Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

Every type of economy has features shared by every other type of economy, and yet the integrity of the main system is preserved. So the feudal system had markets, capitalism has feudal features and socialist features, and socialism will have feudal features and capitalist feature. But as you mentioned, those other features do not dominate and therefore the integrity of the system is preserved. So the USA is a capitalist country and it has some features common to feudalism as well as some common to socialism. That said, it is incorrect to assert that the USA is a mix of capitalism and socialism. It is capitalist with some socially-beneficial features and programs that in a general way may be shared with socialism.

(There is so, so much error, ignorance, and disinformation floating around that I'm trying to be precise in my wording to counter it.)

 

They, too, are subject to many years of propaganda supported by a lack of valid education and information. So they usually mean they are democratic socialists when they say "socialist". Bernie and AOC are probably the best known cases that come to mind. And democratic socialism is a form of capitalism with a high degree of regulation and socially-beneficial programs. But it's still capitalism. In fact, Bernie once in recent years said that he is a "socialist after the style of FDR", and FDR once said "I saved capitalism".

 

Perhaps you can top Albert Einstein then?

https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

I presume Mr. Von Mises is debunking Marxism and "commitude" in his book. What I mean and talk about is more like Communitarianism.

 

If you're familiar with the context of Obama's statist nitwittery and who he was pandering to, one would understand why anyone who isn't dependent on government and doesn't worship at the altar of the State took issue with that nonsense - and, yes, he was mostly if not completely wrong.

First, the underlying problem with Obama and Fauxcahontas Warren's collectivist psychobabble - You didn't build that! - is that government does not create the wealth that businesses create/generate, thus the attempt on the part of the Alinkyite in Chief and Liawatha to give government credit for that falls flat on its face.

Secondly, what those two conveniently failed to mention is that the taxes those businesses pay from the wealth they create/generate is what pays for the schools, roads, police, emergency services and the military - the government doesn't pay for that. Furthermore, there was a time when Americans did most if not all of that stuff on their own - built their own roads and schools, policed and defended their own communities, etc. - but as the country grew we decided to delete those things to government so we could focus on other things we decided we would rather be doing.

Third, most of the schools, roads, police, emergency services, etc. that those businesses pay for are never used by those businesses - they're used by other people.

Fourth, ironically, those businesses are (in part) paying Obama and Warren's salary - and the time they're wasting prattling their collectivist hogwash when they should have been back in their offices working.

Little wonder Obama was such a failure at the job he was supposed to be doing, but that's what you get when you elect a "progressive" ideologue whose pledged to 'fundamentally transform the United States of America'. Doing boring stuff like ensuring the safety of your diplomatic staff and their security details just isn't a priority.

 

This crops up over and over.
Americans struggle to understand what the manifestations of socialism in their own country are.
Like free to use shared roads, or the agreement to drive on the right, or schools free at the point of use, or the collectively funded forces of law and order, or security.
All manifestations of socialism as in agreed collective enterprise.
America is already a socialist country.

 

Well good. This is very much worth discussing.

There are three predominant notions of socialism and one is correct and the other two are propaganda. Tell me, do you believe a capitalist country and government like the US would rather have the public believe that (1) socialism is actually a form of capitalism with the government managing everything and the workers remain employed workers, or that (2) socialism is really a form of capitalism in which private businesses remain and even continue to thrive and grow and workers remain employed workers but regulation of business is heavy, wealth accumulation is restricted a bit, and there are many socially-beneficial programs to make life easier for the people, or that (3) socialism is worker ownership and control of their places of work, private ownership of business is in decline due to laws, worker ownership is growing, and government's job laid out in a Constitution is to facilitate worker ownership and control?

You say you "know what socialism in its many forms is and I think most of us here know what it is." And as you can see from the above paragraph that is most likely incorrect when it refers to "socialism in its many forms". There is one basic structure which is worker control, and it would be designed/created/formatted according to various influences like customs, traditions, preferences, etc., but still take the form of worker control. And that is the only reason capitalism is so viciously anti-socialist/anti-communist.

Every country produces propaganda to support its own system. One form of such propaganda in the US has for about 70 years been known as "anti-communism". And it is responsible for the confusion and false ideas in society. Here's one: "Communists took over and controlled the USSR and so the USSR had a communist system." THAT is a load of confused, confusing garbage that is typical of US propaganda, which is where that idea came from originally.

If you knew you were being fed propaganda, that propaganda would be completely ineffective. Propaganda depends entirely on you and I not knowing that is what we're being fed. So your doubt that it has given many people an inaccurate idea of what socialism, communism, and/or Marxism are is wishful thinking. I dealt with it myself for many years. So I can assure you that Americans don't understand these things near as much as you think they do.

On the contrary! Propaganda is ENTIRELY the cause for such erroneous ideas of those who claim to prefer socialism. With correct factual education on such things as fascism vs. socialism there would be no such confusion.

I'd like you to go back over that one point at a time! WEF="World Economic Forum"? ESG="Environmental, Social, and Governance"?

Exactly WHAT "problem is rooted in socialism"? How? (Remember my explanation of "socialism" above!)

And yes, corporate power is taking over the last shreds of representative democracy" with Citizens United and the A.L.E.C. as two examples, not to mention the huge contributions to political campaigns that 99% of the public cannot hope to match.

Anytime.

 

You are making up the KKK out of your bias. In any event, why not vote for a democrat who is NOT a socialist, or even vote for a moderate Republican?

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, most of the takers live in big city areas.

 

LOL. I know, everyone is wrong but you.

 

“……that have been called socialist”

psst; A waste of time if you were to try to prove them wrong.

Perhaps, the question people should be asking themselves is which/what _______is less or more socialistic/capitalistic, reference to aspects, elements, features, etc.


Examples;

1. Several posters in this thread have already concluded that in the U.S., a Farmer’s Cooperative is CAPITALISM, Period! I disagree, because it is also SOCIALISTIC.

2. Which of the following Social Security Trust Fund is more capitalistic?

a. U.S. Social Security Trust Fund

b. Canada’s Social Security Trust Fund

Answer; (b.)……a $500 billion trust fund, managed by professional money managers, and Canada’s employer/employee contributions are invested all over the world, both stocks, bonds, real estate, infrastructure, toll roads, etc.

Thus, we have to discuss/debate aspects, elements, features, etc.

 

Personally, I think ol' Ludwig did, but to Albert's credit he conceded he was not an expert on economic and social issues. It was a very interesting article, though - thanks.

"Commitude"? I like that.

You presume correctly, but as is the case with any in-depth economic and sociological analysis it gets into a lot more than that - human nature, individual freedom, etc., etc.

I suspected as much, and that's cracking open an interesting can of worms.

I don't know if that was literally what you were talking about, but it does open another interesting avenue of discussion/debate, just as @Polydectes took us down another interesting path I didn't anticipate.

Being an Individualist we have other ideas about how individuals and their thinking and behavioral patterns are formed. We believe that environment and community play a smaller role in such development, although I think they do play an important role. "No man is an island", right?

However - and I may be about to contradict myself to a degree here - relative to communitarianism and the influence our environment has on individuals, I've been wondering if the nature of the Information Age and how the environment it has created might be partly responsible for why socialism, or more broadly collectivism, has become more popular, particularly since the 1990s when the Internet started to become widely available. I'm a communications professional and studied Media in college and read books like this:



where we did a DEEP dive into how Media and different forms of Media effect people on an individual and societal level. The Internet hadn't been invented when Marshall McLuhan wrote his book, but the same principles apply, so the question remains how do electronic media (TV and most particularly the Internet) and the information environment we live in today effect our thinking and behavior?

This might sound counter-intuitive, but I wonder if our new communications media/technologies, immersion in an environment where we are constantly assaulted with a tsunami of information and possession of an unprecedented level of connectivity, is atomizing society and making the communication between individuals increasingly impersonal. In this new information and communication environment, it is conceivable that a rising interest in collectivism and socialism might be an attempt on some people's parts to compensate for that atomization and depersonalization. This would satisfy a need on the parts of some people to reach out and make contact with other people in an increasingly isolated and impersonal world. Being as how human beings are social animals for the most part, this would make perfect sense.

This is all pure speculation on my part and I've only begun contemplating it in the last couple days so I haven't completely thought it through, but I wonder if this might be contributing to the phenomenon we're discussing in this thread (?).

 

Thanks for responding to my post.

 

...which means you believe you could not make a mistake. How nice for you!

But if you don't think Bernie and AOC both said they are "democratic socialists" then you don't know much about this. So keep throwing stones!

 

Yes they are, their used by their consumers without which they have no wealth.

 

You think you're going to get Che, but you're likely to get Pinochet.

 

Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist but we are far from a socialist country. Our government doesn't even own resources like oil (which they should) let alone own means of production for companies.

But I would be interested in knowing a country better than US that has no form of socialism or democratic socialism.

 

That's right Eddie. All countries have some features of every kind of economic system, but always one is dominant. Whether a country is capitalist or socialist or whatever, is indicated by which type of relations of production are advancing and dominating. In the US it is capitalism that is advancing and dominating. "Socialism" is only found in a few socially-beneficial programs and policies, and they are nowhere near dominant. The US is a capitalist country.

 

Industrious, ambitious, hardworking people build that GDP you're so proud of -- not people who do indeed 'sit on their asses' and wait for government welfare programs and 'subsidies' (just another word for welfare).

Unfortunately for all of us, right now the national debt-versus-GDP ratio is 123% and RISING again! We're going to go bankrupt trying to float immense sums of imaginary money to segments of American society that no longer contribute taxes, and, don't even support themselves!

 

Curious question. I don't think a capitalist/free market country and government like our own would have people believe any of those narratives. Clearly, #1 and #2 can be dispensed with entirely since socialism is not a form of free market capitalism and there are several problems with what you posted in #3. While socialism might be advertised as "worker ownership and control" - as if private property ownership would be permitted - it has always been, in practice, government/state control. Furthermore, I can't imagine why our government, or one similar to it, would have the public believe that our Constitution should make facilitating worker ownership and control a job of government.

Capitalism is anti-socialist/anti-communist because it is pro-private property ownership and pro-free market, and in a broader sense, pro-individual freedom. If workers (or employees) want to own and run a business, they are free to do so - this wouldn't be mandated or prohibited in a free market system. What a capitalist free market system and country is not interested in is nationalizing/collectivizing industry and agriculture and placing it under the ownership and control of the State.

Well, I would agree that just because the communists in Russia took control of Russia that doesn't mean it had, in the purest theoretical sense of the term, a communist system. What it had was the crappy real world version of socialism-communism that has fallen short of the theoretical ideal in every country that socialists and communists have taken over (and that's been the real world problem with socialism and communism - the pure utopian ideals cannot be implemented in the real world because they don't work on the human and economic level). However, that hasn't stopped communists and socialists from claiming that their parties, governments, economies and countries were/are communist or socialist (ex., "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"), so I'm not sure the U.S. is to blame for that propaganda - it is merely parroting what the communists and socialists would have people believe.

Well, I was referring to the people here in this forum, not Americans in general. I'll be the first to concede that most Americans don't know as much about socialism and communism (and the countries that professed to practice their theories) as I wish they did, but getting into that kind of detail requires people to study them on their own.

I was referring to what I believe you called "anti-communist/socialist propaganda". Personally, I think it's been the propaganda of Leftists, not anti-communists and anti-socialists who are primarily responsible for giving people the idea that national socialism and fascism have nothing to do with socialism, despite everything Mussolini, Gentile and the German National Socialist ideologues said.

Hayek on the Socialist Roots of Nazism
When the individual has no rights, only duties.
https://fee.org/articles/hayek-on-the-socialist-roots-of-nazism/

Nevertheless, I agree with on the correct factual education thing.

Yes.

The whole Stakeholder fascist thing in general and the Environmental, Social, and Governance program in specific. I can go into more detail about this tomorrow but for now I'll refer you to this article:

The Rise of Corporate-State Tyranny
https://dc.claremont.org/the-rise-of-corporate-state-tyranny/#_ednref91

As I just pointed out, I can see the problem.

 

I once tried to determine the level, and/or the percentage of socialism in several countries, mainly G-20, however, there are complexities, for example;

State-owned XYZ National carrier; Government employees deliver both regular mail and parcels.

State-owned ABC National carrier; Private entities deliver regular mail, and parcels.

Thus, In said example, easier to determine which state-owned is more capitalistic.

 

Obviously, the consumers aren't the businesses themselves nor do they produce the goods and services that consumers purchase from the businesses that created them, and you've conveniently omitted the fact that not all consumers are patronizing those businesses.

 

So, how long have you embraced this socialist sentiment?

 

Consumers patronize businesses, that's all that's needed.

 

Yes, you did but your examples and your description of them is at odds with each other. You're conflating a lot of different aspects in trying to make a point.

Again, it is in a manner of speaking but it is also at the end of the socialism spectrum and doesn't fall into the categories you used as an example though you want it too. Because you have conflated your definitions of your "examples" you could claim anything and be right but in the strict sense, you're not. Your examples are lost when you try to use them to fit into what you think/believe is happening here in the US.

Yes, it was

Hmm, as compared to what? What road should we be on? Serious question.

Really? How many references to Communism did you make in your OP and responses. If not meaning we are on the road to Communism, what are you meaning?

You may not have TRIED to say it but you did and again, in my opinion, you're conflating your definitions to make a point. I could argue that it's YOUR strawman.

Nope

I have not

It's a payroll tax. Are you against paying taxes?

OK, then I'll use your argument. I know a lot of people that don't like what Reagan did with Social Security.

Was there a point here? Do you think Socialist programs can't have privately run co-ops?

Really? Not that I know of. Are you thinking Medicaid?

Again, to use your argument...YOU put them there. Doesn't make it a fact.

 

Of course. But I think you are clouding the issue.

The issue isn't that there is a little bit of socialism. There has always been an element of "socialism" in the American system, which is entirely normal.
The issue is that the society seems to keep moving in a more socialistic direction, with socialism dominating more in ways it didn't before.
That is the meaning of saying "socialism is becoming increasingly popular".

More people have a more positive view of it expanding and applying more and to new areas.