Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

If I recall correctly, Kode, from your past posts, you seem to be very Socialist, even almost Communist leaning.

So I have to wonder whether your comments might have been a little intentionally dishonest, trying to lead us off path.

 

They can be dispensed with? It is commonly believed that the USSR with its government managing businesses, and where workers are no different from employees, was/is "socialism". It is also as commonly believed that the Nordic countries are "socialism". You seem to know better but my statement was that those are two of the three predominant notions of what socialism is. Number three is the one most faithful to the actual concept of socialism.

YOU SAID IT!!!!!!! YOU SAID, possibly without realizing what you were saying, that my #1 and #2 are "what has always been, in practice, government/state control"!! THAT is the propaganda I already explained! And you are repeating it as though it is fact! See? Propaganda! Having you believe it is the goal of propaganda, and you apparently believe it.

Ok, I'm going to elaborate on this a little now. Socialism is about reversing the relations of production. Marx called it "the dictatorship of the proletariat (working class)". Obviously that would preclude any other power exercising control over the working class, but that is exactly what developed in the USSR and China and elsewhere. The relations of production for the workers are no different in those countries than they are in any capitalist country like the US. The workers take directions from management. They don't exercise class dictatorship over anyone. They do what they're told and get a paycheck. So contrary to the idea of government/state control being "socialism", it is not. It is most like any capitalism known.

I never said our government would! A new Constitution of a new socialist country would facilitate worker control of businesses if it is, in fact, socialism because the working class would be the ruling class in socialism. In fact, the whole major reason the USSR and China and other attempts to establish socialism failed is because they didn't go directly and immediately to worker control. And the reason they didn't go directly to worker ownership and control is that Marx never got around to developing theory regarding the role of the state in socialism. He died first.

Yes, capitalist "freedom" is a lop-sided, unequal "freedom" to establish a business to exploit the workers for personal wealth accumulation. It provides rights and protections for those few who are emotionally and psychologically predisposed to manage others for their own gain, knowing that not everyone will ever chose to start their own business and succeed.

OH! There it is! As I just said it! Yep, that is your capitalist "freedom" said with the understanding that most people are not going to even try. Most will live on the street, steal, or even commit suicide before they would try starting a business, and capitalism takes advantage of this fact.

Few people really want a "free" capitalist system. But a new socialist economy will definitely have a market economy.

I hope that by now you understand that "control of the state" is not socialism. If not, we could focus on that and dig into it so I could more fully communicate it to you.

But that is you. Most people lack your awareness of it. They believe the propaganda.

That is not the reason the effort has mostly failed so far. Again, the problem was the lack of a good analysis of the role of the state in socialism.

Yes, no effort made to understand what actually happened with a clear and robust analysis. How convenient that the effort to create socialism collapsed into a perversion of capitalism in Russia, and capitalism in China, while they still claimed to be "communists" establishing "socialism". Great cover for propaganda!

In spite of early influences on Mussolini and Hitler (I saw myself as a Republican many years ago prior to college days), both of them denounced socialism and Marxism just as Trump is doing today. And in fact, Mussolini wrote: “Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism"
and...
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism": "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Mussolini's fascism was adopted by Hitler. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism_def_char_hx.html
At the time, socialism was very popular among the people of many countries including Germany. Hitler capitalized on this fact by naming his party "The National Socialist Party". But both Mussolini and Hitler were anti-socialist, and anti-labor union. Each, upon taking office, rounded up socialists, communists, and labor unions and jailed them and killed their leaders. Any leader of the left would rely on the people, represent their struggles and aspirations, and unite with their organizations. Mussolini and Hitler attacked them.

Hitler wrote:
“I aimed from the first at something a thousand times higher than being a minister. I wanted to become the destroyer of Marxism. I am going to achieve this task and, if I do, the title of minister will be an absurdity as far as I am concerned."
https://www.marxists.org/subject/fascism/blick/ch13.htm

Dictionaries defined fascism as a political system based on the merging of corporate interests with government until the 1940's when large corporations began buying up dictionary publishers. At that point the definition was changed to what we find today.

My rather old American Heritage Dictionary (1973) defines it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

The Oxford Dictionary defines fascism as:
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/fascism

Fascism is, and has always been, incompatible with the politics of the left.

 

No, we don't have "socialism" in "part" of the US. We have capitalism with socially-beneficial programs and laws. I think such laws and programs are in decline as they are repealed, like abortion (Roe v. Wade), voters rights, restrictions on campaign contributions, and new, often unreasonable pro-capitalism laws are established, like the Citizens United ruling. But who was the most "socialist" US politician you can think of but FDR? Yet FDR said at the end of his last term "I saved capitalism". So social programs are not about growing socialism. Politicians know that such programs are popular because they improve life for the people. And politician sure as hell aren't going to introduce socialism bit by bit.

Like what? Can you help me understand what you're saying?

 

Huh? I'm very socialist. How did I seem "communist-leaning"?

OH!!! So "socialists are deceptive liars"!!! "They need to trick the people into accepting them and their deceptions!!"

Socialism is government of the people, by the people, for the people. And therefore if they lie and deceive, they will be unable to create socialism and they will be rejected. It is the right that must win by deception and lies. Trump has people snookered with his more than 30,000 lies in his 4 years in office! And to do this the right must also accuse the left of what they, the right wing, does. "Look over there! Look over there! Don't look at me."

 

It’s shameful to pay for your own education? I started working off tuition in grade school. I’ve never been ashamed, and never had anyone try and shame me for it….

 

So you didn't read his post. Got it.

 

Read it and responded directly to the content of his post. It wouldn’t be shameful to work 5 jobs to educate oneself. Some people just don’t like to put in effort to achieve. That’s fine, but that’s a personal choice and doesn’t make the needed or desired actions of another to improve themselves shameful. Not everyone WANTS a system where everything is handed out. Some people even like to WORK, believe it or not!

People tend to value things they worked for. People tend to value things they are given less so.

 

I guess you didn't read it since he didn't say its shameful to pay for your own education.

 

People stopped valuing personal freedom and think our rights only come from a consensus.

 

They pretty much do.

 

Easily disprovable. Suppose the 51% ban all guns, and the 49% refuse to give them up. How does the unarmed 51% disarm the armed 49%?

 

There you go, you found it in the title. "SOCial animals" and "SOCialism" both share the same root.

 

Kill them using wmd's until they give up. Now that the comedian part is done, Japanese/Americans were put into internment camps by the consensus of the govt.

 

LOL ok, but some of them are your neighbors... how much collateral damage is acceptable in this program?

Ah, so you coudln't come up with a serious answer to the question. That's very similar to not answering the question at all.

Yes, that is a very good example of the 'might makes right' foundation that democracy is built upon, and should exemplify to all who do not want to be put into internment camps that we need to be armed in order to protect our rights from the consensus of an historically fickle and violently oppressive majority.

 

Ku Klux Klan is a make up thing? Aha one more MAGA theory I should ignore.

 

yea.. you can call all the big city population takers and free loaders.
but in reality , 72% US GDP comes from blue district and only 28% US GDP comes from hard working RED states!

 

I’ve addressed both possible interpretations now. It’s neither shameful to work for education nor is it shameful that a system exists where one is responsible for their tertiary education.

Your guesses are wildly inaccurate. Possibly an educational issue….

 

Yea , the industrious hard working Westerners created $52 trillion GDP, more wealth then any other time in world history.

But you sit here and bash the hard working westerners and call them “lazy/ free loader/ socialist”. Thank you very much for your opinion of hard working westerners.

 

We already had a “Pinochet” in American from 2017-2020. And look what that got us.

 

I suspect it’s because capitalism as it’s practiced today in the US, has failed miserably for the majority of people. Capitalism has morphed into a quasi Fascist economy where the wealthiest benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Our government instead of protecting the rights of the people, has chosen to ignore the people and do the bidding of big corporations and billionaires. The result is millions in or near poverty, massive numbers of homeless, rising debt levels, lack of good paying jobs, inflation, etc.

 

Government creates the laws and regulations, and usually builds the infrastructure and social systems and programs that enable the businesses to generate that wealth. Businesses don't spring up on their own. Competition between self interested businesses drive the economy, which leaves the role of collective interest to government.

I don't think they ever said government paid for anything? If they did, that's incorrect. I think they said no individual or business built "that" on their own, and that is correct.

Local government and community leadership is government.

Those businesses depend greatly on these services. How will they get their goods to market without roads? How will they conduct business without police/military and order? People or foreign armies could just take their goods without paying. Who will be their workforce if social harmony, health, and education are poor? The quality of worker would go way down.

There is some truth to that, yes. Politicians like these talk way too much and do little actual legislating. They should be working harder on bringing you universal single player health care

 

It's a valid question; a good one. Many of the replies above touch on the right reasons from one angle or another. As I've spent decades working to teach people how to thrive, I may have a better than average handle on this.

If you boil it down to a single term- the answer is human weakness, but of course that's just the cover, not the book.

It's normal to select the easy answer. It's also normal for people to shift the evaluations of possible answers to make the easy one look more viable than it is, to justify selecting it.
Humans gift of imagination allows us to create illusions, and it allows us to ignore realities. One one hand, that is why we can invent miraculous things. It is also why we can believe that the rules that have made the millions of species on earth thrive for millions of years- don't apply to us.

Charles Darwin observed that nature selectively promotes the best and most beneficial characteristics, and a result, species become stronger and more capable. He's speaking not of the individual, but of the species, and it's future. Part of this is the process of selective mating, where the strongest and most fit are generally the ones whose genes are passed forward. Darwin also noted that while humans are aware of this, and breed things like cattle and dogs to produce desired qualities- humans ignore this among themselves. We do not selectively breed for the future but are motivated by what we feel and want at the moment.

My point is that we tend to make decisions based on the short-term benefits, ignoring the long-term results the decisions will produce- which always follow. For example- We like to help people. It makes us feel good and feeds our ego. But we fail to understand when "help" is beneficial- and when it is harmful. The ability to thrive isn't all inherent, it requires learned skills as well as instinct. To help, the result has to create strength and independence. in the people we help. It's also possible to create weakness and dependency with the same actions and intentions, so this can have a major influence on a society.

Genuine help is helping a productive person when events beyond their control have knocked them down, to get back on their feet. This is a "Hand-Up". That person is one who would have done the same for others. The help is proof of the strength of the social relationships, the belief in their fellow man. They don't think it's owed to them- and if possible to do without it, will probably turn it down. If they must accept- they will be grateful, and motivated to pay it forward. This is help that serves all of society, because it builds strong people and strong societies at the same time.

The wrongful help has the polar opposite effect. It's given to someone who is down because they chose not to get up, and generally blame their position on society for not giving them the same quality of life they think others have. To them, that is a debt they are owed. When we offer aid to such people, that serves to confirm their belief that it is owed to them- because we have come to make a payment on the bill. Our "help" confirms their position, allows them to stay down- and creates the belief that the payments should go on indefinitely.

That is what we do with welfare. We tell ourselves we are helping, but most of the time we are helping people stay down instead of standing up. We are doing harm, because we so often use that help poorly.
We cultivate dependence, the mindset of entitlement, the beliefs of discrimination- and we do so at the expense of the very people who make society work.

While many say nature's rules are cruel; the fact is they produce healthy social structures where all the participants do well, so long as they take responsibility for themselves. They do that without making laws, creating governments or religions- or any of the structures humans create trying to get the same level of success in their own society. What nature uses work; what we use falls far short.
One of natures rules is often expressed as "If you don't hunt- you don't eat". Hunger is the motivator.
If you feed the animal that won't hunt- it soon can't, and it becomes dependent... the easy way. In people, there is also substantial resentment of being dependent, so while the food is taken- it fuels not gratitude, but hatred.

Socialism is generally the attitude that allows those who won't- to live off those who will, and calling that a just and healthy society. It rewards the less productive and punishes the more productive. It diminishes the personal strength of both. That weakens the society overall, a progressive decline.

We do this in many ways, one of which is welfare- but today, we do it in granting unearned privilege and position to people blaming society for not giving them the life they believe they are entitled to.
It's like a contagious disease that we spread by choice. It may seems to be just- but only so long as you don't look where it's taking you in the future.

That is socialism. The promise that you are entitled to something you haven't earned, and those who have owe it to you. Human weakness tends to encourage accepting that, and on the other side- tends to encourage believing we are helping rather than subsidizing failure.

A system that works for society, must realize that the individuals choices still control the individuals success. There will always be failures, because some people will just not have the courage and motivation to be anything else. We don't have the power to adjust those people's thinking for them. Unless they are determined to help themselves, they can't be helped. If we leave them alone, they will either figure out it's up to them- or they will remain what they are.
Our interference will not change that for the better.

 

No not like that, I meant it sucks that you had to work 2 jobs just to be able to get an education that should’ve been a lot easier to attain. And these days, unless you’re a millionaire or richer, paying for education during grade school is mostly impossible.

 

Why do you have that need to twist and dramatize everything?

 

On the contrary, I praised the "industrious, hard-working" people who made the effort to prepare themselves to compete successfully, and then work and fight like hell for success all their lives to attain their goals. But what is praiseworthy about a parasitic "Paul" who takes the easy way out, lives primarily off of government handouts, and robs industrious, hardworking, tax-paying "Peter" to pay for it all...?

But Socialism? In the U. S. today, what we're seeing today is the rise of what's been called "neo-Socialism", which is probably a lot more like the kind of nightmarish, dystopian horror we see in Orwell's "1984" than anything else. Amazingly, at the same time, we're also seeing the rise of what's been called "neo-Capitalism", as evidenced in Russia and China! In simple terms, our primary adversaries are climbing out of the socialistic ditch, while we in 'the West' are plunging ever deeper into it....

At a higher level, you may find this enriching:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism#Chapter_I