Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

No. Business profits are the source of all wealth, yours mine and that of the wealthy people you seem to oppose.

 

That's a textbook idealized answer with no reality. The reality is that businesses set prices at "what the market will bear". In fact, production is "managed" (reduced) to maximize profits, and goods are produced to wear out so that a replacement must be bought. Examples of "planned obsolescence" can be seen in the history of power tools like Rockwell, Skil, Craftsman, Ridgid, Milwaukie, Bosch, Makita, Hitachi, and most others. Then there are home appliances.

 

Employee owned businesses are somewhat common. There are fewer co-ops but they exist as well. Both are legal and consistent with a capitalist economy. If people actually preferred them then they would be more common. People prefer a system where their natural desire to get ahead is possible.

I don't think socialist governments exist. I view socialism as an economic system. It has always existed only under authoritarian governments but that is because it flies in the face of human nature. So it has to be maintained by force.

 

What a CROCK! Homelessness began showing up with panhandlers on freeway entrance and exit ramps when Reagan defunded mental health centers.

 

All truth.

With that said, thus is the primary reason a competitive market is so important.

 

And all too often those "unintended consequences" are intended. Either that, or our congressmen with their law degrees and informed conferences are stupid.

 

That's why you're so dreadfully uninformed: selective reading for support of held partisan views.

 

I have often referred to worker-owned and run co-ops as "embryos of a future socialist economy growing within capitalism". And if you actually understand anything about the history of attempts to establish socialism, you know that it always happened in the midst of intense class struggle, and that brings with it the possibility of reactionary forces ultimately winning, which they did in every case so far and for known reasons.

Now try answering my post #633.

 

Definitely true of home appliances. I did throw out a DeWalt battery powered drill the other day that had died after 25 years of service. My Hitachi drill is now 10 years old and going strong. I don't see the planned obsolescence of power tools.

 

Wrong. I am not a partisan. I am an opponent of socialism. Reading what socialists write is a waste of time for me.

 

If the legislation by Leahy, Sanders, and Hassan which I mentioned had been passed I think workers' co-ops would be more popular and more common, but Congress refused to allow it.

Read my post, #658, above.

 

That's the previous better quality I mentioned. I had my Porter-Cable circular saw for 35 years and it saw lots of service ..... DAILY for many years.

Good luck with your Hitachi.

Some high quality is available as a high-priced line in many cases, but I had two Skil drills that lasted 25 years and I have a Porter-Cable drill that I inherited and is 60 years old, but a Skil drill I bought 10 years ago because of the quality of my former two, lasted about 7 years. I have lots of experience with power tools and I know the quality has mostly gone south. In fact I knew a guy who worked as an electronics engineer for Motorola and he said he was required to engineer TVs that would break down after a few years.

You seem to doubt this but how would a profit-driven capitalist business resist producing goods that would wear out and be replaced? Ask a plumber! It's even done with what is referred to as "contractor special toilets".

 

Possibly. I don't know why the legislation failed but if it involved spending, I would have voted against it. Most of what federal government does is outside of its constitutional lane and fussing with business is usually one of the most destructive. I think supporting the development of more employee owned businesses is fine. I think paying for it is wrong on the part of federal government. OK for a state to do it. See the 10th amendment.

 

Oh, right, you're not partisan. You just happen to defend capitalism to the max even when our argument is blatantly ridiculous as I have seen for years in reading your posts.

 

That "NEW" Poll is Over 4 YEARS OLD (Dated February 2020).
It probably carries very little relevance in 2024...

 

That reminds me of something. Years ago we hired a plumber to remodel our bathrooms. They had water saving toilets and I complained that they required two flushes to get the job done so they wasted both water and time. He said they were required by code but he would be willing to install commercial toilets that would solve that. That is what we did and we have had virtually flawless toilet performance ever since. Some times building codes ensure better quality or performance but sometimes they do not.

 

I do defend capitalism. How does that make me a partisan? Most Americans of all party affiliations support capitalism. You are in a tiny minority.

 

How is that outside of its "Constitutional lane"? And business legislation is one of their main duties.

The Constitution doesn't provide for ANYTHING the House shall do other than that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

But to your point, if supporting more employee-owned businesses by "paying for it" is the purview of the states, then we would have a "hodge-podge" of different confused and contradictory legislation across the country. Obviously the "states' rights" argument is inappropriate in this and many other cases.

 

You also side with Republicans and reject nearly everything about the Democrats, and that is partisan. Your arguments are often VERY partisan and based on partisan BS.

 

In Soviet Russia, you are the power tool.

In Soviet Russia, power tool outlives you.

 

No. Partisan means belonging to or supporting a political party. I don't even support the existence of political parties and, oddly, I don't even vote. If you call me a conservative, I will agree with that. But partisan? Not a chance.

 

"Conservative" is partisan. I'm a socialist. That's "partisan" too.

 

Capitalism essentially created the entire middle class. As Adam Smith amply explained, a capitalist in a free market enterprise chasing his own profits inevitably creates public benefit and good.

 

Employee owned companies and Co-ops fit right in with capitalism and are not in any way socialist. They might, like numerous things such as class struggles, revolutionary overthrow, non-revolutionary take over of a government, etc., lead to socialism, but they are not socialism.

 

Communism will never happen because it's contrary to our basic nature. Socialism doesn't work if there isn't a market economy. Lenin and his Bolshevik buddies never figured out how to run an economy.

Can collective ownership work? If workers are the owners, it depends upon the options for owner-workers who wish to move to another line of work. The capitalization per worker is HUGE for an oil refinery. Does the worker get her or his share on the way out? How does a new worker become a worker-owner? Can worker-owners hire non-owner workers? What if they need to ramp up output temporarily? A business with a small capitalization per worker-owner has a better chance of succeeding.

Can collective ownership be one akin to a farm co-op where the owners operate as a collective where most or all of the capital stays with the business if the owner moves on? (The owner doesn't necessarily work for the co-op.) It isn't in keeping with socialist dogma.