Is Capitalism Dying? Ask A Millennial [cartoon]

[Soph0571]

Americans who grew up during the Cold War against the Soviet Union will be shocked to learn that the old toxicity of the words socialism and communism are gone now.

Even candidates for judge in Texas are running as self-described socialists.

It turns out that now the only demographic left that continues to believe that capitalism is superior to either socialism or communism are Americans over 50 years of age.

As the country continues to age and old people die, so will capitalism or at least support for it.

Of course, when you look at the way millennials live, you can’t really say it’s all that surprising.

[link:http://anewdomain.net/ted-rall-cartoon-is-capitalism-dying/|

Capitalism only makes sense if you have capital - not something open to many of young people today

[comradebillyboy]

1. Indeed, the American dream is more likely to be realized in Venezuela /s

Where are these socialist/communist utopias that we should emulate?

[Jim Lane]

5. Most often mentioned are the Scandinavian countries.

Most of the advanced industrial countries in the world have mixed economies. (If someone in the U.S. tells you that socialism is evil, ask if that means we should abolish free public education.) Among those mixed economies, ours has a smaller component of socialism than do many others. For example, we have Medicare for seniors instead of having something comparable for everyone. Millennials are more likely to support shifting the balance in the direction of socialism (Medicare for all), but that doesn't necessarily mean nationalizing basic industries or the like.

[ck4829]

8. +1

[comradebillyboy]

9. The Scandinavian countries have better social services but

they do not have socialist economies. Having good health insurance is not socialism and is a gross misrepresentation of what constitutes a socialist country.

[Jim Lane]

13. As my post said, they have mixed economies, as do we.

We can picture the mixture of capitalism and socialism as a continuum. The United States is more socialistic today than it was a century ago (Medicare, Social Security, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, etc.), but is still less socialistic than Scandinavia. There's a genuine difference there, even though the Scandinavian countries are not completely socialistic.

[PETRUS]

15. If you don't think the Scandinavian countries are socialist, then what makes you think Venezuela is?

They are all mixed economies with private for profit businesses.

Also:

http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/28/nordic-socialism-is-realer-than-you-think/

[comradebillyboy]

18. Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Words have meanings and you can't just arbitrarily change the definition of socialism to fit your argument.

[PETRUS]

19. You must be confused.

Your response is essentially a non-sequitur, and contains (by implication) a false accusation. Why don't you re-read the thread. Do you see your mistake, or do you want me to point it out?

[ck4829]

22. Sure you can, Republicans change the definition of socialism all the time

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10767635

Words have meanings... which we assign to them. Words aren't people or animals, you are free to toy with their 'innards' and mutilate and reframe them as much as you want. Republicans know this, maybe we should too.

[Soph0571]

21. That's lovely

You have missed the point. If you have no skin in the game you are quite happy to disrupt it. And using canards is not going to stop them feeling how they feel. They do not remember the bad old days.... they were not born then. If you want young people to look to capitalism as the right way to manage a society, we need to offer them a reason to engage with it. I repeat, capitalism only makes sense if you have capital, or at least have a pathway to get it.

[ck4829]

23. +1

[Orsino]

2. Capitalism can drive positive change...

...but in human hands it inevitably deregulates itself, and makes itself first ridiculous, then anathema.

[NCTraveler]

3. Do we have a socialist in the house or senate?

Last I checked even our elected democratic socialist's policies are deeply invested in capitalism.

[ck4829]

7. Plenty of "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor"ists in the house and senate

Currently the dominant economic ideology in the government today. Look out for people and industries you like, every man for himself for everybody else.

[brooklynite]

4. Wake me up when a country voluntarily chooses to change to a truly Socialist economy

[ck4829]

6. Capitalism is dying... so that automatically means socialism? Reject the false dichotomy yo.

[NCTraveler]

11. Capitalism isn't dying.

In any measure. In the US we have recently even began deregulating. It's not dying across the globe. It's not dying in the US.

[brooklynite]

16. point 1: the OP's included cartoon frames it as "capitalism over socialism or communism"

Point 2: name a non-hypothetical economic system that's not capitalism or socialism/communism

Point 3: as previously posted in this thread, capitalism isn't dying.

[JI7]

32. That's what the cartoon said

[PETRUS]

17. That's just silly.

An honest examination of history reveals that the establishment (and maintenance) of every formal political economy involved using violence against resisting populations.

That said, pluralities or majorities have voted for explicitly socialist parties many times in many places:


List of democratic socialist parties which have governed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

This is a list of democratic socialist parties which have governed countries, whether as the ruling party or as a member of a governing coalition. Most of these parties were members of the Socialist International.
List
Country Party Years in power Member of SI Notes
Albania Socialist Party of Albania 2013–present
Andorra Social Democratic Party 2009-2011
Australia Australian Labor Party 1904, 1908-1909, 1910-1916, 1929-1932, 1941-1949, 1972-1975, 1983-1996, 2007–2013 yes
Austria Social Democratic Party of Austria 1919-1920, 1945-1966, 1971-2000, 2006–2017 yes
Barbados Barbados Labour Party 1954-1961, 1976-1986, 1994-2008
Democratic Labour Party 1961-1976, 1986-1994, 2008-present
Belgium Belgian Socialist Party 1938-1939, 1945-1949, 1954-1958, 1973-1974
Parti socialiste 2011–present
Bermuda Progressive Labour Party 1998-2012
Bolivia Movement Towards Socialism 2006–present
Bosnia and Herzegovina Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1997-2014
Brazil Brazilian Social Democracy Party, Workers' Party 1995-2002, 2003–2016 no
Bulgaria Bulgarian Socialist Party 2002-2012
Chile Socialist Party of Chile 1970-1973, 2006-2010, 2014-2017 yes
Costa Rica National Liberation Party 2006-2014
Croatia Social Democratic Party of Croatia 2010-2015
Czech Republic Czech Social Democratic Party 1998-2006, 2014–present
Denmark Social Democrats 1924-1987, 1993-2001, 2011-2015 yes
Dominica Dominica Labour Party 1961-1979, 2000–present
Dominican Republic Dominican Revolutionary Party 1963, 1978-1986, 2000-2004
Ecuador Democratic Left 1988-1992
PAIS Alliance 2007–present
El Salvador Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front 2009–present
Fiji Fiji Labour Party 1987, 1999-2000
Finland Social Democratic Party of Finland 1982-2012 yes
France French Section of the Workers' International
Socialist Party 1981-1986, 1988-1993, 2012-2017 yes
Germany Social Democratic Party of Germany 1918-1920, 1921-1922, 1923, 1928-1930, 1966-1982, 1998-2009, 2013–present (coalition) yes
Gibraltar Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party
Greece Panhellenic Socialist Movement
Greenland Siumut
Hungary Hungarian Socialist Party
Iceland Social Democratic Alliance 2009-2013 yes
India Indian National Congress 1947-1977, 1980-1989, 1991-1996, 2004-2014 yes
Israel Israeli Labor Party 1968-1977, 1984-2003 yes
Italy Italian Socialist Party
Jamaica People's National Party 1955-1962, 1972-1980, 1989-2007, 2012–present
Japan Japan Socialist Party 1947-1948 yes [1]
Social Democratic Party 1994-1996 yes
Lithuania Social Democratic Party of Lithuania
Republic of Macedonia Social Democratic Union of Macedonia
Malta Labour Party
Mauritius Labour Party
Mauritian Militant Movement
Militant Socialist Movement
Mongolia Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party
Montenegro Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro
Morocco Socialist Union of Popular Forces
Nepal Nepali Congress
Netherlands Labor Party 1946, 1948-1958, 1973-1977, 1994-2002
New Zealand Labour Party 1935-1949, 1957-1960, 1972-1975, 1984-1990, 1999-2008, 2017-present observer
Nicaragua Sandinista National Liberation Front 2007–present yes
Niger Nigerien Party for Democracy and Socialism
Norway Labour Party 1928-1928, 1935-1939, 1945-1961, 1971-1972, 1973–1981, 1986–1989, 1990–1997, 2000–2001, 2005–2013 observer
Pakistan Pakistan People's Party
Poland Polish Socialist Party
Democratic Left Alliance
Portugal Socialist Party 1976-1978, 1983-1985, 1995-2002, 2005-2011, 2015-present yes
Romania Social Democratic Party
Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis Labour Party 1960-1980, 1995–present
Saint Lucia Saint Lucia Labour Party 1960-1964, 1979-1982, 1997-2006, 2011–present
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Vincent Labour Party 1967-1972, 1974-1984
Unity Labour Party 2001–present
Slovakia Smer 2006-2010, 2012–present yes
Slovenia Social Democrats 2008-2012
South Africa African National Congress 1994–present yes
Spain Spanish Socialist Workers' Party 1982-1996, 2004-2011, 2018-present yes
Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Freedom Party 1956-1960, 1960-1965, 1970-1977, 1994–present
Sweden Swedish Social Democratic Party 1932-1976 (except for brief period in 1936), 1982-1991, 1994-2006, 2014–present no [2]
Switzerland Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
Trinidad and Tobago United National Congress 1995-2001, 2010–present
Turkey Democratic Left Party
United Kingdom Labour Party 1924, 1929-1951, (except for a brief period in 1945) 1964-1970, 1974-1979, 1997-2010 observer
Uruguay Socialist Party of Uruguay 2005–present yes
Venezuela Democratic Action 1945-1948, 1959-1969, 1974-1979, 1984-1993
United Socialist Party of Venezuela 2007–present

[brooklynite]

27. Calling yourself socialist has nothing to do with actually implanting socialism

[PETRUS]

29. That's beside the point.

[brooklynite]

31. And your point is.....?

Because my point remains, none of those countries have agreed to implement a socialist economy, however aspirational the Party names are.

[PETRUS]

33. My point was expressed in post #17

If you can read and think, you can get it. Give it another try!

[Garrett78]

10. Anything predicated upon infinite growth on a finite planet is going to die.

[ck4829]

12. Capitalism is dying. But what is socialism anyway?

Decades ago, politicians and the media told us that "SOCIALISM!" is "I like the USSR!"

Years ago, politicians and the media told us that "SOCIALISM!" is "I think everyone should have a right to healthcare!"

Today, politicians and the media are telling us "SOCIALISM!" is apparently the secret ideology of people who survive school shootings and want to do something about it.

And tomorrow? I'm sure "SOCIALISM!" will be someone saying "Hey guys, maybe throwing a virgin into a volcano won't appease the Dow and the job creators."

We need to get it figured out.

[fescuerescue]

14. When all those people die (over 50 apparently)

Where will their capital go?

A: To the people under 50 now.

I wonder how they will feel about capitalism once they have the capital? I'm not implying the answer, it's a legitimate question.

Will the young people of today freely share that inherited wealth? Or will they be as likely as their parents to hoard it?

[PETRUS]

25. lol...

Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S.:



Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2013: investment assets:



Wealth distribution by type of asset, 2013: other assets

[fescuerescue]

38. I don't get the joke.

Those are really interesting statistics though.

But I know one thing for sure. All the people represented by them are mortal including the 1%.

The rich will die and leave their money to people younger than them.

What I'm asking if, once all the wealthy old capitalist die, their money goes -somewhere- most likely younger people who are alive and perhaps not capitalist.

What happens then? Are they corrupted by money and become capitalist? or do they share it?

[PETRUS]

39. Do the data in those charts mean nothing to you?

It's glaringly obvious. Allow yourself a minute to think.

[fescuerescue]

40. Why don't you just spell it out?

Since you obviously think that I don't understand it. I really don't understand the hostility.

[PETRUS]

41. It seemed clear to me, but if you need it spelled out...

Capital is concentrated in very few hands. Net worth for the poorest 40% of US households is negative. For the middle quintile, it's around $60k. Most of the population will inherit very little, or nothing at all.

[fescuerescue]

42. ok - ya I got that

I thought maybe there was something else that I was missing.

But the question remains. If capitalism dies out. And the people who support it die out. And the people who hold the money die. Whether its 1% or 0.01%. That money goes somewhere as money doesn't die.

When the money goes to non-capitalist. What human decision, conscious or unconscious do they make? Do they remain non-capitalist and begin to share? Or do they suddenly have a change of heart now that their bank account is full?

It's a philosophical question that we can't know the answer to, but it's worth thinking about.

Right now. With capitalism, and with a ~1% distribution. Theres enough capitalist running around to keep electing conservatives. Assuming the 1% distribution remains what happens then?

[PETRUS]

44. Ah.

I didn't quite get your original point. It seems you are talking more about power dynamics, not the relative popularity of any particular set of economic institutions.

What will happen? I couldn't begin to guess, although I've read a number of essays that talk about this and sketch out possible scenarios.

[Yavin4]

20. This is what happens when money is pooled at the top and is not fairly distributed.

Why would people support a system that bankrupts them and rarely benefits them.

[ck4829]

24. Exactly

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

26. Most folks are really working hard at two or three jobs.

As if that's not bad enough, there's prep time everyday on all those jobs. Very little reward for what USED to be one job, 8 hours, then home. Remember it was GWB that said, "We are going to be a service economy" in the aughts when he helped CHINA take our middle class.

[brooklynite]

28. "Most" means more than 50%. Do you have evidence of that assertion?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

30. Just my own eyes here in the city where I work.

Do you question my experience? What's up w that? See my signature line please.

[ck4829]

34. +1 This is our problem right here

You will need three scholarly articles to back up your "assertion", photographic and preferably video evidence, peer reviewed articles, statistics proving most as in more than 50%, expert opinions, four witnesses, an independent panel will decide your assertion if people are working harder, and we will get back to you in three to six weeks to determine the veracity of your assertion as to whether "Most folks are really working hard at two or three jobs".

Meanwhile, righties say "I think Hillary has an undisclosed illness" and they run crazy with it.

And who won the election again?

Should we be spreading lies? No. But should we exclude all narratives? No to that either.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

35. Whew.

i'm glad someone else has the same feeling. Ty for saying so. I thought by now it was obvious to everyone. It's clear to me.

[brooklynite]

36. Perhaps so; but spinning out fringe ideas that the average voter will never support isn't the way to

[Corvo Bianco]

37. Born in 87 into poverty. Yup.

[lunatica]

43. I'm 70 and white and very aware that I'm probably being stereotyped

all the time by strangers. On both ends of the spectrum too. Trump racists see someone who looks like them so therefore I must be one of them. Everyone else, including everyone who isn’t white and who is younger (if they are white) must have a question about my political beliefs.

Even if they don’t want to there must be doubt that creeps in.

I have to live with that thought. When they get to know me they see me for who I am.