Voters Overwhelmingly Prefer Free Market to Socialism

[seer]

Good to see that there is some sanity left in this country...

In New York, a Democratic Socialist candidate just unseated a near-20-year veteran in one of the state’s Democratic congressional primaries, and she contends she represents the Democratic Party's future. But voters reject socialism in no uncertain terms.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 74% of Likely U.S. Voters prefer a free market economic system over a socialist system. Only 13% think socialism is a better economic system, and just as many (13%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...t_to_socialism

[Starlight]

What a weird question. As the resident democratic socialist of course I support a free market economy. Are they thinking of a centralized controlled economy?

[seer]

What a weird question. As the resident democratic socialist of course I support a free market economy. Are they thinking of a centralized controlled economy?

They probably define Socialism as it has been largely practiced in history.

[Starlight]

They probably define Socialism as it has been largely practiced in history.

So are we talking the Nordic Model or Mondragon?

Of course the answer is that you're talking the USSR. Because you can't mount serious arguments against the types of socialism that worked well, so you have to straw man it by only arguing against types that failed.

[seer]

So are we talking the Nordic Model or Mondragon?

Of course the answer is that you're talking the USSR. Because you can't mount serious arguments against the types of socialism that worked well, so you have to straw man it by only arguing against types that failed.

How is the Nordic Model socialism? If socialism is the collective ownership of business/production?

And you might find this interesting:

The history of the world’s biggest co–op, the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation in Spain, is a perfect illustration of Luxemburg’s argument. Mondragón was set up with the ideals of worker participation, solidarity and equality, but as the business has grown bigger and bigger, and become more and more integrated into global capitalism, its founding principles have applied only to a shrinking percentage of its workforce.
In 1993, Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported that Mondragón was restructuring to get ready to compete in the European single market. It noted that “increased salary differentials, advertising campaigns in Fortune and cooperative alliances with companies like Hotpoint have had many co–op workers wondering whether in the new Mondragón Cooperative Corporation [MCC] some members are more equal than others.”9

By this time daily life for most Mondragón workers was not noticeably different from working for a more traditional capitalist employer, although with greater job security. Decision-making had become highly centralized, with most co–op members having no say in the company’s day-to-day operations. Perhaps not surprisingly, in a survey comparing job satisfaction of Mondragón manual workers with workers in a similarly sized privately-owned company, there was little difference between the two groups, with the Mondragón workers slightly less satisfied.10...

...But the problem is not just that over time Mondragón has accommodated itself to the practices of the capitalist market in order to survive, as Luxemburg predicted. From the very beginning the co–op saw itself as providing an alternative to struggle against the system.
The Mondragón cooperative was originally the idea of a Catholic priest named José Maria Arizmendiarrieta who regarded class struggle as destructive and who hoped to overcome it not by directly challenging the power of the exploiting capitalist class, but by creating a small corner of the economy in which class differences no longer existed.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky long ago argued that socialism in one country is impossible because a socialist revolution that does not spread will either be crushed from the outside or survive by being transformed from within. Socialism in one workplace is even more of a non-starter, because the economic, political, and military power of the existing ruling class remains in place.

This was a point also made by Marx in his “Inaugural Address of the IWMA”:

At the same time the experience of the period from 1848 to 1864 has proved beyond doubt that, however excellent in principle and however useful in practice, co-operative labor, if kept within the narrow circle of the casual efforts of private workmen, will never be able to arrest the growth in geometrical progression of monopoly, to free the masses, nor even to perceptibly lighten the burden of their miseries.

Because co–ops by themselves do not challenge the system and may divert energy away from doing so, Marx noted that a variety of establishment figures had become supporters of co–ops:

It is perhaps for this very reason that plausible noblemen, philanthropic middle-class spouters, and even kept political economists have all at once turned nauseously complimentary to the very co-operative labor system they had vainly tried to nip in the bud by deriding it as the utopia of the dreamer, or stigmatizing it as the sacrilege of the socialist...

...Economic democracy and workers’ self-management is absolutely central to any genuine socialist society, but they can only be permanently established by adopting a strategy aimed at dismantling the power of the capitalist state and expropriating the expropriators. In other words a political strategy, not one focused primarily on attempting to create alternative economic models within existing capitalist society.



https://isreview.org/issue/93/are-wo...ive-capitalism

[Cow Poke]

What a weird question. As the resident democratic socialist...

Wait... youv'e moved to the RIGHT?!?!

[Leonhard]

Good to see that there is some sanity left in this country...

She largely seems to be following the Nordic Model which was instituted by Social Democrats. Looks pretty good.

a Democratic Socialist candidate just unseated a near-20-year veteran

Her name is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I like her.

[seer]

She largely seems to be following the Nordic Model which was instituted by Social Democrats. Looks pretty good.

Well what is it? Where is it practiced, to any large degree? I found this:

The Nordic model isn’t socialist. The best definition, in my mind, is welfare capitalism.

“The 19th century German economist, Gustav von Schmoller, defined welfare capitalism as government provision for the welfare of workers and the public via social legislation, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada and Australasia are regions noted for their welfare state provisions, though other countries have publicly financed universal healthcare and other elements of the welfare state as well”. Welfare capitalism - Wikipedia
So, the wellfare is distributed to all, while the surplus is produced by the private companies.

Our model is essentially capitalistic, meaning that the means of production are privately owned. We have publicly owned companies too, often so that the state owns a majority of the shares or a significant minority of them. I don’t know how common this is worlwide, but I suppose it’s not unique. Anyway, that’s not how the economy and production is generally organised, the production is mostly driven by private companies.

[Roy]

She largely seems to be following the Nordic Model which was instituted by Social Democrats. Looks pretty good.

Well what is it? Where is it practiced, to any large degree?

Believe it or not, the Nordic Model was applied in Nordic areas.

[Leonhard]

Well what is it? Where is it practiced, to any large degree?

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Basically Scandinavia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized, while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism.[4][5][6] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[7][8]

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[9] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[10]

© Copyright Original Source

And you're right. This is not Socialism, but this is what Democratic Socialists in the US are working towards, you can read their own program if you want. Its also what Bernie Sanders and other self-styled Social Democrats have worked towards.

[Mountain Man]

Well what is it? Where is it practiced, to any large degree?

Pure socialism has always ended in abject failure, at least for the common citizen; the "elite" have always made out like bandits. The only time socialist policies have ever succeeded is when they are supported by a strong and prosperous capitalistic foundation, and even then they're very rarely the most effective solution for whatever problem they're supposed to solve.

[seer]

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Basically Scandinavia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized, while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism.[4][5][6] The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.[7][8]

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[9] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[10]

© Copyright Original Source

And you're right. This is not Socialism, but this is what Democratic Socialists in the US are working towards, you can read their own program if you want. Its also Bernie Sanders and other self-styled Social Democrats have worked towards, and its what the Social Democrats implemented in the US.

But this isn't socialism since the vast majority of companies are still privately owned, not owned by the "collective." They just have generous welfare systems.

[Mountain Man]

But this isn't socialism since the vast majority of companies are still privately owned, not owned by the "collective." They just have generous welfare systems.

The key phrase from his quote is "based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism." In other words, it's not socialism.

[Leonhard]

The key phrase from his quote is "based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism." In other words, it's not socialism.

Its a bit like saying someone is a libertarian, but they still vote largely for Republicans, or other candidates that support various market regulations.

But yes, its not socialism proper, but it is the kind of thing the Democratic Socialists in the US are working towards.

[JimL]

But this isn't socialism since the vast majority of companies are still privately owned, not owned by the "collective." They just have generous welfare systems.

Exactly, so keep that in mind you you post stupid stuff. You're obviously trying to equate Democratic socialism with pure socialism. Democratic socialists are not anti-free market, or anti capitalists, if that's what you're trying to suggest. In the U.S. we are already socialist in that respect, and we prefer it.