Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  2 weeks ago  •  158 comments

Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds
Donald Trump has frequently railed against socialism as he gears up to bid for a second term. In April he told a rally in Wisconsin that America “will never be a socialist country”.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


originalForty percent of Americans would rather live in a socialist country than a capitalist one, with a majority of younger women having this preference, according to a new poll.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Puerto Rican Day parade in New York on Sunday. Ocasio-Cortez is an avowed democratic socialist.
Jose Alvarado Jr/Reuters

That four in 10 respondents supported socialism suggests the US might be shaking off decades of stigma – in keeping with the rising prominence of avowedly democratic socialist politicians, such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

According to the survey from Axios on HBO, respondents had varying views on what comprised a socialist political system. Seventy-six percent of respondents agreed that universal healthcare was a hallmark of socialism. Seventy-two percent agreed that tuition-free education was also a characteristic of socialism, and 68% thought a living wage was part of a socialist system.

Large numbers of respondents also agreed that socialism was linked to several unfavorable political characteristics. Fifty-seven percent agreed that “state-controlled media and communication” were among the things constituting socialism, and 49% agreed it was a “system dependent on dictatorship”.

However, the poll showed a gender divide when it comes to US attitudes to socialism.

Although 55% of women in the 18-54 age group said they would prefer living in a socialist country, “a majority of men prefer to live in a capitalist country”, Axios noted.

“It’s been a truth of American politics for decades that women are to the left of men, and I think that’s playing out in this poll,” said Felix Salmon of Axios.

Donald Trump has frequently railed against socialism as he gears up to bid for a second term. In April he told a rally in Wisconsin that America “will never be a socialist country”.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    2 weeks ago

I'm not sure what this means, considering the abyssal ignorance of most Americans of what "socialism" actually is... but one conclusion seems safe: the word "socialism" is no longer taboo.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    2 weeks ago

Well you’re right and you’re wrong at the same time, the public is ignorant about what socialism is but they sure as hell if they knew what it really was they would be as abhorrent of it as they are of Nazism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    2 weeks ago

Name the characteristics that determine a 'socialist economy' and three nations that you consider to be running a socialist economy.

 
 
 
JBB
1.1.2  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Let me guess...

1. It's bad. 2. It's unfair. 3. It's fails. Um, Sweden, Denmark and Norway???

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

I think you are being generous.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

That wouldn’t be my approach to this topic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

This  ⇧  is what I expected.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

 That’s not what you told me.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.7  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    2 weeks ago

I doubt that retrobates use such language to try and scare people but they are becoming smarter the the retrobates time is drawing nigh 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.8  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Sure it would

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
I doubt that retrobates use such language to try and scare people but they are becoming smarter the the retrobates time is drawing nigh

Why don't you Google the definition for "retrobate"?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.10  XXJefferson#51  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are not socialist nations.  America will never be a socialist country.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are not socialist nations.

Correct.  Congratulations.

( You apparently missed JBB's rather obvious sarcasm. )

 
 
 
freepress
2  freepress    2 weeks ago

It would be 6 or 8 out of 10 if people really understood the reality. Capitalism only works with oversight and some measure of control. 

The economic crash under Republicans in 2008 was the culmination of unbridled, unchecked capitalistic greed run amok over the American people.

I am not against capitalism or profit, but without ethical rules to protect consumers, without maintaining a level of job creation in America, and without a system of checks and balances on the level of greed overtaking the well being of our country, then capitalism serves no one but the greedy few at the top. 

Like all pyramid schemes it came crashing down and all these greedy few want is to keep the hamster wheel going on their corrupt practices and price fixing like we see from Big Pharma.

The realization is slow in coming but it is dawning on many of those at the top that eventually they will price their goods, products and services out of the reach of too many people that will then cause them to crash and burn leaving them with nothing.

The old saying "you can't get blood from a turnip" applies, corporations eventually will not be able to squeeze the 98% of us to get anything from us because they are the ones who squeezed Americans dry.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  freepress @2    2 weeks ago
Capitalism only works with oversight and some measure of control. 

that is true enough...

it is also true that socialism only works with much bigger federal govt and the use of force, as not many capitalists will give up the product of their labor to "the collective" without a huge fight.  however in our country there will be no fight. the supreme court will always uphold the notion of personal ownership of one's business and property.    meaning, "the collective" can not have our stuff and the USA will never be a socialist country.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1    2 weeks ago
socialism only works with much bigger federal govt

No

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
No

yes

do you think with the current number of federal employees the feds can keep the states and capitalists with guns inline when they refuse to play the socialist games?   not a chance.

  a whole new bureaucracy and federal police force must be set up to make sure us capitalist pigs give our property to the collective on time and to keep us from just killing the socialists instead.     they are gonna need them because we will fight to the death over this issue. there will be civil war.   truth be told... my piss ant little city would swallow 1000 socialist enforcers in a day or two no problem. and there are over 20,000 cities... you do the math.

  enacting socialism in this country would require the federal government to double in size just to pretend to keep us in check. but there is no way they would ever actually keep us in check =  we will win that war easy. 

besides all that, our military will oust the admin who tries to flip our country socialist without an amendment to the constitution first.. and there is no way the states will pass that amendment, not enough states are run by people that stupid.

cheers :)

 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

You're explaining that capitalism needs Big Government.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
... who tries to flip our country socialist ...

The USA is not going to 'flip' to socialism.   If the USA ever has a system wherein the people have control over the productive resources of the economy (as opposed to a minority holding control) it will be a result of a long evolution and will be because the people (and our infrastructure) have culturally evolved to the point where this is the kind of system they both desire and can competently manage.

Then again, it depends on what you mean by 'socialist' because unless someone defines their meaning, that word can mean anything from brutal authoritarian rule to a purely egalitarian Nirvana fantasy.   Given you stated @2.1: "socialism only works with much bigger federal govt and the use of force" it would appear that you think socialism is basically the system of the former USSR or possibly the transitional stage during an economic coup in which an authoritarian ruler (or anarchic forces operating in a national revolution) expropriates private property, etc.    If so, neither is going to happen in the USA in our lifetimes and using 'socialism' to describe these scenarios renders any such discussion confused and pointless.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Far too many including yourself utilize outmoded definitions instead of going to the source.  The Socialist International is the parent  organization for socialist movements around the world.

they offer a more expansive definition to reflect what is actually happening globally

Socialist International

“Democratic socialism today is based on the same values on which it was founded. But they must be formulated critically, both assimilating past experience and looking ahead to the future. For instance, experience has shown that while nationalisation in some circumstances may be necessary, it is not by itself a sovereign remedy for social ills. Likewise, economic growth can often be destructive and divisive, especially where private interests evade their social and ecological responsibility. Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice.

The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy. It is clear that the internationalisation of the economy and the global technological revolution make democratic control more important than ever. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means according to time and place, including:

- democratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; protection of the public and social interest; and socialisation of the costs and benefits of economic change;

- worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy;

- self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers;

- public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making where this is necessary to enable governments to realise social and economic priorities;

- democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system to allow full participation by all countries;

- international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations, including cross-frontier trade union rights within such corporations.

61. There is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation in different countries. But the underlying principle is clear - not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally.”

http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

You should read what you copy & pasted.

What point do you wish to make other than Democratic Socialism is complex and includes transitional factors?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.1.7  livefreeordie  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

I’ve read it many times. It clearly state that there is no single definition of a socialist government 

but what ALL forms of socialism including the Democratic Socialism of Europe or Bernie eat alone is FORCED STATIST COLLECTIVISM 

that equates to the authoritarianism Bernie and other Democrats say they are running against

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  livefreeordie @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
It clearly state that there is no single definition of a socialist government 

I agree.  You might have noticed that this is why I encourage people to not simply use the term 'socialism' but to qualify what they actually mean.  The word 'socialism' unqualified is almost meaningless.   That established, did someone claim that socialism has one specific definition; one specific architecture or dynamic?   You seem to be addressing a claim that was not made.

... but what ALL forms of socialism including the Democratic Socialism of Europe or Bernie eat alone is FORCED STATIST COLLECTIVISM 

And where did you get that idea?   A powerful state imposing itself (authoritarian statism) on the people (forcing them to comply) is the opposite of distributed economic control.   

that equates to the authoritarianism Bernie and other Democrats say they are running against

Look up social democracy.   There you will find most of the policies of Bernie, et. al.    What you seem to have in your mind is authoritarian rule - a powerful state controlling the people.   Calling that socialism just misses the point so badly it is both sad and funny.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
did someone claim that socialism has one specific definition; one specific architecture or dynamic?

not sure if anyone on this site made the claim but ummmm.... dictionaries have made that claim.

  • a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
  • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
  • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

read more here...

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/socialism

so yeah, basically socialists take other peoples property, in one way or another, and gives it all to "the community" as a whole.   

its not rocket science :)

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.9    2 weeks ago
so yeah, basically socialists take other peoples property, in one way or another, and gives it all to "the community" as a whole.    its not rocket science

Yet you insist on getting it wrong.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.11  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

nothing wrong about what I said...  

no matter what version of socialism anyone talks about it boils down to theft from others.

ya know what six out of ten people in this country think about socialist thieves?

luckily, our constitution recognizes the concepts of personal liberty and personal property and personal ownership of the results of one's labor.... leaving the socialist shit out of luck.   

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
Yet you insist on getting it wrong.

Some have invented their own definition of socialism and nobody, not Merriam or Webster, not even Karl Marx himself would be able to convince them otherwise. At some point you have to just chalk them up as unteachable and move on. Ignorance is curable with education, but you can't fix stupid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.12    2 weeks ago

Too many people seem stubbornly determined to be wrong.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.14  Freedom Warrior  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

It’s actually far worse than that.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.15  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

Good lord the ignorance of those comments shows no bounds

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.16  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1    2 weeks ago

The USA will only become a socialist country by violent revolution that also overturns the entire US Constitution.  We who support capitalism and live by it will use every peaceful, passive, legal, and obstructing technique to block it to the extent that violent revolution is the only way socialism can impose itself upon us and even then, we’d replicate the Kulaks of Ukraine and salt our fields, burn our factories, and bury every personal effect that could be taken from us by a collective. It would be better to burn the country and it’s farms and cities to the ground than let it be taken by the socialists.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.17  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

Bravo!! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
The USA will only become a socialist country by violent revolution that also overturns the entire US Constitution. 

That is extremely unlikely.   

We who support capitalism and live by it will use every peaceful, passive, legal, and obstructing technique to block it to the extent that violent revolution is the only way socialism can impose itself upon us and even then, we’d replicate the Kulaks of Ukraine and salt our fields, burn our factories, and bury every personal effect that could be taken from us by a collective. It would be better to burn the country and it’s farms and cities to the ground than let it be taken by the socialists.  

We are not 19th century Europe.   Get a grip.   

If our economic system ever becomes something that qualifies as socialism (not the emotionally charged pejorative that you have in mind) it is more likely that it is a result of gradual evolution and almost certainly because the people are culturally competent to take on the responsibilities and, importantly, they desire to do so.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.19  XXJefferson#51  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.11    2 weeks ago

Which is why only by overthrowing the US Constitution can socialism ever be imposed upon us. And we who support capitalism, private property rights, individuals land ownership rights, rights as shareholders, intend to defend and preserve what system we have now come what may.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.1.19    2 weeks ago
... intend to defend and preserve what system we have now come what may.  

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

You can talk tough with complete safety because none of your concerns will occur within our lifetimes, if ever.    You might as well be bragging about how you will pilot your jet into the maw of an alien invader mother ship and martyr yourself to save the planet.   Give us a break.

Worry about things that are likely, not nightmares resulting from an utter misunderstanding of the dynamics at play in the USA.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.21  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.20    2 weeks ago
You might as well be bragging about how you will pilot your jet into the maw of an alien invader mother ship and martyr yourself to save the planet.

Baen Books is an SF publisher specialized in the sub-genre "military science fiction". Some of their writers were leaders of the "Sad Puppies" movement that tried to pack the Hugo Award with John Campbell fiction.

I happen to like military SF. The leader of the second year's campaign, Brad Torgerson, wrote the excellent The Chaplain's War, combining shoot-em-up action and theological debate - good stuff!

Baen sponsors a forum called Baen's Bar. It is deeply red (or was - I was kicked off a couple years ago when I dared write about their Sad Puppies mess.) The conversations there were like NT's conservatives in their closed [Fox&Friends] loops... but even wackier.

One of Baen's stars is a guy named John Ringo. I read some of his earlier stuff, but it gradually got too wacky to digest. I don't remember which of his books had the scene that finally made me think, "Hey! Why are you rotting your brain with this?" In that scene, a bunch of "heroic yahoos" loaded a .50 caliber machine gun in the bed of a pickup, to fight off alien invaders.

Yup. Fifty cal in a pickup, against aliens in flying saucers.

All the guys on Baen's Bar are of course nutzoid second-amendment-solution types. [deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2  It Is ME  replied to  freepress @2    2 weeks ago
It would be 6 or 8 out of 10 if people really understood the reality.

That's not the narrative though.

It's always about the Minority that means the most.....In Liberal Land anyway.

Get with the program...… Gaul ! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.1  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @2.2    2 weeks ago

It's time trumpets did get with the program and quits destroying America

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
It's time trumpets did get with the program and quits destroying America

Rome is burning where pray tell ?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3  The Magic Eight Ball    2 weeks ago
Four In 10 Americans Prefer Socialism

they can take their socialist asses to venezuela any time they like.

 America “will never be a socialist country”.

true enough... no one alive today will see the usa become a socialist nation.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3    2 weeks ago

Forty percent is about the size of Trump’s support.

How about exiling them?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    2 weeks ago
How about exiling them?

nah this country does not support socialists and never will.   maybe after they start teaching marxism at west point... LOL  till then we will be keeping this country, if the socialist don't like it? they can simply fuk off.

Forty percent is about the size of Trump’s support.

so ya say... which means nothing.

"Question 15
 As you may have heard, Donald Trump has decided to run for re-election. Please just give me your best guess,  do you think he will win the presidential election in 2020, or do you think he will lose?
Base: Respondents who are registered to vote

Will win 55% 
Will lose 41% 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/06/05/rel7c.-.trump.issues.2020.pdf

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Americans, particularly the younger generations, are gradually being "awoke" to the evils of "income inequality". Some of us have been talking about it years, but it is only in the Trump era that the message has begun to sink in. I think that within the next decade or so we will see the beginning of some laws and programs that will help to spread the wealth. It is going to take time, but by the same token once the change happens we wont be going back to a "gilded age".

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago

You're an optimist.

The alternative is that the right will transform the republic into a kleptocratic oligarchy. Inequality won't matter.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago

Totalitarianism ideology is always proposing that it will end income inequality.. but of course it never does and never will.

yes, capitalism also produces inequality, but offers greater income mobility and the data reflects that fact

High Turnover Among America’s Rich

By Chelsea German

Your odds of “making it to the top” might be better than you think, although it’s tough to stay on top once you get there. 

According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e.: people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.  

How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.

Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade. 

Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners—a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013, 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade. 

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirslost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

http://humanprogress.org/blog/high-turnover-among-americas-rich

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

While this is disappointing it does not come as a surprise to me. Being the most obese country it is also becoming the laziest country. Socialism appeals to the lazy. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5    2 weeks ago

Dean,

This country is obese because there is no portion control. We over eat. Not because of socialism. 

Not that I am for socialism. But I like to be factual. 

 
 
 
lib50
5.2  lib50  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5    2 weeks ago

What does that even mean?   So unrelated to the topic!   And socialism is many things and comes in many forms,  it isn't pure any more than capitalism it pure.  There are degrees.  Not to mention some people seem to be against 'socialism' unless it goes where they want it to go, farm subsidies, corporate bailouts,  corporate elite regularly privatize the profits and socialize the costs to taxpayers.  Instead of broad labels it is better to go directly to policies.  Pick one and start there.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  lib50 @5.2    2 weeks ago

It means that I feel the people that favor Bernie's and AOC's democratic socialism are lazy. It is far easier to vote for free crap at the expense of the hard working successful than to work for it and earn it for oneself. 

 
 
 
lib50
5.2.2  lib50  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

It means you can't actually pick a single point and argue it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

For clarity: 

  • socialism  = collective (all the people) control over the productive resources of the economy
  • capitalism = minority  (aristocracy) control over the productive resources of the economy

The above illustrates the most significant difference between the structure of socialism vs. capitalism (but does not get into details such as the intent or the dynamics).


Bernie's and AOC's democratic socialism

If you look at what Sanders and AOC are advocating, it is not socialism (and not even Democratic Socialism in particular) but rather social democracy.   (Social democracy is a form of capitalism featuring heightened statism.)  They are advocating more statism — they believe government should play a bigger role and, in particular, should redistribute more wealth.   And even the redistribution of wealth aspect needs to be unpacked since redistribution of wealth in itself is necessarily at the core of every government in civil societies (e.g. public schools).   So one must look at the specific proposals of redistribution to determine the merits.   

The only aspect of what they promote that correlates with socialism (yet this also works under capitalism) is their support for cooperative workplaces.   If you know anything about this model, the workers are expressly not fat and lazy and are not getting 'free crap'.    Note also that national distribution of 'free crap' takes place regardless of the economic system and almost exclusively under systems that have a capitalist economy (some have state capitalism ... like China).  'Free crap' from the government is not a defining characteristic of socialism (or capitalism), rather it is a defining characteristic of political statism. 

This is the problem with our language —especially in the USA— people use terms such as 'socialism' and think they are making a point when in actuality the word is so overloaded as to be essentially meaningless unless one adds qualification to identify one's intended usage.    Comments that net down to 'socialism is bad' connote nothing more than parroting a slogan.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
capitalism = minority  (aristocracy) control over the productive resources of the economy

Define "productive resources of the economy".

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

The means of production and distribution: includes factors such as land, facilities, equipment, tools, materials, capital, infrastructure.   That which is required to provide the consumables (especially necessary consumables) of civil society.

Minority control over same is (in the USA, etc.) predominantly held by the private sector.   In other nations (e.g. Venezuela) it is predominantly held by government officials.   In all cases, minority control nets down to aristocracy.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.5    2 weeks ago
In all cases, minority control nets down to aristocracy.

Nicely stated.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.5    2 weeks ago
The means of production and distribution: includes factors such as land, facilities, equipment, tools, materials, capital, infrastructure.

So it seems you're really limiting your definition to an agrarian or manufacturing economy.  The US has been a service-based economy for many years.  Service-based businesses require none of those things except capital, and even then many start and prosper using self-generated cash flow.

Minority control over same is (in the USA, etc.)

I'm not sure the data actually supports that idea.

There are over 30 million small businesses in the US, each of which has some control over a piece of the means of production.  There are another 15 million self-employed people, also owning some control.  Of the massive US corporations, almost all are publicly traded, and owned by hundreds of millions of Americans through their IRAs, 401(k)s, pension funds, college funds, or general non-qualified investments.  The Federal Reserve tells us that 52% of Americans own stocks. 

In all cases, minority control nets down to aristocracy.

Again, I don't think the numbers support this idea.  "Aristocracy" is typically not a group numbering 15-50% of the population.  The English aristocracy of the 18th century was about 20,000 people of a population of 5 million, or less than 1/2 of 1%.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.7    2 weeks ago
So it seems you're really limiting your definition to an agrarian or manufacturing economy. 

I am not.   It is really more about necessity and influence for civil society.     The mode of production changes over time but the necessity and influence of factors will always be in place.   Those who control those factors control the economy (as much as an economy can be controlled that is). 

The US has been a service-based economy for many years.  Service-based businesses require none of those things except capital, and even then many start and prosper using self-generated cash flow.

Infrastructure includes technological infrastructure which includes communication, transportation, artificial intelligence, etc.   That which enables services to be developed and delivered is part of the MoP / MoD.

Of the massive US corporations, almost all are publicly traded, and owned by hundreds of millions of Americans through their IRAs, 401(k)s, pension funds, college funds, or general non-qualified investments.  The Federal Reserve tells us that 52% of Americans own stocks. 

Public stock ownership is not control;  it is indirect influence.   Ultimately Apple, for example, will take whatever actions its executive team decides and as long as they continue to deliver solid shareholder value they will remain in control.   ( And if they fail, others will replace them and exert their own minority control. )

Again, I don't think the numbers support this idea.  "Aristocracy" is typically not a group numbering 15-50% of the population.  The English aristocracy of the 18th century was about 20,000 people of a population of 5 million, or less than 1/2 of 1%.

The word 'aristocracy' was not used as an historical reference.   I used the term for its English language semantics:  the upper classes of society.   Also, the percentages have nothing to do with my meaning.   Aristocracy is equated to the minority that holds economic power.   This I tried to make clear upfront @5.2.3:

  • socialism  = collective (all the people) control over the productive resources of the economy
  • capitalism = minority  (aristocracy) control over the productive resources of the economy

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.9  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.8    2 weeks ago
Those who control those factors control the economy (as much as an economy can be controlled that is). 

Owners of a company control those factors.

Infrastructure includes technological infrastructure which includes communication, transportation, artificial intelligence, etc.   That which enables services to be developed and delivered is part of the MoP / MoD.

The largest provider of communication services is ATT....which is owned by tens of millions of Americans.

Public stock ownership is not control;  it is indirect influence.

That's like saying Jerry Jones has "indirect influence" over the Dallas Cowboys because he doesn't actually call the plays or decide where to throw the ball.

It's control.  The shareholders are the ones who actually own everything and decide who runs their company.

Ultimately Apple, for example, will take whatever actions its executive team decides and as long as they continue to deliver solid shareholder value they will remain in control.

And who, exactly, has the power to fire them?  The shareholders.  Who are in no way a minority.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.9    2 weeks ago

You are (curiously) insisting that economic control is the same as indirect influence.   Consumers have indirect influence over companies.   Consumer influence is arguably greater than that of shareholders.

Owners of a company control those factors.

Very indirect.   I cannot help but smile at your reference to AT&T being controlled by its shareholders.   The direction of the company is set by the executive team at the approval of the board.   The specific strategy and tactics is set by executive and upper management and executed by the balance of the enterprise with myriad decisions made at different levels of operations.  I am sure I have AT&T somewhere in my portfolios.   Maybe I should check with my adviser to see if I have missed a vote on the specific direction AT&T is taking with respect to service offerings for smart devices.   

That's like saying Jerry Jones has "indirect influence" over the Dallas Cowboys because he doesn't actually call the plays or decide where to throw the ball.

Precisely not.  Minority, consolidated control most definitely exists.   Jerry Jones exemplifies minority control.   We were talking about distributed control.   Your analogy is 180° wrong.

And who, exactly, has the power to fire them?  The shareholders.  Who are in no way a minority.

The shareholders typically elect the board members, not the members of the executive team and below.   They also can vote on items put up to vote by the board such as major initiatives, executive pay, etc.   They do not have direct power over the corporation and its decisions.   The adjective 'indirect' really applies well here.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.2.11  XXJefferson#51  replied to  lib50 @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

I understood exactly what he meant and agree with him that the slothful and lazy are the primary advocates of and would be beneficiaries of socialism. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.2.11    2 weeks ago
... the slothful and lazy are the primary advocates of and would be beneficiaries of socialism

Which definition of socialism do you have in mind now?    

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5    2 weeks ago
Being the most obese country it is also becoming the laziest country. Socialism appeals to the lazy. 

Then why are the fattest States with the highest rates of obesity all Red States full of supposedly capitalist loving Republicans?

Top 10 Fattest States:

1 Mississippi
2 West Virginia 
3 Arkansas 
4 Kentucky 
5 Tennessee 
6 Louisiana 
7 Alabama 
8 South Carolina
9 Oklahoma
10 Texas

https://wallethub.com/edu/fattest-states/16585/

Mississippi is number 1 at 37.3% adult obesity in 2016. So more than 1 out of 3 Mississippians is clinically obese.

Seems that whole bullshit concept of "liberals are lazy so they love socialism" kind of falls flat when looking at those numbers, or are Red States far more socialist than they'd like to admit? The numbers do show slightly more conservatives rely on entitlements than liberals.

"the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program."

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
6  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    2 weeks ago

Historical attempts to implement socialism and communism lead to a dictatorship.

No country has been able to emerge from the dictatorship of the proletariat to it's ultimate goal. At this point the people are completely powerless, they cannot reverse course and they cannot move forward. They enjoy poverty and substandard living conditions while dictator and party loyalists enjoy the fruits of power.

After 100 years of failure no one should be willing to allow this to happen.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @6    2 weeks ago

Unfettered capitalism creates extremes of rich and poor, with the added delusion that the extremely rich think they "built it themselves". 

The "welfare state'' is an absolute necessity in the modern world.  We should have a law that if corporate profit exceeds a certain rate it is taxed higher. We have to have a society where profit of a business is shared by capital and labor more equitably. It can happen and hopefully it is inevitable because the people will eventually demand it. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
6.1.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago

We are discussing socialism John, not capitalist societies with a welfare state. Most Western nations have a welfare state. Ours is smaller right now because unemployment is low, wages are rising and the economy is on fire.

So maybe next time join the conversation and stay on topic.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
We are discussing socialism...

We should be discussing Americans' attitudes toward socialism.

Of course... that would be discussing the topic of the seed, which is not allowed on NT. Someone always derails.

"Someone" always derails... right, Bf? For example, "Unfettered capitalism creates extremes of rich and poor" is an opinion that has nothing to do with the seed.

A derail. Right, Bf?

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
6.1.3  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

My attitude regarding socialism is based on it's failed history. How does Bob propose we become a socialist country without the unintended dictatorship?

I am assuming you don't simply want a heavily regulated capitalist economy with a large welfare state but a true socialist state? Is that right? correct me if I am wrong.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

What part of

We should be discussing Americans' attitudes toward socialism.

    do you not understand?

Please stop derailing.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.4    2 weeks ago
We should be discussing Americans' attitudes toward socialism.

our attitude is simple... this country will never be a socialist nation in any of our lifetimes.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
We should be discussing Americans' attitudes toward socialism.

Sure.

Americans who favor socialism are generally unhappy in their current state of affairs and think everybody ELSE should change behavior to suit their "feelings".

Americans who oppose socialism are generally not interested in changing behavior to accommodate those people.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.7  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.6    2 weeks ago
Americans who favor socialism are generally unhappy in their current state of affairs

Do you have any support for that assertion?

It doesn't apply to me, for instance. I like my life just fine. Lots of travel. Adequate creature comforts.

The fact that I'm fairly content with my own existence has nothing to do with considering our society to be on the wrong track. I think there are many like me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

Define 'socialism' as you use the term.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.7    2 weeks ago
Do you have any support for that assertion?

Absolutely.  People who are happy do not generally want cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change.

It doesn't apply to me, for instance. I like my life just fine. Lots of travel. Adequate creature comforts.

Which is why you want so badly to change everything.  Riiiiight.

The fact that I'm fairly content with my own existence has nothing to do with considering our society to be on the wrong track.

If you say so.

I think there are many like me.

Many happy, secure people who want to throw out that happiness and security?  Nonsense. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    2 weeks ago
Define 'socialism' as you use the term.

As we've discussed, it doesn't really matter how I use the term.  It matters how the advocates use the term, because that's the picture of what they want our society to be.

Personally, I go with a more traditional definition of "collective ownership of the means of production".  "Collective" in every instance attempted so far has meant "government", simply because that's how the "collective" group of people is controlled.

However that's not generally how many people who advocate "socialism" think of it.  Many people confuse capitalist economies with broad public services for "socialist" economies, simply because there is currently so much misinformation in the air.  Other people believe "socialism" to be some magical spell that brings about the end of "income inequality" (and thus assuages their wealth envy) ...despite the fact they can't actually explain why "inequality" is a problem if poverty is reduced.

Moderate, intelligent people look at our current situation and can see how different public services would be beneficial, but realize that we don't need to tear down our entire economy to do that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.10    2 weeks ago
As we've discussed, it doesn't really matter how I use the term.  It matters how the advocates use the term, because that's the picture of what they want our society to be.

It really does matter.  If one constructs a sentence using the term 'socialism' unqualified there are myriad usages that could apply.   The sentence is ambiguous.

Personally, I go with a more traditional definition of "collective ownership of the means of production".  "Collective" in every instance attempted so far has meant "government", simply because that's how the "collective" group of people is controlled.

That distinguishes capitalism from socialism except we now need to unpack collective.   If the government owns (read: ultimately controls) the MoP/MoD rather than simply administers it  then the system most likely is state capitalism.   If ownership (read: ultimate control) is by the actively engaged people (i.e. distributed economic control) then that would capture the essence of socialism.   There are quite a few ways of approaching something like this, but they are all theoretical and IMO none of them are possible except through a rather long evolution that none of us will live to see.

However that's not generally how many people who advocate "socialism" think of it.  Many people confuse capitalist economies with broad public services for "socialist" economies, simply because there is currently so much misinformation in the air. 

Yes, too many think that anything that starts with 'social' is ipso facto 'socialism'.   Ergo social programs (public programs) are, by too many, deemed to be 'socialism'.   Most of these people do not even seem to be aware of the system to which they speak:  social democracy and do not realize that social democracy is political statism running off a highly regulated / taxed capitalist engine.

Other people believe "socialism" to be some magical spell that brings about the end of "income inequality" (and thus assuages their wealth envy) ...despite the fact they can't actually explain why "inequality" is a problem if poverty is reduced.

Income inequality is a critical factor in a productive economy.   I try to encourage people to focus on more equal opportunity with the economically healthy consequences of unequal rewards due, in part, to unequal talent, attitude, work ethic, ...., and luck.

Moderate, intelligent people look at our current situation and can see how different public services would be beneficial, but realize that we don't need to tear down our entire economy to do that.

Anything we do in the USA will necessarily be incremental.   We are too big and too complex to make quick changes in fundamentals even if we saw a great need to do so.   Capitalism itself is not a pressing problem in the USA except at the upper level where cronyism, monopolies, and transnational uber power continues to consolidate.   Not sure there is anything that can be done about that either since that dynamic appears, historically, to be the natural  (as in biological behavior) order of society.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.12  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.9    2 weeks ago
People who are happy do not generally want cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change.

Strawman.

No one is calling for "cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.11    2 weeks ago
If one constructs a sentence using the term 'socialism' unqualified there are myriad usages that could apply.   The sentence is ambiguous.

The topic is ambiguous, because nobody uses the word to mean the same thing.  Therefore it makes no difference how I define it,  because I'm perfectly happy in the current system.

If the government owns (read: ultimately controls) the MoP/MoD rather than simply administers it  then the system most likely is state capitalism. 

It totally and completely doesn't matter.  Nobody uses the term "state capitalism".  Nobody running for office calls themselves a "state capitalist".   Most people advocating "socialism" don't actually mean government ownership or administration of the means of production when they use the term anyway. 

Capitalism itself is not a pressing problem in the USA except at the upper level where cronyism, monopolies, and transnational uber power continues to consolidate.

Exactly.  So a few intelligent regulations and let's move on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.13    2 weeks ago
The topic is ambiguous, because nobody uses the word to mean the same thing. 

Indeed, my point exactly.   Although I would say 'few' rather than 'nobody'.

Therefore it makes no difference how I define it,  because I'm perfectly happy in the current system.

But you just acknowledged that the term is a homonym.   So how you define it when you use it in a sentence is absolutely critical for understanding.   If someone writes:  'Socialism sucks' all that one can glean from that is that whatever they consider to be 'socialism' is something they do not want.   One person might think socialism means public services funded by higher taxation, another thinks it is authoritarian rule, another thinks it is social democracy, another thinks it is state control of business, etc.    It makes a very key difference how an individual defines a term when they use that term (unqualified) in a sentence.

Nobody uses the term "state capitalism".  Nobody running for office calls themselves a "state capitalist".   

So?   There are lots of esoteric (and accurate) terms that are not part of the vernacular.     (By the way, anyone in the USA running for office as a state capitalist is begging to lose.)

Most people advocating "socialism" don't actually mean government ownership or administration of the means of production when they use the term anyway. 

What do you think most people in the USA mean by 'socialism'?

I think most people think socialism is statism:  big 'benevolent' state providing benefits while controlling economic and social factors. 

What is your opinion?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.12    2 weeks ago
No one is calling for "cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change".

I'm sure you think so.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    2 weeks ago
So how you define it when you use it in a sentence is absolutely critical for understanding.

Not if I'm referring to someone else's views.  Then it's THEIR definition that matters.

What is your opinion?

I would pretty much concur with your assessment.  

Utterly naive, IMO, and I think that's the basis of much of the opposition to that particular idea.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.16    2 weeks ago
Not if I'm referring to someone else's views.

Well of course.   But if you are referring to someone else who simply used the term 'socialism' unqualified then how could you possibly know their meaning?    If they have established clear meaning (almost never done) then sure we can use the term as they have defined it.   But if the term is used without definition (almost always) then it needs to be defined.   

Actually, I suggest people not even use the damn term and just state clearly what they mean.   If one is complaining about statism then use 'statism'.   Redistribution of wealth is accurately described by the phrase 'redistribution of wealth'.   'Authoritarian rule' neatly expresses the concept of authoritarian rule.  Finally, at least my last example, 'social democracy' accurately identifies social democracy.

I would pretty much concur with your assessment.  

Rare, but I will take it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.13    2 weeks ago
Exactly.  So a few intelligent regulations and let's move on.

Hard to do that with people running about crying 'socialism' at every turn.   We even have some here on NT who see facists and Marxists everywhere.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.17    2 weeks ago
But if you are referring to someone else who simply used the term 'socialism' unqualified then how could you possibly know their meaning? 

Context clues.  Standard comprehension techniques.  Stuff you do every minute of every day without even thinking about it.

  If they have established clear meaning (almost never done) then sure we can use the term as they have defined it.   But if the term is used without definition (almost always) then it needs to be defined. 

That would require agreement on a definition.  Given the vast array of usage, I'm just not optimistic that would ever happen in my lifetime. 

Actually, I suggest people not even use the damn term and just state clearly what they mean. 

Which is a great idea....but then they would have to understand what they mean...and that takes effort.

 If one is complaining about statism then use 'statism'.   Redistribution of wealth is accurately described by the phrase 'redistribution of wealth'.   'Authoritarian rule' neatly expresses the concept of authoritarian rule.  Finally, at least my last example, 'social democracy' accurately identifies social democracy.

You are talking about people who believe they can "loose" their iPhone.  Most think Occupy Wall Street was successful.  I'm not sure grasp of economic nuance is a realistic expectation.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.18    2 weeks ago
Hard to do that with people running about crying 'socialism' at every turn.   We even have some here on NT who see facists and Marxists everywhere.

Sure.  We also have some that see oligarchs everywhere.  We have some that believe Donald Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, and others who think Barack Obama is a socialist Muslim.  People are emotional, which interferes with their intelligence.

 
 
 
Kavika
6.1.21  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.20    2 weeks ago

Everyone knows that we have a very large group of commies here. In fact many commies are hiding behind their avatars. Since there are no beds on NT, avatars seem like a safe bet. 

We have mythical states, every stripe of socialist, a few anarchists and dare I say it (gasp) libertarians.  (disguised as conservatives)....We have the military represented by General Nuisance and General Fuck Up. 

We have a doctor or two, lawyers (where is Shakespeare when needed) and of course an Indian Chief. Well maybe not a chief but at least an elder.

We have urban Americans, rural Americans and of course those that are still on the reservation or plantation according to other members.  (think this out before commenting)  

We have authors and seeders. We have those that comment (I'm being nice here) and never take the time to seed or author an article. 

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is American and more importantly it's social media. Facts be dammed and gotcha reign supreme. 

I'll leave you with the words of the Great American philosopher, Foghorn Leghorn. 

Son, I say son if you can't take a joke don't be standing in front of any mirrors.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.19    2 weeks ago
Context clues. 

I have lost count of the number of times people have used ambiguity to move the goalposts.    Context usually is insufficient to nail down a meaning in this topic.   Personally I am well past bored with engaging in discussion or debate only to have the focus change due to ambiguity (aka wiggle room).

That would require agreement on a definition.

To me the definition is grounded by objectives.   What is to be accomplished?

You are talking about people who believe they can "loose" their iPhone.  Most think Occupy Wall Street was successful.  I'm not sure grasp of economic nuance is a realistic expectation.

If so then it is time for people to raise their game.   If one is complaining about socialism and does not understand the concepts of redistribution of wealth, statism, expropriation, market economy, authoritarian rule, etc. then one should spend some time, buy a few vowels, and then when basically competent engage the adults.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.23  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.15    2 weeks ago
No one is calling for "cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change".
I'm sure you think so.

Do you have a link to someone, anyone, calling for "cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change"?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.24  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.22    2 weeks ago
I have lost count of the number of times people have used ambiguity to move the goalposts. Context usually is insufficient to nail down a meaning in this topic. Personally I am well past bored with engaging in discussion or debate only to have the focus change due to ambiguity (aka wiggle room).

   jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

I'm not sure grasp of economic nuance is a realistic expectation.
If so then it is time for people to raise their game. If one is complaining about socialism and does not understand the concepts of redistribution of wealth, statism, expropriation, market economy, authoritarian rule, etc. then one should spend some time, buy a few vowels, and then when basically competent engage the adults.

     jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.22    2 weeks ago
If so then it is time for people to raise their game.   If one is complaining about socialism and does not understand the concepts of redistribution of wealth, statism, expropriation, market economy, authoritarian rule, etc. then one should spend some time, buy a few vowels, and then when basically competent engage the adults.

That would be more true of people supporting it.  Will you be offering them a similar lecture?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.26  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.23    2 weeks ago
Do you have a link to someone, anyone, calling for "cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change"?

I believe the standard phrase you offer in such situations is "do your own research".

It shouldn't be too hard for you to Google "berniecare" or "green new deal".  

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.25    2 weeks ago
That would be more true of people supporting it.  Will you be offering them a similar lecture?

I would love to sit down with Bernie Sanders or AOC and explain to them the difference between socialism  —in particular Democratic Socialism— and social democracy.   I could show them how most of their positions are classical social democracy, explain to Bernie that the Nordic nations are exemplars for social democracy (not Democratic Socialism) and give him an example of a popular theoretical model for Democratic Socialism (e.g. Economic Democracy).

Funny thing, I suspect Bernie knows all too well that he is not actually advocating Democratic Socialism.   Note how he oft states '... and that is what Democratic Socialism means to me' after describing one of his positions.   (It is very curious that he does not adopt the appropriate label of social democracy;  I suppose he avoids that because social democracy is a form of capitalism and he wants to be a 'socialist'.)

If you know of someone on NT who does not understand the concepts of redistribution of wealth, statism, public services, expropriation, market economy, authoritarian rule, social democracy, capitalism, etc. then I am quite willing to spend quality time with them if they are predisposed to honest discussion.   As you know, I wrote an article on this last year to open discussion for that very purpose.

So sure, my interest is to encourage people to know what they are talking about (in particular, to do some honest, serious research) rather than parrot talking points and slogans.   That applies to pro-capitalists and pro-socialists.   It just happens that there are far more pro-capitalists (obviously).

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.28  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.26    2 weeks ago
It shouldn't be too hard for you to Google "berniecare" or "green new deal".

That isn't what you said. You said people are calling for "cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change". So I Googled "people calling for cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change".

Zero hits.

Various people are calling for various policies. They are giving details. I can see nothing "cataclysmic, capricious, or foolish" in them. Nor does Google.

Apparently, you disagree... but since they give details while yoo do not... they are far more convincing.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.29  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.27    2 weeks ago
Funny thing, I suspect Bernie knows all too well that he is not actually advocating Democratic Socialism.   Note how he oft states '... and that is what Democratic Socialism means to me' after describing one of his positions.

We need semantic shortcuts. When I say the word "socialist" to you, I know that you will have very nearly the same image as I. Big time-saver!

The language problem is that there are lots of little imitations of Frank Luntz running around, persuaded that if they insist long enough, they will redefine whatever they wish.

Many of NT's conservatives do in fact know what the various terms mean, but they do not actually want to discuss that topic. They want to subvert it. They want to give a word such terrible connotations that no one would ever consider it.

I know that you know this, and that you have decided to patiently erode their positions... I'm writing this, just in case there's a third-party reader. Ya never know...

There's a whole lexicon of terms to be subverted: socialism, democracy, freedom, rights, property, privilege, ...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.30  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.4    2 weeks ago
We should be discussing Americans' attitudes toward socialism.

Good point , but that attitude is directly related to ones understanding of and beliefs of the subject as has already been pointed out earlier .

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.31  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.30    2 weeks ago

True.

It's interesting that as the real definition of "socialism" gradually makes headway against the disinformation of the right, the word no longer frightens.

I wonder if the people who are realizing that they have been lied to, will maintain some rancune against those who lied to them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.29    2 weeks ago

Spot on.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.33  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.28    2 weeks ago
So I Googled "people calling for cataclysmic, capricious, foolish wholesale change". Zero hits.

Well done.  Conceding the point already with a bullshit response clearly indicating your capitulation.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.34  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.33    2 weeks ago

I Googled what you said. If you said nonsense...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.35  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.31    2 weeks ago

personally I have never been afraid of socialism per say, but I realize that the US has flirted with quasi socialism from its inception,  for me its a system I pick and choose where I wish to participate  and to what degree voluntarily.

the only way someone can lie to you is if you let them , the solution is to be as informed with the facts as one can possably be, so if someone chooses not to get the facts but trust what others say , the only grudge one would have is with ones self for allowing themselves to not get the factual truth for themselves.

what was the famous saying back in the 80s? trust but verify?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.36  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.35    2 weeks ago

I wonder what "truth" is, in a world of misinformation and deepfakes.

The best approximation is to have multiple sources, and accept as "true" only that which is common to all of them.

But that means a lot of work. Most people just won't do it. Fox News or the New York Times.

Red truth or blue truth.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.37  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.36    2 weeks ago
I wonder what "truth" is, in a world of misinformation and deepfakes.

I would say very true  statement, take the title of this article for example, it says 4 out of 10 prefer socialism to capitalism , most would equate that to 40 % of americans would choose socialism , dig a little deeper and one finds out that the total number of people polled is only 2024 people, not exactly an accurate representation of the total US population.

I guess I am an outlier, I actually took the time to glance at the metrics of the poll mentioned , And I still think the only poll that's going to matter , is the one that takes place on election day. that is where the rubber meets the road.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.38  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.36    2 weeks ago
But that means a lot of work. Most people just won't do it. Fox News or the New York Times.

Or The Guardian...apparently...where misinformation lives in the headlines.....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.39  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.37    2 weeks ago
not exactly an accurate representation

We don't know how the sample was established, but its size is irrelevant. The only consequence of a small sample is to increase the margin of error around the result.

More importantly, we don't know the precise wording of the questions. Questions can be very director.

And most importantly, Americans don't know what "socialism" means. There's a different definition for every American! So each participant in the poll is in a way answering a different question.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.40  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.38    2 weeks ago

Kinda dismissive, no?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
6.1.41  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.39    2 weeks ago
We don't know how the sample was established, but its size is irrelevant. The only consequence of a small sample is to increase the margin of error around the result.

Or give an entirely different result.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.42  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @6.1.41    2 weeks ago

No. Not unless the sample was deliberately tailored.

Is that what you are implying? Are you saying that Axios deliberately skewed the result?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.43  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.40    2 weeks ago
Kinda dismissive, no?

Not "kinda".  

Given their decades of liberal bias, it's difficult to know whether their interpretation of the data in question reflects either nearly complete ignorance of relatively basic math or nearly complete dishonesty.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.44  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.39    2 weeks ago
We don't know how the sample was established, but its size is irrelevant. The only consequence of a small sample is to increase the margin of error around the result.

It's not the size of the sample, it's the lack of randomness of its composition.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.45  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.42    2 weeks ago
No. Not unless the sample was deliberately tailored.

Axios didn't collect the data.  Harris Polling did.  

It was an online poll about socialism, which any first year statistics student knows is going to produce a skewed sample.  Harris identified this.

They may as well have asked "do you think abortion should be legal" at the annual Southern Baptist Convention meetings or "do you think corporate taxes should be lowered" at a meeting of Fortune 500 CFOs or "do you think teachers should be paid more" at an AFT convention.

Is that what you are implying? Are you saying that Axios deliberately skewed the result?

They're left leaning...and they're journalists...so ignorance of math is a plausible explanation.  They're also an internet outlet that makes their living on clicks, so "sensationalist and intentionally misrepresentative headline" is also likely.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.46  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.43    2 weeks ago
decades of liberal bias

Do you have any evidence? [deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.47  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.44    2 weeks ago

Any proof, or is this just more invented bullshit?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.48  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.45    2 weeks ago
Results are weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, household income, education, and size of household where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population using U.S census data.
 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.49  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.47    2 weeks ago
Any proof, or is this just more invented bullshit?

It's not surprising that you find "math" to be "invented bullshit".  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.50  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.48    2 weeks ago

It does not matter how the results are weighted demographically. 

Unless you're able to weight results of a voluntary internet poll on socialism for "people who would never respond to a voluntary internet poll on socialism", you do not have a random or representative sample.  Therefore any assertion that 40% of Americans prefer socialism is utter nonsense.

I'm not exactly sure how that isn't obvious, or how it wasn't made clear through the example of asking about teacher salaries at a teachers union meeting.  

It's like taking a poll in the Oracle Arena last night and concluding that 98% of Americans are Golden State Warrior fans.  Or you could take one at your local Mosque, and determine that America is now 100% an Islamic nation.

Or why don't we take a poll of those 10 nazis at the pride rally last week and declare how America overwhelmingly supports banning homosexual activity?

I realize it's inconvenient for you how this whole "math" idea gets in the way of leftist fantasy.  Don't feel bad.  The whole "science" idea interferes with various forms of right wing lunacy even worse. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.51  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.50    2 weeks ago

Fortunately, you know what the respondents biases are...

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.50    2 weeks ago

The statistical integrity of the sampling is less of a concern than the fact that the respondents seem to be largely clueless about socialism and were instead responding to the label.

If anything, this survey suggests the USA is getting past the cold war demonization of the label.   Not necessarily a good thing because most people have a different thing in mind when they use the label.

It would be far better if people simply state their preferences and dislikes using terms that, for the most part, have a consistent meaning. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.53  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.52    2 weeks ago
The statistical integrity of the sampling is less of a concern than the fact that the respondents seem to be largely clueless about socialism and were instead responding to the label.

Less of a concern for you.  The fact that journalists regularly publish mathematically incorrect bullshit is more concerning for me.  

If anything, this survey suggests the USA is getting past the cold war demonization of the label.   Not necessarily a good thing because most people have a different thing in mind when they use the label. It would be far better if people simply state their preferences and dislikes using terms that, for the most part, have a consistent meaning. 

Yes.  It would also be far better if we made Americans learn basic math. 

Alas.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.54  Jack_TX  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.51    2 weeks ago
Fortunately, you know what the respondents biases are...

Easy to predict. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
6.1.55  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.42    2 weeks ago
Is that what you are implying? Are you saying that Axios deliberately skewed the result?

Where did that come from. Here's an idea, try to stick with what I actually state.

No.

Okay, I am asking for proof at this point.

Why do you think the concept of large sampling came to be in the first place?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
6.1.56  dave-2693993  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.44    2 weeks ago
it's the lack of randomness of its composition.

That is exactly what is more easily compromised by small sampling.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.57  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.9    2 weeks ago

You are still not establishing anything but your conjecture.  No facts just uneducated balderdash

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.58  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.9    2 weeks ago

Try, for once, supporting your suppositions 

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.59  Don Overton  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.47    2 weeks ago

I go for invented fairy tales

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.60  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.54    2 weeks ago

Then, again, you have no basis for your comment

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.53    2 weeks ago
Less of a concern for you. 

Seems to me that a survey in which the participants do not even have a clue as to what they are being asked has more profound problems than the sampling methodology.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
6.1.62  dave-2693993  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.61    2 weeks ago
Seems to me that a survey in which the participants do not even have a clue as to what they are being asked has more profound problems than the sampling methodology.

IMO, that hits on 2 of 3 fundamental problems with this article.

1. A small sampling is inherently a bad idea because of greater potential of wrong results.

2. Asking folks who have no idea of the topic is also a bad idea for guaranteed wrong results.

Adding 3; a self explanation of a sampling methodology is only that. It does not make the methodology correct, whether 78 pages or 78,000 pages.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.63  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  dave-2693993 @6.1.55    2 weeks ago
Where did that come from. Here's an idea, try to stick with what I actually state.

I may have misunderstood your post. That's why I asked you for confirmation. Next time I'm unsure of your meaning, I'll do as so many do on NT: I'll assume the worst and go on from there. Alternatively, you could guarantee to never be misunderstood...   jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

Why do you think the concept of large sampling came to be in the first place?

I already answered: "size is irrelevant. The only consequence of a small sample is to increase the margin of error around the result." So you could have inferred: the larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
6.1.64  dave-2693993  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.63    2 weeks ago
Where did that come from. Here's an idea, try to stick with what I actually state.
I may have misunderstood your post. That's why I asked you for confirmation. Next time I'm unsure of your meaning, I'll do as so many do on NT: I'll assume the worst and go on from there. Alternatively, you could guarantee to never be misunderstood...  
Why do you think the concept of large sampling came to be in the first place?

Let me ask you this, did you type all that with a straight face?

You may have misunderstood my post? What is to misunderstand about:

Or give an entirely different result.

Seriously, how does that turn in to:

Is that what you are implying? Are you saying that Axios deliberately skewed the result?

As an AF Captain I used to work with on a daily basis would state: "WTF? Over."

Again:

I already answered: "size is irrelevant. The only consequence of a small sample is to increase the margin of error around the result." So you could have inferred: the larger the sample, the smaller the margin of error.

Sorry, restating something that is marginally applicable, in some marginal situations does not does not make it a blanket truth.

Maybe that extreme right wing organization, The National Institutes of Health (unfortunately this site has all but made the /s obligatory) might have a little bit more insight on the repeated statement. Mind you, I know EXACTLY which pontification you are quoting from.

But, let's go to that crazy wacko NIH statement:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5121512/

Conversely, a comparison that fails to reach statistical significance is caused by either no true effect or a type II error. A type II error is described as a false‐negative result and occurs when the test fails to detect an effect that actually exists. The probability of type II error is related to sample size and is most often described in terms of statistical power (power=1‐type II error probability) as the probability of rejecting a false‐null hypothesis. Minimizing type II error and increasing statistical power are generally achieved with appropriately large sample sizes (calculated based on expected variability). A common pitfall in basic science studies is a sample size that is too small to robustly detect or exclude meaningful effects, thereby compromising study conclusions.

There is no "margin of error" discussion. There are compromised conclusions. Kind of sounds like wrong results...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.66  Jack_TX  replied to  dave-2693993 @6.1.56    one week ago
That is exactly what is more easily compromised by small sampling.

Well yeah, but you could have a sample of 20,000 and it would still be skewed if obtained this way.  The fact that it's only 2000 makes it worse.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7  Jack_TX    2 weeks ago
Forty percent of Americans would rather live in a socialist country than a capitalist one, with a majority of younger women having this preference, according to a new poll.

Except the poll doesn't say that. 

In fact, the polling data says:

This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

Online polls are not actually valid as predictors of populations at large, because as everyone knows the sample of people who complete online polls are not representative of the public at large.

That will certainly not stop people from misrepresenting the results in a headline, knowing that most people won't question it.

 
 
 
MUVA
8  MUVA    2 weeks ago

4 out of 10 sounds about right we have almost half the country that pays no income tax and gets some type of welfare.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @8    2 weeks ago
4 out of 10 sounds about right we have almost half the country that pays no income tax and gets some type of welfare.

Are you including corporate welfare in your numbers?

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1    2 weeks ago

No the tax code isn't welfare cronyism maybe but welfare no.  

 
 
 
lib50
8.2  lib50  replied to  MUVA @8    2 weeks ago

Guess you mean Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.2    2 weeks ago
Guess you mean Trump.

Did you forget when Rachel Maddow proved that Trump paid taxes?

 
 
 
lib50
8.2.2  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    2 weeks ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.2.2    2 weeks ago

So Maddow's "big scoop" was fake news?

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.2.2    2 weeks ago

If you can show that Trump did not pay money in taxes that he legally owed, PLEASE PROVIDE THE LINK.

 
 
 
lib50
8.2.5  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.4    2 weeks ago

Lol, change the parameters AGAIN?   How can we prove it without his tax returns?   And from what we do see, he likes to lie and commit fraud, undervaluing for taxes, overvaluing for credit.  Are you really fine with this?  And with Trump committing collusion?  Which he just admitted!  Exactly how far down the rabbit hole are conservatives willing to go for a lying criminal who is committing treason? 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.6  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @8.2.5    2 weeks ago

You don't have a right to see his tax returns if he did something illegal the IRS would have already done something.What you want is a partisan  fishing expedition some third world shit hole  banana republic kangaroo court no thanks. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.2.5    2 weeks ago
Lol, change the parameters AGAIN? How can we prove it without his tax returns?

If you can't prove it, then you shouldn't make claims.

And with Trump committing collusion? Which he just admitted! Exactly how far down the rabbit hole are conservatives willing to go for a lying criminal who is committing treason?

My, my, how very melodramatic!

Dems want his tax returns because they couldn't beat him in the election, then didn't get what they wanted from the Mueller Report. Anything to discredit Trump or try to bring him down OTHER than having the balls to impeach him.

 
 
 
lib50
8.2.8  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.7    2 weeks ago

Get real.  Trump won because of Russian help.   And he'd take it again. He admitted it today.   His tax returns are pertinent for congress because nobody is supposed to profit off the office, and Trump demonstrably is, every one of his trips to his properties are paid by taxpayers to his pockets.   I don't know if dems have the balls to impeach the traitor, but I don't think they are going to have a choice.  Trump is working for the enemy and himself, not the country.    Why don't you prove Trump won the election without Russian help and without voter suppression?  And stop bringing up the Mueller report, which you and other conservatives will NOT read. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @8.2.8    2 weeks ago
His tax returns are pertinent for congress because nobody is supposed to profit off the office,

Then why would they be asking for tax returns prior to Trump taking office?

Trump is working for the enemy and himself, not the country. Why don't you prove Trump won the election without Russian help and without voter suppression? And stop bringing up the Mueller report, which you

Man, and to think that it was Democrats warning us about the consequences of failing to accept the results of an election.

LOL.

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.2.10  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.4    2 weeks ago

Google.com  Go here and look it up for yourself

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.2.11  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @8.2.6    2 weeks ago

I have every right and you have no right telling people they don't

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.2.12  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @8.2.6    2 weeks ago

You are talking about the trump administration with with you partisan fishing expedition third world shit hole and trumps snake pip

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @8.2.10    2 weeks ago
Google.com Go here and look it up for yourself

I did. I can find nothing stating that Trump owes the IRS a penny.

Maybe you can actually support the claim that Trump owes?

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.2.14  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.7    2 weeks ago

 [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @8.2.14    2 weeks ago

If you can't prove that Trump owes any money to the IRS, heed your own advice.

 
 
 
lib50
10  lib50    2 weeks ago

.

 
 
 
It Is ME
11  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

"Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds"

Six in 10.....don't want it.

I'll go with the "Six" as more important !

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.1  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @11    2 weeks ago

So what.

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Don Overton @11.1    2 weeks ago
So what.

Insightful. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
dave-2693993
11.2  dave-2693993  replied to  It Is ME @11    2 weeks ago
I'll go with the "Six" as more important !

Now you are just being silly by pointing out the obvious as derived from these "well informed" polls.

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  dave-2693993 @11.2    2 weeks ago
Now you are just being silly by pointing out the obvious as derived from these "well informed" polls.

Minority Rules /s. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
dave-2693993
11.2.2  dave-2693993  replied to  It Is ME @11.2.1    2 weeks ago

LOL

 
 
 
Krishna
12  Krishna    2 weeks ago

Four In 10 Americans Prefer Socialism To Capitalism, Poll Finds

Interesting!

Interesting that 6 out of 10 Americans do not prefer Socialism to Capitalism!

(Of course probably something like 8 or 9 out of every 10 Americans really don't understand what Socialism is. :^)

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @12    2 weeks ago
Of course probably something like 8 or 9 out of every 10 Americans really don't understand what Socialism is

99 out of 100 is more like it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
13  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago

Wouldn't that make 4 in 10 Americans blithering idiots?  I'll venture a guess that the answer to that is YES.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Vic Eldred
r.t..b...
Sparty On
JBB
Ed-NavDoc
SteevieGee
Sunshine
Freefaller
Wishful_thinkin
The Magic Eight Ball

cms5
Kathleen
ArkansasHermit-too


79 visitors