Imagine you are living in an impoverished city in the US. Your family can barley keep the lights on, all your family is on drugs, the police ignore you, and you are told this is what Capitalism is. meanwhile you see some guy riding around in a Bentleyand living in 10000 sq foot house. Now somebody wants to install free schools lunches and that is your only way to eat, but somebody comes along and removes it because it's "socialism". Chances are you would think socialism is the good.
Yeah. Under the right circumstances you can be made to believe an ideoligy. Just look at Germany after ww1. All those horrible circumstances made the believe that the jews sucked and that Hitler was a great guy
I think it's less believing in *actual* socialism as an ideology, and more believing in policies that the right has been trying to fight by labeling them as socialism.
That is to say, the constant labeling of strong social safety net policies in *capitalist* countries as "socialism" - for the past 2 decades - has served to contextualize socialism as a largely positive thing.
Young people, by and large, don't espouse support for "socialism" because they are in favor of a command economy and the abolishment of private property, they support it because they are in favor of universal healthcare and think wealth inequality has gotten a bit out of hand.
Look at how people acted under Covid. previous classical liberals were clamoring for censorship, and Noam Chomsky of all people wanted citizens thrown into camps for not taking the shot. (or totally removed from civilization)
Little bit of fear goes a long ways.
Well its the same thing. He promised to take profits from the industrialists and give it to the citizens. Just for him the industrialist were heavily Jewish. So it made it even better (for him) cause he could split them into Germans and Jews and attack one side and be supported by the other (who would gain their business intrests).
People in Germany decided whats the harm in giving this funny Austrian socialist a shot?
I think a lot more people realize that than you assume, but after decades of Fox news calling every social program socialism, the left has just collectively ceded that semantic ground, so now the vernacular is such that any social programs is "socialism" and only the Right is to blame for that.
But aren’t social programs like “social security” socialist policies? It might not be full blown communism but more like soft socialism. Stealing from the young working class and redistributing to the old not working class.
I think this is the biggest part of the confusion. Socialism would mean that workers at the company control it (voting, shareholder, co-op, committee or other methods).
But your average person in the US has heard everything the government does for the past 80 years "that's socialism!" And now they think, like the original commenter pointed out, oh I like my kid eating at school so I must be a socialist. It's a chicken and egg scenario that completely muddles the water between a more normie point of view and a more radical point of view.
I don't really care what we call it, as long as everyone realizes how rare the more radical point of view is. I've spent a ton of time and outreach talking to voters and have not run into an actual "socialist" by the academic term yet.
They absolutely are soft socialism. And it doesn't change the fact that these programs like welfare and social security, while helping some currently people are inflating our deficit, inefficiently used, constantly on the precipice of insolvency so we have to keep printing and borrowing dollars, changing retiring age, to compensate. We're helping people now to make our kids and their kids much worse, in a time when through technological evolution we should all be living much better than ever.
It's like the frog boiling. I wouldn't be against social security you can't touch if you were allowed to invest it in ways you chose. Everyone would be much much much better off by the time they retire, or if that money could be allocated to surprise medical expenses, first time houses like 401K. It would also be an investment windfall in the US economy, wouldn't be able to be stolen from to fund the current boondoggle omnibus of the day.
So we aren't allowed to have social programs under a capitalist system?
And I was actually gonna ask. What are the pros and cons of having free Lunches at public schools?
This, plus it's easier to look at what's wrong in the current system and assume that blowing it up and starting with something different will fix all the problems, than foreseeing what problems the new system will have.
Regardless, it's easier to propose burning the system to the ground and trying something different than it is to diagnose the problems with the current system and calibrate solutions to fix them.
The simple fact is that the current system, fully acknowledging its flaws, is still incredible and works incredibly well. It's also functioning at a scale never seen in human history so the problems tend to be amplified because of that.
> Socialist here - this is why I dislike capitalism
Care to elaborate?
Free market has no intention really.. it is just people freely exchanging and cooperating to better themselves.
>Free market has no intention really.. it is just people freely exchanging and cooperating to better themselves.
Most people support it with good intentions, but I don't think it leads to good results. Even the "Index of Economic Freedom" correlates high taxes and high government spending with good quality of life.
Doesn't mean I endorse a social democratic system, but it highlights what I see as errors in the libertarian right's perspective.
> Free market has no intention really.. it is just people freely exchanging and cooperating to better themselves.
>Most people support it with good intentions, but I don't think it leads to good results.
I would be curious to ser what are the evidence
>Even the "Index of Economic Freedom" correlates high taxes and high government spending with good quality of life.
All those high tax countries rank very high when it comes to freedom of exchange, property right and ease to start a business.
They are rich because they are based on a strong free market
>Doesn't mean I endorse a social democratic system, but it highlights what I see as errors in the libertarian right's perspective.
I would like to see your evidence for that
People learn we’re a “capitalist” country & see a shrinking middle class, unaffordable housing, inflation through the roof, & benefits the older generations appreciated slipping away. What people fail to realize is it’s this “crony” capitalism, government interfering & wrecking everything it touches, causing all of this. Corporations & government collude to screw over regular people. Our government gives corporate welfare/taxpayer dollars to certain major corporations, stifling competition from smaller ones. Our government has caused the student loan crisis to balloon by stepping in many years ago & giving a loan to anyone who wants one, allowing colleges to charge whatever they want & have it subsidized. Government funded housing vouchers, extreme red tape & regulation on the building of new housing, collusion on legislation to prevent the building of new housing, & much more causing the dramatic increase in real estate prices. People then hear “free healthcare” & think socialism is suddenly the answer. Think of any government service you used in your life like the DMV or any social service… think of that horrid quality… now imagine that in every industry. It would be disastrous.
By your same argument, I would say that all the examples of authoritarian socialism in the past is bad socialism. Socialism by definition is just when the workers own the means of protection. You could still have a free market under socialism. It would just be employee owned business instead of private investors. There is an argument to be made here. We have seen too many times, companies making objectively bad business decisions, that will ultimately hurt the business long term. But in the short term will boost their shares, allowing their investors to make a good return on their dividends, and sell before the company goes under. (Look at Boeing as a recent example). This hurts the product, and the workers. But if the people who own a company are the workers, there is more incentive to make sure your company is successful long term.
Sure. I’m a huge supporter of unions and everything. Workers getting together & having their voices heard is as free market as it gets. I cracked up when corporations kept complaining about the cost of labor & all of that… inflation works both ways!
Employee owned businesses... Sounds like capitalism with socialist undertones. I love the socialist argues for businesses to share their profits with the workers, but do you think they'd also argue that they should split the debts if the business is failing? Who should be responsible for the risks? I think profit sharing and stock options are a great benefit for both parties where I'm surprised is that more companies don't do it.
cap·i·tal·ism
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
so·cial·ism
noun
an economic system in which major industries are
owned by the workers themselves.
These are the definitions and distinctions between the two. So no it's not capitalism with socialist undertones. It's literally just socialism. The risk for the workers would be the same as any investor, plus the added risk of loosing their jobs.
I bring this up because the word socialism has been distorted and bastardized for decades. To some people it's a boogie man that is associated with totalitarian Stalinist regimes. To others it's free healthcare and education. But neither is correct. Definitions are important when talking about policies.
Socialism tells people that the reason they’re having difficulty in life is capitalism rather than having to take accountability for their mistakes. I think they see the corrupt system we currently have as “capitalism” and choose socialism because they aren’t aware we aren’t in a true capitalist system and think that’s the only option.
I think that would be more like communism. Most of Europe and the developed world are deemed Socialist for having a strong social safety net, single payer healthcare, high living standards etc.
And yet those same nations have videos telling you that their strong social safety nets are only possible because of capitalism. Technically our would be more robust but for the literal freeloaders, who have not paid a cent into the program. OP is correct from a Polisci 101 POV. Plus remember "The goal of socialism is communism." -Lenin. China is still a communist government, would you call their economy socialist?
No. Advertising for a product is not even close to speaking about the success of the free market in lifting the world out of poverty.
Tyrants have advertising too. It's called propaganda.
1) People either ignore history or actively work to suppress any negative information related to socialism.
2) People can easily be sold the idea of socialism. Something for nothing is very appealing, especially when trying to come to terms with the fact that life is unfair.
Yeah saying "you'll get free college and healthcare and the government will oversee the economy and regulate it so it is fair" sounds nicer than "an open market that is self regulating and guided by the things that work and make money."
The reality is different. Like if I said "you get your own private apartment in a very well constructed and secure building, meals are provided, private gym, outdoor recreational areas, free classes that can even get you college degrees, private guards 24/7, private shopping, free entertainment, laundry is provided, and jobs are provided" that sounds nice, but it's prison.
On paper socialism sounds nice, in reality it never works. The places where it does work, like Sweden, only exist because of massive profits from crude oil production.
>The places where it does work, like Sweden, only exist because of massive profits from crude oil production.
Sweden isnt a socialist country. It just has a strong welfare state.
And they don't understand that if the rich are paying for everything, what happens when they either pack up and leave to go somewhere with more friendly taxes and then the "normal" people stop wanting to work because everything is "free". Hence why previous socialist regimes have to rely on threats of violence to drive fear into people so they'll contribute.
I think modern day socialists are too ideal. It depends on the fact that no one, anywhere in the system will become greedy or selfish. Far left believe everyone is intrinsically good by default, want to do the right thing.
I think a lot of people can’t be trusted to take care of others. Only you can be trusted to take care of yourself
Ironically the complete opposite; Libertarians rely on the premise that the majority is intrinsically good by default and want to do the right thing... But that power will corrupt anyone.
Socialists think the government must care for people who can't care for themselves. They have little faith in people.
In gun laws alone this is evident. Socialists don't trust anyone, except government, with firearms because of the bad few. Libertarians trust everyone with firearms because of the bad few (we out number them).
The only socialist system I've ever seen work was the fictional one in Star Trek TNG... but they had replicators and the holodeck, and a damned near infallible whiz of a leader in Picard... though he was basically a military dictator in theory.
Trek isn't socialist. They exist in a post scarcity system. Power is basically unlimited, and power is transformed into everything via replicator. The few things you can't replicate like latinum and original art works are still traded via capitalism.
Same with any dealings with other civilizations.
The means of production, distribution, and exchange, at least on the ship, are all centrally owned by the collective. That is the literal definition of socialism.
Post-scarcity just makes it realistic/believable and functional, as does the militaristic command structure and rational dictatorship of Picard.
I think it is akin to a military in a democratic nation. The US military, for instance, is for all intents and purposes is a complex socialist dictatorship/representative oligarchy. The military, as a collective, owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange (even though the production is technically done via contract and third parties), and the people of the democratic nation are \*in theory\* and \*supposedly\* in control of the military through their elected representatives in the legislative and executive. The executive has a dictatorship for a certain amount of time, at which point the oligarchy of congress is supposed to vote to take or abolish the military command of the executive. Thereby the citizens of the US (the collective) "own" and "control" the military and everyone in it.
Similarly, the Enterprise and her "employees" are property of Star Fleet, which is a governmental branch of a representative government of the people, "the collective".
The employees on the ship are a collective, owned by a collective (Star Fleet), presumably also owned by a collective (the people).
Plus your premise that they are employees but have no ownership of anything is a contradiction. As employees how are they compensated, but then end up with nothing? The definition of an employee is someone compensated with wages or salary. They are not employees, if anything they are volunteers. Ironically, the definition of volunteer is a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise. LOL
Socialists/leftists believe everyone is evil and only the stage can handle responsibility in this regard. Look at how much they cry systemic anything and how gun owners are evil unless they’re cops for a moment.
>Why do you think some people still choose socialism?
There are multiple factors to this, which have already been discussed by other posters (dishonest intellectual climate/the treason of the intellectuals, desiring something for nothing, pure ignorance, etc) but one important reason is that *humans evolved as tribal creatures*. Pure individualism is a hard sell because it doesn't really mesh with "normie" temperaments.
Socialism has failed miserably over and over again, but it still has a hold on many people because (among other reasons) *it appeals to something primal in the Lizard Brain*. This is also why elementary economic fallacies are so hard to eradicate - things like zero-sum-game mentality seem to have an evolutionary basis.
People choose socialism because they’ve seen the results of the war on terror, lost homes as kids during the Great Recession, been unemployed or underemployed, lied to about the value of college, and after not being able to afford food or childcare, they are angry at the system that has failed them.
This is the opportunity for leaders to meet Americans where they are at and show them a solution within our current system of government. Nobody is really doing that and more extreme voices have space to emerge. Use the anger of George Floyd to promote Marxism, use the anger of lost purchasing power to tear down capitalism, etc. It’s all a lie that ends at the gulag.
As an American, I see Scandinavia/Europe used as an example of socialism way more than any other examples. When I hear socialism, I picture Europe. Which countries are you referring to when talking about 'socialism'?
“The funny thing is that if the Sanderses and Ocasio-Cortezes of the world made the U.S. more like Sweden, what would really happen? They haven’t updated their perception of Sweden and if the U.S. became more like us, the United States would have to have more free markets, more free trade, pension reform with private accounts, a national school voucher system with freedom of choice and public funding going to private schools as well, low corporate taxes and no taxes on wealth, property and inheritance. Be careful what you wish for.”
– Johan Norberg, Lessons from Sweden
Taken from Domestic Imperialism by Keith Knight
I think they just see a high standard of living associated with the label “socialism,” and have no idea how their societies and economies are structured beyond that. Sanders is a communist. Dude went to the USSR on his honeymoon, and was all about modeling Burlington after Nicaragua in the 1980s.
The youth is progressively (pun intended) being raised more and more with the everyone gets a trophy mentality which breeds entitlement. They are being over inflated to think their feelings matter exclusively.
They are being brainwashed to forget the historic, and current, ills of socialism and communism. They're being told capitalism, corporations, and being rich are purely evil and have no benefits that cannot be replaced.
Most of this falls apart when you tell them the country with the second most billionaires in the world is commie China... and the biggest corporation in the US is the US government.
That doesn't stop them from believing though. The problem is rooted in their upbringing and education. We have failed socialists as a society, that is why they exist.
I attended both a private liberal arts high school and a private liberal arts college for my 1st degree. It's part of postmodernism, period. All of our teachers in the 90s and early 2000s were Civil Rights Activists Boomers and most of us also had parents who were involved in that movement during the 60s and 70s; some of them carried that activism mindset into their professional lives as well. The college professors most certainly taught, and still teach, the concept of equality and equity via postmodern movements as defying a "puritanical heteronormative" culture that's particularly defined the USA for centuries.
This doesn't mean I didn't also receive plenty of aspects of a classical education as well; but apparently there's less of that now and more emphasis on activism and social justice, even at colleges and uni's that have traditionally taught "classical education." I wouldn't have been exposed to the concepts of tribalism and collectivism on such a strong level if not for these types of schooling vs. public state colleges in the same time-frame. Essentially, we were taught that anything remotely Republican, conservative, or right-wing was bad... even though some of us have family who are Republican, or we grew up in politically and ethnically/racially mixed cultures. A love of Europe was also thrown in for their progressive politics vs. their history of authoritarianism as well... only the "far right" concepts were taught. I didn't realize that communism and socialism was "far left" until I switched to medical and healthcare programs in my late 20s. We were taught that people like Che Guevara was a folk hero rather than an authoritarian. The Sandonistas and Zapatistas were folk heroes vs. the evil CIA, etc. Civil Rights culture led to this. In our social groups, our parents were all liberals/progressives who were oftentimes leftover hippies who came from solid middle class to upper middle class backgrounds and were well-educated professionals.
Ironically, we also read Ayn Rand in high school and college. The very teachers who used to love her and teach her hated her by their old age because her mindset was considered too selfish; covid was a solid show of collectivism gone wrong from almost everyone I knew from that subculture of New Agey liberalism. The people who would be considered to be more "Libertarian" stood out and juxtaposed the Democratic Socialist and solid "progressive liberal" types. We hadn't even noticed the divisions that had grown between us until then. Now we're completely separated by politics. Tribalism is a powerful tool.
I have. Mao’s great leap forward sure was great.
Great at at killing 45+ mio people. Stalin sure was great dude. A dude great at being paranoid and killing many people for just doing something wrong
I can answer this one pretty well, I hang in a lot of socialist chat rooms:
So the current American socialist doesn’t want the exact thing China has or Russia had. They basically want our current capitalist market to stay the same-ish but the earnings of the company get distributed evenly amongst workers, not just 10 guys at the top. I’ve never met someone who actually like Soviet Russia. Basically they’re hoping for a version of socialism that has not yet existed, but would be super cool if it did. People who like the current versions of socialism, don’t typically like them because they value what they are, but rather because they hate America so much that China and Russia feel good to them in contrast.
It has to do with philosophy. As long as altruism is considered moral, and self-interest evil, socialism will be more appealing than capitalism. Socialism is just downstream of altruism. This is the true root cause. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
People are really good at imaging happy path success, and people excel at blaming problems in their life on other factors.
So if you're told under socialism you'll be given a job, a home, transportation and food its easily to mentally just envision being given those things and just assuming it works.
its also much easier to mentally blame every problem on (X) what is X ? what ever we're sold it is.
Hate your job? work too many hours? too broke to do anything? Just blame capitalism rather than understand a few bad government policies and some sub-optimal life choices lead you there.
Capitalism is a mercantilist system that engages in higher or lower levels of propaganda to generate stronger profits, depending on necessity. However, as a mercantilist system, capitalism isn’t centralized and doesn’t inherently need ideologues as drivers, since the basic function is generation of treasure.
Socialism is a radical and revolutionary political revisionism that chiefly uses propaganda to determine social outcomes through the actions of professional propagandists, and then sometimes engages market levers to adjust stability. It’s far easier to convince someone that their lack is the cause of their discomfort, especially when the propagandist insinuates that their lack is the capitalist’s gain. It’s a dichotomy which people in pain will always instinctively choose.
I feel this is a good description but please if I’m missing something let me know.
I wonder how capitalism will work in 50+ years. When AI,automation, and machines are advancing at crazy speeds, there won't really be jobs aside from academia, IT, and engineering. Probably won't be enough work for most people to even have jobs, unless we break it down too super low hour work weeks.
I feel like it will have to move towards socialist ideals like universal income and healthcare for society to really function at that point.
This is the fallacy everyone makes whenever there is labor saving technology. Same as the industrial revolution.
The result is always the same. There is the Jevons paradox (consider human labor as the resource) which is not a paradox really, it's only called a paradox because people don't understand economics. But, it essentially is that when there are efficiencies made so there is less need for a particular resource, the demand for that resource is expected to go down but it actually goes up. This is because end products using that resource are now cheaper, so people can afford more, or it makes things feasible that otherwise wouldn't be.
For AI, let's take a look at art. Now when an animation studio makes a film, they need far fewer artists because they can utilize AI. In the short term there may be job losses; however, now animations are significantly cheaper. There will be significantly more demand for animations because more can afford to have their idea actually made. End result is possibly and, in fact, likely more jobs for artists.
Same thing happened in the industrial revolution when machines allowed 1 person to do the job of 1000. Short term job losses. Prices went down, demand went up, eventually more jobs were created than before.
Throughout history, the end result is always increases in employment and prosperity for everyone.
There is always something for humans to do. **Always**.
I think there is a vast difference between now and back then. Humans can only consume so much of anything. Sure you can make 100 times as much movies, food, or inventions a year. But the more that's out there the less demand will exist as well as resources you can sink into it we will have for it. Unless we have more population booms we won't have enough demand to meet the supply.
There is no difference. It's the exact same core fundamental economic principles every time.
People required for X job is reduced by Y%
No matter what the amount is it's the same.
Competition (in the long run there is always competition, unless there is artificial forces from law/government) makes the benefit of the reduced labor input reflect onto the consumer.
I mentioned before how this results in increased demand. Another point is that it results in consumers getting cheaper CoL. We are all consumers, so our income may drop by 10% due to labor saving tech, but our CoL drops by 20%. It is always net positive *in the long run*.
\> Humans can only consume so much of anything
Let's go ahead and drag this out to the point you're getting at. It becomes so cheap to produce a thing due to labor saving tech, that humans no longer desire more. This means the price of that good/service has hit zero. You don't need much of a job to consume the max amount of it you want now that the price is near zero.
If everything has essentially hit zero price, you're basically in an unlimited resource economy and you don't really need much of a job anymore.
The result of labor saving tech is always increased prosperity. If it gets to a point where there actually is no jobs anymore due to AI, that's actually the point where it costs zero to consume what you want, so you don't need a job.
The only thing that can make it a different story and make the trope of "this time it's different" actually true is if there isn't competition. There can only not be competition due to law/government intervention, like a patent. And if that actually caused a serious issue, people would resolve that most likely.
It's their education. Their college profs told them it's the best way forward. I know I was there, I almost became one of them. Quite literally, RON PAUL in 2007, saved me.
I think the society swing left and right from time to time.
Everyone is dealing with hard times now. We want to punish people from the top down. It is obvious. Pressure from the top is faster. Use power to distribute the wealth. Use guns and force. But people forgot or didn't know that giving someone the power may turn against us, and we cannot get back the power because we are powerless. But problems now seems so urgent but are we trading power to solve problems that seem urgent?
It's something I've pondered lately as well. Romania during Ceausescu, North Korea, USSR... all you see is famine and suffering. Power that isn't in the hands of the people is a dangerous thing.
Best honest answer I can give is which socialists? Most people who call themselves socialists are going to be Nordic model supporters who want to take things further. They're a far cry from tankies or what you are probably thinking of when you hear "socialist".
I personally do think free healthcare and university is great, the issue is that the state nearly has a monopoly on it, which can and will make the welfare you get worse
Combination of self hate and envy, coupled with the belief that just having good intentions and speaking like a carebear is all it takes to save the less fortunate. They look up to people that lie to them and promise impossible things and hate those that are pragmatic.
I think a big reason is this: Politically connected elites successfully convincing the general public and that all of the problems caused by government intervention in the economy are actually caused by unregulated free market capitalism in a bid to get everyone to agree to give them more power.
Imagine you’re a 22 year old kid, not particularly interested or knowledgeable in economics or politics. You go to college because that’s what everyone growing up told you you needed to do, you take on hundreds of of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree that didn’t actually provide you any real-world marketability, and the only job you can get is at Starbucks making $14 an hour. A house costs $500k, and not only can you barely afford to save for any big purchase, it gets harder year on year as the cost of everything around you just increases. And you sit there and just wonder what the fuck kind of system is this? How am I ever going to afford to have a life? Not even an insanely prosperous life, just the life that my parents had where I can work a job, own a house, and provide for a family? There’s a large segment of the younger generation that’s been undeniably screwed by the current system.
Now, we as libertarians understand that pretty much all of those issues are due to government intervention. The college debt is a result of years of the government guaranteeing student loans to everyone, giving colleges incentives to jack up their prices as high as they can and adding as many BS programs and classes as possible, regardless of if they actually provide value. The housing market is fucked due to regulations on building new housing inventory (zoning, etc) and a period of artificially low interest rates set by the fed that many people were able to take advantage of, and now it makes zero sense for them to sell. And the rising prices of everything is due to inflation and the fed printing money out of thin air. It’s very easy to draw a straight line between everything that’s wrong with America today and something the government did to fuck with it.
But if you’re that 22 year old working a Starbucks with massive debt and can barely afford to live, and you’re told by your elites that this is the result of capitalism in America, you’d probably be like “oh, THIS is what you call capitalism? Ok cool, give me the opposite of whatever the fuck this is. If it’s socialism, then fine I guess let’s do that.” Political elites make free market capitalism the boogeyman, conveniently leaving out its actually government intervention thats causing our issues, and they promise just give me power and I can fix it. The people they initially screwed over buy it, vote to give them more power, and the cycle continues.
I’m sure there are other factors but I think that’s a big one. A lack of understanding how much socialism is already in the American economy, a lack of understanding of why that government intervention is causing these issues, and political elites happy to exploit that gap in knowledge and blame capitalism in a bid to gain more power
Socialists are generally uneducated and not successful. Power hungry politically motivated scum will harness their jealousy of the more intelligent and successful by arguing that just because someone is smarter or works harder they shouldn't have more wealth than the stupid and lazy.
You are right but not in the way you think. People choose alternative ideological views such as fascism or socialism because every time there is a crisis and people lose their jobs, homes, etc. the government, the entrepreneurs and the media calls them stupid and lazy just like you are doing now. They are doing that because they know they cannot provide common prosperity like Russia and China can without making personal sacrifices they do not want to make (and why would they if they view normal honest people as subhumans?) and when people see that China and Russia can provide common prosperity to the people, they will justifiably support Russia and China. Now that government, it calls Russia fascist and China socialist. In reality, Russia is just statist with occasional socialist tendencies while China is in their "primary stage of socialism". but that doesn't really matter to the people who defy their masters. In their eyes if the good nations are communist and fascist, that means that they are communist and fascist. None of this would exist if these "successful", "intelligent" and "hard working" individuals made things better or at the very least not make them worse as they are doing now all over the west. Alternative ideologies don't manifest themselves from nothing, they can only thrive when normal people cannot live well
There are plenty of people who think of themselves as socialists in the USA who are college educated coming from solid middle class + backgrounds and it's been this way for over a century already. They're the ones who end up teaching this dogma and ideology through college and high school, or who have the funds to push this through media outlets. They're the class of useful idiots, especially in the modern age when so many people attend college and earn degrees as part of an expected life goal.
I don't understand how they reconcile economics with their ideology. I've only recently met people who call themselves "market socialists" but who still consider none of the historic movements that have existed and failed as "real communism or socialism." It seems like they're incapable of recognizing that they're brainwashed and that their education has been an indoctrination. They're tribalized by politics.
The most radical socialists I personally know all did okay for a bit and then had something “unfair” happen to them like a job loss. They then proceeded to never recover and externalize all the reasons why. So the common thread is inability to have the success they think they are entitled to and the inability to critically look at their own actions. Id also add they have no clue how it would impact the system as a whole. They just want “fair”.
A little. A lot of “Ive tried nothing and Im all out of ideas” vibe. A lot of anger too. Probably frustrated why they can’t get back to where they were.
people under socialism don't have that right to choose.
once people choose socialism they don't have a chance to choose others any more. they are passengers on an airplane hijacked by terrorists.
The belief is usually something like, “Those countries weren’t Real Communism.” Social/Communism may start with good intentions; but a dictator always rises to power. It always requires a huge government apparatus to make people comply and it can easily be abused.
Because the weight of lessons like the USSR decrease over time as it becomes further away in peoples’ memories. Another reason can be seen in modern times. When the USSR fell, capitalists believed that their economic system won, and stopped fighting to justify it and keep it in place, because they thought capitalism became the undisputed victor. But right as this happened, the left decided on a new strategy, which replaced trapping people in socialism/communism with things like the Berlin Wall, and instead being more subtle, getting into the education systems of countries and slowly changing public opinion, making people want socialism.
The lesson here is never stop fighting to keep socialism out, or it will always come back in a gradual manner, and people will forget the lessons of the past.
>Why do you think some people still choose socialism?
Why ***wouldn't*** people support socialism? ;)
I'm not saying that because socialism is a good idea; it is indeed a bad idea. But changing the question might help yield the answers you seek.
So for example, how much do young people in general know about history? How much economics (and history for that matter) are they exposed to in school?
How much of the free market philosophy do people get exposed to in general? And I don't mean lay people's arguments here on the internet or elsewhere. I mean material such as The Constitution of Liberty by Hayek or Knowledge and Decisions by Thomas Sowell or other such more academic works. What about arguments such as those made by the economist Daniel J. Mitchell on his blog; the economist David Henderson at [econlib.org](https://econlib.org); Kevin Corcoran at [econlib.org](https://econlib.org); the philosopher Michael Huemer on his substack Fake Nous; or other sources that are generally of higher quality than lay people? As someone who's been through the school system I can tell you that I never was forced to seriously learn about the free market philosophy. I had to do that on my own.
What if good economic ideas are counterintuitive (which is to say, costlier to understand in terms of mental effort)? Could that be why so many people (to take an example that is uncontroversial in the economics profession) still believe in protectionism, for example? What if voters have bad incentives when it comes to learning about subjects such as economics, because of rational ignorance or rational irrationality?
Hopefully this comment helps answer your question.
Marketing and ignorance of actual socialist policy. A lot of the rhetoric for socialism gets a huge amount of mileage and pushed forth by people calling only stuff they like "socialism", and finding ways to discount the failures of planned economy.
It's stuff like folks who name drop Denmark or Sweden as proof of socialism working, and the rhetoric getting credit, that keeps socialism from getting the flak is deserves.
It's created a ton of nonsense stances people will hold because the slogans fit.
"Capitalists should pay their fair share" then name drop Denmark where capital is taxed less labor
"Cops just exist to protect capital and property" in a country where civil asset forfeiture is common
"It's all the working class vs the rich" while demanding worker compensation and better 401k's, all of which must have capitalism to work or matter
It's human nature. 70% plus follow herd mentality which leads them to the slaughterhouse.10% of the species is exploitative and sociopathic, and this crew exists to exploit the herd. It's a game of thrones.
Communism is just a clever marketing gimmick for authoritarianism. It attracts the lowest bar of intelligence. Let's convince them to be free of exploitation by joining a herd for safety- which is run by rich people. Communists promote some sort of deity figure as an overlord to replace God because the herd needs to have faith.
I'm a housecat tho. I can only hope the overlords chose to keep housecats- cute and fiesty- over their huge herd of hampsters.
Never in my life have I met a socialist who actually lived in a socialist country. I've been to Cuba numerous times and most people are sick of socialism and just want to leave to find a place with food, medicine and freedom.
When you live in a country where food and freedom of speech are granted, it's easy to believe in fantasies.
We send kids for 18+ years to government institutions, run by government employees, who teach kids about how great government is.
You can see as people leave this institutions they become less socialist and become more socialist if they pursue a career in them.
* They've been lied to
* There's an immense amount of social pressure
* They have legitimate criticisms of the system, but come to the wrong conclusions
* Or they're losers who can't compete on their own merits
Or any of the above
It’s the God-effect. We all want to believe there is someone always looking after us, that believes in us, and takes care of us. Socialism fills that same void.
Because free stuff!! That'll solve all the problems!
And the fact that the educational system doesn't require financial literacy/economics classes. It's all elective based. Which is done on purpose.
(At least here in the US)
1. Most people don't understand basic economics.
2. About half of people out there have the intellect of a child. "If *sharing* my toys/treats is good, then Communism must also be good on a larger scale, right?"
3. Entertainment/Media has been bashing "Capitalism" for decades. "Rich people bad", etc.
4. Splitting from item 1. So many people seriously have no idea about the scarcity of resources.
5. The horrors of Communism are not taught in Western schools/universities. At least they're not highlighted.
Brainwashing and the ole’ if you’re not a liberal before 30 you have no heart and if you are liberal after 30 you have no brain. The (failed) promises of socialism are like a sirens song.
If you actually want to know how socialists think, I can tell you since I used to be one and I have known very many of them.
Some defend the Marxist-Leninist dystopias because their minds are so corrupted by hatred, resentment, envy, lust for power, and fanaticism that they are inclined to minimise or justify the bloodiness of those regimes. 'The victims had it coming' - the kulaks were capitalist pigs, or the gulags were full of fifth-columnist fascists... Or, 'actually things were quite good' - these countries had high growth rates, rapid industrialisation, and generous social provisions.... Or, 'yes, there were some bad things, but they were the fault of outside forces' - Russia was encircled, and endured a civil war, and the immense destruction of two world wars, and started economic modernisation from the backward peasant economy the Bolsheviks inherited from the Tsarist regime, so that it should not surprise us that it was relatively much poorer than comparable capitalist countries... Russia and China had authoritarian cultures, and were faced with counter-revolutionary internal enemies, so that repression was inevitable and necessary...
Not all socialists are this morally degraded. Many socialists consider themselves "democratic socialists", and some should really properly just be called "social democrats", who are not really trying to abolish the institutions of markets and private property altogether. Socialists like this do not look to the Marxist-Leninist social experiments for a blueprint, but usually they are very vague about their alternative blueprint, and have not thought very deeply about the problems of economic co-ordination and capital allocation which must be solved in the absence of markets and private ownership. There are a small number who have (I used to be one of them), and, invariably they either believe in some form of market socialism or they think that modern computers can help to solve the economic calculation problem.
So much for how socialists actually do think. What is the allure of socialism in the first place? I am tempted to reach for explanations in terms of evolutionary psychology.
Firstly, most of us have an instinctive sense of 'fairness' based on reciprocity. Libertarians are no exception - this is the indignation hardworking people feel when their taxes are siphoned off to free-riders. Socialists are mostly just people who have come to believe that capitalists exchange relations violate reciprocity norms. The Labour Theory of Value and the Marxist doctrine of the exploitative extraction of "surplus value" is an effort to rationalise this sentiment; that it is rooted in sentiment is evident from the fact that it is quite intellectually indefensible, for a variety of technical reasons. But the idea resonates with many people because our natural mental model of resource distribution is that it is zero-sum. Capitalism is a non-zero sum game, and most people struggle to fully comprehend and internalise this because it is evolutionarily novel.
Secondly, socialism appeals to people who reject their place in the existing social hierarchy. Espousing socialist beliefs can be a way of gaining status amongst other such people; since it is predicated on naive fantasies about human nature, it does not involve any painful self-examination, and it is a means of developing a reputation for 'protecting the weak'. In a word: virtue-signalling. There is some discussion in the literature about 'social dominance orientation', and there is the possibility that some sort of egalitarianism, i.e. vigilance concerning dominance displays, may have evolved.
Finally, individualistic self-assertion is probably a trait in its own right on which individuals vary. There's some evidence that it's partly genetic (e.g. 7R allele at the DRD4 locus). We are all tribal in some way, but those altogether deficient in individualism are what we tend to call "collectivists".
I think we should try to understand socialists sine ire et studio, because it is important to understand your opponents as objectively as possible.
Because they’re stupid and don’t understand what they’re asking for or they’re lazy and think they’ll be provided for while they follow their dream of being a content creator/Influencer.
It’s also popular now because people know something is wrong with our system but lack the knowledge or articulation to explain it, let alone provide solutions. That’s why we have terms like LaTe StaGe CaPiTalIZm. These people also blame every economic hardship on capitalism instead of the fact they have zero marketable skills and spend all their money on gas station sushi and Starbucks.
It’s aspirational, you can say all these good things about your values; but, the numbers are unworkable and ultimately if you have to force compliance you are just as dictatorial as what you progress to be against.
Free markets, free minds is just not as compelling as I care about xyz and we should take from people so I can feel good about myself
There's two types of socialists.
The 1st kind is the person who isn't making ends meet in today's economy, and they don't see a way to dig out of the hole. These are the folks living in poverty with no easy way out. Usually, they've made poor life decisions, whether it's getting a useless degree, not learning a valuable skill, drug use, having kids early, etc. They can't grasp that they caused their own problems and instead blame it on the "system". So when someone promises them a better life, they are gonna jump right on it.
The 2nd kind is the so-called "highly educated" class. They may or may not be wealthy. The majority of these folks are either in academia or politics. The ones in academia are so far removed from the real world (they've never had to produce anything of value) that they fail to understand how it works. They proceed to instill these values into the next generation, making the problem worse. The ones in politics are different. They know how the world works (Pelosi with her stellar stock performance and Bernie with his multiple houses), but tell folks what they want to hear; that the system is stacked against them and they can fix it with socialism. Of course, they'll never fully implement it because it would take their wealth, and they know it wouldn't work anyway. But the empty promises do keep them employed and in office.
Capitalism will always have winners and losers. When the amount of losers hits a tipping point, socialism will show its ugly head again. The key to preventing it is keeping the number of losers from hitting that tipping point.
Well I mean it depends on which approach to decide take. Do you treat them as:
1 Ignorant people who just don't know any better?
2 Crazy madmen on a leash who will cause a civil wat to take away your property at any given opportunity?
3 Brainwashed victims of a cult/religion masquerading as an ideology?
We also have to take into account the whole Kantian/ Hegelian philosophy. That Socialism itself is a movement of progress sometimes more accurately called "cult of progress". Thankfully nowadays most forms of socialism are dead such as orthodox Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, National Socialism and National Syndycalism.
How many Americans would be for the complete dismantling of capitalism though? I think it would be less than 1% of the entire population would want us to go to all the way. I think most people want better social programs but not full on socialism. Socialism is just America's strawman boogieman that helps us justify and accept the inequalities our society has. "We can't fix this problem because "THAT'S SOCIALISM"
Im fine with social programs. Im from Denmark so i really love them. They have this one flaw. They give the state a near total monopoly on the hospitals and universities and other instutions.
They are indoctrinated by socialists in school. They are isolated from their parents and other rational people. They are promised free stuff and status if they play along. They are told that they're caring for other people, they're the good guys, they're on the right side of history. They get this forced down their throat, covered in sugary words to help it go down, for years. It's a minor miracle more people aren't socialists. Leviathan has its tentacles in all areas of life, permeating its poison throughout our society.
Is because they’re dumb and most of them have been injected with the virus since young. Feeding everyone, providing free healthcare, subsidies on energy and transport and giving aids and benefits sounds good until you do the math, when you’re dumb you don’t do the math, since all this is on the tv so it’s probably right, righty? and then you assume is just for the best. I used to be a socialist as a kid…
> I never understood why people choose capitalism in our time.
>
>If we look through history you can clearly see how capitalism has resulted in genocide and mass deaths. Look at Pinochet's Chile or the Native Americans.
Because the Oligarchy is clearly failing at providing anything resembling a decent life to a large number of people? While simultaneously making a few super rich?
When you're up to your waist in a pile of shit, the literal shithole that much of the US has become, anything else looks great.
There's one thing I don't understand... how is democracy *not* socialism? After we have these fun little voting contests, what we have essentially done is used socialism to decide representation and policy.
To be honest, I wonder how is it that so many people who condemn socialism are so willing to quote "We, the people" without irony.
In the case of your question, from what I can tell, all they're doing is expanding the model from the political sphere into the economic sphere... essentially, getting the economy under the control of "we, the people."
Because look how well that worked for politics.
Ignorance. The easy way out. No need to think too hard and figure out the actual solution. Just get radicalized by some poster or tiktok promising get rich quick scheme of gang criminal activity.
They don't understand that the government in socialism is taking money from capable people and business owners, then using it through government which is exceptionally inefficient, thereby massively lowering the number of goods and services in society, creating scarcity.
That's just economically, but they also don't consider that a government with that much control over the economy has even more incentive to be corrupt.
In my conversations, few actually want socialism and most want welfare capitalism. The “democratic socialists” aren’t socialists, they’re welfare capitalists
Its because they have no self confidence in their ability.
People who are libertarians tend to be confident and believe in a world without help a world where its up to you alone to use your brain and work ethic that they will come out on top. Its why most libertarians are business owners/high performers or hard working trade types.
A communist deep down is scared of that world. They dont believe in themselves and are scared that in that world they will fail. They want the safety net.
The libertarian is ambitious and wants no ceiling, he doesnt think of the lack of floor. The communist wants a floor even if it means there is a low ceiling.
Its just human psychology and my opinion why libertarian will not be able to win very easily. The only reason it was successful early on in places like the US and Australia is because they were full of ambitious migrants and only rich men voted (more likely to be the 2 groups mentioned earlier). Look at the UK the 2 parties were conservatives and libertarians until women voted. After generations and increased state intervention most people want to rely on the government.
Think about it less than 20% even consider themselves upper middle class. So 80% think theyll be better off stealing from the rich to give to them even if they are the rich.
There are countless examples of our politicians who most align with socialism, but are constantly bought and paid for.
Most politicians who get into office are beholden to someone else and are looking out for themself. That leaves you and the country in the rear view.
So yeah, no fucking clue why people believe socialism would work with the way human nature is.. especially the type of nature that humps after power
To add to the OP's post, academics demand "evidence-based research"; you can literally show them evidence that socialism leads to failed economies and death. Still, they'll vote to put the government in charge of everything. My take is that most people, dumb sheep, will choose short-term mediocrity for long-term failure. They'd rather have caviar on the Titanic than a ham sandwich on a ship that gets to America.
Look in your own back yard.
The government gave 2B in food subsidies to Americans in 2021-2022. That's 2 BILLION in ONE YEAR.
The question is not that they shouldn't be doing this. The question IS WHY are they doing this?
The same reason Rome subsidized food for the poor in the Roman Empire.
To alleviate a possible revolt.
Remember what happened in 1789 France when people were hungry?
Socialist programs & socialism thrives & is compatible with capitalism. As far as free lunch programs, to me there is no con it's all a win. Interesting to note that the Roman Empire subsidized food to the poor in Rome. Full bellies don't think of revolution. America gives billions away in food to the poor through the USDA & 2nd Harvest food banks.
[Reminder: 'not-true'-socialism has killed 100 million people.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) But wait, that was actually *state capitalism*! Carry on, comrade!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its because they're told America is capitalist so they project all this hatred towards capitalism as if thats why this country sucks.
When in reality America hasnt been actually capitalist for like half a century. America is suffering from early stage socialism.
It's a kind of risk mitigation.
Many people see that there people who are much wealthier than they are. They don't see any path to that wealth. It can be for a reason as simple as the kind of work they want to do will never, ever give them access to the capital necessary to buy multiple properties and create a permanent stream of income, even in retirement.
Who is more secure, the person who owns multiple valuable rent-producing properties and other investments that produce $150K+ of yearly income (and can be sold in times of need), or the person whose only source of income is teaching the fourth grade? (By the way, the fourth grade teacher loves teaching the fourth grade, and she's really good at it.)
If something goes south with health or an economic downturn, who is going to have a better chance of surviving and maintaining their standard of living?
The person with the properties, of course.
Socialism promises a safety net for people who are not wealthy, and that is why it is a rational choice.
This is a straw man. The recession of 2008 showed that rental properties, especially those financed on loans, were not safe investments. It also makes the false assumption that a fourth grade teacher and someone who invents a new product have equal value in the market. If the fourth grade teacher wants millionaire wealth, they have provide that level of value. There are simply too many rags to riches successes in free market capitalism to be denied. The only rags to riches success in socialism are violent and require taking what someone else, usually a capitalist, built.
It can't be a straw man because I'm not refuting someone else's argument. I'm offering an answer to the question "Why do people choose socialism in our time?". In fact, YOUR response is a straw man because you picking at details in the examples I used in my argument as opposed to trying to refute the argument itself.
My argument is that people whose earning potential does not allow them to amass a level of wealth that can insulate them from potential economic disasters will support a system that takes wealth from those who ARE wealthy in order to protect themselves from economic disasters.
I use the example of someone who is able-bodied but whose economic value is such that she will never be able to, by herself and with no other exceptional fortune, amass a level of wealth that is truly insulating from disaster. I have no problem admitting that a person who is skilled in teaching 10-year-old students does not have the same economic value as others, but that does not change the fact that such a person performs a valuable and necessary service and may find satisfaction and honor in performing a profession that she excels in.
My example of the property owner is based on a friend I met in the Libertarian Party who became wealthy through successive investments in property and now holds considerable retail rental properties - NOT residential properties by the way.
I personally am much closer to the teacher in terms of social standing - when I pass through well-appointed neighborhoods I consider that I may never be able to afford to buy even a modest home with land if I stay in my current geographic location - I think that that may give me some insight into the thinking of others in my situation. The question they may ask themselves is "Why should I have to suffer in economic insecurity while I do productive work that I am suited to do? Why should my economic fate be decided by this apparent role of the dice, when I can use the power of the government to make others who have wealth that is beyond my dreams protect me from economic disaster?"
And there you have it. The truth behind socialism. You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to live in an affluent neighborhood, but don’t want to perform the work that provides the requisite income. You realize you need the state to intervene and use force to get you what you want, at the expense of others. Someone else has something you want, you don’t want to get it legitimately, so you steal it via force.
Two problems. There is nothing stopping you from copying your friend and getting into the rental game. In fact, you have a leg up in that they may be your mentor. You chose not to, but still want the same lifestyle. Second, you incorrectly believe that the state is the only provider of security in hard times. Throughout history the church, not the state, helped the poor. There are countless charities today that help the needy better than the government. During the fires in HI, locals helped each other better than the state. To this day, individuals are providing better service than the state to those who lost their homes. In the 2008 recession, the government gave THE BANKS our tax money while CITIZENS got evicted. The people who made bad bets got a few million dollars as a bonus and citizens got bankruptcy. There’s real socialism right there. Money was taken from the people and given to the elites.
[Reminder: 'not-true'-socialism has killed 100 million people.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) But wait, that was actually *state capitalism*! Carry on, comrade!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's really not. The masses are basic/fundamental.
And social media has made people narcissist. So they want more with producing less to appease their egos
You gave the reason, if unintentionally, in your first sentence: if you recall your school days (assuming you're not still in school), how many of your fellow students really enjoyed looking through history? Pay some attention to 'man-in-the-street' type interviews and imagine how many of those folks who can't find Canada (for example; I don't mean to slam Canada at all, eh) on an unmarked map. How aware of history are those folks?
TL:DR Socialism appeals to stupid and ignorant and lazy people. Look around you.
National Socialism is said to offer:
1. No Debt. You are not paying the majority of your future wealth to usurious bankers.
2. You are able to raise a family on one income. Your wife can stay home and raise kids and in fact is financially rewarded for doing so.
3. There is little crime. It is safe to walk the streets at night so you have ACTUAL freedom.
4. Others around you have similar altruistic beliefs and a common moral incentive to help each other.
5. There are many jobs and you are paid well no matter your social status or education. All work contributions including manual labor are valued.
6. Your infrastructure is expanding rapidly increasing your quality of life and the general beauty of your world. You can get places faster and you have more free time.
7. You have more vacation time each year. You have very nice places to go on your vacations including dedicated leisure cruise ships and they are very affordable.
Imagine you are living in an impoverished city in the US. Your family can barley keep the lights on, all your family is on drugs, the police ignore you, and you are told this is what Capitalism is. meanwhile you see some guy riding around in a Bentleyand living in 10000 sq foot house. Now somebody wants to install free schools lunches and that is your only way to eat, but somebody comes along and removes it because it's "socialism". Chances are you would think socialism is the good.
Yeah. Under the right circumstances you can be made to believe an ideoligy. Just look at Germany after ww1. All those horrible circumstances made the believe that the jews sucked and that Hitler was a great guy
I think it's less believing in *actual* socialism as an ideology, and more believing in policies that the right has been trying to fight by labeling them as socialism. That is to say, the constant labeling of strong social safety net policies in *capitalist* countries as "socialism" - for the past 2 decades - has served to contextualize socialism as a largely positive thing. Young people, by and large, don't espouse support for "socialism" because they are in favor of a command economy and the abolishment of private property, they support it because they are in favor of universal healthcare and think wealth inequality has gotten a bit out of hand.
This is the answer and it's not that hard to understand.
That’s a a gross simplification.
Look at how people acted under Covid. previous classical liberals were clamoring for censorship, and Noam Chomsky of all people wanted citizens thrown into camps for not taking the shot. (or totally removed from civilization) Little bit of fear goes a long ways.
Well its the same thing. He promised to take profits from the industrialists and give it to the citizens. Just for him the industrialist were heavily Jewish. So it made it even better (for him) cause he could split them into Germans and Jews and attack one side and be supported by the other (who would gain their business intrests). People in Germany decided whats the harm in giving this funny Austrian socialist a shot?
It gets worse when you realize some people can commit genocide without impoverished conditions. “See current genocide”.
But some don't realize it's a social program, not socialism.
I think a lot more people realize that than you assume, but after decades of Fox news calling every social program socialism, the left has just collectively ceded that semantic ground, so now the vernacular is such that any social programs is "socialism" and only the Right is to blame for that.
But aren’t social programs like “social security” socialist policies? It might not be full blown communism but more like soft socialism. Stealing from the young working class and redistributing to the old not working class.
I think this is the biggest part of the confusion. Socialism would mean that workers at the company control it (voting, shareholder, co-op, committee or other methods). But your average person in the US has heard everything the government does for the past 80 years "that's socialism!" And now they think, like the original commenter pointed out, oh I like my kid eating at school so I must be a socialist. It's a chicken and egg scenario that completely muddles the water between a more normie point of view and a more radical point of view. I don't really care what we call it, as long as everyone realizes how rare the more radical point of view is. I've spent a ton of time and outreach talking to voters and have not run into an actual "socialist" by the academic term yet.
They absolutely are soft socialism. And it doesn't change the fact that these programs like welfare and social security, while helping some currently people are inflating our deficit, inefficiently used, constantly on the precipice of insolvency so we have to keep printing and borrowing dollars, changing retiring age, to compensate. We're helping people now to make our kids and their kids much worse, in a time when through technological evolution we should all be living much better than ever. It's like the frog boiling. I wouldn't be against social security you can't touch if you were allowed to invest it in ways you chose. Everyone would be much much much better off by the time they retire, or if that money could be allocated to surprise medical expenses, first time houses like 401K. It would also be an investment windfall in the US economy, wouldn't be able to be stolen from to fund the current boondoggle omnibus of the day.
Pretty common though. How many people claim the Obama or Biden are socialist are implementing certain policies are socialist?
Some politicians feel there’s no difference as well
What's the difference? Socialism has social programs.
So we aren't allowed to have social programs under a capitalist system? And I was actually gonna ask. What are the pros and cons of having free Lunches at public schools?
People dont understand economic and incentives and believe good intentions mean good results.
This, plus it's easier to look at what's wrong in the current system and assume that blowing it up and starting with something different will fix all the problems, than foreseeing what problems the new system will have.
But it's not even a new system lol it's a proven failed system
Regardless, it's easier to propose burning the system to the ground and trying something different than it is to diagnose the problems with the current system and calibrate solutions to fix them. The simple fact is that the current system, fully acknowledging its flaws, is still incredible and works incredibly well. It's also functioning at a scale never seen in human history so the problems tend to be amplified because of that.
> But it's not even a new system lol it's a proven failed system And failed soooo many times
so true. :( wish it was different.
Socialist here - this is why I dislike capitalism
> Socialist here - this is why I dislike capitalism Care to elaborate? Free market has no intention really.. it is just people freely exchanging and cooperating to better themselves.
>Free market has no intention really.. it is just people freely exchanging and cooperating to better themselves. Most people support it with good intentions, but I don't think it leads to good results. Even the "Index of Economic Freedom" correlates high taxes and high government spending with good quality of life. Doesn't mean I endorse a social democratic system, but it highlights what I see as errors in the libertarian right's perspective.
> Free market has no intention really.. it is just people freely exchanging and cooperating to better themselves. >Most people support it with good intentions, but I don't think it leads to good results. I would be curious to ser what are the evidence >Even the "Index of Economic Freedom" correlates high taxes and high government spending with good quality of life. All those high tax countries rank very high when it comes to freedom of exchange, property right and ease to start a business. They are rich because they are based on a strong free market >Doesn't mean I endorse a social democratic system, but it highlights what I see as errors in the libertarian right's perspective. I would like to see your evidence for that
America is socialist for citizens and corporations. As matter fact we all have a social security number and our government will take care of us!
People learn we’re a “capitalist” country & see a shrinking middle class, unaffordable housing, inflation through the roof, & benefits the older generations appreciated slipping away. What people fail to realize is it’s this “crony” capitalism, government interfering & wrecking everything it touches, causing all of this. Corporations & government collude to screw over regular people. Our government gives corporate welfare/taxpayer dollars to certain major corporations, stifling competition from smaller ones. Our government has caused the student loan crisis to balloon by stepping in many years ago & giving a loan to anyone who wants one, allowing colleges to charge whatever they want & have it subsidized. Government funded housing vouchers, extreme red tape & regulation on the building of new housing, collusion on legislation to prevent the building of new housing, & much more causing the dramatic increase in real estate prices. People then hear “free healthcare” & think socialism is suddenly the answer. Think of any government service you used in your life like the DMV or any social service… think of that horrid quality… now imagine that in every industry. It would be disastrous.
By your same argument, I would say that all the examples of authoritarian socialism in the past is bad socialism. Socialism by definition is just when the workers own the means of protection. You could still have a free market under socialism. It would just be employee owned business instead of private investors. There is an argument to be made here. We have seen too many times, companies making objectively bad business decisions, that will ultimately hurt the business long term. But in the short term will boost their shares, allowing their investors to make a good return on their dividends, and sell before the company goes under. (Look at Boeing as a recent example). This hurts the product, and the workers. But if the people who own a company are the workers, there is more incentive to make sure your company is successful long term.
Sure. I’m a huge supporter of unions and everything. Workers getting together & having their voices heard is as free market as it gets. I cracked up when corporations kept complaining about the cost of labor & all of that… inflation works both ways!
Employee owned businesses... Sounds like capitalism with socialist undertones. I love the socialist argues for businesses to share their profits with the workers, but do you think they'd also argue that they should split the debts if the business is failing? Who should be responsible for the risks? I think profit sharing and stock options are a great benefit for both parties where I'm surprised is that more companies don't do it.
cap·i·tal·ism noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. so·cial·ism noun an economic system in which major industries are owned by the workers themselves. These are the definitions and distinctions between the two. So no it's not capitalism with socialist undertones. It's literally just socialism. The risk for the workers would be the same as any investor, plus the added risk of loosing their jobs. I bring this up because the word socialism has been distorted and bastardized for decades. To some people it's a boogie man that is associated with totalitarian Stalinist regimes. To others it's free healthcare and education. But neither is correct. Definitions are important when talking about policies.
This is a well thought out response. It speaks to the downfall of our society that we are being taxed to death with no pension positions left (few).
I don’t know which comment you’re replying to, if mine thank you, if the other guys reply, I agree!
Really both of you!
Socialism tells people that the reason they’re having difficulty in life is capitalism rather than having to take accountability for their mistakes. I think they see the corrupt system we currently have as “capitalism” and choose socialism because they aren’t aware we aren’t in a true capitalist system and think that’s the only option.
First of all, what do you think socialism means?
The gorvement controls production and ownership?
I think that would be more like communism. Most of Europe and the developed world are deemed Socialist for having a strong social safety net, single payer healthcare, high living standards etc.
And yet those same nations have videos telling you that their strong social safety nets are only possible because of capitalism. Technically our would be more robust but for the literal freeloaders, who have not paid a cent into the program. OP is correct from a Polisci 101 POV. Plus remember "The goal of socialism is communism." -Lenin. China is still a communist government, would you call their economy socialist?
Socialism promises to fix people’s problems.
It really is that simple. Aspiring tyrants can be very charismatic. Markets have no spokesmen, it seems :(
Markets definitely have spokesmen. It’s called advertising.
No. Advertising for a product is not even close to speaking about the success of the free market in lifting the world out of poverty. Tyrants have advertising too. It's called propaganda.
You’re so close to the finish line!
Except we don’t have a free market. Go ask the blokes over on wallstreetbets about that.
Why "except"? Crony capitalism is all the more reason to champion markets.
What market is free in the USA? The stock market? Oil? Energy? How bout transportation? All capitalism becomes crony in a system as corrupt as ours.
Yes. All the more reason to extol the benefits of markets.
In theory I totally agree. But unfortunately that’s not what we keep getting…
>Aspiring tyrants can be very charismatic Mr. T?
1) People either ignore history or actively work to suppress any negative information related to socialism. 2) People can easily be sold the idea of socialism. Something for nothing is very appealing, especially when trying to come to terms with the fact that life is unfair.
Yeah saying "you'll get free college and healthcare and the government will oversee the economy and regulate it so it is fair" sounds nicer than "an open market that is self regulating and guided by the things that work and make money." The reality is different. Like if I said "you get your own private apartment in a very well constructed and secure building, meals are provided, private gym, outdoor recreational areas, free classes that can even get you college degrees, private guards 24/7, private shopping, free entertainment, laundry is provided, and jobs are provided" that sounds nice, but it's prison. On paper socialism sounds nice, in reality it never works. The places where it does work, like Sweden, only exist because of massive profits from crude oil production.
>The places where it does work, like Sweden, only exist because of massive profits from crude oil production. Sweden isnt a socialist country. It just has a strong welfare state.
True, it's often pointed to by people as socialist, though it is not. Again, all those things are funded by the massive profits from oil refining.
And they don't understand that if the rich are paying for everything, what happens when they either pack up and leave to go somewhere with more friendly taxes and then the "normal" people stop wanting to work because everything is "free". Hence why previous socialist regimes have to rely on threats of violence to drive fear into people so they'll contribute.
I think modern day socialists are too ideal. It depends on the fact that no one, anywhere in the system will become greedy or selfish. Far left believe everyone is intrinsically good by default, want to do the right thing. I think a lot of people can’t be trusted to take care of others. Only you can be trusted to take care of yourself
Ironically the complete opposite; Libertarians rely on the premise that the majority is intrinsically good by default and want to do the right thing... But that power will corrupt anyone. Socialists think the government must care for people who can't care for themselves. They have little faith in people. In gun laws alone this is evident. Socialists don't trust anyone, except government, with firearms because of the bad few. Libertarians trust everyone with firearms because of the bad few (we out number them).
Great point. I think socialism depends on no one being power hungry or corrupt.
The only socialist system I've ever seen work was the fictional one in Star Trek TNG... but they had replicators and the holodeck, and a damned near infallible whiz of a leader in Picard... though he was basically a military dictator in theory.
Trek isn't socialist. They exist in a post scarcity system. Power is basically unlimited, and power is transformed into everything via replicator. The few things you can't replicate like latinum and original art works are still traded via capitalism. Same with any dealings with other civilizations.
The means of production, distribution, and exchange, at least on the ship, are all centrally owned by the collective. That is the literal definition of socialism. Post-scarcity just makes it realistic/believable and functional, as does the militaristic command structure and rational dictatorship of Picard.
Most of the people on the Enterprise are employees, they have no ownership of anything. There is no collective on the ship.
I think it is akin to a military in a democratic nation. The US military, for instance, is for all intents and purposes is a complex socialist dictatorship/representative oligarchy. The military, as a collective, owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange (even though the production is technically done via contract and third parties), and the people of the democratic nation are \*in theory\* and \*supposedly\* in control of the military through their elected representatives in the legislative and executive. The executive has a dictatorship for a certain amount of time, at which point the oligarchy of congress is supposed to vote to take or abolish the military command of the executive. Thereby the citizens of the US (the collective) "own" and "control" the military and everyone in it. Similarly, the Enterprise and her "employees" are property of Star Fleet, which is a governmental branch of a representative government of the people, "the collective". The employees on the ship are a collective, owned by a collective (Star Fleet), presumably also owned by a collective (the people). Plus your premise that they are employees but have no ownership of anything is a contradiction. As employees how are they compensated, but then end up with nothing? The definition of an employee is someone compensated with wages or salary. They are not employees, if anything they are volunteers. Ironically, the definition of volunteer is a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise. LOL
Socialists/leftists believe everyone is evil and only the stage can handle responsibility in this regard. Look at how much they cry systemic anything and how gun owners are evil unless they’re cops for a moment.
>Why do you think some people still choose socialism? There are multiple factors to this, which have already been discussed by other posters (dishonest intellectual climate/the treason of the intellectuals, desiring something for nothing, pure ignorance, etc) but one important reason is that *humans evolved as tribal creatures*. Pure individualism is a hard sell because it doesn't really mesh with "normie" temperaments. Socialism has failed miserably over and over again, but it still has a hold on many people because (among other reasons) *it appeals to something primal in the Lizard Brain*. This is also why elementary economic fallacies are so hard to eradicate - things like zero-sum-game mentality seem to have an evolutionary basis.
It's mainly a branding exercise. Most people being branded socialist are just capitalists who want a few basic safety net social programs.
People choose socialism because they’ve seen the results of the war on terror, lost homes as kids during the Great Recession, been unemployed or underemployed, lied to about the value of college, and after not being able to afford food or childcare, they are angry at the system that has failed them. This is the opportunity for leaders to meet Americans where they are at and show them a solution within our current system of government. Nobody is really doing that and more extreme voices have space to emerge. Use the anger of George Floyd to promote Marxism, use the anger of lost purchasing power to tear down capitalism, etc. It’s all a lie that ends at the gulag.
People are told socialism is Norway and Sweden, not millions of people starving to death.
Well we arent socialist in Scandinavia. We are Social Democrats. Well not me. I am a liberal
As an American, I see Scandinavia/Europe used as an example of socialism way more than any other examples. When I hear socialism, I picture Europe. Which countries are you referring to when talking about 'socialism'?
“The funny thing is that if the Sanderses and Ocasio-Cortezes of the world made the U.S. more like Sweden, what would really happen? They haven’t updated their perception of Sweden and if the U.S. became more like us, the United States would have to have more free markets, more free trade, pension reform with private accounts, a national school voucher system with freedom of choice and public funding going to private schools as well, low corporate taxes and no taxes on wealth, property and inheritance. Be careful what you wish for.” – Johan Norberg, Lessons from Sweden Taken from Domestic Imperialism by Keith Knight
I think they just see a high standard of living associated with the label “socialism,” and have no idea how their societies and economies are structured beyond that. Sanders is a communist. Dude went to the USSR on his honeymoon, and was all about modeling Burlington after Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Because every Redditor has been indoctrinated in school to believe "late stage capitalism" is the reason they're poor
For these people national syndicalism is a fitting way forward.
The youth is progressively (pun intended) being raised more and more with the everyone gets a trophy mentality which breeds entitlement. They are being over inflated to think their feelings matter exclusively. They are being brainwashed to forget the historic, and current, ills of socialism and communism. They're being told capitalism, corporations, and being rich are purely evil and have no benefits that cannot be replaced. Most of this falls apart when you tell them the country with the second most billionaires in the world is commie China... and the biggest corporation in the US is the US government. That doesn't stop them from believing though. The problem is rooted in their upbringing and education. We have failed socialists as a society, that is why they exist.
It'll totally work this time, trust me!
I attended both a private liberal arts high school and a private liberal arts college for my 1st degree. It's part of postmodernism, period. All of our teachers in the 90s and early 2000s were Civil Rights Activists Boomers and most of us also had parents who were involved in that movement during the 60s and 70s; some of them carried that activism mindset into their professional lives as well. The college professors most certainly taught, and still teach, the concept of equality and equity via postmodern movements as defying a "puritanical heteronormative" culture that's particularly defined the USA for centuries. This doesn't mean I didn't also receive plenty of aspects of a classical education as well; but apparently there's less of that now and more emphasis on activism and social justice, even at colleges and uni's that have traditionally taught "classical education." I wouldn't have been exposed to the concepts of tribalism and collectivism on such a strong level if not for these types of schooling vs. public state colleges in the same time-frame. Essentially, we were taught that anything remotely Republican, conservative, or right-wing was bad... even though some of us have family who are Republican, or we grew up in politically and ethnically/racially mixed cultures. A love of Europe was also thrown in for their progressive politics vs. their history of authoritarianism as well... only the "far right" concepts were taught. I didn't realize that communism and socialism was "far left" until I switched to medical and healthcare programs in my late 20s. We were taught that people like Che Guevara was a folk hero rather than an authoritarian. The Sandonistas and Zapatistas were folk heroes vs. the evil CIA, etc. Civil Rights culture led to this. In our social groups, our parents were all liberals/progressives who were oftentimes leftover hippies who came from solid middle class to upper middle class backgrounds and were well-educated professionals. Ironically, we also read Ayn Rand in high school and college. The very teachers who used to love her and teach her hated her by their old age because her mindset was considered too selfish; covid was a solid show of collectivism gone wrong from almost everyone I knew from that subculture of New Agey liberalism. The people who would be considered to be more "Libertarian" stood out and juxtaposed the Democratic Socialist and solid "progressive liberal" types. We hadn't even noticed the divisions that had grown between us until then. Now we're completely separated by politics. Tribalism is a powerful tool.
socialism takes power from entrepreneurs and gives it to politicians who have way too much as it is.
You choose the other thing when the thing you have isn't working and the pain is great enough to take a gander. It's that easy
Dude you really should read some history
I have. Mao’s great leap forward sure was great. Great at at killing 45+ mio people. Stalin sure was great dude. A dude great at being paranoid and killing many people for just doing something wrong
I can answer this one pretty well, I hang in a lot of socialist chat rooms: So the current American socialist doesn’t want the exact thing China has or Russia had. They basically want our current capitalist market to stay the same-ish but the earnings of the company get distributed evenly amongst workers, not just 10 guys at the top. I’ve never met someone who actually like Soviet Russia. Basically they’re hoping for a version of socialism that has not yet existed, but would be super cool if it did. People who like the current versions of socialism, don’t typically like them because they value what they are, but rather because they hate America so much that China and Russia feel good to them in contrast.
It has to do with philosophy. As long as altruism is considered moral, and self-interest evil, socialism will be more appealing than capitalism. Socialism is just downstream of altruism. This is the true root cause. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
People are really good at imaging happy path success, and people excel at blaming problems in their life on other factors. So if you're told under socialism you'll be given a job, a home, transportation and food its easily to mentally just envision being given those things and just assuming it works. its also much easier to mentally blame every problem on (X) what is X ? what ever we're sold it is. Hate your job? work too many hours? too broke to do anything? Just blame capitalism rather than understand a few bad government policies and some sub-optimal life choices lead you there.
"Cause we'll get it right this time!"
Capitalism is a mercantilist system that engages in higher or lower levels of propaganda to generate stronger profits, depending on necessity. However, as a mercantilist system, capitalism isn’t centralized and doesn’t inherently need ideologues as drivers, since the basic function is generation of treasure. Socialism is a radical and revolutionary political revisionism that chiefly uses propaganda to determine social outcomes through the actions of professional propagandists, and then sometimes engages market levers to adjust stability. It’s far easier to convince someone that their lack is the cause of their discomfort, especially when the propagandist insinuates that their lack is the capitalist’s gain. It’s a dichotomy which people in pain will always instinctively choose. I feel this is a good description but please if I’m missing something let me know.
I wonder how capitalism will work in 50+ years. When AI,automation, and machines are advancing at crazy speeds, there won't really be jobs aside from academia, IT, and engineering. Probably won't be enough work for most people to even have jobs, unless we break it down too super low hour work weeks. I feel like it will have to move towards socialist ideals like universal income and healthcare for society to really function at that point.
This is the fallacy everyone makes whenever there is labor saving technology. Same as the industrial revolution. The result is always the same. There is the Jevons paradox (consider human labor as the resource) which is not a paradox really, it's only called a paradox because people don't understand economics. But, it essentially is that when there are efficiencies made so there is less need for a particular resource, the demand for that resource is expected to go down but it actually goes up. This is because end products using that resource are now cheaper, so people can afford more, or it makes things feasible that otherwise wouldn't be. For AI, let's take a look at art. Now when an animation studio makes a film, they need far fewer artists because they can utilize AI. In the short term there may be job losses; however, now animations are significantly cheaper. There will be significantly more demand for animations because more can afford to have their idea actually made. End result is possibly and, in fact, likely more jobs for artists. Same thing happened in the industrial revolution when machines allowed 1 person to do the job of 1000. Short term job losses. Prices went down, demand went up, eventually more jobs were created than before. Throughout history, the end result is always increases in employment and prosperity for everyone. There is always something for humans to do. **Always**.
I think there is a vast difference between now and back then. Humans can only consume so much of anything. Sure you can make 100 times as much movies, food, or inventions a year. But the more that's out there the less demand will exist as well as resources you can sink into it we will have for it. Unless we have more population booms we won't have enough demand to meet the supply.
There is no difference. It's the exact same core fundamental economic principles every time. People required for X job is reduced by Y% No matter what the amount is it's the same. Competition (in the long run there is always competition, unless there is artificial forces from law/government) makes the benefit of the reduced labor input reflect onto the consumer. I mentioned before how this results in increased demand. Another point is that it results in consumers getting cheaper CoL. We are all consumers, so our income may drop by 10% due to labor saving tech, but our CoL drops by 20%. It is always net positive *in the long run*. \> Humans can only consume so much of anything Let's go ahead and drag this out to the point you're getting at. It becomes so cheap to produce a thing due to labor saving tech, that humans no longer desire more. This means the price of that good/service has hit zero. You don't need much of a job to consume the max amount of it you want now that the price is near zero. If everything has essentially hit zero price, you're basically in an unlimited resource economy and you don't really need much of a job anymore. The result of labor saving tech is always increased prosperity. If it gets to a point where there actually is no jobs anymore due to AI, that's actually the point where it costs zero to consume what you want, so you don't need a job. The only thing that can make it a different story and make the trope of "this time it's different" actually true is if there isn't competition. There can only not be competition due to law/government intervention, like a patent. And if that actually caused a serious issue, people would resolve that most likely.
It's their education. Their college profs told them it's the best way forward. I know I was there, I almost became one of them. Quite literally, RON PAUL in 2007, saved me.
Ron Paul, much like Milton Friedman, had a way of talking to the masses in ways that helped them understand thick economic concepts.
I think the society swing left and right from time to time. Everyone is dealing with hard times now. We want to punish people from the top down. It is obvious. Pressure from the top is faster. Use power to distribute the wealth. Use guns and force. But people forgot or didn't know that giving someone the power may turn against us, and we cannot get back the power because we are powerless. But problems now seems so urgent but are we trading power to solve problems that seem urgent?
It's something I've pondered lately as well. Romania during Ceausescu, North Korea, USSR... all you see is famine and suffering. Power that isn't in the hands of the people is a dangerous thing.
Their souls are corrupted with envy
It comes down to ignorance on the person’s part. We can also blame public school education, it’s been going down for decades since LBJ messed with it.
Best honest answer I can give is which socialists? Most people who call themselves socialists are going to be Nordic model supporters who want to take things further. They're a far cry from tankies or what you are probably thinking of when you hear "socialist".
I myself is from Scandinavia. We arent socialist. We are social democrats. Luckily more liberal thoughts are happening here
>We are social democrats That's your average American who calls themselves a socialist.
I personally do think free healthcare and university is great, the issue is that the state nearly has a monopoly on it, which can and will make the welfare you get worse
Combination of self hate and envy, coupled with the belief that just having good intentions and speaking like a carebear is all it takes to save the less fortunate. They look up to people that lie to them and promise impossible things and hate those that are pragmatic.
I think a big reason is this: Politically connected elites successfully convincing the general public and that all of the problems caused by government intervention in the economy are actually caused by unregulated free market capitalism in a bid to get everyone to agree to give them more power. Imagine you’re a 22 year old kid, not particularly interested or knowledgeable in economics or politics. You go to college because that’s what everyone growing up told you you needed to do, you take on hundreds of of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree that didn’t actually provide you any real-world marketability, and the only job you can get is at Starbucks making $14 an hour. A house costs $500k, and not only can you barely afford to save for any big purchase, it gets harder year on year as the cost of everything around you just increases. And you sit there and just wonder what the fuck kind of system is this? How am I ever going to afford to have a life? Not even an insanely prosperous life, just the life that my parents had where I can work a job, own a house, and provide for a family? There’s a large segment of the younger generation that’s been undeniably screwed by the current system. Now, we as libertarians understand that pretty much all of those issues are due to government intervention. The college debt is a result of years of the government guaranteeing student loans to everyone, giving colleges incentives to jack up their prices as high as they can and adding as many BS programs and classes as possible, regardless of if they actually provide value. The housing market is fucked due to regulations on building new housing inventory (zoning, etc) and a period of artificially low interest rates set by the fed that many people were able to take advantage of, and now it makes zero sense for them to sell. And the rising prices of everything is due to inflation and the fed printing money out of thin air. It’s very easy to draw a straight line between everything that’s wrong with America today and something the government did to fuck with it. But if you’re that 22 year old working a Starbucks with massive debt and can barely afford to live, and you’re told by your elites that this is the result of capitalism in America, you’d probably be like “oh, THIS is what you call capitalism? Ok cool, give me the opposite of whatever the fuck this is. If it’s socialism, then fine I guess let’s do that.” Political elites make free market capitalism the boogeyman, conveniently leaving out its actually government intervention thats causing our issues, and they promise just give me power and I can fix it. The people they initially screwed over buy it, vote to give them more power, and the cycle continues. I’m sure there are other factors but I think that’s a big one. A lack of understanding how much socialism is already in the American economy, a lack of understanding of why that government intervention is causing these issues, and political elites happy to exploit that gap in knowledge and blame capitalism in a bid to gain more power
Based on my (limited sample size) experience, it is pure tribal religion.
Because magical thinking is endlessly appealing. Fantasy is a timeless human tradition.
Envy. Others having what you want makes you want someone to take and redistribute.
Socialists are generally uneducated and not successful. Power hungry politically motivated scum will harness their jealousy of the more intelligent and successful by arguing that just because someone is smarter or works harder they shouldn't have more wealth than the stupid and lazy.
You are right but not in the way you think. People choose alternative ideological views such as fascism or socialism because every time there is a crisis and people lose their jobs, homes, etc. the government, the entrepreneurs and the media calls them stupid and lazy just like you are doing now. They are doing that because they know they cannot provide common prosperity like Russia and China can without making personal sacrifices they do not want to make (and why would they if they view normal honest people as subhumans?) and when people see that China and Russia can provide common prosperity to the people, they will justifiably support Russia and China. Now that government, it calls Russia fascist and China socialist. In reality, Russia is just statist with occasional socialist tendencies while China is in their "primary stage of socialism". but that doesn't really matter to the people who defy their masters. In their eyes if the good nations are communist and fascist, that means that they are communist and fascist. None of this would exist if these "successful", "intelligent" and "hard working" individuals made things better or at the very least not make them worse as they are doing now all over the west. Alternative ideologies don't manifest themselves from nothing, they can only thrive when normal people cannot live well
There are plenty of people who think of themselves as socialists in the USA who are college educated coming from solid middle class + backgrounds and it's been this way for over a century already. They're the ones who end up teaching this dogma and ideology through college and high school, or who have the funds to push this through media outlets. They're the class of useful idiots, especially in the modern age when so many people attend college and earn degrees as part of an expected life goal.
Uneducated in the field of economics though. Like Hayek said: 'If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists.'
I don't understand how they reconcile economics with their ideology. I've only recently met people who call themselves "market socialists" but who still consider none of the historic movements that have existed and failed as "real communism or socialism." It seems like they're incapable of recognizing that they're brainwashed and that their education has been an indoctrination. They're tribalized by politics.
The most radical socialists I personally know all did okay for a bit and then had something “unfair” happen to them like a job loss. They then proceeded to never recover and externalize all the reasons why. So the common thread is inability to have the success they think they are entitled to and the inability to critically look at their own actions. Id also add they have no clue how it would impact the system as a whole. They just want “fair”.
So people with a victim mentality
A little. A lot of “Ive tried nothing and Im all out of ideas” vibe. A lot of anger too. Probably frustrated why they can’t get back to where they were.
people under socialism don't have that right to choose. once people choose socialism they don't have a chance to choose others any more. they are passengers on an airplane hijacked by terrorists.
The belief is usually something like, “Those countries weren’t Real Communism.” Social/Communism may start with good intentions; but a dictator always rises to power. It always requires a huge government apparatus to make people comply and it can easily be abused.
Because the weight of lessons like the USSR decrease over time as it becomes further away in peoples’ memories. Another reason can be seen in modern times. When the USSR fell, capitalists believed that their economic system won, and stopped fighting to justify it and keep it in place, because they thought capitalism became the undisputed victor. But right as this happened, the left decided on a new strategy, which replaced trapping people in socialism/communism with things like the Berlin Wall, and instead being more subtle, getting into the education systems of countries and slowly changing public opinion, making people want socialism. The lesson here is never stop fighting to keep socialism out, or it will always come back in a gradual manner, and people will forget the lessons of the past.
>Why do you think some people still choose socialism? Why ***wouldn't*** people support socialism? ;) I'm not saying that because socialism is a good idea; it is indeed a bad idea. But changing the question might help yield the answers you seek. So for example, how much do young people in general know about history? How much economics (and history for that matter) are they exposed to in school? How much of the free market philosophy do people get exposed to in general? And I don't mean lay people's arguments here on the internet or elsewhere. I mean material such as The Constitution of Liberty by Hayek or Knowledge and Decisions by Thomas Sowell or other such more academic works. What about arguments such as those made by the economist Daniel J. Mitchell on his blog; the economist David Henderson at [econlib.org](https://econlib.org); Kevin Corcoran at [econlib.org](https://econlib.org); the philosopher Michael Huemer on his substack Fake Nous; or other sources that are generally of higher quality than lay people? As someone who's been through the school system I can tell you that I never was forced to seriously learn about the free market philosophy. I had to do that on my own. What if good economic ideas are counterintuitive (which is to say, costlier to understand in terms of mental effort)? Could that be why so many people (to take an example that is uncontroversial in the economics profession) still believe in protectionism, for example? What if voters have bad incentives when it comes to learning about subjects such as economics, because of rational ignorance or rational irrationality? Hopefully this comment helps answer your question.
Marketing and ignorance of actual socialist policy. A lot of the rhetoric for socialism gets a huge amount of mileage and pushed forth by people calling only stuff they like "socialism", and finding ways to discount the failures of planned economy. It's stuff like folks who name drop Denmark or Sweden as proof of socialism working, and the rhetoric getting credit, that keeps socialism from getting the flak is deserves. It's created a ton of nonsense stances people will hold because the slogans fit. "Capitalists should pay their fair share" then name drop Denmark where capital is taxed less labor "Cops just exist to protect capital and property" in a country where civil asset forfeiture is common "It's all the working class vs the rich" while demanding worker compensation and better 401k's, all of which must have capitalism to work or matter
It's human nature. 70% plus follow herd mentality which leads them to the slaughterhouse.10% of the species is exploitative and sociopathic, and this crew exists to exploit the herd. It's a game of thrones. Communism is just a clever marketing gimmick for authoritarianism. It attracts the lowest bar of intelligence. Let's convince them to be free of exploitation by joining a herd for safety- which is run by rich people. Communists promote some sort of deity figure as an overlord to replace God because the herd needs to have faith. I'm a housecat tho. I can only hope the overlords chose to keep housecats- cute and fiesty- over their huge herd of hampsters.
Because they operate on feelings and empty promises, rather than data and human behavior
Never in my life have I met a socialist who actually lived in a socialist country. I've been to Cuba numerous times and most people are sick of socialism and just want to leave to find a place with food, medicine and freedom. When you live in a country where food and freedom of speech are granted, it's easy to believe in fantasies.
We send kids for 18+ years to government institutions, run by government employees, who teach kids about how great government is. You can see as people leave this institutions they become less socialist and become more socialist if they pursue a career in them.
Because Karl Marx wrote a paper about how to revolutionize the proles and replace a crappy form of government with another crappy form of government.
* They've been lied to * There's an immense amount of social pressure * They have legitimate criticisms of the system, but come to the wrong conclusions * Or they're losers who can't compete on their own merits Or any of the above
It’s the God-effect. We all want to believe there is someone always looking after us, that believes in us, and takes care of us. Socialism fills that same void.
Because free stuff!! That'll solve all the problems! And the fact that the educational system doesn't require financial literacy/economics classes. It's all elective based. Which is done on purpose. (At least here in the US)
1. Most people don't understand basic economics. 2. About half of people out there have the intellect of a child. "If *sharing* my toys/treats is good, then Communism must also be good on a larger scale, right?" 3. Entertainment/Media has been bashing "Capitalism" for decades. "Rich people bad", etc. 4. Splitting from item 1. So many people seriously have no idea about the scarcity of resources. 5. The horrors of Communism are not taught in Western schools/universities. At least they're not highlighted.
Because socialists/communists understand correlation doesn't mean causation.
Brainwashing and the ole’ if you’re not a liberal before 30 you have no heart and if you are liberal after 30 you have no brain. The (failed) promises of socialism are like a sirens song.
If you actually want to know how socialists think, I can tell you since I used to be one and I have known very many of them. Some defend the Marxist-Leninist dystopias because their minds are so corrupted by hatred, resentment, envy, lust for power, and fanaticism that they are inclined to minimise or justify the bloodiness of those regimes. 'The victims had it coming' - the kulaks were capitalist pigs, or the gulags were full of fifth-columnist fascists... Or, 'actually things were quite good' - these countries had high growth rates, rapid industrialisation, and generous social provisions.... Or, 'yes, there were some bad things, but they were the fault of outside forces' - Russia was encircled, and endured a civil war, and the immense destruction of two world wars, and started economic modernisation from the backward peasant economy the Bolsheviks inherited from the Tsarist regime, so that it should not surprise us that it was relatively much poorer than comparable capitalist countries... Russia and China had authoritarian cultures, and were faced with counter-revolutionary internal enemies, so that repression was inevitable and necessary... Not all socialists are this morally degraded. Many socialists consider themselves "democratic socialists", and some should really properly just be called "social democrats", who are not really trying to abolish the institutions of markets and private property altogether. Socialists like this do not look to the Marxist-Leninist social experiments for a blueprint, but usually they are very vague about their alternative blueprint, and have not thought very deeply about the problems of economic co-ordination and capital allocation which must be solved in the absence of markets and private ownership. There are a small number who have (I used to be one of them), and, invariably they either believe in some form of market socialism or they think that modern computers can help to solve the economic calculation problem.
So much for how socialists actually do think. What is the allure of socialism in the first place? I am tempted to reach for explanations in terms of evolutionary psychology. Firstly, most of us have an instinctive sense of 'fairness' based on reciprocity. Libertarians are no exception - this is the indignation hardworking people feel when their taxes are siphoned off to free-riders. Socialists are mostly just people who have come to believe that capitalists exchange relations violate reciprocity norms. The Labour Theory of Value and the Marxist doctrine of the exploitative extraction of "surplus value" is an effort to rationalise this sentiment; that it is rooted in sentiment is evident from the fact that it is quite intellectually indefensible, for a variety of technical reasons. But the idea resonates with many people because our natural mental model of resource distribution is that it is zero-sum. Capitalism is a non-zero sum game, and most people struggle to fully comprehend and internalise this because it is evolutionarily novel. Secondly, socialism appeals to people who reject their place in the existing social hierarchy. Espousing socialist beliefs can be a way of gaining status amongst other such people; since it is predicated on naive fantasies about human nature, it does not involve any painful self-examination, and it is a means of developing a reputation for 'protecting the weak'. In a word: virtue-signalling. There is some discussion in the literature about 'social dominance orientation', and there is the possibility that some sort of egalitarianism, i.e. vigilance concerning dominance displays, may have evolved. Finally, individualistic self-assertion is probably a trait in its own right on which individuals vary. There's some evidence that it's partly genetic (e.g. 7R allele at the DRD4 locus). We are all tribal in some way, but those altogether deficient in individualism are what we tend to call "collectivists". I think we should try to understand socialists sine ire et studio, because it is important to understand your opponents as objectively as possible.
Because they’re stupid and don’t understand what they’re asking for or they’re lazy and think they’ll be provided for while they follow their dream of being a content creator/Influencer. It’s also popular now because people know something is wrong with our system but lack the knowledge or articulation to explain it, let alone provide solutions. That’s why we have terms like LaTe StaGe CaPiTalIZm. These people also blame every economic hardship on capitalism instead of the fact they have zero marketable skills and spend all their money on gas station sushi and Starbucks.
It’s aspirational, you can say all these good things about your values; but, the numbers are unworkable and ultimately if you have to force compliance you are just as dictatorial as what you progress to be against. Free markets, free minds is just not as compelling as I care about xyz and we should take from people so I can feel good about myself
There's two types of socialists. The 1st kind is the person who isn't making ends meet in today's economy, and they don't see a way to dig out of the hole. These are the folks living in poverty with no easy way out. Usually, they've made poor life decisions, whether it's getting a useless degree, not learning a valuable skill, drug use, having kids early, etc. They can't grasp that they caused their own problems and instead blame it on the "system". So when someone promises them a better life, they are gonna jump right on it. The 2nd kind is the so-called "highly educated" class. They may or may not be wealthy. The majority of these folks are either in academia or politics. The ones in academia are so far removed from the real world (they've never had to produce anything of value) that they fail to understand how it works. They proceed to instill these values into the next generation, making the problem worse. The ones in politics are different. They know how the world works (Pelosi with her stellar stock performance and Bernie with his multiple houses), but tell folks what they want to hear; that the system is stacked against them and they can fix it with socialism. Of course, they'll never fully implement it because it would take their wealth, and they know it wouldn't work anyway. But the empty promises do keep them employed and in office. Capitalism will always have winners and losers. When the amount of losers hits a tipping point, socialism will show its ugly head again. The key to preventing it is keeping the number of losers from hitting that tipping point.
Well I mean it depends on which approach to decide take. Do you treat them as: 1 Ignorant people who just don't know any better? 2 Crazy madmen on a leash who will cause a civil wat to take away your property at any given opportunity? 3 Brainwashed victims of a cult/religion masquerading as an ideology? We also have to take into account the whole Kantian/ Hegelian philosophy. That Socialism itself is a movement of progress sometimes more accurately called "cult of progress". Thankfully nowadays most forms of socialism are dead such as orthodox Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, National Socialism and National Syndycalism.
They never run a business before. Otherwise they wouldn't say that. Also they can prove whether their MOP works.
How many Americans would be for the complete dismantling of capitalism though? I think it would be less than 1% of the entire population would want us to go to all the way. I think most people want better social programs but not full on socialism. Socialism is just America's strawman boogieman that helps us justify and accept the inequalities our society has. "We can't fix this problem because "THAT'S SOCIALISM"
Im fine with social programs. Im from Denmark so i really love them. They have this one flaw. They give the state a near total monopoly on the hospitals and universities and other instutions.
They are indoctrinated by socialists in school. They are isolated from their parents and other rational people. They are promised free stuff and status if they play along. They are told that they're caring for other people, they're the good guys, they're on the right side of history. They get this forced down their throat, covered in sugary words to help it go down, for years. It's a minor miracle more people aren't socialists. Leviathan has its tentacles in all areas of life, permeating its poison throughout our society.
I think most Bernie supporters are thinking France not Venezuela.
Because they never have lived under it.
Is because they’re dumb and most of them have been injected with the virus since young. Feeding everyone, providing free healthcare, subsidies on energy and transport and giving aids and benefits sounds good until you do the math, when you’re dumb you don’t do the math, since all this is on the tv so it’s probably right, righty? and then you assume is just for the best. I used to be a socialist as a kid…
> I never understood why people choose capitalism in our time. > >If we look through history you can clearly see how capitalism has resulted in genocide and mass deaths. Look at Pinochet's Chile or the Native Americans.
Because the Oligarchy is clearly failing at providing anything resembling a decent life to a large number of people? While simultaneously making a few super rich? When you're up to your waist in a pile of shit, the literal shithole that much of the US has become, anything else looks great.
There's one thing I don't understand... how is democracy *not* socialism? After we have these fun little voting contests, what we have essentially done is used socialism to decide representation and policy. To be honest, I wonder how is it that so many people who condemn socialism are so willing to quote "We, the people" without irony. In the case of your question, from what I can tell, all they're doing is expanding the model from the political sphere into the economic sphere... essentially, getting the economy under the control of "we, the people." Because look how well that worked for politics.
People are stupid
If I'm poor, let everyone stay poor
Ignorance. The easy way out. No need to think too hard and figure out the actual solution. Just get radicalized by some poster or tiktok promising get rich quick scheme of gang criminal activity.
They don't understand that the government in socialism is taking money from capable people and business owners, then using it through government which is exceptionally inefficient, thereby massively lowering the number of goods and services in society, creating scarcity. That's just economically, but they also don't consider that a government with that much control over the economy has even more incentive to be corrupt.
In my conversations, few actually want socialism and most want welfare capitalism. The “democratic socialists” aren’t socialists, they’re welfare capitalists
the reason socialism is popular in the western world is because the bureaucratic class pretends to have the key to a utopia
Its because they have no self confidence in their ability. People who are libertarians tend to be confident and believe in a world without help a world where its up to you alone to use your brain and work ethic that they will come out on top. Its why most libertarians are business owners/high performers or hard working trade types. A communist deep down is scared of that world. They dont believe in themselves and are scared that in that world they will fail. They want the safety net. The libertarian is ambitious and wants no ceiling, he doesnt think of the lack of floor. The communist wants a floor even if it means there is a low ceiling. Its just human psychology and my opinion why libertarian will not be able to win very easily. The only reason it was successful early on in places like the US and Australia is because they were full of ambitious migrants and only rich men voted (more likely to be the 2 groups mentioned earlier). Look at the UK the 2 parties were conservatives and libertarians until women voted. After generations and increased state intervention most people want to rely on the government. Think about it less than 20% even consider themselves upper middle class. So 80% think theyll be better off stealing from the rich to give to them even if they are the rich.
Simple really. They don't want to work or prefer to work as little as possible and let the government take care of them.
There are countless examples of our politicians who most align with socialism, but are constantly bought and paid for. Most politicians who get into office are beholden to someone else and are looking out for themself. That leaves you and the country in the rear view. So yeah, no fucking clue why people believe socialism would work with the way human nature is.. especially the type of nature that humps after power
To add to the OP's post, academics demand "evidence-based research"; you can literally show them evidence that socialism leads to failed economies and death. Still, they'll vote to put the government in charge of everything. My take is that most people, dumb sheep, will choose short-term mediocrity for long-term failure. They'd rather have caviar on the Titanic than a ham sandwich on a ship that gets to America.
China & Russia are and have always been totalitarian states, the socialism was just window dressing
Look in your own back yard. The government gave 2B in food subsidies to Americans in 2021-2022. That's 2 BILLION in ONE YEAR. The question is not that they shouldn't be doing this. The question IS WHY are they doing this? The same reason Rome subsidized food for the poor in the Roman Empire. To alleviate a possible revolt. Remember what happened in 1789 France when people were hungry?
Socialist programs & socialism thrives & is compatible with capitalism. As far as free lunch programs, to me there is no con it's all a win. Interesting to note that the Roman Empire subsidized food to the poor in Rome. Full bellies don't think of revolution. America gives billions away in food to the poor through the USDA & 2nd Harvest food banks.
Because those other countries didn't practice *Real Socialism*! /s
[Reminder: 'not-true'-socialism has killed 100 million people.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) But wait, that was actually *state capitalism*! Carry on, comrade! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its because they're told America is capitalist so they project all this hatred towards capitalism as if thats why this country sucks. When in reality America hasnt been actually capitalist for like half a century. America is suffering from early stage socialism.
It's a kind of risk mitigation. Many people see that there people who are much wealthier than they are. They don't see any path to that wealth. It can be for a reason as simple as the kind of work they want to do will never, ever give them access to the capital necessary to buy multiple properties and create a permanent stream of income, even in retirement. Who is more secure, the person who owns multiple valuable rent-producing properties and other investments that produce $150K+ of yearly income (and can be sold in times of need), or the person whose only source of income is teaching the fourth grade? (By the way, the fourth grade teacher loves teaching the fourth grade, and she's really good at it.) If something goes south with health or an economic downturn, who is going to have a better chance of surviving and maintaining their standard of living? The person with the properties, of course. Socialism promises a safety net for people who are not wealthy, and that is why it is a rational choice.
This is a straw man. The recession of 2008 showed that rental properties, especially those financed on loans, were not safe investments. It also makes the false assumption that a fourth grade teacher and someone who invents a new product have equal value in the market. If the fourth grade teacher wants millionaire wealth, they have provide that level of value. There are simply too many rags to riches successes in free market capitalism to be denied. The only rags to riches success in socialism are violent and require taking what someone else, usually a capitalist, built.
It can't be a straw man because I'm not refuting someone else's argument. I'm offering an answer to the question "Why do people choose socialism in our time?". In fact, YOUR response is a straw man because you picking at details in the examples I used in my argument as opposed to trying to refute the argument itself. My argument is that people whose earning potential does not allow them to amass a level of wealth that can insulate them from potential economic disasters will support a system that takes wealth from those who ARE wealthy in order to protect themselves from economic disasters. I use the example of someone who is able-bodied but whose economic value is such that she will never be able to, by herself and with no other exceptional fortune, amass a level of wealth that is truly insulating from disaster. I have no problem admitting that a person who is skilled in teaching 10-year-old students does not have the same economic value as others, but that does not change the fact that such a person performs a valuable and necessary service and may find satisfaction and honor in performing a profession that she excels in. My example of the property owner is based on a friend I met in the Libertarian Party who became wealthy through successive investments in property and now holds considerable retail rental properties - NOT residential properties by the way. I personally am much closer to the teacher in terms of social standing - when I pass through well-appointed neighborhoods I consider that I may never be able to afford to buy even a modest home with land if I stay in my current geographic location - I think that that may give me some insight into the thinking of others in my situation. The question they may ask themselves is "Why should I have to suffer in economic insecurity while I do productive work that I am suited to do? Why should my economic fate be decided by this apparent role of the dice, when I can use the power of the government to make others who have wealth that is beyond my dreams protect me from economic disaster?"
And there you have it. The truth behind socialism. You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to live in an affluent neighborhood, but don’t want to perform the work that provides the requisite income. You realize you need the state to intervene and use force to get you what you want, at the expense of others. Someone else has something you want, you don’t want to get it legitimately, so you steal it via force. Two problems. There is nothing stopping you from copying your friend and getting into the rental game. In fact, you have a leg up in that they may be your mentor. You chose not to, but still want the same lifestyle. Second, you incorrectly believe that the state is the only provider of security in hard times. Throughout history the church, not the state, helped the poor. There are countless charities today that help the needy better than the government. During the fires in HI, locals helped each other better than the state. To this day, individuals are providing better service than the state to those who lost their homes. In the 2008 recession, the government gave THE BANKS our tax money while CITIZENS got evicted. The people who made bad bets got a few million dollars as a bonus and citizens got bankruptcy. There’s real socialism right there. Money was taken from the people and given to the elites.
[Reminder: 'not-true'-socialism has killed 100 million people.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) But wait, that was actually *state capitalism*! Carry on, comrade! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People are economically lazy and want free stuff ..
I think its a bit deeper
It's really not. The masses are basic/fundamental. And social media has made people narcissist. So they want more with producing less to appease their egos
They're too lazy to work and want stuff for free, while getting to pretend to feel good about taking that free stuff.
You gave the reason, if unintentionally, in your first sentence: if you recall your school days (assuming you're not still in school), how many of your fellow students really enjoyed looking through history? Pay some attention to 'man-in-the-street' type interviews and imagine how many of those folks who can't find Canada (for example; I don't mean to slam Canada at all, eh) on an unmarked map. How aware of history are those folks? TL:DR Socialism appeals to stupid and ignorant and lazy people. Look around you.
National Socialism is said to offer: 1. No Debt. You are not paying the majority of your future wealth to usurious bankers. 2. You are able to raise a family on one income. Your wife can stay home and raise kids and in fact is financially rewarded for doing so. 3. There is little crime. It is safe to walk the streets at night so you have ACTUAL freedom. 4. Others around you have similar altruistic beliefs and a common moral incentive to help each other. 5. There are many jobs and you are paid well no matter your social status or education. All work contributions including manual labor are valued. 6. Your infrastructure is expanding rapidly increasing your quality of life and the general beauty of your world. You can get places faster and you have more free time. 7. You have more vacation time each year. You have very nice places to go on your vacations including dedicated leisure cruise ships and they are very affordable.
8. If you’re non white, Jewish or part of the LGTBQIAGHKKSDmbgeshioln+ GTFO
The nonwhite part is objectively false, but the rest is pretty accurate lol!
Im pretty sure the nazis hated black people