Duke & Harvard say 92% of Americans are Socialists and don't know it.

[patrice]

Please share this graphic:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/16/92-of-americans-are-socialists-they-just-don%E2%80%99t-know-it/

[Drale]

1. Maybe we shouldn't release this because

when the Tea Baggers get a look, they will all be forced into mass suicides.

[DJ13]

3. I dont see a downside there

:shrug:

[krispos42]

22. True enough, but what's the reason we shouldn't release it? n/t

[nolabels]

2. Us other 8% have always been on our own

and like it that way :evilgrin:

[patrice]

4. R-e-a-l-l-y on your own??? nt

[nolabels]

14. Well at least i sometimes imagine i can get by that way

You're blowing my cover B-)

[frylock]

15. get off of our internet

[nolabels]

20. My homemade computer's electrons are propelled by solar power

I am engaged in a mission dictated to me by the Sun Gods :hi:



In a side note: it's starting to get late and i am not supposed to be working after dusk :shrug:

[DefenseLawyer]

29. Living in a cave?

How are things?

[AndyTiedye]

5. Except that the Survey Isn't Talking About Socialism

[patrice]

6. Take it up with the universities. People picked a graph showing distributions similar to a Socialist

country.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Sweden Isn't a Socialist Country

[patrice]

16. Socialistic? Socialish? Hell, we're not a "Socialist" country either, except for

Ag Subsidies, MIC, bailing out banksters etc etc

It depends upon the definition.

I think the article was alluding to the kinds of things that would result in a graph with that kind of distribution, since they couldn't expect that subjects picked the graph they picked AND knew it was Sweden, nor that they picked it because it was a graph that showed the results of a certain type of governing system with which they were familiar.

They like the distribution that would more likely be the result of Socialistic policies than the one that is a representation of what Capitalism produces.

[patrice]

17. They picked the graph that would more likely be the result of Socialism than it would be the result

of Capitalism.

[patrice]

7. Survey? It was a set of graphs. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. When people are asked to choose among a set of graphs it's a survey.

[patrice]

30. k. Though I grant you that instruments are important to outcomes It's a secondary issue here anyway.

:hi:

[merbex]

8. When i have had to talk to faux news junkies at family events and the term

'socialism' is raised( amazing how it only has been raised since the election in 2008 when they repeat like lemmings that which they hear on faux news), I always say:

"Do you like public libraries, and fire departments?"

I get a huh? look in return.

I take pity on them and say " Those institutions - public libraries and local fire departments are just some examples of the very essence of 'socialism'.......pretty scary stuff don't you think?" I try to say with a laugh.

Then I say: "You are letting a word scare you~ it really means that which a community decides to do together that which they find difficult to do on their own as individuals - and by difficult it can mean physically or price wise. It is the essence of what is decided during New England Town meeting season."

Depending on their level of devotion to faux news, they either get it, walk away, or walk away mad.

[patrice]

9. Do they like the Army? Marines?

:hi:

[baldguy]

11. I've got a new sig.

K&R

[patrice]

18. Nice!

[FogerRox]

21. UR da shiznit.

[bluestate10]

12. Our entire society is based upon socialism. Ever heard of roads, teachers, police?

None would exist and perform valuable services to society without socialism.

[personman]

40. not to mention the internet:

My understanding is it was created in the public sector for military purposes... like the ability to encrypt data in to packets and send them along different routes for security.

Of course, once people saw dollar signs, it was privatized.

[personman]

46. Another example: education

And I don't mean just public schools, but also the accumulated mass of knowledge of the human species that we hand down.

If we were all truly and purely individuals, with no relation to society, we might still be figuring out fire and the wheel.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

13. If there are that many...

If there are that many, then some of them are bound to be Freepers. I imagine our Freepy adversaries running around, checking themselves in the manner of the cast of Bloom County when they learned one of their number was secretly female. But then perhaps I have a case of the sillies.

In seriousness, thank you for the link. A good one.

[roxiejules]

19. And the good news is.....

This current Republican Great Recession has started to open the eyes of many Americans. These Americans that have bought into a failed economic policy of trickle down economics and crony capitalism and now realize the error of their ways, including Alan Greenspan.

[slay]

23. Yep

don't expect the media to tell them though.

[progressoid]

25. Yeah, that's getting shared with some RW family memebers...

:evilgrin:

[kctim]

26. Politically motivated guesswork

All that shows is that people want others to pay more taxes. You add in the financial impact on the individuals themselves and the loss of individual rights and freedoms that would come with true socialism, and you would get completely different results.

[Lex]

27. What loss of "individual rights and freedoms" would have to come with that?

Please explain.

[kctim]

31. With true socialism

there is no private property and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. Those are the two most obvious examples of loss of individual rights and freedoms. As an economic model, true socialism is NOT compatiable with our Constitution because it places the desires of some before the individual rights of all. For this reason, it also fails as a political model when it is defined by todays defination of the word.

True socialism also requires direct democracy which totally disregards individual rights and freedoms. That also is not compatiable with our Constitution.

[Lex]

33. As opposed to Corporations owning everything and sucking the population dry

as we have now?

[kctim]

34. Corps do NOT own everything

and they cannot 'suck the population dry' unless the population allows it. There is only one entity that is powerful enough to take your land or money and it is not some evil corporation hiding in the corner.

[Lex]

35. Pretty much, yes they do. Whatever we-the-people own is vilified

as socialism.

[kctim]

38. Such as?

Could you give examples of how corporations own everything I have? Of how the property I own is 'vilified as socialism?'

[Lex]

44. corporations own your access to health care for one thing

social security and other safety nets programs are vilified by the right as wealth distribution . . .

[FredStembottom]

39. Self-delete

[personman]

41. You are describing an extreme nationalist socialism.

Wikipedia and even George Will oddly enough, have described socialism as worker-ownership of the means of production.

Also, I've not spoken to a socialist or anarchist, or communist who believes in communal ownership of your underwear, just FYI.

I consider myself a socialist, of the libertarian variety. That's right... I think socialism and liberty are not only compatible, but mutually beneficial.

"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

Obviously there would be some balancing required between the two in some cases, just as we balance between capitalism, socialism, democracy, and a republic now. Sort of makes it sound simple in comparison.

I think the concentration of wealth, property, and privilege are far greater threats to individual freedom than socialism... at least the sort that interests me.

Individual-liberty here is often code for: privilege. I don't see how the top %1 owning 40%, and the bottom 40% owning 0.2% is conducive to the REAL individual-liberty of the average person. We seem to have a warped definition of economic freedom in the west because of all the free-market fundamentalism.

Here, economic freedom means social-darwinism. Historically, and outside the west, it has traditionally meant precisely the opposite: more egalitarian economies like socialism.

Libertarian used to mean socialist, before the right-wing extremists perverted it.

-Andy

[kctim]

42. The OP stated that 'Americans are socialists'

I did not describe socialism as such, Merriam Websters did. I use the actual definition of the word because lefties and righties like to disregard the actual meaning so as to support their fantasies of utopia or hell.

While far-leftists may not believe in communal ownership of my "underwear," they do believe in govt ownership of who makes it, how it is made and who sells it and how they sell it.

While I do believe there are many things our govt has no right to be involved in, I do accept that our mixture has been "mutually beneficial."

Individual liberty has nothing to do with wealth. It is the freedom to, not the ability to, that makes us free. This is why there are so many people against high taxes and 'universal' govt programs. This is why people are happy living in their great great grandparents home as long as govt to leaves them alone.

IMO, true Libertarians were the original liberals until a group of them decided that big govt was ok as long as it promoted ONLY the things they believed in.

PS: VERY well thought out reply. Thanks, I appreciated and enjoyed it.

[personman]

43. Socialism, like most ideologoies, has branches, or a spectrum.

"I did not describe socialism as such, Merriam Websters did. I use the actual definition of the word because lefties and righties like to disregard the actual meaning so as to support their fantasies of utopia or hell."

It is no more being one thing than is being a Democrat. In the case of political ideologies, given the choice between a single-line dictionary definition, and an encyclopedia definition, even if it's Wikipedia, hell, better if it's Wikipedia, I'll take Wikipedia.

There are authoritarian branches, and libertarian branches. Nationalist branches and anti-nationalist branches. Revolutionaries and/or reformers. Bolsheviks and anarchists. Even liberals and democrats and progressives.

"While far-leftists may not believe in communal ownership of my "underwear," they do believe in govt ownership of who makes it, how it is made and who sells it and how they sell it."

Nationalist-authoritarian-socialists might. But an anarchist-socialist like myself might say... Let the workers of the factory decide how they make underwear, or let the community decide, let the people who wear them decide, or a combination.

'While I do believe there are many things our govt has no right to be involved in, I do accept that our mixture has been "mutually beneficial."'

Well I was actually referring to a libertarian-socialist system, but I would agree there are certainly aspects of our system where balance is mutually beneficial. We have competition, but we also have social safety nets. We have representation, but we also have public opinion. We have good but expensive (and often inadequate) healthcare, but we also have medicare, and medicaid. Workers, unions and grass-roots organization have won some major victories through the years. We have fairly powerful protection of freedom of expression, which reassures me I (probably) won't end up in a prison somewhere for dissenting.

"Individual liberty has nothing to do with wealth. It is the freedom to, not the ability to, that makes us free."

If you don't have the ability to, and you don't have the wealth to, you don't have the freedom to. Some of the left have a strong belief in "equality of opportunity." What I regard as the far-left, has some belief in "equality of outcome." It is no coincidence that the happiest people in the world live in the most socialistic countries. It's all about the wealth distribution.

"This is why there are so many people against high taxes and 'universal' govt programs. This is why people are happy living in their great great grandparents home as long as govt to leaves them alone."

There are a couple reasons I can think of immediately that people oppose higher taxes and government programs.

1.) The poor majority do not understand that increasing taxes on the wealthy will benefit them.

2.) They are wealthy folk already who are concerned with protecting the bottom line.

"IMO, true Libertarians were the original liberals until a group of them decided that big govt was ok as long as it promoted ONLY the things they believed in."

This is an interesting point. In fact, it is essentially the reason that the anarchists branched off from the socialists. The socialists believed in using government authority to impose socialism (the red bureaucracy), and the anarchists opposed this, believing socialism should rise from the bottom up.

Are you referring to the first international? Sorry, it's been awhile since I studied anarchist history.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just express some ideas. I don't mind a good debate though either. I respect your opinion, and it has been educational to me as well.

-Andy

[patrice]

28. Are there no Real Value losses in our current system? How do you know that those current losses

of individual rights and freedoms are not VITAL losses?

How much of everything that anyone and everyone COULD HAVE BEEN is being thrown away right now in favor of things like War On Demand????

I've seen 25 year old IT, HOME GROWN, software entities with all of the bells and whistles that ANY client ever wanted just thrown away along with about 100 jobs, not to mention the time and trouble and the "not what we needed" factor$$$$$$$$$$ of the web-based stuff that took its place.

That's only ONE example, one that doesn't even address all of the REAL VALUE that is thrown away by school systems that don't provide what people NEED, so when it comes their time to get out there and "make it on their own" (ha!) there's NOTHING for a significant number of them but to become professional killers or criminals.

Loss of individual rights and freedoms?????????? If a right only applies to those with the means and opportunities to take advantage of it, it isn't a right, it's a PRIVILEGE and, therefore, a ROYAL CORRUPTION.

And that's why

WE ARE WAR SLAVES!

[kctim]

32. A 'guarantee to succeed' is not a right

[patrice]

45. Agreed to that! And that's what's wrong with our current "system".

Ag Subsidies; Bailing out fraudulent Banksters; Custom designed Tax Code on Demand; At Will Employment used as a tool for political/religious conformity; Campaign Finance in genera; CoCs' powers to engage in extortion; Votes LIHOP prevented, thrown away, "lost", or flipped; heteros preferred in our armed forces; NCLB . . . . I could go on about the myriad ways in which mediocrity rises NOW on guarantees to succeed. Those guarantees are there now and they ARE costing this country untold fortunes, and I do emphasize untold, as we saw in the Republican Derivative Crash of '08. Extremely important trait that - UNTOLD.

The sorts of things that I think of when I think about what the group/society OWES its members by virtue of their free AGREEMENT to be members, i.e. Socialism, are things that would, at least, do the best possible to enable and not to impede the full development of the Real Value (as Adam Smith defines those phenomena) of each and every member. Instead of selectively enabling some (e.g. financing skills development for Marcus Bachman's staff, and the many forms that sort of thing comes in ((e.g. the house next door which has been occupied by 4-5 families since I have lived here and never once a For Rent or For Sale sign in the yard))), while also selectively oppressing the full development of Real Value potentials in others, e.g. the coercion and oppression of Civil and Human Rights known as DOMA and the general attempt to prevent the LGBT community from engaging in marriage; attempts to ban the building of mosques; commercial media propaganda and lies; defunding the Arts in Public Education and not Athletics; . . . .

Few could agree with you more than I do about 'guarantee(s) to succeed', especially the untold ones, but I wonder why you assume that systems that are Socialistic, Socialist, Socialish, or out right Socialism would be inherently any more prone to 'guarantee(s) to succeed' than what we currently have. All of my professional life has been about STANDARDS, how to develop them in situ, and how to use them. There's nothing about Standards and Socialism that is inherently antithetical. In fact, I'd venture to say that the relationships amongst those doing the work that are enhanced by Socialism are a much MORE fertile ground for authentic STANDARDS efforts than our current environments, though the problem with that particular discussion is that BOTH (all? most?) sides involved are afraid of it and then there are those outside of that discussion who have vested interests (another form of Socialism) in seeing it fail.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.

[lpbk2713]

37. Bookmarked

Thanks


KnR