Young Voters Support Democratic Socialist Policies
46 replies, posted
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-10-29/harvard-poll-young-voters-support-democratic-socialist-policies
YOUNG PEOPLE AREN'T just more inclined to vote for Democrats next week, a majority also support policies embraced by the democratic socialist wing of the party, such as single-payer health care, guaranteed jobs and free tuition for some students, according to a poll by Harvard University's Institute of Politics.
For folks who think this sound fringe, well.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/us-news-world-report/
Too bad young people don't vote
such socialist policies like free college and vocational training which our grandparents had coming home from ww2 and lead to massive prosparity, and free healthcare which every other western country has and protects people from going bankrupt over healthcare costs. Such revolutionary ideas. What's the other side got? Oh ya vague promises of the freedoms of the private world and fears of government.
Honestly I think they're keeping the mistake up not only because it'd be a mess to attempt to correct it now, but maybe also to distinguish themselves from the Democratic party? In the US, social democrat probably just sounds like a democrat from the Democratic party who is 'social'.
and that's a bad thing?
Hmm, I guess that could be possible, but I'm not sure. Many European social democratic parties were often referred to as 'the socialists' until recently and there are also many European social democratic parties today that are outright named 'the Socialist party', but I think it's safe to say none of their voters or politicians are 'real' socialists. In my country, we have a party that is further to the left of the traditionally social democratic Labour party that bears the name 'Socialist party', but their ideology is more like the old-school social democracy the Labour party used to be about than actual socialism. Most people probably think:
social democracy = socialism
'actual' socialism = communism
and because of that I don't think we have to worry about it too much
DSA are legitimate socialists, though. Bernie's actually the one who kind of misled everybody because he calls himself one when really he is a European-style social democrat. In any case, I think it's too late to nationally correct the definition now. But the opposition was going to smear the left as socialists whether they called themselves socialists or not.
who could argue with all that proof?
anything except absolute capitalism is socialism.
That's hard to quantify because there aren't many democratic socialist countries to look at. Most communist states were revolutionary and/or stalinist which is obviously bad.
The most equitable and rich countries in the world (cough Nordic model) generally have social democracy. Social democractic policies are generally shouted down by conservative reactionaries as "socialism!" So it's a bit of a catch 22 isn't it? Many people agree with mixed economy models but when it actually comes time to implement them, the reactionaries come flying out if the woodwork with anti-taxation, anti-social welfare and anti-union rhetoric.
Most of them were ended prematurely by American CIA assassinations.
Oh right, I actually forgot about that. Salvador Allende, Sandinstas, etc.
Social Democracy: "There's plenty of nice sandcastles on this beach"
Capitalism: *kicks down every sandle castle*
Capitalism: "I implore you to show me a single nice sand castle on this beach"
oh hey look yet another person conflating socialism with communism
The fact that nobody can agree where to draw the lines between capitalism, democratic socialism, social democracy, socialism, and communism makes conversation basically impossible.
If you're opposed to any form of socialism, you're basically in favor of anarcho-capitalism
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1476207490030.jpg
So I've only started paying attention to politics for real in the past few years but I feel like I see the same thing every time socialism is brought up.
Like, someone will suggest something such as free healthcare, and the only counter is "but socialism!" and without explanation as to how 'socialism = bad' is related other than that the policy is a socialist one. The argument falls into, "well these countries were socialist and it was bad" but the thread is never tied to the policy itself.
I dunno, it just feels a bit like, "Oh you're tying your shoes? The nazi's tied their shoes, are you sure that's a good idea?" Like, obviously if something's a good idea then everyone should be doing it, including evil people. You can't just point to examples of failure as if (to extend the healthcare example) Canada, England, Australia, Etc.. don't all exist. As I said, maybe this is a very naive take on the situation but I often feel as though I've seen the same cycle of argument made many times at this point.
I always advocate for applying socialism and capitalism to different economic sectors, considering their respective strengths and weaknesses. For example, healthcare is an easy candidate for socialization, capitalist healthcare is a nightmare. Conversely, socialized housing is a nightmare in its own way and benefits most from a regulated free market. Consumer goods also benefit from a regulated free market, while public utilities run best when socialized.
Anarcho-capitalists are a strange bunch.
Got a friend who draws art for money, doesn't charge too much for it, does a pretty good job. He had some clown try to haggle on prices with him because this guy decided he wanted THIS type of art, but he didn't want to pay what this friend was charging for it (they're less than $50 at their most expensive sans ref-sheets which are $75 I think), so he kept trying to convince this friend of mine to charge less just for him. And after getting blocked because they were being incredibly awful about the whole thing, it was discovered he was An-cap.
The best thing about ancaps is the resulting memes which absolutely destroy me for some reason.
https://preview.redd.it/x0j35gnx39ey.jpg?width=640&auto=webp&s=2002760055384d948d82e048de40f7dd51e77fd7
The proof is the greater part of János Kornai's works, in particular Economics of Shortage and The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism.
there seems to be some confusion here. Social Democracy is just manipulating capitalism to work better for its citizens, and replacing it where necessary.
Democratic Socialism is a country democratically deciding to seize the means of production entirely and abolish private business.
only the former has any guarantee of working out, not to be mention being the only one you can sensibly set up within two presidential terms
Can we just get some single payer health care and leave it at that?
That's the only thing that really appeals to me as far as socialism goes
Nothing for higher education? It basically costs a firstborn child compared to many other nations.
Of course, I am talking about adding things
as far as im aware no country has ever implemented the full transfer of wealth to the workers, in every single case of a country that claims to be "socialist" the ruling class is the one with all the wealth
How is that pedantic? It's making the point that you already depend on industries which are nationalized.
A populace that has the option (and the ability) to seek higher education can only be better for the economy. How do you expect us to create the next big market-shaking thing if all we know is how to write a resume?
Private ownership sure makes self-serving easy though, doesn't it? The problem (one of many) with countries like the USSR and Venezuela is that they were authoritarian, not that they were socialist.
Probably the worst thing about discussion of Capitalism vs Socialism is that 95% of the people taking part in it have no idea what either term actually means.
People are still confusing social democracy with socialism in this thread
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.