Polling in the United States and internationally is showing a sharp increase in support for socialism among young people. Support for capitalism is waning as a new generation embraces views of collective economic policies and programs. Two hundred years after the birth of Karl Marx, his views are now coming back into vogue despite a long history of economic failures in socialist countries.
A new poll conducted June 11-25 by Momentive on behalf of Axios found that a majority (57% of U.S. adults) still have a favorable view of capitalism. However, the most notable data point is age. Those 18-34 now are evenly split on negative and positive views of capitalism. (46% vs. 49%). The dislike for capitalism rises further at younger age groups. For those 18 to 24, the negative views outweighing positive views by a margin of 54% to 42%.
The other groups showing stronger support for socialism are black and female Americans (60% and 45%, respectively).
The same swing is being reported internationally. A new poll by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) shows younger people growing opposing to capitalism and support for socialism. The paper includes a Forefront Market Research poll of people aged between 16 and 34 in the UK. An astonishing 67 per cent say they would like to live in a socialist economic system.
The fact is that none of the Western countries are entirely capitalistic in the sense of a pure market system with no social welfare programs. They are premised on capitalistic values while creating extensive social programs to expand opportunity and support those who are impoverished. At the same time, China has a long line of billionaires who have profited handsomely from the adoption of capitalist principles and market systems.
Notably, 75 percent view climate change is a specifically capitalist problem despite the terrible record of China and other socialist countries in the area of pollution and climate change.
Nevertheless, capitalism is being blamed for an increasing number of disasters. Recently, Professor Richard Wolf, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, blamed “privatized housing” for the recent collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida.
Wolf tweeted on June 30 that “Miami’s collapsed condo shows: privatized housing violates democracy. Only condo owners voted to defer building repair. Delivery workers, condo visitors, repairers knew nothing, didn’t vote, risked injury, death. As irreducibly social, housing must be run democratically by all.”
As with climate change, the point ignores the building collapses and lax enforcement in socialist countries. Central control has never translated to better building codes or pollution policies.
The shift in favor of socialism is no surprise for some of us. My kids were often given material and lessons in their public high schools that criticized capitalism while rarely pointing out the failures of socialist countries like Venezuela.
Indeed, Venezuela continues to receive support despite a blood-soaked regime that has destroyed free press and free speech rights as well as reducing the country into an economic basket case. Recently, the Democratic Socialists of America (which claims supporters in Congress) visited Venezuelan dictator, Nicolas Maduro. Previously, we discussed the delegation of Chicago Teachers visiting the country and showering it with praise as political prisoners languished in the jails of Maduro.
The pandemic has led to a massive increase in government spending which is also likely to shape the views of many on the benefits of government controls and centralized programs. These polls show a generation coming to age that is ready to embrace aspects of Marx’s Das Kapital over Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Turley would love to whip up the base that wild eyed youth are coming for your money. Younger Americans and the working poor have seen and read how it’s been “Socialism for the rich, and Capitalism for the poor” But you want to know who really loves socialism? The S&L’s of the 1980’s and the big banks of the great recession of 2007. Not to mention the Goldman Sachs, BOA, Wells Fargo and other big businesses who have use our system to bail them out of huge mistakes that has been usually their fault. And the CEO’s walk away with huge golden parachute packages. If today’s youth could see that the system could be more fair in taxes and the law itself, then their mood on socialism would cool greatly.
+100
eb
The case for vouchers and school choice has never been stronger. The poll shows a complete lack of education in this area.
“ The shift in favor of socialism is no surprise for some of us. My kids were often given material and lessons in their public high schools that criticized capitalism while rarely pointing out the failures of socialist countries like Venezuela.”
Ah yes, the preeminent example of socialism, Venezuela. It’s funny that every time socialism is being criticized only Venezuela is used. Socialism has many forms. It is not one monolithic ideology as many wrongly assume.
Yes Venezuela is a socialist country, but that type of socialism is specific to that country. It’s not the same type of socialism that is practiced in other countries where it is actually successful. Nordic countries have socialism as well and they have made it work quite well. The countries with the best education systems in the world are socialist. Finland being number one followed by Japan, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany. Last on the list United States.
Finland has consistently been ranked at the top for years and it is a socialist country a democratic socialist country. In fact it is at the top of in ranking for the country with the most individual liberty and freedom.
They make it work and contrary to Turley’s claims socialism isn’t the boogeyman he wants it to be.
Here in America we have socialist systems that have served us well. Medicare and social security to name a few. But they haven’t worked as intended due to capitalists raiding them because they can’t resist using the money they generate. This applies to members of BOTH parties democrats and republicans. BOTH are equally responsible for their performance issues.
Younger people get that socialism isn’t just about a system like Venezuela. It’s about systems that work and they use those of Nordic countries were it indeed works and they recognize it’s benefits like not being in debt when you graduate college, or when you get out of the hospital because of an illness or injury. The less debt you have the more liberty you have.
Countries that have not devolved into caste systems, are homogeneous populations. Like the Nordic countries. A bond of community, RACE, and Etnicity (there I said it.
We on the other hand are a republic of STATES. Each State is not homogenous, But the most stable are, and in large part Republican. Exceptions are on both sides of the political divide.
Social programs here violate the Constitution. STATES are soveriegn and are supposed to control the Federal govt. But SCOTUS has stripped States of their power.
We have devolved so far, that Pelosi has set up branches of the Capital Police in States. Why? Because Congress, not the President, controls the Capital Police. Marshall’s, the Secret Service and the FBI already exist, but for some reason Pelosi has to replicate federal policing yet again.
This is happening because schools for some reason not longer require civics, thus keeping the masses ignorant, as they are led to a life of subsistence instead of growth
Iowan2,
“ Social programs here violate the Constitution. ”
Actually that’s not true. The constitution allows it. The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
If you base you opinion on “general welfare” there is no sense talking to you.
The federal govt has those powers enumerated in the constitution. All other powers rest with the people, or the states.
Can you square your “general welfare” With the 16th amendment? Seems stupid if the federal govt has the power to Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. Why did Dwight Eisenhower use “National Defense” to build the Interstate highway System? Stupid with the whole “general welfare” thingy.
The fact is, the Constitution is entirely meaningless because, “general welfare”
General welfare did not mean that the Constitution gives Congress the ability to do anything it wanted. If that were the case, there would have been no need for the enumerated powers. The idea presently in your head was considered at the Convention and rejected.
“Nordic countries have socialism as well and they have made it work quite well.”
Ah, yes, the myth of the “Nordic miracle” — countries whose motto is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Idyllic countries where the individual’s income (taxed at some 50%) is confiscated to pay for someone else’s braces, housing, medical needs, and desire to have more children. Civilized countries that impose a 25% sales tax (VAT) on top of the confiscatory income tax, to pay for someone else’s “green new deal,” vacation, and child care. Then there are the social security taxes (for both employee and employer), and countless others too numerous to mention.
At the end of the day in those “Nordic miracles,” the message is clear: The individuals’s duty in life is to satisfy the wishes of the community. There is a word for that type of existence, and it is *not* freedom, liberty, or individualism. It is cannibalism.
Sam,
Nordic countries have the highest standards of living. Yes their taxes are high, but that’s to the benefit of everyone in the country. They are consistently ranked as the highest in individual liberty and freedom.
They under that in order for society to succeed the entirety of its individuals must ensure its viability which in turn benefits the individual.
The bottom line is, they make it work successfully.
San,
“ There is a word for that type of existence, and it is *not* freedom, liberty, or individualism. It is cannibalism.”
Cannibalism? If that’s how you define a successful system where people are more focused on their lives and careers instead of “how much do I borrow” to go to school or “how will I be able to afford surgery”. It’s pretty certain your argument holds no water.
Apparently did not read the earlier comment
+100
eb
Svelaz, you don’t even know what socialism is. What you rely on are meanings that can be expanded to whatever you desire at the time.
From Merriam Webster
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
The Scandinavian countries you mention have private property and production is mostly privately owned.
As far as their system of taxation.That doesn’t mean socialism.Take Sweden, you can look it up for yourself, but that government recognized its taxation and spending policies had to be adjusted downward. After they did that their economy markedly improved. Additionally you are comparing apples to oranges. You need to become better informed.
Interesting trends. Most people grow out of stupid — except the Dims, it seems. Oh and our education system still sucks. Just look at the NEA and their knuckle-dragging view of things.
Socialism is good for you. Oh you mean I have to live that way too!
The pessimism of Adams is being borne out as when he asserted that “humanity cannot bear prosperity”. What we have is a generation of pampered and miseducated youth who have no understanding of history, geography, culture, or even basic civics. They are addicted to social media, read very little of substance, and have little capacity to employ critical thinking. Simply put, we live in a decadent and nihilistic society. I have traveled widely and engaged with many young people to try to understand their attitudes and knowledge of the world around them. Sadly, with few exceptions most are woefully ignorant in almost all areas of basic education.
I just read The War on Big Business by Carol Roth. She shows the creeping socialism taking over our govt. by the duopoly in the context of the pandemic.
Personally I am not nearly was concerned as many others. I tend to see this as more esoteric than most. Yes, they are pro Marxist right now, but they are young as a group. They will turn just like we did when we realized not everyone will get the benefits, but ALL will pay taxes. Pointing out the obvious never works. It has to hit them in the face.
Look no farther than where it started . Our educational system, end of story. Our Country is reaping what it sows
I took this 30 question quiz to see where I score on Socialism.
https://www.idrlabs.com/socialism/test.php
Two big takeaways for me: 1. you have to reject the self-evident truths in the DoI to accept Socialism. 2. You have to reject the idea that human nature doesn’t need to be checked by constitutional limits.
My guess is there is a direct correlation between ignorance of U.S. Civics and the rise of acceptance for Socialism.
“An astonishing 67 per cent say they would like to live in a socialist economic system.”
Feel free to move to one. Nothing is stopping you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
“ Notably, 75 percent view climate change is a specifically capitalist problem despite the terrible record of China and other socialist countries in the area of pollution and climate change.”
Turley’s argument is pretty flawed to begin with. It is ironic that Turley mentions China, a communist nation as an example of a heavy contributor to climate change. Here’s the problem. China’s economy has been growing much faster than in the U.S., the reason? They apply capitalist ideas. Heavy pollution? Blame it on low or non-existent regulations. But free market proponents are all about getting rid of “regulatory hurdles”, red tape, or burdensome government. Here in America capitalism is about having as little regulation as possible in order to promote growth. China has this. It’s why they are big polluters and big contributions to climate change. Just like in America China has embraced the ideas of profit motive over the environment.
One thing that China has is its government’s ability to effect change very quickly. For example, when Beijing was chosen as the site for the Olympics a few years ago the capital city was well known for its constant air pollution from manufacturing and coal fired power plants. It got so bad that schools were building domes over their soccer fields with air filtration systems just to be able to play “outside”. Before the Olympics were to begin. The Chinese government by sheer rule shut down factories and power plants to clear the air. It succeeded in its goal. In America that same problem would have been impossible. But we do have regulations to ensure we ALWAYS have clean air. Regulations that capitalism advocates constantly say are not necessary. They are not necessary in China either, but they had domes built over playgrounds.
One thing that China has is its government’s ability to effect change very quickly.
Yes, that’s one thing all totalitarian regimes have in common. Nothing instills confidence in the security of your right to life, liberty and property than an unconstrained government. Sarc/off
Olly, I’m not saying it’s a good idea. But it has its benefits in terms of getting things done.
Look how fast they build infrastructure. In less than a decade they created a vast network of highways, high speed rail, entire cities, etc. China, regardless of genuine criticism has grown at an impressive pace. We are, ironically, responsible for most of that growth. We demand cheap products and our businesses deliver by manufacturing it…in China.
If that is so, I would then ask *who* created that demand? The people or PR guys who followed in Bernays’ footsteps?
People didn’t want items manufactured in China. This was a huge point of contention in the 1990s. Biden shouldn’t be president on that point alone–his support of allowing China into the WTO!
“One thing that China has is its government’s ability to effect change very quickly.”
That is certainly true. Just ask those who protested at the Tiananmen Square Massacre, who live in Hong Kong, who are dissident scientists and lawyers, or who fear for their freedom in Taiwan.
“As irreducibly social, housing must be run democratically by all.”
Hey, it worked great for Chernobyl’s infrastructure so why not here?
The public has always supported progressive policies, despite all the failures of countries the right wants us to believe are successful.
I bet at the end of your career, when you think about how you became symbolic of an offshoot of a modern brand of McCarthy-ism, built from the ruins and rebirth of Roy Cohn’s influence on trump, that you may be surprised at how it all shook out. But we here on your blog will see the step by step path you took there, Turley.
eb
You are either smoking or sniffing something, or reading columns by someone else. Your opinion could not be further from the truth. But like many who are embracing the Democratic Socialist Party of America’s theories you seem to reject freedom of speech, the most essential element of democracy.
Do you consider voting rights to be part of freedom of speech?
W.R.
Anonymous is a troll who resents Turley’s audience and standing.
Instead of building his own base, Anonymous posts volumously and compulsively on Turley’s blog.
Even more pathetic, he snipes, criticizes, and misstates, using Turley’s large audience to reach people who would choose to ignore him.
And he doesn’t even have the courage to use his name.
Gee, I seem to have not met someone who is named after a town before. Seems like performance art to me.
As far as audience goes, i couldn’t GAF about latching on to Turley’s. The trumpist’s among them *might* be worthwhile to study if one were, say, writing sales copy for wildly overpriced financial information products or selling subscriptions to newsletters about trumpist themed matter where a hefty monthly charge could be levied upon them. They. Are. Not. A. Bright. Lot. But they do put their likes and dislikes their in truly herd following fashion and this information would perfectly suit designing sales closing points around.
But they do have a lofty opinion of what their approval means in the larger scale of things, so they are fun to intellectually taze from time to time to watch them dance. It would be interesting to poll them to see how many actually spit on themselves when typing responses on this blog.
So to more directly answer monument’s ridiculously misguided claim…, first thing that would have to happen would be to emphasize he/she’s being 15 years behind in understanding how people use the internet. It would have to be emphasized what Turley is doing on his blog. It would probably come as a shock to monument that Turley is a social media influencer, that he is talking point channeler. Hard to see that when you’re the target of those talking points…,but as the saying goes, when playing poker, if you don’t know who the mark is within thirty minutes you’re probably it.
eb
Eb,
You raise an interesting point, namely, what is the point of this article. Economics is not within the bailiwick of a law Professor. And Turley does not actually argue academically the pros and cons of socialism per se; rather, he simply parrots the typical layman red herrings.
It seems that Turley every so often throws out chum to lure the Trumpist sharks to his blog. I’m not aware that Turley is profiting from his efforts, but he does relish in updating us with the increasing number of hits of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
I have a fantasy- I imagine the die-hard Trumpists here gathering in Professor Turley’s law classroom and observing his trying to educate them. That would be something!
I’ve read where you’ve put that fantasy out there, Jeff. And it has me thinking along the same lines. I have to think it would be a nightmare for Turley to be faced with that particular predicament, but hey, it would be fun to see.
eb
Eb,
Turley would hardly welcome the opportunity to teach Trumpists in a classroom which explains why he NEVER engages with them here! LOL.
Turley would have no problem dealing with Trumpists or socialists that are intelligent and open to free debate. He has a problem with your kind, shallow and uneducated.
Meanwhile, the governor of our state is offering a thousand dollar bonus for people receiving mailbox money to return to work. Yet jobs abound. I saw an able bodied male yesterday begging at a traffic light. Just behind him was a huge “Now Hiring” sign. They might take a closer look at China where a 72 hour workweek is the norm.
What the younger generations see is “free” stuff without having to work or earn it. What’s not to like about the government giving you money so you don’t have to work, provide you with cradle to grave health care, housing and education. What all of this portends is that our adversaries will likely one day achieve our nation’s demise as we won’t have the democratic loyalists to defend the freedoms provided by our constitution.
Of course there is the other side of the coin that the super rich get to keep their families fortune’s free from taxes having not to work or earn it. Cradle to grave riches passed down generations. I’m not against wealth from work, just pay the fair share of taxes that are from work not just inheritances.
Of course there is the other side of the coin that the super rich get to keep their families fortune’s
Whaaaat? Keep their own money? What a stupid notion. All belongs to the STATE!
E.M.,
“ Yet jobs abound. I saw an able bodied male yesterday begging at a traffic light. Just behind him was a huge “Now Hiring” sign. ”
Simply being able bodied is not a reason to assume that person is unwilling to get a job. It’s much more difficult to get a job if you have a felony record. Right? The job being offered may or pay enough to live on. That seems to be the issue with why so many businesses are having trouble hiring. They are not paying enough. People won’t go back to crappy paying jobs when they can pay more and most businesses can.
For example a few weeks ago a fast food restaurant down the road was advertising openings for $10 hr. Clearly they weren’t attracting any prospects. The businesses across the street was doing the same thing. Yesterday they changed the hourly pay to $13. Within four days they had a full staff for the first time in months. The business across the street is still offering $10hr. Still no takers. Two other restaurants switched to $13 and now are fully staffed.
It’s about basic supply and demand. Businesses want to go back to the old days of paying low wages for high productivity. That’s no longer the case. If they want workers they will have to increase pay. Those who do early will get the better workers and those who don’t will continue to have high turnover.
Well, somebody has to give all the illegal aliens Joe is inviting into the country. A welfare state can’t afford open borders too.
That is EXACTLY how the free market works, supply and demand drives wages and salaries. People just have to be very careful that they don’t cost themselves out of a job by demanding more dollars for the job than the job can tolerate in the free market. Personally I don’t want to pay an inflated amount for a McDonalds cheeseburger etc, if I do my salary will need to be increased to meet rising inflation.
Witherspoon, yes that’s how it’s supposed to work. But currently many businesses still don’t want to pay more. The complaint is that the $300 unemployed benefit is keeping workers from going back. No. It’s businesses that are not paying enough. If they want those workers they will have to pay more. Workers have some leverage by staying on the unemployment until conditions are more favorable.
The job being offered may or pay enough to live on.
So they starve and die? Or freeze to death? No that’s not it, is it?
What you meant to say, ‘the job doens’t pay enough MORE than welfare, to exert themselves. They would rather subsist, than prosper. Our government has learned its much easier to control beggers, than Producers.
I believe when young Americans who say they support Socialism, really mean they want more benefits from the government like universal healthcare, free public college and free childcare. I support those things. I do not think young Americans want the government to run most of the industries in the country like the telephone company, the airlines and the car factories like in traditional socialism.
Can’t have one without the other.
Weak Cheeks wrote, “I believe when young Americans who say they support Socialism, really mean they want more benefits from the government like universal healthcare, free public college and free childcare. I support those things.”
I do not support “free” things from the government.
Wake up people, these things you want will not be “free”. Only genuine fools actually believe these things will be free.
Weak Cheeks wrote, “I do not think young Americans want the government to run most of the industries in the country like the telephone company, the airlines and the car factories like in traditional socialism.”
Then you aren’t paying attention to all their arguments.
Wake up.
Witherspoon,
“ Wake up people, these things you want will not be “free”. Only genuine fools actually believe these things will be free.”
Nobody thinks they are free. That’s a long running trope from right leaning organizations criticizing socialist systems in general.
Everyone pays for it so that everyone benefits from it. Countries like Finland have “free” universities and “free” healthcare. But the reality is everyone is paying for it so that in the end everyone benefits. Yes the taxes are high, but the upside is you don’t end up in crushing debt when you finish school or get out of the hospital. Less stress over being able to afford to live and more freedom to focus on career and life.
The poverty rate in the U.S. for all social groups combined is 9.2%. In Finland it’s .10%. Obviously they have a much better outcome with the system they use.
“. . . you don’t end up in crushing debt . . .”
A 50% income tax, for the whole of your working life, is *not* a “crushing debt”?! A 25% sales tax (VAT) on nearly everything you purchase is *not* a “crushing debt”?!
In your socialist utopias, you are born in debt, and you die in debt — to the state/community.
Sam,
“ A 50% income tax, for the whole of your working life, is *not* a “crushing debt”?! A 25% sales tax (VAT) on nearly everything you purchase is *not* a “crushing debt”?!”
No, it’s not. A tax is not debt, especially when it pays for the education and healthcare that won’t end up costing you more than the tax you’re paying because everyone else is contributing to the system that benefits everyone. What would you prefer, a 50% tax, or 30% tax PLUS a $16,000 insurance premium that only covers 80% of your medical bill which 20% you STILL have to pay BEFORE your deductible is paid.
Which do you think would be a better deal?
I think a “better deal” is having the freedom to decide how to spend the money that I earn. I grant, though, that that is an individualistic — not a collectivist — perspective.
Sam, you still do. The difference is that you also have access to education and healthcare that won’t saddle you with debt that will prevent you from spending that money.
“Sam, you still do.”
Said the king to the peasant, after stealing only 2 of his 4 sheep.
Svelaz wrote, “Nobody thinks they are free. That’s a long running trope from right leaning organizations criticizing socialist systems in general.”
That was a dang foolish thing for you to write.
That’s one of the most ignorantly foolish statements I think I have ever see anyone write on this blog site when the verifiable PROOF of just the opposite is staring you right in the face.
Weak Cheeks who happens to be a self proclaimed supporter of free stuff actually wrote and I quoted, “I believe when young Americans who say they support Socialism, really mean they want more benefits from the government like universal healthcare, free public college and free childcare. I support those things.”
So Svelaz, what part of “free public college and free childcare” is it that you don’t understand?
Don’t you know that “it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”?
Now I’m guessing we’ll see some PHD level progressive hive minded rationalizations and back-peddling.
Steve Witherspoon,
“ So Svelaz, what part of “free public college and free childcare” is it that you don’t understand?”
The problem is that what you think of “free” is not what they are saying. Conservatives or the right keep saying that it is what they are saying.
It’s “free” because it is supported by everyone chipping in a set amount. The collective wealth of everyone makes it affordable or even “free” when the costs are borne by every single individual. You support someone going to college just as someone did for you. It’s much more cost effective than taking on a loan and be saddled with debt when you’re starting out after university.
Would you rather be debt free after school or worry about makin those massive student loan payments for the rest of your life?
Svelaz wrote, “The problem is that what you think of “free” is not what they are saying. Conservatives or the right keep saying that it is what they are saying.”
HOGWASH!!
It appears that you’re either a bald-faced liar or a dang fool.
Again, the PROOF is staring you right in the face.
Weak Cheeks who happens to be a self proclaimed supporter of free stuff actually wrote and I quoted, “I believe when young Americans who say they support Socialism, really mean they want more benefits from the government like universal healthcare, free public college and free childcare. I support those things.”
Please notice that Weak Cheeks a supporter of free government money did not say anything about universal health care being free; therefore, Weak Cheeks did not include that as a free government benefits Weak Cheeks intentionally limited the scope of what he/she/it defined as being free.
The word free has a definition and it must be applied as written without stupid people trying to intentionally b a s t a r d i z e into meaning something else.
FREE: without cost or payment.
Your argument is a complete and utter failure and any continuation down your path of argumentation is pure stupidity or intentional trolling.
Steve Witherspoon,
“ Please notice that Weak Cheeks a supporter of free government money did not say anything about universal health care being free; therefore, Weak Cheeks did not include that as a free government benefits Weak Cheeks intentionally limited the scope of what he/she/it defined as being free.”
The definition of “free” is not absolute.
It’s “free” because government money comes from everyone who pays into it. It’s “free” because you still paid for it along with everyone else. That “free” definition is more about free from debt after attending school. I’m sure costs such as books and supplies are still out of pocket, but paying for it through your taxes is much more cost effective than paying it individually.
It’s not really “free”. Think of it like an insurance pool. Everyone pays a premium (tax) and you’re covered for the cost of school. It’s only “free” because you only paid your share of it and are not saddled with huge student loans or medical bills.
There’s a reason why it’s successful on those countries.
Svelaz wrote, “The poverty rate in the U.S. for all social groups combined is 9.2%. In Finland it’s .10%.”
Your cherry picked comparison is like comparing a mustard seed to the moon.
If you really think that the same kind of system that Finland (roughly 5.6 million people) has would work the same way in the United States which has 58.4 times the population (roughly 327.1 million people) then you are a very special kind of stupid and that condition likely cannot be fixed.
Steve Witherspoon, the point is the poverty rate is considerably less. According to many critics of socialism it’s not possible to have such low rates. Because it’s…socialism, not capitalism.
Democratic socialism is actually workable and Nordic countries prove that. Will it work for us? It’s entirely possible. The only obstacle is an entrenched ideology that “only “ capitalism is the answer.
Svelaz wrote, “The only obstacle [to Democratic Socialism] is an entrenched ideology that “only “ capitalism is the answer.”
I wrote before that “it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”
Ignorant people need to read the United States Constitution so they don’t write stupid things like you just did.
This chat is over.
Define “poverty rate” so that we can compare apples with apples.
“I do not think young Americans want the government to run most of the industries in the country like the telephone company, the airlines and the car factories like in traditional socialism.”
Why would you think this? Any argument that can be made to remove industries from the free market you agree with can certainly be made to remove the above mentioned. Everyone deserves a car. Greedy car manufacturers only care about profits. How can people be expected to work without a car? Cars are systemically racist!
You either have capitalism, or you have crony capitalism.
Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. They are being taught how great it is by their socialist brainwashers and the MSM is not showing them the reality of places like Venezuela.
Turley wrote, “Polling in the United States and internationally is showing a sharp increase in support for socialism among young people. Support for capitalism is waning as a new generation embraces views of collective economic policies and programs. Two hundred years after the birth of Karl Marx, his views are now coming back into vogue despite a long history of economic failures in socialist countries.”
Seriously, it took a poll to ring your bell on this Jonathan?
People have been talking about this problem for nearly five years.
Pay attention to what’s going on around you and call it what it is, a huge swath of the political left, as in progressives and social justice warriors, have gone full Marxist and they’re just waiting for enough political and social power to ram it down the throats of the masses.
Wake up people.
Both landmark treatises I’m sure you would agree worthy of reading both as an academic. Thank goodness our First Amendment censors neither and Americans have the freedom of thought to make up their own mind. Joy!
And for how long will the literature that counters what is found in those “landmark treatises” be available given the current wave of washing away that which is inconvenient to the cause of socialism in this country? Once all the statues have been destroyed, they will focus on the written page.
Waiting for the inevitable “but look at Sweden” comments. https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/25/socialism-didnt-work-in-sweden-and-it-wont-work-in-america/
We have “socialism” in this country for billionaires! We have “socialism” in the country for corporations. Young people and lots of the rest of us are tired of watching the oligarchs sucking up our tax dollars while paying close to, if not actually, $0 in taxes. We are tired of workers being abused while corporate CEO make obscene salaries and rake in even more through tax brakes and the use of tax loop holes. We are tired of driving on roads that cause thousands of dollars of damage to our cars because they aren’t maintained. Of course it’s not really socialist we support is a fair shake. It’s a government that regulates polluters and fraud; discrimination and worker abuse.
The right wing always wants to wave a flag with Marx on it but they refuse to accept that Adam Smith recognized the danger of unregulated corporations and warned against them. Authoritarian government is what the right wing wants, a government that controls who votes and for whom they vote; a government that gives corporations free rein but makes sure that women and minorities are suppressed and silenced.