[quote=“Wanderfound, post:100, topic:78878, full:true”]
I feel that the conflation of “critical of the system” and “anti-elitist” is somewhat misguided.[/quote]
They’re not the same thing but I think the anti-elite sentiment is there on both sides.
I’m not sure the anti-elitist sentiment makes this distinction.
The disdain isn’t reserved for Wall Street or career politicians. Leading intellectuals are written off as part of the system along with reporters. Financial experts are corrupt or misguided, people even turned on John Hodgman when he endorsed Hillary.
I mean there’s specific critiques for each elite group, but like many things they’re not necessarily the root cause of the sentiment. I think it comes down to the degree to which you think power and wealth corrupt (or attract corruption) vs the degree to which talented, but otherwise ordinary, people, gain wealth and power without fundamentally changing.
People who are very suspicious (or supportive) of elites in one field tend to have similar views of elites in other fields.
The hatred is by no means all coming from Sanders supporters. That’s just an added bonus for Trump.
He does benefit, greatly, from you guys attacking Clinton from the Left.
While the core attacks on Clinton probably are a result of all the residual “old-school” haters from the 1990s attacking from the Right. (As well as the “normal” rabid Fox News-style hatred that’s going to attach to any Democratic Candidate That Is Destroying America.) Plus, the same people [red-state/purple-state white males] who most assuredly didn’t hate Obama because he was black most assuredly don’t hate Clinton because she’s a woman.
President Trump.
Vice President Chris Christie.
Secretary of the Interior Palin.
Secretary of Defense John Bolton.
3 severely conservative SCOTUS justices confirmed, triggering a new “Ice Age” of regressivism.
No country in scandinavia is socialist, they are social democracies (i.e. fundamentally free-market capitalist with some socialist policies).
@Aloisius is right, actual Socialism is fringe (despite loud noises from certain quarters that might make some people think otherwise), and it has never, and likely will never, work.
I think you’re confusing communism, as it was enacted and lived in the 20th century, for socialism, actually. Nothing about socialism contradicts democracy and you can easily describe many Western European policies as socialist in orientation - if not some “pure” socialist state - of course no such purity of any kind actually exists, nor did it ever.
There are also shades of difference, so, sure, you can call them “social democracy” and not be wrong, especially considering these are countries that indeed have an active free market, but there is also plenty of wealth redistribution as well. No pure anything actually exists, so on some level, this constant parsing of definition is pointless, when really we should be looking around to see what actually works and trying to implement that here, rather than reject what works because it has some possible association with Uncle Karl…
I think you’re confusing communism, as it was enacted and lived in the 20th century, for socialism, actually.
Nope. In terms of political “science” these are pretty well defined things, communism is a form of socialism, as is democratic socialism (e.g. modern Latin American socialism). Social democracy is a form of free market capitalism with certain socialist elements thrown in.
Nothing about socialism contradicts democracy
I would disagree. Genuine socialism requires the force of a strong state to enforce it, and such a state will always be far more likely to be corrupt than any capitalist one.
Who exactly do you think is enforcing the capitalist rules? I can’t even watch a DVD without being presented with explicit warnings about the heavy fines and prison time I could face for violating some corporation’s copyright.
I’m no libertarian, nothing wrong with having a state (in fact, I think all stateless models of government are nonsense). The strength of state required for implementing proper socialism is far too much to bear though.
What do you mean by “proper” socialism? Seems to me like the boundaries are pretty arbitrary.
For example, why does pretty much everyone agree it’s OK for the state to provide free public education for grades K-12, but making public colleges and universities tuition-free is such a radical and ridiculous idea that it doesn’t even merit serious discussion?
What do you mean by “proper” socialism? Seems to me like the boundaries are pretty arbitrary.
If you’re not sure on the definitions maybe you should read up on it, the wikipedia article is a decent place to start.
For example, why does pretty much everyone agree it’s OK for the state to provide free public education for grades K-12, but making public colleges and universities tuition-free is such a radical and ridiculous idea that it doesn’t even merit serious discussion?
It’s debatable the benefit it would have for one thing, I was reading about research a few months ago that throws into question the idea that universal access to 3rd level education has anything to do with economic progress (it’s an effect rather than a cause). Personally I think far too many people to go to college as it stands, it’s of close to zero use to most people (I never went to college, already knew everything I needed to be a programmer before finishing school). The US (and the UK, Ireland and a lot of other countries) could do with looking at how Germany does things in this area. I don’t think it’s a good use of tax payer’s money to fund middle-class kids’ liberal arts courses, I do think it’s a good idea to provide grants for vocational 3rd level education for people who cannot afford it themselves (and even regular university courses - based on aptitude).
Then it should be debated rather than dismissed as a crazy unworkable idea. Especially since “tuition-free public colleges and universities” have been implemented successfully in the US and elsewhere.
At any rate the PRINCIPLE is no different than free education for grades K-12. It’s probably fair to say an Associate’s degree or higher is at least as important today as a high school diploma was at the close of the 19th Century.
That would certainly tell us how Wikipedia defines "proper " socialism, but not how you define it.
From that article:
Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralized; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organized through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of, and critical of, unions; and present in both industrialized and developing countries.
That doesn’t seem to line up with your declaration of, “The strength of state required for implementing proper socialism is far too much to bear though.”. How could you require strength of state to implement decentralized, or international socialism?
Perhaps we’d all be better off if you used your own words to describe “proper” socialism, instead of pointing to an article which has a dozen mutually exclusive definitions.
Then it should be debated rather than dismissed as a crazy unworkable idea.
Has it not already been debated? Surely it was part of the democratic debates?
Especially since “tuition-free public colleges and universities” have been implemented successfully in the US and elsewhere.
Just because they have been implemented doesn’t mean they should be implemented, especially if the money could be put to far better use elsewhere. Sure, when countries aren’t in massive debt and suffering from problems of crumbling infrastructure and health care problems, then maybe then you could roll out something more all inclusive (though even then I’d have my doubts), but it doesn’t seem like a great idea right now.
Unless you happen to believe “an educated populace” is an INVESTMENT that can help solve social and economic problems.
For example, California had tuition-free public colleges and universities until the late 1970s. As one result California begat Silicon Valley, netting the state’s economy approximately eleventy skillion bajillion dollars over the next four decades.
That doesn’t seem to line up with your declaration of, “The strength of state required for implementing proper socialism is far too much to bear though.”. How could you require strength of state to implement decentralized, or international socialism?
If it’s decentralised and democratic, then who’s going to force the decentralised units to stick to a socialist model? The only stable socialist model is an authoritarian and centralized one (you might have some delegation, but ultimately a large state or other force will have to keep everyone in line). If you have any examples of a stable national level implementation that proves otherwise I’d be interested to hear about it.
Perhaps we’d all be better off if you used your own words to describe “proper” socialism, instead of pointing to an article which has a dozen mutually exclusive definitions.
Actually the broad definition on that page is pretty close to what I’d use (barring the ‘democratic control’ bit, which I believe to be pretty oxymoronic, though I agree it’s mostly there ‘in theory’):
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
There may be various stateless and minimal-state socialist theories about, but as far as I’m concerned all they are are just theories, and unworkable ones at that.
Unless you happen to believe “an educated populace” is an INVESTMENT that can help solve social and economic problems.
I do believe that, I just don’t think there’s always much education to be found in a lot of university courses (particularly things like liberal arts courses and MBAs). Most of the time people can learn things on their own, on the job, or on their own time. Certain things require detailed training sure, surgeons, architects, theoretical physicists, structural engineers, etc. Certain other things just require short vocational education, apprenticeships, things like that. There are lots of different ways to invest in young people to educate and train them for the betterment of both their lives and society in general that doesn’t require universal 3rd level education.
For example, California had tuition-free public colleges and universities until the late 1970s. As one result California begat Silicon Valley, netting the state’s economy approximately eleventy skillion bajillion dollars over the next four decades.
It’s debateable whether that had much if anything to do with it. How many people involved in the creation of silicon valley were college drop outs for example? It probably has a lot more to do with entrepreneurship and government investment in universities for cold war military projects than anything else. The growth in personal computing wasn’t limited to California either, how would you explain the similar explosion (mostly in semiconductors and other manufacturing) in Texas and other parts of the ‘Silicon Prairie’? I’m guessing there wasn’t free college education being doled out there?
The paper did, so I did as well. Or are unions not organized special interest groups? I mean, the AFL-CIO has an army of lobbyists and its own SuperPAC for goodness sake! They have significantly more political influence than the average American.
(I’m not anti-union btw. I actually think unions are a good idea as they increase political influence and worker leverage.)
Sigh. Decades of Republicans claiming social programs are Socialism has really confused America. Bernie Sanders calling himself a Democratic Socialist when he’s clearly a Social Democrat hasn’t helped matters either.
Free college is not Socialism. The welfare state is not Socialism. They are social programs. It is simply the government providing an extra service.
Communal ownership of the means of production (land, buildings, equipment, raw materials, etc) is the defining characteristic of Socialism (it is so fractured that there aren’t any others at this point that apply to all strains).
If we had eliminated private ownership to create those services then they would be Socialism. We did not.
