Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

First of all, I may be a RWer but I'm not a conservative, so where does that leave your bullshit - with an unwillingness to face the facts? You certainly wouldn't be alone there.

Contrary to the bullshit you posted above, the sources I've cited aren't limited to "conservative" or "ultraconservative" sources, but you're free to make a fool of yourself believing and contending that Wikipedia is a conservative/ultraconservative source. Furthermore, to put one more bullet in the head of your "shoot the messenger" fallacy/red herring, the sources I've cited are merely reporting what the fascists in Italy and National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany said and did, and much of that consists of direct quotes.

I get that Leftists have a need to believe and regurgitate the propaganda we've all been fed - I used to believe that bullshit myself until I bothered to expend the time and effort necessary to research the matter and find out the facts for myself. It's only natural Lefties would try to ignore/deny/conceal the ugly truth, after all, it's bad enough that the Communists/Socialists who murdered 100 million people during the 20th Century were Leftists, but it's even worse that the fascists and national socialists who murdered tens of millions more were Leftists, too. The sad fact of the matter is that the Left was born in the ocean of blood that was the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror and the genocide in the Vendée, and a lot of people can't face that fact and the trail of destruction the Left has left in its wake up until the present where the Authoritarian Left in this country is currently trying to force people to take vaccines, obstructing the free flow of information, censoring info and opinions it doesn't like and assaulting our nation's democratic institutions and norms, etc., etc..

No, that's just you 1) putting words in my mouth and 2) making an assertion that "conservatism" (whatever the hell that means in your mind) is responsible some "mess" you claim it is responsible for.

That is saying a lot. By all means prove it. Don't be just flinging poop hoping it will stick.

Oh, goodie - your bullshit/propaganda/narrative/Current Truth™ and the obligatory BOOGEYMEN Reagan and Friedman (glad you spelled his name right this time).

Are we adding this Powell fellow to your scary list of bêtes noire?

It's hilarious that you would even suggest that we live in a country where the BOOGEYMAN of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism exists, and it's even funnier that you would have people believe that Lefties aren't buying elections and votes themselves.

And what do you think all this "Green" bullshit is about other than a bunch of power and money grubbing "progressives" manufacturing a "crisis", then manufacturing the "solution", then investing in the "solution", then funneling taxpayer money into the "solution" and then laughing at all the credulous proles who fell for it on their way to bank, hmm? Do you think it's just the latest manifestation of the Left's Messiah Complex where you all are going to save Mankind and the World again? LOL!!

For what, exactly?

The federal government that the Left can't get enough of, but is already too big, too expensive and too intrusive?
The ever-expanding list of entitlements that the Left can't get enough of, despite the fact the ones we already have are going insolvent?
The $34 trillion of debt and the additional $213 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the Left thinks will magically materialize out of the thin air?
The $1 trillion annual payments to service just the interest on the debt?
The unsustainable levels of spending that Leftists deliriously claim are sustainable?

Or is it, perhaps, something more human, like the increasing willingness on the parts of many to Americans to become dependent on government?
Or maybe an increasing unwillingness to take personal responsibility for one's own life and actions?
Perhaps, the over-inflated sense of entitlement that prompts some people to demand from others what they can and should earn themselves?
Some other moral and intellectual rot?

By all means, be specific. Tell us what your conservative BOOGEYMEN are pointing to.

What is handed to your conservative BOOGEYMEN on a plate?

What is "playing field" you happen to be playing on?

You know what's funny? Listening to Leftists bleat and babble about "helping workers" while they put them out of work to pursue their anti-economic growth agendas, particularly the one masquerading as an "environmental" agenda. You know, the one that rich billionaires like Tom Steyer and his well-heeled friends are paying Democrats to pursue, all for their own benefit. It's a great racket if you can get it, eh?

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You said the line!!

But YOU and your comrades know what's best for them, don't you?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

I've never heard THAT bullshit before!!!! /sarc

Are you afraid? You sound like it.

I'm not afraid of Socialism/Communism/Fascism. In fact, there are some socialist ideas and programs I wholeheartedly support.

I know you NEED to believe RWers are afraid, but tell us why we are and why we should be afraid?

If stakeholder fascist Joe Biden wants to end shareholder capitalism, what is the fear that exists in your head going to accomplish, hmm?

Being afraid never accomplished squat. If the fascists in the Biden Administration want to "fundamentally transform" America into a fascist state, you simply take steps to stop them from doing it.

Well, you would be wrong, and not that we need Joel Kotkin to explain to you why you are wrong, he can....and did.

LOL - Projection is fun!

Never mind the fabulously wealthy "progressive" businessmen and politicians who have abandoned American workers to serve the well-heeled special interests who are lining their pockets. Never mind their anti-growth policies that put workers out of their jobs. Never mind their pathological war on the fossil fuel industry and profligate spending that drives the cost of everything through the roof and harms the middle and lower classes the most.

You know why Demokrats suck at economics and consistently crash our economy? They don't care about economics and our economy. The only thing they care about is power, which is why their "transformational" policies are all about concentrating more power (and wealth) into their own hands, no matter how ill-advised, ill-conceived and destructive they may be.[/QUOTE]

 

The point is, the exact same level of disparity can occur for many different reasons, only one of which is justice.

Consider eight different economic systems, all of which have the exact same level of inequality, but which arrive at that level by completely different means:

Just as a reference point, there is lottery communism, where the productive produce using the available natural resources and producer goods, and the products are distributed according to a lottery that ensures everyone has enough to survive, but some people get anywhere from a little to a lot more than that by chance.

There is anarchism, where the productive produce what they can, and try to hold onto it, but the strong can steal it. This is essentially how our pre-human ancestors lived.

There is primitive communism, where the productive produce what they can using what nature provided, getting the first chance to consume it, and the community shares any surplus. This is how our remote hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors mostly lived.

There is primitive despotism, where a strongman forces the productive to work for him, takes the fruits of their labor, and distributes them among his supporters and the productive in the way he considers most favorable to himself while still being sustainable. This was a common system in the ancient world, where slavery was the rule.

There is feudalism, where the productive have to pay landowners rent for permission to produce everything, retaining only enough of what they produce to survive, and the landowners have to spend all the rent on defense or be forcibly dispossessed by neighboring landowners. This is the system that tends to emerge when private landowning survives the demise of the political power that issued the land titles.

There is capitalism, where the productive nominally own the fruits of their labor and investments in producer goods, but their wages, profits, and consumption are taxed by government to provide subsidies to the privileged, mainly landowners.

There is socialism, where the productive work at collectively or state-owned enterprises that appropriate and redistribute the fruits of their labor according to a political process.

Then there is geoism, where the productive own the fruits of their contributions of labor and investment in producer goods, and instead of paying taxes, make just compensation to the community for excluding others from the land they enjoy exclusive tenure to.

Which of these equally unequal systems do you think would be the fairest or most desirable? Which would result in a generally low level of available goods and services for consumption? Which would result in the greatest abundance of goods and services for consumption?

 

Yes, but it took the locals only 8 days to build a better DIY bridge for chump change.
Way too cheap and way too fast. Can't have that!

"(CNN) -- Their livelihood was being threatened, and they were tired of waiting for government help, so business owners and residents on Hawaii's Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park -- for free."
"The state Department of Land and Natural Resources had estimated that the damage would cost $4 million to fix, money the agency doesn't have, according to a news release from department Chairwoman Laura Thielen.
"It would not have been open this summer, and it probably wouldn't be open next summer," said Bruce Pleas, a local surfer who helped organize the volunteers. "They said it would probably take two years. And with the way they are cutting funds, we felt like they'd never get the money to fix it."
CNN, Island DIY: Kauai residents don't wait for state to repair road, By Mallory Simon, updated 3:44 p.m. EDT, Thu April 9, 2009.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html

 

[/QUOTE]
WoW! TLDR but what I skimmed WoW!!

IF you're a "RWer" but not a conservative ... what are you?

I refereed to your post as bullshit because that's what you called Kobe's post. Looks like you can dish it out but you can't take it.

When you actually research a topic, it's generally a good idea to check out differing points of view. You seem to have gotten lost down the "RWer" rabbit hole.

If you had been more careful you would have found that Totalitarianism isn't really left or right ... it's oppression by one strongman with the help of a small cadre of sycophants using lies, intimidation and fear to control the masses ... or as much of the masses as he can.

I was quoting your quote from Kotkin:

"Liberal capitalism enabled the many to improve their condition and form a robust middle class, but we are reverting to a more stratified society, with concentrated wealth and limited social mobility."

When I suggested that you agreed that more conservatism was the remedy for the mess conservatism created.

But, I'm not going to pick through the rest of your tirade. I'll just challenge you to show where any "social" program ever implemented for the benefit of American workers has ever resulted in any thing like the wholesale gutting of America as the worlds manufacturer. Where good paying jobs with bennifits and whole industries were shipped overseas turning cities that were once centers of mighty American manufacturing into what became known as the "Rust Belt". Or, where providing a "social safety net" for American workers resulted in the catastrophic loss of homes and jobs like the "Great Recession" did. That's two but you and I both know that Wall Street and the Banksters have caused the demise of OUR once proud middle class, not OUR governments programs implemented to protect Americans from Wall Street and the Banksters.

BTW, if you want to discuss this subject that would be great, but I will not reply to another accusatory tantrum.

 

Probably, but if that bridge wasn't a toll bridge how is it paid for?
If it isn't a toll bridge it would be free for everybody in society to use.

 

I'm a capitalist. You can stop trying to convert me. I can't be converted to socialism.

 

Just because we are not as successful at it does not male lobbying wrong. Lobbying becomes wrong only when government gets intertwined (in cahoots) with crony capitalists, (which Adam Smith abhored) to the direct benefit of the crony capitalist and government officials, and to the determent to the people at large, early railroads for example. Deleterious skulduggery is possible in any economic or political government.

My point exactly. That CEO you name is otherwise called a autocratic dictator. He does not have the power to determine what and how much bread will be produced, what the workers will be paid, which cars to build, etc, etc, etc, without legal authority (read police power) over everyone, so he cannot function without the police powers. His board of directors include the premier or president and a few legislators or appointees. The economic system is not simply in cahoots with the government, it is the government. Even if it consciously and deliberately doesn't begin this way, and it usually does not, out of necessity of effectiveness, it always ends up this way. That is what Hayek aptly explained. In the long run, one cannot have a socialistic economy without an autocratic totalitarian government. and with the top 5%, by happenstance, ending up with 90% of the wealth produced and the bottom 90% getting 5% distributed among them.

 

I’m hard on Rousseau and his “general will” for good reason - unlike the American Founders who believed that rights were unalienable and inviolable, Rousseau believed that rights were alienable and subordinate to the “general will”.

OH yes .. this is a problem .. I call it the Borg Problem .. among other things Progressive collectivist Fascism -- Law on the basis of "Utilitarianism" - What will increase happiness/reduce harm for the collective .. as justification for law .. with no regard for essential liberty .. not factored into the equation..

This anathema to the founding principles and constitutional Republic a kind of Tyranny of the Minority .. justified on the basis of the collective good .. which more often than not turns out to be fallacious utilitarianism .. that's where the Utilitarian argument itself is false .. and the action works to increase harm/reduce happiness overall ..

"If it saves one life" - as justification for law .. we would hear that one so often from the bleeding heart baby kissers .. the "We care so much for you " justification for law .. Sounds great on the surface .. "You want to save a life now Don't you .. Don't you .. Don't you " ??? but there is a Nazi hiding under the blanket.

If that is really such good justification for law "if it saves one life" .. do we not ban skiing tomorrow .. would that not save a life or two ? how about boating .. that is really dangerous .. one could drown .. driving a car ? forget it ..

The fear mongering gets so crazy .. that next thing you know l.. Give me liberty or Death .. is turned in to .. Its your Patriotic Duty to trade Essential Liberty permanently for temporary security .. over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking" Double the chance to be hit by a meteor than harmed in a terrorist attack .. and on this basis "The Patriot Act" .. War on Drugs full of utilitarian bliss .. Blue pioneered the program but Red caught on real quick .. the sodomy to liberty now coming from both ends of the political spectrum .. "Utilitarianism" .. such a wonderful dystopian dream.

 

Unfair, unequal access makes it wrong. That is exactly what makes it a "capitalist government".

ok

 

Perhaps my university training in economics, and working with computers in business and education will help.

Not many revolutions 'completely eliminate' what they replace.

I don't see why. There was no formulation where I held a new society would 'completely eliminate' the old society.

Maybe they won't hang on to power. I wonder.

I don't think people woud sit still for your meetings.

What about long-term efforts?

I've never read anything that might lead me to think socialism can work. No, I'm not a libertarian or opposed to looking at the distribution of wealth.

I've helped a lot of business startups. Depending upon the size of your business, how you organized it and what it does that are of interest.

You're talking about taking action that goes against the market. See below for an example:

Perhaps you should think about promoting a true meritocracy where the rich and privileged have sharply reduced advantages, then get out of the way.

I don't think what you propose will work for society.

I've helped partnerships--is that what these are?

What happens is the value of a share becomes large? How much does it cost workers to buy in?

Not really. You never addressed my questions about scaling it up.

 

So you prefer privilege to liberty, justice and prosperity. I get it. Don't beat yourself up. There's lots worse things a guy could believe in.

I will continue to identify the truth whether you choose to know it or not.

Can you be bothered to read what I said about socialism?

I've said many times that capitalism is better than socialism because when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production, while when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.

 

So whether a political system is capitalist or socialist depends on what the people in charge of it at any given time decide to do??

That is to say the least a very peculiar perspective.

Presumably with taxes.

That's the general idea. Of course, justice and efficiency would require that the bridge be paid for by the landowners who get all the benefit of it (Henry George Theorem).

 

I prefer liberty justice and prosperity, exactly why I prefer capitalism.

You can identify your confusion whenever you wish and post it here.

Over and over. Every bit of what you write is wrong. Socialism fails because it flies in the face of human nature.

 

No, that is false, because capitalism by definition cannot offer liberty or justice because it requires the forcible, uncompensated removal of people's individual rights to liberty, and their conversion into the private property of landowners. It is true that capitalism offers more prosperity than previous systems like the other five I described (the first one was fictional); but it offers less prosperity than geoism because it inherently attenuates the incentives to produce by taxing the productive to provide subsidies to landowners.

I have identified the facts and their logical implications.

No you haven't. If you had, you could not have imagined that I was trying to convert you to socialism.

No, every bit of what I write is objectively correct, which is why you have never been able to refute any of it, and never will be.

Right. And so does capitalism, just more subtly, which is why it kills millions of human beings every year.

 

I wouldn’t have said capitalism is a feature of a just society when contemplating the definition of a society, as in where the system works well for everybody.
A hell of a lot of people in American society miss out on decent health care, does that make it a just society?

 

You haven't addressed my comments and questions around how a capital intensive industry would transfer ownership to new workers. How would a new worker buy into a business where each share is valued at many millions of dollars? What happens if the business is no longer viable? Do the worker shares lose value? What if a significant portion of workers want of a business and new workers aren't interested in taking their place? Who buys the shares?

I could easily come up with a hundred questions advocates must answer as part of implementing socialism. Capitalism answers all of the questions, sometimes with cruelty, but the system functions. Can we tame capitalism with collective action through government? Swedes, Danes and northern Europeans are trying. I have my doubts.

I don't think much of the "we'll figure it out" line you use. Your Marxist analysis has yet to prove it's valid.

Marx, btw, is a wretched economist as evidenced by his wholesale adoption of Ricardo's labor theory of value.

Do you think Laos and Cambodia were dominated by "managers" and "experts?" There are other reasons attempts at socialism fail. In fact, no nation state has implemented socialism and sustained their model.

Banned by whom? Government? Would business be told they can't use "managers" and "experts?"

So, your solution to problems is hope?

They could choose fascism or capitalism.

So, you're prepared to guarantee you'd step aside if you're rejected by voters?

It's been known to happen.

 

Since there is no such thing as economics in the abstract, all existing "economics training" is within the context of capitalism and examines the details of the subject. Did you have any studies in workers' co-ops in which each worker owns one share of stock and has one vote and interviews and hires the CEO and Board?

But most naysayers pretend there will be overnight, wholesale replacement of everything.

In the past communist revolutions began quite well with local committees and public involvement. Later, as counter-revolutionaries gained increasing footing they took the government into greater and greater centralization of power and authoritarianism that destroyed all socialist gains in the end. So the key is solid community control and oversight.

What do you imagine they would entail that people wouldn't sit still for them?

Maybe I should have covered everything from the first day to the last election. Or maybe you have a specific question.

Of course not. All there is out there is analysis of failed attempts and speculation of what could be from a capitalist perspective.

I don't follow. You were talking about markets and I was referring to political leadership.

That's not so different from what I envision. I see meritocracy as recognition, reward, and incentive but without wealth being the reward. And control of power ("decentralization") is essential.

Ok. And yet, this may be of interest. (They are slightly different in details.)

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/urtekotxostena/dist/docs/en/informe-anual-2022-en-ext.pdf

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/urtekotxostena/dist/docs/en/informe-anual-2022-en.pdf

Workers' co-ops are usually LLCs rather than LLPs.

Well, the largest and best example would be Mondragon. And the cost of acquiring a share can vary depending on the specific cooperative within the Mondragon network and other factors. That cost is often determined by the cooperative's internal policies and may also depend on the cooperative's financial situation, its activities, and other relevant considerations. The cost of a share can be influenced by factors such as the cooperative's size, profitability, and the type of work it engages in.

And last I knew, a share can be purchased either by buying it upon acceptance of a job, bought via a paycheck deduction program, or postponed until a later date after deciding whether the job and company is going to be long-term and satisfactory.

I think it is obvious that much needs to be worked out over time and with experience just as it did in our capitalist system over 200 years. Not having all the answers is not a negative since it is normal.

 

You haven't addressed my comments and questions around how a capital intensive industry would transfer ownership to new workers. How would a new worker buy into a business where each share is valued at many millions of dollars? What happens if the business is no longer viable? Do the worker shares lose value? What if a significant portion of workers want of a business and new workers aren't interested in taking their place? Who buys the shares?

I could easily come up with a hundred questions advocates must answer as part of implementing socialism. Capitalism answers all of the questions, sometimes with cruelty, but the system functions. Can we tame capitalism with collective action through government? Swedes, Danes and northern Europeans are trying. I have my doubts.

I don't think much of the "we'll figure it out" line you use. Your Marxist analysis has yet to prove it's valid.

Marx, btw, is a wretched economist as evidenced by his wholesale adoption of Ricardo's labor theory of value.

Do you think Laos and Cambodia were dominated by "managers" and "experts?" There are other reasons attempts at socialism fail. In fact, no nation state has implemented socialism and sustained their model.

Banned by whom? Government? Would business be told they can't use "managers" and "experts?"

So, your solution to problems is "hope?"

They could choose fascism or capitalism.

So, you're prepared to guarantee you'd step aside if you're rejected by voters?

It's been known to happen.

 

What do you mean by "when the time comes?"

I'm supposed to learn from you over a period of years? You lead and I follow?

So far, I lean toward you not having much understanding of economics or history.

I ask questions you address by saying you don't know.

 

That depends on why they miss out on it. If they voluntarily chose to consume other things instead of health care, that would be just. But in reality, the US government has issued and enforced multifarious monopoly rent-collection privileges in the health care industry that make it an order of magnitude (sometimes two or three) more expensive than it would be in a free market, and that is certainly not just.

 

Marx was not just a bad economist, he was the Antieconomist: he extended and deified what classical economics got wrong -- the Labor Theory of Value -- and erased what it got right: the fact that the factory owner makes a contribution to production that rightly earns a return but the landowner does not.

 

Did Alexander Hamilton know how businesses would benefit from free VOIP overseas communications? Did he know how corporate insiders' salaries would be shored-up by privileged stock options? Things develop over time as conditions advance.

Huh? "want of a business"??

How many years has capitalist national economies been successful and growing and advancing? How many years has any socialist national economy been successful, growing, and advancing?

You're applying a different standard for socialism which has very little, and no successful, track record.

First of all, the "Labor Theory of Value" has been horribly misrepresented by capitalist ideologues (of course). It was a very small part of Marx's analysis and previously proposed and defended by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It is attacked by the right because Marx's analysis the LTV exposed the exploitative nature of the capitalist relations of production, and the right would like to discredit all ideas of exploitation without having to mention exploitation.

Marx developed an analysis of value involving about 5 different types and sources of value, including "use value", "exchange value", the effects of rarity (gold) and desire (demand) and supply. The following are arguments defending Marx's analysis of value.....

Here is an economist's view of LTV:
(It's only 4.5 minutes long.)

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb...aceful/study-guides/guide-value-price-profit/

https://www.marxist.com/marx-marxist-labour-theory-value.htm




Then we get into some pretty serious bullshit and crude attempts to poke and stab.

 

I said "study into IT" . . . . not "study into ME".

You're now sliding into the kind of misquoting, misinterpreting, and twisting of obvious meaning that I've come to recognize as the poster's path to irrationality, unfounded rejection, arguing, and fighting. So I think it's time for you do go your way as you choose.

 

Socialism (ie. "collective production") isn't limited to government-run enterprises. How about farm co-ops? Aren't they socialist?

 

A few centuries.

Zero. Socialism cannot be successful on a national scale, by political implementation, only on a voluntary basis, like Mondragon and the Israeli kibbutzim.

No, that's nothing but anti-economic Marxist-socialist tripe. The LTV was conclusively refuted by Stanley Jevons in 1871, who pointed out that the actual economic relationship is the opposite of the LTV: product value tends to track labor input not because product value is proportional to labor expended but because producers tend to devote labor to a product until the marginal value of the product is equal to the marginal value of the labor.

In fact, Marx's "analysis" was anti-economic gibberish. Value is what a thing would trade for. Full stop. What Marx called, "use value" is what modern economics calls, "utility."

Richard Wolff is a Marxist, not an economist. He merely repeats Marx's error of attributing all production to the labor input, none to the producer goods provided by the entrepreneur/employer. A simple example serves to conclusively refute such nonsense:

Consider a worker picking fruit in a natural grove of fruit trees. By climbing the trees, he can pick 10 lbs of fruit an hour, which is his wage. Clearly, no one is being exploited. But then an entrepreneur sees an opportunity to increase the worker's production by using a ladder. He provides a ladder, and offers the worker half the fruit harvest in return for use of his ladder. The worker is able to pick 30 lbs of fruit an hour using the ladder, of which he keeps 15 and gives 15 to the ladder's owner. All honest people, and even economists, agree that the entrepreneur has benefited the worker by 5 lbs of fruit per hour, and has earned his 15 lbs by making the worker 20 lbs more productive. However, the stupid, lying AntiEconomist Karl Marx, by contrast, claimed that because there is now an employer-employee ("worker-capitalist") relationship, the worker is somehow being exploited, and the 15 lbs of fruit he remits to the ladder's owner is "surplus labor value" the ladder owner is stealing from the worker. That is Marx's asinine "labor theory of value": the theory that all value comes from labor, none from the entrepreneur/investor who contributes the producer goods that make the production process more productive.