Socialists are winning, like it or not!

[Silver]

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

http://tinyurl.com/d78yo4
=============

Surprised? Not so much...The socialists, (Democrats) have been gaining ground for at least the last 80 Years....and literally
own the school system.
Indoctrinating the children has certainly paid off for them big time...

Whether its the Hitler Youth Program of the 30's, the re-education camps of Vietnam in the 60's, K-12 public school system in the US or the Muslim madrassa schools of today, it pays to get your propaganda out.... while you have the opportunity....

Socialists have had much success especially with the young adults on the college campus...that group being politically and morally brain dead since the 60's....

So....the Rasmussen survey is no surprise at all....the numbers seem accurate to me...

[DannyR]

I think the poll was done poorly. As the article states:
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. Seems good old free enterprise is alive and well and most prefer it. There is however some distrust over wanting a "pure" system of capitalism, with all the dangers of monopoly, etc that might pose. Most people realize our system is neither that of pure capitalism or socialism, but a mix of both, and that would skew the results significantly.

[theHawk]

Decades of liberal indoctrination at public schools is paying off!

[glockmail]

Decades of liberal indoctrination at public schools is paying off! I just tell my kids that socialism requires them to average out their good grades with the students who do poorly, while capitalism allows then to keep what they earn.

[Agnapostate]

Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism.

"Free enterprise" or "free markets" have not existed in a capitalist economy outside of the textbook and remain a utopian and unachievable fantasy. Actually existing capitalism bears little resemblance to "free enterprise" and assuming otherwise is effectively akin to assuming perfect competition.


Surprised? Not so much...The socialists, (Democrats) have been gaining ground for at least the last 80 Years....and literally
own the school system.

As a legitimate socialist, I can tell you that referring to the Democrats as "socialists" is patently absurd. Indeed, the liberal democratic form of capitalism has the effect of stabilizing capitalism and placating worker militancy to an extent that Anglo-Saxon capitalism could never accomplish. Conventional "liberals" are therefore greater foes of socialists than "conservatives" are.


Whether its the Hitler Youth Program of the 30's,

It's an abuse of political economy to call the Nazis "socialists" merely because their party was called the "National Socialists," just as such literalness would not prevail in the case of the Soviet controlled German "Democratic" Republic. The Nazis were effectively Keynesians, and Keynesianism is primarily intended for the stabilization of capitalism. Any remotely legitimate socialist element within the Nazi Party was eliminated on the Night of the Long Knives (and even that "socialist" element was just an example of broad worker militancy more than anything else).


the re-education camps of Vietnam in the 60's,

This has more relation to state capitalism than socialism, thus effectively rendering this a similar abuse of political economy.


K-12 public school system in the US

The public school system plays a critical role in the capitalist mode of production. For instance, we might consider the perspective of socialists Bowles and Gintis in Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life, in which they argue that the hierarchical subordination of students inherent in schooling is designed to indoctrinate students so that they might conform to the hierarchical subordination of labor under capital later in life. The libertarian socialist (and indeed, the Marxist) is able to recognize the role of this form of hierarchical schooling in preparing students for the similarly hierarchical workplace and weakening the working class so that they may score few victories in class conflict.


the Muslim madrassa schools of today

This has no relation to socialism whatsoever.


, it pays to get your propaganda out.... while you have the opportunity....

Apparently. It's merely a shame that most of your propaganda seems to come from mises.org and the Heritage Foundation.


Most people realize our system is neither that of pure capitalism or socialism, but a mix of both, and that would skew the results significantly.

There can be no viable "mixture" of capitalism and socialism. A "mixed economy" remains fundamentally capitalist in nature, and it's simply necessary to distinguish between the "righist" form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, the "centrist" form of liberal democratic capitalism, and the "leftist" form of social democratic capitalism, with the latter constituting a form of "Rhine capitalism."


I just tell my kids that socialism requires them to average out their good grades with the students who do poorly, while capitalism allows then to keep what they earn.

It's excellent that you're able to contest indoctrination with its polar opposite: lovely one-sided teachings on how to think. :salute:

[Little-Acorn]

There is however some distrust over wanting a "pure" system of capitalism, with all the dangers of monopoly, etc that might pose.

In a purely capitalistic system (i.e. no government controls on commerce or business except contract enforcement and theft&fraud prosecution), a monopoly cannot exist.

Monopolies require either fraud, or illegal intimidation, or government support.

Without them, someone can try to start a monopoly (or form one by buying other companies), but others will start undercutting it, thus destroying its monopoly status.

[Agnapostate]

In a purely capitalistic system (i.e. no government controls on commerce or business except contract enforcement and theft&fraud prosecution), a monopoly cannot exist.

Monopolies require either fraud, or illegal intimidation, or government support.

Without them, someone can try to start a monopoly (or form one by buying other companies), but others will start undercutting it, thus destroying its monopoly status.

That simply relies on a utopian conception of political economy and market exchange. The information asymmetries and related agency costs so prevalent in actually existing capitalism will prevent the implementation of any such fantasy.

[Jagger]

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
Free market capitalism didn't produce Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Unemployment Insurance or any other elements of our Socialist Safety Net.

[Agnapostate]

Free market capitalism didn't produce Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, Unemployment Insurance or any other elements of our Socialist Safety Net.

As mentioned, those welfare functions are not "socialism." More than that, free market capitalism has never been able to produce anything, primarily because of its inconvenient lack of existence.

[Jagger]

socialism requires them to average out their good grades with the students who do poorly... If you say so.


While capitalism allows then to keep what they earn.
I'm for free markets with no rules whatsoever, like the markets along the shores of Somalia.

[Jagger]

As mentioned, those welfare functions are not "socialism."

Words mean whatever idea or intellectual concept the user attaches to them. I use the term socialism" to signify the programs that comprise our social safety net.

[Jagger]

Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better. Smart people don't argue ambiguous ideas.

[Agnapostate]

Words mean whatever idea or intellectual concept the user attaches to them. I use the term socialism" to signify the programs that comprise our social safety net.

Inaccurately. The social safety net is an integral component of capitalism.

[Jagger]

The socialists, (Democrats) have been gaining ground for at least the last 80 Years Some of our best Socialists are Republicans. Witness the 2003 addition to our socialist safety net, known as the Medicare Prescription Benefit, established by a Republican Congress and a Republican President.



******** Republicans are the New Socialists ***********

[Jagger]

Inaccurately. The social safety net is an integral component of capitalism.

Nope. The social safety net is socialism. Ronald Reagan said so.

[Agnapostate]

Nope. The social safety net is socialism. Ronald Reagan said so.

Then he needed to apply the same label to his own military Keynesianism in order to remain consistent.

[Jagger]

Then he needed to apply the same label to his own military Keynesianism in order to remain consistent.

What is military Keynesianism?

[Silver]

You realize, Agnapostate, that my post covered 2 different subjects....

Socialism and indoctrination of the young....

A little reading comprehension would go along way in helping you answer post in an intelligent manner...
It wasn't hard to grasp when I was referring to one subject or the other...

There is socialism in numerous areas of the world and have differences in various countrys of Europe, even in the Catholic convent...all are different in various certain ways...yet they are all socialism in general ..... in the US...Democrats practice "our" variation of socialism.

You also seem to think its accurate to give credit to me for quotes in the article I linked...
Sorry Skippy...I didn't write the article, so saying "Silver posted" etc. is also misleading....

Otherwise ..your post was crap.... well, mostly crap...

[Jagger]

in the US...Democrats practice "our" variation of socialism.

There are many Republican Socialists. For example, the health care plan Mitt Romney implemented as Massachusetts governor mandates the enrollment of every resident. If that's not socialist, then Sweden's not socialist.

[Silver]

CPUSA...the Communists Party of the USA has supported Democrats in every election for about the last 30 years.........they suggest to their members that they vote for the Democrat ticket....why is that....???

Socialists...Communists...they aren't the same thing ...they aren't the same philosophy...
but the fact is, they both have issues that dove-tail quite nicely with todays Democrats...

democrats...socialists...communists ? all different but yet they all have certain issues that they agree on.....they are allies....

[Silver]

There are many Republican Socialists. For example, the health care plan Mitt Romney implemented as Massachusetts governor mandates the enrollment of every resident. If that's not socialist, then Sweden's not socialist.

Maybe CPUSA will endorse him if he runs again.....:laugh2:
but I don't think so....

[DannyR]

In a purely capitalistic system (i.e. no government controls on commerce or business except contract enforcement and theft&fraud prosecution), a monopoly cannot exist.Completely false in my opinion.


Monopolies require either fraud, or illegal intimidation, or government support.Or just the ability to buy their goods in larger quantities and take advantage of bulk buying, basically leveraging the advantage of their larger size.


Without them, someone can try to start a monopoly (or form one by buying other companies), but others will start undercutting it, thus destroying its monopoly status.In many cases, a smaller organization can only undercut a monopoly temporarily, if at all. A large corporation like Wal-Mart has successfully sent many mom and pop stores out of business because they were able to offer goods much more cheaply. They don't even have to do anything shady such as putting things on sale at under cost and make up the profit elsewhere. They can undercut the smaller business just by their ability to buy their goods in higher quantities and take advantage of bulk savings.

Thats not fraud, illegal intimidation or government support.

[glockmail]

If you say so.


I'm for free markets with no rules whatsoever, like the markets along the shores of Somalia. That market is free either, since the UN ties the hands of the US Navy who would clear out the problem there in a matter of days.

[glockmail]

It's excellent that you're able to contest indoctrination with its polar opposite: lovely one-sided teachings on how to think. :salute: Not one sided at all- I teach them right when they have been taught left- and they make up their own minds, so far correctly. :laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

What is military Keynesianism?

Military Keynesianism primarily consists of the government using military spending to stimulate economic growth, though that's somewhat of an oversimplification.


You realize, Agnapostate, that my post covered 2 different subjects....

Socialism and indoctrination of the young....

A little reading comprehension would go along way in helping you answer post in an intelligent manner...
It wasn't hard to grasp when I was referring to one subject or the other...

Of course not. Which is why your entire post was sufficiently rebutted, as primarily evidenced by your failure to provide any further clarification or response.


There is socialism in numerous areas of the world and have differences in various countrys of Europe, even in the Catholic convent...all are different in various certain ways...yet they are all socialism in general ..... in the US...Democrats practice "our" variation of socialism.

That is a patently inaccurate claim. Europe is divided between minor variants of Rhine capitalism, the most "leftist" form being social democracy. Social democracy is not a "socialist" economic system; it is simply a leftist capitalist system that must be distinguished from the rightist Anglo-Saxon system of Reagan and Thatcher and the centrist liberal democratic system that you inaccurately describe as "socialist."


You also seem to think its accurate to give credit to me for quotes in the article I linked...
Sorry Skippy...I didn't write the article, so saying "Silver posted" etc. is also misleading....

I mistakenly quoted this section as though it was written by you: "Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism." Do you see anything there that poses major or serious conflicts with your ideological beliefs that I misrepresented?


Otherwise ..your post was crap.... well, mostly crap...

A lesser critic would have responded with specific points of criticism or rebuttal. Good to see you've transcended that! :salute:


There are many Republican Socialists. For example, the health care plan Mitt Romney implemented as Massachusetts governor mandates the enrollment of every resident. If that's not socialist, then Sweden's not socialist.

That isn't socialist. Again, socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production.


CPUSA...the Communists Party of the USA has supported Democrats in every election for about the last 30 years.........they suggest to their members that they vote for the Democrat ticket....why is that....???

Socialists...Communists...they aren't the same thing ...they aren't the same philosophy...
but the fact is, they both have issues that dove-tail quite nicely with todays Democrats...

democrats...socialists...communists ? all different but yet they all have certain issues that they agree on.....they are allies....

The CPUSA is led by Sam Webb, an isolated reformist whose electioneering tactics are supported by effectively no other major socialist party.


Not one sided at all- I teach them right when they have been taught left- and they make up their own minds, so far correctly. :laugh2:

Really? Have they read much Kropotkin?

[glockmail]

Really? Have they read much Kropotkin? Not at all. Why read garbage like that?

[Agnapostate]

Not at all. Why read garbage like that?

In what manner is Kropotkin "garbage"?

Perhaps your claim that "they have been taught left" won't be standing up to closer scrutiny?

[glockmail]

In what manner is Kropotkin "garbage"?

Perhaps your claim that "they have been taught left" won't be standing up to closer scrutiny? Because it's socialist-anarchist garbage, that's why.

Are you denying that the US education system isn't dominated by leftists? :laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

Because it's socialist-anarchist garbage, that's why.

Is that so? I seem to recall "anarchists" existing only in Lord of the Flies. We haven't reversed ourselves already, have we? Lord, what fools these mortals be!


Are you denying that the US education system isn't dominated by leftists? :laugh2:

I'm sure they're dominated by your conception of "leftists." Personally, I'm rather hostile toward the compulsory schooling system myself. Natural element of my libertarian nature.

[glockmail]

Is that so? I seem to recall "anarchists" existing only in Lord of the Flies. ... Unfortunately they exist outside of fictional literature.

[Agnapostate]

Unfortunately they exist outside of fictional literature.

Unfortunate for those with an interest in controlling the lives of others in an authoritarian manner. I'm glad you agree. :beer:

[glockmail]

Unfortunate for those with an interest in controlling the lives of others in an authoritarian manner. I'm glad you agree. :beer:Anarchists just say that, but in reality their form of government would not protect people's rights.

[Agnapostate]

Anarchists just say that, but in reality their form of government would not protect people's rights.

...?

[glockmail]

I see I have you speechless.

[Agnapostate]

No, you've left me wondering why you're speechless. Shocking though it may seem, arguments are typically utilized in support of conclusions.

[glockmail]

No, you've left me wondering why you're speechless. Shocking though it may seem, arguments are typically utilized in support of conclusions.
So set your argument. *shrug*

[Agnapostate]

So set your argument. *shrug*

Oh? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on this first?


Anarchists just say that, but in reality their form of government would not protect people's rights.

Why not do so? Do you have empirical evidence to present regarding this topic, for instance?

[glockmail]

Why not do so? Do you have empirical evidence to present regarding this topic, for instance?


an·ar·chism

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groupsm-w.com

Again, without some government authority, there would be nothing to prevent someone from simply taking someone else's property. Property rights are a founding principle of individual freedom.

[Agnapostate]

Again, without some government authority, there would be nothing to prevent someone from simply taking someone else's property. Property rights are a founding principle of individual freedom.

This "explanation" is altogether too vague. Anarchist organization provides for prohibition of theft and similar acts of aggression on the grounds that anarchism is above all anti-hierarchical, and the public intervention required to prevent aggressive acts is ultimately a less authoritarian imposition than the acts themselves. Hence, anarchist theory provides for organization in federations of decentralized collectives and communes governed through direct democracy. As for property rights, consolidation of private ownership of the means of production is by no means conducive to maximization of individual freedom; on the contrary, private property has functioned as an authoritarian institution in that regard, considering the utilization of wage labor that occurs. Wage labor is necessarily managed within the confines of hierarchical coordination structure, and is thus authoritarian in nature.

It's for that reason that the modern capitalist firm functions as the descendant of the monarch, priestly class, and fascist government. It utilizes the same means of authoritarian hierarchy to govern average citizens, and is thus anti-democratic and anti-libertarian, rendering capitalism itself the same.

[glockmail]

This "explanation" is altogether too vague. Anarchist organization provides for prohibition of theft and similar acts of aggression on the grounds that anarchism is above all anti-hierarchical, and the public intervention required to prevent aggressive acts is ultimately a less authoritarian imposition than the acts themselves. Hence, anarchist theory provides for organization in federations of decentralized collectives and communes governed through direct democracy. .... Incredible irony.

[Agnapostate]

Incredible irony.

Actually, it's not vague. It's simply blatantly inaccurate.

[Silver]

You refute nothing...you rant about Nazis not being Socialists when I never made that claim in the first place...The point being made was that The Hitler Youth program is similar to the indoctrination used by todays Liberals...in the public school system, from bottom to top....
[/i]


That is a patently inaccurate claim. Europe is divided between minor variants of Rhine capitalism, the most "leftist" form being social democracy. Social democracy is not a "socialist" economic system; it is simply a leftist capitalist system that must be distinguished from the rightist Anglo-Saxon system of Reagan and Thatcher and the centrist liberal democratic system that you inaccurately describe as "socialist."

More bullshit...its common the world over to refer to Sweden, Denmark, etc. as Socialistic countrys...France also, and even Great Britian by certain groups...nitpicking the general outlook buys you nothing....they may not dovetail to the classic definitions but tough shit...

That isn't socialist. Again, socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production.

More bullshit...you must be freekin' overwhelmed in a paint store trying to buy a gallon of white paint and be confronted by 15 different colors....only to find out that a different manufacturers whites are also all different colors than the first one's....
Thats todays socialism....variants of beliefs and degrees of whats "necessary" and what is not....the classic definitions worked 60 years ago...but times have changed , like the color white ....

The CPUSA is led by Sam Webb, an isolated reformist whose electioneering tactics are supported by effectively no other major socialist party.

Todays CPUSA certainly is not like any Communist Party of 60 or 70 years ago, is it...but they still like to call themselves Communists...
Their is no major socialist party in the US...but some of the classic issues of socialists and even some communists issues fit quite nicely in the Democrat tent....
Rhine capitalism,
social democracy simply a leftist capitalist system that must be distinguished from
the rightist Anglo-Saxon system
the centrist liberal democratic system

You have no problem seeing variations of capitalism but socialism requires some sort of purity?

C
a

[Agnapostate]

Do you know how to reply like a normal person?


You refute nothing...you rant about Nazis not being Socialists when I never made that claim in the first place...The point being made was that The Hitler Youth program is similar to the indoctrination used by todays Liberals...in the public school system, from bottom to top....

The indoctrination that occurs is fundamentally capitalist in its nature. As noted by Bowles and Gintis, the presence of hierarchical subordination and similar elements in schools prepare students for entry into the workforce and similar conditions.


More bullshit...its common the world over to refer to Sweden, Denmark, etc. as Socialistic countrys...France also, and even Great Britian by certain groups...nitpicking the general outlook buys you nothing....they may not dovetail to the classic definitions but tough shit...

I don't really care how "common" you think it is; it's inaccurate, according to legitimate political economic definitions. The collective ownership of the means of production is both a necessary condition of and a sufficient condition for socialism; anything less is just that: less.


More bullshit...you must be freekin' overwhelmed in a paint store trying to buy a gallon of white paint and be confronted by 15 different colors....only to find out that a different manufacturers whites are also all different colors than the first one's....
Thats todays socialism....variants of beliefs and degrees of whats "necessary" and what is not....the classic definitions worked 60 years ago...but times have changed , like the color white ....

Your definition of liberal and social democracy as "socialism" remains inaccurate. Indeed, given their superior efficiency to the Anglo-Saxon model, they actually play a critical role in maintaining capitalism and do so to a greater extent than the more rightist form ever could.


Todays CPUSA certainly is not like any Communist Party of 60 or 70 years ago, is it...but they still like to call themselves Communists...
Their is no major socialist party in the US...but some of the classic issues of socialists and even some communists issues fit quite nicely in the Democrat tent....

That's not accurate. Considering that liberal democratic capitalism is actually more fine-tuned and can appease worker militancy to a far greater extent than Anglo-Saxon capitalism, it's actually more conducive to the continued survival of capitalism than the latter form.


Rhine capitalism,
social democracy simply a leftist capitalist system that must be distinguished from
the rightist Anglo-Saxon system
the centrist liberal democratic system

You have no problem seeing variations of capitalism but socialism requires some sort of purity?

There are numerous variations of socialism that exist, such as communism, collectivism, mutualism, more individualist forms of market socialism, etc. However, Rhine capitalism is not a form of socialism.