Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[Boss]

They have a positive view of it because social democracy is what the rest of the "Free World" has.

There's no such thing as "democratic" socialism. North Korea is a "Democratic Republic" but it means absolutely nothing. When the government takes control of it, you've given up your freedom to control it through the free market and there is no "democracy" about it anymore, the government votes for you.

Of course there is you nitwit, and it's practiced throughout the vast majority of democracies on this planet. BTW, North Korea is not a democracy, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Well you are more than welcome to go look it up... They call themselves a "Democratic Republic" and proudly speak of their "democratic socialism."

 

[Confounding]

Attach the word "military" to any proposal and the conservatards will climb over each other to make sure it becomes law.

Unless you're talking about helping our vets.

 

[SwimExpert]

Unless you're talking about helping our vets.

Looks like you misquoted there.

 

[Old Rocks]

Idiot,

Did you not learn about social democracy and the reality that the US has had public schools for the past 100 years, funded science institutions since the founding(naval research lab) and have had a central bank very early in our history. Now go to somalia and be a savage!

Every civilized nation on earth has a public sector.

I wrote a whole paragraph specifically about this. Did you not bother to read the OP? How are you ever going to learn? Here, let's go over this again...

These things like Social Security and Roads/Bridges, etc... they all fall under Constitutionally-enumerated powers of the government that are built into our NON-Socialist system. They are NOT Socialism. There might be some similarities as they are often done as a "collective" and it seems this lines up with Socialism but it's not Socialism at all. There are a set of things you can find in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which grant government the powers to handle certain aspects of government on behalf of everyone. It's not because government can do it more efficiently or even "better" in all cases, but the framers realized there were certain things the free market capitalist system couldn't do effectively because the incentives were all wrong. It's NOT Socialism.

And you can write a whole paragraph about how the moon is made of green cheese. Doesn't make it so.

 

[Boss]

It is really quite boring when people complain about socialism, but haven't a clue what it means. So instead they just use it as a catch-all phrase they use with the meaning "something I don't like."

I agree... I think a LOT of Millennials think "Socialism" means "to be social!"

 

[Rustic]

They have a positive view of it because social democracy is what the rest of the "Free World" has.

Can never work... History is proof.
Fairytale at best

You don't even know what socialism is. All you know is what you're programmed to respond to.

It only sounds good the weak minded fool's...
People should pay for their own shit, that's common sense

 

[Confounding]

Well you are more than welcome to go look it up... They call themselves a "Democratic Republic" and proudly speak of their "democratic socialism."

Words have meanings. Just saying it doesn't make it true or accurate.

 

[SwimExpert]

It is really quite boring when people complain about socialism, but haven't a clue what it means. So instead they just use it as a catch-all phrase they use with the meaning "something I don't like."

I agree... I think a LOT of Millennials think "Socialism" means "to be social!"

And you use it to mean that you've been smoking to much methamphetamine.

 

[SwimExpert]

It only sounds good the weak minded fool's...
People should pay for their own shit, that's common sense

You're the weak minded fool. Living as part of an organized society inherently demands that people make a certain degree of concessions to the needs and best interests of the whole. That's why we pay for taxes that sometimes pay for things we individually never use. You employ wide sweeping ambiguous arguments in hopes that you can sideswipe a concept that you are misidentifying in the first place.

 

[Boss]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. The People's Revolution... The Bolsheviks... The Killing Fields... Any of that ringing any bells to Millennials? As it stands, the Death Toll for Socialism worldwide stands at around 150 million, conservatively speaking. And that's for deaths that we know about... there are probably that many more that we will never know about. It is a dangerous and devastating political ideology that you need to be aware of and pay attention to what happens, how it works, what the inhuman and horrific results have been.

Oh, I know... YOU favor a different KIND of Socialism! It's not your Grandaddy's Socialism! But guess what? It's ALWAYS a different kind! Every incarnation of Socialism comes repackaged in a "new and improved" version that will certainly work THIS time! Mao recreated Stalinist Socialism, Pol Pot recreated Maoism. There is always a "better" version of Socialism... that's because there has to be... it keeps failing.

You see, the thing is... I don't really think Millennials have thought this through. The things that you hold near and dear... the grande mocha frappuccino at Starbucks... the latest version of the iPhone or music device... all those things go bye-bye in a Socialist system, you don't have time for that anyway, you have to remain productive. Things like going to the movies or concerts... that becomes a once a year kinda thing, maybe... if you work really hard and save for it. In fact, the coming and going pretty much has to stop altogether because you can't afford it anymore.

Art, music, movies... all things creative that you have known and loved... all goes away because there is no room for creativity and thinking anymore, you must remain committed to becoming a more productive worker. You don't believe me? Well, in Russia, if you look at the art and buildings from their Imperial era, (pre-socialist)... they were colorful and very artistically creative... look at art and buildings following the revolution which brought Socialism and it turns to brown dull colors, uninspired architecture. Creativity is killed for the Greater Good, you see? You'll have the same modest little shoe box home like everyone else and you can't really "own" property anymore... you can't afford to buy it. However, it will always seem as though the Socialist ruling class is able to afford these things, but they are making all this wonderful Socialist Utopia possible, so it's to be expected, right?

The really bad thing is whenever you discover this Socialism isn't really all that it's cracked up to be.... think of Windows Vista... The thing is, you can't revert to previous version... there is nothing there anymore. You have to destroy the free market capitalist system in order to actually implement this wonderful new version of socialism... so there's that. You're just stuck with it until enough people are willing to shed blood and start a revolution. That probably isn't going to be the Millennial generation but I assume at least a few of you will have children and presumably they'll produce grandchildren. At some point, that will be the only way to get back to what we once had... a vibrant free market, free enterprise, capitalist system.

A system, incidentally, which has proven successful everywhere it has been tried. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. We've been around 247 years, give or take... China has us beat by a few thousand years. We're relative babies in terms of nations.... yet we're the #1 World Superpower. That is the result of our system which is precious and unique... and most importantly, IS NOT SOCIALISM!

Okay, to the Granola Liberals.... You know how you've been instructed to argue that if you carry a Social Security card you're literally a "card-carrying socialist!"? You're being intentionally misled... and again, I have to wonder when we stopped teaching American History.... Constitutionally-enumerated powers of Congress? Promote the General Welfare? Any of that ringing any bells, Millennials? These things like Social Security and Roads/Bridges, etc... they all fall under Constitutionally-enumerated powers of the government that are built into our NON-Socialist system. They are NOT Socialism. There might be some similarities as they are often done as a "collective" and it seems this lines up with Socialism but it's not Socialism at all. There are a set of things you can find in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which grant government the powers to handle certain aspects of government on behalf of everyone. It's not because government can do it more efficiently or even "better" in all cases, but the framers realized there were certain things the free market capitalist system couldn't do effectively because the incentives were all wrong. A free market capitalist military? What, we're gonna hire mercenaries? So there are these certain set of things the framers realized the government needed the power to handle and those are the Enumerated Powers. It's NOT Socialism.

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

As we've watched in horror as one incarnation of Socialism after another has failed in shocking fashion. Genocide. War. Starvation. Complete collapse of civilization and death. As the policies fail the ruling class attempts to hold on to their power and that's when things really start becoming very ugly. Corruption is widespread and rampant, totalitarian tyranny is inevitable. It's all documented in the history books that we're apparently not using anymore in schools.

And hey, maybe it's not all the Millennial's fault... maybe it's the parents as well... The other day, a friend of mine who has a son that is a Millennial, was reviewing his options for after high school... His parent was steering him toward going to technical school instead of pursuing an academic degree. Buckle down, learn a good trade and be a good little Socialist worker. Don't dream big... don't worry your little head about being wealthy or successful... we know you're not that smart... besides, you're wanting to do that "music career" thing and live in a tiny house, right?

Ah you graduated in the late 70's during the time of the Cold War. It explains why you don't even know the basic definition of Socialism, lump all socialistic structures into one category, and speak out of ignorance.

Now, I am, undoubtedly a fan of a more capitalistic-leaning structure as I am a firm believer in meritocracy. However, only an idiot would have to deny that socialistic structures are proven to be effective (remember not all forms of socialism are equal). As a simple counter example to your argument let me just point out one statistic, the HDI, which measures levels of human development. Now, if you look at the top 10 countries of the HDI then you will find that 9/10 of them have socialistic structures (10 / 10 if you consider that the US has socialistic programs in place even though primarily practicing a capitalistic economy). Now, if socialism were so detrimental...then why, exactly, has it been shown to improve human development? Source:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf

Ah... So we stopped teaching about the horrors of Socialism in practice when the Cold War ended? Perhaps you're on to something there!

As for your examples... all have been addressed as they pertain to our system. What you are mistakenly calling "socialistic" programs are only "socialistic" in the sense they are handled collectively by government but they are allowed and enumerated in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution.

I've also addressed where Socialism has proven to work effectively... small isolated close-knit communities where the people are content with what they have and don't aspire for more. If you're okay with never owning property and living your existence as you are, in your humble little shoebox home, driving your moped, paying half your payday to taxes... you'd love Denmark or Sweden.

 

[Rustic]

It only sounds good the weak minded fool's...
People should pay for their own shit, that's common sense

You're the weak minded fool. Living as part of an organized society inherently demands that people make a certain degree of concessions to the needs and best interests of the whole. That's why we pay for taxes that sometimes pay for things we individually never use. You employ wide sweeping ambiguous arguments in hopes that you can sideswipe a concept that you are misidentifying in the first place.

There is a 100% chance that anything like socialism will be abused by deadbeats - see Europe

 

[Rustic]

Socialism always brings out the worst in people

 

[Rustic]

 

[Iceweasel]

They have a positive view of it because social democracy is what the rest of the "Free World" has.

Not really. Socialism isn't democratic. State ownership of you isn't freedom and without freedom, there is no democracy. The European countries are republics but liberals lie and call it social to soft sell it to the unwitting masses. It's an incremental step to the end game where people cease being citizens and become subjects.

 

[Iceweasel]

Now, if you look at the top 10 countries of the HDI then you will find that 9/10 of them have socialistic structures (10 / 10 if you consider that the US has socialistic programs in place even though primarily practicing a capitalistic economy). Now, if socialism were so detrimental...then why, exactly, has it been shown to improve human development?

Uh what the ...? What an idiot. Technology is what makes us healthier, not big government. Technology is primary privately driven.

You must be a product of public-ed. Dumb and arrogant.

 

[Confounding]

Dumb and arrogant.

Irony is everywhere.

 

[Iceweasel]

Dumb and arrogant.

Irony is everywhere.

Not really. Only an idiot thinks everything is ironic.

 

[Never3ndr]

Ah... So we stopped teaching about the horrors of Socialism in practice when the Cold War ended? Perhaps you're on to something there!

As for your examples... all have been addressed as they pertain to our system. What you are mistakenly calling "socialistic" programs are only "socialistic" in the sense they are handled collectively by government but they are allowed and enumerated in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution.

I've also addressed where Socialism has proven to work effectively... small isolated close-knit communities where the people are content with what they have and don't aspire for more. If you're okay with never owning property and living your existence as you are, in your humble little shoebox home, driving your moped, paying half your payday to taxes... you'd love Denmark or Sweden.

Certainly not, but maybe, just MAYBE, our knowledge base and level of understanding of governmental and economic systems HAS progressed since the 1970's and is being taught IN ADDITION to historical knowledge.

Did you really just say that because it is in the Constitution it cannot be socialism. How, in any world whatsoever, do you actually think that is a rational basis of argument? By that logic, if a pure socialistic country where socialism has failed (I've never argued that it hasn't failed) like the USSR were to have had a Constitution that stated that the government allowed its programs...then, magically, it wouldn't have been a socialist country? Wow...just wow.

I may have missed where you addressed that socialism, in some cases, has been proven to work effectively and I apologize for glossing over that part of your argument. However, the spirit of your argument is that "socialism is bad" and "why doesn't the new generation realize this?" Under this spirit I literally gave you one of the best statistics for human development, the HDI, and asked you why socialistic structures are apparent in 9/10 (or 10/10 if you want to count the US) of the top 10 countries? If socialism, on its broad strokes, is a bad idea...then why is it working?

Maybe, just maybe, socialism HAS evolved past your understanding of it that was taught four decades ago. Certainly some iterations of socialism have failed, and will fail if given the same opportunity in modern day society. However, that does not mean that ALL forms of socialism have failed nor that all forms of socialism are detrimental.

 

[Rustic]

Ah... So we stopped teaching about the horrors of Socialism in practice when the Cold War ended? Perhaps you're on to something there!

As for your examples... all have been addressed as they pertain to our system. What you are mistakenly calling "socialistic" programs are only "socialistic" in the sense they are handled collectively by government but they are allowed and enumerated in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution.

I've also addressed where Socialism has proven to work effectively... small isolated close-knit communities where the people are content with what they have and don't aspire for more. If you're okay with never owning property and living your existence as you are, in your humble little shoebox home, driving your moped, paying half your payday to taxes... you'd love Denmark or Sweden.

Certainly not, but maybe, just MAYBE, our knowledge base and level of understanding of governmental and economic systems HAS progressed since the 1970's and is being taught IN ADDITION to historical knowledge.

Did you really just say that because it is in the Constitution it cannot be socialism. How, in any world whatsoever, do you actually think that is a rational basis of argument? By that logic, if a pure socialistic country where socialism has failed (I've never argued that it hasn't failed) like the USSR were to have had a Constitution that stated that the government allowed its programs...then, magically, it wouldn't have been a socialist country? Wow...just wow.

I may have missed where you addressed that socialism, in some cases, has been proven to work effectively and I apologize for glossing over that part of your argument. However, the spirit of your argument is that "socialism is bad" and "why doesn't the new generation realize this?" Under this spirit I literally gave you one of the best statistics for human development, the HDI, and asked you why socialistic structures are apparent in 9/10 (or 10/10 if you want to count the US) of the top 10 countries? If socialism, on its broad strokes, is a bad idea...then why is it working?

Maybe, just maybe, socialism HAS evolved past your understanding of it that was taught four decades ago. Certainly some iterations of socialism have failed, and will fail if given the same opportunity in modern day society. However, that does not mean that ALL forms of socialism have failed nor that all forms of socialism are detrimental.

Well, those who want socialism keep it to themselves… Leave the rest of us out of it

 

[Boss]

Well you are more than welcome to go look it up... They call themselves a "Democratic Republic" and proudly speak of their "democratic socialism."

Words have meanings. Just saying it doesn't make it true or accurate.

You're absolutely right... attaching "democratic" in front of "socialism" doesn't change what it is. Might make you feel better about it... doesn't change it.

"Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy" are an oxymoron. You can't turn over freedom and powers to government and still have freedom. Your choice is no longer your choice, that belongs to your government... or the ruling class. That is why I said, I don't think Millennials have thought this through... you don't run out and get the latest iPhone anymore... you take what your Socialist ruling authority says you can have and you're grateful for it... IF you get it at all.

Things like funding for the arts goes away because it doesn't promote production.... it's all about productivity in a Socialist system, that's the only way it can function. Dreaming and imagining is put on the back burner because again, you have to remain focused on productivity now.