Democrats view socialism more favorably than capitalism, Gallup says

[Masoner]

Social democracy seems to be the best mixture of socialism and capitalism, based on various ranking indexes on things like well-being, liberty etc.

There is no such thing as social democracy. There is only socialism and communism witch all through out history is evil and those who practice it end up killing their own citizens to attempt maintaining it.

There is zero reason why we can not have full fledged capitalism and basic healthcare for our citizens.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, i'm glad you're willing to vote for the far-right/fascists because of it.

- - - Updated - - -



I always find it funny you guys seems to think the sort of socialism that a lot of people want is the authoritarian kind you saw in past countries.

If only it was done right, am I right? and to respond to your far-right/fascist comment, it must be really nice to live in a state of mind where you judge people, label people..etc with out actually knowing anything about them.

[JohnBrown1917]

There is no such thing as social democracy. There is only socialism and communism witch all through out history is evil and those who practice it end up killing their own citizens to attempt maintaining it.

There is zero reason why we can not have full fledged capitalism and basic healthcare for our citizens.

- - - Updated - - -




If only it was done right, am I right?

Social democracy is not socialism, try to study some politics.

- - - Updated - - -

If only it was done right, am I right?

Socialism does not refer to 1 single ideology.

Or we gonna assume capitalism can only be done like in Pinochet's Chile?

[Masoner]

Social democracy is not socialism, try to study some politics.

- - - Updated - - -


Socialism does not refer to 1 single ideology.

Or we gonna assume capitalism can only be done like in Pinochet's Chile?

Socialism is death, communism is death.

History shows us this. In the nations where communism still remains, it's been eroded away by capitalism.

[JohnBrown1917]

Socialism is death, communism is death.

History shows us this. In the nations where communism still remains, it's been eroded away by capitalism.

You just keep repeating the same old tired non-arguments, don't you have anything better?



Capitalism is death.

I'm I doing it right?

[Super Kami Dende]

Nothing about capitalism perfectly encapsulates what makes humanity succeed, it only encompasses aspects of it.

Wow, it's almost as if in the statement you quoted I literally said Capitalism isn't perfect. Also, your analogy is inane, belief systems don't have an actual metric of "most correct", whereas economic systems has a metric of how well they work in comparison to each other.

[Dezerte]

There is no such thing as social democracy.

Social democracy is a variant of socialism, a compromise between socialism and capitalism. It's very real, and has been prominent throughout Europe and other parts of the world for the last century or so.

[Endus]

Socialism is death, communism is death.

History shows us this. In the nations where communism still remains, it's been eroded away by capitalism.

Repeating ignorant propaganda statements that have no appreciable basis in reality is not an argument. All you've really managed to do, here, is underscore that you are unwilling or unable to make the effort to understand what "socialism" actually means.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, it's almost as if in the statement you quoted I literally said Capitalism isn't perfect. Also, your analogy is inane, belief systems don't have an actual metric of "most correct", whereas economic systems has a metric of how well they work in comparison to each other.

And by that same metric, economies with socialist elements perform best.

And that's without having to get into what "performs best" means; most capitalists don't care about quality of life for citizens, just economic growth. Which is not only not a good measure (even Adam Smith discarded it as garbage, explicitly), it's one that cannot have long term success. Infinite growth off finite resources can't happen.

[arandomuser]

and republicans view fascism and genocide favorabely if the targets are muslims, whats your point

[Super Kami Dende]

And by that same metric, economies with socialist elements perform best.

And that's without having to get into what "performs best" means; most capitalists don't care about quality of life for citizens, just economic growth. Which is not only not a good measure (even Adam Smith discarded it as garbage, explicitly), it's one that cannot have long term success. Infinite growth off finite resources can't happen.

Yes, Elements. That are attached to an overarching Capitalist economy. I would say my preferred system is definitely Capitalism, though I have nothing against a few Socialised elements that are supported by the Capitalist Economy. What I would very much dislike is a entirely Socialist Political and Economic system. If people think a Socialist Economy would somehow halt the use of finite resources, they are just simpletons. If anything the best hope for getting away from finite resources is capitalism, as once a viable alternative that could be done cheaper came around a Capitalist system would latch onto it and cause it to thrive instead of Stagnate. I mean look at Hybrid and Electric Cars.

- - - Updated - - -

and republicans view fascism and genocide favorabely if the targets are muslims, whats your point

I mean you are talking about people being "Fascist" towards a Ideology that is inherently Fascist. kind of a moot point.

[Deleted]

If the US was a capitalist economy in it's current state, it would collapse almost immediately. In fact the US is not even a prime example of a Capitalist country for reasons I described before - huge state interventions through subsidies and policies and also an interlinked relationship between state and huge private institutions. In the case of the finance sector, that's how they make virtually 99% of their profits - through the state. And yes there is socialist aspects in the American economy, namely socialism for the rich. They mess up and we the public are there to bail them out. We the public pay for the research and fund the public institutions that are part of that structure and the private businesses are there to appropriate it. To think we live in a Capitalist society proves how pointless it is to use these nomenclatures in the first place, because they are used to mislead the public. The facts are that Western policies have been devastating for the economy and for the environment. Flatline wage growth for the masses, an increase in working hours and low quality of life and more importantly, low investment from the private sector that profit from public institutions.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Not true at all, communism is a governing and economic system.

It's just an economic system where the government owns everything. Communism does not determine who is the next leader, for example. You could have communism in a democracy.

[Deleted]

There is no such thing as social democracy. There is only socialism and communism witch all through out history is evil and those who practice it end up killing their own citizens to attempt maintaining it

Wait, so am I living in the matrix? Cause last I checked, I lived in a social democracy that ranks in the top 10 of every living standard/health/happiness/economic metric you can think of.

[Endus]

Yes, Elements. That are attached to an overarching Capitalist economy.

That isn't how economics works, no. No developed nation runs off a capitalist economy. They run on mixed economies.

Again, things like market activity and trade and such are not "capitalism".

If people think a Socialist Economy would somehow halt the use of finite resources, they are just simpletons.

I brought up the finite nature of resources as an example of why capitalism's expectation of infinite growth is unsustainable. A managed socialist economy would be working with the same finite resources, but doesn't pursue infinite growth for growth's sake in the first place.

If anything the best hope for getting away from finite resources is capitalism, as once a viable alternative that could be done cheaper came around a Capitalist system would latch onto it and cause it to thrive instead of Stagnate. I mean look at Hybrid and Electric Cars.

We have literally centuries of history across hundreds of nations that clearly demonstrate this claim here to be false. This is not how capitalist systems work in practice. Adam Smith hoped they'd work out that way, but he based that on the premise that capitalists would remain rational and focused on society's interests rather than their own, which was naive as balls.

[Gilgondorin]

American socialism has failed. European has not. Imagine if taxes were around 50%, it is in a lot of Scandinavian countries and EU ones (Belgium, Spain, Netherlands). It pays for roads, healthcare, education etc. Higher wages, better living circumstances overall. Is it not worth paying more in taxes to receive all these things in turn? I mean you are technically PAYING for it just not at a ridiculous price compared to the US. Consider the people in the US unable to afford the medicine they need due to the greed of big pharma, they are in fact dying as a result.
I do believe you reap what you sow but would it kill the politicians to give the common folk a better chance at succeeding in life? No, it absolutely would not. When the higher ups forsake the people literally carrying the country on their shoulders bad things follow. Healthcare is being reamed up the backside, people can barely afford to pay rent, food and clothing. Rather certain you are due for mass rioting. Shame it needs to happen before the upper echelon wakes up.

Good luck, you're going to need it considering who the folks are pulling the strings.

[Fooliecoolie]

http://theweek.com/articles/789956/b...&ICID=ref_fark

[Deleted]

I can understand them to some extend, a lot of things are going out of control in costs, and they're supposed to be capitalistic so that shouldn't really happen.

I'd argue that for the US, the solution probably wouldn't be to embrace certain aspects of socialistic policies, because that doesn't have the best track record for them.

Guess you're screwed either way.

[Kokolums]

Basic shit to keep people alive. There are more universal programs that aren't single payer.

The Roman empire started out with a goal to be efficient and productive.

Around 100 AD, the Emperor Trajan invented a new social program called Alimenta to help the poor, providing money, food, and general education. Future Emperors added to the welfare system in order to win political praise and favor among those who wanted to help the poor. Better grain, olive oil, pork and even wine were added to the free handouts. They developed the first food stamps called tesserae so people would go to huge warehouses to collect their free food and liquor. They had converted from something like a capitalist state to a socialist nation shortly before they collapsed.

[Elegiac]

The Roman empire started out with a goal to be efficient and productive.

It didn't.

Around 100 AD, the Emperor Trajan invented a new social program called Alimenta to help the poor, providing money, food, and general education. Future Emperors added to the welfare system in order to win political praise and favor among those who wanted to help the poor. Better grain, olive oil, pork and even wine were added to the free handouts. They developed the first food stamps called tesserae so people would go to huge warehouses to collect their free food and liquor. They had converted from something like a capitalist state to a socialist nation shortly before they collapsed.

- The alimentary system was first implemented by Nerva, not Trajan, and was so basic compared to even the most rudimentary modern welfare systems that it's hardly worth the comparison.
- Rome's public assistance schemes actually began during the Republican era with the free grain allotment that was progressively expanded during the Late Republican and Early to Mid Imperial Eras, further discrediting your nonsense.
- Rome was at no point "capitalist" or "socialist" at any point in its history, not only because they hadn't been conceptualized yet but also because ancient economies cannot be effectively compared to modern ones, as they operate very differently.

Stop trying to revise history to fit your ridiculous agenda.

Regarding the OP, as was said - if you spend decades decrying pretty basic public assistance schemes as "socialism" then of course people are going to view socialism favorably because, guess what, most people aren't the sort of inhumane shithead that think poor people deserve to die for want of basic services.

[Huulo]

Is not really news
Everybody loves to get money for nothing
Everybody loves to get stuff that someone else pays for
If we can make it a law, everyone will of course vote "someone else pay for my stuff"

But we pay for it one way or another. We're going broke paying for healthcare and education. If we pay for it in taxes instead, but save money on the whole and increase the stability of society, why wouldn't we want to?

[Shadowferal]