Daily Mail: Socialism is losing its stigma thanks to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez as a MAJORITY of American women age 18-54 would prefer it to living in a capitalist country
* 55 per cent of U.S. women between age 18 and age 54 would prefer to live in a socialist society rather than a capitalist one ,polling data from mid-April show
* That number is 40 per cent for men and women combined, underscoring a deep gender schism
* Self-described Democratic socialists like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have brought socialism back in vogue
* Americans don't agree on what socialism is, but majorities understand that socialist governments own companies rather than private individuals or groups
* Large majorities agree that providing a basic living to everyone and covering the cost of tuition and healthcare are hallmarks of socialist systems
* Venezuela is suffering famine and near revolt after instituting socialist reforms; socialism undergirded Soviet communism
In a year when Bernie Sanders is making his second run for president and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become a political Twitter star eclipsed only by Donald Trump, socialism is on the rise among Americans – especially women.
A Harris Poll conducted for Axios found that 55 per cent of U.S. women between the ages of 18 and 55 would rather live in a socialist society than a capitalist one.
That number was 40 per cent overall, including men, suggesting men are far more suspicious of communal ownership and control of everything in American society.
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, both self-described Democratic socialists, have pulled their party to the left with promises of expanded government benefits and handouts.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Being one who spent a good part of his life living in a socialist paradise, I can say with 100% confidence that the worst place for a woman to live in is a socialist country. But don't take my word for it. For those who have any doubts my suggestion is to take a trip to Venezuela for a few weeks and experience what they are going through right now..
10 comments:
there is a truckload of so-called socialism. Every person seems to define it for himself. If the govt uses the money to pay for infrastructure and for research at universities etc is that pure capitalism, communism, socialism, or welfare statism or simply the way it gets done in the United States.When Trump sends millions to farmers to help them out, what is that? simply being nice to farmers?
the use of the word socialism is at best more often than not simply a way to bad mouth this or that and no helpful argument results from it.
In a dictionary sense, it’s an economic and political system under which the government controls major industries and decides how its products and proceeds are distributed. Early socialists were driven by a utopian ideal of equality and social solidarity, which they saw as incompatible with unrestrained capitalism. Sanders, in 1990, said socialism "means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living." In practice today, in places like Scandinavia, socialism is akin to a highly regulated version of capitalism. To critics, socialism is best defined by the history of repressive and ultimately failed regimes that claimed the term, including the USSR -- the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Agreed Fred. So many people want to label things in black and white terms, a philosophy that never works. There must be provisions to allow for situations not considered the norm with those provisions being funded by government through taxation.
Back at the beginning, even democracy was not created as an equal state of being and efforts to maintain its original definition failed a few times, although for sure they are still continuing.
Good examples of the "not reason socialism" "socialism has never been properly implemented" circle jerk guys.
The basic concepts of a functional society and government: You own the fruits of your own labor, public and private transactions are consensual/negotiated, no one is entitled to your money, wealth is a measure of life hours invested in creating a resultantly economically useful good or service, the rich didn't steal from the poor without providing consensual good/services at some point (unless your a leftist politician and/or a criminal), true individual freedom is taking personal responsibility and reaping the positives and negatives as a result, government should have little role to no role in your everyday life outside of regulating externalities resulting from individual decisions, taxation should be a system where those who actually contribute/pay are entitled to an equal share of withdrawal from that good/service being provided from those taxes (but everyone is entitled to non excludable and no rivalrous resources) etc.
Go to China, Russia, Venezuela etc and help them build their Utopia if you think you can do a better job.
Matt--
You seem not to fully understand what I had posted. I do not need to go to failed nations to understand what is wrong with them. I did not have to go to Nazi Germany to understand why fascism is no good. Now tell me about the states that provide services, ie Sweeden, Norway, Finland, etc that address the needs of its citizens...and Medicare, Medicaid, etc in the US. My point is that there are varieties of govt/private sector relationships and that oversimplifying as you would do is to ignore the reality of the subject. Lincoln, after all, provided govt money to develop trans-American RR...that is govt working with public and private sectors. Do you reject that as a pure capitalist who wants no help from our govt?
I'm glad we don't live a socialist country that just gave $26 billion to GREAT PATRIOT FARMERS. Now that'd be a real hell hole.
The Dems (called socialists) now talking about 4 day work week...We used to have (non-socialist) 6-day work week. The Dems (socialists) under FDR gave us 5-day workweek...I can see why the so-called Dems (socialists) are making life dreadful
Right Fred,
Its the governments role to arbitrarily determine how much you as an individual can work, and dictate to employers how many days an employer may employ you. It's for the best, it is morally right, it feels good and is an all but certain recipe for economic and individual success as we have seen in every instance in history. You clearly have no foundational understanding of what made the US the country that it is today. You probably dont even know what the federalist papers are and if you do, "they were written during a more simple time and are not relevant to the modern day" right? I never said i was a pure capitalist, and you seem to not fully understand what I had posted. Government has a role in regulating externalities and possibly the breakup of monopolies; amongst very few other things. The "Nordic countries" are capitalist economies using some socialist policies that I also do not agree with for many reasons that I can discuss with you later. The trans-American RR was also not constitutionally valid and widely argued over at the time. Private funding was advocated but the govt dime was secured to prevent monopoly, allocate funds more efficiently and open the RR for use by the private and govt sector for economic stimulus logic.
I will not discuss with you if you feel the need to insult me. the fact is, we are a mixed form; so too the Nordic nations. but they seem happy as humans with having health and education and daycare etc helped by govt use of taxes, and we seem, alas, to be going downhill in longevity and in public education and of course infrastructure...I suspect, in passing, I read the Federalist papers before you were born
In any case, enjoy the weekend
Dude. You insult people on here all the time. First to fire shots a lot of the time as well. Hold fast and relax.
Those countries don't even have a capable standing military. They neglect to contribute their basic NATO 2% GDP membership requirement every single year for decades. National defense has historically been one of a nations highest expenditures, so of course these countries have some money for other idealistic programs that are increasingly failing since inception. Ask anyone living in those countries, especially their elderly, about the waiting lists. Healthcare is rationed, being that it is a very excludable, rivalrous and finite resource. Regarding the US education system, now what political party has run that arena for neigh on decades? Dont you even try and pawn off the idea that the entire US public educational system is not left leaning from the top down. Everyone getting participation trophies, lowering standards, neglecting critical areas of study because it hurts feelings etc are all a result of federally regulated education standards and not allowing the states to experiment with their own methods to produce the best results is what the constitution, reinforced by the federalist papers, prescribes. I am not even getting started with infrastructure. And the weekend? We are not even half way through the beginning of this week. I suppose I will though. Likewise.
Post a Comment