it works well? But Norway isn’t remotely the US, so there’s that.

 

I think the reason Socialist Democracy (or is it supposed to be Democratic Socialism? I confuse the two and don't remember if there is a difference) appeals to people is because it addresses some of the social problems we are experiencing, whereas a more capitalist economy (they are types of economies, right?) suggests that you sink or swim, but fails to care for the needy, or drug addicts, or homosexuals... etc. And little by little we're getting better at that. I came across some legislation or a judicial decision the other day that impressed me. It was about gay couples being allowed to be gay regardless of whether or not the court finds them to be moral. I think court precedents are powerful. So long and short... we should keep our fundamental system of government with three branches, checks and balances, but really reconsider our approach to taxation. Social programs can do many many things but you have to pay for them. Universal healthcare is a wonderful example. So if we have that, and we have free tuition, and we have national parks, and services that clean our roads and patch the potholes, here comes the tab! It's a lot. But I say it's worth it to have things taken care of... not only for myself, but for everyone.

 

The inevitable consequence of socialism.

Of course

 

How are we not Norway in a way that prevents socialism?

Totally ignores the world you live in and overall a pretty simplistic understanding of politcal science. Any system can potentially lead to a dictator, that is why you have a second amendment right? You can not even trust Trump or the system that produced him.

 

Like I said to Mel. Your not going after capitalism; you're going after capitalists.

You're going to have to play this game by yourself. Life is too short and too good for this petty stuff.

 

i don't know, i've had some pretty slobby friends. and i've also known a lot of rednecky people; at some point it's not littering in your own yard, it's just depositing trash in your self-appointed trash mound.

 

No, actually I was just trying to explain what socialism is to people who don't understand what socialism is, as well as trying to explain to you why the US doesn't have socialism, which is what you were talking about. Then you called me an elitist and implied I was a hypocrite... and now it's my fault that you're upset.

Amazing.

 

I'm not upset.

In a fantastic mood, in fact.