Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

Fascism is a right wing phenomenon that is an attack on the working class and that is why all fascists have immediately banned and arrested union members and leftists including socialist and communists and executed their leaders.

 

It wouldn't be that difficult to find old photographs of dodgy stuff from any country.

 

Leftwing propaganda that has been refuted countless times before.

Fascism is a collectivist, anti-individualistic and anti-liberal form of socialism, which is why Leftists such as Joe Biden advocate the stakeholder fascism developed by the fascists in Italy and National Socialists in Germany during the 1930s.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread on more than one occasion, fascist/socialist/communist regimes of different stripes banned independent unions and arrested and executed socialists-communists.

EXHIBIT A:
Communist leader Leon Trotsky, murdered by Communist leader Joseph Stalin:


"Oh, my achin' head!"

 

The term "socialism" originated in the early 19th century. It is attributed to French social theorist Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825), who used the term "socialisme" to describe his vision of a society where ownership and control of the means of production would be shifted from private individuals to society as a whole. But the Constitution was ratified in 1788. That was a few decades before the word "socialism" came into use.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are particularly notable figures in the history of socialism. In their famous work, "The Communist Manifesto" (184, they outlined their vision of socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. They argued that socialism would involve the collective ownership of the means of production by the working class. No "society" has had such "socialist activity" become so significant that becomes a socialist country. Every economy has aspects or remnants of every other kind of economy in it. The decisive issue determining what kind of economy it is, is the dominance of one kind of economy. If the economy is dominated by capitalist activity then the economy is capitalist regardless of how many socially-beneficial programs and policies it has.

However, with the start of the Cold War the US propaganda machine has been constantly working to persuade the population that the USSR and China were "communist societies" and that government owning and running industry as in Russia, is "socialism" even though there is no liberation of the working class from living as exploited employees. That is an example of what you said about terms being used so commonly that lies become "truth". There has been no communist society, but there have been governments led by revolutionaries who called themselves "communist" to distinguish themselves from socialists. Those countries have been erroneously referred to as "communist countries" because of communist leadership. But their leadership openly stated that their goal was socialism.

 

Nope.

 

A diminished middle class is the reason. It results in "class warfare" the strategy of the Marxist left.

 

Yup, and your LW propaganda just got refuted again.

Little wonder you didn't even respond to it...

 

They are of the same species and they can co-mingle.

 

Back in the 17th and 18th Century, what we might refer to today as socialism was called "leveling":

The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional”
— Samuel Adams

The proto-communists in mid-17th Century England, led by Gerrard Winstanley, were called the True Levellers or Diggers. Later, there were several philosophes in France who advocated the abolition and collectivization of private property and distribution of goods, most notably Étienne-Gabriel Morelly (1717-177, and his ideas were further developed by François-Noël Babeuf, consider by many to be the first revolutionary communist, and the Society of Equals before Babeuf was guillotined for plotting a coup against the Directory in 1797. Later in the 19th Century, you find French socialists such as Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier following in their footsteps...

 

People redressing the government is a primary constitutional right. Because you might not like their successes doesn't change anything, though ALEC sounds a bit in cahoots to me. Lobbyists are simply redressing their government to get laws passed that they want. If you too want certain laws passed write letters, call, and go lobby.

Pretty much what I posted. (Italics mine)

You're blowing smoke up your pipe dream. You cannot cite one physical and practical example of how, say, the "workers of America" can run the American economy. How do "the workers" decide how much sliced bread to make, white, whole wheat, or sourdough, how many chicken breasts? Fresh or frozen? What type of cars to build and how many? Etc, etc, etc ad infinitum and ad nauseam. The only way socialism (like communism and fascism) can operate is if their is a small number, maybe just one, of elites given the power to direct things without any questions, retort or resistance allowed. Period. Hayek was 100% precise and correct.

 

Except co-ops are owned and ran by private individuals and private enterprises, not governments, which by definition makes them non-socialist.

 

That's an interesting take, and I suspect it would be one that Joel Kotkin, the author of The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class might agree with. It's a great book and I recommend it to every middle class person out there:



Here's the write-up at Encounter Books:

Liberal capitalism enabled the many to improve their condition and form a robust middle class, but we are reverting to a more stratified society, with concentrated wealth and limited social mobility. A new, higher-tech feudalism is emerging.

Atop the neo-feudal order are Wall Street managers and tech oligarchs who control information pipelines and tools of surveillance. If they correspond to the aristocracy or Second Estate of pre-revolutionary France, today’s First Estate is a secular clerisy who dominate universities, the media, cultural institutions, and nonprofits. They largely, though not always, share a worldview and an agenda with the oligarchs.

Everyone else constitutes the Third Estate. One part is a property-owning middle class—crucial to democracy but now in decline. Lower down is an expanding class of new serfs, including well-educated young people, with little chance of owning property. Cities once offered many avenues for upward mobility, but the world’s major cities are now bifurcated between the super-wealthy and, far below them, gig workers and urban poor. While the clerisy wage war on middle-class suburbia, tech oligarchs expect the masses to have a constricted existence.

The contemporary version of peasant rebellion is a political reaction from both left and right against our new aristocracy. If we recognize how neo-feudalism is developing, we can push back on it without dismantling liberal democracy itself.

And the one at Amazon:

Following a remarkable epoch of greater dispersion of wealth and opportunity, we are inexorably returning towards a more feudal era marked by greater concentration of wealth and property, reduced upward mobility, demographic stagnation, and increased dogmatism. If the last seventy years saw a massive expansion of the middle class, not only in America but in much of the developed world, today that class is declining and a new, more hierarchical society is emerging.

The new class structure resembles that of Medieval times. At the apex of the new order are two classes―a reborn clerical elite, the clerisy, which dominates the upper part of the professional ranks, universities, media and culture, and a new aristocracy led by tech oligarchs with unprecedented wealth and growing control of information. These two classes correspond to the old French First and Second Estates.

Below these two classes lies what was once called the Third Estate. This includes the yeomanry, which is made up largely of small businesspeople, minor property owners, skilled workers and private-sector oriented professionals. Ascendant for much of modern history, this class is in decline while those below them, the new Serfs, grow in numbers―a vast, expanding property-less population.

The trends are mounting, but we can still reverse them―if people understand what is actually occurring and have the capability to oppose them.

https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/coming-neo-feudalism-2/

It's a meticulously researched and informative look into how "progressives" are destroying the middle class here in America and elsewhere.

He's also written some great essays on the topic:

The Rise of Corporate-State Tyranny
MAY 17, 2021

Summary: A convergence between the world’s two superpowers is taking place. Today American business, as well as the media and academic establishments that serve them, increasingly embraces what can best be described as “Chinese capitalism with American characteristics.” In the United States, as property and power further consolidate, the ‘diffusion of power,’ so critical to democracy, erodes and autocracy develops naturally. Only players at the highest level possess the heft and motivation to influence policy. This power front consists of a new alliance between large corporate powers, Wall Street and the progressive clerisy in government and media.

https://dc.claremont.org/the-rise-of-corporate-state-tyranny/

About the author:

Joel Kotkin is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California and Executive Director of the Houston-based Center for Opportunity Urbanism (opportunityurbanism.org). He is Executive Editor of the widely read website NewGeography.com.

 

No, I refuted this crap sufficiently numerous times. It's indisputable. Fascism is not socialism and I proved it. Make all the empty claims you like.

 

Yes, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels are, indeed, of the same species.

 

No you didn't. You've been repeating the same LW propaganda that I refuted once again in #828 and elsewhere. Repeating that propaganda over and over again won't magically make it come true.

It would be better if we agreed to disagree and moved on.

 

Ok so you don't know what A.L.E.C. is. So let me help you. It's the "American Legislative Exchange Council" and it is comprised of corporate lawyers and legislators who are mostly Republican. The corporate lawyers write up legislation favorable to the corporation they represent and hand it over to the politicians ready to vote on and install. How much more "intertwined with government" can you get???

Everyone knows lobbyists are very "intertwined with government". Or as you put it, "lobbyists are 'simply' redressing their government to get laws passed that they want." Yup. You bet!

THEY ALREADY DO IT! Like all anti-socialists you're thinking of workers as ditch diggers, line workers, clerks, and mechanics. Statisticians are workers too in case you haven't thought about it, and apparently you haven't. Actuaries are workers. Managers are workers, as are engineers, economists, accountants, business managers, administrative directors, credit managers, finance officers, and controllers to name a few. (dropping my mouse)

 

You repeat your bullshit which I proved illogical, anti-historical, and wrong, but you object to me repeating my proof? LOL!!!!

Ok, let's move on now.

 

You haven't proved anything other than a willingness to repeat the same debunked and discredited LW propaganda that has no basis in fact. You can repeat that bullshit to yourself all you want. Guffaw!

Care for another round or are we done yet?

 

Please provide definitions of political "structure" and political "system" that clarify what you imagine the difference is, and how the latter relates to ownership of the means of production.

 

Since you have nothing new to say as you keep repeating the same refuted BS, I see no reason to beat a dead horse as it is starting to rot and smell.

 

There are farm co-ops that aren't profit-seeking partnerships.

 

I do know what ALEC is and described it as sounding a bit in cahoots (read intertwined) to me. Professional lobbyists usually have closer relationships, but are not intertwined though a few might come close..

You did not describe how all of your statisticians, actuaries, managers, engineers, engineers, economists, accountants, business managers, administrative directors, credit managers, finance officers, and controllers can actually run things. They do NOT already do it.

 

But! What about your bullshit? All the books and articles you reference are from conservative or, even, ultra conservative authors and publishers. I get that you have to have a basis for your opinions but when all you have and all you use, all you are is conservative it becomes self discrediting.

And beyond that your saying that more conservatism is the solution for the mess conservatism has brought us to. We have the greatest wealth disparity ever in the history of the world, which is saying a lot. Brought on by the unbridled conservative paradigm foisted on the American public by Reagan/Friedman, which actually began a generation before when Lewis Powell encouraged Big Business to buy the best congress they could. Conservatives have lobbied continually for favorable laws that make them richer and put working Americans at a disadvantage in getting better wages and bennifits.

And the BOOGEYMAN conservatives invariably point to is Socialism/Communism/Fascism. And of course it's handed to them on a plate because legislation that actually tries to level the playing field and help workers is always called "social", which is NOT in anyway Socialism/Communism/Fascism but close enough that it's easy to strike fear in the hearts of their base and get them to vote AGAINST their best interests.

IF we are headed toward "Neo-Feudalism" it's because of the unrelenting attack by conservatives on the rights of workers. And the equally unrelenting quest to allow the wealthy, big business and conservative politics to dominate our American way of life; EVEN when they run the whole thing into the ditch with yet another economic crisis they've caused.

 

Ok, so you agree that government is "intertwined" with Big Business through A.L.E.C. Well, government is normally persuaded, influenced, and even guided by thousands of lobbyists providing corporations with access you and I do not have. Oh, you can argue that there's no law against you and I lobbying government but it isn't a reasonable idea. We don't have the time nor money to lobby, let alone hire 500 or more (more like a thousand) professional lobbyists to represent us.

Ok, you want to include talented CEOs as among those who guide business decisions. Fine. Workers' co-ops employ CEOs and Board members too. And any future society that ends private ownership of business for private profit will most probably also need and retain CEOs and Boards of Directors. Therefore there is no reason to doubt that businesses will be able to function just fine under socialism. -Especially since any changes will be gradual and based on appropriateness in order to avoid serious disruptions. That is why government moves slowly.

 

OK, that's an assumption. It just isn't a correct one.

But the community could, using the same political process/system/structure, have decided to have a privately built and owned bridge, as has been done from time to time, which would be unambiguously capitalist. So how is the political system, which could choose either a socialist or a capitalist bridge construction paradigm, somehow socialist just because it resulted in the former choice rather than the latter? Would the exact same political system somehow be capitalist if it chose the private bridge option?