Haha. That story didn’t age well. The cast of characters - Reince Preibus, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, all talking about personal hard work leading to success. It sounds like a skit on SNL, several people who are now cast aside by Trump’s White House, if not before. All of their “hard work” didn’t lead them to higher power in their chosen career path. A fickle leader can derail all their efforts.
ISTM that the myth of meritocracy as an absolute is losing power, albeit slowly. I did a quick search, and both sides are exposing it, so I don’t see it as a left/right thing necessarily. It has to do with the haves and the have-nots, but not uniformly.
“Why the Myth of Meritocracy Hurts Kids of Color
A new study finds that believing society is fair can lead disadvantaged adolescents to act out and engage in risky behavior.” The Atlantic
“The Myth of Meritocracy in Trump’s America | Opinion” Newsweek
Young people are seeing it first because they’re dealing with the educational system that these articles are using as an example. Those are some of the people looking for change. That’s why many young people are supporting programs with the socialist label.
It actually doesn’t. First, they say right in that quote that ‘Democratic Planning’ will be used for mass transit, housing, and energy. That’s nationalization and central planning. Which is what I said - they want to nationalize and centrally plan large industries, and turn the smaller ones over to the ‘workers’.
As for their handwaving about ‘market mechanisms’, you can’t have a market without capitalism. And this is the essence of why central planning always fails - absent the marketplace and people bidding prices, the information about relative supply and demand does not even exist. And you can’t bid on a product unless you have to actually make a choice between it and all the other things you could buy with your money. The people bidding prices need to have skin in the game.
In a world of nationalized major industry and smaller industry taken away from the owners and given to the ‘workers’ to run collectively, the market cannot function. Venture capital won’t exist (it’s doomed anyway if you want to tax the rich 70-90% of their income). And everyone is getting a universal income and free education and free healthcare. And we can pay for it all and have everything we want and there will be no consequences for radically restructuring the economy along arbitrary political lines rather than the complex emergent system it is now.
Venezuela is also a mixture of socialism and capitalism. So is China. There’s a big difference between a country that is primarily centrally managed and controlled but which allows tiny areas of capitalist activity, and one that is primarily capitalist with a few interventions in a few places.
I suspect that 90% of the people on both sides don’t know what socialism means. Apparently including a few people in this thread.
If you are nationalizing industry and forcibly collectivizing businesses, you are not just engaging in socialism, you are engaging in a radical form of it. And it WILL destroy the economy, in proportion to how much of it is actually implemented.
In addition, even if it somehow sorta worked, what you’re doing is making EVERYTHING political. If I have to lobby voters in my worker collective to get things done, or appeal to some local housing collective if I want to buy a home, that’s my personal notion of hell. Why anyone would want to turn the world into a bureaucracy is beyond me.
Ask citizens of the old Soviet Union what that was like. The tyranny of the dull gray bureaucracy. Apparachiks and commisars everywhere. Having to stand in line for approval for a thousand things we just take for granted. That’s where socialism leads when its inevitable failures to coordinate the economy leads to increasing bureaucratic control.
Why are you interpreting what they say to mean what you want it to mean in order to make an argument rather than just arguing against what they are actually saying?
“Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that **democratic planning can shape major social investments **like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.”
Says right there that they don’t want to nationalize or centrally plan large industries. So, why argue that they do want to nationalize and centrally plan large industries? That sentence says that market forces (capitalism) should determine the demand, and we should democratically vote on shaping (not completely taking over mind you, but shaping) how those large social investments work best for everyone.
In other words, is there a need for a mass transit system here? Let’s let the market determine that. What should it look like to benefit everyone as much as possible? Well, let’s vote on that because all of us should have a say in it. Sounds about right to me.
Like I said, I may quibble with the relative ratio of socialism/capitalism with these guys, but nobody in their right mind thinks that this ratio is either 0 or 1. Your version of what they are advocating, which puts that ratio at 1, indeed sounds horrid but fortunately nobody here is actually advocating for that.
So is Sweden. So is Germany. So is Japan. So is Canada, and America. Obviously, it depends on the nature and specifics of the mix. My argument in this thread is that the socialistic elements of these wealthy countries should be highlighted to reduce the “fear factor” for socialism, because when done well, it can be a positive characteristic in wealthy, mixed-economy countries.
The argument that the decisions that affect all of us being made democratically is scary, but that decisions being made by the descendants of people who made a lot of money in previous generations makes sense is odd.
And the amount of the mix. China is rated at 60%+ socialism (and this being political AND economic socialism), Venezuela at 70%+. Sweden is something like 20%…and they are one of the highest. And mostly it’s a few economic socialist policies still hanging out along with a few small political aspects. The other countries you listed there are less, including the US. That’s the thing. What you and seemingly most think of as ‘socialism’ are socialist type PROGRAMS, but they don’t make a country socialist. I seriously doubt that you or most others who think they want socialism actually want REAL socialism, i.e. command economies, price controls, collective property and state ownership of the means of production or all of the lovely political aspects that the people of China and Venezuela enjoy. What you ACTUALLY want are things like universal healthcare and larger social services, maybe with a touch of the socialist boot wrt getting your way with climate change measures forced on the public.
So, instead of trying to change the definition and history of socialism to mean what you want, you should just repackage what you are asking for on it’s own terms. Because, frankly, you really, really don’t want actual socialism. Bernie doesn’t either. Cortez might, but I think that’s because she is young and doesn’t really believe all of the historical data showing what a rotten system it was. She also probably doesn’t realize that the countries she wants to model the US pretty much abandoned the majority of the vestiges of socialism as she wants it back in the 70’s and 80’s.
One of the difficulties is that mass transit means your car, housing means your house, and energy means all your consumer goods.
Maybe the whole economy shouldn’t be planned, but a huge swathe of it will be.
Another difficulty is Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist, has talked about how there are too many different kinds of deodorants and sneakers. Deodorants and sneakers are consumer goods.
The first law of ecology is “you can’t do just one thing”. Saying “we are just going to take over energy, mass transit, and housing” means, by necessity, they are going to take over a lot more.
Your rhetorical tactics might work too, but IMO they’re less likely to be effective than mine. But we’re just talking about the best way to convince people – disagreement on that is fine and no big deal.
I’m curious where you got your % numbers for different countries. Not that I necessarily disagree, I just haven’t seen it laid out like that before and I’d like to see the source.
I used it in a different thread on a similar topic. I’ll see if I can find that old thread and relink it. Basically, it rates country’s by the percentage of socialism they actually use, either economic or political and gives a percentage. Sweden was one of the higher ones as I recalled it…higher ones of the western nations that is…and it was pretty low. This always seems to surprise both conservatives and progressives/liberals, who assume the Nordic countries or Europeans in general use a lot of socialism, because, again, there seems to be a lot of confusion between socialism and social programs…on both sides. Did you watch the video I linked to up thread? It goes into some of that. Might be boring for you if you don’t like discussion type videos, but I think the guest speaker does a good job of laying this all out a lot better than I can.
From a purely marketing/branding standpoint, just having a prominent group out there called “Democratic Socialists” is pure poison, a huge gift to the GOP. It couples one of their target audience’s biggest fears with the name of their biggest competitor.
Imagine if there were a prominent right-wing group – with members sitting in Congress and running for President – called “Republican Fascists.”
Well, I did a quick search and I couldn’t find the thread. I know it was on socialism and I was in it, but I’m drawing a blank. I found a blog someone else posted that has a top 10 list, but it’s not the one I was talking about, but I’ll post that here just for drill.
I did some Googling though and found this article that kind of sums up my own stance on this issue. I think it cuts to the heart of the issue, which is that ignorance of what is or isn’t socialism seems pretty bad on both sides. Anyway, some quotes from the article:
Right, right - they aren’t taking them over, they are just democratically planning them. Like other socialistic organizations, such as the (as per the OP) military.
“We’re not taking over - we are just telling you what to do.” Imagine how reassured I feel.
If the govt “takes over” mass transit (as it already pretty much does in most places), how does that effect your car?
If the govt “takes over” providing housing to the needy(like HUD, for example, both national and local levels.), how does that effect your house?
The govt already heavily regulates the energy industries, how’s that socialism working out for you?
In the end, it doesn’t matter what it is called socialism, communism, democratic socialism, or Fred. It involves giving people things that others think that they do not deserve, and they will always come up with excuses and rationalizations for their opposition to that. There is no reason to try to convince some with different terminologies, as they are opposed to the very idea it stands for.
Good points and also raises an interesting question. How is it that forced collectivization be it called “radical” socialism or communism is not 1/100th as toxic as fascism? Especially with the historical body count associated with both of these systems of government. My guess would have to be that there is an ideological affinity for collectivism among academia and such that sugar coats the present and historical realities of that system.
Who says it’s not “as toxic as fascism”? I hear my conservative acquaintances deriding liberals as communists just as often as I heary my liberal acquaintances deriding conservatives as fascists.
Democratically means we are telling us what to do. Sounds a lot better to me than the current system where the small number of progeny who inherit these companies tell us what to do.