POLL 49%+ of 'Millennials'choose Socialism over Captialism.

[Twilight Hue]

Socialism fully embraces capitalism.
The opposite of socialism is neo-liberism

If it wasn't for that good old socialist forced redistribution of wealth. Also known as two for me, one for you , none for thee.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If it wasn't for that good old socialist forced redistribution of wealth. Also known as two for me, one for you , none for thee.

Also known as a silly strawman. It's so weird that you hate something so much when you apparently have no idea what it actually is.

 

[Lyndon]

Nowhere, Wait till you have a brain tumour and no health insurance and tell me you're still anti socialist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Also known as a silly strawman. It's so weird that you hate something so much when you apparently have no idea what it actually is.

Don't need to get an idea. You can actually see it put into practice.

You're actually making a straw man out of a straw man.

 

[Shad]

No, Democratic Socialist countries, which is a mixture of free market capitalism and socialism. Which is the kind of socialism the millenials are talking about, obviously they're not talking about North Korea, China or Soviet Russian government, what do you take us for, idiots???

No those are social democracies. The bait and switch is a common tactic of Socialists to fool their followers.

 

[osgart]

Im in favor of social programs.

Im against social ownership of factors of production and survival.

Big difference!

Im for capitalism without monopoly!

Any extreme of liberals or conservatives leads to the vulnerability of a rogue rule

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nowhere, Wait till you have a brain tumour and no health insurance and tell me you're still anti socialist.

By the time a socialist directed program would get around to treating me, id probably be long dead after waiting in line for months on end just to see a doctor. Actually more likely, a physician's assistant.

People probably wouldn't have any health insurance because the Socialists make sure they're intentionally poor enough to become dependents in the first place because they can't afford insurance on their own.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Im in favor of social programs.

Im against social ownership of factors of production and survival.

Big difference!

Im for capitalism without monopoly!

Don't try to convince a socialist Democrat about it. They just don't want to hear it.

A blue dog Democrat might if you can still find any.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No those are social democracies. The bait and switch is a common tactic of Socialists to fool their followers.

They just pretend that a regular social program is the same as a socialist run policy in hopes people won't know the difference.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nowhere, Wait till you have a brain tumour and no health insurance and tell me you're still anti socialist.

I bet he get's the ****s when there's a pothole in his road, too.

 

[Estro Felino]

If it wasn't for that good old socialist forced redistribution of wealth. Also known as two for me, one for you , none for thee.

You're confusing socialism , born in Italy and Germany independently from Marx between 1870 and 1890,- based on labor legislation,

with Russian Bolshevism-Marxism (aka Communism) in 1917 (that was based on forced redistribution of wealth).

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism is hated because it requires ethics, honesty, and hard work - and such things do not suit the average capitalist.

The problem is that those things are rare in humans.
The capitalist system is more tolerant of our failings.

 

[Revoltingest]

I forgot to address this last part.

I actually think that Keynesianism might be a happy medium between capitalism and socialism, and it appeared that the US was doing rather well under such a system from the time of WW2 up until the early 70s. But the Reaganite capitalists didn't even want that. That's when they started cutting all those programs and getting richer, while the poor got poorer, and the middle class languished and diminished in stagnation.

That's why capitalists have such a PR problem nowadays. Tom Watson's IBM might be what is considered a good version of capitalism, as they treated their employees quite well. Great benefits (not a dime in co-pays or deductibles). Great working conditions, and I hear they used to feed their workers steak and lobster. They prided themselves on having no layoffs for decades. But then it all ended, at which point IBM slowly sunk in prestige.

It seems clear that happy employees = a productive company. Take away their happiness, and the company goes down.

A capitalist like Tom Watson understood this, but why are so many other capitalists so utterly clueless in this department?

Keynesianism is a tool (& horribly over-used) rather than a goal.
Whether we deficit spend or not, we can spend $ on social programs.
And if we stop attacking other countries, we'll have more to spend.

 

[Stevicus]

The problem is that those things are rare in humans.
The capitalist system is more tolerant of our failings.

Not generally. Capitalism is social Darwinism - survival of the fittest - an individualist, sink-or-swim proposition. Socialism still has compassion for those who can't swim and gives them a hand when needed.

 

[Stevicus]

Keynesianism is a tool (& horribly over-used) rather than a goal.
Whether we deficit spend or not, we can spend $ on social programs.
And if we stop attacking other countries, we'll have more to spend.

My point is that Keynesianism has had proven success, which is more than can be said about Reagan's trickle down theory.

We attack other countries as a means of gaining profit for capitalists and also for maintaining political stability at home. People are less likely to rebel when there's an external enemy to unify against.

 

[oldbadger]

That title should scare every American to near death! 49%! Are they aware of what's happening in Venezuela? Apparently the USA's Millennial's don't care or are ignorant of the world's newest but failing socialist nation. I think the latter is to blame, ie ignorance. Well, ignorance and not having enough life experience. At least the young can claim ignorance and naivety which is far better than the college professors and other wealthy or rich minions who indoctrinated our young people to Socialism can claim. Using history as a means test Socialism/Communism fails as the best form of government! Its not just millennials who are out to lunch in regard to having a rudimentary knowledge of socialism. Six out of every ten Americans surveyed could not accurately explain 'what is socialism' ? It's pastime for the lazy conservatives like er'...myself to become far more motivated and donate time and money to the cause. Trump was just the beginning. The big guy is trying and we need to support him. So the cause is now the fight to keep America free by supporting our conservative leaders who will in turn defend the kind of world the authors of the constitution and the bill of rights envisioned. at every opportunity! USA a constitutional Democratic republic, its the very least we can do to save freedom and our nation from the progressive liberals.

Of course the millennial generation is polarising towards socialist values.!
In the UK even young professional couples cannot afford to buy a home if they start a family.

The UK government is considering taking benefits and monetary assistance away from financially comfortable pensioners so that young people can be given more help..

Many young people cannot afford to leave their parent's home until theirs 30s!

So if you're that scared, start thinking about how you are going to help young working couples to get on the housing ladder, and start thinking about a living wage for all.

 

[Shad]

Not generally. Capitalism is social Darwinism - survival of the fittest - an individualist, sink-or-swim proposition. Socialism still has compassion for those who can't swim and gives them a hand when needed.

While punishing those people that can do more than the backstroke

 

[Revoltingest]

Not generally. Capitalism is social Darwinism - survival of the fittest - an individualist, sink-or-swim proposition. Socialism still has compassion for those who can't swim and gives them a hand when needed.

I suppose it depends upon what one considers success.
Socialism is a resounding success in N Korea for those
who value how it plays out there. But one objective
difference is that famine is a frequent flyer in socialist
countries, eg, PRC, NK, USSR. But capitalist economies
cope better with adversity to avoid famines....except for the
one case of those drunken potato eaters way back when.

Don't make me remind you of the 4 basic problems of
socialist agriculture, bub!

 

[Lyndon]

Yes the famine is Sweden is just terrible, North Korea is communist by the way.

 

[Revoltingest]

My point is that Keynesianism has had proven success, which is more than can be said about Reagan's trickle down theory.

Keynesianism actually doesn't have a record.
Instead, we have government misapplying it by having a
continuing & never ending but ever increasing deficit
spending policy, which wasn't what Keynes had in mind.

We attack other countries as a means of gaining profit for capitalists and also for maintaining political stability at home. People are less likely to rebel when there's an external enemy to unify against.

That's a myth.
We don't profit from war.
It would be different if we kept what we conquered, but we don't.
Instead we dump money, materiel & lives overseas, bring back
only enmity, & the obligation to dump more of the same.
We go to war because voters like it....they tend to re-elect those
leaders to start & continue wars. Note in the last election that
Hillary, who voted to start & continue wars had the most votes.