Voters Overwhelmingly Prefer Free Market to Socialism

[Cow Poke]

See its the thing I experience over and over again on US Christian forums, whenever wellfare like Single Payer Healthcare is discussed, instantly people talk about "Socialism doesn't work", "Communism killed 100 million people why should we try it", with people having forgotten that both Nixon and Trump supporting it... also whenever any criticism is made of completely hands-off unregulated free market capitalism, I again hear the same accussations... but then when I bring up Denmark instantly people turn around "Oh Denmark isn't socialism, its capitalism."

So apparently Socialism is anything left of anarchy, and also only referring to the particular philosophies of Karl Marx, both at the same time.

Understand my frustration?

Sure I do - I think it was Rogue who posted a video of various democrats incapable of explaining the difference between a democrat and a socialist. The term socialist seems to mean whatever the user intends it to mean at the time.

[rogue06]

Sure I do - I think it was Rogue who posted a video of various democrats incapable of explaining the difference between a democrat and a socialist. The term socialist seems to mean whatever the user intends it to mean at the time.

Can't remember whether I posted a video but you had Chris Matthews ask then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference between them was on his Hardball program on MSNBC. This was no gotchya question in that Matthews is a long-time dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and MSNBC is the ultimate Democrat safe space, But Wasserman Schultz was stumped and could not do anything but hem and haw and clumsily try to change the subject (to his credit Matthews wouldn't let her). Then, a few days later, after she had plenty of time to come up with an answer, another reporter asked her what the distinction and she went all deer in the headlights and again couldn't managed to give an answer. And shortly after that Hillary was asked and she couldn't come up with an answer either.

[Sparko]

Can't remember whether I posted a video but you had Chris Matthews ask then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference between them was on his Hardball program on MSNBC. This was no gotchya question in that Matthews is a long-time dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and MSNBC is the ultimate Democrat safe space, But Wasserman Schultz was stumped and could not do anything but hem and haw and clumsily try to change the subject (to his credit Matthews wouldn't let her). Then, a few days later, after she had plenty of time to come up with an answer, another reporter asked her what the distinction and she went all deer in the headlights and again couldn't managed to give an answer. And shortly after that Hillary was asked and she couldn't come up with an answer either.

So now I am curious. What IS the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? Maybe one of our liberal friends can answer?

[JimL]

No they do not go hand in hand. That welfare DEPENDS on Capitalism not the other way around.

And?

[Starlight]

I think she's nuttier than a Planters Peanut factory and hasn't got a clue what she's supporting.

Her positions would make her pretty much a run of the mill politician here, and about as interesting as a snooze fest. But you're so nutty that to you the totally normal looks nutty.

[Starlight]

The term socialist seems to mean whatever the user intends it to mean at the time.

Largely. Especially in America.

It's quite common for Americans to describe Western Europe as "socialist". Though by and large, Europeans themselves would not describe or view themselves that way and they tend to use a more formal text-book definition for what they call socialism. Though that said, the major left-wing party in the EU is called the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and includes equally both democratic socialists and social democrats.

And US politicians that are described as "democratic socialists" like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez point to Western Europe as examples of successful societies and the policies they want to implement. Bernie Sanders, for example, can't seem to get through a single rally without talking about how he wants to copy Scandinavian policies. But the democratic socialist politicians in the US such as Sanders etc don't want to abolish free markets or capitalism. In Europe they would be called "social democrats".

But then, whenever anyone points out to seer that "socialism" works, he picks up his goal posts and carries them to another definition of socialism which excludes Bernie Sanders and Western Europe and only includes the USSR and a few similar failures.

So here's some guy on the internet's image... which parts of the left side should be labelled "socialism"? He's clearly got his own opinions as he's colored them red:



In Bernie Sanders' own life he didn't get on very well with people in "Democratic Socialist" groups because they accurately noted his views didn't meet the formal definition of socialism, and that he was actually a social democrat not a democratic socialist. But today, the Democratic Socialists of America firmly endorse both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez despite both of them being Social Democrats not Democratic Socialists. But the difference between those two positions can be pretty razor thin. For example, I have pointed out to Seer that simply having businesses be cooperatives makes a society a 'socialist' one according to the formal definitions, and I would personally say that's why I'm a democratic socialist as opposed to a social democrat. Likewise having really strong labor unions like Scandinavia does eats into the theoretical difference between socialism and capitalism, and these countries are usually called "mixed market economies" to denote that they sit somewhat on the fence between socialism and capitalism.

Here is someone else's attempt to draw the different positions:

[Starlight]

What IS the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? Maybe one of our liberal friends can answer?

A lot of Americans choose to use the words interchangeably, or to use 'socialist' to refer to more "tax and spend" Dems such as a Sanders or FDR.

According to the pol sci textbooks, a "tax and spend" person is a "social democrat". They cross the line into being a "democratic socialist" if and only if they poke at the structure of how businesses operate with regard to the balance of power between owners and workers (and/or the state). Strong unions is the most common way to do this in Western society - where workers together exercise sufficient power in their workplace to negotiate terms with the owner as equals. Another way can include employee share ownership schemes where employees are shareholders, or the German system where half the board of the company is appointed by the workers. A new method that is increasingly getting attention is cooperatives where the business itself is owned by the workers together, and I would personally say it appears to be the way of the future. One, largely discredited, historical way of changing up how businesses operate, was to have the government run literally all the businesses or close to it, which seems to be what seer thinks of when he thinks of "socialism" but that's just one possibility among many ways of changing how businesses operate, and it isn't one advocated by many socialists today.

[Starlight]

This is one of the best attempts I can see in google images to successfully map the various kinds of leftism / socialism:



The ones on the bottom 1/3rd of the chart have been found to be terrible due to their lack of democracy. The "social democracy" area in the middle-right of the chart where the most successful and happy countries in the world (Scandinavia, NZ, Aust, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc) currently are. And most of the rest of the chart largely hasn't been explored.

I would say what we have learned from history is:
1. You absolutely need to be about half-way up that chart or higher, because dictatorships are bad and democracy is good.
2. The best countries in the world are those that have met that functioning-democracy criteria and are the furthermost left on that chart among the democratic nations.

US Democrats are about half-way up that chart, and hard against the right-hand edge of it or slightly off it to the right. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are in the Social Democracy area.

[Mountain Man]

I think it was Rogue who posted a video of various democrats incapable of explaining the difference between a democrat and a socialist.

Even Bernie and Hillary couldn't explain the difference.

[seer]

But then, whenever anyone points out to seer that "socialism" works, he picks up his goal posts and carries them to another definition of socialism which excludes Bernie Sanders and Western Europe and only includes the USSR and a few similar failures.

Again Star, the Nordic model is NOT socialism, because socialism by definition requires the collective to own the means of production. The Mondragón Cooperative is socialistic, but it is not competing well in the free market, it has some inherent problems in doing so, perhaps you missed this:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post562108

[Mountain Man]

See its the thing I experience over and over again on US Christian forums, whenever wellfare like Single Payer Healthcare is discussed, instantly people talk about "Socialism doesn't work", "Communism killed 100 million people why should we try it", with people having forgotten that both Nixon and Trump supporting it... also whenever any criticism is made of completely hands-off unregulated free market capitalism, I again hear the same accussations... but then when I bring up Denmark instantly people turn around "Oh Denmark isn't socialism, its capitalism."

So apparently Socialism is anything left of anarchy, and also only referring to the particular philosophies of Karl Marx, both at the same time.

Understand my frustration?

The problem is that socialism as it has historically existed simply doesn't work, and I think socialists are well of aware of this, so their solution has been to apply the term to other successful non-socialist forms of government, and then they say, "See! Socialism does work!" even though what they're holding up as an example is not actually socialism.

Understand our frustration?

[Starlight]

Again Star, the Nordic model is NOT socialism

"Socialism" in the US is a pretty flexible term. In common US usage, Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist who advocates the Nordic model of socialism, and medicare-for-all is "socialized medicine". If you want to shift to a tighter and very restricted definition of socialism, then Sanders isn't a socialist, the Nordic countries aren't socialist, Venezuela isn't socialist, and I'm probably not a socialist.

But I do get bored of you moving the goalposts by changing definitions every time you feel it convenient.

[Starlight]

The problem is that socialism as it has historically existed simply doesn't work, and I think socialists are well of aware of this, so their solution has been to apply the term to other successful non-socialist forms of government, and then they say, "See! Socialism does work!" even though what they're holding up as an example is not actually socialism.

Totally bogus. The simple fact is that socialism has always been a very broad tent with lots of different sub-categories and ideas and streams of thought. So if one sub-category of socialists tries something and it works, and another sub-category of socialists tries something completely different and it fails, that's hardly surprising as you can try lots of different systems and still be operating under the general heading of 'socialism'. The two biggest sub-categories historically, have been communism, and social democracy. By and large, communism mostly failed, and social democracy was wildly successful.

Understand our frustration?

Yeah, you're a simple minded fool who'd love to be able to point at "socialism" and say "bad", and you can't cope with the fact that the world is complicated.

[shunyadragon]

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Basically Scandinavia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized, while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism.[4][5][6] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[7][8]

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[9] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[10]

© Copyright Original Source

And you're right. This is not Socialism, but this is what Democratic Socialists in the US are working towards, you can read their own program if you want. Its also what Bernie Sanders and other self-styled Social Democrats have worked towards.

The definition of 'Socialism' presented is too vague and general. In fact in the reality of the economies of the countries of the world pure 'socialism' in any reasonable form. Bernie Sanders and Social Democrats(?) do not advocate socialism as defined as the economic system.

Most economic systems described as socialist are in reality a blend of economic systems. Defining the reality of communism has the same problem. Russia and China probably have economic systems closer to 'state mercantilism.'

In polls cited those who responded likely are clueless as to what socialism is and how it functions within and a part of most economic systems of the world.

[Mountain Man]

The simple fact is that socialism has always been a very broad tent with lots of different sub-categories and ideas and streams of thought.

The simple fact is that's nothing more than a simpleminded rationalization in an attempt to salvage a failed political and economic ideology. To put it more simply, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.