Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[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.

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.

Liberals want a society similar to the Scandinavian countries. Call that whatever you want, but that's the goal.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

I agree that technology makes us "healthier"...I never said otherwise. What I did point out, if you are literate, was that socialist structures are in place in 9/10 (or 10/10 since the US also has some forms of socialistic programs) countries with the highest levels of human development. Now if we both agree that technology makes us "healthier". And it is apparent that some of the countries with the highest levels of development ("health") have socialistic structures in place...how are you posing a counter argument and not being "dumb and arrogant" by making an off topic post with no real substance?

 

[Boss]

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.

Exactly. If the USSR had a Constitution which enumerated limited government powers and delegated everything else to the people and states, through private sector free enterprise and markets, they would have been a free market capitalist Constitutional Republic like us.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

Exactly. If the USSR had a Constitution which enumerated limited government powers and delegated everything else to the people and states, through private sector free enterprise and markets, they would have been a free market capitalist Constitutional Republic like us.

MFW when this blast from the past thinks that all Constitutions have to be constructed the same way.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I agree that technology makes us "healthier"...I never said otherwise. What I did point out, if you are literate, was that socialist structures are in place in 9/10 (or 10/10 since the US also has some forms of socialistic programs) countries with the highest levels of human development. Now if we both agree that technology makes us "healthier". And it is apparent that some of the countries with the highest levels of development ("health") have socialistic structures in place...how are you posing a counter argument and not being "dumb and arrogant" by making an off topic post with no real substance?

Like I said, dumb and arrogant. It fits you perfectly. Your entire argument is based on correlation equal causation while totally misrepresenting what socialism is. The technologies are private, not public, how is that socialism?

You're just another dumb arrogant asshole that has been programmed by post modern progressives.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

I've never mentioned social programs? If you were to ask me, and it seems that you are, then I would say that our forms of socialism are most apparent in our educational system, highway system, and general utilities structure (which isn't directly owned by the government, but highly regulated and granted monopolies free from market competition).

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Exactly. If the USSR had a Constitution which enumerated limited government powers and delegated everything else to the people and states, through private sector free enterprise and markets, they would have been a free market capitalist Constitutional Republic like us.

MFW when this blast from the past thinks that all Constitutions have to be constructed the same way.

No, he didn't say that. Obviously the point was too big for you.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Boss, totalitarian governments screw up people's views of socialism/communism because the only way to choke communism down people's throats is to, well, choke it down their throats. It is contrary to human beings' survival instinct to grab all the goodies they can and hold on to them tight. You are thinking of communism when you talk of the government taking over means of production. Socialism is an economic system where some of the individual wealth is shared, and there is not reason it can be democratically run. Many countries have adopted socialism with no intention of turning into a communist society.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

I've never mentioned social programs? If you were to ask me, and it seems that you are, then I would say that our forms of socialism are most apparent in our educational system, highway system, and general utilities structure (which isn't directly owned by the government, but highly regulated and granted monopolies free from market competition).

When did I say you didn't mention social programs? Are you stoned? The people pay government to get the roads built, government hires private contractors, and you understand that as an example of socialism? You've been had.

 

[Iceweasel]

You are thinking of communism when you talk of the government taking over means of production. Socialism is an economic system where some of the individual wealth is shared, and there is not reason it can be democratically run. Many countries have adopted socialism with no intention of turning into a communist society.

Can you support that? Last I looked socialism is state control over production. That was just a few days ago. You represent what the OP is all about, the soft sell of socialism, like a frog in a warming pot realizing too late he's getting cooked.

 

[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.

Liberals want a society similar to the Scandinavian countries. Call that whatever you want, but that's the goal.

But I really don't think Millennials are going to be content with that. We're a society used to having things our way... if we don't like it we can send it back... we have options and choices... all that has to go away in a Socialist system. There is uniformity... everyone has to have the same thing... there is no individuality.

 

[Confounding]

But I really don't think Millennials are going to be content with that.

That's because you're ignorant.

 

[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.

Boss, totalitarian governments screw up people's views of socialism/communism because the only way to choke communism down people's throats is to, well, choke it down their throats. It is contrary to human beings' survival instinct to grab all the goodies they can and hold on to them tight. You are thinking of communism when you talk of the government taking over means of production. Socialism is an economic system where some of the individual wealth is shared, and there is not reason it can be democratically run. Many countries have adopted socialism with no intention of turning into a communist society.

Again, you are welcome to search the Internet for "The Worker's Party" and "The People's Republic" and you'll find that totalitarian government always starts with the misconception it's about the people, the worker, the underclass. It's seldom brought in by cramming anything down your throat... it comes with great enthusiasm and exuberance, as a salvation, a promise for a better life.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

I agree that technology makes us "healthier"...I never said otherwise. What I did point out, if you are literate, was that socialist structures are in place in 9/10 (or 10/10 since the US also has some forms of socialistic programs) countries with the highest levels of human development. Now if we both agree that technology makes us "healthier". And it is apparent that some of the countries with the highest levels of development ("health") have socialistic structures in place...how are you posing a counter argument and not being "dumb and arrogant" by making an off topic post with no real substance?

Like I said, dumb and arrogant. It fits you perfectly. Your entire argument is based on correlation equal causation while totally misrepresenting what socialism is. The technologies are private, not public, how is that socialism?

You're just another dumb arrogant asshole that has been programmed by post modern progressives.

You are quite correct. Correlation does not equal causation. However, one of the basis of how we grow our knowledge base is by finding correlations (positive or negative) and then investigating the reasons as to why to see if there is a direct cause, indirect cause, or just an arbitrary correlation.

So, if you don't agree with indicating correlation between success and causation then you must also disagree with the OP, that pointing to examples where socialism has failed (China, the USSR, etc.) is NOT reason to believe that socialism doesn't work. Furthermore, you keep bringing up technologies and pointing out that they are primarily privately owned...okay? Does that mean that are free of the pressures of the governmental and economic structures that surround them? If you answer "yes" to that question you may want to go back to university (public or private, they both teach the same material), since I'm sure that the OP, who does at least have an education (public or private, since they both teach the same material), realizes that such an assumption is quite asinine.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

I've never mentioned social programs? If you were to ask me, and it seems that you are, then I would say that our forms of socialism are most apparent in our educational system, highway system, and general utilities structure (which isn't directly owned by the government, but highly regulated and granted monopolies free from market competition).

When did I say you didn't mention social programs? Are you stoned? The people pay government to get the roads built, government hires private contractors, and you understand that as an example of socialism? You've been had.

You realize that socialism, by definition, is when the government owns and administrates a means of production, distribution of goods, or a service right?

So, you are saying that the government doesn't own the roads just because they were contracted out to private companies to be built? By that logic, we also don't own any military armaments, because all of our weapons and weapons systems have been built by private contractors. Let me clue you in...the government doesn't actually do a lot of the things we call on it to do...it contracts it out to private corporations to get it done, but retains ownership and direction over the output. Pointing towards how something was built rather than who owns its, dictates its terms for construction, or funds the means of its production is NOT a counterargument at all.

 

[OldLady]

You are thinking of communism when you talk of the government taking over means of production. Socialism is an economic system where some of the individual wealth is shared, and there is not reason it can be democratically run. Many countries have adopted socialism with no intention of turning into a communist society.

Can you support that? Last I looked socialism is state control over production. That was just a few days ago. You represent what the OP is all about, the soft sell of socialism, like a frog in a warming pot realizing too late he's getting cooked.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]
Bud, this is the best I can do. There are more definitions and theories of socialism than brands of toothpaste. You and I could quibble all day about which of many theories is being proposed by Sanders, but you are wrong to suppose I'm all in for the idea.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

I've never mentioned social programs? If you were to ask me, and it seems that you are, then I would say that our forms of socialism are most apparent in our educational system, highway system, and general utilities structure (which isn't directly owned by the government, but highly regulated and granted monopolies free from market competition).

When did I say you didn't mention social programs? Are you stoned? The people pay government to get the roads built, government hires private contractors, and you understand that as an example of socialism? You've been had.

You realize that socialism, by definition, is when the government owns and administrates a means of production, distribution of goods, or a service right?

So, you are saying that the government doesn't own the roads just because they were contracted out to private companies to be built? By that logic, we also don't own any military armaments, because all of our weapons and weapons systems have been built by private contractors. Let me clue you in...the government doesn't actually do a lot of the things we call on it to do...it contracts it out to private corporations to get it done, but retains ownership and direction over the output. Pointing towards how something was built rather than who owns its, dictates its terms for construction, or funds the means of its production is NOT a counterargument at all.

You asked me that when it was my fucking point? What's wrong with you?

I didn't say government doesn't own the roads because private companies built them. You can't read! In this country, the people own the government. We can change it the way we see fit. As propaganda grows and more power they take the less possible it gets.

obamacare was a huge step in this direction. Private companies will have a more difficult time as more and more is mandated until we have a single payer government run system. Once they control your health, they own you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You're confusing Communism with Socialism.

 

[Never3ndr]

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.

Your malfunction is that you have been brainwashed. Socialism hasn't changed, the propaganda has. A capitalist system funding social programs isn't the new socialism. You need to look words up because you're been bamboozled.

I've never mentioned social programs? If you were to ask me, and it seems that you are, then I would say that our forms of socialism are most apparent in our educational system, highway system, and general utilities structure (which isn't directly owned by the government, but highly regulated and granted monopolies free from market competition).

When did I say you didn't mention social programs? Are you stoned? The people pay government to get the roads built, government hires private contractors, and you understand that as an example of socialism? You've been had.

You realize that socialism, by definition, is when the government owns and administrates a means of production, distribution of goods, or a service right?

So, you are saying that the government doesn't own the roads just because they were contracted out to private companies to be built? By that logic, we also don't own any military armaments, because all of our weapons and weapons systems have been built by private contractors. Let me clue you in...the government doesn't actually do a lot of the things we call on it to do...it contracts it out to private corporations to get it done, but retains ownership and direction over the output. Pointing towards how something was built rather than who owns its, dictates its terms for construction, or funds the means of its production is NOT a counterargument at all.

You asked me that when it was my fucking point? What's wrong with you?

I didn't say government doesn't own the roads because private companies built them. You can't read! In this country, the people own the government. We can change it the way we see fit. As propaganda grows and more power they take the less possible it gets.

obamacare was a huge step in this direction. Private companies will have a more difficult time as more and more is mandated until we have a single payer government run system. Once they control your health, they own you.

I'm actually unsure as to whether you are a troll, an extreme liberal, or just somebody without a basic college education.

Whether or not you want to argue that the people own the government is irrelevant, socialism doesn't deal with who owns the government, but what the government owns (and does with what it owns if you want to expand upon socialistic theory, but let us limit the definition to its base form for sake of simplicity). If you actually believe that the US doesn't have socialistic programs, all you simply have to prove is how the US government doesn't have ownership or responsibility for our highway system and I will entertain your argument. Remember, this has nothing to do with who "owns", funds, agrees / disagrees with, etc. the government. It simply has to deal with what the government, itself, has control over.