Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism
250 replies, posted
[B]Short article so I posted the whole thing[/B]
[QUOTE]In May, the pollster YouGov polled Americans about their feelings on socialism and capitalism. Among Democrats, the two systems polled at about equal:[/QUOTE]
[t]http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/screen_shot_2015-10-24_at_10.39.15_am_0.png[/t]
[QUOTE]This month, YouGov decided to poll the same question. Surprisingly, Democrats now have a more positive view of socialism by double digits:[/QUOTE]
[t]http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/screen_shot_2015-10-24_at_10.40.21_am.png[/t]
[QUOTE]Any number of things could explain this poll result, but bear in mind that May was the first full month of the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has unabashedly stood by democratic socialism.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.alternet.org/poll-more-democrats-now-favor-socialism-capitalism[/url]
Well that's unfortunate.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48975774]Well that's unfortunate.[/QUOTE]
depends on whenever its socialism as in "social democracy" or socialism as in "venezuela/ussr"
because its only the latter which should be a cause for concern
Yay on your way to socialism america xo
I think people are just tired of having the corporations and bankers having so much power over our political system. Overall, Capitalism down 4, Socialism down 1.
Oh great another YouGov online poll that doesn't represent people who don't normally do political online polls.
I really doubt that they're going for the extreme forms of socialism that we see in the USSR.
The USSR is socialist?
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48975862]The USSR is socialist?[/QUOTE]
*was. And yes, communism and socialism are related.
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;48975820]I think people are just tired of having the corporations and bankers having so much power over our political system. Overall, Capitalism down 4, Socialism down 1.[/QUOTE]
why be skeptical of one financially and power hungry motivated group (bankers, corporations as you call them) but totally naive to the other financially and power hungry motivated group (government)?
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48975862]The USSR is socialist?[/QUOTE]
I mean...
[B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics
[QUOTE=Kentz;48975890]why be skeptical of one financially and power hungry motivated group (bankers, corporations as you call them) but totally naive to the other financially and power hungry motivated group (government)?[/QUOTE]
Because as of right now in the US, both are like that, and they empower eachother. A lot of people would rather not see this reach its logical conclusion.
Communism would be fun man, all that oppdession yay! 50 years of darkness!
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48975893]I mean...
[B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics[/QUOTE]
Well the USSR is doing a pretty terrible job at being a socialist.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48975893]I mean...
[B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics[/QUOTE]
Because remember, if it's in the name, it must therefore be true.
Much in the same way that the German Democratic Republic was actually democratic, and Parmesan-flavored grated topping actually tastes like Parmesan.
yeah but it makes no sense being scared of the entities supplying food, automobiles and media while trusting another entity with supplying you mediocre health care whilst busy invading several countries
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48975912]Well the USSR is doing a pretty terrible job at being a socialist.[/QUOTE]
Well it's doing a terrible job at it since it hasn't existed for 24 years.
[QUOTE=Kentz;48975919]yeah but it makes no sense being scared of the entities supplying food, automobiles and media while trusting another entity with supplying you mediocre health care whilst busy invading several countries[/QUOTE]
You mean the entities that cause massive implosions in the financial sector by making bad loans, use the media to create controversies like Ferguson, and skirt the law to produce automobiles that expel 40 times their allowed amount of toxic pollutants while being marketed as environmentally friendly?
Yeah, totally no reason not to trust major industrial leaders. None at all.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48975893]I mean...
[B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics[/QUOTE]
Soon USSA
[B]U[/B]nited [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]S[/B]tates of [B]A[/B]merica
[QUOTE=woolio1;48975955]You mean the entities that cause massive implosions in the financial sector by making bad loans, use the media to create controversies like Ferguson, and skirt the law to produce automobiles that expel 40 times their allowed amount of toxic pollutants while being marketed as environmentally friendly?
Yeah, totally no reason not to trust major industrial leaders. None at all.[/QUOTE]
I think what he is trying to say is that at both ends of capitalist and socialist extremes you get the same shit, just with a different name attached to it.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48975967]Soon USSA
[B]U[/B]nited [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]S[/B]tates of [B]A[/B]merica[/QUOTE]
Is THIS Obama's America??
[QUOTE=woolio1;48975955]You mean the entities that cause massive implosions in the financial sector by making bad loans, use the media to create controversies like Ferguson, and skirt the law to produce automobiles that expel 40 times their allowed amount of toxic pollutants while being marketed as environmentally friendly?
Yeah, totally no reason not to trust major industrial leaders. None at all.[/QUOTE]
im not saying trust the capitalists, but giving more economic control to the government wont solve shit
also blaming capitalists for bending the law is equally if not more the governments fault
[QUOTE=Kentz;48975983]im not saying trust the capitalists, but giving more economic control to the government wont solve shit
also blaming capitalists for bending the law is equally if not more the governments fault[/QUOTE]
It's not really about economic control though, the problem we have is that unions are pretty much powerless again, and in some cases even complicid in keeping employees down, and these days you're lucky to work for a company directly, most times you are a temp agencies temp agencies employee, this shit has to be reigned in, the same is true about independent contractors, they set everything as independent contractors and they don't have to be responsible for you and can terminate your employment without reason
The socialism people here want is more control over employment again not over how the economy runs. Also people are sick to death about the amount of time and resources spent trying to slash safety nets and healthcare reform, obamacare is shit, but what we had before was worse, yet we have just had the 61st attempt to defund medicare, obamacare, and slash social security
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48975912]Well the USSR is doing a pretty terrible job at being a socialist.[/QUOTE]
That's because it doesn't work.
[QUOTE=X12321;48976034]That's because it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
Last I checked Europe hasn't been doing too badly
[QUOTE=Sableye;48976038]Last I checked Europe hasn't been doing too badly[/QUOTE]it's a matter of how it's implemented
[QUOTE=daschnek;48975916]Because remember, if it's in the name, it must therefore be true.
Much in the same way that the German Democratic Republic was actually democratic, and Parmesan-flavored grated topping actually tastes like Parmesan.[/QUOTE]
And how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is [I]totally[/I] a democracy!
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48975893]I mean...
[B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics[/QUOTE]
[B]D[/B]emocratic [B]P[/B]eople's [B]R[/B]epublic of [B]K[/B]orea
Just because something is called something, doesn't mean it really is. Root Beer has no alcohol in it.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;48976071]it's a matter of how it's implemented[/QUOTE]
Like I said, people seem to think socialism means handing over control of companies to the government, what this is about is the pisspoor labor laws we have today and the poorly regulated markets that exist, pharma can charge whatever they like for a drug with no substantiated claim to explain its price, people are sick of that sort of shit, nodody should be in a position where they have to pay out almost all their income just to be a functional person, its bad for the long term economy, and the politics of today are so myopic that they can't see how all the burdens they've placed on the middle class from shifting responsibilities away from corporations and institutions is killing our future growth.
It doesn't take a math wiz to notice how the massive cost of college plus the shit pay is going to prevent today's 20 year olds from saving anything, 30 years from now when their earnings start to taper off, what are we going to do when you have a generation with no savings
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48975912]Well the USSR is doing a pretty terrible job at being a socialist.[/QUOTE]
The USSR also doesn't exist officially anymore so...past tense.
[editline]24th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;48976114][B]D[/B]emocratic [B]P[/B]eople's [B]R[/B]epublic of [B]K[/B]orea
Just because something is called something, doesn't mean it really is. Root Beer has no alcohol in it.[/QUOTE]
Come on, everyone knows that when "People's" is in an Asian government/military name that its the equivalent of Communism/Socialism.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48975893]I mean...
[B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics[/QUOTE]
Hi, socialist here.
The easiest way to counter this is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is neither Democratic, a proper Republic, nor even for the People.
But yeah, what most Democrats are talking about is probably social democracy, aka the NHS and Sweden and stuff like that. What Europe's got going on, particularly what Scandanavia does and what Atlee did in Britain. This, in America, is "socialism", although it's an evolutionary diversion from socialist principles and wouldn't have passed for it except in some European countries. In America the concepts of communism and socialism have been under a linguistic assault in an attempt to conflate socialism=communism lite, and communism=totalitarian control. This, of course, is a slippery slope that attempted to vilify the left during the Red Scares and has created some interesting doublethink at times.
So yeah, most Americans are talking about social democracy, which socialists proper disagree is actually socialist at all.
Now as far as the USSR goes, there are some questions:
Was the USSR communist? Was it socialist?
Communism, according to communists, is the state of human social evolution whereby the state (read: governing apparatus) is dissolved, scarcity has been removed, and human labor is liberated, without hierarchies of inequality. The USSR on paper sought communism, and it is reasonable to assume that it made concrete gains towards that early into its life. If we consider the [I]movement [/I]to seek a communist system as also communism, then yes, the USSR was communism according to that logic. But to call the system that the USSR established as communism is problematic for several reasons:
1- clearly the USSR did not achieve the description above, which they sought
2- the USSR nearly immediately established capitalism with government oversight through the NEP, which was not ever totally dissolved. The rationale for this was that after suffering 7 years of brutal war and starvation, facing a blockade by the world, some capitalism allowed for the state to regrow its economy and rebuild while not starving its people.
3- The USSR would slowly devolve from semi-socialism to what would be described as "state capitalism" by critics from the left, who saw the USSR's control of economy by the state and dissolution of workers' democracy as maintaining a capitalist economic hierarchy but simply with the state at the head.
This last part complicates the USSR as being socialist. Socialism has had many meanings, but by the time the USSR came to be, it had a foundation in Marx, with some other strains maintaining parallel. What socialism means is: an economic hierarchy in which the working class control the means of production- that is, the economy is democratized among workers, not owners. There are conflicting ways to achieve that: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism"]some argue that it's only possible given the dissolution of the state[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism"]some argue that it can only be achieved by turning workplaces into democratic enterprises in a market[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism"]some argue that the state must by comprised of democratic councils representing democratic enterprises[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism"]some say a democratic people's state in command of the economy in total is enough[/URL], and yet others [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy"]say just simply reshaping capitalism to be more like this is sufficient[/URL]. The latter one is rejected by socialists, but is what most Americans would define socialism as. The USSR really only met one of these- the people's state commanding the entirety of the economy. Many people believe that intent to achieve one of these is enough to be considered socialist, or socialistic. In that sense, yes, the USSR was socialist or socialistic, but it certainly did not achieve any of those and for certain no longer cared to work towards any of those by 1953. To call the USSR socialist following Stalin would be, according to socialists and communists, simply incorrect. Some say that Stalin killed the march towards socialism, some say that the USSR never represented or sought socialism.
Those who say that USSR wasn't socialist are right, imo: the USSR did not achieve a socialist economy. But at times it did act to move towards socialism and by extension communism, and really it's "if the intentions are x, then we can consider it x" that comes down to if you would label the USSR as communist or socialist.
But from a purely objective sense, the USSR was never socialist nor communist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.