"Socialism as a concept is open to many interpretations. Gallup was describing socialism in questions asked in the 1940s in terms of government ownership of businesses -- something that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and most other left-leaning Democratic candidates have not advocated. Instead, socialism today seems to embody sets of programs by which the government helps regulate and in some instances run and pay for social programs focused on basic population needs in health, education, housing and employment."
So not destroying capitalism but rather trying to blunt some of the sharp edges of capitalism. Nobody is trying to replace Google, GM, or JP Morgan with a government run company.
As a purely technical matter socialism--especially when juxtaposed with capitalism, as in the Pew Gallup poll--means government ownership of businesses and central planning of economic activity. The DSA, which Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are affiliated with, do advocate for public ownership of businesses: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism...
> Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.
> "I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries," Sanders told the Burlington Free Press in October 1976, at age 35
Given that socialism has been utterly discredited in Europe over the last couple of decades, groups like DSA try to obscure their views by equating socialism with the capitalist welfare states of Europe. But: https://mises.org/power-market/swedish-ex-prime-minister-reb...
> Prime Minister of Sweden from 1991 to 1994, Carl Bildt, took to Twitter to warn Sanders that socialism is not the key to creating a great society as he and Ocasio-Cortez seem to think.
This is not just a matter of terminology and semantics. Over the last 20 years, Europeans have aggressively embraced market policies. They're all aggressively cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. They've privatized state-owned businesses and deregulated industries. Sweden has had school vouchers for decades, and the subway in Stockholm is privately operated. The tax system in Sweden is remarkably flat, and the tax burden is borne primarily by the middle class. (I.e. the middle class pays for its own robust welfare system.)
Those are not the policies espoused by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders. Whereas Sweden has school vouchers, they're proposing curbing charter schools. Neither are proposing to privatize operation of New York's or DC's failing subway systems, to match Stockholm's model. Whereas Sweden's taxes are already less progressive than the U.S.'s (Sweden's top tax rate starts at $70,000), Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are proposing to shift even more of the tax burden to the rich, while Sweden is cutting taxes for the rich. While even Republicans, much less Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, are unwilling to touch Social Security, Sweden has moved to a partially privatized defined-contribution system. Whereas Sweden has a carbon tax, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are trying to address climate change through central planning. (The Green New Deal, for example, would involve taxing tens of trillions of dollars out of the private economy, and reallocating it to centrally-planned, government-directed economic activity.)
If you read through the Green New Deal, it doesn't resemble the market-oriented approaches of modern Scandinavia. It's all about government-directed economic activity, guaranteed jobs, etc. That's old-school socialism.
You moved from describing the Democrats to describing the Democratic Socialists of America. Those are two very different groups. As a Democrat, I find the DSA rather obnoxious, because they perpetually run NIMBY candidates here in San Francisco who favor the interests of rich homeowners over renters. (Even in SF, the DSA finds itself unable to win anything more than supervisor seats; the mayor and state representatives are mainstream social democrats.)
And I think you're reading way too much into those polls. If you were to ask me whether I like capitalism and whether I like socialism, as a social democrat I would probably say yes to both, I guess†? But I wouldn't favor wide-ranging nationalization of industries. I don't see how you can say "I like capitalism"--as a majority of Democrats do, according to Pew--and favor that. I mean, heck, more Democrats say they view conservatives positively (more than the reverse on the Republican side) than view socialism positively and capitalism negatively. The two Democratic front-runners are Biden, who represents a continuation of Obama's moderate economic policies, and Warren, who famously said she's a "capitalist to her bones".
† I also have to wonder how much tribalism there is in the socialism answer. Republicans have spent a lot of time applying the label to things that are obviously not socialist, like the ACA. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats are saying yes to the question about "socialism" really to express their support for Democratic policies that have been smeared as "socialist", rather than anything having to do with central planning. You see this tribalism frequently on the Republican side, with significant numbers of Republicans saying, for example, that they believe that Trump had larger inauguration crowd sizes than Obama did--which of course they don't really believe, but they say yes to such questions to express their support for Trump.
The Democratic party you think you belong to isn't the Democratic party that is today. Far from it. And that's the problem.
As a classical liberal I identified myself with the Democratic party far more so than the GOP on many layers. What is out there today has nothing to do with what this party was about 30 years ago. Today, they are dangerous. The ideas they are pushing are destructive. If they gain overwhelming power they will destroy this nation.
I've seen this playbook before in Latin America --many times-- it doesn't end well. It's about to be played yet again in Argentina with the new government that was just elected. There are people already trying to figure out how to get the hell out before the mutation into Venezuela sets in.
You say you are a Democrat. You are on HN. I somehow doubt the total lack of mathematical honesty in a ridiculous 52 trillion dollar disaster of a healthcare plan would not cause you projectile vomiting. These people are dangerous. They actually believe this stuff. And if they gain power we are all going to suffer for it.
The proper context is external to the US: China. They are laughing their asses off right now and just hoping people like Warren or Bernie ascend to power. If they get another eight years of unimpeded growth they will ascend to the first economy of the world and be unstoppable. There are very few industries left in the US and Europe that they can't absorb. They would love for the US to go full-tilt left and, as a result, cause severe damage to it's economy. It would clear the path to supremacy. And then we get the reality of a world led by China, with hooks into absolutely everyone.
> I've seen this playbook before in Latin America --many times-- it doesn't end well.
The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour who's going to crush their economy and support a coup to shut down any socialist threat to their imperialism. Because that's what happened all the times in Latin America.
> The proper context is external to the US: China. They are laughing their asses off right now and just hoping people like Warren or Bernie ascend to power. If they get another eight years of unimpeded growth they will ascend to the first economy of the world and be unstoppable […].
That's a really strange thing for a “classical liberal” to say. This is straight from the hardcore neoconservative narrative.
> The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour
I don't think you know the history of Latin America.
If you speak Spanish you should watch the many excellent videos out there with Gloria Alvarez. If you don't, she has been doing more and more work in English, here's one:
That's funny how people who don't understand history and facts always choose to attack the messenger rather than the arguments being presented.
I studied in Latin America and lived there for nearly 20 years in total. I KNOW THIS HISTORY because I both studied and lived some of it. She is telling the truth.
I'm not «attacking» anyone, but you wouldn't trust Lenin talking about the Russian history (and you'd be right) and you shouldn't trust a libertarian politician about history either.
Had you studied Philosophy and Logic in university you would have understood my comment.
This is what's colloquially known as "shooting the messenger" or attacking the source. You said:
> Gloria Alvarez is no historian, she is a politician with a libertarian agenda…
BTW, she is not a politician. She recently tried to run for President of Guatemala but didn't get very far. She was not a politician before that and is not a politician today.
The fallacy you are committing is "argumentum ad hominem". Here's a reference:
The simple explanation is to attack the person ("she is a politician with a libertarian agenda") rather than to address the argument she presents by offering-up evidence that proves your case and disproves hers. The implication, of course, being that nothing she says is valid because of who she is, regardless of the nature and content of her presentation.
> you wouldn't trust Lenin talking about the Russian history
Not true, you are attacking the messenger again. There is no reason to assume Lenin (or anyone else) is lying just because of who they are or what they did. You can be skeptical about it, sure, but the only LOGICAL approach --if what you seek is the truth-- is to listen (or read) and then confirm the validity and soundness (these are two different things) of the argument Lenin would be making. Only after confirming the validity and soundness of the argument can you conclude whether Lenin is telling the truth or not about a particular argument. He could be lying about one thing and telling the truth about another.
As Einstein said, paraphrasing, the solution to a problem requires a higher perspective than the one that created it in the first place.
Please be careful about what you believe and why you believe it.
It's much easier to accept a conclusions "don't listen to her, she is just a libertarian" than to actually take the time to listen to somebody, perhaps even engage with them in a respectful manner and consider the arguments being presented. This is the only way we move forward as a society. Politicians (notice I did not specify party affiliation) would prefer to herd us all like sheep with false promises and stuff that sounds great. Politicians hate it when we actually think and challenge what comes out of their mouths. That requires work and emotional separation from any affiliation, which isn't necessarily easy for a lot of people.
> The good news for the US is that they don't have an imperialist neighbour who's going to crush their economy and support a coup to shut down any socialist threat to their imperialism. Because that's what happened all the times in Latin America.
While U.S. intervention in Latin America is regrettable, this is a lame cop-out. One, many countries that embraced capitalism flourished economically despite U.S. intervention. E.g. Chile, South Korea, etc. Two, many countries that embraced socialism destroyed themselves economically despite the lack of foreign intervention. E.g. Venezuela under Chavez, India under Nehru.
> One, many countries that embraced capitalism flourished economically despite U.S. intervention.
I think you misunderstood my point: I said that leftist governements in South America failed because they were under massive pressure from the US. Chile is a good example, as Aliende was literally overthrown by a coup financed by CIA.
> many countries that embraced socialism destroyed themselves economically despite the lack of foreign intervention. E.g. Venezuela under Chavez, India under Nehru.
That's absolutely wrong about Venezuela. Chavez era is the golden age of the past 40 years in that country.
And about Nehru, the main criticism is not about destroying anything (because post-colonization didn't have an economy to destroy in the first place) and more about missed opportunity, but that's an easy thing to say afterwards (and many non-socialist countries didn't do any better).
> That's a really strange thing for a “classical liberal” to say. This is straight from the hardcore neoconservative narrative.
Not really. If China were playing with equal rules there would be no problems. They are not. From currency manipulation to intellectual property theft, not a care about the environment and the imprisonment of massive amounts of people and more, they are not equal participants in the economic realm.
Classical Liberalism does not require me to ignore reality. China is playing to win, by whatever means necessary. Which means if we (the western world) create the opening they will go right through it. A world dominated economically and militarily by China is likely to result in a severe reduction in the standard of living of many nations doing well today. For a crystal-view into that today just look at nations with seriously degraded industrial ecosystems.
For those who might not be clear on what classical liberalism is about, here's a good explanation:
Please note there's nothing in these principles that would have one be comfortable with what's going on with China, both within and in the context of the world stage. In fact, classical liberalism would cause one to raise a serious alarm against a good deal of China's behavior, internally and externally.
Never mind what the man says. Judge him by the source of the video. Brilliant.
For those who have not seen the video, these are the ten core principles of Classical Liberalism he lists:
1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government
In the video he gives a short explanation of each of the above.
> wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Democrats are saying yes to the question about "socialism" really to express their support for Democratic policies that have been smeared as "socialist", rather than anything having to do with central planning.
While most democrats aren't actually supporting socialism, interestingly enough, socialism doesn't necessarily have something to do with social planning either: socialism is about getting rid of capitalism, an economic system where a few people owns the means of production and “steal” the work of the working class (note that this has nothing to do with free market). You can achieve socialism by different mean. The Marxist-Leninist way, with all-powerful state and central planning is one, but the anarchist way with workers self-managing is another. The first kind dominated the 20th century (and they slayed thousands of anarchists in the process) but nowadays most socialists (in the western world at least) belong to the second category. Noam Chomsky is a good example of these people.
You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning. If anything, the original proponents of socialism including Marx never supposed that capitalism would be something to "get rid of" in any way; they thought socialism would only become viable when capitalism had reached its highest stage of development, and then the "transition" into socialism would be relatively natural and painless.
"Workers self-managing" industries works really well if the industries have low capital intensity. Law firms might be one example of that. Not so much otherwise, because workers at any one firm don't really want to deal with highly-uncertain capital investments in the first place (that would mean keeping all their eggs in one basket!); they'd much rather shed that risk to outsiders.
> You can't "get rid" of capitalism without involving some sort of central planning.
Of course you can. We even had a practical example in Syrian Kurdistan for several years in a row. Unfortunately, Rojava was destroyed by the Turkish invasion… It looks like the only thing you can't really do without some kind one central planning is war. Which would explain why every anarchist attempt have been crushed so far.
> when capitalism had reached its highest stage of development, and then the "transition" into socialism would be relatively natural and painless.
Natural (and according to Marx, it wasn't “relatively natural” but more like the obvious course of history) but in no way painless. Revolution and temporary dictatorship was part of Marx vision all along.
Also their is plenty of non-Marxist socialism, some being older than Marx and some modern.
> that would mean keeping all their eggs in one basket!
That may be an irrational choice, but humans do put all their eggs in one basket all the time! And BTW, this popular saying isn't that insightful: if you cannot afford to lose a single egg, you better put them in a single basket, because the probability of one basket failing is lower than multiple baskets ;).
> We even had a practical example in Syrian Kurdistan
That's getting rid of capital, in the physical sense; war will do that quite nicely indeed. It's not what's normally meant by socialism - even Marx knew better than that!
Not all capital was destroyed. So far Kurdistan was not the part of Syria where the war hurt most.
If you want an example where war isn't involved at all, you can have a look at Catalonia right after the fascist coup in 1936: anarchists and Communists workers just took the control of the whole industrial system and it was locally administered by workers (at least in the beginning, before the Communists allied with Republicans and massacred the anarchists).
OP asked me to name "the Democrats trying to replace capitalism." I think it's fair to say that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and other DSA-affiliated Democrats are trying to do that. That is not an assertion that Democrats as a whole want to do that.
Only 47% of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism, versus 57% having a positive view of socialism. That's shocking for the party of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. There was a time when socialism was a dirty word in America, and it was for a good reason. When my dad was born in what was then Pakistan, India had similar per-capita GDP to South Korea. Today, thanks to flirtations with socialism, India is still quite poor, while South Korea is as rich as France: https://reason.com/2006/06/06/the-rise-and-fall-of-indian-so....
> We need a smaller, more effective, more efficient, less bureaucratic government that reflects our time-honored values.
> We support government policies that encourage private sector investment and innovation to create a pro-growth economic climate, like a permanent research and development tax credit.
> Today's Democratic Party knows that the era of big government is over. Big bureaucracies and Washington solutions are not the real answers to today's challenges. We need a smaller government . . . and we must have a larger national spirit. Government's job should be to give people the tools they need to make the most of their own lives. Americans must take the responsibility to use them, to build good lives for themselves and their families. Personal responsibility is the most powerful force we have to meet our challenges and shape the future we want for ourselves, for our children, and for America.
> Welfare reform. Today's Democratic Party knows there is no greater gap between mainstream American values and modern American government than our failed welfare system. When Bill Clinton became President, the welfare system undermined the very values -- work, family, and personal responsibility -- that it should promote. The welfare system should reflect those values: we want to help people who want to help themselves and their children.
> We have worked hard over the last four years to rein in big government, slash burdensome regulations, eliminate wasteful programs, and shift problem-solving out of Washington and back to people and communities who understand their situations best.
> In the last four years, President Clinton, working with the National Performance Review chaired by Vice President Gore, has cut the federal government by almost 240,000 positions, making the smallest federal government in 30 years. We did it the right way, treating workers with respect. The federal government is eliminating 16,000 pages of outdated and unnecessary regulations, has abolished 179 programs and projects, and saved taxpayers billions of dollars.
Watching the debates it's impossible to see any hint of that party.
> The two Democratic front-runners are Biden, who represents a continuation of Obama's moderate economic policies, and Warren, who famously said she's a "capitalist to her bones".
Given how quickly the party has distanced itself from Obama's moderate-conservative economic policies, I'm not sure how great I feel about 76-year-old Joe Biden was the firewall between me and 1960s-style European socialism.
"Socialism as a concept is open to many interpretations. Gallup was describing socialism in questions asked in the 1940s in terms of government ownership of businesses -- something that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and most other left-leaning Democratic candidates have not advocated. Instead, socialism today seems to embody sets of programs by which the government helps regulate and in some instances run and pay for social programs focused on basic population needs in health, education, housing and employment."
So not destroying capitalism but rather trying to blunt some of the sharp edges of capitalism. Nobody is trying to replace Google, GM, or JP Morgan with a government run company.