Poll: Approval of Socialism at Record High as Capitalist Principles Hit New Lows
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-approval-of-socialism-at-record-high-as-capitalist-principles-hit-new-lows/Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://truthout.org/articles/poll-approval-of-socialism-at-record-high-as-capitalist-principles-hit-new-lows/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
17 replies
Those two look like a couple of kids who just pulled off a great prank. It makes me happy to see their smiles.
Makes me so happy to see what Bernie started coming into fruition. Also, makes me sad to know he won't be alive to see it all happen but what a legacy to leave behind.
I hate this either or crap. Few people want to live in 100% privately run or 100% government run society/economy.
I just heard a debate from someone that was adhering very closely to the Marx definition: “Under Communism, money would not exist”.
I can’t affirmatively say it wouldn’t work, but it is such a wild move from where we are, I can’t see pushing it on anyone with any assemblance of caution. Socialism can still be a sliding scale, and we can definitely turn it way up in a world where money exists, without any chance of causing harm.
see that is the thing. I have had people tell me marxist or true socialism you would still buy and sell things and then they repeat agnosium that the workers control the means of production. I find no one who is a big proponent can really say how its going to function except by good vibes.
I'm all for world wide wealth caps. Of any one has a measured wealth of say 5 million or more, 100% of their income goes to taxes.
This way we can keep everything the same, we just cut off the excesses by putting some sane rules at the base of the system
Nobody can have a net worth of over 5M, meaning that nobody can become crazy powerful. Governments get huge influx of resources, which can we used for universal healthcare, education, etc. all while keeping the world pretty much the same
Also, companies over a certain size should
to ensure fair play, good working conditions and a long-term stable market.
Myself I would allow for people to be rich and would just use a very large tax rate. when takes went over 90% it effecitively stopped anything to large. It could actually be much smaller but has to apply to all income that comes in. I mean honestly things are so effed now that we likely need a 90+ percent until normalized.
Hopefully people are realizing the lie that capitalism has raised so many people from poverty is finally bursting. It was always technology that was raising people out of poverty. The birth of capitalism just happened to coincide with a burst in technological advance. People’s lives have gotten better despite capitalism trying to subjugate them to the wealthy. Prosperity for the worker has always come from socialist policy and unions.
Are you sure the growth of capitalism and the growth of technology are independent variables? Maybe they both contributed to each other and to people's conditions as a byproduct when the growth was big enough. It also seems some socialist countries' population have had some benefits from their country opening to a mixed economy with some free market and capitalism, instead of following strict socialist only policies.
Technology was going to develop either way. This feels like your trying to to apply the age old talking point that competition breeds innovation and most of the innovation bred these days is how to make everything worse and more expensive. Whether it be apple innovating a way to brick apple devices using the "wrong" parts, planned obsolescence, over utilization of wifi and "AI".
The soft implication that people don't want to develop technology to improve lives unless they're getting paid is a really disturbing one.
It's a bit hard to say anything against what yoir saying as well because you didn't specify anything. What capitalist/free market policies, what countries?
Competition can breed innovation but I think it needs enough regulation for fair competition to actually happen and to protect consumers against abuse. I think this regulation was progressively dismantled in the USA especially under the various right wing presidents, culminating with the current one.
It's not the only motivation, but it's a big help. Do you believe people would be able to work as much without other incentive than helping people?
As an example, I do volunteering, but there's no way I would ever reach the same level of productivity as I do at my paid job.
China moved to a mixed economy system after the death of its ideologist.
Your again not specifying what exactly is happening. What's the job and what's the volunteer work. Some volunteer services will require you give it your all. Some jobs are very relaxed. What your talking about has less to do with incentive and more to do with lax labor laws. Nonvolunteer work isn't giving you upwards of 12 hours of mandatory overtime.
Incentives also aren't just rewards they're punishments and companies absolutely take advantage of the fact people are fucked without a job.
Your job and volunteer work likely have different expectations of performance from the get go and that has nothing to do with incentives.
You did touch on something though. Incentives can push people to work harder, now the issue is, what else does it introduce? It introduces redundancy where everything is being done twice, thrice, etc etc. How much more work could be done if they were working together.
If we want to talk about thinking well I don't think cancer researchers are in it for the money. I don't think many researchers are and if there are people like that it's only because society has been driving us to do that for centuries. In fact I would argue it harms innovation because it incentivizes people to work towards things that make money.
By doing so we shun vulnerable minorities who aren't a viable customer base. Minorities like trans people, amputees, chronic stroke victims, etc.
Hell this even hurts the majority, most food research is privately funded by parties with a conflict of interest. It's not just big dairy, it's big everything. In fact that's how the Anti-Vaccine movement blew up in the firat place, it started as an anti-MMR movement by Wakefield who had a financial motive to have people buy individual vaccines.
At what point do we just accept it's not capitalism that brings innovation to sociolism but the opposite? There are well intentioned people still working within capitalism, but it's in spite of it, not because of it.
China moved to a mixed economy system after the death of its ideologist.
I'm not touching this.
"Mixed economy" isn't a phrase that fits in anyone's ideology though.
Socialism, democratic socialism or social democracy? It's quite different and the article does not seem to clarify if the poll ever mentioned that. I guess it is democratic socialism as promoted by the DSA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America#Ideology_and_political_positions
If it explained the difference, I wonder what the polls would show of approval difference between the three.
I have a hard time understanding how a democratically elected government creating and operating a service to provide people with the essentials they need to survive isn't an example of the people owning the means of production.
Never forget that "socialism is just a transition to communism" was a thing Lenin said, not Marx.
Afaiu, social democracy accepts some amount of free market and capitalism for economical efficiency, and democratic socialism accepts it but for a transitional period?
That's why I would say they are not the same as straight up Marxist revolution to seize the means of production. And I don't think much people support that in this poll, but it does not seem to detail it to confirm.