• Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism
    250 replies, posted
[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] Shit it's almost like the capitalists can pretty much just buy our government or something...
Social Democracy is basically taking the good bits of socialism and mixing it in with a standard capitalist economy and democratic government, sadly here when people who advocate FOR socialism, they mean social democracy, and when people who advocate against take any idea of social democracy as socialism. [editline]24th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=X12321;48976034]That's because it doesn't work.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sableye;48976038]Last I checked Europe hasn't been doing too badly[/QUOTE] Like I can't even tell if either of them are talking about the same thing, the language is a problem.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48976038]Last I checked Europe hasn't been doing too badly[/QUOTE] we're not socialist at all there's not any socialist countries in europe, unless you maybe want to count that tiny breakaway republic from moldova, and maybe belarus [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48976175']But from a purely objective sense, the USSR was never socialist nor communist.[/QUOTE] as an example of revolutionary socialist ideology in practice it more or less was
[QUOTE=G3rman;48976142]The USSR also doesn't exist officially anymore so...past tense. [editline]24th October 2015[/editline] Come on, everyone knows that when "People's" is in an Asian government/military name that its the equivalent of Communism/Socialism.[/QUOTE] Algeria isn't in Asia [editline]24th October 2015[/editline] Neither is it socialist
From what I've seen online and heard from family members in the USA, most Americans have [I]absolutely[/I] no idea what socialism is. I'm not saying that as an insult. From what I've seen, it's the exception rather than the rule to know it's an economic system rather than healtcare/welfare/education etc. So this poll may not be entirely accurate.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;48975893]I mean... [B]U[/B]nion of [B]S[/B]oviet [B]S[/B]ocialist [B]R[/B]epublics[/QUOTE] Yeah, just like The Democratic People's Republic of Korea right? Or how Donald Trump represents the little guy? Or how Bout Fox's tag line "Fair and Balanced"...
I thought that they were heavily critical of socialism. Why else would they be against corporation tax breaks?
I don't know if these polls are of any significance, but the de-stigmatization of the word "socialism" is a necessary prerequisite for Americans at large and many Europeans to actually learn what it is and what it isn't. This very thread is a good indicator that the association of socialism with Stalinism and state capitalism is still rife today, despite the fact that the vast majority of socialists have denounced Stalinism since the 1950's.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48976209]we're not socialist at all there's not any socialist countries in europe, unless you maybe want to count that tiny breakaway republic from moldova, and maybe belarus [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] as an example of revolutionary socialist ideology in practice it more or less was[/QUOTE] Not really. This is getting into inter-leftist arguments, but I'll make the case. What did the USSR do that went against socialism?: 1. Implementation of the NEP, which was intended to be a short-term measure to prevent economic shock by maintaining and promoting regulated capitalism and markets, which directly contradicts socialism (for the purposes of argument, socialism and capitalism is incompatible). 2. Implementation of War Communism, which nationalized industry under total state control and suspended major aspects of democracy and removed any chance of democratic economy 3. Dissolved existing and formed democratic workers' councils. A major gripe of left communists and anarchists alike, the USSR dissolved minor workers' soviets and worker democracies that had formed to seize their cities and workplaces to instead institute state control. 4. Lenin and Trotsky both spoke openly about the implementation of state capitalism, using that phrase, and explained it as an intended temporary system. The system that was established post-civil war was accepted even by the Bolsheviks as not-socialism, merely a temporary bandaid to prevent an emergency economic situation. This state of existence was never dissolved but was instead adopted by later leaders due to expediency and the benefits it gave the state. 5. Post-Stalin soviet leaders were explicitly against the values of even Lenin, and instituted a series of reforms over decades that introduced markets and increasingly regulatory bureaucracies, further dissolving workers' grip on the economy, and establishing a long-standing politically privileged class that formed out of the nomenklatura of Stalin. 6. The concept of the state seizing the economy, while part of the communist program since Marx, was not seen as socialism proper, but merely an intended transitionary period between capitalism and socialism, and then from there from socialism to communism. 7. Need I mention the destruction of anarchists and rival socialist factions? The USSR early on was strongly oppositional towards other socialist factions and sought to purge them and crush them. This was most notable for our purposes when showing how the new state dealt with rival workers' organizations: the USSR, for instance, suffered a great deal of trouble with the radical national railway workers' union, who refused the Bolsheviks support throughout the revolutionary period. The method that workers expressing their democratic, revolutionary ideals were dealt with by leadership was not the way socialists might expect: rather than establishing a democratic or cooperative solution, the Bolsheviks instead dissolved the unions or often punished the workers. Further: 8. It doesn't hold up all that well when compared with other socialist endeavors. Compared with Catalonia, Chiapas, and Paris, the Soviet experiment was notably different and vastly underperformed in actually empowering the workers. If the goal is to establish liberty for human labor, then the USSR did not do particularly well. Some workers' democracy and privilege to the workers at times is not much of a substitute for total workers' control. Soviet-styled systems, like China, Vietnam, Laos, Hungary, Germany, etc, all failed in the same aspects, no surprise. Of further note is that, like the anarchists in the civil war, the Soviets actively fought to dissolve workers' councils, revolutionary unions, and collectives in Spain and Catalonia and eventually militarily crushed the democratic socialist organization there. 9. Bolshevism was not a dominant strain of communist and socialist thought. This is most obvious when you look at the reaction and relationship of the syndicalistic, anarchistic, socialist Industrial Workers of the World with the Soviet experiment. If the Soviet model was indeed well-known and the norm of socialist ideals, then no one seemed to realize it. While left-wing institutions, like the IWW, certainly initially praised the Bolsheviks, when they realized the actual situation, they quickly rejected it. Why? Because the Bolshevik method was not the norm or the ideal, rather it was one of many competing conceptions of socialism. Hence why Americans like Haywood, Goldman, and Reed were alienated from the Soviet experiment after hastily arriving to help build it. The Soviet model was not mainstream, and only became so following the taking of power and establishment of the Soviet Union as a regional and eventually a world power.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48976869']long post[/QUOTE] the point is that it was still the product of socialist thought. the theories of marx were the direct inspiration for the politicians who explicitly called themselves socialists and more or less had the advent of socialism as a goal. one can go on about how the USSR wasn't socialist because of close examinations of how they failed to live up to some selective criteria, but the ultimate impact is the same. there are socialists who exist today that say the soviet union was socialist and they genuinely mean it. for the best part of the 20th century, millions of socialists said that the soviet union (and the states that grew outwards from it) was socialist. i mean sure you can say that it wasn't a true socialist state, and then bring up new theories (and then dancing around as the model they propose keeps failing), or argue about how socialism has never been tried, without realizing that the base concept of socialism is in itself fundamentally broken. like, from what i've seen, it just appears as though the justification given for failure in every instance is that either its the fault of capitalists, or that the place wasn't actually socialist
Look trump is the stereotype of how much americans in general know about socialism, he has often interchanged socialism with communism and has declared Sanders a communist. The average American voter doesn't know anything about socialism or communism they just remember communism = bad and that socialism is connected to failed states. The first time I mentioned Sanders to my parents my mother was like "but he's a socialist!" They are reganauts and they couldn't really answer why Sanders was bad just that he's a socialist so he must be bad
Whoever made those graphs needs to lose their job. Terrible color scheme. Barely readable.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48976965]the point is that it was still the product of socialist thought. the theories of marx were the direct inspiration for the politicians who explicitly called themselves socialists[/quote] And many others who were against Soviet policies. If inspiration is all one needs to be considered a viable branch of some area of thought, then Kony and Westboror Baptist are as legitimate as Jesus. [quote]and more or less had the advent of socialism as a goal.[/quote] And if you read my post I discuss quite clearly that that was the case without argument. I'm not arguing that the early Soviet leaders weren't trying to achieve socialism, I'm arguing that they failed. [quote]one can go on about how the USSR wasn't socialist because of close examinations of how they failed to live up to some selective criteria, but the ultimate impact is the same.[/quote] You're literally saying "you can say how y wasn't x when you compare them, but ultimately y is x." [quote]there are socialists who exist today that say the soviet union was socialist[/quote] For reasons I covered in my first post. [quote]and they genuinely mean it.[/quote] Unlike some later Soviet leaders. [quote]for the best part of the 20th century, millions of socialists said that the soviet union (and the states that grew outwards from it) was socialist.[/quote] Just like socialists today call Venezuela socialist. Venezuela is no more socialist than the USSR and in some ways massively falls behind it (and in some way excels), but yet socialists still consider Venezuela socialist. Not because it actually is- it's failed to achieve socialism- but because it's socialist[I]ic[/I] and acts in a way to advance socialism with that goal in mind. But it's not socialist, bottom line. The USSR was conflicting from day one, and even more so post-1953. Many communists defended the USSR not because it was socialist, but because it was either the only antithesis to the west, or because it was "at least better" than capitalism. Ask them yourself. The dream of the socialist motherland was crushed by the suppression of Hungarians for those who hadn't experienced Soviet life and those who had often found the socialism little more than party dogma. The USSR was, at times, socialist[I]ic[/I], but simply never achieved socialism. For many it was the only face of socialism, and so it was to them. For others, the USSR was still "socialist in nature" in that its diversion from achieving socialism was due to a number of factors- an argument I'm sympathetic to pre-Stalin- but the country was still trying to achieve socialism. [quote]i mean sure you can say that it wasn't a true socialist state,[/quote] Because it had objective shortcomings that prevented it from meeting the basic definition, yes. [quote]and then bring up new theories[/quote] I think that my reference to the dialogue that the IWW had with the new Soviet government as early as 1 year into the life of the USSR suggests that the theories on socialism and the conflict within it are not "new". [quote](and then dancing around as the model they propose keeps failing),[/quote] Because the Soviet model was flawed in many ways. But let's not forget here that the USSR was the first nation to industrialize at the scale it did and became a competing power on par with the United States for 40 years. Nor that the Soviet economy experienced the sort of growth and power over a few years that took the new Russian economy almost 15 years to achieve. [quote]or argue about how socialism has never been tried,[/quote] It's been tried many times, it's failed many times, it's succeeded many times. There are two examples of successful socialist societies right now: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava[/url] I would also point to Catalonia as well, which was probably the most advanced, most developed socialist system in history, but which was destroyed in war after only a few years. [quote]without realizing that the base concept of socialism is in itself fundamentally broken.[/quote] It's kind of hard to say the entire concept is broken when it covers so much ground that bits and pieces of socialist philosophy is shared among multiple ideologies, not the least of which is capitalism itself. [quote]like, from what i've seen, it just appears as though the justification given for failure in every instance is that either its the fault of capitalists, or that the place wasn't actually socialist[/QUOTE] Sometimes it's both, sometimes neither. There's a strong argument to be had on the isolation of communist regimes, especially towards the end and the beginning of the life of global communism, was a huge factor in their form and outcomes. Something not being socialist isn't an excuse for failings, though, and I think you're misunderstanding that argument if you think that's the case. There are successful non-socialist regimes, and unsuccessful socialist ones. "The USSR wasn't [i]really[/i] socialist" is not a defense of the USSR nor is it an answer to its shortcomings, it's a simple fact. Often the shortcomings of the USSR are used to attack socialism, not socialism used to attack the shortcomings of the USSR, at which point it's necessary to discuss how accurate the USSR was to socialism as it was understood by many at the time and is currently understood by many more in the west today. The USSR was a powerhouse for many decades, and suffered from severe economic problems for a number of reasons, ranging from economic isolation at times to internal inefficiencies at other times. It's disingenuous to attempt to chain a 200-year old ideology to a single political entity and attempt to chain a complex multi-cultural 7-decade empire to such a broad and variable ideology.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48976209]we're not socialist at all there's not any socialist countries in europe, unless you maybe want to count that tiny breakaway republic from moldova, and maybe belarus [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] as an example of revolutionary socialist ideology in practice it more or less was[/QUOTE] Are you trying to imply there is no socialism is any European country? I know sweden has it and you do too.
Socialism works fine, it's communism that's utterly impossible to maintain. [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48976209]we're not socialist at all there's not any socialist countries in europe, unless you maybe want to count that tiny breakaway republic from moldova, and maybe belarus[/QUOTE] Current party in charge of France is literally called the Socialist Party
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48977274]Socialism works fine, it's communism that's utterly impossible to maintain. [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] Current party in charge of France is literally called the Socialist Party[/QUOTE] I'd love to hear what makes you say communism doesn't work. Also, the party may be called the Socialist Party, but it advocates social democracy not socialism (for the most part). Yes, at one point in their history they sure did truly advocate socialism, but they no longer do and France is certainly not socialist.
[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] So is Canada a mess because we HIGHLY regulate our banks, insurers, and other financial institutions? Should we just de-regulate everything because you can create a binary/false dichotomy of authority?
[QUOTE=gastyne;48977234]Are you trying to imply there is no socialism is any European country? I know sweden has it and you do too.[/QUOTE] Sweden is a social democratic capitalist society. It's often labeled socialistic, but it's a colloquialism referring to the welfare state and social democracy, not socialism. As far as I can see, none of the currently represented parties in the Swedish parliament appear to advocate socialism as part of their agenda; the Left Party appears to be the closest thing, but they don't seem to mention socialism anywhere on their website. You will find the socialists among the currently unrepresented parties. edit: Actually, the Left Party [i]are[/i] socialist, my mistake.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48976965]the point is that it was still the product of socialist thought. [/quote] That's like saying that "for profit" charities where the organizers collect money for a cause and then run away with it stem from the altruistic thought. It makes no sense whatsoever. [quote] there are socialists who exist today that say the soviet union was socialist and they genuinely mean it. for the best part of the 20th century, millions of socialists said that the soviet union (and the states that grew outwards from it) was socialist.[/quote] And (possibly?) millions of people say that 9/11 was an inside job. Subjective opinions and beliefs of people are irrelevant in this when you can just go and put the facts against objective criteria. [quote] i mean sure you can say that it wasn't a true socialist state, and then bring up new theories (and then dancing around as the model they propose keeps failing), or argue about how socialism has never been tried, without realizing that the base concept of socialism is in itself fundamentally broken. [/quote] And you can just go and ignore all facts and cover your ears and go "Nananananana it can't woooork, it's broooooken" without adding anything to the discussion. You didn't make a single attempt to refute the actually factual points he made. You just go "but it's called that way, lol, btw it can't work because." [quote] like, from what i've seen, it just appears as though the justification given for failure in every instance is that either its the fault of capitalists, or that the place wasn't actually socialist[/QUOTE] Because that's just how it factually was? What's your justification, besides "it can't work because it just can't"? My problem is that most current anti-socialists (made up term, it can be it neoliberals or anybody else) are never discussing it in terms of social science but in terms of nothing but history. It's an argument hinging mostly on the world's biggest anecdotal evidence. Behave like an actual man of science for a second and bring actual proof that the way it went in past is the only way it can go, and all the books of how badly it all went will possibly have a value in deciding what to do about it in the future. "It went badly before" is not a proof of anything, ever. Democracy went badly before, free trade went badly before. It doesn't mean a thing.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;48975821]Oh great another YouGov online poll that doesn't represent people who don't normally do political online polls.[/QUOTE] What? Yes it does represent them, people are chosen randomly, those who "normally do political online polls" can't even choose if they want to participate in those surveys. Either they get selected for it, or they don't.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48976038]Last I checked Europe hasn't been doing too badly[/QUOTE] if by work you mean cutting economic growth down to a bare minimum then yes it does work [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Octavius;48976183]Shit it's almost like governments in capitalism are tools of the capitalist class and exist to serve their interests![/QUOTE] they are indeed and never will i refute this but if im going to side with either capitalists or government then i side with capitalists [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48977492]So is Canada a mess because we HIGHLY regulate our banks, insurers, and other financial institutions? Should we just de-regulate everything because you can create a binary/false dichotomy of authority?[/QUOTE] just like im not saying "OH SO YOU WANT THE SOCIALIST COMMUNIST TO TAKE OVER AND COMMUNIZE AGRICULTURE????" you shouldnt be saying that dont be naive and distrust both capitalists and government, there is no point being skeptical of one of those entities because they are both highly suspicious and attracts money grabbing & power hungry parasites acting after self interests. difference is one of those groups has access to your childrens education and also controls the worlds largest military
This poll is stupid, socialism (aka social democracy, what they really mean) and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive.
Socialism is pretty shit
[QUOTE=proch;48978608]Socialism is pretty shit[/QUOTE] So is Capitalism, need a center ground.
What a stupid fucking poll.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48975912]Well the USSR is doing a pretty terrible job at being a socialist.[/QUOTE] why do you keep saying is? the USSR dissolved almost a quarter of a century ago
capitalism is complete shit sure in spain we may have a big financial issue, but at least we have a lot of social services, while many of them have been fucked because of budget issues, our public health care is still quite decent.
[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] What most people are talking about when they talk about implementing socialism are actually talking about implementing a social democracy: where the economy is regulated, but not controlled, and there are several things which are guaranteed as rights: education, health care, child care, workers compensation, care for the elderly, social security, etc. The funding for these services will either end up paying for themselves in the long run, or can be taxed from the wealthiest of the wealthy, which, the only advantage of having such a wealthy 1% as we do in an economic system is that we can tax them.
[QUOTE=G-Wash;48978767]What most people are talking about when they talk about implementing socialism are actually talking about implementing a social democracy: where the economy is regulated, but not controlled, and there are several things which are guaranteed as rights: education, health care, child care, workers compensation, care for the elderly, social security, etc. [B]The funding for these services will either end up paying for themselves in the long run, or can be taxed from the wealthiest of the wealthy[/B], which, the only advantage of having such a wealthy 1% as we do in an economic system is that we can tax them.[/QUOTE] how will services not based on profits end up paying for themselves? i wish that was the case, but the "wealthiest" can easily evade taxes and instead people like me have to pay 75% tax on what i earn....
Even if they couldn't wvade them, why would the wealthy stay in a country that wants their money to run itself?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.