Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

This has already been discussed in the past on this forum.

Maybe the older generation, or people in certain regions of the country, are out of touch with what younger people, or people who grew up in other regions of the country, are dealing with.

In many regions of the country, younger people are finding they are unable to afford housing, due to overcrowding, housing shortages, and sky high prices. As a result, socialism is looking appealing to them.

Conservatives were warned about this more than a decade ago, but they seem to have ignored it, or been unable to mentally process the significance of it.

This is not, of course, to say that socialism is justified, but it totally explains why the younger generation has been flocking to it and why it has been becoming increasingly appealing.

Things like the economy are a little too abstract for most people to think about, so when people are struggling they are prone to just want free stuff.

 

You said "real socialism", whatever that is.

LMAO!!!

Dude, that's hilarious - an "explanation" of what socialism is from Pol Pot's fanboy Noam "There is no Genocide Happening in Cambodia!" Chomsky.

Thanks - I might have to check that out later just for laughs.

 

LOL - That never gets old....even though it's real old....

 

Well nobody on the left does.

 

Because I think people should answer their own questions if they can. I'm not the house research assistant. Socialism has never worked anywhere. If you want to refute that you can be the house research assistant.

 

That is what he says. I don't think it is what he actually wants.

 

Nope.

 

“has never worked anywhere” means that your definition of socialism is;

“an economic system in which major industries are owned by the workers themselves”

Therefore, SOME businesses that are owned by the workers themselves isn’t socialism.

Correct?

 

Why don’t you give us the definition of socialism and example of socialist policy implemented in USA.

If you can’t then the entire thread is meaningless and misguided.

 

Laughable nonsense.

 

Yet New York and LA spend vastly more per capita than South Dakota and get much worse results. There is far more going on than simple funding.

 

Actually, I was referring, mostly, to regulations ("the socialism that exercises indirect control through government mandates and regulations"). It's a bad word on the Right and acceptable on the Left.

 

No. You put quotes around what you said, not what I said. The problem with socialism as you define it is that it goes against human nature. People naturally want to strive to get ahead. Attempting to equalize them is only possible when you can force it because people won't choose it for themselves. This results in authoritarian governments (the people) owning the businesses.

Employee owned businesses are common. You can call it an example of socialism if you like but it doesn't create a socialist economic system across a society. It is just a group of people owning a business. All public corporations are a group of people (stock holders) owning a business. Socialism in the idealistic sense doesn't happen. It always becomes a communist system or something similar under an authoritarian government controlling the economy.

So my definition of socialism is what you would call communism or social democracy (see fascism) because one leads to the other. What you put in quotes are your words as I said above. You are correct that who owns the business in my view has nothing to do with ownership in a free society. Socialism isn't a political system. It is an economic one.

 

Are you noticing poster use the term "socialism" and don't provide any definition of socialism or government policy which is socialist? One even stated that kids are taught socialism in school and that is what they want, but don’t give any examples.

This is what conservatives have been doing for over 50 years. They labeled Democrat as – socialist, communist, and anti-American. Yesterday, someone called FDR communist, just yesterday another poster called Biden the most anti-American POTUS in our history. They said the same thing about Clinton and Obama.

I admire and practice conservative ideas of – individualism, personal responsibility, hard work, improve my life as best I can. Without those no one can have a better life or a better society or better country.

However, conservatives take these great ideas and take it to extreme. They thinking “lending a hand to the needy” by government/ society make someone weak, lazy , freeloader. They think helping next generation to get higher education is socialism. They think helping a single mom is communism. They think if you get sick you are on your own.

Conservatism belongs in 3rd century where “survival of the fittest” was the policy. Conservatism belongs in uncivilized 5th century society and not in 21st century America.

 

started with "every kid gets a trophy" mentality

 

Do you believe Biden, or a Democrat-controlled Congress will want to nationalize our major industries?

If not, then there’s no worries.

 

Do you see contradiction what you wrote? “people naturally want to drive to get ahead” or “Attempting to equalize them is only possible when you can force it because people won't choose it for themselves” which one is it? People want to go ahead or they won’t chose it themselves?

No one in America advocating government own business, no one in America advocating nationalizing banking system. No one in America advocating nationalizing industry.

But keep chanting Democrat/ liberals wants socialism which will lead to communism.

 

Only POTUS in US history, US GOV gave money to US financial system is conservative/ republican POTUS W Bush -$426.4 billion dollar.

Oh i almost forgot about this one

Trump administration starts paying $14.5 billion to farmers hurt by the trade war | CNN Politics

but forgiving student debt is socialism.

 

Calls come for socialistic structures when the hyper rich decide that they deserve more. It's their own damn fault for being greedy and thinking that they deserve as well as need that much.

We saw a socialistic movement in the 19teens as a result of robber barons put down mainly by some seeing the writing on the walls and some safeguards for the working poor put it place. During the great depression the richest built extravagant mansions while the working man's family starved resulting in huge tax increases to create jobs. So it's happening again now. When you can count on your fingers a group of men with more income than the bottom 50% combined there's a problem and those at the top need to get their heads out of their butts or that bottom 50% will push, perhaps much further that those at the top want.

That needs to stop voluntarily or it will be stopped by force.

 

I can relate to a lot of their complaints, too. By the time I was born the Golden Age of the 1950s and 60s were long gone and so were the economic opportunities that came with it. When my generation (X) came of age most of the plum jobs had already been taken and a lot of us who went to college found ourselves in much the same position that young people find themselves in today, but being another generation or two down the line has made it even worse for them. I've often wondered if they would benefit from the opportunities that might develop if and when Boomers start retiring, but I can't say I'm optimistic about their prospects. A lot of people are working further into their years and employers seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on experience lately, so while hiring a greenhorn straight out of college might be cheaper, they're not going to be as productive as an older experienced worker who can hit the ground running with little to no training and learning curve to contend with. To make matters worse, a lot of the politicians and ideas they support are anti-economic growth. The people pushing the climate crisis agenda don't want a lot of industry, they don't want people buying houses out in the country and suburbs where they'll have to commute to work in their own vehicles (especially if they're gasoline powered vehicles), they don't want people consuming a lot of goods. They want the fantastical utopian future that Dutch politician and WEF darling Ida Auken wrote about in "Welcome to 2030: I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"

https://medium.com/world-economic-f...y-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

Which brings me to something that you mentioned which concerns me greatly, and that's the difficulty young people are having getting into homes. Home ownership is property ownership, and property ownership is key to a strong middle class, and a strong middle class has always been the key ingredient of democratic systems of government going back to the days of Ancient Athens. When property ownership dies, the middle class dies, and when that happens we're going to find ourselves right back where we were in the Middle Ages when there was no middle class. Can't happen here? As Joel Kotkin pointed out in his book The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class:

Following a remarkable epoch of greater dispersion of wealth and opportunity, we are inexorably returning towards a more feudal era marked by greater concentration of wealth and property, reduced upward mobility, demographic stagnation, and increased dogmatism. If the last seventy years saw a massive expansion of the middle class, not only in America but in much of the developed world, today that class is declining and a new, more hierarchical society is emerging.

The new class structure resembles that of Medieval times. At the apex of the new order are two classes―a reborn clerical elite, the clerisy, which dominates the upper part of the professional ranks, universities, media and culture, and a new aristocracy led by tech oligarchs with unprecedented wealth and growing control of information. These two classes correspond to the old French First and Second Estates.

Below these two classes lies what was once called the Third Estate. This includes the yeomanry, which is made up largely of small businesspeople, minor property owners, skilled workers and private-sector oriented professionals. Ascendant for much of modern history, this class is in decline while those below them, the new Serfs, grow in numbers―a vast, expanding property-less population.

Of course, one always has to take such observations with a grain of salt, but much of what Kotkin wrote about a greater concentration of wealth and property, reduced upward mobility, demographic stagnation and a declining middle class are already happening, and I think it's these things that have a lot of Americans saying that their children and grandchildren aren't going to have it as good as they do now. On top of that, there's the mounting astronomical debt that we are handing down to them, and that is a ticking financial time bomb. As some around here have noted, the annual payment on just the interest on that debt crossed the $1 trillion threshold last year, and federal revenues were $4.4 trillion in 2023. Obviously, the math on that is only going to get worse as the debt rises.

I don't know how anyone couldn't be concerned about those things and what the future has in store for younger Americans. I don't blame them for being frustrated and I can understand why many of them are lashing out at "late stage capitalism" and grasping at socialism or what passes for "socialism". Its a self-destructive reflex, in my estimation, but what else do they have to grasp for - another Javier Milei? That would probably be a good idea, but I don't see that happening. I wish I had an answer for all this, but in the end that would require changes at the individual human level that our political and economic system can't make for us.

 

According to a Gallup poll, 17% of respondents defined socialism as Government-owned/controlled.

In September 2008, Bush’s Federal Housing Finance Agency took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Now, if we were to assume that only 10% of said 17% of respondents are Republicans, THEY would instantly deny that FHFA’s takeover is socialism.

 

Excessive mandates and regulations are bad words on the Right. Unfortunately, that excess is perfectly acceptable to many on the Left, particularly the regimes I was referring to in the OP that seek/wield total indirect control.

 

Actually it does work, not long term, but for totalitarian dictators it works well until they are overthrown by either the people or the next dictator.

Kinda makes me worried that a man that has already tried to overthrow our government and wants to be "dictator" on day one if he's reelected is actually running for president again.

 

Quote: “Excessive mandates and regulations are bad words on the Right”

So as REDISTRIBUTION

 

You can't figure out an example of socialist policy implemented in the United States?

Seriously?

If you're that uninformed you should find yourself a discussion thread that you're competent to participate in.