Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

Duh indeed. Your logic is faulty. There have been and are many of them and all of them have governments. Your illogical approach to the issue is rejected.

 

Simply put she supports policies that are anathema to conservatives to an extreme degree. No need to make list of policies.

True. In fact few of them are. But they are the ones who get the most press in conservative media.

He didn't invent overspending. That has been endemic to government for a long long time.[

He simply described how capitalism works. It starts with entrepreneurship. That builds companies with profits that create wealth. Most of that wealth "trickles down" to employees and those employees are the foundation of the entire economy. Wealth doesn't trickle up. Oddly this notion has become a lasting talking point among those who support government over private enterprise.

That was a silly and pointless diatribe but I will say that our system ensures that we don't put towering intellects into political office. Towering intellects no better than to venture into our political system.

 

The power of the government is framed by the electorate.

 

But, IF she's such a threat to our nation certainly you can give an example of how?

Right, so you guys focus on a few to paint the whole with the same brush. Which is my point; Democrats are not socialists any more than Republicans are fascists.

No but Reagan took tax cuts and spending to levels that resulted in the growth of the national debt by more than ALL other presidents before him. Which resulted in continued rate of growth to this day. Because of the way debt is created, when debt is created the interest to that will be owed is not. So, once debt growth goes exponential it stays exponential otherwise the economy would suffer a contraction that would be unacceptable. Especially since the Reagan tax cuts haven't been reversed to help counter that debt growth. Letting a privately held central bank control our money was a bad idea in 1913 and we are now seeing why.

Friedman did more than that, his economic theory justified Regan's tax cuts and deregulation that has put the whole world into a cycle of increasing and crushing debt. And changed the Ameircan landscape such that we are just now, under President Biden's leadership, recovering from.

But tRaitor tRump has taken the choice to remain ignorant to levels never seen in the White House before.

 

It most certainly is used as an epithet by rightwing ideologues.

Sure, some leftwingers think they're "socialists." One well known "socialist" was a Head Start teacher, then a local pol, then a U.S. Senator. Guess who?



The guy isn't a socialist, but he is a big spender who would given the chance to destroy the economy with his plans.

I suppose so since I'm not a fan of private police.

I was on the teachers' union executive. I was head of bargaining. I heard from Bernie Sanders' "socialists" who weren't saying they wanted to collectivize production. They identify as liberal progressives. Now, they're dangerous because they can't say "no"--not at the border, not to any outstretched hand.

Blaming Biden for inflation caused by shortages of goods and services worldwide is propaganda for low information voters.

Ah, looks like you're one of the low information voters.

The intention is to cut demand by hitting people who made a bundle from increased asset values instead of using high interest rates.

The surtax would be temporary and applied to cut demand, not pay down federal debt.

Now you're making up positions for me. How stupid is that?

Good luck to all you MAGA folks who think the Orange Oaf is going to supply you with a free lunch.

 

Wrong. You are not thinking. You are falling for the confusion of people and their ideas, strategies, and policies that those people call "communism" on one hand, and societies that are classless and stateless on the other. CAN YOU FOLLOW THAT?

IOW you are confusing "communist" ideology and policy of people called "communists", with a future SOCIETY that would be a communist SOCIETY. You have "communism" of "communist" ideas, and "communism" of a communist society! It's the distinction of "something you can learn by studying a book" ("communism") versus "a way of living in society" ("communism").

CAN YOU FOLLOW THAT?

EVERYONE SHOULD GRASP THIS DISTINCTION!

 

There are no societies that are classless and stateless. CAN YOU FOLLOW THAT?

Why it is nonsense.

 

I already said that.

So you say you're unable to distinguish concepts from nations?

 

Of course not. Do you often ask silly questions?

I am using the word utopia in governance philosophy to describe the silly idea that any government is capable of writing legislation that will deliver perfection, or legislation that will not have unintended consequences.

 

"Silly questions"? How would I know how you define "utopia" unless I ask?

 

I guess I was wrong to think you would use a dictionary to discover the meaning of a word you did not know?

 

I'm not looking for a fight with you. But how could I know you intended the dictionary definition in a specific and reliable way? People here throw terms around all the time with little concern for the dictionary. So I asked. K?

 

And then, of course, there is Option B: Manufacturing consent, as Chairman Mao put it, from the barrel of a gun.

An excellent observation, and since I happen to agree with it I am going to point out a couple things to support it:

1) The Founders were not socialists or communists (like Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers), i.e., what they called "levelers" during their time:

The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional”
— Samuel Adams

Nor were they interested in founding a government, as the Jacobins in France were, based on Rousseau's convoluted theory that the "general will" superseded the power, rights and sovereignty of the individual. They most certainly could have done that, but they deliberately chose otherwise (thank goodness).

2) The whole point and intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of government. If the Founders intended to extend a general (unlimited) grant of authority to the government they instituted, they would have never bothered to write the Constitution in the first place. As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist No. 83:

"...an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended".

Duh. So, how have some socialists here in this forum and elsewhere tried to weasel around those two most inconvenient things?

Through the General Welfare Clause, but the Founders anticipated that nonsense, as well:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
--James Madison

So, having established that the Founders did not cut socialists a blank check in the General Welfare Clause and the Constitution, where does that leave the "progressives" in this country?

It leaves them with FASCISM, where the government exercises de facto, instead of direct, control over the private sector and its activities - the very same thing the "corporatist" fascists in Italy and the stakeholder fascists in Nazi Germany developed during the 1930s.

It's weird how the "progressives" in this country have morphed from the socialists and communists who supported Henry A. Wallace's "progressive" candidacy for president in 1948 to the fascists who support stakeholderism in 2024. I used to think they were the former, but now it's become evident that they more closely resemble the latter. This also shows how closely related they are, which is hardly surprising that they share the same socialist roots, negative attitudes towards individualism and liberalism, and authoritarian-totalitarian tendencies. They're two peas in the collectivist pod....

 

And yet, it was explained to you in my post and I quoted it in bold red text. There was no need for me to reiterate anything, and they're all essentially the same thing:

• Corporations as the instrument which, under the aegis of the State, carries out the complete organic and unitarian regulation of production with a view to the expansion of the wealth, political power, and well-being of the Italian people"

• "...the origins of legalized stakeholderism in Germany and the passage of the National Socialist government’s Shareholder Law of 1937. The law, writes Morck, “freed corporate managers and directors of their specific fiduciary duty to shareholders and substituted a general duty to all stakeholders.”

• "Corporate directors would be obligated to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders, “including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates.""

And now Stakeholder Biden's quote:

“It’s way past time to put the end to the era of shareholder capitalism. The idea the only responsibility a corporation has is its shareholders — that is simply not true, it’s an absolute farce. They have a responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country.”

First, Biden wants to end shareholder capitalism and replace it with stakeholder fascism.

Second, given the confusion in the first question, I need you t clarify what you asked in the second. When you asked "Do you understand what it's doing to us?", are you referring to stakeholder fascism or shareholder capitalism?

 

Except in autocracies and totalitarianism.

 

You talk about the guy like he's the Second Coming.

 

I don't know of any country with a private armed forces, so that alone by your definition would make every country in the world socialist. Egads.

 

"Coopted?" You sound like a leftwinger. What's next from you--talk about "stakeholders?" Yuck.

 

Let's not skip the following:
“The National Council of Corporations:
establish that the general staff of each Corporation shall include representatives of State administration, of the Fascist Party, of capital, of labour, and of experts"

So government had a role and influence in corporate life. Where does it say the workers were in control of anything corporate? And how can any of that empower workers after Mussolini banned labor unions and had their leaders executed?

"Consider the interests". Right. But we don't know the details of how those "considerations" and related law caused all that to play out. I think we know that the Mussolini government held ultimate control and even managed details of industrial production.

And what does that mean to Biden who has always stood by unions and workers? He is referring to the principles of "shareholder primacy" which suggests that corporate managers should prioritize the interests of shareholders above all other stakeholders and has evolved as a prevailing belief in corporate governance. More and more corporations have been moving in that direction and Biden advocates the earlier principles of social responsibilities of corporations.

can you document that? It seems you call it "stakeholder fascism" to make it sound bad even if it's not. I think focusing corporate priorities on benefiting society would be a very good first move. Requiring it would be even better.

I refuse to use your label of "stakeholder fascism". It's a hard spin like referring to Jan 6 terrorists as "victimized patriots". But regarding shareholder capitalism, as it is being pursued by corporations it is bringing about a degeneration of capitalism and public wellbeing.

 

we are definitely on the same page --- the evils of utilitarianism .. the Borg .. and don't think it does not come to the barrel of a Gun this progressive collectivist club - in the beginning the brown shirts were not throwing Jews into gas chambers .. using other softer forms of coercion and persecution .. yellow star .. restricting movement .. Warsaw Ghetto .. dehumanizing these folks as "Unclean" .. later on "forced Medical Treatment" Just like Biden and the Jab Jab crew .. a mass censorship and propaganda campaign coming with the violation.

don't be so hard on Roussou .. and the "Collective Will" .. as there is a place for this in proper context .. first recognizing that 50+1 in a referendum .. banning alcohol for example .. is "Tyranny of the Majority" -- by definition .. something both classical liberalism and Republicanism despises. .. same with these Political clowns claiming Simple Majority Mandate .. somehow getting elected gives them a mandate to violate what ever principle they were elected on .. abortion is a good example of such abuse.

The RULE .. or at least what the Rule of supposed to be .. is "overwhelming Majority" .. 2/3rds majority .. or even 75% in some cases like is required for a change to the constitution. .. but NOT 50+1 .. or some Politician crying Mandate .. this is NOT justification for law .. and is an anathema to a constitutional republic. .. failing to limit the power of Gov't .

If you can get 2/3rds of the population to side with some .. violation of liberty .. to move that into the legitimate power of Gov't .. which we the people have the power to do .. and the power to consent to .. "Consent of the Governed" the law is legitimate . If not . .. the law is illegitimacy of authority as defined in the Declaration.... document which defines these things.

 

Yep, a very small 'electorate' in those circumstances.

 

So, Biden makes statements pandering to the likes of...

Neither.

 

Hitler and Mussolini weren't socialists.

 

Sorry I am arguing exactly the opposite and have been for a couple of dozen pages now.

 

I am a person in favor of a free market and freely made choices made by people in that market place. We are moving further from that every day. As we create evermore industrial complexes