61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[Foxfyre]

I doubt 10% of Americans could define socialism as something other than "just like communism! Commie Bastards!"

If your number IS even close to being true. It makes it that much more troubling to me, that 61% of democrats view socialism as favorable.

Socialism is such a broad vague far reaching term that it's very likely that almost every American has a favorable view of some aspect or aspects of socialism.

Perhaps, but that would depend on how socialism is defined.

Leftists tend to want socialism to be the factor in any services or functions provided by government. When it is defined that way, of course the kool-ade drinkers, un-politically-savvy types, and the genuinely ideologically socialists will think that part of socialism is okay.

Conservatives rarely define socialism that way, but look at socialism as government control of the means of production and forced distribution of wealth. Conservatives do not see the original social contract embodied in the U.S. Constitution as any form of socialism though it does allow for necessary government provision of some basic services. When socialism is defined that way, I think you'll find the vast majority of Americans rejecting it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Perhaps, but that would depend on how socialism is defined.

Leftists tend to want socialism to be the factor in any services or functions provided by government. When it is defined that way, of course the kool-ade drinkers, un-politically-savvy types, and the genuinely ideologically socialists will think that part of socialism is okay.

Conservatives rarely define socialism that way, but look at socialism as government control of the means of production and forced distribution of wealth. Conservatives do not see the original social contract embodied in the U.S. Constitution as any form of socialism though it does allow for necessary government provision of some basic services. When socialism is defined that way, I think you'll find the vast majority of Americans rejecting it.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute...

Liberals call all kinds of various things "Socialism" and Conservatives have a more refined view???

Really?

That's strange because I've been hearing the term "Socialism" to describe every single liberal or progressive policy that's been proposed over the past couple of years, and it sure as hell hasn't been left-wingers saying it.

Unless Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are secret Liberals...

Or was that just a response to RDean's "Made up figures" post?

 

[Darkwind]

"...that general well-being of a nation's populace is the measure of a "beneficial" system,..."

Absolutely!

That is why I champion capitalism, and eschew socialism.

"In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society."

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

But again, this assumes the radical extreme case of Socialism, and also wrongly assumes that a partially socialist society, like those of modern day Europe will eventually devolve into complete Socialism. This is a fault of modern conservative American thinking, that every policy modification is black and white.

You guys have an "all or nothing" way of going about things. There are many shades of grey on issues like this.

Oh, and: "Euroideology"? LOL.

Love it. Nice word.

One has but to look at the ever constant moving to the left of American ideology to disprove your belief. Given the opportunity, and until such time that Socialism breaks a countries economy; policies will continue to move towards Socialism until it reaches that point where the government is an Authoritarian entity.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

America has been a socialist nation for a very long time- because the People prefer it that way.

People like knowing the poor won't starve.

People like regulations upon banking practices.

People like knowing the elderly and ill are cared for.

People like knowing that they can go to the ER if they have a broken limb or other serious wound or heart attack or whatever and be treated.

People like the fact that we don't still like like this:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Condition-Working-England-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140444866]Amazon.com: The Condition of the Working Class in England (Penguin Classics) (9780140444865): Friedrich Engels, Victor Kiernan: Books[/ame]

"Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business

Which is guaranteed a chance by anti-trust laws (read:socialist actions against the Bourgeoisie which allow small business- the Petty Bourgeoisie- to compete)

free enterprise,

So long as they meet the regulatory guidelines for worker and product safety...

and entrepreneurs.

Again, enabling the Proletarian to join the Petty Bourgeoisie by acting against the most influential and powerful Bourgeois.

They are divided on big business

The Bourgeoisie and the product of Bourgeois Liberalism

and the federal government

Tyranny, which true Communism opposes...

, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%)

See the above. They want competition and a fair chance for small businesses, which are only secured by taking aggression against the most successful.

and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Because, like you, they don't know what it is.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known.

Well, there's your problem...

It seems that socialism should be included in pantheon of Democrat beliefs.

Yet you don't know what they mean by it, as you just said.


Conclusion: you're an idiot.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maybe they should have given examples of socialism in order to clarify what it means...

Like,
-do you want to keep social security retirement as a program or eliminate it?
-Do you think unemployment insurance is a good measure for those losing their jobs?
-do you want to keep Medicare for the seniors or do you want to let them all try to fend for themselves when it comes to their own health?
-Do you want your government to keep up the roads and highways in your area?
-Do you want to eliminate school lunches for the poorest children among us?

Then maybe these idiots would have their answer to what socialism means to them...

guaranteed, there would be A LOT MORE republicans saying yes to 'socialism'.

Perhaps we should also point out that the government takes over private sectors like banking and lending.
Take over of the auto industry
Take over healthcare.
Take over Insurance industry.
Regulate wages.
Take over manufacturing.
I'm sure I can come up with a lot more, but this will do for now.

I wonder if the democrats and the republicans would really be saying yes to socialism?

Socialism is a transition stage.

It's a path to communism, as humanity and its cultures evolve.

Communism opposes a strong central government.

People... this is elementary Marxian stuff here...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If I may conjecture that American ideas and ideals are more closely associated with self-reliance, free enterprise, and entrepeneurship, what is one to make of the latest Gallup poll?

"Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives."
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

It seems that socialism should be included in pantheon of Democrat beliefs.

There are plenty of socialist countries that they are welcome to move to. I'll help them pack.

You're living in one, genius.

 

[Darkwind]

And Marx has been proven a failure. *shrugs*

Why even debate a system that has been proven wrong?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Marx's system could never be proven wrong


-because Marx never proposed a system of governance. He never outlined any real system, merely some properties he would like to see his ideal society possess.

Marx has been proven correct in many regards, such as the plight of the proletariat, the violent uprisings that widely occurred, and development of socialist societies like our own. His biggest mistake, perhaps, was in thinking such a society could be forced into existence through violence.

He belonged to the revolutionary branch. That branch is widely scorned by the reformist branch of thought.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

For example, would you include the PIGS, Portugal,

So no you go from a vague, unspecified, subjective concept of what the word 'socialism' entails to specific nations with specific systems?


Why so dishonest?

 

[Darkwind]

Marx's system could never be proven wrong


-because Marx never proposed a system of governance. He never outlined any real system, merely some properties he would like to see his ideal society possess.

Marx has been proven correct in many regards, such as the plight of the proletariat, the violent uprisings that widely occurred, and development of socialist societies like our own. His biggest mistake, perhaps, was in thinking such a society could be forced into existence through violence.

He belonged to the revolutionary branch. That branch is widely scorned by the reformist branch of thought.

In this very thread there have a been a few posts (sourced at that) showing that what Marx believed turned out to be absolutely wrong.

So go ahead, but I know the fallacy of Marx and his system. I'll pass and continue on with the truth that capitalism and liberty do more to raise the lives of the ordinary person then any system that provides that government must be the generator of societal movement.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Capitalism elevates only the rich.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Condition-Working-England-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140444866]Amazon.com: The Condition of the Working Class in England (Penguin Classics) (9780140444865): Friedrich Engels, Victor Kiernan: Books[/ame]


This class, in turn, exploits the poorer classes, trampling on their rights and liberty.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The fact remains that America's poor have gotten better off as America has reached a socialist stage of development.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

[
Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

Hmmm.. end of the 20th century...


Wasn't that about when we started acting against the trusts and forcing companies to treat the working class (proletariat) better. Wasn't that around the time we saw the effects of worker strikes the formation of huge unions, and the real implementation of safety and pay standards?


Where are our Appalachian friends? They can tell you about what life was like under the corporation before the unions stood their ground. Anyone here from a former Company Town?

 

[Foxfyre]

Marx's system could never be proven wrong


-because Marx never proposed a system of governance. He never outlined any real system, merely some properties he would like to see his ideal society possess.

Marx has been proven correct in many regards, such as the plight of the proletariat, the violent uprisings that widely occurred, and development of socialist societies like our own. His biggest mistake, perhaps, was in thinking such a society could be forced into existence through violence.

He belonged to the revolutionary branch. That branch is widely scorned by the reformist branch of thought.

Marx was quite specific in what had to happen in order to achieve the utopia that he envisioned. And what had to happen was a central authoritarian goverment with absolute authority to control whatever it wanted to control including the media, religious expression, education, all means of production, consumption, and ownership of property, and the people themselves until the capitalist elite were destroyed. Then his assumption was that the people with equal wealth distributed among them would live happily ever after in peace and bliss.

Those implementing Marxism - Mao, Lenin, Castro, and to some degree Hitler (who actually claimed to despise Marx)--promised the same sort of things that Marx proposed. They were doing for the people to bring finally and at last peace and justice for all worthy to have it which of course would be any they solicited support from.

Unfortunately, no nation, once it got to that central authoritarian government with absolute authority to control whatever it wanted to control stage, ever seemed to to progress to the rest of the vision.

And even more unfortunately, no comprehensive study of the Third Reich or Marxism or authoritarian socialism is included in most highschool or even college curriculum these days. What most students are getting is the watered down, leftist view that the intentions were good and the only reason it hasn't worked is that evil capitalism prevents it from happening.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wait a cotton pickin' minute...

racist

Liberals call all kinds of various things "Socialism" and Conservatives have a more refined view???

Really?

That's strange because I've been hearing the term "Socialism" to describe every single liberal or progressive policy that's been proposed over the past couple of years, and it sure as hell hasn't been left-wingers saying it.

Unless Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are secret Liberals...

Deep cover liberal - RationalWiki

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact remains that America's poor have gotten better off as America has reached a socialist stage of development.

Again I refer you to the writings of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et al who have done the hard work of actually studying that phenomenon. And, if you are honest, you will gain a different perspective very quickly. While most of America's poor would be deemed rich in most places, they poor remain with us, and many are far more dependent, less employable, and living in far worse circumstances than the poor of previous generations. Socialism continues to fail to accomplish its rose colored glasses promises everywhere it is tried.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maoism =/= Marxism.

Mao spoke if his New Democracy , which is a different beast than your misrepresentation of the dictatorship of the proletariat (a really stupid term).

more later g2g

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact remains that America's poor have gotten better off as America has reached a socialist stage of development.

Again I refer you to the writings of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et al who have done the hard work of actually studying that phenomenon. And, if you are honest, you will gain a different perspective very quickly. While most of America's poor would be deemed rich in most places, they poor remain with us, and many are far more dependent, less employable, and living in far worse circumstances than the poor of previous generations. Socialism continues to fail to accomplish its rose colored glasses promises everywhere it is tried.

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

 

[Bfgrn]

The right wing dogma...FEAR and WORDS...

WORD: socialism..elicits an image (scary) tied to the right wing personality driver...FEAR.

The response is severe, immediate and involuntary, akin to the reaction of Pavlov's dogs to the ring of a bell ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

Communists defending Stalin were driven by Cognitive Dissonance. "The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance." They didn't want to hear any criticism, and would go out of their way to deny facts. The abrupt betrayal of ideals by Lenin and Marx left many socialists clinging to the Soviet Union even though they knew Stalin was a disaster. They called themselves Communist even though they espoused none of Stalin's viewpoints and very few of Lenin's revisionism. In Russia, Lenin remains a Hero of the Revolution. Despite having screwed things up in the first place, Stalin is revered by Communists for toppling the Third Reich.

Conservatives defending George W. Bush are in the same situation as Communists defending Stalin. Stalin was never a "socialist" and Bush was never a "compassionate conservative", but the conservatives just don't want to hear any criticism and will go out of their way to deny facts. The current construction of the conservative movement in the US descends through the anti-Communists during and after WWII, the George Wallace "America First" blue-collar workers, the racists that Wallace picked up that switched parties during Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the nascent libertarian movement championed by Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan's acceptance speech for Goldwater during the 1964 Republican National Convention laid out the insistence of a balanced budget: "There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States." And yet, like Lenin revising Marx, when Reagan was governor of California he didn't practice fiscal restraint. And when he was elected president in 1980 he did the exact opposite of his campaign promise and triple the deficit and there has been "no fiscal and economic stability" since his flip-flop. Fiscal restraint was never implemented.

Abrupt betrayal of ideals of Reagan when he got into power left many conservatives clinging to the Republican party even though they espoused none of Reagan's new policies. Despite screwing things up in the first place, Reagan remains a Hero of the Revolution and is revered by conservatives for toppling the Soviet Union.

Reagan isn't Lenin and Bush isn't Stalin, but the parallels are notable. George W. Bush, like Stalin, inherits a failed revolution that relies on a cult-like worship of his predecessors and a complete denial of the facts.

Let me repeat Wikipedia's quote. "Stalinism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what George W. Bush and the Republicans are working so hard for.

Most of the Republicans/conservatives/dittoheads I know are basically good people, but they're gullible fools who have spent more than 20 years burying themselves in lies needed to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by Reagan's betrayal. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire", but as we've seen it wasn't much of an empire and most of the people in it aren't particularly evil. Khrushchev repudiated Stalin after he died in 1953, but wasn't strong enough to change the system or the cult worship that kept the dictatorship alive. Republicans need to repudiate Reagan, but there is no one out there who has the guts to tell the truth. The GOP is reduced to whining, flag-waving and outright lying. The shame of being a conservative has never been greater.

Despite Nader's protestation, John Kerry and the Democrats do represent a return to American values. It took the Soviet Union 40 years to rot from within before democracy took hold. Let us not wait 40 years before the Republican-controlled US rots from within. The choice is clear. To complete the circle, let me quote the last line of Reagan's 1964 speech, which has greater meaning when talking about the need to vote Democrat in 2004: "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."

Socialism vs. Communism

 

[NYcarbineer]

And Marx has been proven a failure. *shrugs*

Why even debate a system that has been proven wrong?

Capitalism devoid of socialism has failed as badly as Marxism ever did. That's why you don't see any such thing in civilized countries.