CDZ Why is socialilsm so attractive to younger voters?

[Picaro]

Going through the young and stupids means being young and stupid in your behavior.

It's the old and stupid who do most of the damage.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, to begin with it is like the old adage....'if a socialist understood economics he would not be a socialist'

Why is socialism so attractive to young people.

Because they look at their parents working two jobs each to pay to stay in the Middle Class and they realize that Capitalism is a crap sandwich. Because they look at getting out of college with tens of thousands of dollars of debt and indentured servitude to corporate America to pay it off.

 

[JoeB131]

That is the easiest question to answer. Socialism promises to take care of people without any consequences....and it also promises to make rich people suffer...... showing that socialism appeals to the worst in human nature.

Really?

I think capitalism is the worst in human nature... since the whole idea is to cheat other people out of the fruits of their labors.

But, man, taking care of people? What a horrible idea! Don't you know people only exist so the rich can exploit them?

 

[Picaro]

Because they don't have much to lose

That, and socialism seems to work just great for Wall Street, and all the billionaires around the world certainly benefit from it. What's not to like?

The kidz just arent' gong to buy the 'we're all going to get rich mowing each other's yards and our 401K's !!!' rubbish the right has been trying to sell for decades; they see where the money is, and where it goes. All you ideologues are going to have to invent some new rubbish for the present and future kidz to swallow.

Should be easy, since the 'progressives' have dumbed down the last three generations more than enough to sell them magic beans and 401K's.

Ah, but wait, they also dumbed down their shills at the same time ... oh well, too late now ... get some more green cards!!! The old 'Good Cop-Bad Cop!!'scam re Dems and GOPers id dead in the water.

 

[Mac1958]

Socialism has always been attractive to younger people.

Then life happens, and some of us may change after being exposed to various opinions and facts.

What we clearly have less of, unfortunately, are people who understand that this stuff exists on a continuum, that it's not one or the other.

And, unfortunately, they're screaming the loudest and listening the least. So now we're stuck in this ridiculous, binary argument.
.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think capitalism is the worst in human nature... since the whole idea is to cheat other people out of the fruits of their labors.

Let's pause and apply some common sense.
Pretty much every country currently out there has some mixture of socialism and capitalism going on. So continuing this all or nothing, cold war argument as though one could have either in isolation is retarded and just what an actual human of worst nature would obviously want. No, capitalism is not simply about cheating other people out of their labor. Lots of generous property owners seek help every day, pay well for it, and their helpers (workers/laborers) go away very happy to have cash in exchange rather than capital. Liquidity has its benefits. Problem occurs when trying to make it all contingent upon "making a profit." In the example just mentioned, one ends up with say a cleaner kitchen and less cash than they originally had while the other walks away with more cash than they had. Who profited? Did either party exhibit "the worst in human nature"? No, what we all seek and deserve is reasonable security. Owning stuff provides much of that for some. Not owning stuff provides it for others. Depends on circumstances and the individual. Also, owners of capital can and often do provide labor for others. Laborers may own some stuff they'll sometimes hire others to maintain, repair, or improve. Nothing cut and dried about it, but oh how we love to pontificate.

The evil seeps into any socioeconomic system just as it always has, from monarchies to parliamentary democracies. Where owners/controllers of larger chunks of property/capital are widely seen and treated as superior beings. One obvious solution: Stop doing that. Break 'em up!

 

[there4eyeM]

Society forced social issues upon purely profit based economics. Women were acknowledged as people, slavery was ended, workers were recognized as a sector with a voice, education was seen as necessary to the functions of a democracy (including republican democracies, just to get that silliness out of the way), common wealth was applied to common problems, and much more.
There has been an effective disinformation effort that has destroyed the constructive use of certain words and terms. Although political correctness is often criticized, the political destabilization of verbiage goes without comment. We cannot speak intelligently here of "socialism", "capitalism", "progress" or many other areas that would otherwise be interesting topics. We are going to have to create new vocabularies unless we just want to continue as so many do in these threads, regurgitating favorite vitriol.
P.S. If economists understood economics, they would be psychologists.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm going to go with.......Because they're stupid.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, they have 21 trillion dollars worth of debt (and counting) coming their way.

lolol.

 

[there4eyeM]

Well, they have 21 trillion dollars worth of debt (and counting) coming their way.

lolol.

Not due to socialism, by the way

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, to begin with it is like the old adage....'if a socialist understood economics he would not be a socialist'

One cannot expect "clean debate" when the thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

 

[task0778]

Society forced social issues upon purely profit based economics. Women were acknowledged as people, slavery was ended, workers were recognized as a sector with a voice, education was seen as necessary to the functions of a democracy (including republican democracies, just to get that silliness out of the way), common wealth was applied to common problems, and much more.
There has been an effective disinformation effort that has destroyed the constructive use of certain words and terms. Although political correctness is often criticized, the political destabilization of verbiage goes without comment. We cannot speak intelligently here of "socialism", "capitalism", "progress" or many other areas that would otherwise be interesting topics. We are going to have to create new vocabularies unless we just want to continue as so many do in these threads, regurgitating favorite vitriol.
P.S. If economists understood economics, they would be psychologists.

Do you think women are acknowledged as people in socialist countries? Democracies don't recognize women as people? They get to vote and hold office don't they? Some of them sit on the SCOTUS and in the halls of Congress. Remember when China had a policy of only one child per couple, so people were aborting or killing girl babies cuz they wanted a boy?
Slavery was ended. Oh yeah? Been to North Korea lately? Hey, most democracies ended slavery well over 150 years ago.
Workers were recognized as a sector with a voice. Oh yeah? Been to Cuba or Venezuela lately? You don't think labor unions have not had a really big voice in our politics over the past 80 some years?
Education was seen as necessary to the functions of a democracy. Socialism is the opposite of a democracy. Do you realize how much money the US has been pouring into education programs and policies over the past 50 years?
Common wealth was applied to common problems. Oh, I think not. Most of the wealth in socialist countries goes to the ruling class. That problem exists everywhere, in every economy.

You may think socialism cures all evils; well, guess what, it doesn't. In the entire history of humanity there has never been a successful socialist state as you have described it. Never.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I was a socialist between October and late November of 1970.

It got me laid.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I was a socialist between October and late November of 1970.

It got me laid.

hehheh exactly --I remember all to well....to be cool, to get laid etc. that is the way it was....a portrait of marx over your bed always helped with the girls.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

lol...cuz they sit on their couch all day in front of the tv until the folks get home from work and demand their parents money, this continues until someone gets knocked up or the parents die, then they enter the world, go to work, and figure out why they cannot make ends meet and then vote for lower taxes and less government "help"

 

[Leo123]

Entering the working world and having to depend on oneself is scary at first but hugely rewarding in the long run. Some young folks have a hard time with that so, government support looks appealing.

 

[TheParser]

I think that socialism is attractive to many young people for the same reason that it is attractive to many old people (like me): The idea of socialism is wonderful.

Just ask anyone who works for the government (police officers, teachers, letter carriers, career members of the armed forces, etc.) why socialism is wonderful: Those government employees usually have a job for life, they get very generous salaries, they get a defined pension, they get health insurance. What's not to like about socialism?

*****

Sadly, socialism is NOT economically feasible for the whole population. (That's why socialism has failed in Cuba and Russia and China and Sweden and the United Kingdom.)

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Socialism is attractive to the upper-crust elitist liberals and progressives because slumming is a form of catharsis. It makes them feel less guilty about having all the wonderful things they have.

Of course, the 150 million or so people who were murdered by variants of socialism would vehemently disagree with them, if they could.

Politics Is a Bull Session at a Prep School

After the French Revolution, many of the surviving guillotine-fodder nobility felt that the plebeians would inevitably take over and abolish birth privileges, without which they, too, would become peasants. One group, the reactionaries, advocated severe oppression in order to take the will to fight away from the other classes and smother the seeds of revolution. The other, the Leftists, felt that they could retain their unearned hereditary power by taking it over the leadership of the workers' movements and perverting the end result into a totalitarian oligarchy of their own clique.

 

[abrere]

it's only attractive to the lazy and the non-productive. It's a loser for those who can actually produce. Once you make the hosts aware that they dont need the ticks and are FAR better off without them, they shed those ticks. so of course the ticks get REALLY upset about that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Depends on the degree of Socialism

Supply side economics is obviously not working

It obviously have with full employment and fought off the import invasion by third world countries..