Americans' acceptance of socialism hinges on whether or not this is true

[AZ Progressive]

Whether Americans believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome, and to what degree the American people believe this. In other words, everyone gets a chance to play but its up to you if your going to win (thus, maybe after some help, your on your own.)

It is thought of that Americans believe in this. Bernie Sanders said this in this last debate:

"I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires."

- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html?_r=0


This election apparently is going to be a test of whether Americans really do not believe in the idea of equality of outcome and to what degree.



A quote from a website:

Is the role of government to provide equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? They are mutually exclusive.

Equality of opportunity necessarily means inequality of outcome. People are not born with equal ability, equal circumstances, and equal luck.

Equality of outcome necessarily means individual success must either be prevented or appropriated back to the average, so that others may be lifted.

Which is more fair? Much depends on how fairness is understood.

Fairness is proportionality. The Left (progressives), who rely on the moral foundations related to Compassion, tend to view proportionality in terms of outcomes, therefore disproportionate wealth accumulation is seen as unfair. The Right (conservatives), who rely on moral foundations related to both Compassion and social Harmony, tend to view proportionality in terms of effort, so wealth unevenly distributed yet proportionate to effort is fair.

- http://honestinquiry.com/equality-of-opportunity-or-equality-of-outcome/

[reformist2]

1. I think people believe in inequality of outcome, but if capitalism rewards the wrong people...

then the people may be willing to go for some socialist ideas. The unfairness has to reach a certain level before people get angry.

This is what happened in the 1930s, and it can happen again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I disagree ...

I believe the vast majority of Americans (hell ... most people) believe in equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of outcome ... we just want the rules to be fair.

This is what happened in the 1930s, and it can happen again.

This is a mis-reading of history ... Americans' support of the New Deal was more about equality of opportunity; than, outcome. If that weren't the fact, then, the brunt of the New Deal legislation would have been about bringing down the wealthy; rather than, job creation.

[reformist2]

6. Maybe you misread my post? I think American believe in IN-equality of outcome.

I word it that way because I want to emphasize that there's no way Americans would ever go for all-out socialism.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Okay ... Yes. I misread it. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I don't think socialists believe in either.

The first is what is touted by Republicans all the time, and Republican-lite Democrats. 'Opportunity' is code for 'some folks are going to get screwed, but we don't care, because some folks hit the lottery'. Everybody got to buy a ticket, but most people will still be left in poverty.

Socialists, though, for the most part don't believe in 'equality of outcome' either. There's some silly story we were made to read in high school, about a society in which pretty people were forced to make themselves up ugly, people with good vision had to wear glasses that made them unable to see well, strong people were forced to wear weights so they could only move around as much as 'average' people. I suppose it was supposed to scare us off 'eeeeebil socialism', at least as envisioned by the person who wrote the story.

But look around at the 'socialist' countries of Europe. No, people aren't all equal in outcome. Some have more, some have less. What's different is the RANGE. Those who have more are more closer in wealth to those who have less than their plutocratic counterparts in the US. And everybody has access to basic survival needs, they're not just left to starve or die because they couldn't pay for proper healthcare.

So I don't think it's an 'honestinquiry' if you cast socialists as believing in 'equality of outcome'. It's a false binary thought up to cast socialists as some sort of 'haters of the rich'.

[AZ Progressive]

11. I don't believe in equality of outcome but I do believe that everyone deserves at least a decent...

baseline life if they put in a good effort and given that they get adequate help. It should be society's obligation to fairly reward its people.

It should be about fairness, it should be about someone getting fairly rewarded for hard work rather than working hard and not getting enough to survive. It should be about people not just living their life, but being able to enjoy living life (not having to worry about not being able to get another job because society doesn't need their skill set anymore.) Nothing should come at the unfair expense of someone else.

It seems to me that many Republicans are just all too fine with people being hungry and with miserable lives, as long as the "winners" of society can enjoy their luxury lifestyle.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. If it were about hard work, garbagemen would be more highly paid than most execs.

I'm sorry, but sitting around all day shuffling papers is not 'hard work'. I worked over a decade as a coder and database guy, and still do a little contract work here and there. And I get paid around 3 times minimum wage when I do. And it's not 'hard work'. I do more 'hard work' around my house, not getting paid at all than I do when I'm writing code. It's a bit tedious, but it's easier to do than flipping burgers and pays a lot better.

[F4lconF16]

13. I think Lenin had an interesting perspective.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

V. I. Lenin

A Liberal Professor on Equality

Published: Put Pravdy No. 33, March 11, 1914.

You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works.

Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).

“If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept ... that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”

This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.
Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.

[TexasBushwhacker]

14. That "silly story" is Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. His Kilgore Trout stuff was much more fun. nt

[immoderate]

3. Lots of nonsense. False dichotomy. Undistributed middle. Binary thinking.

Automation is coming. For You!

--imm

[BillZBubb]

10. Agreed.

[randome]

5. You bring logic to a hearts-and-minds fight?

Human beings are not logical creatures.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[olddots]

7. once again I quote Sidney Brown

" whether you're rich or poor its good to have money " that was mid century Katskill humor .

How do we survive progress when 7 billion people fight for 500 million jobs ?

[ancianita]

9. I believe that the Socialism of Enough is what American acceptance hinges on: enough food, clothing,

shelter, health care, child care, education and work opportunity.

When socialism is built into governing structures to guarantee enough of these things, people will trust socialism. They might even become engaged politically and care about who'd best run their country.

The Socialism Of Enough promotes equality, equity and outcomes. The Socialism of Enough ain't got time to worry about whether it approaches reality, fairness or human nature. The Socialism of Enough lets human nature run itself.

Everything after that is pure bourgeois, having-is-being capitalism.

Every single last socialism-style benefit people get is what they're happy with. But until they get enough, they will be manipulated by leaders and others with little self esteem to doubt that they deserve enough. This country always has been able to afford the Socialism of Enough.

[TexasBushwhacker]

15. It's pretty much FDR's Second Bill of Rights

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. NO ONE is actually talking about socialism here.

This is really starting to get under my skin.

No, banking and insurance industries will not be removed from society.

No, wealth and income will not be stripped from everyone and replaced with a GDP dividend.

No, the Kardashian family will not have to start doing productive work.

No, professional athletes and movie stars will not be given the same resource allotment as a grade school teacher.

All this "socialism" talk is nothing more than right wing smere and red baiting attempts towards the presidential candidate who wants to help those who have taken extreme abuse via the system currently in place.

It pisses me off.