Socialists?

[septuagint]

Is Socialism Popular Or Is Socialism Polling Popular?

Polling on socialism is clearly popular right now, and it will be so until another issue catches fire and pollsters’ attention. But socialism itself is not becoming more popular among most Americans.

www.google.com

Depending on how you phrase the question and what socialism actually means to these people, and views arent static especially when you are young dumb and broke. Baby boomers at one point were the hippy generation, now staunchly on the right. People have been saying capitalism will be replaced in the west since fucking 1848. We are coming up on close to two hundred years of waiting for the socialist rapture to happen, and all the while in the west the communists and socialists have gotten more anemic, more pathetic with every generation. Back in the late 18 to early 1900s you had a lefty assassinate a president and massive clashes with cops and pinkertons. In the 60s and 70s we had fucking tens of thousands of bombings by lefties, we had the black panthers gunning it out with cops and other groups, we had a dozen or more assorted leftwing terrorist groups running around, we had a communist cult with significant sway in San Francisco politics commit mass murder/suicide of more american citizens than anyone else besides 9/11.

Now we have anemic soyboys and troons leading the charge who can hardly even kill anyone but thats not for lack of trying. They tried to get cartel guns, they tried bashing heads in with bikelocks. They cant do anything because social justice degrees dont translate to real world insurgency training and their arms are too weak and anemic from free trade vegan diets. Seriously, I could respect old school commies, they would ruthlessly exploit resources and people for their aims, the communist workers were fit, hardcore and ruthless. Now they somehow think they can
1. Stop exploiting the environment for resources.
2. Remove all companies or have them heavily taxed by the state.
3. Get paid a six figure salary for doing absolutely nothing. They want guaranteed incomes for nothing while also completely slashing economic activity heavily and keep all their cushy 1st world amenities at the same time.

You said look at history. I have. It makes things look pretty bad for socialism.

Clearly not hard enough, hard economic times lead to extremist politics. As for those soyboys, fuck em, most of them are champagne socialists anyways. Also the rise of the internet has lead to differences in tactics between old school and new school socialists anyways, although riots are still pretty common. The Animal Liberation Front regularly raids animal laboratories, harass scientists, and there's still people like the Unabomber and then there's all the riots by BLM, mass looting, arson, and a whole bunch of other shit.

A big reason why things are different now is the rise of the security state, it was easier to commit an assassination or bomb something back in the day, now? Not so much.

 

[ButterBar]

Clearly not hard enough, hard economic times lead to extremist politics. As for those soyboys, fuck em, most of them are champagne socialists anyways. Also the rise of the internet has lead to differences in tactics between old school and new school socialists anyways, although riots are still pretty common. The Animal Liberation Front regularly raids animal laboratories, harass scientists, and there's still people like the Unabomber and then there's all the riots by BLM, mass looting, arson, and a whole bunch of other shit.

A big reason why things are different now is the rise of the security state, it was easier to commit an assassination or bomb something back in the day, now? Not so much.

The champagne socialists are the ones in charge though. All the leading socialist organizations, all the leading self proclaimed socialists like Bernie "If you wrote a best selling book, you too could be a millionaire" Sanders are champagne socialists. The working class, the ones Marx talked about, really dont buy into socialism all that much. Its NEETs with Bachelors degrees and college students that are the children of middle class families that push socialism hardcore. I also dont think the security state is nearly as cracked up as you make it out to be. We did have a socialist attempt to assassinate members of congress. He was just a fat fuck who was a complete failure at hitting anyone and anything important. He could have easily committed the largest mass killing of politicians of all time if he had the work ethic and physique of an old school socialist.

 

[septuagint]

The champagne socialists are the ones in charge though. All the leading socialist organizations, all the leading self proclaimed socialists like Bernie "If you wrote a best selling book, you too could be a millionaire" Sanders are champagne socialists. The working class, the ones Marx talked about, really dont buy into socialism all that much. Its NEETs with Bachelors degrees and college students that are the children of middle class families that push socialism hardcore. I also dont think the security state is nearly as cracked up as you make it out to be. We did have a socialist attempt to assassinate members of congress. He was just a fat fuck who was a complete failure at hitting anyone and anything important. He could have easily committed the largest mass killing of politicians of all time if he had the work ethic and physique of an old school socialist.

Up to 60% of people in the US support, for instance, universal health care. But yeah soyboys give socialists a bad name, good to laugh and cringe at but not much else. Most, if not all, of them are big time hypocrites. Anyways my point still stands that classic neoliberalism is no longer an option, only question is, what will replace it?

 

[ButterBar]

Up to 60% of people in the US support, for instance, universal health care. But yeah soyboys give socialists a bad name, good to laugh and cringe at but not much else. Most, if not all, of them are big time hypocrites. Anyways my point still stands that classic neoliberalism is no longer an option, only question is, what will replace it?

Universal healthcare doesn't make it a socialist system. And no, your point doesn't stand. People have been saying that since 1848. Why is it suddenly true now?

 

[eternal dog mongler]

Up to 60% of people in the US support, for instance, universal health care. But yeah soyboys give socialists a bad name, good to laugh and cringe at but not much else. Most, if not all, of them are big time hypocrites. Anyways my point still stands that classic neoliberalism is no longer an option, only question is, what will replace it?

Well in a normal timeline it'd be democratic socialism trying to get real wages moving again.

In clownworld it's going to be boomer-fueled fascism.

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost]

I don't mean in the way of "ben shapiro owns the libs, trigger the feminists" type of socialism, because we all know any of those types get laughed out of here, but I was actually curious if there were any Kiwis here who support redistributing the wealth? We talk so much about capitalism and it's wonders, I'd figure I'd see if there's any in here.

No, anyone I meet who ever non-ironically calls themselves a real socialist/communist are either.

a) Low information, feels before reals voters and the like who want to be seen as being a good person, and so when they read on some internet forum or some political pamphlet that socialists are the good guys they accept it, and don't challenge it, they say their for it, without actually knowing anything about it or it's history, aside from the very basics. (If they even know that.) typical hippies, lefties, granola and soy eating types. NPC's that sort of thing.

Harmless enough, they're just ignorant and misinformed, and unless they have a mob at their back aren't likely to actually be violent. Classic type of proletariat from 1984.

b) Know all about the actual evils of socialism and willingly turn a blind eye to it, because it means that then they don't have to challenge their political beliefs in any meaningful way, or actually believe that they are justified in their cause and their actions because they work for the sake of the greater good.

These are the ones that I consider dangerous, because they manipulate the other useful idiots, and are generally psychotic, or motivated from a place of authoritarianism and hatred and not good will. They will genuinely kill you, and your family without a second thought, and justify it, because you were the opposition.

They hate the rich, so much so they will willingly take steps to create punitive taxes regimes in order to punish them, even when they know that it will create economic problems.
They hate successful hardworking people, so they invent terms like systematic oppression, patriarchy, etc in order to undermine those people and their accomplishments.
They hate humanity so they support hardcore environmentalism, and population reduction.
They hate their country so they are for open borders.

c) Anarchists and under achievers.

They support the idea of socialism because it will be a net benefit to them, and they share the same hatreds, but in reality they're only interested in the benefit it will give them without actually wanting to put any work in. In my experience they're usually shitheads of the highest order, but without the leadership of smarter people they couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

Also please note, that this is only people who actually own the term socialist/communist.

Personally I don't consider certain policies or elements that fall under the umbrella of socialist causes as actual socialism. Rather that its been co-opted by the left wingers in order to court favor, power or influence. IE Labor Unions, Welfare, Universal basic health care.

P.S. probably one of the most underrated of George Orwell's writings on the reality of people who support socialism is the second half of "The Road To Wigan Pier". It's worth consideration if your into scholarly work on the subject.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

List of people named in the Panama Papers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some billionaires love paying their fair share of taxes so much, they're willing to employ vast networks created for the specific purpose of evading taxes.
Socialism in its modern form is garbage distributed by the nouveau riche (it probably still was during its conception), it is foolhardy to assume the rich are all saints.

Remember that the pro-socialist people are also pro-globalism these days, not in the past, but now they believe in it. No borders for people, business and capital. It traps workers, enables immigrants, moving business to the cheapest place possible, placing money in a tax haven... It is amazing how they managed to push that into their politics, it was fueled by the notion that racists are anti-globalism for racist reasons. Amazing. Big up to the globalist for pulling that one off.

I do, fuck the rich. Also it's plainly embarrassing how our country lacks so many of the basic protections found elsewhere in the Western world, and if the establishment legitimately want to avoid revolution, they'd make American a genuine social democracy (we have welfare programs here, but they're relatively weak compared to other countries). FDR was smart enough to see this. The thing that is clear is that classic neoliberal centrism is no longer an option on the table, at least in the long term.

People need to read up on their history more, especially the rich.

Between two systems, the American and the Scandinavian, there is one critical thing that separates them: the breaking point.
The Scandinavian model will break way before the American and with break I mean society will shatter if the belt gets tightened enough.

 

[FlameOn]

I'm a democratic socialist, sort of vaguely. I support a broadening of social programs - universal healthcare, universal base income (which has been shown to significantly boost economic activity), income caps so people don't get to make billions off the backs of underpaid employees, better funding for schools (and divorcing school funding from local property taxes so rural and poor area schools aren't disadvantaged relative to those in wealthy areas), higher taxes on the obscenely wealthy and less loop-holes for them to get out of paying it, and the enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, among other things but those are the most important ones.

I don't think that capitalism needs to die or whatever, but I think societies have a responsibility to care for the people, especially those who are the worst-off. That's just my view though.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

Remember that the pro-socialist people are also pro-globalism these days, not in the past, but now they believe in it. No borders for people, business and capital. It traps workers, enables immigrants, moving business to the cheapest place possible, placing money in a tax haven... It is amazing how they managed to push that into their politics, it was fueled by the notion that racists are anti-globalism for racist reasons. Amazing. Big up to the globalist for pulling that one off.

The current tax structure can't deal with multinational corporations. It's almost like you would need some kind of multinational federalist structure in order to make sure they don't all hide in Ireland to dodge taxes.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

The current tax structure can't deal with multinational corporations. It's almost like you would need some kind of multinational federalist structure in order to make sure they don't all hide in Ireland to dodge taxes.

Europe needs to get unionized.

 

[ButterBar]

I don't think that capitalism needs to die or whatever, but I think societies have a responsibility to care for the people, especially those who are the worst-off. That's just my view though.

I agree completely. How does socialism do that though? How is giving vast amounts of power over your life to a bureaucrats and increasing their ability to do what they see fit over you equal care for those below? Why will they be benevolent while corporations wont?

 

[Emperor Julian]

I agree completely. How does socialism do that though? How is giving vast amounts of power over your life to a bureaucrats and increasing their ability to do what they see fit over you equal care for those below? Why will they be benevolent while corporations wont?

Honestly? probably, their ultimate aim and objective is to serve the public trust in comparison Corporations cannot even be relied upon to work in the interests of their own customers and staff. Civil service has it's flaws but when correctly funded is genrally altruistic.

 

[ButterBar]

Honestly? probably, their ultimate aim and objective is to serve the public trust in comparison Corporations cannot even be relied upon to work in the interests of their own customers and staff. Civil service has it's flaws but when correctly funded is genrally altruistic.

Why cant businesses and corporations be relied upon? If businesses become civil service I don't see what is supposed to really make a change. Does that sentiment apply even to small businesses and smaller corporate entities? Is there anything to back up civil services being altruistic? I can think of as many anecdotes of them fucking up and being corrupt as I can with corporations, maybe more. Why if they suddenly gained vastly more power and filled in the position of businesses where the government now controls the entire economy as well as law and all leadership would they not be corrupt at all? Are there any examples of a government given that kind of power in the real world where there wasnt any abuse, where things got better?

 

[Y2K Baby]

I'd consider myself a moderate socialist. I think the purpose of the state should be to ensure necessitates to its citizens and infrastructure , pretty much exclusively. Maybe some kind of earning cap for people making obscene amounts of money.

The purpose of the state is to protect our God-given liberties, you pinko.

 

[Y2K Baby]

@Ashy the Angel
Thoughts?

 

[Emperor Julian]

Why cant businesses and corporations be relied upon? If businesses become civil service I don't see what is supposed to really make a change. Does that sentiment apply even to small businesses and smaller corporate entities? Is there anything to back up civil services being altruistic? I can think of as many anecdotes of them fucking up and being corrupt as I can with corporations, maybe more. Why if they suddenly gained vastly more power and filled in the position of businesses where the government now controls the entire economy as well as law and all leadership would they not be corrupt at all? Are there any examples of a government given that kind of power in the real world where there wasnt any abuse, where things got better?

Because their primary purpose is to make profit and they've been shown to consistantly ignore pretty much any concern whever they can get away with it without failure.

A civil service can be a corrupt mess but that's a perversion of it's intended objectives and can be accounted as such and moderated by pushes to reform. But to use the term corrupt for a corporation is to make an error because no matter how selfish, stupid and sociopathic its antics may be it's only real aim is to maximise it's profit. Smaller corporate entities are just as suseptable to scummy antics as the bigs boys, for example the local bus company is currently ramping up bus prices while cutting down on services because it has a monopoly and can get away with it. You might get lucky and have an self made business were the owner isnt a complete shit or you might have a business where it's difficult to actually do any real harm but how long will that last when the benevolant founder steps down or it begins to accumulate power?
This system is made even worse by the fact most big boy corporations and run for the interests of shareholders rather than for the wellbeing of employee's or customers. A group of people whose toxicity to the product ensures endemic problems since all that really matters is the maximising of their income before they sell the product on.

To contrast a dirty cop is a police officer who ignore the duties and expectations of his office to line his own pockets whereas Paul 'satan' Bulcke is actually engaging in his duties when Nestlé and other corporations persuaded the world water to change its statement so as to reduce access to drinking water from a "right" to a "need"., to make it easier to sell water as a product.

 

[ButterBar]

Because their primary purpose is to make profit and they've been shown to consistantly ignore pretty much any concern whever they can get away with it without failure.

A civil service can be a corrupt mess but that's a perversion of it's intended objectives and can be accounted as such and moderated by pushes to reform. But to use the term corrupt for a corporation is to make an error because no matter how selfish, stupid and sociopathic its antics may be it's only real aim is to maximise it's profit. Smaller corporate entities are just as suseptable to scummy antics as the bigs boys, for example the local bus company is currently ramping up bus prices while cutting down on services because it has a monopoly and can get away with it. You might get lucky and have an self made business were the owner isnt a complete shit or you might have a business where it's difficult to actually do any real harm but how long will that last when the founded steps down or it begins to accumulate power?
This system is made even worse by the fact most big boy corporations and run for the interests of shareholders rather than for the wellbeing of employee's or customers. A group of people whose toxicity to the product ensures endemic problems since all that really matters is the maximising of their income before they sell the product on.

To contrast a dirty cop is a police officer who ignore the duties and expectations of his office to line his own pockets whereas Paul 'satan' Bulcke is actually engaging in his duties when his company pressured Nestlé and other corporations persuaded the world water to change its statement so as to reduce access to drinking water from a "right" to a "need"., to make it easier to sell water as a product.

So for all this we would have examples where these ideas were implemented and worked in the real world right? And the profit motive means you have to at least provide a functional service to people. Who is to actually stop a powerful corrupt government bureaucracy? What checks a government company for actually functioning to grow the economy and to ensure there arent massive shortages and failures? The comparison isnt one corrupt cop either. Its the ATF laundering massive amounts of cigarettes to buy box office seats. There isnt a moral difference, there isnt a functional difference between how a bureaucratic elite and a corporate elite will act. They will both act in their own self interest. At least capitalism is proven to be functional, and can ensure my liberties are the least trodden on.

 

[Emperor Julian]

So for all this we would have examples where these ideas were implemented and worked in the real world right?

-police
-Army
-Emergancy services
-Civil courts
-pretty much any goverment structure which hasnt imploded historically.

And the profit motive means you have to at least provide a functional service to people.

Some people, occasionally, maybe and at a massive disbalance. That is of coarse assuming the product is valid in the first place, plenty of corporations have marched forward with an unviable piece of shit for example.

The Distillers Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What checks a government company for actually functioning to grow the economy and to ensure there arent massive shortages and failures?

The ability to vote for leaders who will provide effective and insitute social reforms when needed or alternatively intiate grassroots campaign for reform.

The comparison isnt one corrupt cop either. Its the ATF laundering massive amounts of cigarettes to buy box office seats. There isnt a moral difference, there isnt a functional difference between how a bureaucratic elite and a corporate elite will act. They will both act in their own self interest. At least capitalism is proven to be functional, and can ensure my liberties are the least trodden on.

Barely function and there actually is ATF is betraying it's own nature to do that-a corporation is proactively driving towards that sort of aim. In a unregulated capiltalist oligarchy your civil liberties are at the mercy of power groups who have neither accountability nor any motivation to enact restraint, you have no defence because the power dynamic is too slanted in your opponents. For example say the local mega-corp decides to fuck your world to death it gets fucked to death, you have no recourse and your freedoms become a total joke.

The icing on the cake is that system doesnt even really have to work as long as the profits roll in.

 

[ButterBar]

-police
-Army
-Emergancy services
-Civil courts
-pretty much any goverment structure which hasnt imploded historically.

There is a massive difference between a necessary service like armies and police, courts, and businesses. You cant compare cops to a department of caffeinated beverages subsuming all coffee companies. Show me a society that has everything run by companies.

The ability to vote for leaders who will provide effective and insitute social reforms when needed or alternatively intiate grassroots campaign for reform.

So you want to be able to vote for every single public office and you think that will make things run well? To what level? are you talking local elections for your head of the local department of caffeinated beverages or the entire thing, and will you do this for every single new government monopoly?

Barely function and there actually is ATF is betraying it's own nature to do that-a corporation is proactively driving towards that sort of aim. In a unregulated capiltalist oligarchy your civil liberties are at the mercy of power groups who have neither accountability nor any motivation to enact restraint, you have defence because the power dynamic is too slanted in your opponents. For example say the local mega-corp decides to fuck your world to death it gets fucked to death, you have no recourse and your freedoms become a total joke.

The icing on the cake is that system doesnt even really have to work as long as the profits roll in.

Define barely functional? And profits coming in means the system is working, that they are providing a product people want. Your citation is a business that went defunct in 9 years. No one is talking about unregulated anything so its not relevant here. Just outline your ideal system for me of socialism.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

its me, gettin' real fucking mad 'bout starbucks