What the poll reflects is that young people have grown up with the media and conservatives telling them that government-funded university is “sOcaLisM !!” and that providing welfare to people who would otherwise live in abject poverty is “sOcaLisM !!” and that unions are “sOcaLisM !!” and that single-payer healthcare is “sOcaLisM !!” How do we expect them to answer if we ask their views on socialism? When they think of socialism, they think of all these great things they’ve been told are socialism (which is precisely what these young people said when they were asked to define socialism).
Russians, especially the older ones, much preferred life under the communist USSR than they do under capitalism.
I don't know that the media and conservatives are calling what we have here "socialism". Again, maybe you're thinking of the United States. If anything, from my experience it's the wanna-be socialists that are trying to convince us that what we have here is socialism.
The Russian thing is interesting, although I hear it's pretty shitty there under Putin, so it's not too surprising they're pining for any bygone era. I think with any form of governance it's going to come down to the actual leader. That's where Canada is hurting so bad right now. It's the leadership that's problem, not necessarily our form of government.
Yes, I think things are pretty dire under capitalism in Russia. When people hold up capitalism as this wonderful success story that’s brought billions out of poverty, that’s true, but it’s not that simple. Capitalism is also a nightmare. If you’re looking for a free market, minimal government, capitalism-loving libertarians’ dream come true, the best real-world example would be Somalia.
That’s why ‘socialism’ on its own is a very vague, almost useless word; It means very different things to different people and even to the same people in different contexts.
If ‘everybody already understands what a socialist state is from the many historical examples’, then they would have answered to your satisfaction when asked to define socialism, but they didn’t. They answered that socialism is when the government provides services, probably because government-funded programs are often derided by conservatives as being ‘socialist’. Politicians who don’t prostrate themselves at the altar of hyper-capitalism, like Bernie Sanders, are frequently referred to as ‘socialists’, many of our heroes, like MLK and Nelson Mandela, were socialists, and Karl Marx is even described as the ‘father of socialism’.
Then there’s the fact that social democracy, as practiced in the Nordic countries and to a slightly lesser extent in Australia and Canada, is very often simply referred to as ‘socialism’ by those on the right. These social democratic countries are the most advanced nations on earth with the best quality of life outcomes etc, so it’s easy to see where people get this positive association with socialism.
Meanwhile, capitalism is failing. The middle class is shrinking rapidly throughout the western world as capitalism fulfills its inevitable promise of monopolization and extreme inequality. Millennials are the first generation in a long time that will be worse off than their parents were. Capitalism is based on the concept of infinite growth, yet we live on a finite planet. There are a lot of good reasons that capitalism has become a dirty word.
I think ol' Bernie calls himself a socialist. The good kind, of course...
Obviously it's not so simple. I suppose one could look at socialism (and capitalism) as being on a sliding scale. In that case they could both exist in the same government. Not sure how realistic that is. I think the defining feature and the most correct definition is the government "ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (Merriam-Webster). You can substitute the word "government" with "public" or "collective" if you want. This sounds a lot nicer, but it still means government in this context. By this definition, it is the opposite of capitalism and free markets.
If I were to pick one simple reason why this is a bad idea it would be this: government has proven itself to be the single most inefficient machine on the planet.
There are undoubtedly problems with capitalism, but maybe they could be fixed with better regulations that were actually followed through with.
“Government has proven itself to be the single most inefficient machine on the planet.” That is a bold statement, what are you basing it upon? I agree there are some things that free markets are good at (OLED smart TV’s, delicious pre-packaged chocolate snacks etc.), but there are other things that governments are much better at (healthcare, garbage collection, air-traffic control etc) This is why the best-run societies on earth have a good mixture of free market capitalism and socialized public services. The Nordic countries evidently have this mix right.
I think countries like ours should move further to the left economically if we want to emulate the most successful societies on the planet. I would guess that’s what the respondents to the survey meant when they say they prefer socialism to capitalism. I sincerely doubt they were thinking of Venezuela or North Korea in their answer.
I usually enjoy reading your posts because you try to bring some coherence to what are generally incoherent political viewpoints. In this post, there doesn’t seem to be any attempt made.
The majority of people polled did NOT define socialism as the government ownership of the means of production, they defined it as “the government providing more services to people”. You admit this yourself, but then continue to insist that these poll respondents actually mean something different when they say they prefer socialism? What?
Why the comparisons to the USSR and North Korea, when you’ve already stated that’s not the ‘socialism’ they’re talking about?
The reason I came at like that is because everybody already understands what a socialist state is from the many historical examples. To slap some lipstick on that pig and still continue to call it socialism is just fooling yourself. I really don't understand the fascination with it. I mean, would consider Canada a socialist state (or Australia for that matter) simply because we have some social services, one of them being some form of healthcare?
It might have served your argument better to omit the part where the survey respondents gave their definition of socialism (‘when the government provides services’). This invalidates the title of the article, doesn’t it?
This is the incoherence we hear from the right about socialism. When someone on the left says we should have completely government-funded higher education or that we should have close to 100% estate tax, or stronger environmental regulation, the right will call them a “Marxist" who wants to turn the country into Venezuela. Why do they say Venezuela, rather than Norway? Perhaps praying on the ignorance of their supporters?
But there’s that circle again, it’s nonsensical. If you’re defining socialism as the dictionary definition then the young people in the survey DON’T prefer socialism to capitalism, and your article’s title is false.
Young people define socialism as the government providing more services (Nordic-style free-market social democracy), all of the policies I listed (free college, higher taxes, better regulation) are typical of those Nordic countries, yet when those same policies are proposed, detractors will cry “OH, you wanna be just like Venezuela?!?!” and when young people answer a poll on whether they prefer ‘capitalism’ to ‘socialism’ and they explicitly say that by ‘socialism’, they mean Nordic-style free-market social democracy, you say “OH, you wanna be just like Venezuela?!?!” when you know full well that they don’t mean that at all. It seems dishonest.
I’m not saying there are no ‘real’ socialists out there, I’m sure there are some who actually DO want the state to seize the means of production. The vast majority though are people like me, who believe that Bernie Sanders is correct, that we’ve drifted much too far to the right economically over the last few decades, and that the Nordic way is the best way. It’s very difficult to argue against that though, isn’t it? It’s much easier to pretend that I’m a card-carrying communist who idolizes Kim Jong Un
The people who yell the loudest about socialism here are also the ones who decry capitalism. Without capitalism we will have Venezuela. The title of the article is not false or misleading. It is a bit tongue-in-cheek though. The whole point of what I wrote here is that these people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. The Nordic countries are capitalist, so saying they're socialist is just plain wrong because the definition of socialism is the opposite of capitalism. This is yet another issue where people completely change the meaning of the word and then advocate for their new fantasy as if they've cornered the market on intelligence.
If you want more government services and higher taxes, then say that. Why call it something that has already proven itself over and over to be so destructive? Because yes, as you pointed out, there are REAL socialists out there so it's hardly an unknown. Why on earth would anyone even want to be a fake one?
"any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
In all practical applications "collective" means government.
Pick whatever definition you want - there are many.
Those who are not old enough to remember the Berlin Wall coming down are also the ones who fall into the 18-34 age catagory. Maybe that's you if you didn't know that.
You really are struggling with basic political terminology? And you expect people to *read* what you write and, moreover, *RESPECT* your ideas?
If you don't understand what socialism is, you shouldn't be writing about politics. It's like Poilievre: for a guy with a liberal arts degree to be unable to define Marxism is galling!
I just thank God that unlike Poilievre, the probability of you ascending to any position of power in this country approaches nil, Ken.
What the poll reflects is that young people have grown up with the media and conservatives telling them that government-funded university is “sOcaLisM !!” and that providing welfare to people who would otherwise live in abject poverty is “sOcaLisM !!” and that unions are “sOcaLisM !!” and that single-payer healthcare is “sOcaLisM !!” How do we expect them to answer if we ask their views on socialism? When they think of socialism, they think of all these great things they’ve been told are socialism (which is precisely what these young people said when they were asked to define socialism).
Russians, especially the older ones, much preferred life under the communist USSR than they do under capitalism.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietunion-idUSKBN1OI20Q
I’m not sure where that fits in with everything, but interesting nonetheless.
I don't know that the media and conservatives are calling what we have here "socialism". Again, maybe you're thinking of the United States. If anything, from my experience it's the wanna-be socialists that are trying to convince us that what we have here is socialism.
The Russian thing is interesting, although I hear it's pretty shitty there under Putin, so it's not too surprising they're pining for any bygone era. I think with any form of governance it's going to come down to the actual leader. That's where Canada is hurting so bad right now. It's the leadership that's problem, not necessarily our form of government.
Yes, I think things are pretty dire under capitalism in Russia. When people hold up capitalism as this wonderful success story that’s brought billions out of poverty, that’s true, but it’s not that simple. Capitalism is also a nightmare. If you’re looking for a free market, minimal government, capitalism-loving libertarians’ dream come true, the best real-world example would be Somalia.
That’s why ‘socialism’ on its own is a very vague, almost useless word; It means very different things to different people and even to the same people in different contexts.
If ‘everybody already understands what a socialist state is from the many historical examples’, then they would have answered to your satisfaction when asked to define socialism, but they didn’t. They answered that socialism is when the government provides services, probably because government-funded programs are often derided by conservatives as being ‘socialist’. Politicians who don’t prostrate themselves at the altar of hyper-capitalism, like Bernie Sanders, are frequently referred to as ‘socialists’, many of our heroes, like MLK and Nelson Mandela, were socialists, and Karl Marx is even described as the ‘father of socialism’.
Then there’s the fact that social democracy, as practiced in the Nordic countries and to a slightly lesser extent in Australia and Canada, is very often simply referred to as ‘socialism’ by those on the right. These social democratic countries are the most advanced nations on earth with the best quality of life outcomes etc, so it’s easy to see where people get this positive association with socialism.
Meanwhile, capitalism is failing. The middle class is shrinking rapidly throughout the western world as capitalism fulfills its inevitable promise of monopolization and extreme inequality. Millennials are the first generation in a long time that will be worse off than their parents were. Capitalism is based on the concept of infinite growth, yet we live on a finite planet. There are a lot of good reasons that capitalism has become a dirty word.
I think ol' Bernie calls himself a socialist. The good kind, of course...
Obviously it's not so simple. I suppose one could look at socialism (and capitalism) as being on a sliding scale. In that case they could both exist in the same government. Not sure how realistic that is. I think the defining feature and the most correct definition is the government "ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (Merriam-Webster). You can substitute the word "government" with "public" or "collective" if you want. This sounds a lot nicer, but it still means government in this context. By this definition, it is the opposite of capitalism and free markets.
If I were to pick one simple reason why this is a bad idea it would be this: government has proven itself to be the single most inefficient machine on the planet.
There are undoubtedly problems with capitalism, but maybe they could be fixed with better regulations that were actually followed through with.
“Government has proven itself to be the single most inefficient machine on the planet.” That is a bold statement, what are you basing it upon? I agree there are some things that free markets are good at (OLED smart TV’s, delicious pre-packaged chocolate snacks etc.), but there are other things that governments are much better at (healthcare, garbage collection, air-traffic control etc) This is why the best-run societies on earth have a good mixture of free market capitalism and socialized public services. The Nordic countries evidently have this mix right.
I think countries like ours should move further to the left economically if we want to emulate the most successful societies on the planet. I would guess that’s what the respondents to the survey meant when they say they prefer socialism to capitalism. I sincerely doubt they were thinking of Venezuela or North Korea in their answer.
Oh dear.
I usually enjoy reading your posts because you try to bring some coherence to what are generally incoherent political viewpoints. In this post, there doesn’t seem to be any attempt made.
The majority of people polled did NOT define socialism as the government ownership of the means of production, they defined it as “the government providing more services to people”. You admit this yourself, but then continue to insist that these poll respondents actually mean something different when they say they prefer socialism? What?
Why the comparisons to the USSR and North Korea, when you’ve already stated that’s not the ‘socialism’ they’re talking about?
The reason I came at like that is because everybody already understands what a socialist state is from the many historical examples. To slap some lipstick on that pig and still continue to call it socialism is just fooling yourself. I really don't understand the fascination with it. I mean, would consider Canada a socialist state (or Australia for that matter) simply because we have some social services, one of them being some form of healthcare?
It might have served your argument better to omit the part where the survey respondents gave their definition of socialism (‘when the government provides services’). This invalidates the title of the article, doesn’t it?
This is the incoherence we hear from the right about socialism. When someone on the left says we should have completely government-funded higher education or that we should have close to 100% estate tax, or stronger environmental regulation, the right will call them a “Marxist" who wants to turn the country into Venezuela. Why do they say Venezuela, rather than Norway? Perhaps praying on the ignorance of their supporters?
Because Norway is a capitalist country, while Venezuela is not.
But there’s that circle again, it’s nonsensical. If you’re defining socialism as the dictionary definition then the young people in the survey DON’T prefer socialism to capitalism, and your article’s title is false.
Young people define socialism as the government providing more services (Nordic-style free-market social democracy), all of the policies I listed (free college, higher taxes, better regulation) are typical of those Nordic countries, yet when those same policies are proposed, detractors will cry “OH, you wanna be just like Venezuela?!?!” and when young people answer a poll on whether they prefer ‘capitalism’ to ‘socialism’ and they explicitly say that by ‘socialism’, they mean Nordic-style free-market social democracy, you say “OH, you wanna be just like Venezuela?!?!” when you know full well that they don’t mean that at all. It seems dishonest.
I’m not saying there are no ‘real’ socialists out there, I’m sure there are some who actually DO want the state to seize the means of production. The vast majority though are people like me, who believe that Bernie Sanders is correct, that we’ve drifted much too far to the right economically over the last few decades, and that the Nordic way is the best way. It’s very difficult to argue against that though, isn’t it? It’s much easier to pretend that I’m a card-carrying communist who idolizes Kim Jong Un
The people who yell the loudest about socialism here are also the ones who decry capitalism. Without capitalism we will have Venezuela. The title of the article is not false or misleading. It is a bit tongue-in-cheek though. The whole point of what I wrote here is that these people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. The Nordic countries are capitalist, so saying they're socialist is just plain wrong because the definition of socialism is the opposite of capitalism. This is yet another issue where people completely change the meaning of the word and then advocate for their new fantasy as if they've cornered the market on intelligence.
If you want more government services and higher taxes, then say that. Why call it something that has already proven itself over and over to be so destructive? Because yes, as you pointed out, there are REAL socialists out there so it's hardly an unknown. Why on earth would anyone even want to be a fake one?
*preying on
Ever heard of socialized healthcare? What does the Berlin wall have to do with socialism? What a strange mish- mash of ideas.
Socialism isn't "when the government owns everything". Sorry Ken, most of this is simply incorrect.
Merriam-Webster defines it thus:
"any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
In all practical applications "collective" means government.
Pick whatever definition you want - there are many.
Those who are not old enough to remember the Berlin Wall coming down are also the ones who fall into the 18-34 age catagory. Maybe that's you if you didn't know that.
Collective does not mean government. Here is Merriam Webster again:
"denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole"
Do you ever tire of being what I charitably assume is intentionally obtuse? Or are you really this dull?
And how would this apply to government?
You really are struggling with basic political terminology? And you expect people to *read* what you write and, moreover, *RESPECT* your ideas?
If you don't understand what socialism is, you shouldn't be writing about politics. It's like Poilievre: for a guy with a liberal arts degree to be unable to define Marxism is galling!
I just thank God that unlike Poilievre, the probability of you ascending to any position of power in this country approaches nil, Ken.
Good day