What is socialism?

[Knight]

@Senter

I'm going to take this one paragraph in your post # 195 to reply to.

"As this process proceeded over the years, mistakes were made and opportunists gained control and pushed the USSR into increasing private ownership of business, resulting in the wealthy oligarchs they have today. So now Russia has reverted to capitalism and will need a full, new revolution one day."

IMO the concept of socialism is worthy of consideration but reality is in that paragraph. I think human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life. What do you think?

 

[ElCastor]

Mao famously said "Kill the Landlords" and actually had good reasons to, IMO. They were brutal in their treatment of their tenants. What's a person supposed to do when they get the chance.....just make nice? The problem is lies in continuing the killing after winning the war.........that's when it's time to make nice.

Mao is estimated to have killed between 40 and 80 million in a campaign to “purify class ranks”. If you believe he had “good reason” for those brutal murders … disgusting!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ngs-era/01044df5-03dd-49f4-a453-a033c5287bce/

 

[Senter]

So who are "the workers" and "the laborers" in socialist parlance?

Just for clarification, they include accountants, doctors, engineers, managers, actuaries, line workers, janitors, sales analysts, statisticians, historians, . . . . in short, anyone who is not a "principle" in a business, i.e. anyone who does not own a controlling interest in a business for private profit. The typical shareholder among the public does not own a controlling interest in a business though they own stock.

However, that leaves a question regarding "mom & pop" businesses and sole proprietorships. Marx referred to them as "petty bourgeoisie" and said their real interests lie with the working class because they remain workers though they own their work organization, but because of their position and affiliations they are more likely to align themselves with the capitalist class ("bourgeoisie") than a worker would be, but also more likely to align themselves with the working class than the bourgeoisie would be. E.g. they are more likely to go either way.

 

[Senter]

@Senter

I'm going to take this one paragraph in your post # 195 to reply to.

"As this process proceeded over the years, mistakes were made and opportunists gained control and pushed the USSR into increasing private ownership of business, resulting in the wealthy oligarchs they have today. So now Russia has reverted to capitalism and will need a full, new revolution one day."

IMO the concept of socialism is worthy of consideration but reality is in that paragraph. I think human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life. What do you think?

Good question. Keep in mind that history never stands still. Who could have guessed that we would be in the position we are now in here in the USA? And similarly, the economy also evolves. Fifty years ago no one would have dreamed that workers would work from home on computers. Hedge funds were not foreseen. A service economy wasn't an idea.

If we look at trends we will see that the difference in income of the worker versus the CEO has continuously increased, a larger and larger share of income has gone to the top 1%, the percentile of those who file tax returns with gross income representing 5% of all reported income has continuously shrunk to a smaller and smaller portion of the population, healthcare costs have constantly increased while the USA falls farther and farther behind in key health metrics, our prison population has grown per capita to be significantly greater than it is in any other developed country, and capacity utilization has increased over time to name just a few things.

These changes are due to the evolution of our economic system. US capitalism requires continuing growth. A "good" or "promising" or "healthy" corporate financial report is gleefully presented as having an increasing market share, sales increased, and record profits. "Healthy growth" is usually defined as a growth rate of about 2.5% to 3%. Try creating a spreadsheet as I have done, projecting one dollar growing annually at 3% over 200 years, and then convert it to a graph. You will see that growth begins gradually but by the 100th to 150th year it has turned sharply upward to "go straight up". It is unsustainable. Compounded growth like that is impossible as it produces things like what I listed above, and especially destructive wealth and income disparity.

With these things happening the majority of the public grows increasingly impatient, angry, and even rebellious eventually. People feel cheated more and more. And at some point the pot boils over.

Add to that the evolutionary changes in the conditions described in my paragraph which you quoted in your post, Knight. The most effective ways of keeping the creation of a socialist society on track and preventing opportunists and even bad but honest judgement and policy from undermining and sabotaging the effort also evolves. We learn. We find and develop more effective ways of ending back-sliding.

You said you think "human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life." And in reply I always say we learned how to launch a rocket into space with such precision that Voyager I took advantage of the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" it at an increased velocity on a course so precise that it was able to do the same thing again with another planet, and ultimately accelerated to speeds beyond anything we had previously achieved and then continue to send us data for 47 years now as it exits our solar system. I think if we can do that, we can find a way to create a society for the benefit of all of us.

 

[Knight]

Quote
"You said you think "human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life." And in reply I always say we learned how to launch a rocket into space with such precision that Voyager I took advantage of the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" it at an increased velocity on a course so precise that it was able to do the same thing again with another planet, and ultimately accelerated to speeds beyond anything we had previously achieved and then continue to send us data for 47 years now as it exits our solar system. I think if we can do that, we can find a way to create a society for the benefit of all of us."

Sounds nice but not a realistic comparison. Mankind has evolved in many ways but since recorded history mankind has always had differences that blocked the kind of unity you seem to believe is possible.
My thinking aligns more with this.

Not 2022 info but close enough to think about.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/world-natural-resources-may-run-out-by-2040-study-674844
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF Published: JULY 25, 2021 15:13

World natural resources may run out by 2040 - study
A study predicted that if the world's economy and population continue to grow at their current pace, natural resources will run out within 20 years.

ending with this

While this scenario is least aligned with the 2020 data, humans may decide to deliberately limit their own economic output before the dearth of natural resources forces them to. This includes, among others, having smaller families and limiting industrial pollution and consumption of natural resources.

IMO. Even a reduction in population & consumption of natural resources mankind won't unite globally to form one world wide socialist society. I think pandemic panic buying would be the best example of why I don't think a world wide socialist society will ever happen.

 

[Pepper]

Mao is estimated to have killed between 40 and 80 million in a campaign to “purify class ranks”. If you believe he had “good reason” for those brutal murders … disgusting!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ngs-era/01044df5-03dd-49f4-a453-a033c5287bce/

Were they all landlords?

 

[Senter]

Quote
"You said you think "human nature clearly demonstrated in that paragraph will always be a deterrent to conversion to a world wide socialist way of life." And in reply I always say we learned how to launch a rocket into space with such precision that Voyager I took advantage of the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" it at an increased velocity on a course so precise that it was able to do the same thing again with another planet, and ultimately accelerated to speeds beyond anything we had previously achieved and then continue to send us data for 47 years now as it exits our solar system. I think if we can do that, we can find a way to create a society for the benefit of all of us."

Sounds nice but not a realistic comparison. Mankind has evolved in many ways but since recorded history mankind has always had differences that blocked the kind of unity you seem to believe is possible.
My thinking aligns more with this.

Not 2022 info but close enough to think about.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/world-natural-resources-may-run-out-by-2040-study-674844
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF Published: JULY 25, 2021 15:13

World natural resources may run out by 2040 - study
A study predicted that if the world's economy and population continue to grow at their current pace, natural resources will run out within 20 years.

ending with this

While this scenario is least aligned with the 2020 data, humans may decide to deliberately limit their own economic output before the dearth of natural resources forces them to. This includes, among others, having smaller families and limiting industrial pollution and consumption of natural resources.

IMO. Even a reduction in population & consumption of natural resources mankind won't unite globally to form one world wide socialist society. I think pandemic panic buying would be the best example of why I don't think a world wide socialist society will ever happen.

Knight, it's not about human nature. With all our human nature we have a nation that has managed and fumbled along for a couple of centuries. You're worried about selfishness and greed. Legislation has structured and created society so as to control and manage greed and selfishness in the way and to the extent desired. It is done largely with laws pertaining to property rights and personal rights. You're not allowed to dump on your neighbor's property. You're not allowed to take money from someone's bank account to help you pay for your boat. But laws allow for an enormous and growing share of national income to go to the top 1% while the bottom half of Americans owned just 2.6% of all wealth for 2021. Socialists warn that this is unsustainable and is destructive and therefore needs to be corrected. And if we have managed to prevent human nature from destroying a nation based on grand economic freedoms for two centuries, I think we can find a way to keep the struggle for democratic collective governance from being hijacked by corrupt and selfish people too.

So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes.

 

[SeniorBen]

Mao is estimated to have killed between 40 and 80 million in a campaign to “purify class ranks”. If you believe he had “good reason” for those brutal murders … disgusting!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ngs-era/01044df5-03dd-49f4-a453-a033c5287bce/

Where has anyone on SFs suggested that Mao had good reasons for murdering millions of people?

When an authoritarian government runs the means of production and distribution, that's not in any way "socialism," or at least not in a Marxist sense. In Marxism, the community as a whole controls production and distribution. The government exists for the people, and you can't have true Marxism and a dictator at the same time. They're diametrically apposed concepts.

The article you posted gives a brief description of China's Great Famine. Mao created farm communes in which rural workers were forced to work, and millions starved to death because the crops that they cultivated and harvested were sent to cities with nothing left for the farmers, kind of like in the U.S. where workers are paid so little that they can't afford a place to live and are living on the streets in almost every major city. That's free market capitalism at its finest.

Mao also had execution quotas where 5% of the population was to be executed. Perhaps you could point us to where in the Communist Manifesto it says that 5% of the population has to be killed.

We could also talk about all the deaths that resulted from U.S. capitalistic policies... all the countries where we deposed their democratic leaders simply because they had ties to communist countries or tried to implement socialistic policies on their own. Some Central American countries come to mind, along with Iran and South Vietnam.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research instead of just posting what you read on right-wing websites.

 

[SeniorBen]

Knight, it's not about human nature. With all our human nature we have a nation that has managed and fumbled along for a couple of centuries. You're worried about selfishness and greed. Legislation has structured and created society so as to control and manage greed and selfishness in the way and to the extent desired. It is done largely with laws pertaining to property rights and personal rights. You're not allowed to dump on your neighbor's property.

You can if they don't know where it came from. These are most effective at night when you're not likely to be seen...

 

[Knight]

Knight, it's not about human nature. With all our human nature we have a nation that has managed and fumbled along for a couple of centuries. You're worried about selfishness and greed. Legislation has structured and created society so as to control and manage greed and selfishness in the way and to the extent desired. It is done largely with laws pertaining to property rights and personal rights. You're not allowed to dump on your neighbor's property. You're not allowed to take money from someone's bank account to help you pay for your boat. But laws allow for an enormous and growing share of national income to go to the top 1% while the bottom half of Americans owned just 2.6% of all wealth for 2021. Socialists warn that this is unsustainable and is destructive and therefore needs to be corrected. And if we have managed to prevent human nature from destroying a nation based on grand economic freedoms for two centuries, I think we can find a way to keep the struggle for democratic collective governance from being hijacked by corrupt and selfish people too.

So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes.

You limit your responses to the 1% in America. Wages as you point out we know are the monies paid for selling labor hours. Where socialism as I understand your point of view is that labor hours will still be sold but the top earners will earn less. I'm going to go out on a limb here & guess in a socialist system, the 1% will no longer exist. The monies not paid the 1% will be used for the common good. Is that the concept?

You ignored the input about diminishing resources, and the part relating panic buying in the early stages of covid-19.
I think this article explains why socialism isn't likely to ever gain momentum.

Israel, India, and the United Kingdom all adopted socialism as an economic model following World War II.

Ket take aways in the article
Socialism is guilty of a fatal conceit:
It believes its system can make better decisions for the people than they can for themselves.
Socialism has failed in every country in which it has been tried.


https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

Toss in the effect of dwindling resources in the time frame you have posted about & the dream IMO is never going to happen.

 

[SeniorBen]

You limit your responses to the 1% in America. Wages as you point out we know are the monies paid for selling labor hours. Where socialism as I understand your point of view is that labor hours will still be sold but the top earners will earn less. I'm going to go out on a limb here & guess in a socialist system, the 1% will no longer exist. The monies not paid the 1% will be used for the common good. Is that the concept?

You ignored the input about diminishing resources, and the part relating panic buying in the early stages of covid-19.
I think this article explains why socialism isn't likely to ever gain momentum.

Israel, India, and the United Kingdom all adopted socialism as an economic model following World War II.

Ket take aways in the article
Socialism is guilty of a fatal conceit:
It believes its system can make better decisions for the people than they can for themselves.
Socialism has failed in every country in which it has been tried.


https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

Toss in the effect of dwindling resources in the time frame you have posted about & the dream IMO is never going to happen.

You're basing your opinion on an opinion piece from an extremely biased source. Try using facts instead.

 

[ElCastor]

Were they all landlords?

Probably bourgeoisie. The children probably just had their legs broken and thrown in a ditch. The father and uncle of the Cambodian guy I worked with were both murdered, but as a child he escaped to a farm where he worked for several years. One day he was in the field working when a friend ran up and told him some men were looking for him. He hid out until they were gone, else he would almost certainly have been killed. He eventually made his way to Thailand where he and his mother were transported to the US by a church.

A Vietnamese guy I also worked with had been in the South Vietnam army, captured and imprisoned. When he caught Malaria he was sent home to his aunt and uncle to die. What they didn’t know was that his uncle was a doctor. (-8

 

[Senter]

You limit your responses to the 1% in America. Wages as you point out we know are the monies paid for selling labor hours. Where socialism as I understand your point of view is that labor hours will still be sold but the top earners will earn less.

Top "earners"? Like engineers and surgeons? Or do you mean the top "takers"? CEOs; Board members; hedge fund managers?

I'm going to go out on a limb here & guess in a socialist system, the 1% will no longer exist. The monies not paid the 1% will be used for the common good. Is that the concept?

Pretty close. Most people don't think anyone's work is worth $1 million per month. CEOs of workers' co-ops typically are quite satisfied with salary that is 7 or 8 times what their lowest-paid worker earns. They don't require 340 times that of the lowest-paid worker to do a good job.
Today, with the bottom half of all income earners having 2.6% of all wealth, there are large and unnecessary problems with access to medical services, education, healthy food, etc. and that isn't necessary. The top 1% received a much smaller share of all income in the past and yet we got where we are today on the world stage. Nobody can justify the top 1% having 42% of all wealth.

You ignored the input about diminishing resources, and the part relating panic buying in the early stages of covid-19.
I think this article explains why socialism isn't likely to ever gain momentum.

Or it explains why socialism MUST gain momentum. And I noticed you ignored all my comments about "human nature" which was one of the main things you previously asked about and used half of your post to express objections related to it. Maybe you didn't get the response from me that you hoped for.

Israel, India, and the United Kingdom all adopted socialism as an economic model following World War II.

Ket take aways in the article
Socialism is guilty of a fatal conceit:
It believes its system can make better decisions for the people than they can for themselves.
Socialism has failed in every country in which it has been tried.


https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

Toss in the effect of dwindling resources in the time frame you have posted about & the dream IMO is never going to happen.

Knight, I do not accept Heritage Foundation articles. They are known and ranked as among the farthest right wing of think tanks. You asked me to share my personal views and I did, yet now you post and quote Heritage.

I've already explained to you that socialism is not achieved by installing some socially-beneficial reforms in a capitalist system. All that is, is reforms in a capitalist system. Israel's, India's, and the UK's economic systems are not, and never were, socialism. Try asking citizens of those countries and see what kind of a reaction you get when you suggest their country is socialist.

You don't have to believe and accept what I've said about socialism never having existed anywhere in the last 100 or 200 years. But please don't try to tell me a socially-beneficial program makes a country socialist. You can believe it if you enjoy propaganda. But please don't think you're going to change my mind on it.

 

[ElCastor]

Perhaps you should do a bit of research instead of just posting what you read on right-wing websites.

The Washington Post is a “right-wing website”? I don’t think so.

 

[Knight]

@Senter

This brief input about human nature of yours didn't address how people react when they believe they won't get what they think will not be available. I thought using the panic that took place at the beginning of the pandemic as a reference to how humans react addressed that point.
Quote
"So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes."

Then the time frame you previously suggested of 100 to 150 years from now as a point that a decline could be the catalyst for change means nothing since neither you nor I will be around to know if resources last that long to maintain the level of use now.

As for the 1% the capitalist system made it possible for people to achieve. I don't envy them. During my years of active employment I was part of that system. As a married couple with only high school educations we thrived under the capitalist system & still do. We knew what our skill levels were & the value of our time to sell to an employer. Never having the desire to be an employer the system met out needs.

Lastly there are articles by both points of view, reading both helps in forming an opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind just trying to understand your thought process.

 

[Senter]

@Senter

This brief input about human nature of yours didn't address how people react when they believe they won't get what they think will not be available. I thought using the panic that took place at the beginning of the pandemic as a reference to how humans react addressed that point.
Quote
"So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes."

what?

Then the time frame you previously suggested of 100 to 150 years from now as a point that a decline could be the catalyst for change means nothing since neither you nor I will be around to know if resources last that long to maintain the level of use now.

When you comment on my words, please use the provided quoting function as I do and everyone else does. I was referring to a timeframe represented in a hypothetical spreadsheet, anhd it had nothing to do with "years from now". Maybe you don't speak "spreadsheet".

As for the 1% the capitalist system made it possible for people to achieve. I don't envy them. During my years of active employment I was part of that system. As a married couple with only high school educations we thrived under the capitalist system & still do. We knew what our skill levels were & the value of our time to sell to an employer. Never having the desire to be an employer the system met out needs.

The standard viewpoint of the political right is that of the individual, and usually themselves. This is not about you. It's about society and the repeating crises of capitalism. But why do you raise the question of envy. A common right wing and rather cheap attempt to attack the left is to accuse them of envy. That's not involved here is it?

Lastly there are articles by both points of view, reading both helps in forming an opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind just trying to understand your thought process.

Then you should try to understand and remember that my POV is immersed in the awareness of the ongoing and inescapable class struggle.
And consequently to the class struggle the viewpoint of pro-capitalist sources serve the failing system of capitalism and conflict with the reality of the working class, so comparing them and trying to form an opinion on the basis of a synthesis of the two results in confusion, and when forming an opinion on the basis of both normally leads a person to what is most familiar, and that is the capitalist's viewpoint.

I think we may have reached the end of our very enjoyable discussion, unless you have something else.

 

[SeniorBen]

@Senter

This brief input about human nature of yours didn't address how people react when they believe they won't get what they think will not be available. I thought using the panic that took place at the beginning of the pandemic as a reference to how humans react addressed that point.
Quote
"So while human nature is very social and seeks the collective good, the negative aspects of human nature has been managed to allow the US to achieve what it has, which is impressive. But it is not sustainable and it's time to think about changes."

Then the time frame you previously suggested of 100 to 150 years from now as a point that a decline could be the catalyst for change means nothing since neither you nor I will be around to know if resources last that long to maintain the level of use now.

As for the 1% the capitalist system made it possible for people to achieve. I don't envy them. During my years of active employment I was part of that system. As a married couple with only high school educations we thrived under the capitalist system & still do. We knew what our skill levels were & the value of our time to sell to an employer. Never having the desire to be an employer the system met out needs.

Lastly there are articles by both points of view, reading both helps in forming an opinion. I'm not trying to change your mind just trying to understand your thought process.

Knight, you probably came of age during the '60s or '70s when things were radically different. Houses were affordable and you could get ahead by working your way up in a company. The American Dream was attainable to anyone with a bit of drive and some common sense.

I had some neighbors a while back who bought their homes in the '70s. Their houses are now worth 3/4 of a million dollars. They were strictly working class. One neighbor became a manager at a King Sooper's bakery and another was a manager at a factory. Neither had any college, but they did well for themselves and their families by working their way up in their respective companies.

Those days are long gone. Since our government's embrace of Milton Friedman's economic policies, it's become more and more difficult to achieve the American Dream without a four year degree. Free market capitalism has nearly destroyed the middle class. You can't just work your way up in a company because many rungs of the ladder have been eliminated. The only way to reach the higher rungs is through college, which has become unaffordable for many due to the high tuition costs and high cost of living.

In other words, a sizable portion of the population is just plain screwed.

 

[Senter]

Knight, you probably came of age during the '60s or '70s when things were radically different. Houses were affordable and you could get ahead by working your way up in a company. The American Dream was attainable to anyone with a bit of drive and some common sense.

I had some neighbors a while back who bought their homes in the '70s. Their houses are now worth 3/4 of a million dollars. They were strictly working class. One neighbor became a manager at a King Sooper's bakery and another was a manager at a factory. Neither had any college, but they did well for themselves and their families by working their way up in their respective companies.

Those days are long gone. Since our government's embrace of Milton Friedman's economic policies, it's become more and more difficult to achieve the American Dream without a four year degree. Free market capitalism has nearly destroyed the middle class. You can't just work your way up in a company because many rungs of the ladder have been eliminated. The only way to reach the higher rungs is through college, which has become unaffordable for many due to the high tuition costs and high cost of living.

In other words, a sizable portion of the population is just plain screwed.

My father never finished high school. My mother did. And my father always felt inferior to my mom as a result. wow

He worked in a factory that manufactured nuts, bolts, etc. until they closed and he got a job as a tool salesman in a lumber and hardware retailer. My mother took a job as a secretary when I started school and on that income they had two cars, which was unusual in that day, and a couple of years later they bought two lots in a vacation community by a lake and built a summer house that we enjoyed every summer until I went into military service. Try that today.

 

[Knight]

Knight, you probably came of age during the '60s or '70s when things were radically different. Houses were affordable and you could get ahead by working your way up in a company. The American Dream was attainable to anyone with a bit of drive and some common sense.

I had some neighbors a while back who bought their homes in the '70s. Their houses are now worth 3/4 of a million dollars. They were strictly working class. One neighbor became a manager at a King Sooper's bakery and another was a manager at a factory. Neither had any college, but they did well for themselves and their families by working their way up in their respective companies.

Those days are long gone. Since our government's embrace of Milton Friedman's economic policies, it's become more and more difficult to achieve the American Dream without a four year degree. Free market capitalism has nearly destroyed the middle class. You can't just work your way up in a company because many rungs of the ladder have been eliminated. The only way to reach the higher rungs is through college, which has become unaffordable for many due to the high tuition costs and high cost of living.

In other words, a sizable portion of the population is just plain screwed.

I totally agree that my time & availability of jobs was different. I did face management cut backs during the mid 1990's but was not impacted due to planning to retire early at 55. The management cutbacks worked for me because the offer to retire at 54 was to good to pass up. I didn't face this until later working years.
1.Manufacturing done off shore for cheaper labor
2. Work force reduction due to technology. Automated equipment doesn't need sick pay, paid vacations, paid holidays, pay raises

While socialization sounds like a way to salvage the poorer quality of life that is being projected, I don't envision that happening. IMO population consuming resources will be the factor for any change in the not to distant future. What that change will be I'd like to live just long enough to know, AND no longer. My reference to negative human behavior stems from when Pres. Nixon instituted price controls & the most recent start reality of how people reacted during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic.

It would be nice if the entire world would look out for one another as in the concept of socialism but my life experiences tells me that isn't going to happen.

 

[Timewise 60+]

The Washington Post is a “right-wing website”? I don’t think so.

Wow! Your comment says all we need to know about why you think the way you think! Many would disagree with you on this point, although the Post tries to keep folks confused about this by throwing out contradictory comments throughout other media outlets, and they even post of few articles contradicting this standard.

Washington Post - Media Bias/Fact Check​

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post
Oct 20, 2022 · According to Pew Research, the Washington Post is more trusted by liberal readers than conservatives.

 

[ElCastor]

Washington Post - Media Bias/Fact Check​

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post
Oct 20, 2022 · According to Pew Research, the Washington Post is more trusted by liberal readers than conservatives.

When debating with those firmly planted Left of center, I make a point of not quoting conservative sources. As you indicated, the Washington Post does indeed lean to the Left.

I think this Socialism debate is interesting in that it is symptomatic of a trend currently supported by many elements in American politics, and strenuously opposed by many others. If the day comes when the most extreme left leaning elements in this conversation seize control of DC, I anticipate the very real possibility of a second Civil War.

 

[Timewise 60+]

When debating with those firmly planted Left of center, I make a point of not quoting conservative sources. As you indicated, the Washington Post does indeed lean to the Left.

I think this Socialism debate is interesting in that it is symptomatic of a trend currently supported by many elements in American politics, and strenuously opposed by many others. If the day comes when the most extreme left leaning elements in this conversation seize control of DC, I anticipate the very real possibility of a second Civil War.

I absolutely agree with what you say regarding a civil war! The ongoing effort to socialize our country began in the 1950's and it started and it continuing in our public school systems. If all the kids coming out of school do not clearly understand our history and the differences between socialism and free market capitalism, the war will happen! The seeds are already well planted...

 

[SeniorBen]

When debating with those firmly planted Left of center, I make a point of not quoting conservative sources. As you indicated, the Washington Post does indeed lean to the Left.

I think this Socialism debate is interesting in that it is symptomatic of a trend currently supported by many elements in American politics, and strenuously opposed by many others. If the day comes when the most extreme left leaning elements in this conversation seize control of DC, I anticipate the very real possibility of a second Civil War.

@ElCastor, when I replied to your post earlier, I wasn't disputing the information in the WaPo article. I was questioning your interpretation of that information that it was a failure of socialism. Maniacal, oppressive, murderous, power-hungry leaders who take control of all aspects of the economy may claim that it's socialism, but what it really is is government run capitalism. Norway is far more socialistic than any regimes under the rule of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al., but using them as examples of the failure of socialism is standard right-wing spin.

 

[Senter]

I totally agree that my time & availability of jobs was different. I did face management cut backs during the mid 1990's but was not impacted due to planning to retire early at 55. The management cutbacks worked for me because the offer to retire at 54 was to good to pass up. I didn't face this until later working years.
1.Manufacturing done off shore for cheaper labor
2. Work force reduction due to technology. Automated equipment doesn't need sick pay, paid vacations, paid holidays, pay raises

While socialization sounds like a way to salvage the poorer quality of life that is being projected, I don't envision that happening. IMO population consuming resources will be the factor for any change in the not to distant future. What that change will be I'd like to live just long enough to know, AND no longer. My reference to negative human behavior stems from when Pres. Nixon instituted price controls & the most recent start reality of how people reacted during the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic.

It would be nice if the entire world would look out for one another as in the concept of socialism but my life experiences tells me that isn't going to happen.

When people react to policies in a capitalist system where they can hope for and work for personal opportunities offered by a capitalist system, their reactions will be different than they would be if they were living in a socialist system with a different set of opportunities, supports, democratic input, and expectations. So it is actually unreasonable to expect the same responses to conditions.

 

[Senter]

I absolutely agree with what you say regarding a civil war! The ongoing effort to socialize our country began in the 1950's and it started and it continuing in our public school systems. If all the kids coming out of school do not clearly understand our history and the differences between socialism and free market capitalism, the war will happen! The seeds are already well planted...

Why do you not see that it makes excellent capitalist sense, when conditions grow negatively and the public begins to object and resist them, to implement a carefully designed and strategically created set of programs that offer some benefits to the public to buy them off and put their potential for rebellion to rest? ..... --to buy more time for capitalism?

Remember, FDR at the end of his last term said "I saved capitalism".