[MtnCat]

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/11/poll-democrats-now-view-socialism-as-favorably-as-they-view-capitalism/

This continues the trend from a similar poll in 2009. Two things trouble me the most: 1) on approaching a national office, a candidate will omit "socialism," "socialist," etc., becoming a "stealth socialist" in my book; 2) the answers to the last question highlight a disconnect among some people:

"One last tidbit in lieu of an exit question, for what it’s worth: When YouGov asked people how likely they think it is that they’ll become millionaires someday, the groups with the highest percentages saying 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' were blacks and Hispanics at 39 and 31 percent, respectively. Just 16 percent of whites said the same. That’s not a result you would expect given that minorities on average are poorer than whites and have a longer way to go to reach millionaire status. What explains it?"

Original source: https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/11/one-third-millennials-like-socialism/

In light of what's going on internally with Denmark, Norway and Sweden, this makes me...concerned. Externally, the three countries have worked out a mutual defense agreement. Only two are members of NATO: Denmark and Norway. Sweden is not.

 

[speedofl33t]

I dont understand your concerns about the NATO thing.

 

[Baddogg5]

Dam Liberals Suck

 

[TinmanIA]

They always have, they are just open about it now.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

"Now?"

 

[MtnCat]

I don't understand your concerns about the NATO thing.

I'm not really concerned about NATO, per se. And I support nations to join or not join mutual security agreements (make alliances) as they see fit.

Multiple folks have held up Denmark, Sweden and Norway as successful socialist democracies. That's fine by me, too. The United States of America does not have the cohesive history of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Perhaps there was a civil war in one or more of them that I was not taught about in my history classes.

After Professor Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone in 2007, he received an award in Sweden. Also fine. Belated congrats, Professor Putnam. Rather than solving the problems presented by his research in Bowling Alone, he has moved on to "a more approachable" book, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (Simon & Schuster, March 2015).

I would have preferred an examination of how successful socialist democracies, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, are tackling the mass immigration problems by groups who do not share Scandinavia's cultural ethos. But that didn't happen.

Sorry about the confusion, Speed. :

 

[DWwolf]

How they are dealing with it ? They arent. Total denial that anything could possibly be wrong. Look at rape stats.

 

[firstforcerecon]

I'm not really concerned about NATO, per se. And I support nations to join or not join mutual security agreements (make alliances) as they see fit.

Multiple folks have held up Denmark, Sweden and Norway as successful socialist democracies. That's fine by me, too. The United States of America does not have the cohesive history of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Perhaps there was a civil war in one or more of them that I was not taught about in my history classes.

After Professor Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone in 2007, he received an award in Sweden. Also fine. Belated congrats, Professor Putnam. Rather than solving the problems presented by his research in Bowling Alone, he has moved on to "a more approachable" book, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (Simon & Schuster, March 2015).

I would have preferred an examination of how successful socialist democracies, like Denmark, Sweden and Norway, are tackling the mass immigration problems by groups who do not share Scandinavia's cultural ethos. But that didn't happen.

Sorry about the confusion, Speed. :

Their not tackling it at all. It's eating their countries alive from the inside out. Even more so than in the United States. Many European countries are at risk of losing their identities. I for one have no interest in following anything European. Our families, mine in the 1750's Moved to this country to get away from Europe. Freedom works. It just can't support people who have no interest in supporting themselves.

 

[JBryan314]

Their not tackling it at all. It's eating their countries alive from the inside out. Even more so than in the United States. Many European countries are at risk of losing their identities. I for one have no interest in following anything European. Our families, mine in the 1750's Moved to this country to get away from Europe. Freedom works. It just can't support people who have no interest in supporting themselves.

Agreed. Recently I stated that I was uninterested in doing anything the Europeans are doing and was mocked for it. I stand by it though. Europe is in flames and still people wish to hold them up as an example of something to follow.

 

[cujet]

Europe is in flames and still people wish to hold them up as an example of something to follow.

I travel regularly for my job in aviation. Europe is not "in flames". It's simply become more of what it's always been. A socialist enclave, with all that implies. The cost of goods and services is absurd, the taxation is well over the top and therefore, the average person has a lower standard of living than what would otherwise be possible. Sure, Greece and other locations have problems. That's nothing new. Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, France and more are still very much the same. People drive tiny cars, cram on to trains, pay 6euro for a bottled water and the equivalent of $10/gal gas.

However, as mentioned above, Europe is no role model. I see no reason to work hard to support a corrupt, authoritarian government that gives money away to whom ever they please.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Their not tackling it at all. It's eating their countries alive from the inside out. Even more so than in the United States. Many European countries are at risk of losing their identities. I for one have no interest in following anything European. Our families, mine in the 1750's Moved to this country to get away from Europe. Freedom works. It just can't support people who have no interest in supporting themselves.

I agree, but would add that the system wasn't designed to support free loaders. I also believe it was never meant to place our military around the globe and have life-long politicians running it.

I can't believe that our founders could seemingly see where future problems could arise and planned accordingly, but they did not think term limits for congress and senate was necessary.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Agreed. Recently I stated that I was uninterested in doing anything the Europeans are doing and was mocked for it. I stand by it though. Europe is in flames and still people wish to hold them up as an example of something to follow.

If your goal is to achieve the same result, then it is something to follow.

 

[deprogramming services]

It isn't socialism that's being promoted in America; if you don't believe me just ask a liberal. What is being promoted here is more accurately referred to as socialism-that-shall-not-be-called-socialism. I guess there's some difference there, though I don't know what it is.

One thing that makes me mad at liberal bigots is that if they want to live in a socialist state they can; no one here is stopping them. Consider the amount of wealth controlled by rich liberals like George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, the Hollywood elite, and many others like them; it is fully within their power to form organizations where everyone puts all their wealth and income into a common storehouse and it's doled out, in a way they deem as fair: from each according to his ability, to each according to her needs. No one is stopping them from forming big communes like that, and distributing their wealth any way they see fit. All patriots are saying is that we don't want government forcing us to be part of their commune.

But they don't do that do they? And do you know why? Because they don't really believe in socialism: they know it doesn't work. They know a very few producers would end up supporting a huge mass of parasites. So why do they try so hard to force it on the nation, by rule of law?

I think there are just people who have a fundamental drive to acquire power over other people, and wealth is a form of power. It's no coincidence that those who support socialism also typically support gun control, since arms are another form of power. And there are other people who seem to have a fundamental drive to be dominated. They don't go around saying "I want to be dominated;" they just have a profound aversion to taking responsibility for their own lives. The two groups are natural allies, in an age-old attempt to concentrate power over the many into the hands of the few.

And just as gun control never disarms those who protect rich and famous anti-gun bigots like Michael Bloomberg, socialism won't have much effect on the rich and famous who promote it now. Most of us would see our own standard of living go way down, but somehow those who sold it to us would still have a very good living. Just like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

There are many big problems with socialism. One is that standard of living is not just a matter of wealth. Give all the money you want to those now living in poverty, and they will still be living in poverty, though the form of poverty might not be the same.

 

[speedofl33t]

Just wondering what is so socialist about Scandinavia. TBH, ours and your governments do things behind our backs. We're not fully free, there isn't a lot of transparency. In this case we're just puppets.

Both Scandinavia and USA have public services, like schools, post offices and the police (oh, wait, Sweden doesn't have post offices...). Socialist or not, a country needs cooperation on some parts. Which ones and how many is the only you can even debate. Even the most hardcore anti government individual probably wants roads and military.

Taxes does not cause socialism. Taxes exist in any capitalist country, in USA as well. We have less property tax and more gas tax, for example. But taxes, we both have them.

Many countries in Europe are seen as socialist by USA, yet they do not have socialized med. So that seems not to be a factor either.

So... what IS it that makes us "socialist" and makes you not "socialist"?

 

[talon115]

You must understand that here in the USA we are indoctrinated from a young age to think that "socialism" is the most evil thing in the universe. It's to keep the working classes thinking that they have it as good as it can be and not to expect more, and also not to pay attention to the corporate socialism that pervades our whole country.

In other words, in the US socialism at the top=good, socialism at the bottom=good, socialism for the working class= BAD!

Just wondering what is so socialist about Scandinavia. TBH, ours and your governments do things behind our backs. We're not fully free, there isn't a lot of transparency. In this case we're just puppets.

Both Scandinavia and USA have public services, like schools, post offices and the police (oh, wait, Sweden doesn't have post offices...). Socialist or not, a country needs cooperation on some parts. Which ones and how many is the only you can even debate. Even the most hardcore anti government individual probably wants roads and military.

Taxes does not cause socialism. Taxes exist in any capitalist country, in USA as well. We have less property tax and more gas tax, for example. But taxes, we both have them.

Many countries in Europe are seen as socialist by USA, yet they do not have socialized med. So that seems not to be a factor either.

So... what IS it that makes us "socialist" and makes you not "socialist"?

 

[MtnCat]

It isn't socialism that's being promoted in America; if you don't believe me just ask a liberal. What is being promoted here is more accurately referred to as socialism-that-shall-not-be-called-socialism. I guess there's some difference there, though I don't know what it is.

One thing that makes me mad at liberal bigots is that if they want to live in a socialist state they can; no one here is stopping them. Consider the amount of wealth controlled by rich liberals like George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, the Hollywood elite, and many others like them; it is fully within their power to form organizations where everyone puts all their wealth and income into a common storehouse and it's doled out, in a way they deem as fair: from each according to his ability, to each according to her needs. No one is stopping them from forming big communes like that, and distributing their wealth any way they see fit. All patriots are saying is that we don't want government forcing us to be part of their commune.

But they don't do that do they? And do you know why? Because they don't really believe in socialism: they know it doesn't work. They know a very few producers would end up supporting a huge mass of parasites. So why do they try so hard to force it on the nation, by rule of law?

I think there are just people who have a fundamental drive to acquire power over other people, and wealth is a form of power. It's no coincidence that those who support socialism also typically support gun control, since arms are another form of power. And there are other people who seem to have a fundamental drive to be dominated. They don't go around saying "I want to be dominated;" they just have a profound aversion to taking responsibility for their own lives. The two groups are natural allies, in an age-old attempt to concentrate power over the many into the hands of the few.

And just as gun control never disarms those who protect rich and famous anti-gun bigots like Michael Bloomberg, socialism won't have much effect on the rich and famous who promote it now. Most of us would see our own standard of living go way down, but somehow those who sold it to us would still have a very good living. Just like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

There are many big problems with socialism. One is that standard of living is not just a matter of wealth. Give all the money you want to those now living in poverty, and they will still be living in poverty, though the form of poverty might not be the same.

Bold: Precisely. Because then the stealth socialists would have to explain to everyone what type of socialism they would like to enact. By the time they explained the different nuances, one-half of the population would be asleep and the other's eyes would be glazed over in a hypnotic state.

Underline: As talon115 pointed out (sort of), we already have socialism, just not to the degree Europe has at the micro-level (street level).

 

[MtnCat]

DWolf, firstforcerecon, JBryan, cujet, TriggerHappy and any body else:

I have not read Professor Putnam's second book, but reading a synopsis, I doubt I would agree with his conclusions. Bowling Alone offered a cautionary tale, which he seemingly tiptoed up to, took a peek, and backed away from.

"Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings 'may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.'"

More tellingly (to me anyway): "Last October (2006), he told the Financial Times that 'he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.' He said it 'would have been irresponsible to publish without that,' a quote that should raise eyebrows. Academics aren’t supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings."

[If you decide to read the full review, I encourage you to read all the way to the last sentence.]

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html

Yes, I'm aware of the rape stats. I was trying to be polite. :

 

[wendigo salt]

Hate to break it to you sparky, but the 'red' team is just as socialist as the blue team. You think the R's would just rollover if the massive military and agricultural subsidies were cut?

 

[Harmless Drudge]

Hate to break it to you sparky, but the 'red' team is just as socialist as the blue team. You think the R's would just rollover if the massive military and agricultural subsidies were cut?

Agrictural subsidies are more a coping mechanism incidental to liberal economic and monetary policy than a concerted effort at socialism. Our monetary and economic policies brutally assault primary producers. Some, like mining and timber, can see their market shrink and demand be met from foreign sources without consequences that threaten to allow exporting nations to hold us hostage. Not so with agriculture. An embargo or blockade on a nation that is a net importer of foodstuffs is a suicide pact. Just look at Britain circa WWII.

 

[MtnCat]

Just wondering what is so socialist about Scandinavia. TBH, ours and your governments do things behind our backs. We're not fully free, there isn't a lot of transparency. In this case we're just puppets.

Both Scandinavia and USA have public services, like schools, post offices and the police (oh, wait, Sweden doesn't have post offices...). Socialist or not, a country needs cooperation on some parts. Which ones and how many is the only you can even debate. Even the most hardcore anti government individual probably wants roads and military.

Taxes does not cause socialism. Taxes exist in any capitalist country, in USA as well. We have less property tax and more gas tax, for example. But taxes, we both have them.

Many countries in Europe are seen as socialist by USA, yet they do not have socialized med. So that seems not to be a factor either.

So... what IS it that makes us "socialist" and makes you not "socialist"?

Here's the part where people's eyes begin to glaze over. Sorry, everyone.

Dr. or Professor Hans Keman presented a paper, "The Third Way: The Right Way or Not? A Cross-national Attempt to Measure Social Democracy in Action," the revised paper is online (Mar/Apr 2003).

He looked at 17 social democratic parties from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. He was looking mostly at whether or not the "Third Way" matters (both in theory and practice) or if it is/was "merely political rhetoric." (In other words, a means to an end: getting into office and doing whatever can be done to achieve one's true goals.)

That's not why I read the first eleven pages. I was checking my understanding of the different "flavors" of socialism. I cannot answer you specifically "what is so socialist about Scandinavia."

His definition of "the goal of social democracy": "to regulate capitalism by a mixture of trade unionism, political representation, and urging state intervention."

Sadly, from where I'm sitting, this is precisely the current state of the U.S. And it ain't workin'.

He expounds on some of the criticisms leveled at "true Social Democracy":

• Confuses social justice with equality of outcome
• Confounds achieving equality with higher levels of public spending and taxing
• [Believes] that state intervention could prevent (or remedy) market failures
• Distorts the rights of individuals and hence the balance between the individual and the collective
• Elevates often rights over responsibilities and so the idea of mutual obligations tends to be lost.

The Practice of Socialism in Europe and the "practice" of socialism in the U.S. are very different beasties. Between strong federalism in some countries, the E.U., a recent nudge for the E.U. to even have its own standing army, and the strength of unions as a political force in elections, yeah...we could spend the next six months messaging back and forth about the differences.