When it comes to socialism, Americans attitudes may be changing. Sure, it's pretty universally despised by older generations, but us Millennials and Gen Z don't have all the propaganda baggage that the older generations do.
Besides, the Republicans have basically burnt that fuse out. They call literally everything socialism. The word has …
When it comes to socialism, Americans attitudes may be changing. Sure, it's pretty universally despised by older generations, but us Millennials and Gen Z don't have all the propaganda baggage that the older generations do.
Besides, the Republicans have basically burnt that fuse out. They call literally everything socialism. The word has essentially lost its meaning. Outside of actual ideological socialists, no one thinks of the original meaning of worker control over the means of production. The word now basically means welfare, social democracy, and workers rights, which are massively popular ideas with all generations if you don't say the "s" word.
Not to mention many Republicans benefit from these so called “socialist” policies. I invite the average American to enjoy retirement without existing safety nets. It could be better, though.
What really frosts my weenie is that many on the Republican/Republican Entertainment Complex side do not even realize that "socialism" and "communism" are not the same thing. For decades, socialists and communists loathed each other.
Socialism--A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Communism--A political and economic ideology advocating for a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.
Socialism does not particularly care about social class (Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are all monarchies and all of them have some REALLY wealthy people). Communism DOES care about social class and calls class evil (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution anyone?). Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control, while communism *is* interested (that is its Leninism showing...and for the record, Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT on Taiwan were a Leninist party that we had ZERO qualms about from 1949-1979...and interesting fun fact, the KMT was aligned with the Soviet Communist Party for quite a few years before Mao and the CCP built up steam). Not defending Communism, but many of the excesses of the Warsaw Pact nations stemmed more from their Leninism than their Communism. Lenin himself basically acknowledged that system does not work when he drew up the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. That said, he had a major ****** for social control, and that is what Communism really morphed into.
Anyone taking any sort of political philosophy instruction from Fox Channel/Mark Levin, et al is a certified moron.
“ Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control,”
Yet how does the socialist enforce their beliefs and control of the economy if not by “societal control.”
Socialist states have either gone bankrupt (or nearly so) or rapidly devolved into totalitarianism. Give us an example where that hasn’t happened. (And no, Sweden isn’t a socialist state).
This is the eternal argument. Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control until organized resistance forms, and then the instruments of coercion come out.
Marx and Lenin were, in a sense, refreshingly honest in their analysis -- so, to a point, was Eugene V. Debs, which helped get him thrown in jail. They recognized that a period of serious coercion -- Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -- would be required to make their revolution irreversible, and that a leadership of dedicated revolutionaries -- Lenin's "Vanguard Party" would be necessary to ensure the Dictatorship's non-deviation and ultimate success. All the soft-focus blurring between "social democracy" and "socialism" is just that: soft focused blurring to avoid stating the obvious. The irreversibility of the economic program, guaranteed by force, is the ultimate distinguishing characteristic. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led one of the world's most successful Social Democratic parties, in part, because they unequivocally rejected that; Jeremy Corbin is in the political wilderness because he most assuredly did not.
There IS one aspect in the revolutionary Enlightenment values of the United States that is treated as irreversible. It's the thing that the Founders talked the most about: Liberty. We generally treat Liberty as on a one-way ratchet: over time it expands, but doesn't retreat for long. As long as we retain our love of Liberty, no form of social organization that ultimately depends on coercion can truly flourish here for very long.
Cherry picked history at best. US history is woefully inadequate at covering the events of the 20th century.
We've basically excised anything in our history that could make capitalism look bad and socialism look good. We don't talk about how instrumental socialists were to the civil rights and suffragette movements. We don't discuss the very real cost of colonialism, how the US sent our military to violently prop up dictators in South America at the behest of corporations. We don't talk about the fact that US business leaders once planned a fascist coup. We barely discuss the history of the labor movement and worker exploitation in this country. We don't talk about how socialists were historically oppressed by the government here and abroad, or how many of the figures we revere in our history books were socialists or at least closely linked with them (Hellen Keller, George Orwell, Albert Einstein, MLK, the list goes on).
History is written by the victor, and we've excised a lot of things that make the US look bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm no tankie. I'm not going to defend the USSR or Maoist China, they did unequivocally horrible things, but they aren't the sum total of the socialist movement. It would be like judging Christians entirely on the pogroms and crusades.
Ah, the old “socialism wasn’t done properly by the communists” argument. A classic and still astoundingly terrible as the day it was first uttered.
Of course what is always left out is the rest of the sentiment:
“*I* know what is best and how it should be implemented. You will agree because if you don’t I’ll use the power of the state to make you see the error of your ways.”
Cool strawman you got there, but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth.
You're clearly unfamiliar with the history of anti-statist socialism, anarchism, and the socialist involvement in pro-democracy and civil rights movements. You should consider reading more about them. I'm not going to try to convince you that socialism is some perfect system, but trotting out old canards that are ignorant of historical realities isn't particularly helpful.
Also, last time I checked, it was the conservatives and capitalists wielding the boot of the state in this country.
Yes, let’s be like the anarchists and early/mid 20th century socialists (Lenin, Mao).
How’d Acapulco work out for y’all?
But since you are all about me being “ignorant of historical realities,” please, name ONE - just one - country where the anarchist/socialists took control and it worked out great (over at least a 50 year period). And no, Sweden does not fall into that category.
Oh come on. 250 years ago you wouldn't find any examples of a long lived society that treated women as equals or had lasted without slavery.
Even the idea of democracy was considered a historical failure by many. The idea that we need "successful" past models to design future ones would have had us stuck in feudalism for an eternity.
And frankly, there have been examples. Anarchist Spain, Rojava, the Mondragon Cooperative, etc. None of them perfect (because no system with humans will ever be) but useful references to help us plan a better way.
Maybe you think capitalism is fine and our society is doing just great and nothing is broken, but I don't think the majority agree with that. Maybe you think my ideas are nonsense that will end terribly. But the system clearly isn't working for the good of everyone, and at least I'm willing to take a stand and make the case for something better. I haven't seen you do that.
So what's your alternative? Do nothing while the rich continue to get richer and the poor die needlessly? Tweak a few regulations and hope the system corrects itself? Roll back the clock to feudal autocracy like the alt-right wants?
There's nothing wrong with spinning socialist or anarchist theories, as long as (1.) their disinformation does not go without response , e.g., taking "Anarchist Spain" as a model, if we're talking about the 1930s, has to address its anti-Catholic pogroms and mass executions of priests and religious, either to endorse or condemn, and not to be passed over in silence, and (2.) they are denied access to tools of coercion, to make sure that their theories can't circumvent the safeguards of democratic debate and the judgement of voters.
As long as that's the case, I have no problem with confronting them in the Marketplace of Ideas, where their tendency to dismiss arguments against their positions as uninformed or misguided rather than answering them can only end up supporting the cause of freedom.
I have to disagree. Most voters are so disconnected from anything remotely labelled "socialism", the GOP is free to use the word as a laundered version of "Democrats bad". Their messaging to voters is essentially that "socialism is a really bad thing that liberals believe in." Those hearing this message are not going to beat themselves up for not knowing much about it.
We just need to rename it! Republicans are rather good at that; Democrats not so much. How about something along the lines of “shared social safety net that includes white people and advances society”? Hmm, how can we condensed that?
I go back and forth on this as a late Generation X person. On the one hand, I see your point, People born after 1977 or so grew up when the Cold War was on the wane and/or non-existent and do not have their childhoods marked by years of propaganda against the Eastern Bloc. It is obviously true that Millennials and Gen Z swing left (now if only they would vote in greater numbers).
However, there is a part of me that wonders if warmer feelings towards socialism* are more prevalent among the chronically online than anyone else.
*Really, mixed-market social democracy with a strong welfare but I digress. Very few people are calling for old school socialism where the government controls the means of production.
Probably, but most of my generation is chronically online... So I guess it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem.
Also, socialism != government control of the means of production. There are plenty of anti-statist socialists. Unfortunately they kind of got wiped out by both the authoritarian left and the right for most of the 20th century and are just starting to finally get the recognition they deserve.
Socialism literally means the government controls the means of production!! Communism literally means the people control the means of production. Anti-statist socialists are inchoates who prove that words can be bent beyond meaning by anyone.
What many people seem to want is a mixed-market regulated economy/social democracy. Basically, they want Amsterdam in the United States. This is fine and it can be a variant of socialism but to call yourself an anti-statist and still want this is a bit special.
Literally every anarcho-socialist would disagree with you. Also, some of the most prominent critics of the state, such as George Orwell, were committed socialists. Worker control of the means of production can be accomplished without a centralized state apparatus.
And that is all the finer points and distinctions that should just be ignored. Latch onto Socialism = Government ownership of the means of production. Using such a definition, all kinds of good programs benefiting social welfare can be promoted as clearly not socialist. Make the Republicans do the explaining that causes people's eyes to glaze over.
Right, words can be twisted, and meanings can evolve over time. When Republicans call Democrats Socialists, who are the Democrats who advocate for government control of the means of production?
"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan 'Down With Socialism' on the banner of his 'great crusade,' that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is 'Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal,' and 'down with Harry Truman's fair Deal.' That's all he means."
Medicare and social security are integral parts of socialism although in socialist countries, Medicare is expanded to include all citizens as is social security which in includes paid sick leave, paid paternal leave for both parents, child care, elder care and a host of other programs that enhance the quality of living. Maybe the reason so many Americans mistakenly think Canada’s is a socialist country is because our universal healthcare program is called Medicare. Or is it because any social benefit that is paid for with taxes has to be that spawn of Satan - socialism.
And I’ll bet that the general public would love to nationalize oil and gas production based on everyone’s complaints about energy prices. I like to mention gas and oil are commodities traded on the international market, which makes people’s eyes glaze over. And then I say but capitalism!
I totally agree that Republicans overuse the word "socialism" and that hurts their cause. But the idea socialism is actually good and people will know that when they understand it better...well that's just ridiculous.
They seem to be doing fine in Northern Europe. We can disagree over what we mean by socialism, or what people think when they're talking about socialism, but what Democrats mean when they're talking about it is what they're doing in Sweden. What Republicans and Mark Levin want people to think Democrats mean by it is Joseph Stalin. And I should add, Democrats, with few exceptions (like one guy who isn't actually a Democrat), don't even talk about it or use the word, because of inevitable bad faith attacks from the opposition.
Greetings from Sweden! It is hard to know where to begin: Swedish "dangerous" socialism means that every parent who want to work, has access to affordable childcare, kids have access to schools that can give them entrance to a higher education, higher education is available to all that wants it and have proven they have the grades to go on to university (i.e access is not based on parents' wealth), healthcare is affordable (paid approx. 150 $ for 4 hour operation of broken ankle and one year of physiotherapy), elderly parents pay almost nothing for health care and medicine. Yes, we have many problems too, our welfare state is eroding, but on the whole we live with a sense of security and opportunity for all. We favour altruism and that benefits all.
I think I spent something like $3000+ dollars, and that was because I maxed out of pocket costs, for surgery and like two months of PT for my broken ankle. SO depressing.
A big problem here, and I'm sure that you noticed, is that what you have in Sweden at some point required a "buy in" by the citizens and trust in your government to uphold the system. Here we have half the population who are so bound by their habitual thinking and emotional/cognitive obscurations that they are bound to consistently vote against their best interests.
Yes, true. Like the habitual thinking (which is truly mind-boggling to a Swede), that in 2023, the right to carry arms is more important to defend than the right to affordable healthcare.
The reason we don't have the Swedes' kind of public "buy-in" is that a significant percentage of our citizens have been convinced by RW racist propaganda that they don't want their hard-earned money being taxed to benefit people who are not like themselves, even if that means voting against their own interests. I wonder if Sweden would have as much buy-in if their population was as diverse.
"People who are not like themselves..." - you can just say Black and brown people and non-Christians. Let's just be honest that it is the right-wing racism and Christian-nationalism.
I was going to make this point explicitly. As long as it is perceived that these programs will benefit "them", people will cut their own noses off to prevent one of them from getting something they didn't explicitly earn
That's it exactly. That's why we can't have nice things. That's why we have many people who can't afford medical care, some of whom die prematurely as if they lived in the middle ages. That's why we have high infant mortality and maternal mortality, a large uneducated population condemned to poor wages, a lot of poor children, and on and on. We even have a political party that was on covid's side in a pandemic!
The biggest struggle in America is that there's a strain of hyper-individualism that causes reflexive hostility to anything that might benefit the whole, because Americans overwhelmingly do not view themselves as part of a greater whole.
Sometimes this creates moments of great unity, such as after Pearl Harbor or 9/11, when Americans suddenly feel great panic about their own security. But that's a reflexive response; usually, Americans prefer to view themselves as being entirely in control of themselves and dependent on no one, even if that's not the case.
Whether we agree or not, Americans imagine themselves as a nation of independent small business owners and pioneers, not as employees and serfs. We reflexively distrust the government for a whole host of reasons; doesn't matter if you think that the government is going to take your guns and force you into rainbow colored death camps, or if the left thinks the government is going to force you into a military dictatorship. In America, there's a real flavor of hating the government reflexively.
The other problem is that in America, we are constantly reminded of the fact that we are a very large nation, and that we can't really trust the other side or other parts of the country to vote according to our own interests. The right talks about coastal elites, the left talks about the south and flyover country hicks.
Or, as I like to put it: whenever you think about allowing the government to try and manage something, ask this: do you want your healthcare in the hands of Ted Cruz and MTG if you're on the left? Do you want it in the hands of AOC and Bernie Sanders if you're on the right? We do not trust the other side to actually, you know, consider anything as sacred. Nor should we, as the right has wanted to gut most programs for a generation, and their voters have agreed.
There's one other thing: the population of the US is 33 times greater than the population of Sweden, and thus it's much easier to form consensus. Sweden's population is about 10 million; for comparison, the population of New York city is 8 million. It's smaller than New York and Los Angeles combined. The population of the United States is 331 million; and that fact is why it's so hard for anyone to agree in a democracy. The larger your democracy, the harder it is to gain any kind of agreement on what should be done.
I don't know that the left really talks about flyover hicks in the way you suggest. On the other hand, do you think many of us should not be at least worried about the voters who vote for the GOP all the time? I live in NJ - a state made fun of by all, so I understand being disparaged.
There is another factor beside population size which is worth consideration in your otherwise good start at analyzing this issue. It is the relative homogeneity of the population in Sweden, and when looking, do consider the backlash by Swedes (or Norwegians, or Danes) against peoples who do not fully assimilate -- if that is even possible. Our tensions constantly devolve from perceived differences, most of which deal with ethnicity, but some with class, and some -- an increasing number -- over gender. Liberal thought teaches "tolerance" for difference -- perhaps not good enough to satisfy the demands of multi-cultural advocates, but a good place to start. In any case, no one likes to pay taxes to support people who are perceived to be unlike themselves.
At the time of our founding it was widely thought that Republics only worked on the small scale and that we couldn't succeed. An open question is whether we proved everyone wrong 100 years ago or if we've got another 100-200 years to go before the results are final.
My view is that republics work best at medium scale; too big and they become too fractured and disparate, too small and they become too insular and attached to various personal entities.
Very small republics and very big republics tend to have the problem of being unable to agree on anything, though sometimes they swap problems; for example, in India the ruling party for over a generation was basically a Gandhi-family run party.
Balancing the needs of a large nation is vary hard, regardless of government type. But it's much harder when the various regions do not trust each other and actively view their needs and desires as being entirely different or hostile to one another.
The size of the population I don't think matters as Civil Wars in Central America would attest; our own Civil War with 1/10th the population or any of the numerous ones in history with much, much smaller populations. However, I would agree that it takes a monumental event to focus the country towards a common goal.
Honestly, I think part of it is that the American left hasn't been able to market the ideas in a way that sounds good to American's ears.
For example: both Japan and Norway have funds that invest money in order to pay for things like their country's pension system. Now, Norway seems like a pretty small country, right? But their current pension fund is worth $1,259,629,434,000. That's second only to the Chinese Investment Corporation, which is worth $1,350,863,000,000.
Yes, the Norwegian pension fund is worth about as much as the entire Chinese investment fund, despite having a population of only 5 million people! The Sovereign Wealth Fund is perhaps one of the biggest success stories mixing capitalistic investment with public sector benefits.
There's no reason the US couldn't create their own system. It's free market! It's socialism! It's got all the wonderful returns wall street loves! It's hyper individualistic! It's a huge benefit to the taxpayer! And best of all...
It works! I mean, if Norway can do this, the US absolutely could.
Per capita, Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil. In fact, they're the one country with fabulous oil wealth that is the exception to the rule of what happens when a country has a boatload of oil.
Higher taxes would be offset by uch lower medical bills, inexpensive, quality childcare, and better educational outcomes. If most Americans realized this, we might be able to be more like Sweden.
I agree that this could not be implemented overnight, and the cost/benefit analysis would need to be carefully done. But I think it is fantasy to think the US will ever get close to doing this, so the whole discussion is probably moot. My point was simply that higher taxes would be offset by savings in some areas.
When it comes to socialism, Americans attitudes may be changing. Sure, it's pretty universally despised by older generations, but us Millennials and Gen Z don't have all the propaganda baggage that the older generations do.
Besides, the Republicans have basically burnt that fuse out. They call literally everything socialism. The word has essentially lost its meaning. Outside of actual ideological socialists, no one thinks of the original meaning of worker control over the means of production. The word now basically means welfare, social democracy, and workers rights, which are massively popular ideas with all generations if you don't say the "s" word.
Not to mention many Republicans benefit from these so called “socialist” policies. I invite the average American to enjoy retirement without existing safety nets. It could be better, though.
What really frosts my weenie is that many on the Republican/Republican Entertainment Complex side do not even realize that "socialism" and "communism" are not the same thing. For decades, socialists and communists loathed each other.
Socialism--A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Communism--A political and economic ideology advocating for a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.
Socialism does not particularly care about social class (Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are all monarchies and all of them have some REALLY wealthy people). Communism DOES care about social class and calls class evil (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution anyone?). Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control, while communism *is* interested (that is its Leninism showing...and for the record, Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT on Taiwan were a Leninist party that we had ZERO qualms about from 1949-1979...and interesting fun fact, the KMT was aligned with the Soviet Communist Party for quite a few years before Mao and the CCP built up steam). Not defending Communism, but many of the excesses of the Warsaw Pact nations stemmed more from their Leninism than their Communism. Lenin himself basically acknowledged that system does not work when he drew up the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. That said, he had a major ****** for social control, and that is what Communism really morphed into.
Anyone taking any sort of political philosophy instruction from Fox Channel/Mark Levin, et al is a certified moron.
“ Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control,”
Yet how does the socialist enforce their beliefs and control of the economy if not by “societal control.”
Socialist states have either gone bankrupt (or nearly so) or rapidly devolved into totalitarianism. Give us an example where that hasn’t happened. (And no, Sweden isn’t a socialist state).
This is the eternal argument. Socialism is not terribly interested in societal control until organized resistance forms, and then the instruments of coercion come out.
Marx and Lenin were, in a sense, refreshingly honest in their analysis -- so, to a point, was Eugene V. Debs, which helped get him thrown in jail. They recognized that a period of serious coercion -- Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -- would be required to make their revolution irreversible, and that a leadership of dedicated revolutionaries -- Lenin's "Vanguard Party" would be necessary to ensure the Dictatorship's non-deviation and ultimate success. All the soft-focus blurring between "social democracy" and "socialism" is just that: soft focused blurring to avoid stating the obvious. The irreversibility of the economic program, guaranteed by force, is the ultimate distinguishing characteristic. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led one of the world's most successful Social Democratic parties, in part, because they unequivocally rejected that; Jeremy Corbin is in the political wilderness because he most assuredly did not.
There IS one aspect in the revolutionary Enlightenment values of the United States that is treated as irreversible. It's the thing that the Founders talked the most about: Liberty. We generally treat Liberty as on a one-way ratchet: over time it expands, but doesn't retreat for long. As long as we retain our love of Liberty, no form of social organization that ultimately depends on coercion can truly flourish here for very long.
Excellent!
Socialism according to Republicans:
Healthcare for every American. e.g. ACA, Medicaid and Medicare
A living wage. i.e Minimum wage that keeps you off welfare and food stamps.
Social Security so that seniors don't have to work until they drop dead.
"the propaganda baggae" wrt to socialism = knowledge of history.
Cherry picked history at best. US history is woefully inadequate at covering the events of the 20th century.
We've basically excised anything in our history that could make capitalism look bad and socialism look good. We don't talk about how instrumental socialists were to the civil rights and suffragette movements. We don't discuss the very real cost of colonialism, how the US sent our military to violently prop up dictators in South America at the behest of corporations. We don't talk about the fact that US business leaders once planned a fascist coup. We barely discuss the history of the labor movement and worker exploitation in this country. We don't talk about how socialists were historically oppressed by the government here and abroad, or how many of the figures we revere in our history books were socialists or at least closely linked with them (Hellen Keller, George Orwell, Albert Einstein, MLK, the list goes on).
History is written by the victor, and we've excised a lot of things that make the US look bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm no tankie. I'm not going to defend the USSR or Maoist China, they did unequivocally horrible things, but they aren't the sum total of the socialist movement. It would be like judging Christians entirely on the pogroms and crusades.
Ah, the old “socialism wasn’t done properly by the communists” argument. A classic and still astoundingly terrible as the day it was first uttered.
Of course what is always left out is the rest of the sentiment:
“*I* know what is best and how it should be implemented. You will agree because if you don’t I’ll use the power of the state to make you see the error of your ways.”
But, yes…completely different than communism.
Cool strawman you got there, but I'm not letting you put words in my mouth.
You're clearly unfamiliar with the history of anti-statist socialism, anarchism, and the socialist involvement in pro-democracy and civil rights movements. You should consider reading more about them. I'm not going to try to convince you that socialism is some perfect system, but trotting out old canards that are ignorant of historical realities isn't particularly helpful.
Also, last time I checked, it was the conservatives and capitalists wielding the boot of the state in this country.
Yes, let’s be like the anarchists and early/mid 20th century socialists (Lenin, Mao).
How’d Acapulco work out for y’all?
But since you are all about me being “ignorant of historical realities,” please, name ONE - just one - country where the anarchist/socialists took control and it worked out great (over at least a 50 year period). And no, Sweden does not fall into that category.
Go ahead. We’ll wait.
Oh come on. 250 years ago you wouldn't find any examples of a long lived society that treated women as equals or had lasted without slavery.
Even the idea of democracy was considered a historical failure by many. The idea that we need "successful" past models to design future ones would have had us stuck in feudalism for an eternity.
And frankly, there have been examples. Anarchist Spain, Rojava, the Mondragon Cooperative, etc. None of them perfect (because no system with humans will ever be) but useful references to help us plan a better way.
Maybe you think capitalism is fine and our society is doing just great and nothing is broken, but I don't think the majority agree with that. Maybe you think my ideas are nonsense that will end terribly. But the system clearly isn't working for the good of everyone, and at least I'm willing to take a stand and make the case for something better. I haven't seen you do that.
So what's your alternative? Do nothing while the rich continue to get richer and the poor die needlessly? Tweak a few regulations and hope the system corrects itself? Roll back the clock to feudal autocracy like the alt-right wants?
I thought you were the history guru and I knew nothing, yet you have no examples of how great socialist states are? As I knew. Because I know history…
But sure, continue to believe socialism is awesome.
What a joke.
There's nothing wrong with spinning socialist or anarchist theories, as long as (1.) their disinformation does not go without response , e.g., taking "Anarchist Spain" as a model, if we're talking about the 1930s, has to address its anti-Catholic pogroms and mass executions of priests and religious, either to endorse or condemn, and not to be passed over in silence, and (2.) they are denied access to tools of coercion, to make sure that their theories can't circumvent the safeguards of democratic debate and the judgement of voters.
As long as that's the case, I have no problem with confronting them in the Marketplace of Ideas, where their tendency to dismiss arguments against their positions as uninformed or misguided rather than answering them can only end up supporting the cause of freedom.
I have to disagree. Most voters are so disconnected from anything remotely labelled "socialism", the GOP is free to use the word as a laundered version of "Democrats bad". Their messaging to voters is essentially that "socialism is a really bad thing that liberals believe in." Those hearing this message are not going to beat themselves up for not knowing much about it.
We just need to rename it! Republicans are rather good at that; Democrats not so much. How about something along the lines of “shared social safety net that includes white people and advances society”? Hmm, how can we condensed that?
I go back and forth on this as a late Generation X person. On the one hand, I see your point, People born after 1977 or so grew up when the Cold War was on the wane and/or non-existent and do not have their childhoods marked by years of propaganda against the Eastern Bloc. It is obviously true that Millennials and Gen Z swing left (now if only they would vote in greater numbers).
However, there is a part of me that wonders if warmer feelings towards socialism* are more prevalent among the chronically online than anyone else.
*Really, mixed-market social democracy with a strong welfare but I digress. Very few people are calling for old school socialism where the government controls the means of production.
Probably, but most of my generation is chronically online... So I guess it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem.
Also, socialism != government control of the means of production. There are plenty of anti-statist socialists. Unfortunately they kind of got wiped out by both the authoritarian left and the right for most of the 20th century and are just starting to finally get the recognition they deserve.
Socialism literally means the government controls the means of production!! Communism literally means the people control the means of production. Anti-statist socialists are inchoates who prove that words can be bent beyond meaning by anyone.
What many people seem to want is a mixed-market regulated economy/social democracy. Basically, they want Amsterdam in the United States. This is fine and it can be a variant of socialism but to call yourself an anti-statist and still want this is a bit special.
Literally every anarcho-socialist would disagree with you. Also, some of the most prominent critics of the state, such as George Orwell, were committed socialists. Worker control of the means of production can be accomplished without a centralized state apparatus.
And that is all the finer points and distinctions that should just be ignored. Latch onto Socialism = Government ownership of the means of production. Using such a definition, all kinds of good programs benefiting social welfare can be promoted as clearly not socialist. Make the Republicans do the explaining that causes people's eyes to glaze over.
Right, words can be twisted, and meanings can evolve over time. When Republicans call Democrats Socialists, who are the Democrats who advocate for government control of the means of production?
The word "socialism" is like the boy who cried wolf. Sooner or later it's going to occur to everyone that EVERY program is described as socialism.
What's that Truman quote?
"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan 'Down With Socialism' on the banner of his 'great crusade,' that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is 'Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal,' and 'down with Harry Truman's fair Deal.' That's all he means."
Some have know for a long time.
That Truman guy sounds pretty smart. :)
It's despised by the Medicare/Social Security generation. We need smarter voters.
"despised by the medicare/social security generation" who have never seriously traveled or lived outside the US.
Medicare and social security are integral parts of socialism although in socialist countries, Medicare is expanded to include all citizens as is social security which in includes paid sick leave, paid paternal leave for both parents, child care, elder care and a host of other programs that enhance the quality of living. Maybe the reason so many Americans mistakenly think Canada’s is a socialist country is because our universal healthcare program is called Medicare. Or is it because any social benefit that is paid for with taxes has to be that spawn of Satan - socialism.
Agreed. We need voters who understand the issues and how our government works.
My favorite refrain from GOP voters has always been- “Keep your government away from my Medicare”!
And I’ll bet that the general public would love to nationalize oil and gas production based on everyone’s complaints about energy prices. I like to mention gas and oil are commodities traded on the international market, which makes people’s eyes glaze over. And then I say but capitalism!
I totally agree that Republicans overuse the word "socialism" and that hurts their cause. But the idea socialism is actually good and people will know that when they understand it better...well that's just ridiculous.
They seem to be doing fine in Northern Europe. We can disagree over what we mean by socialism, or what people think when they're talking about socialism, but what Democrats mean when they're talking about it is what they're doing in Sweden. What Republicans and Mark Levin want people to think Democrats mean by it is Joseph Stalin. And I should add, Democrats, with few exceptions (like one guy who isn't actually a Democrat), don't even talk about it or use the word, because of inevitable bad faith attacks from the opposition.
Greetings from Sweden! It is hard to know where to begin: Swedish "dangerous" socialism means that every parent who want to work, has access to affordable childcare, kids have access to schools that can give them entrance to a higher education, higher education is available to all that wants it and have proven they have the grades to go on to university (i.e access is not based on parents' wealth), healthcare is affordable (paid approx. 150 $ for 4 hour operation of broken ankle and one year of physiotherapy), elderly parents pay almost nothing for health care and medicine. Yes, we have many problems too, our welfare state is eroding, but on the whole we live with a sense of security and opportunity for all. We favour altruism and that benefits all.
I think I spent something like $3000+ dollars, and that was because I maxed out of pocket costs, for surgery and like two months of PT for my broken ankle. SO depressing.
A big problem here, and I'm sure that you noticed, is that what you have in Sweden at some point required a "buy in" by the citizens and trust in your government to uphold the system. Here we have half the population who are so bound by their habitual thinking and emotional/cognitive obscurations that they are bound to consistently vote against their best interests.
Yes, true. Like the habitual thinking (which is truly mind-boggling to a Swede), that in 2023, the right to carry arms is more important to defend than the right to affordable healthcare.
The reason we don't have the Swedes' kind of public "buy-in" is that a significant percentage of our citizens have been convinced by RW racist propaganda that they don't want their hard-earned money being taxed to benefit people who are not like themselves, even if that means voting against their own interests. I wonder if Sweden would have as much buy-in if their population was as diverse.
"People who are not like themselves..." - you can just say Black and brown people and non-Christians. Let's just be honest that it is the right-wing racism and Christian-nationalism.
I was going to make this point explicitly. As long as it is perceived that these programs will benefit "them", people will cut their own noses off to prevent one of them from getting something they didn't explicitly earn
That's it exactly. That's why we can't have nice things. That's why we have many people who can't afford medical care, some of whom die prematurely as if they lived in the middle ages. That's why we have high infant mortality and maternal mortality, a large uneducated population condemned to poor wages, a lot of poor children, and on and on. We even have a political party that was on covid's side in a pandemic!
The biggest struggle in America is that there's a strain of hyper-individualism that causes reflexive hostility to anything that might benefit the whole, because Americans overwhelmingly do not view themselves as part of a greater whole.
Sometimes this creates moments of great unity, such as after Pearl Harbor or 9/11, when Americans suddenly feel great panic about their own security. But that's a reflexive response; usually, Americans prefer to view themselves as being entirely in control of themselves and dependent on no one, even if that's not the case.
Whether we agree or not, Americans imagine themselves as a nation of independent small business owners and pioneers, not as employees and serfs. We reflexively distrust the government for a whole host of reasons; doesn't matter if you think that the government is going to take your guns and force you into rainbow colored death camps, or if the left thinks the government is going to force you into a military dictatorship. In America, there's a real flavor of hating the government reflexively.
The other problem is that in America, we are constantly reminded of the fact that we are a very large nation, and that we can't really trust the other side or other parts of the country to vote according to our own interests. The right talks about coastal elites, the left talks about the south and flyover country hicks.
Or, as I like to put it: whenever you think about allowing the government to try and manage something, ask this: do you want your healthcare in the hands of Ted Cruz and MTG if you're on the left? Do you want it in the hands of AOC and Bernie Sanders if you're on the right? We do not trust the other side to actually, you know, consider anything as sacred. Nor should we, as the right has wanted to gut most programs for a generation, and their voters have agreed.
There's one other thing: the population of the US is 33 times greater than the population of Sweden, and thus it's much easier to form consensus. Sweden's population is about 10 million; for comparison, the population of New York city is 8 million. It's smaller than New York and Los Angeles combined. The population of the United States is 331 million; and that fact is why it's so hard for anyone to agree in a democracy. The larger your democracy, the harder it is to gain any kind of agreement on what should be done.
I don't know that the left really talks about flyover hicks in the way you suggest. On the other hand, do you think many of us should not be at least worried about the voters who vote for the GOP all the time? I live in NJ - a state made fun of by all, so I understand being disparaged.
There is another factor beside population size which is worth consideration in your otherwise good start at analyzing this issue. It is the relative homogeneity of the population in Sweden, and when looking, do consider the backlash by Swedes (or Norwegians, or Danes) against peoples who do not fully assimilate -- if that is even possible. Our tensions constantly devolve from perceived differences, most of which deal with ethnicity, but some with class, and some -- an increasing number -- over gender. Liberal thought teaches "tolerance" for difference -- perhaps not good enough to satisfy the demands of multi-cultural advocates, but a good place to start. In any case, no one likes to pay taxes to support people who are perceived to be unlike themselves.
At the time of our founding it was widely thought that Republics only worked on the small scale and that we couldn't succeed. An open question is whether we proved everyone wrong 100 years ago or if we've got another 100-200 years to go before the results are final.
My view is that republics work best at medium scale; too big and they become too fractured and disparate, too small and they become too insular and attached to various personal entities.
Very small republics and very big republics tend to have the problem of being unable to agree on anything, though sometimes they swap problems; for example, in India the ruling party for over a generation was basically a Gandhi-family run party.
Balancing the needs of a large nation is vary hard, regardless of government type. But it's much harder when the various regions do not trust each other and actively view their needs and desires as being entirely different or hostile to one another.
The size of the population I don't think matters as Civil Wars in Central America would attest; our own Civil War with 1/10th the population or any of the numerous ones in history with much, much smaller populations. However, I would agree that it takes a monumental event to focus the country towards a common goal.
Greetings! Thank you for your perspective. It sounds quite lovely there overall.
...did forget to mention that for each child, parents receive 390 days of paid leave...
Honestly, I think part of it is that the American left hasn't been able to market the ideas in a way that sounds good to American's ears.
For example: both Japan and Norway have funds that invest money in order to pay for things like their country's pension system. Now, Norway seems like a pretty small country, right? But their current pension fund is worth $1,259,629,434,000. That's second only to the Chinese Investment Corporation, which is worth $1,350,863,000,000.
Yes, the Norwegian pension fund is worth about as much as the entire Chinese investment fund, despite having a population of only 5 million people! The Sovereign Wealth Fund is perhaps one of the biggest success stories mixing capitalistic investment with public sector benefits.
There's no reason the US couldn't create their own system. It's free market! It's socialism! It's got all the wonderful returns wall street loves! It's hyper individualistic! It's a huge benefit to the taxpayer! And best of all...
It works! I mean, if Norway can do this, the US absolutely could.
Per capita, Norway is sitting on a shitload of oil. In fact, they're the one country with fabulous oil wealth that is the exception to the rule of what happens when a country has a boatload of oil.
True, but the SWF is not funded by oil for the most part, but by worldwide investment, since it's one of the biggest mutual funds ever created.
The US is also sitting on oil, but it's a different story.
In any case, the US loves itself some mutual funds.
Higher taxes would be offset by uch lower medical bills, inexpensive, quality childcare, and better educational outcomes. If most Americans realized this, we might be able to be more like Sweden.
I agree that this could not be implemented overnight, and the cost/benefit analysis would need to be carefully done. But I think it is fantasy to think the US will ever get close to doing this, so the whole discussion is probably moot. My point was simply that higher taxes would be offset by savings in some areas.
Sean, I agree completely. It would be good for the country if taxes were raised on the wealthiest. I'm not holding my breath!