Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

Right: people think "free market capitalism" is a term that has semantic content when it is as vacuous as "square circle."

Actually, free private enterprise can exist just fine without capitalism, as in Hong Kong, and capitalism can exist without free private enterprise, as in any number of fascist countries. Just remember capitalism can't exist with a free market.

 

That is one of the structural differences.

 

Multiple factors. If you mean socialism as in getting rid of corporations so that the state owns everything and having everybody make the same amount - that's not popular at all. More popular than before? Maybe. But still very fringe. But if you mean "socialism" like medicare for all, corporate regulation, and such, that is more popular for a few reasons. First, the great enemy of today is not socialism/communism but fascism and state capitalists (not to be confused with free market capitalists) such as Russia and China. Second, there is more polarization in the country, making both sides more extreme.

Another factor is perception. When conservative media says crazy things like that Biden or Obama have been socialists, that dilutes the definition of socialism at best, and is an outright lie at worst, and either way makes it seem like socialism is more prevalent than it actually is.

 

That is nothing more than a cheap personal attack.

And you're so egregiously uninformed that you actually believe communist society has been attempted? WHEN? WHERE? It's patently ridiculous. Learn the definition of "communist society".

WTF are you talking about? The Gettysburg Address is a "religion"? LOL!!! Still no argument, eh?

It's clear that you either never read my relevant replies or you failed to comprehend them. Either way your comments are irrelevant.

So thanks again for the surrender.

 

There have been small-scale examples of communism like the hippie "communes" of the 1960s, all of which failed painfully, but the failed national regimes established by soi-disant "Communist" parties in the 20th century were all in fact socialist. Marx's view was that communism could only be achieved after capitalism and socialism; but actual experience with socialism shows that communism would be even more absurd, anti-human nonsense.

 

Think about it.
Does Kim il Jung describe our system correctly?
Does Putin describe our system correctly?
Do American socialists describe our system correctly?
But you think American capitalists describe socialism correctly. Are you kidding me?

I've explained this in depth. I'm sorry you don't grasp the reality of it.

 

It was never really tried because it's patently absurd. To imagine that socialism would lead to the dissolution of social power structures (communism) is... insane. It was never going to happen on the scale of a nation. It is amazing to me that this idea ever held significant sway. On the other hand, that doesn't mean socialism in particular, limited circumstances, such as healthcare delivery, cannot be useful. Policy should always be about accounting for human nature and aligning incentives accordingly. Profit can increase productivity or innovation in one context, but it can lead to abuse and corruption in another.

 

It most certainly does. Wealth trickles up because of privilege: legal entitlements to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. Examples include land deeds, IP monopolies, royal patent monopolies on trade in certain items, bank licenses, slave deeds, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, etc. Such legal properties in others' rights to liberty cause wealth to trickle up because those who own them can use the income from them to buy up more of them. That positive feedback mechanism is the cause of the great -- and unjust -- inequalities of wealth and income that characterize capitalist economies.

 

While reading your post a thought entered my mind.

Why don't we give the people a chance to try out what it means to be part of the means of production? We could enact a temporary condition for a year or two mandating that the people be owners of businesses, or business partnerships.

They can see how costly it is to try and implement worker's rights while working with slim profit margins. Then they can walk away being removed from the responsibilities of debt and the benefits of profit. No liability. They can learn how a free market capitalism is best and why socialism isn't.

What do you think of that?

 

OK, you hate capitalism but nothing you mentioned is a trickle up. Most of it is nonsense. Thanks for the response, though.

 

Rather than a description of various economic systems which by your very own words is tenuous at best, why not simply rely upon analyzing the verifiable results?

 

Is it capitalism?

 

It held, and still holds sway because...it's a religion. A secular one to be sure, but in every way to the people who are believers, it's a religion.

 

But not as much as socialism.

It certainly is. Those who own privileges are legally entitled to take wealth from those who do not, while not contributing anything in return. That is trickle up by definition. Which part of, "Such legal properties in others' rights to liberty cause wealth to trickle up because those who own them can use the income from them to buy up more of them" are you having trouble understanding?

It is fact, and you cannot refute a single word of it.

 

Pardon me dude, Private owner ship does not guarantee shortages government policies do.

 

You cannot take wealth from people who do not have it. Wealth is created and destroyed every day. It is not limited in any way. Wealth is stuff money is simply a means of measuring the value of stuff. How much wealth you have is a function of the stuff you value. If you value a good high more than a good meal expect to starve.

 

Utter nonsense. That only happens if only one person owns all of a specific resource. To prevent such things is governments jobs.

 

-according to you.

 

I think you're dreaming up a scheme mechanically and artificially, and "we" couldn't do it if "we" wanted to. So you're being silly.

 

Results of WHAT? Reactionary counter revolutions?

 

It's not an economy. It's a socially-beneficial program within a capitalist system.

 

Another personal attack. LOL!!!!

 

I couldn't help but notice that all you naysayers on the right ( @fmw @Lil Mike @garyd @wgabrie ) avoided my earlier question in which I asked if you could dream up any kind of economy in which there is no private ownership of businesses providing a means of exploiting workers for private profit, and which is by Constitutional requirements dedicated instead to benefiting society as a whole. So I have to assume the answer is "no".

 

Yeah, that's why there is no company bottling water to sell for a profit.

 

That's the key. It's a dream. You are not discussing simply another policy that we can discuss on policy grounds, you are talking about reordering society at a basic level that is opposed to all of human history and human nature.