Why Are So Many Young People Becoming Socialists? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15165246
Unthinking Majority wrote:Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Your definition of capitalism is wrong. You're equating capitalism with 100% laissez-faire free-market capitalism. Such a country doesn't exist on the planet and really never has. In Spain are 100% of the businesses owned by the public? If not, that's not a "socialist" state, it's a mixed economy. There haven't been any "socialist" European countries since the fall of the USSR. 100% capitalism or 100% socialism has never worked. Every western country is a mixed economy, the difference is in how much of each economy is privately vs publicly owned and regulated.

"Spain has a capitalist mixed economy.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Spain

I did all of your homework for you. Come back when you read up and know your terms.

You are flat out misinformed to state that Spain is a capitalist country. Far from it. And anyone else who says so is wrong. All the major resources that are needed for the welfare of the people are either owned by the state or completely regulated by the state for the public good. That there is also a thriving market in unessential goods and services in no sense makes Spain capitalist or any of the Scandanavian countries or other socialist countries in Europe. Someone needs a dictionary and an economics text not written in the USA.
#15165247
Unthinking Majority wrote:Economists can't predict the future and can't create something as complex as an economic system with millions of actors and millions of variables. Marx/Lenin and Milton Freidman knew a lot less than they thought they knew, had theories not backed by proper data, & used entire countries as their social experiments that often failed.


Marx never said anything about political policy when writing about Socialism. I doubt he would have advocated for an authoritarian model in any case. Although at the time of this writings, democracy wasn't really democracy at all as only the selected wealthy had the vote and as such Marx knew the proletariat had to do more actions to enact change quickly for the system worked very well for those who could vote at the time.

Nonetheless Marx has actually been very accurate with his evaluation of Capitalism considering he was writing during the industrial revolution. Although perhaps wrong with the timescale of movement in terms of of Economic destruction due to not realising the amount of ways Capitalism has to fix its contradictions, he will be right eventually that Capitalism with ultimately destroy itself. I cannot see how mass debt can lead to more borrowing as a solution and this to continue every decade of so and have no impact on the fictional concept of wealth via currency. In other words we should expect a major financial crash in our lifetime during a time of a wide wealth disparity which would cause civil unrest under high unemployment and high inflation.

So what comes next? What comes after the point where the risk of inflation or lack of spending stems economic growth and activity? This isn't really in doubt to happen, but I will say it is difficult to predict when. It was FDRs implementation of Keynes creating his new deal of SOCIAL national projects to stimulate growth and jobs during a time of depression. A feat that got him elected 4 times I might add during a time that was challenging to say the least. In other words it was the implementation of Socialism projects that got America out of depression and not Capitalism at all which caused the crash to begin with. And something like that will have to occur again during the next depression. The government will have to stimulate areas of the economy by forced interaction that is important for society to keep it functioning. The only thing that will be different is that the government shouldn't then sell off the areas they invest in. They should perhaps implement Socialism and retain it when the market conditions are right for it to be implemented rather than sell it off like last time. :hmm:
#15165249
Suchard wrote:You are flat out misinformed to state that Spain is a capitalist country. Far from it. And anyone else who says so is wrong. All the major resources that are needed for the welfare of the people are either owned by the state or completely regulated by the state for the public good. That there is also a thriving market in unessential goods and services in no sense makes Spain capitalist or any of the Scandanavian countries or other socialist countries in Europe. Someone needs a dictionary and an economics text not written in the USA.


Image

If you 're going to redefine capitalism as "socialism" for feel-good semantics, then I guess that is a good thing.
#15165253
Rancid wrote:It's not that simple. Taking care of the poor guy that lives down the street will mean he's less likely to rob you. I think that would be a win for the productive citizen no?

What makes you believe that the poor on welfare commit less crime? I suspect every guy that is involved in the nightly shootings in Baltimore is a product of the welfare system.
#15165255
noemon wrote:
If you 're going to redefine capitalism as "socialism" for feel-good semantics, then I guess that is a good thing.

Nothing of the sort, noemon. My posts are llonger than your one-liners but I nevertheless keep my responses economical in language and I try to be clear in my meaning. The USA is without doubt a capitalist country, unlike the governments of the European Union which have degrees of socialism so pervasive that they should not be termed a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Bear in mind that the important goods and services in many European Union countries are state owned or controlled by legislation. Other goods and services are run by corporations and various entrepreneurs.
#15165256
Modern economies are a mix of private and public. The economics of health care, for example, are such that the only sane choice is government involvement. Even poor countries, like Costa Rica, which are distinctly not a modern economy, will have some government involvement in health care.

Which means labels like socialist are archaic, and not helpful. Indeed, their primary use is as propaganda; with someone dishonest on the Right trying to imply a type socialism that is blatantly false.

Politics tends to swing back and forth. After the post WW2 regime broke, the Right surged in Europe. In America, propaganda was turned into a science by the Right (mostly Koch). The result, with Putin's help, was an obscenity. It would be surprising if the young did not recoil against it.
#15165263
late wrote:Modern economies are a mix of private and public. The economics of health care, for example, are such that the only sane choice is government involvement. Even poor countries, like Costa Rica, which are distinctly not a modern economy, will have some government involvement in health care.

Which means labels like socialist are archaic, and not helpful. Indeed, their primary use is as propaganda; with someone dishonest on the Right trying to imply a type socialism that is blatantly false.

Politics tends to swing back and forth. After the post WW2 regime broke, the Right surged in Europe. In America, propaganda was turned into a science by the Right (mostly Koch). The result, with Putin's help, was an obscenity. It would be surprising if the young did not recoil against it.


The interesting thing late are the young people who are interested in it today. Again where are the glory days of free uni educations and good paying jobs with the ability to pay for rent and bring the girlfriend/boyfriend over? The independent life? They fear failure apparently? They need to make a profit and be successful. But the system wants them in debt and their parents want them out of the house.

The American Dream is tough to get--what made it tough? Who made it tough. Some want honest answers and others want myths.

La juventud. For my two sons I want their freedom, justice, security, safety, health, beauty and a bright future. Like any loving mother would. Casino capitalism and deposing democratic choices, paying off politicos and polluting el mundo is not it.
#15165284
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm glad you care. I think most people care. If you do care, and if anyone else here cares, then go with the data. Data never lies. The data points to Scandinavia and similar. Everything else is just bullshit in a book or on a message board. As I've said, good intentions aren't good enough. Results matter

The problem in a country like the USA is that most care, but most are also stupid, and stupid people don't go with the data because they're dumb. Theories not driven by data/evidence is just crappy social science, and crappy social science often leads to bad policies. Science works. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, so most Americans aren't just dumb they're insane lol. The rich aren't dumb, they know what makes them money.

Economists can't predict the future and can't create something as complex as an economic system with millions of actors and millions of variables. Marx/Lenin and Milton Freidman knew a lot less than they thought they knew, had theories not backed by proper data, & used entire countries as their social experiments that often failed. Oops! Everyone wants to change the world, but progress is usually made through a series of steps building on top of another, not grand experiments made of trial and error.

So in other words, yours or anyone's good intentions are meaningless. All that matters is what you're trying to achieve and what has shown to work to achieve it.


No, Unthinking, you have to see humanity through a very long historical lense. My individual efforts or intentions (as you call it?) have no meaning at all if I am alone and acting alone or thinking alone, or noticing what is wrong.

But I am not. The whole purpose of this thread or topic was "Why Are So Many Young People Becoming Socialists?"

Because socialism is growing Unthinking after long decades of being panned and discarded by a Capitalist and liberal in politics paradigm. WHY? Why the resurrection from the grave by the youth of all groups?

That is what I wanted to explore.

I am going to put in a video of what young socialists are saying:



They want to be better organizers. Why? The current system is not serving their needs. It is that simple Unthinking.

I happen to think people do wind up questioning why something doesn't work. I have always been highly into functional models. If it doesn't happen then why? Find out. Make the modifications.

I care. It is very important to care Unthinking. Why care? If you don't care about something or an issue how motivated will you be if you are not caring and not motivated to put energy and time in the problem to change it? Caring is required to get involved.

If one doesn't care? There is no motivation for the required effort to get involved in solutions. None.

I don't care about selling some products I would never buy. What are those? A lot of things. I don't get motivated to sell laundry detergent and talk about stain removal advantages all day and call people up hours upon hours to discuss the properties of lifting that chocolate or blood stain off of cotton material? Would you? Probably you would hate that job because you don't care.

Issues are very similar. Some people care about animal rights, or human rights or economic justice, or age discrimination, or drug law reform, or prison reform or maternity leave, or anti-child abuse, or police unions and shot and dead cops needing support, veterans issues, etc. What makes their movements effective and strong and binds the momentum of the activist group together are members of that group WHO CARE.

So no. Caring is not meaningless and trivial like you painted it. it is meaningful and essential. But individuals like I the individual person is not really important.

PoFo and @noemon is a good example. He is an individual who invested time and money into this place. He makes sure people here who use this platform don't denigrate or demean it. But, he does need to have many people who are diverse in points of view writing and discussing topics to get this place to work and be relevant. That means he has to care about what happens here and how his forum is run. If he doesn't care? What might happen to it?

It becomes neglected and defunct eventually. Caring is life or death for all of us.

You are just taught @Unthinking Majority that one gets to a better society by objective means only and by the truth of data. But data is useful to measure results of a system that is a living organism. Societies are living organisms because they have living people in them who CARE and feel and think and act and work as one or in disunity and fighting. The results of what those steps and evolutions come out to be manifested as the defects or the small victories and small defeats of human society? Is all about el corazon--the ability to love and care about a human condition.

I hope you care about something that means a lot to you someday @Unthinking Majority and you act on it. And don't wait for some old lady like me to motivate you or for your cynical views to keep you from caring and trying to make a change.

That is all I meant to say in this thread. I am glad I got the chance. ;)
#15165297
Guys, no one loves capitalism as I do.

However, the world will eventually be a socialist commune. This will be the culmination of capitalism. Once there is redundant wealth the difference between the accomplished and not so accomplished will undergo compression and this will lead to a more uniform standard of living for all. However, this is not due to SJW propaganda. This is simply the natural progression of capitalism
#15165314
Suchard wrote:Nothing of the sort, noemon. My posts are llonger than your one-liners but I nevertheless keep my responses economical in language and I try to be clear in my meaning. The USA is without doubt a capitalist country, unlike the governments of the European Union which have degrees of socialism so pervasive that they should not be termed a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Bear in mind that the important goods and services in many European Union countries are state owned or controlled by legislation. Other goods and services are run by corporations and various entrepreneurs.


All EU countries are capitalist economies where the capitalist framework predominates. Having essential public utilities in the hands of the state does not make one "socialist", that is how the US and the UK used to be until the 80's as well.

Social democracy and social liberalism are both liberal ideologies and not socialist ideologies where capitalism remains the main framework.

A simple wiki on both would clarify that for you.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within a capitalist framework[1][2] that supports some philosophical elements of socialism. [3][4] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.


Social liberalism, also known as left liberalism in Germany,[1][2][3] modern liberalism in the United States[4] and new liberalism in the United Kingdom,[5][6] is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights. Under social liberalism, the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[7]

Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the world.[8] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][9][10][11][12] A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasising the rights and autonomy of the individual.[13][14][15]
#15165315
Back when the EU countries had even larger social welfare systems, a larger share of the government in the economy, heavier taxation and way more regulation they were labeled as "capitalist". Why would they be labeled as "socialist" now that governments are smaller, taxes are lower, welfare isn't as generous and there is more economic freedom than before?
#15165316
wat0n wrote:Back when the EU countries had even larger social welfare systems, a larger share of the government in the economy, heavier taxation and way more regulation they were labeled as "capitalist". Why would they be labeled as "socialist" now that governments are smaller, taxes are lower, welfare isn't as generous and there is more economic freedom than before?


Indeed, I think some people here are just trying to play semantics to big up the words "socialism".

Part of it also has to do with US polemics calling liberal progressives "socialists" in order to taint them but inadvertently redefining the term in the process.

A lot of people are becoming liberal progressives, social liberals and social democrats, but not "socialists". All these groups have been tainted by the label "socialist" in the US particularly but that never meant these groups were ever 'socialist' in any meaningful way.
#15165318
noemon wrote:Indeed, I think some people here are just trying to play semantics to big up the words "socialism".

Part of it also has to do with US polemics calling liberal progressives "socialists" in order to taint them but inadvertently redefining the term in the process.

A lot of people are becoming liberal progressives, social liberals and social democrats, but not "socialists". All these groups have been tainted by the label "socialist" in the US particularly but that never meant these groups were ever 'socialist' in any meaningful way.

Sadly, many Americans believe the Scandinavian countries are successful socialist utopias. :knife: :knife: :knife:
#15165320
Suchard wrote:You are flat out misinformed to state that Spain is a capitalist country. Far from it. And anyone else who says so is wrong. All the major resources that are needed for the welfare of the people are either owned by the state or completely regulated by the state for the public good. That there is also a thriving market in unessential goods and services in no sense makes Spain capitalist or any of the Scandanavian countries or other socialist countries in Europe. Someone needs a dictionary and an economics text not written in the USA.

I've never heard of anyone refer to Spain or any Scandinavian country as "socialist". Do you have any links to back this up? Just because the ruling party in Spain has the word "Socialist" in its name doesn't make the country socialist. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is also not democratic.
#15165412
Godstud wrote:@Rancid Most conservative idiots don't realize that the root cause of crime is poverty.


Yea, that's one of the big issues with conservatives these days. They have taken the whole "lift yourself by the bootstrap" to an impractical level. You can't really lift yourself up with you don't have boots.
#15165414
Julian658 wrote:What makes you believe that the poor on welfare commit less crime? I suspect every guy that is involved in the nightly shootings in Baltimore is a product of the welfare system.


Welfare in America keeps people below the poverty line. The conclusion that more help wouldn't fix anything is wrong. As far as I know, there's no data on this in America, because we've never bothered to actually give people the help they really need.

It's certainly worth the experiment, because what we have now, isn't that great anyway. I'm sure we can afford to not drop a dozen bombs or whatever to pay for this.
#15165428
Even putting the USA in line with the developed countries by instituting some sort of public healthcare, paid parental leave, and a defence budget that is merely twice what China spends, would be a significant difference.

But people who propose this are considered extremists.
#15165436
Now if only the USA can cut military spending by 1/2 and close down some of its 800 military bases, in more than 70 countries, around the world. That money would go a long ways towards helping USA to catch up with the rest of the civilized world.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 34

That is great, but at the end of the day the capi[…]

Name the last time the Democrats didn't nominate […]

:roll: If they've already had the first done, then[…]

Shooting of Adam Toledo

Not the same at all. I saw the story on ABC, CBS[…]