61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[midcan5]

Sorry My Dear, but socialism is already a part of the fabric of our society. When you see serious political candidates, whose platforms include destruction of, or abolishment of: Social Security, Medicare, public education, public utilities, food and drug safety, licensing of medical practitioners, highway and transportation planning, etc etc, you can have your libertarian anarchism or ???, till then we are, as most successful nations are, a mixed economy.

The only reason socialism is a bad word is that most associate it with communism. We could argue whether communism ever truly existed but note that communism is a closed system as would be your libertarian anarchism or free market capitalism or whatever the day dreamers of today think leads to economic nirvana.

Economics in the modern world is mixed and will remain so, it really is more about regulating them, then in labeling them that helps maintain peace and prosperity for all. We have Enron et al, the great depression, and the recent near financial collapse to prove regulation is essential to any working system.

I am a liberal, a progressive, a democratic socialist, an economic democrat, a radical conservative, a social democrat, an economic humanist, wrote Martin Gardner, me too.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact remains that America's poor have gotten better off as America has reached a socialist stage of development.

Again I refer you to the writings of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, et al who have done the hard work of actually studying that phenomenon. And, if you are honest, you will gain a different perspective very quickly. While most of America's poor would be deemed rich in most places, they poor remain with us, and many are far more dependent, less employable, and living in far worse circumstances than the poor of previous generations. Socialism continues to fail to accomplish its rose colored glasses promises everywhere it is tried.

No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.

Get back to me on which you prefer.

I'll get back to you when you actually read and comprehend what I actually wrote.

 

[Lumpy 1]

This comes as no surprise, what does, is that 20% of the conservatives do also. What the hell is going on here?

(If you would like to see the breakdown along conservative, moderates and liberals use the link)
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

 

[MIPS]

This comes as no surprise, what does, is that 20% of the conservatives do also. What the hell is going on here?

(If you would like to see the breakdown along conservative, moderates and liberals use the link)
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

Sorry Lumpy, Politcalchic beat you to the punch on this one ....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/105312-61-of-liberals-favor-socialism.html

You've been SCOOPED!

 

[Xenophon]

Most people don't understand the meaning of the word, thus they have a strange opinion of it.

 

[Lumpy 1]

This comes as no surprise, what does, is that 20% of the conservatives do also. What the hell is going on here?

(If you would like to see the breakdown along conservative, moderates and liberals use the link)
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

Sorry Lumpy, Politcalchic beat you to the punch on this one ....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/105312-61-of-liberals-favor-socialism.html

You've been SCOOPED!

.......sorry PoliticalChic

 

[Vast LWC]

This comes as no surprise, what does, is that 20% of the conservatives do also. What the hell is going on here?

(If you would like to see the breakdown along conservative, moderates and liberals use the link)
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

Sorry Lumpy, Politcalchic beat you to the punch on this one ....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/105312-61-of-liberals-favor-socialism.html

You've been SCOOPED!

Yup, this is a definite combinable thread.

 

[Father Time]

If I may conjecture that American ideas and ideals are more closely associated with self-reliance, free enterprise, and entrepeneurship, what is one to make of the latest Gallup poll?.

What drivel.

Your poll does nothing more than measure the effectiveness of rightwing propaganda. The media are full of paens to capitalism and demonization of socialism. The average American know little more than that.

1. The poll was conducted by Gallup, a recognized, respected organization in this area.
It is not my poll.
Read more carefully.

2. It seems that you reading of the media is highly flawed. Are you claiming that the print media, the broadcast media and every form outside of talk radio is not left wing?
Absurd.

3.Cable TV, if judged by the number of cable outlets, is also left wing. It is only the prescience of the viewing public that annoints Fox News as the most trusted and most viewed.

4. Your reference to the 'average American' as being obtuse is but another left wing attempt to appoint oneself as the interpreter of correct knowledge.

Oh, how your post echoes the words of earlier Progressives:

Progressives know how stupid the masses are, and that is why Progressive journalists editorialize instead of report the news… to tell you what you should think.

a. “President Woodrow Wilson, a leading progressive, spoke often of his "vision," introducing a term that has now become central to our understanding of presidential politics. Wilson believed, as Kesler puts it, "that to become a leader you have to have a vision of the future and communicate that vision to the unanointed, mass public. You have to make them believe in your prophetic ability."
The Roots Of Liberalism - Forbes.com

b. Modern journalism is based on Progressives’ ideas: use the media to ‘teach’ people. Alter journalism from reporting facts to editorializing in the news, as the elites always know better. Walter Lippmann, Progressive (American newspaper commentator and author who in a 60-year career made himself one of the most widely respected political columnists in the world.)Public Opinion, “When properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data — a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them, by the well-informed.”
Public Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again do tell us when progressives nominated Wilson as their spokesperson of STFU.

 

[Father Time]

Why do you think the rightwing propagandists, who are in a significantly distinct minority among propagandists, are so much more effective in getting people to respond to their message than is your side?

Could it be that you're interpreting the conservative message entirely wrong?

All the major media firms are rightwing. If you need a reason for the effectiveness of rightwing propaganda, focus on that. Virtually everything you hear or see in the broadcast and cable media is skewed to the right.

Sorry, but ALL studies, all scientific polls, and ALL competent analysis of the mainstream American media, even that done by leftwingers, comes to the same conclusion that it is mostly leftwing. The relatively rare by comparison conservative program is vastly outnumbered by the number of sources, amount of print, and number of hours broadcast by the Left.

Until you acknowledge that, you will have no credibility in this line of discussion.

Name some scientific studies.

 

[Modbert]

Name some scientific studies.

There are none.

Especially if we're talking broadcast, the radio airwaves where the right have a monopoly of sorts now.

 

[Vast LWC]

Socialism is a transition stage.

It's a path to communism, as humanity and its cultures evolve.

Communism opposes a strong central government.

People... this is elementary Marxian stuff here...

That is only true if one's purpose is to aim for the Marxian model.

Marx is not the only person who has ever contributed to socialist theory.

Most of Europe, as we mentioned earlier, is quite a bit more socialist than we are, and yet none of them seem in any way headed toward Communism, or totalitarianism.

 

[Vast LWC]

Now this is a good debate though. I have to say, Political Chic is fun to debate with. She really holds up her end without getting to confrontational.

Her and Pilgrim are similar like that.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Most people don't understand the meaning of the word, thus they have a strange opinion of it.

Obviously, I use the term in the Marxian sense: a state of socioeconomic development past bourgeois liberalism and before the emergence of a true communist society.

Interestingly, many early societies were also largely communist, so we're pretty much advancing back to where we were, save that technological developments help reduce the need for human labour and we're looking at larger civilizations and ingroups (ideally, a singular humanity).

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Socialism is a transition stage.

It's a path to communism, as humanity and its cultures evolve.

Communism opposes a strong central government.

People... this is elementary Marxian stuff here...

That is only true if one's purpose is to aim for the Marxian model.

Marx is not the only person who has ever contributed to socialist theory.

True.


To clarify, while I do not adhere to Marxism (I adhere to a reformist ideology, rejecting the revolutionary line of thought of Marx et al. While revolution is sometimes necessary, it should never be the aim, and it has a tendency to merely produce a new class of rulers and exploiters), I do use Marxian terminology, mostly since I am most familiar with the writings of Marx. I drew quite a bit of inspiration also from Mao's description of his New Democracy (as described in an anthology/biography i read some time ago), though I view it more as an end unto itself than a means to communism, as a communist society can only emerge, if it ever will, in its own time, with the changing nature of Man.

 

[Foxfyre]

Name some scientific studies.

There are none.

Especially if we're talking broadcast, the radio airwaves where the right have a monopoly of sorts now.

There are dozens of studies. The Right only has a 'monopoly' on conservative talk radio and that is only because liberal talk radio is so devoid of substance that it cannot sustain an audience. The Left still monopolizes the news casts and other programming, however.

 

[Joe Steel]

All the major media firms are rightwing. If you need a reason for the effectiveness of rightwing propaganda, focus on that. Virtually everything you hear or see in the broadcast and cable media is skewed to the right.

Sorry, but ALL studies, all scientific polls, and ALL competent analysis of the mainstream American media, even that done by leftwingers, comes to the same conclusion that it is mostly leftwing. The relatively rare by comparison conservative program is vastly outnumbered by the number of sources, amount of print, and number of hours broadcast by the Left.

Until you acknowledge that, you will have no credibility in this line of discussion.

That's an empty declaration coming from someone is ALL wrong. Until you acknowledge the existence of Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, Clear Channel and Fox, you will have no credibility anywhere in anything.

 

[Joe Steel]

And which of the following tow the right wing line:
NYTimes, LATime, Boston Globe, Washington Post.

Enough?

No, certainly not. The above are your opinion and there is no scientific basis in fact.

In fact, the NYT and WP are center-right at best and I'd call the rightwing rags. Not so much because the initiate attacks on progressives but because the accept rightwing themes and report them as real news or comment on them as if they were substantive issues.

 

[midcan5]

Let's face it folks, Smith and Marx are old hat, useless and way out of date. On top of that, there are only bits and pieces of each, selected because they support some precarious economic position, used only to support a writer's biased point of view. Neither makes much sense today, and I think from much of my reading Marx is worse than Smith because he believed in real magic while Smith lived and wrote in simpler times. Neither could imagine mega-corporations or global communications or the rise of technical maturity in India and China. Or even the blend of communism and capitalism with wal-marts in China. I never heard 'too big to fail' from either of them, but it seems modern society has placed itself near that precipice.

Anyway for the reasonable check out Gardner's writings. They too are a bit dated but recent enough that you see the changes and complexity and uselessness of too much adherence to labels and old farts.

The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener - Google Books

The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener - Google Books



"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil." John Maynard Keynes

 

[rdean]

Most people don't understand the meaning of the word, thus they have a strange opinion of it.

Obviously, I use the term in the Marxian sense: a state of socioeconomic development past bourgeois liberalism and before the emergence of a true communist society.

Interestingly, many early societies were also largely communist, so we're pretty much advancing back to where we were, save that technological developments help reduce the need for human labour and we're looking at larger civilizations and ingroups (ideally, a singular humanity).

You reduce labour, you reduce Republican jobs. The Republican "War on Science" and the lack of higher education insures that Republcians will NOT be able to compete in a technological society.

Worse, their "leaders" are businessmen who are moving their jobs overseas where they don't have to pay benefits and can look out for their own interests, "profits".

Republicans are masochists who love to screw themselves over and work against their own self interests. Their corporate God, the source of all things good and holy, has abandoned them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

39% of Libs either don't have the guts to admit they favor Socialism or are just lairs.