Brace Yourselves! Americans Aged 18-29 Have A More Favorable Response To Socialism Than To Capitali

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Capitalism is fantastic
Corporate capitalism..meh..in small doses is alright
Monopolistic Corporate fascism (Corporatism) is a world eater.

All societys, in order to function, requires some socialism..the level of socialism is (or should) also reflect the countrys wealth and standing..it isn't at the moment, but should. Got a super rich nation? install a universal healthcare system. some basic foundations for all so there is a ladder people can climb up, and a net that catches people before they fall down into insurmountable pits...and remove the iron grip from the corporate trade bandits.

This is not some radical thinking..this is a sensible adult way of looking at society.

The bigger issue is how big adults don't know the difference between socialism and communism. like not knowing the difference between astronomy and astrology. Read something already.


I agree 100%. A mixed economy without non-crony capitalism and socialism would be perfect.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Maybe we're all sick and tired of the giant CHARADE known as "capitalism" that we have been forced to watch your generation squabble over for the past 20 years?

I know I am.

Your really surprised by widespread disillusion? Set in your corrupt capitalist ways, me thinks?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


I don't think capitalist countries are any less corrupt than socialist, communist, ect.

They all lie about what they are, when they all are the same thing for the most part. Serve the same masters.

capitalism is not bad, in its true form.

like socialism is not bad.

It is the way what TPTB pass them off as being those systems when we are all really living in corporatism.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


An old quote pretty much sums it up : If you are 20 and a Republican you have to be heartless. If you are 40 and a Democrat you have to be stupid.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


Yea, but thats not really the point. I am intimately familiar with Western-style capitalism. Not so with Socialism. What I know of Socialism comes from political theory and history courses.

But, "Socialism" isn't necessarily corrupt, and neither is capitalism. Its a matter of how they are implimented. American-style socialism (if such a thing ever occurs) might be entirely different than what we know of as "socialism". Who knows... it could be an improvement. At least it would be a change to what has became an obviously stagnant capitalist status-quo.

So, am i surprised that America's youth want to see big, top-down (bottom up?) changes? Nein.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


the worlds youth want change. Have you seen London, Madrid, Paris, ect. They are socialists.

this is not because of some decrepit promise of change a political system promised, it is because youth always want change. They see themselves as the very change they advocate. They are not socialist, or capitalists, or communists. They are people tired of lies.

That has nothing to do with socialism or any ism.

It is called humanity. We are ever aware of what we are and what we are capable of.


edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


I can agree with that.

So, of course, given a poll between capitalism and socialism, many youths would pick the latter.

I get the feeling that we basically agree with each other.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I am 24. My political-economic belief system was republic-capitalist in nature up until being a junior in college. I can now be most accurately described as a republic-socialist ( if one must apply a label ).

If you read the wealth of nations, Jefferson and Paine you come to the conclusion that the state should have never created the indefinite corporate entity and that aristocracy was meant to be prevented at all costs. The wealth of nations pens capitalism in the light of many small businesses/craftsmen all competing. That has been lost. The current system is set up so the many become the few, mostly through acquisitions, but sometimes through patent lawsuits (as in my industry)...

Contemporary wealth during Paine and Jefferson's time was held in land. It is with little surprise that Paine recommended dividing up land among the people so as to begin on an equal playing field. Jefferson many times references aristocracy as the death of democracy. However, I have lost respect for him in his eventual acceptance to slavery, remarking on his 7% return on slaves as a profiting venture. Paine's hands are clean.

In the view that everyone should start on an equal playing field, I am in agreement with Paine. There can simply be no democracy when the wealthy retain that wealth through generations, quite possibly leading to being ruled over by a fool. If you need to see that reality, remember Bush (or James Taggart for you AS fans). Implicitly, this means a very large estate tax if not 100%. with exclusions for the widow/er. If any one person is the best for a job, they will get it on merit alone, not because they had better education or a shoe-in because of their last name.

The biggest problem with our current form of government and economy is it does not heed reality. The governmental committee on science is filled with people who reference the bible in their decisions instead of reproducible empirical studies. Since very few of our politicians are scientists but lawyers, their opinion does not matter, they for some reason decide to not defer to the expert consensus and plow on ahead. Capitalism does this as well, through externalities. Through the race to the bottom, governments are too happy to oblige. My greatest desire is to be ruled over by a government that looks at its policies through the scientific method, ever improving to promote the general welfare of its' people.

The second biggest issue is that the capitalist globalized market appears to be woefully inadequate in maximizing human capital, mostly due to paid access to human knowledge. In my view no one has the right to own or limit this access. All forms of education should be free, with some term of service (non-military or military, up to the individual) to the government. For those not wanting a higher education, they can enter the work force, and be paid a living wage similiar to how the French used to pay the difference. An employer would pay the market price for their labor, and the government would pay the rest so they could live respectable lives. This program was immensily popular and worked well for France until Sarkozy changed the policy... Hollande has promised to go back to it, but it appears he is unable to do so in the current climate. If the USA went this way, it would fix many of our woes. Alas this would mean higher taxes, which is now firmly in the dogmatic reasoning of the right as their trickle down economics has been proven a fraud by a non-partisan research council paper that they blocked in vain.

When your particular field has to fund its own Nobel Prize because it isnt considered a true science, perhaps it is time to become much more humble. We have not reached the end of history, there is still much to do... hopefully the new economic theory that replaces neo-liberalism does not need to create dictators like Pinochet to validate itself.

To those that say the world is not fair, tough luck. I cannot and will not share this view. Civilization is a human construct. It is as fair as its constituents want it to be. The young have the best chance of changing it within their life times, and the old will die off leaving in their wake only opportunity. "...truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (Max Planck)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Aldous Huxley once said that Redistributing property as widely as possible was the only way to ensure freedom....
he's right when you really think about it,and break out of your years of brainwashing.
With the means of production distributed widely, no one entity can control everything.....
not big government, not big business.
as it stands now just a few people control practically everything, any conspiracy aside.....
if you think you're free, you're wrong.
Capitalism only permits the freedom to control others....
edit on 5-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I wish people would try and understand socialism and communism are not the same thing...
2nd...


I agree.

democratic socialism,libertarian socialism is not the same as marxist socialism



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


They are the same, you are just too polarised to admit it, and I have lived in a One Party State, and to be honest, the USA isn't far off, neither is the UK



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
 


Yeah right sure you have. They are part of the same system and the same country but there is still a choice there.
They certainly do a lot of arguing for people with exactly the same policies and views. According to you they should be in full agreement about everything because they are the same. That is not the case though is it.
Technically it is a democracy. Perhaps you could point out why you think it is a flawed or ineffective democracy.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Im not one for 1 liners...wait ,,yes I am

47%



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Another thread full of retards and political shills. This site is becoming almost unbearable.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Yes I do think they should work together, I'm a left winger, but that doesn't I don't think some Centrist and Tory ideas are bad, it also doesn't mean I think the radical left is right either, sometimes they get on me nerves. I'll be very surprised if he can get anything done, the Republicans and Democrats are so polarised against each other, that they cannot work together, but the policies aren't too dissimilar, yes there are some big differences in certain areas, such as size of government and immigration, but the Republicans in congress will just block everything he tries to do, because he's a democrat, whether he has good or bad ideas, it won't matter because he's a democrat. The people have decided he should be President so it is the duty of Congress to represent the people, and oppose the if needed, however I feel they will just oppose for the sake of it, when really in times like this, opposing political ideologies should work together and fix the mess, regardless of politics, but the inability to do this proves that Congressmen and women are only there to serve their own needs not the peoples.

regards



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 


I went through that phase, i still am going through it some.. Only answer is somedays its best to just surf the more fun areas of the site and avoid the political threads lol



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
 


I think you're right about all the blocking and opposing just to try to score short term political points. That's what happens here in Oz lately just opinion poll driven short term political opportunism by both parties. A bit a of a cynical media circus sometimes.





top topics
 
14
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join