What's in the News? 2.0

[Al Terego]

Faith in capitalism is falling in the US.

According to that article, faith in socialism has also declined, and is at 36% compared to to 57% approval of capitalism, so there's no critical mass there (yet?).

I have full faith it will get worse. The situation is not sustainable, and to quote Warren Buffet, an unsustainable process will eventually cease.

How do you envision that change happening?

[Chulanowa]

According to that article, faith in socialism has also declined, and is at 36% compared to to 57% approval of capitalism, so there's no critical mass there (yet?).


How do you envision that change happening?

What do you figure the odds are that the 7,647 Americans polled to get this information even understand what socialism is? People in the US aren't exactly renowned for knowing the subject.

[Keelan]

What do you figure the odds are that the 7,647 Americans polled to get this information even understand what socialism is? People in the US aren't exactly renowned for knowing the subject.

Are you suggesting that it should be lower or higher due to increased understanding?

[TheGlyphstone]

I've met a lot of people who think socialism is a synonym for communism, instead of being two synergistic but differing things. I suspect the amount of negative opinions would shrink at least a little if peoples mental image of 'socialist' was Norway instead of China or Soviet Russia.

[Al Terego]

In my view, "socialism" is a scale.
Public education is "socialistic", and so is public infrastructure (roads, to give one example)

[TheGlyphstone]

That's generally how I've come to understand it. Socialism and libertarianism are opposing ends of the axis, reflecting government involvement/interference in peoples lives. Communism and capitalism are opposed on an orthagonal axis, reflecting the distribution of wealth/work.

[Al Terego]

<wishful thinking>
If only people realized that things are not black and white, and it is possible to negotiate a mutably acceptable shade of grey...
</wishful thinking>

[Oniya]

I've met a lot of people who think socialism is a synonym for communism, instead of being two synergistic but differing things. I suspect the amount of negative opinions would shrink at least a little if peoples mental image of 'socialist' was Norway instead of China or Soviet Russia.

The view is more common in older folks than younger (mostly due to that whole USSR abbreviation).  I like to ask these people if they think the DDR (Deutsche Democratik Republik or East Germany) or the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea or North Korea) were or are their idea of 'democracy'.

Sometimes, they even get it.

[Chulanowa]

Are you suggesting that it should be lower or higher due to increased understanding?

I'm suggesting that results are irrelevant either way if the question is probably not understood. "Socialism is when government does thing" and "socialism is when thing I don't like" are both extremely prevalent notions among Americans. Even people who should definitely know better will often insist "Socialism is when welfare system under capitalism."

I've met a lot of people who think socialism is a synonym for communism, instead of being two synergistic but differing things. I suspect the amount of negative opinions would shrink at least a little if peoples mental image of 'socialist' was Norway instead of China or Soviet Russia.

Well, the point of socialism is to transition a society to communism, so they're not wrong per se, just jumping the gun. They are different things, but you cannot have communism without socialism (and socialism without communism as an end goal is basically meaningless.) They're intertwined enough that while it's technically inaccurate to call socialist states like Cuba or China "communist," it's a fair shorthand for "Socialist state transitioning towards communism."

The idea of "Norway is socialist" is pretty silly. Norway (and the other Scandinavian states) are very solidly capitalist. Some nationalized industries and a welfare system does not equal socialism (If it did the US would also be socialist.) Though, Rødt does hold eight seats in the Norwegian parliament, while every seat in the US Legislature is held by some variety of capitalist, so... I guess technically Norway is more socialist, while still understanding it isn't socialist.   

<wishful thinking>
If only people realized that things are not black and white, and it is possible to negotiate a mutably acceptable shade of grey...
</wishful thinking>

There's really no possible synthesis between socialism and capitalism. They're mutually exclusive.

What IS possible is capitalism with welfare (say, Norway), and socialism with markets (as in Vietnam's Đổi Mới reforms.) In both cases these are transitions towards the core ideology however; welfare is intended only to mitigate the harm of capitalism and degrades under the interests of capital, while socialist markets are intended to be temporary, a method of building self-reliance along the path to higher socialisms.

[Beorning]

Well, the point of socialism is to transition a society to communism, so they're not wrong per se, just jumping the gun. They are different things, but you cannot have communism without socialism (and socialism without communism as an end goal is basically meaningless.) They're intertwined enough that while it's technically inaccurate to call socialist states like Cuba or China "communist," it's a fair shorthand for "Socialist state transitioning towards communism."

Okay, I have to step in here. Chula, you're objectively wrong. The point of socialism is not, by necessity, the transition to communism. This is simply not true.

[TheGlyphstone]

Okay, I have to step in here. Chula, you're objectively wrong. The point of socialism is not, by necessity, the transition to communism. This is simply not true.

Communists think it is and Chula, I'm pretty sure, is a communist. It's a subjective thing, not objective.

[Beorning]

Communists think it is and Chula, I'm pretty sure, is a communist. It's a subjective thing, not objective.

Yeah, but there's also the objective history of a given branch of political thought. The communists may consider socialism to be only a transitory state on the way to communism, but this opinion doesn't negate the objective history of the socialist movement in all of its variants.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, but there's also the objective history of a given branch of political thought. The communists may consider socialism to be only a transitory state on the way to communism, but this opinion doesn't negate the objective history of the socialist movement in all of its variants.

The key word there is variants. If at least one variant of socialism considers itself to be a transitory stage towards communism, then you can't claim it as an objective fact that it isn't. That's sort of what the definition of subjective means.

[Beorning]

The key word there is variants. If at least one variant of socialism considers itself to be a transitory stage towards communism, then you can't claim it as an objective fact that it isn't. That's sort of what the definition of subjective means.

But... I'm not claiming that socialism cannot ever be a transitory stage towards communism. I'm only saying that Chula's claim is not true: that socialism can *only* be a transitory stage towards communism.

[Oniya]

The simple existence of the Nordic model proves the generalization is false.

[GloomCookie]

I think I need to weigh in here and explain the differences between Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism and how they differ from their theoretical models.

Communism:
All members of a community come together to help each other according to their needs. There is no money, though there is a concept of shared or collective debt, in which each member of society helps based on how they can serve the community in exchange for said labor. If someone is good at building homes but doesn't have time to farm as a result, they would get some of the farmer's yield in exchange. This is how many pre-monetary societies operated but there's no single model, as each society developed their own method. We still see this in smaller communities even in capitalist societies, as many smaller and agriculturally based communities will often work together in order to help each other. Farmer John helps Farmer Smith get his field plowed in time and then when it's harvest season, Farmer Smith helps Farmer John in exchange. It's a give and take. Where the communist model breaks down is on the macro scale, as communism requires a level of trust that doesn't extend past the Dunbar Limit (~150 people). After a community becomes sufficiently large, it becomes increasingly complex trying to remember who owes who a favor. That's not to say money naturally evolves at this point as money is a complicated thing that has evolved over thousands of years. Most modern "communist" societies are just Socialism taken to an extreme and were originally meant to operate as groups of individual communities, which is where the name Soviet Union came from. Soviets were supposed to be communities of workers who would send representatives to represent them in a larger union.

Socialism:
Socialism focuses less on individual communities and instead on the broader society, and as was pointed out earlier does tend to focus on the collective good such as infrastructure and other necessary services. The reason a lot of socialism today is vilified is both because of previous Communist governments like the Soviet Union but also because there is little faith in the government. Socialism is heavily reliant on the government to function to function, and in a large bureaucracy it can take a long time to get anything done, which only exacerbates the problem. We constantly hear about pot holes taking weeks, months, even years to get filled in simply because the funding needed has to be released and the paperwork takes a long time to work its way through government. But, most socialist societies or those that heavily lean that direction do tend to be more egalitarian since a piece of paper is just a piece of paper. Socialist societies tend to have higher taxes both to pay for the services and for the increased bureaucracy required to maintain said infrastructure, which tends to make them unpopular if the amount of tax becomes too heavy a burden.

Capitalism:
Capitalism as an economic policy tends to focus on getting the most efficiency possible for the least amount of cost, which is why it becomes popular in societies with lots of corporations. Corporations and individual rich people can and have contributed to the betterment of society, but there is no direct requirement to do so. The reason we see less public spending from corporations than we used to was because of a lawsuit in 1919 when Henry Ford wanted to increase his worker's take-home pay and lower the cost of automobiles, but the Dodge Brothers who owned 10% of Ford's stock filed a suit against Ford claiming that his fiduciary duties were to the stockholders above all else. When Ford lost the case, it set a precedence that corporations were required to make money for their shareholders first and foremost. Even with larger corporations now bound by this, small companies still make up the majority of companies, and they are often not bound by investors, but also do not have the capital required to make a large impact a company like Exxon or Walmart or GMC might.

Every economic model has pros and cons associated with them, and saying one is inherently the best is wrong. Many nations have a mix of the three, even in the United States, and they do not automatically progress towards one or the other just because they share traits or have been associated in the past.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'd never heard of Ford v. Dodge Bros before, interesting. Though I can't imagine many corporations or big businesspeople these days wringing their hands and lamenting about all the money they'd give to help people if they weren't legally required to maximize stock values.

[GloomCookie]

Well you say that but look at organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, of which Warren Buffett donated $2.9 billion to. Or organizations like Carnegie Hall and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Bloomburg Philanthropies, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. [u=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations]There's an entire list of organizations founded by the rich.[/u]

Sure there are lot of corporations driven entirely by profit, but some do make an effort.

[TheGlyphstone]

The Gates foundation does good work. I should have been more specific and distinguished wealthy people funding philanthropy out of their own personal wealth, as opposed to profit-driven corporations.

[Beorning]

So there *are* wealthy people who are not awful? I'm asking, as I'm currently watching Succession and... well, the characters in this show are all kinds of despicable.

[Al Terego]

I think I need to weigh in here and explain the differences between Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism and how they differ from their theoretical models.

I think the issue here is not textbook definitions of socialism and capitalism but rather the attitudes of people toward economic models that contain some elements from both.
People can have private ownership and enterprise, and still enjoy social services and safety nets.

So there *are* wealthy people who are not awful? I'm asking, as I'm currently watching Succession and... well, the characters in this show are all kinds of despicable.

Colour me skeptical, but I suspect that the reasons for setting most of those foundations are not as altruistic as they seem.  (Tax breaks, money funnelling, etc.)

I find it pretty atrocious that some people's wealth is in the hundreds of billions, basically allowing them to easily ignore almost every problem or law (case in point: the late Steve Jobs habitually parking in the handicapped spaces) while others -- including some E members by their own admission -- having to choose between buying food or getting medical help.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think the issue here is not textbook definitions of socialism and capitalism but rather the attitudes of people toward economic models that contain some elements from both.
People can have private ownership and enterprise, and still enjoy social services and safety nets.

That's where I was trying to go, yeah. A lot of older people's mental image of 'socialist' being shaped by the USSR and PROC, notoriously brutal totalitarian regimes, as opposed to the much more laid-back and democracy-friendly Nordic-style socialistic model. It's all in the branding and conscious/subconscious associations the brain makes.

[Beguile's Mistress]

So there *are* wealthy people who are not awful? I'm asking, as I'm currently watching Succession and... well, the characters in this show are all kinds of despicable.

Of course there are but how much time would people spend watching a series about good people doing good things and living good clean lives?

[TheGlyphstone]

Isn't that just The Great British Bake-Off minus cake? 

[Beguile's Mistress]

Sure.  But most of the people I know watch that for the fails!